OK, and Hi All, I had to 'fall back' on my MM carts (very recently acquired) as my MC is in for repair.
So, I had no option to start with, when dealing with that 'stand-in' MM. I found out to my surprise, that it (A&R P-77) is at least as demanding to set-up as ANY MC I worked with so far. This might be less of a surprise for some other members, it was for me, so do not underestimate that side of it. Raul had said: "No Plug&Play"! and an MM surely is not (not talking about a round-point, OK)
Once I got it just right - next surprise! This 'middle of the road' vintage MM cart turns out one serious competitor, so much so, that I truly think I will NOT even want go back and bother listening to my 3.5k$ MC cart any more!
Why, because it (MM) just sounds more RIGHT. Rhythm, timing, tonal colours, natural balance of treble to bass to put it in a nut-shell.
I have just very recently (3 - 4 days ago) listened to a Transfiguration Orpheus and yes, it has more resolution, very nice tonal colours --- but something of that MC carts particular way of sounding too. It is the same that I get from even the best of CD players, and until quite recently could not explain what it could be.
As a follow-up to the Munich Hi-End, a discussion brought something into focus: Treble roll-off behaviour, actually foremost related to tweeters, but also of some major relevance to carts IMO. Steen Duelund figured it out, (he is no more with us since ~ 2005), but he noticed that if a treble source e.g. a tweeter goes very high to say 20, 30, 40Hz or even more, and then suddenly falls off steeply, from an until then pretty flat response --- something happens to the listening impression. Something starts to sound 'wrong'.
He (S.D.) also explained, that if you listen to e.g. live music, such steep roll-off NEVER happens. In 'natural' listening, the further away from the source you are the more treble rolls off, B U T it does so quite gently and naturally to the ear. Thereby all harmonic information stays undisturbed, 'in takt'...
The interesting thing is, that MMs have the habit to roll of more early than MC, but do so more gently i.e. do not fall off a cliff when done. That made me think...
What I experience, listening to a well set-up MM in a highly resolved system, is that sort of naturalness that I always seem to miss with MCs. MCs remind me of a TV with the contrast turned up too much as an example. Nice to be impressed for a while, until something in your head tells you that this is just not quite right, a little bit overdone...
It is my experience that MCs are just so tuned to bring out more 'contrast' and it can be exiting - for a while, but then it can get also to this: something's not 'right' feeling. Now, if you like it, nothing wrong at all --- as for myself I prefer that more 'relaxing into the music thing' and not getting 'frightened' by that 'over-exposed, or over-contrasted' as much as it can be a real kick, stunning, exiting and so forth, for vere hunting for the next detail etc.
So, it's horses for courses. A good audio friend of mine will NOT go for this (MM) sound, he might be inclined to even ridicule me for wanting it more 'normal'. But I know, when it sound more right, THAT is what counts for me.
Enjoy the music, as Raul would say,
Axel
PS: Another enquiry yet: Why MMs should have lost their rightful place, so to speak... |
Hi Raul,
I know there are some rather fine NOS MMs in your possession and I trust they are mighty fine -- better than Wurlitzer and then some :-)
But here is a challenge: where do you get such in good order? And also replacement styli?
I have listened to a fair number of current Ortofon MM carts around here, but that's truly all Mid-Fi. Nice yes, but not my quality expectation.
Now leaning out of the window for say 1k$ for some nicely renown NOS MM leaves me a bit scared. Also my MM phono-input is (checked with SUT and MC) not looking too promising, it has a rather lesser resolution than going through the 60dB MC input. (All SS as I should re-state0
So how would you go about it, to make a convertee in such circumstances?
Greetings, Axel |
Thanks Raul, now it looks like I have a project coming on :-)
The 326S has a jumper setting for 40dB MM or 60dB MC and a 0nF or 10nF cap jumper. I can not have any other capacitances than this (easily). Will this become an issue in your experience?
Axel |
Thanks Raul,
I hope this info is of value to the overall discussion also. I'll see what my 'messenger' will be able to 'dig up' in Munich...
Greetings, Axel |
Hi Raul, you asked: +++ what do you think on the MM alternative? do you already experienced on the last six months? which cartridges models? +++
:-) I don't know if that is a leading question, but let me answer it frankly and as little stupidly as possible. (Stupidly, as there are no stupid questions, but surely stupid answers...)
My last MM ownership goes some years back and is therefore a bit 'shady' to put it best. A REGA 100 which was pretty wanting, and a Shure V15, which was very finicky as I recall. (high compliance and < 1gram VTF, plain odd by today's more usual carts)
Both would be NO a match what so ever to my current MC cart experiences, of: Ortofon Jubilee, Lyra Dorian, Ortofon Windfeld, (on loan) Transfiguration Orpheus, DV 10x5, and DV 20X-L.
All these MCs still qualify a LO MCs except the DV 10x5 with 2.5mV output. In essence my experience is: **you get what you pay for** with the Orpheus just cleaning the field beyond any question, and followed by the Windfeld with some distance, similar to the Jubilee trailing the Windfeld. (All listened to in my own system). The Lyra Dorian being on the higher LO-end with 0.6mV is a good/stunning performer but lacking in neutrality, tilted to the top end with overly detailed ness if you wish. If you like it 'stunning', a very good pick for the buck.
