I believe most.of.the Sony MC's prior.to the xl-mc series were satin. The xl-mc's were pure Sony, and were the basis for a number of other non Sony high end efforts too. |
I think anyone posting here is well up in the obsession stakes.... otherwise we would happily be listening to the 50,000 tracks we have on our iPhone through little Apple earplugs.... Audiophiles are by definition perfectionists..... just a happy bunch of obsessive compulsive music fans...
bye for now
David |
Hi Travbrow, In my collection of cartridges I have a Sony XL-MC104 - one of the last gasps of high end Sony Vinyl.
It only manages the first two tracks of the HFN tracking test.... but it still is a superbly sweet cartridge that never fails to surprise me with it's clarity, and sweet bell like tones.... So I guess that as long as you can track up to track 7 you should be ok.... (one would hope that as the suspension loosens up the tracking will improve..) My Shure 1000e with SAS won't do track 9 cleanly either - and that is supposedly a tracking champion.... (I had hoped the Sony would manage track 8 better....) So far I have not had a cartridge (any cartridge) do track 9 cleanly.... The ones that have done track 8 cleanly include: Shure 1000e-SAS, Ortofon 320u, Signet/AT TK6Ep, Ortofon TM20.
The Shure 1000E with the N99E stylus (eliptical correct item for that specific cartridge) - also did not manage track 8... but it blitzed it with the SAS.
I also ran the tests at various VTF's - and that made a difference to the tracking ability of some of these - but not others...(the TK6EP is currently on a conical - pending arrival of its shibata - and at the p-mount setting of 1.2g it really struggles - but at a conical friendly 2g it gets through track 7) |
Hi Folks I have been reading through the thread for many hours.... about 1/3rd of the way in I decided to skip to the end, it is HUGE. One thing I noted - Raul you claimed a few times that in addition to the 100k/100pf loading, the most important thing was the Headshell/Cartridge matching.
Have you at any stage posted some of your "matches" - which headshell with which cartridge?
Also do you have any guidelines as to which headshell types might match best with cartridge types?
Vibrations tend to be transmitted to similar materials and reflected to differing materials - so cartridges with plastic tops might work best with plastic headshells? Similarly cartridges with metal mountings to metal headshells?
The other thing I noted through the thread is a few negative remarks about spacers.... yet I have also seen spacer style devices used as a form of tuning (eg: cartridge man's isolator) - and some turntables require spacers for proper setup... no option!
Also I heard on another forum that some empire cartridges were originally released with a "suspended" mounting - which may not have been rigid (I think it might have been the first series of 4000)... Which led to the following thought: Given that a cartridge is a compliant device, is there the option within the system to provide compliant assistance outside of the tonearm? (a supple/soft cartridge mounting?) Has anyone tried something like this?
I made a decision some months back re-commission my turntable.... and have started a voyage that now has me trying out a series of different MM/MI cartridges, along with mounting methods etc.... Thank you all for the years of input here! |
So what are the best options for spacers?
Given that most of these cartridges are mid to high compliance - weight is an issue.... so acrylic, thermoplastic are clear options, but what about lightweight woods? Balsa? Boxwood? What about Carbon Fibre? Resins? How do these affect the sound? If the "Isolator" idea makes sense - then various forms of damping could assist - different materials damp different frequencies in differing amounts... and that's without resorting to "soft" materials like sorbothane...
It seems like "soft" mounting may be an option for high compliance MM/MI's - where it would probably interfere with low compliance MC's....(combined with low VTF, high trackability and ULM arms?or perhaps as an alternative to ULM arms?) |
Hi folks, thanks Raul for the response - I am putting together a small collection of varied lightweight headshells (5g to 9g) so I can experiment....
Is anyone familiar withe the Empire 4000XL ? How does it differ from the 4000DIII?
Also the famous Azden/Empire YM-P50VL / 875 - are new styli available for these? |
Shure Cartridges (M and V family) - reading a number of forums with regards to these in particular...
A number of people are strongly suggesting impedance of around 60 to 70k with cap around 100pf.
Comments and measurement reports appear to show a midrange suckout / drop with impedance of 100K.
Does this reflect peoples experience here? |
Ran a series of interesting tests...
Using a Shure 1000e fitted with a Jico SAS N97xE stylus (generator is 650ohm / 500mH)
I varied the capacitance (by switching measured C cables) through 130pf / 160pf / 450pf, and impedance (by switching impedance plugs) through 47k / 68k / 75k and 100K ohms.
I tested everything using the HFN LP Pink Noise tracks (which apparently cannot be trusted beyond 16k?)