The Dynavector DV 20X-L is more arm dependent in my experience and sounds jolly tight bassed with a little rolled-off-ness in the treble on a carbon arm, but in the more neutral SME V displaying a less pleasing nature (I thought I now could hear that hard-alu cantilever...)
The DV 10X5 is a good pick for little money but that is 'little boys league' (or what ever you'd call it, and the mounting plain sucks!). It does nothing wrong --- BUT a lot less of what in the groove.
I have also had the mixed pleasure to listen to various Sumikos and would not bother, again: you get what you pay for. Their latest top offering sounded 'big boys league', and has some of a Dorian character but slightly more refined, yet no where near the Orpheus, and not as neutral as a Windfeld.
So, let's see if that is of some use in this context.
Next is the related phono-pre situation. I have used my ML 326S on board phono-modules in MM mode (with my SUT) and found that the 100mV!!!!! overload margin looks great on paper! But it simply lacks detail and refinement in sound. I have no hope at all that ANY MM could ever make up this short-coming --- so its MC for me I guess.
As to the construction differences I can not see that even with the most powerful smallest magnets a similar resolution and detail retrieval is possible. This is important to me, since some e.g. late Romantic Classics only make sense to me with all the detailed impressionist sound painting. In fact I think for pop and really very good pop and rock I imagine an MM might be the better type of cart. There is some raw drive of an old Wurlitzer Juke Box that would just be the better representation with say an Elvis record :-) And I do NOT mean this in any way derogatory.
Greetings, Axel |
Hi Raul, you say: - First than all you have to have a good MM phono stage.- I have the ML326S phono modules and they have some good 'score' with e.g. German AUDIO magazine, so you tell me if those could work. But one caveat, I can not change input impedance to 70k or 100k since ALL is SMDs on two small PCBs. I can only go lower impedance by using the provided loading 'jumpers' and resistor mounting posts.
- Second, a positive and expectant attitude to " explore " a " new " audio alternative through MM cartridges. - I absolutely do, since: - "The good news is that are almost inexpensive against the top LOMC today prices." -
- Third, time/patience to find out through the web the NOS or second hand MM cartridges that you want try ( here there is no " plug&play " game. ). There is my first problem, since there seem a LOT of low-fi MMs that have flooded the 'el-cheapo' market (correct me if I'm wrong).
Having said that, can you name us some good examples that would, according to your tests, produce results with a 47k input impedance. That would be of some help, since purchasing loads of 'duds' will add up also...
Many thanks, Axel |
Hi Raul, Halcro et al,
I am, by my inquisitive nature, still intrigued about this **'organic' transparent 'rightness' of the humble MM cartridge**...
I have floated one **hypothesis**: (from Greek ὑπόθεσις [iˈpoθesis]) consists either of a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena...) ... just to get that straight,
Or was it rather a: **theory** (in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. --- End of quote. This just, before I get accused of semantics etc.
You see, most of this sharing goes on about what these MMs do when compared to MCs and it would be of some use to have as more logical, never mind scientific explanation, why this should be so. Otherwise it's just a load of "he said she said"... It was 'Steen Duelund' I mentioned earlier that might just have got close to it i.e. more gentle treble roll-off = more natural listening experience...
"Duelund" the man with his special capacitors, resistors, driver (theories) etc. was chasing best possible **natural** sound after all, and a lot relating to cross-over behaviour also.
Is anyone willing to put some meat on this 'bone' or are we now just going on in some sort of self-congratulatory fashion telling each other how great MMs sound as compared to MCs, I wonder?
I have the idea, that most MC-ONLY folks would be moved out of their corner to get something more substancial then: hey, it sound just so great to my ears in my system, etc.
The phenomena we have heard, all of us MM listeners -- but after all there aught to be some logical explanation to help some MC-ONLY folks to take note what we are on about.
Raul, who's started this thread, is rather insistent not to make this some 'secret MM society' to be kept under the radar --- and be ridiculed for being nostalgic and backward oriented, away from the current most advanced MC developments now going for $20 000 'bleeding edge' technology... (SirSpeedy with his hi-end cost consciousness aught to like this one :-)
What do you think?
Greetings, Axel |
Halcro! A mile stone of a review. Thank you, Axel |
Hi all, in answer to why do MMs have a more 'natural sound' and all that good stuff, let me put forward some additional hypothesis -- facts even?
Some say, that NO MC will be able to bring forth the 'information density' of an MM, due to it's very low voltage output --- and just about all phono-stages work with voltage rather than current.
It is interesting to note that some top MC makers tell you, that their step-up transformer will be a 'requirement' to bring out the best in their carts --- even it they deliver a reasonably healthy ~0.5mV output. As an example take 'My Sonic Lab Eminent MC Cartridge' with their 'Stage XXX Step-Up Transformer(s)'. Lyra has their trannie but does not insist you have to have on. Also, Ortofon's ~ 0.2mV SPUs are asking for an SUT, even though it should have no problem with a 66 - 78dB phono-stages, or? The anti-SUT faction tells its all BS, and that an SUT will 'mess-up' things more than it helps, oh yes?
Now let's look at an MM --- the above is a non-issue in every respect since just about ALL MMs deliver the 'mean spec' voltage required by a phono-stage i.e. 4.7mV, some more some less. So what's my point - as we all seem to know all this in any case? My point is, that we are talking carts here, and VERY little about phono-stages. More specific, the ABILITY of a phono-stage to make 'ood sound' from e.g. ~ 0.3mV as compared to ~ 5.0mV! Some say, that e.g. op-amps have a VERY hard time to actually deliver the goods, in the context of information density i.e. harmonic completeness, --- micro info gets lost in the process of pumping up the signal by 66 - 78dB. Could well be, someone out there might know some more about that. Now still with phono-stages, let's look at the tube only ones. NO WAY can ANY tube stage do 66dB or even more, it just gets to noisy due to tube rush. So it's either going to be a hybrid or, lo and behold, we have some SUT inside (Manley, EAR, etc.) that's taking care of business for an MC. Jolly good I say, maybe that's why they sound so good with MCs in the first place!
So, can it be it's the phono-stage's work made easier, that the MM scores where the MC sound either too lean or skeletal by comparison? And putting an SUT being a NO-NO for so may purists?
Fact remains, even if you are OK with this SUT/MC thing it gets extraordinarily expensive. A good SUT will rival the MC cart in terms of $$$$.
And so it's at least worth a VERY GOOD try and listen to see what this 'old time rock&roll' MM cart can do for you.
Greetings, Axel PS: J.C., Lyra sells a trannie but far to few I should think :-) |
Hi Dgob in answer to your question: I'm using an SME V arm, practically no damping, 1g VTF and about the same for anti-skate. I have tried to go lower in VTF, just for interest, but than it starts to sound like some too little loaded MC i.e. a bit splashy...
Also agree with Dean_man about the sound, very alive and "no listening fatigue" type of treble, yet highly resolved. As to VTA I have it level as can be on a 150gr record, which equals a tad nose down on most thinner vinyl.
Axel |
Hi all, if we keep it coming like that, we might just beat that 'steam-cleaning thread' :-) Now, >>> The V15xMR continues to gather dust, in favour of the ***V15-111/SAS*** and the 97xE <<< This is some good news to my ears (eyes, so far). It'll be for a short while till I get that SAS I ordered for my V15 type III... But now! I got this "Empire S1000 ZE/X" on a roll, and let me tell you --- VERY NICE in deed! Raul, as I understand it, is having his cart still with the re-tipper. The original claims a 'hand polished' stylus, no less. Some of it's spec. sounds pretty far out, like better 35dB channel separation! and **0.25gm** - 1.25gm VTF... Well all I can tell this far: it sound really great and I shall be VERY interested to learn where it scores on Raul's scale of MMs. (I guess we'd need some sort of scale sooner or later, or does that sound to pretentious?) If my A&R P-77 is a 5 or 6 out of 10, I'd give the S1000 ZE/X an 8 or even a bit more. Saying this, I'd be little surprised if Raul will tell us that there's still plenty more till we hit a 9 or 9.5 (I'll keep it simple :-) Those MMs make single instruments come out so REAL, they like guitar, violin and what 'AIR' they produce these 'old' things is almost unbelievable. OK, I stop rambling now and get seriously back to the music. Cheers, Axel |
Hi Dgob, I only have one arm, the SME V. I do know that Raul is having his ZE/X re-tipped and he has arms and decks a plenty. So with a bit of patience he might let us know his findings, also with regard to your arm question, when his re-tipping is done.
Next item: - Townshend EEI 500 MM, - Stylus type: shanked parabolic. Not a bad cart either, but quite a bit more 'dry' in comparison to the ZE/X. Maybe it will loosen up, I shall see. I have noted that it's impedance is a stack higher than e.g. the ZE/X, which I measured at ~ 480ohms. The "EEI 500" is 2.5k ohms and quite a different item.
Now, what I also notice with the ZE/X, it is the most 'alive' cart in terms of tonearm 'feedback'. Never had a cart as yet that lets me hear if I only as much a touch the tonearm, and I'm NOT talking about static! My SME V almost sounds like a micro! Now you take that more delicate Moerch arm of yours and you get some idea! I have a feeling the ZE/X really needs a very well damped arm --- but let's see what the experts have to say about it. Greetings, Axel |
Next AT question like Badcap's: Has anyone here with an Audio Technica AT-140LC tried the 'upgrade' stylus ATN440MLa on it. Was it an improvement? If so in what way.