First thing I noticed is that with 47k / 450pf (close to "spec" - I get a relatively flat Frequency Response with a slight hump in the bass region (1db @ 200Hz), slight dip in the high midrange (circa 1db) and then a resonant peak at 14k followed by a sharp drop - with -3b being reached at circa 19k.
Reducing C seemed to increase the Bass Hump (up to 1.5-2db), and also increase the resonant peak (close to 3db)- while moving the peak outwards... (47k/130pf resonant peak was at 15k and -3db @ 21k). The expected level-ish but drooping FR was not seen - instead I get a rise! - have others experienced this?
Keeping the Cap. low (130pf) and varying the Impedance load.... as the Impedance increases, so does the size of he HF resonant peak - at 100K the peak is around 5db... At 100K the Bass hump was minimised (1db), strangely at 75K the same bass hump was maximised (just over 2db) - the HF response for 100k and 75k was identical - very extended with -3db not being reached within the 22k limit of measurement.
The 47k FR is more of a gentle slope down from the bass hump to the midrange, followed by a more controlled resonant peak (2.5db) and -3db reached at 21k.
I think I need to go shopping for some more resistors and make a wider range of impedance plugs .... It looks like low C is the secret to extended Frequency response, but the HF peak concerns me.... it looks almost MC'ish in profile but with the resonant peak in the high audible range... (mind you it does provide more "air" to the sound).
The 1000e cartridge seems more closely related to the V15 series than the M97 series (based on impedance/inductance) - I am running it with the damper brush down.
Anyone care to take a guess at the cause of the HF peak? Is this a cantilever resonance? Shure originally put a lot of effort into damping cantilever resonances in the V15IV, and then changed the cantilever design in the V15V to move the resonance up outside the audible range.... am I possibly seeing a byproduct of the Jico cantilever design?
Bye for now
David
P.S. yes anyone is welcome to a copy of the data and graphs.... I just have to work out where to publish them... Also have to verify my measurements of the High Capacitance cable I used... |
Downunder - regardless of the method and gear used, there are 2 schools of thought in audiophilia.... the "archivist/reproducers" and the "Musicians".... ie: those for whom the gear is intended to as closely as possible approximate the audio data as laid down (and heard!) by the original artist/producer/engineer (archivist/reproducer) - and those for whom the original reproduction is secondary to the musical enjoyment they achieve from it, and therefore all is (relatively) fair to achieve the euphonic end result....
And of course there is the spectrum between the two extremes. DJ scratching is an extreme example of the euphonic end of the spectrum....where vinyl is literally used as an instrument.
Many audiophiles prefer to set up their systems in ways that allow them to connect best with the musical performance being reproduced.... hence " I like cartridge x best for musical genre Y - and switch cartridges accordingly..." If the system were set up as an optimal reproducer - there would be no point in changing anything .... genre is irrelevant. But if you are configuring for best results with specific frequencies, rhythms, tones.... then you are playing in the "musical" end of the spectrum. Note: this ignores some of the compromises we have to make - and sometimes there are multiple compromises which get closest to reproducing different genres.... ie the flaws in each compromise affect some things less than others...and this also allows some "reproducers" to play in "musician" land without sacrificing their "reproducer" membership card. ;-)
I like to think of myself as a "reproducer" - and therefore start with metrics and measures in trying to optimise my system, rather than playing "by ear". Playing "by ear" requires a huge level of experience with varied equipment, music types, rooms and acoustics.... and for someone who has limited access to loads of gear... measurement rules! (at least as a card carrying "reproducer")
Which just goes to show how long winded I can be in reiterating what you said "Bottom line its clear - MM, MC, SS , tubes, sub or no sub - they are all vaild choices we make to enable each of us to enjoy the music" - except that I would include CD's ... (and 8 track, edison cylinders, cave paintings ....)
Lewm - I checked the capacitance/inductance resonant frequency using the Hagerman tech online calculators ... the calculated result was at a substantially higher frequency than what I have been measuring... for a 13k to 14k resonance with a 500mH cartridge would require a capacitance of between 260pf and 300pf. My measure of capacitance from Turntable to Pre-Connection (cartridge removed) is 130pf to 160pf...
So either (1) I don't know how to measure capacitance (open to suggestions!) or (2) something else is going on (such as possibly cantilever resonance...).
I will also admit that I have no specifications or means of measuring the inherent capacitance of the MicPre I am using. (RIAA is achieved Digitally with software) - but I cannot imagine that it would be more than 10-20pf.... which would still be too low to account for the peak based on inductance/capacitance.
Bye for now & Happy New Year |
Hi Timeltel... nope you did not misstate my post.... my ear was once more educated (I used to work in a "hifi" shop in the 80's)... but it is something you have to practice....