Thanks PS: Thanks Badcap, for your typing help :-) |
Hi all, as Raul rightly suggests in sharing of all information MM, let me do this with regard to one apparently lesser known MM: the "Townshend EEI 500, parabolic". Raul hasn't heard of it, so I guess it must be 'under the radar' :-). Initially it sounded somewhat 'dry', I'd reported, and not much to write about. Upon further reading up on the required setup (thanks to Vinyengine see: http://www.vinylengine.com/library/townshend/eei-500.shtml) I stumbled on some interesting information --- i.e. parabolic styli like to be set-up 'heal down' or with negative VTA. So I tried, lo and behold, that did the trick! Listening to 'Missa (solemnis)' KV 139 >> Waisenhausmesse<< by W.A. Mozart (he was only 13 years old when he wrote it!) DG 2530 777, with a young Claudio Abbado conducting, Vienna Sate Opera Chorus, and Vienna Philharmonic --- I have 'goose bumps' no end... Next, 'Gloria Salve Regina' Vivaldi in San Marco (church Venice recorded)' Philips 6780 007, more of the same, wow! This cart is doing something none of my MCs managed to do. I have of course played these records before, more then once. Now one question remains, that is the negative VTA for 'parabolic' styli... I investigated this a bit further and found some very contradictory information for the oft mentioned 'Garrott P77' with a 'Micro Tracer' stylus, also quoted to be a 'parabolic' stylus. In the manual, kindly forwarded to me by HALCRO, the original Brothers' manual mentions to use (a LOT) of POSITIVE VTA i.e. 4-5 mm UP! from the arm being parallel. Now what? So I give my A&R P77 a try with negative VTA (I had run it with positive this far) Note: "The A&R P77 featured a Weinz Paroc (parabolic oval cone) stylus..." it also works fine, in fact better with negative VTA. Hm.. Now is this some well know information, that only I missed this far?! The "Townshend EEI 500" manual states, I quote: "It has been found that to achieve the best Vertical Tracking Angle for parabolic styli, the rear of the arm should be lowered. (as opposed to some elliptical designs, which need the arm raised at the rear).
Please let's have some of your expert findings on this one to share. Many thanks, Axel |
Hi Audiofeil, :-) MY MCs!!!!! sorry, I though that was implied. So again: >>> all **my** MCs **that I used for comparison** are between 12cu to 16cu. <<<
Now to less than 12cu, I guess would only make the issue worse?! But if you think otherwise I'd be interested to hear your findings, since as always YMMV.
Thank you for pointing out this lack of clarity. Axel |
Raul, thanks for clarifying that point. >>> ... that we don't lose the merits of the MM technology design that is different from the MC design ... <<<
It cold be said otherwise, that all an MM is doing make life of a phono-stage more easy, and that was all there is to it.
As you point out: that's not the whole story.
Thank you, Axel PS: I did a change over to 'Elite EEI 500' --- sooner or later I need at least two tonearms, because this one ALSO sounds so good. Punchy bass, clear resolved treble. Now I find out why you 'only' have 10 arms mounted... :-) |
Hi Timeltel nope, I ordered my SAS from LP Gear. That came by Raul's kind initiative, and I'm told it has been shipped. I'll keep you posted on the listening impressions. BTW, I also find 1.1g VTF best with the MR. It shall be interesting to see what transpires... Greetings, Axel |
Hi All, back to MMs for a change. My current V15 III with MR stylus is now tracking with total ease one of the known 'difficult' LPs, "La Boheme" DECCA SXL 2248. None, of my previous MCs (only a few that is) managed such EVER. Immediate difference: The V15 III is quoted as having 22.5cu compliance, all MCs are between 12cu to 16cu. VTF of the V15 III is 1.02gm, VTF for the MCs was ranging from 1.8gm to 2.6gm!
This even brings about the question of better compatibility of MM carts to 'older' type of vinyl, could that be the case?
In a previous thread about 'sibilants' Doug mentioned SXL 2248, as one of his 'test items'!
The other LP "so long so wrong" by Alison Krauss..., side 2 last band, 3rd cut (another test item) is still slightly sibilant, but again less than any MC was to date. (I did I try!)
So, tracking distortion (sopranos, massed instruments, etc.) and sibilants seem not of the same source of trouble either, just to mention.
Greetings, Axel |
Hi Lewm, you say: >>> Perhaps it is just the robust voltage output, which makes life so much easier for the phono preamp, that is the root cause. <<< -- this is what I commented on some time before, and I think it must have a LOT to do with the ability of a phono-stage's 'effectively' pumping up micro-detail from 0.3mv or less, compared to having 'the full Monty' of 3.5mV to ~ 5mV that is offered by an MM.
It has been mentioned by the highly regarded phono/pre-amp designer Allen Wright (and NOT in joking), to truly get the best from an MC: "You literally have to count every electron..." It is my contention that even a lot of the better MC phono-stages are ultimately not up to this task, and it is here where a good MM will score by making the phono-stage's job A LOT easier.
Using an MC with an SUT is doing something similar, alas not quite as efficient as a good MM will do it, YMMV.
Greetings, Axel |
Hi Raul, interesting that you 'consider' the phono-stage, all things +/- equal, as of 'less' influence on some these MMs marvellous performance. That's powerful!
To say it again, and I'm now busy with an AT140LC which YET AGAIN outclasses all MCs I had in my system to date. This in terms of palpability, sound stage, realness or more true to instruments like violin, guitar, flute, etc. When it gets to full blown orchestra, I think, I just do not have the system to bring the 'Chicago with Reiner' into my room, it's good, powerful yes, but there are limits.
Having said that, no MC could overcome this purely physical obstacle either, and neither would I expect it. Not even if I'd listen to Grand Utopias with Boulder's biggest monos (marvellous as they all are).
Thanks, Axel |
Hm, >>> and next month you will need 5 tonearms...<<<
Maybe you will let me know how do go about that, without forsaking the odd bottle of "Château Lafite Rothschild" ... change to "Château Mouton Rothschild"? Eish!
Listening last night to some of "A. Vollenweider's" Albums, using the 'EEI 500' right now, I thought this getting like the equivalent of an IMAX movie. (Recall I do not have such big speakers, Burmester 961)
The size of stage this MM can create is just incredible, it has to be on the vinyl of course - and most do not have such extreme staging, and surely 'massaged' by all the mastering used, but still!
I of course listened to all this with MCs before. Mostly I wouldn't even bother to go through the whole album, and now this.
I'm still baffled, about what synergy is creating this sound from a ~ 35 year old MM cart. Not one MC has done this to date, and I wonder if it ever will, YMMV.
Axel |
Hi Timeltel, sorry I'm a bit slow maybe, but can you make it a bit more easy for me.
So what was the progression again on the **V15 III only**. Starting with ??(you mentioned 3 styli), then MR, then SAS.
I only get the M97xE part, which is relating to Raul's agenda.
Thanks, Axel |
Timeltel one more thing, very important to know:
Did the SAS want a different SRA/VTA?
As background, I running into trouble with the large negative VTA on many of these older carts on my SME-V due to the conical fat-end of this arm touching warps in the start wax, lifting the stylus right out of the groove.
I'm loath to fit any hims as they mess with the arm / cart / res. tuning.
Axel |
Raul, I think one thing might not be altogether understood by the audience, about these MM comparisons: your 'special' MM/MC phono-line-pre used.
Without having the ability to change input impedance from stock/standard 47k, to 75k or better 100k, and variations in capacitive loading (using silver mica non-magnectic capacitors et al, I'm sure you are) it may just result in a rather different results?
I start to come to the conclusion, that a good MC stage and simple resistive loading (by switch, jumper 'mouse-piano', or a good R) seems simpler, while having a more 'current' type phono-stage (MOSTLY targeted for MC use)
Would you agree with that?
I mean, that is of course only the case until we have decided to on one of your 3160s... :-)
A. |
Raul, yes, B U T most of these main-line pres simply use more C (150 - 500pF) to shunt (suck-out) MM treble resonance.
As Kirkus (I think) also mentioned, it is BETTER to use higher input impedance to do the job.
If loading that MM with a '~ cheap' C it will not sound as good as going into 100k, right?
Now use a 'good' MC/MM pre (all-in-one-mom) and then try replicate your Hi-End MC cart vs. MM cart test. Load that MM ~ (no higher impedance available 9/10) - what will you get?
I'd be little surprised that MC will outperform the MM, that's what I'm getting at. So, we need to use apples and apples and not apples and bananas, no. Just awareness, is all. A. |
Hi Kirkus here we meet again :-)
Question: Why then would Raul have suggested to rather go to a higher input impedance in favour of adding a capacitance? i.e. 100k in place of 47k.
Next there are plenty more 'modern' MMs that can get VERY trebly, and I think it was this behaviour that suggested to use 100k rather then 47k and adding a shunt capacitance?
How does that fit together?
With my 'simple' phono-modules (ML326S) I go into 47k with a low capacitance vdH Silver Hybrid, differential connected to RCA (you know the routine). The ML is fully differential.
The only way to 'tame' those carts is to go down a lot on VTA, in some cases my SME-V arm is past its limit. So should one try ~ 150pF, and that is better then a 100k input imp. mod? Easier for sure, then what about the C's quality?
Any shunt resistor of lesser quality sounds plain bad in my experience (only using Tanatalums/ Shinkoh where still availabe) --- but those works in the audio range. A 150pF doesn't ~ really... So is there still a case to be made for silver-mica or will polystyrene be just as fine?
Thank you so much, Axel |
Hi Kirkus, Raul, thanks for the response, but what was the answer?
Let's try again: "MM loading for stupid people"
What would you say is the amount of less capacitance required, going from 47k to 100k pre input impedance?
Let's use a mean suggested value of 300pF for 47k. Just to get some idea of the impedance load change impact on the C required.
Raul, you say you are using 100pF with 100k. Is that C the INSERTED value? Or do you say: 100pF is my arm, phono cable, connector capacitance and therefore no C insertion?
By the way, I do know that tnt article but it's a bit like: "Look here, why not try this now!" nothing wrong though.
Axel |
Hi, looking over Raul's link (Loading the Magnets) once again, actually seems to answers my question. But I have the idea, by going into 100k is the cleaner treble lift, then using some el-cheapo ceramic C.
Now, what to do if the MM has too much treble already --- the inverse problem?
Going down with the VTA is all I came up with this far. But what if you can't go any lower with the arm?
And just to ask once again, will a ceramic C, say 100, 220, 330pF, do 'no harm' to the sound, or is something rather like 'silvered-mica' indicated?