Years of living with Quad gear (although the speakers have now been replaced with Gallo's due to WAF) - means I can instantly tell some things by ear.... But other things require constant practice of the critical faculty..... sort of "intellectual listening"... which I have not done in many years.
I am hesitant to characterise the Shure - mostly due to a lack of baseline to compare to.
I have been enjoying it, it is drawing a lot of detail from the records, in terms of overall tonal balance it is warmer, more mid/bass rich than the Sony XL-MC104 I also have. (which is of course a HO MC)
This is NOT an MC vs MM property, as the Empire/Benz MC1 (also HO) I have has a similar tonal balance to the Shure.
A few weeks back I carefully recorded a series of tracks using several different cartridges (Shure 1000e, Ortofon TM20, 320u, Sony XL-MC104, Benz/Empire MC1HO)... then to ensure I avoided any psychoacoustic effect I measured the digital recording and adjusted them digitally for the average RMS volume level to be within 0.01db.
Then I listened to the results.... at the starting point I was hearing differences - once adjusted for level they initially seemed to have disappeared. (yep volume does trick one!) On further listening, I found that many of my original comments about the differences between the cartridges still applied - but had been reduced by an order of magnitude.
In terms of tonal balance my cartridges clearly fell into two camps "warm" and "sweet" - the latter is a camp of one with only the Sony XL-MC104, which has a lovely clarity / sweetness in the highs... very appealing on some recordings. It sounds nothing like the Benz/Empire MC1 - which has a similar low/mid warmth as do the MM's.
Here are some of my notes from listening tests a few weeks back on those cartridges.... shortly after starting these tests my ADC blew.... my current testing and calibration is part of my process of setting up the new ADC / Phono Stage before I can listen again... the listening tests also compared a Toshiba SR-Q630 to my Revox Linatrak
Shure 1000e (with Jico Replacement N99e eliptical) T1: very very similar to SAS, marginally more mid-highs perhaps - seems less ""pure"" than SAS, loses just a touch of the detail . Lows seemed a bit less detailed too. T2: loses some of the Timbre of the instruments over the SAS, More timbre and woodiness than MC1, or Sony T3: More detailed than MC1? T5: keeps orchestra instruments more distinct than most in loud passages
Shure 1000e with N97xE SAS stylus (Damper up) (listening tests incomplete) Track 1: equal or greater bass/mids to the MC1, but with more detailed, fwd high end - seems like there is more there. Track 2: slightly sweeter than the 320U - more air?
Ortofon 320u Track 1:Pleasant, Neutral, detailed - very similar to Shure and TM20, not quite as airy as shure, definitely more there than the MC1, a touch sweeter too (maybe?) Track 2: mid highs slightly more prominent, lacks the richness of the 1000E-SAS in the low-mids. Very nice not tiring at all, detailed, sweet, Hs more of the timbre than the ShureN99, TM20, MC1, Sony - revox 1.55g shows signs of mistracking on peaks... - INVESTIGATE, VTF error? Track 3: proper balance is present lows mids are there - timbre is not reproduced as well as 1000E-SAS - Highs are more bell like, tinkly than 1000E-SAS... but less real? Slightly ear tiring. Ortofon TM20 Track 1: Pleasant, Neutral, detailed Track 2: - no flaws, but nothing WOW either - more woody bloom to the strings (body timbre) compared to MC1 or Sony. Drawing out slightly more detail than MC1 Track 3: as per 2 - tendency to tiring? T4: T5: Some break up on complex - big passages
Empire MC1HO Track 1:More midrange, lacks the sweetness of the Sony - feel like its missing out on some of the high sweet harmonics, Midrange more fwd, highs more recessed - Still a sweet recording - less ""obvious"", Midrange-lows and lows seem better than XL-MC104 Track 2: feels very neutral - actually a nice sound - middle of the road, neutral. (missing harmonics & tombre compared to SAS) Track 3: Neutral - bottom end feels too lightweight - slightly tiring to the ear? - slightly less tiring to the ear - perhaps due to lack of detail.. Track 4: Sound more woodwind than with the Sony - a hint of Nasal tone? T5: Keeps instruments distinct in complex large orchestra movements - especially the lows - good performance - more sensitive to scratches etc - cause it to skip where SAS does not
Shure 1000e with N97xE SAS Stylus (with damper brush down) Track 1: More midrange/body than sony - very clear, detailed yet natural - smooth, richer than sony, mellow Track 2: smoother than TM20 low mids are full rich, mellow (Nice) - slightly sweeter than 320U, more air? Overtones, Timbre (harmonics?) clearer- more real than MC1 - More body in mid bass strings (body sound more evident/clearer) Track 3: Mids/lows are present and full - timbre is excellent - sounds very real - almost too much some of the percussion is possibly tiring (mistracking?) Track 4: Wood timbre is clear T5: 1.5g VTF version seperates instruments better than 2g....