Sorry, too many questions, I know :-)
A. |
Hi Raul, adding my phono-cable parameter to the 100pF question: ***Capacitance: Core-core: 58 pF/m.**
The cable is 1.18m (balanced) so: 58x1.18= 68pF
This excludes the wire going through the tonearm. Would this indicate to be NOT in need of any added capacitance - in your experience?
It can be a bit confusing, since added capacitance with an MC rolls off the treble. With an MM it increases it, due to the much higher inductance of the MM.
Axel |
Hi Lewm subject, (cart)Reformation :-) I think one must take note of one rather important 'parameter' in all of this. Raul mentioned it once or twice, "ear equalisation"
If you are used to watching TV with the contrast turned up for a very long time - then go back to a more 'normal' setting, I guess you might find this lacking in detail...
Never mind it the 'over-contrasted' picture is not normal/live-like at all. You know it OK, but it gives you a 'kick' of sorts, and only if watching for more extended periods will your eyes start to complain.
Most people are too busy with other things in life to afford this amount of time, say beyond a full length movie. So it will be largely, once again, a matter of preference.
Life these days likes most everything hyped-up beyond the normal and natural (just go watch any cable channel).
So I think we are not expecting an Audi/cart/reformation as yet :-)
Greetings, Axel |
Dgob y.s.: >>> ...but I have exhausted my efforts for now.<<<
One issue I have NO problem with at all, is bass. It is outstandingly powerful with mine. But as to the 'lower' top-end I have the same issue, and no amount of fiddling makes any difference. I think, that's the way it comes?
Is it elliptical vs. Micro-Line? I'd say: YES A. |
There used to be the "Hexen Hammer" aka "Malleus maleficarum" (Witches-Hammer) and used to deal with 'those'. (Dunk them, if they stayed afloat, they where guilty and got burned -- after they'd been dried first of course. If they sank -- to bad)
We'll soon need our "Malleus -MC- maleficarum" :-) to deal with 'those' too. :-) |
Hi Lewm, :-) looks like those guys learned something after all... and from the Inquisition! No, we'll have no MC Inquisition, Raul is already testing MCs again. Be interesting to hear about his findings - presently they are still 'floating'. (The really good ones must sink like a stone :-) |
Hi All, Raul is expressing my exact thoughts on the subject: >>> ... the best " false transparency " with a little over-bright cartridges <<<
Phaser, I'm afraid as far as the newer MMs go it's all in the same "little over-bright" direction too. An attempt to deliver what the 'general' public demands?
Raul, should be able to confirm that this appears to be also the tend with MMs now. |
Hi All, I'm looking for a bit of perspective on two 'old-timer MMs'
- Empire S100 ZE/X, and - Shure V15 III MR
The first one: Empire S1000, comes with some 'almost unheard' of good MM spec. for channel separation, frequency response etc. (but, also recall my actual measured vs. specs experience) see: http://www.vinylengine.com/library/empire/1000-ze/x.shtml
The second: Sure V15, comes with some MUCH MORE humble spec. see: http://www.vinylengine.com/library/shure/v15.shtml
Now my findings and related question.
The Shure is clearly sounding more resolved, with maybe a bit less stage and depth, maybe a tad more dry?
The Empire makes clear, that channel separation has something going, it produces a more euphonic?, bigger stage, nothing dry about it ---- BUT it seems (in my system with no 100k loading) just reluctant to get all this important last bit of nice detail out of the groove.
Is that the way it is? Maybe due to the E vs MR stylus? Is it paying 'tricks' with the phase to create those euphonics, since the detail retrieval is not quite there?
Somewhere in the region of 1k - 5k it is just not getting all the information, that the Shure does with apparent ease.
Axel
|
Dgob, I go along with the: "Deep, yes, but definitely not controlled/life-like..."
What ever that exactly is of course. Recall the Portland Arlene Schnitzer Concert Hall (I think was mentioned) having more lower Mid / Upper bass, as compared to some brighter acoustics of other venues, etc. (I hope I got that hall right - AtmaSphere).
Now using my Shure V15 xMR it HAS tighter bass, the whole cart is less euphonic by comparison. But some nice bass 'schtonk' can be what floats some other's boat :-)
The only contributor would be Raul, if his S1000 is going to comes back from being re-tipped - ever.
I have tried 100pF and 200pF loading - no good. In my system that cart's tonality does then sound plain messed up. A. |
Hi, Raul, et al. I have just received my SAS replacement stylus from LP-Gear, alas they send a VN45HE SAS which is for use with the V15 type IV cart, and not the VN35HE SAS for my V15 type III cart.
Does anyone know, if this VN45HE can be made to work in the V15 type III?
So far it looks like the insert only wants to go halfway into the V15 III cart body... Axel |
Hi, now we been chewing through all this MC loading --- I mentioned long ago that 47k works very well PROVIDED THE MC HAS SUFFICIENT HF DAMPING OF ITS OWN! Like using flux damping and other mechanical means. So it depends individually on the cart if you can go as under-damped as 47k. Now try do this with e.g. a Lyra Dorian and it will sound horribly wrong. Do it with an Ortofon Windfeld and it will work ~ but STILL depending on your phono-stage, and I don't know why that would be so. Example: 47k with a Windfeld worked fine with ML phono-modules, sounded wrong with PS Audio GCPH, and better with 1k...
Now didn't this MC loading question get started by an **MM** loading question (100k) --- and that was never answered? Axel |
Hi, I'd like some feed back on the ** AT140LC ** cart please. With my SME-V it is VERY detailed, alas so much so I can hear every bit of 'groove-condition' (not scratches and such) but only DMM type smooth grooves seem to be OK.
Also, it seems just a bit too 'treble-tilted', has good tight bass but only up to a point, when it starts to 'loose the plot'.
Raul, as we know can influence this kind of 'mismatch' by swapping head-shells with his arms. No such thing with modern, non-bayonet, fixed head-shell arms.
VTA changes are not really getting me there either, the basic behaviour described doesn't change as such. Can I safely assume, that we just have an incorrigible mismatch here? A. |
Hi all, just a quick up date on the "M20FL super" I received recently, kindly having been pointed this way be Raul.
I was a bit reluctant to take out my Shure V15 III + VN35MR because it was doing a jolly fine job of MOST, alas not all as so often the case (insufficient ear-equalization?).
I then quickly went back to my AT140LC and re-confirmed what I already knew --- it has problems with the extreme top and bottom frequencies.
So in went the M20FL, and since Raul had warned to give it some few hours first, I 'suffered' the initial main difference between AT140 and M20FL the treble performance. What the one has too much of, the other was a bit reluctant to show initially, but one could hear there is something 'moving in the bush'.
In any case the M20FL has loosened up quite fine within even less then 20 hours with hardly anything left one might expect it more to do. Interesting to me is how Ortofon managed to maintain their "sound picture" over the last ~ 30 years! If asked right now, I would say the M20FL sounds better than their more current Kontrapunkt-B (MC). (I have not had the -A in my system) and very close, sacrilege of sacrileges, perhaps a good as the Jubilee?! Sounds like a stretch, that a 150$ NOS MI should sound as good as a ~ 2000$ MC? The M20FL does practically EVERYTHING right, I.E. it sounds VERY coherent as does the Jubilee, both have a bit of "east coast" sound, ~ detailed but some might want a tad more bite in the treble. Me, I'm not so sure because I just had that from listening to the V15 III MR, and it can be getting a bit much at times. Depth, resolution, air, inner detail, yes BUT NOT at the cost of 'glazing'. The M20FL seems to walk a pretty fine line in this regard. Sometimes you might think just a little bit more perhaps? Then you listen to brass (I does this BEAUTIFUL!!!) then to piccolo flute and you KNOW it's just fine and not getting lost in the over amplification of these treble 'over-tones' as the AT140 would have it, that makes a piccolo flute just have to much of a muchness.
In the bass, again a very 'right' balance too. I have heard MMs in my system (Empire S1000ZE/X comes to mind) the can really 'schtonk' and initially it maybe a trip - alas after a while you notice it just likes to schtonk where the music might have suggested a bit more restrain (I'm very critical here but classical is less forgiving then Rock&Roll after all).
So, the M20FL is some very noteworthy item I think, and it seems it was VERY highly regarded way back when it came out at around the late 70's to enable quadro-phonic analogue reproduction. To do this well, the cart has to be able to read 35-40kHz of the quadro LP for the 'surround channel' information code which was place there. So, this might just explain also why the M20FL is not a slouch in the treble resolution department without having to suffer any unpleasant 'glazing' to go. Greetings, |
Lewm, y.s.: >> Axel, where are setting VTF, and are you loading at 100K or 47K?<<
The M20FL super is a "low rider" (and has a rather LONG cart body). If I had a 'level' arm with an already lowish V15 III, I found the same arm setting actually worked fine and translated into about >=1.5mm arm up as measured on my SME V (center side marking!). I actually use 'VTA spacers' and I use the same a for the V15 III.
VTF = 1.5gr on the button Loading = 47k
Now, those ~"badies"~ you are asking for. It is difficult to mention some because of possible synergy with some other systems (or ears) and so a "BAD ONE" would get some folks really prissy as they might LOVE it!!
Never the less what did not work too well -in my set-up-: - (MM) AT140CL = VERY good mid-band performance - but issues with frequency extremes, getting too etched, and powerful bass is not handled well at all. - (MM) Empire S1000ZE/X = Great stage! VERY beautiful harmonic mids! HF a bit too subdued, VERY powerful bass but not enough controlled. - (MM) Elite EEI 500 = nicely extended HF but a bit grainy, average not too bad stage with lack of depth, some lack in coherence when compared to good MM/MIs. - (MM) Audio-Technica CN5625AL = 'rough rider' for very little money, great for 20$ (what it actually costs new) low- to mid-fi at best. - (MC) Kontrapunkt-B = "~ value for money MC" does little wrong but lacking finesse, a bit boring. - (MC) Transfiguration Orpheus-L = does MOST everything VERY WELL but NOT bass, too light in upper bass. **Too expensive** at 6k$, eish! - (MC) Lyra Dorian = 'synergy critical', outstanding detail, sparkle, powerful LOW bass, lacking upper bass and therefore some coherence, can sound too etched or treble tilted. - (MC) Jubilee = apparent great 'MC-value' for money, does most everything right, so much so, that it can sound to benign (boring?), bass a bit soft and treble not too extended. (could buy 10x M20FL super for it, so you decide) - (MC) Windfeld = just below where the Orpheus-L is truly great sounding, but has more upper bass and is a bit more 'full' sounding, but also a bit more boring. - (MC) Transfiguration AXIA = see Dorian, then add a bit more refinement (again it will buy you 5 - 10 equally good MMs or MIs, your call) - well, let's leave it that for the present.
OK, dear Lewm now let's see how much hate mail I'll reap for trying to put a little meat on your bone. Any one can look at my system as posted, and make up his own mind how 'reasonable' I managed to be. It's ALL SS, and the Burmester 961 is NOT a full range speaker but goes to ~ 35Hz with no problem and is well matched in size to the acoustic environment. Greetings, |
Lewm, well thank you, -- like, try not 'hang too far out of the bus'.
I could have mentioned two more, Dynavectors, (more affordable ones) but as you see, really BAD none of them are. However, 'not good enough' for ones aspirations and/or expectations could more easily apply.
Not sure if Raul feels like stepping up to the plate? He has gone through a lot more carts, and his rig is superiors to mine, I dare say. Axel |
Tobes, you did go way up with the VTA/SRA, yes? According to the 'Brothers', also mentioned in the spec. it like 5 - 6mm arm UP! Just to make sure. Axel |
Tobes, y.s.: >> I'm not really finding the treble extension of the P77 to be deficient <<
Can't recall having used "deficient" in this context at all, since it is NOT! --- but it is less -PROMINENT- the word I'd used and it still is, without it being deficient.
The P77 should sound more 'liquid, or fluid' in the mid-range then the Jubilee, which has the more typical MC mid-range and for all I can tell it's due to your phono-pre having a lot less to work from (unless you'd used an SUT).
Last point, the FGS stylus (comes on boron cantilever only as I know). Firstly this stylus seems quite a bit bigger (by looks, and therefore weight?) then the one in the stock P77. The more recent thing I heard from a manufacture's comment: he preferred the squashed alu-tube cantilever as is was found to be more rigid than a boron stick!! I've not done any torque test, but he said he did, and that is what he found. Note: A LOT of very good sounding MM's have nothing other then a squashed alu-tube canilever - makes you think, doesn't it? Greetings, |
Tobes, sounds all very interesting in deed. In fact I been digging up my Empire S1000ZE/X, going through some related experience. Great, musical mids, bass a bit on the soft side and somewhat more prominent, treble less prominent then most of my other carts (exclude my A&R P77...).
In my case it seems that I have been spoiled (and ear-flossed) by treble prominence. In the case of some recordings it's marvellous to have all the apparent added detail, in a lot of other cases it can get nervy to the point of being unnatural. It's this great mid presentation that holds attraction with carts like the P77.
The other side of the coin? The less prominent treble makes for a distinct loss in presentation when listening to some baroque music, trumpets, plectrum of a guitar string plucked and so forth.
There seem no way to have a cart that can serve all the various vinyl pressings, mastering and recordings - calling for more than on arm/cart if you care to have it more 'appropriate' to each vinyl.
(With a CD, you just concede it a bad CD - too hot, too dull, or what ever - with vinyl there's always something you can fiddle to improve it, next having to un-fiddle it with the following LP, eish :-) Axel |
Raul, I have done some changes to my systems X-over a while ago, and I have the S1000 back in since ~ 1 - 2 weeks when I had to return the M20FL for some channel balance problem.
The S1000 is performing better in the base right now - it could be the cross-over cap change that helped?
I also run it arm high ~ 1.5mm (measured on the V arms side line), but with 0.75g VTF only (would you give that a try?) and 0.5g anti-skate.
I'm pretty happy with it right now and even the slightly closed in treble has opened up just fine - because of the very light VTF?.
Greetings, Axel |
Dear Raul: the VTF I'm using is actually 0.875g and not .75g, but on certain records the needle hardly wants to find the groove and is happy play in between :-) Axel |
Dear Raul: sorry, I just was being lazy, the full code is of course S1000ZE/X. I'll bear in mind that S1000 is another item. Turns out my best cart for the current set-up (and my speaker x-over is now maxed out...)
BTW, I'm still awaiting the SAS correct item for my V15, plus replacement for M20FL super... : nobody is perfect in the trade. Greetings, Axel |
Dear Raul: good to hear your Empire performs "just splendid!"
Could it be I got the VTA/SRA just right as well this time? As I mentioned I have it now at ~ 1.5mm arm up measured on the V arm's side line marking. This means quite a bit more when measured directly by the pivot because of the angle involved and if measured it is more then 3mm up at the pivot.
Right now I have no inclination to listen to any other cart as it seems to do just about everything right, including the well defined upper-bass and bass.
For the sake of interest where would you see this performance when compared to the earlier much mentioned AT-20SS? How would you characterise the differences in tone? Like the harmonics, and/or brighter, warmer, faster, etc. etc.
Greetings, Axel |
Thanks Dgarretson, I will look into it when I have some ZEN. Greetings, Axel |