Sony Xl-MC104 Track 1: Clear, bell like tones on 1st track sweet tones, very relaxed - natural sound- I like it - seems to have more air to the highs, loses some of the weight of the lower registers - piano is lighter than it should be. Track 2: possibly a smidge more air around the flute - loses some of the weight and timbre of the instruments in the bass/low mids - Tiring to the ear longer term? - possible mistracking distortion causing tiring? - On revox not tiring. very good, still missing some of the wood body from the SAS Track 3: Piano sounding glassy missing midrange and bass weight... tinkly - Piano is light weight... Tiring to the ear (Mistracking?-Tosh) Track 4: Good sound can hear wood timbre - souding better on Revox T5: keeps the instruments clearly distinct even in complex loud passages - very nice!
Keep in mind that I am returning to Vinyl after a 14 year hiatus... so I am learning and re-learning stuff as I go. My Notes above were made before I level matched all the recordings (everything was recorded at 24/96, then pulled into a multi track session and perfectly time matched, so I can A/B between them, and switch to any of the cartridges at any time.... mostly I listen to a whole track at a time, but when a detail attracts my attention, I can switch to the same track & time on a different cartridge with a couple of mouse clicks)
Once level matched I initially thought they all sounded the same (!) - More careful listening over the next few days showed that all my comments were still applicable, but far far less obvious.
Once I get the Software RIAA in place and working properly, along with the right Loading for each cartridge (which will take a while as I won't have the Low C cables for at least another week or 2) I plan to redo the above exercise this time with an without individual cartridge EQ using Pink Noise....
Given the vagaries/imperfections of mechanical reproduction, I strongly believe that the differences I can hear will once more drop another order of magnitude once the cartridges are EQ'd for frequency response - and individually loaded for best F/R and minimal EQ (ie first adjust loading, to best optimise F/R - which will minimise the amount of EQ required, and the inherent distortions added by a layer of processing). But I won't know until I get there.
We are today at a stage in technological progress, where any cartridge should be able to be used with (adjusted to) a flat frequency response.... This combined with RoomEQ should (theoretically) put us a lot closer to the original Master Tape.... (I hesitate to say the original performance, as many recordings are not a performance in a live venue but a studio session or/and a fully artificial construct...)
In terms of value, I think that the vintage top end MM's are Huge value, and with an appropriate new top end stylus (preferably Shibata or other LC) on a good cantilever - such as SAS can provide performance competing with top end MC's at prices that are one or more orders of magnitude lower.
A Shure M97 with SAS can be set up for well under $200... or an Empire 2000/4000 with Shibata, AT11/12/similar with Shibata... etc...
The Ortofon 320u is p-mount (with 1/2" adapter if needed) and has a LC tip, not the most sophisticated cantilever - but I picked it up new for $40 !!!
I also wonder whether once properly adjusted and EQ'd - the lighter VTF / Higher Compliance and Higher trackability of the 80's cartridges will allow them to outperform some of the TOTL MC's in the megabuck range? (especially on the ULM Revox Arm....4g - but also on the servo damped JVC QL-Y5F... once I get it up and working)- I don't own or have access to TOTL MC gear in any case, so the question will remain academic for the foreseeable future. (the MC1HO I own was at the low end of the Benz/Empire MC range in the early 90's.... the Sony XL-MC104 was TOTL in the early 80's.... both are fine elipticals, and good cartridges, but I don't believe them to be competitive with the current SOTA) |
Oh yes - dynamics... I have a friend who is a very good percussionist.... listening to radio in the car the other day - I caught the end of a track which had great rhythms.... lo and behold - it's my friends band.
I havn't mentioned some of my other measurements - I was recording a specific set of tracks with various cartridges, and then adjusting the average (RMS) volume level to match perfectly (including channel balance)... this process removed many of the differences... but not all - fundamental differences remained.
When looking at the statistics which CoolEdit pulls up on these tracks, the peak values can differ quite markedly... so we have setups which initially sound identical but at a closer listen (and investigation of the data) I find that ... as an example...
Cartridge Av RMS Max RMS Peak Sony XL-MC104 -23.96db -7.4db -0.62db Benz MC1 " -7.9db -1.12db Shure 1000e/SAS " -7.85db -0.98db AT12Sa " -7.58db -1.4db
None of these are low end cartridges... 2 fine elipticals, 1 Shibata and 1 SAS/MicroRidge/Line Contact
When I made these recordings I did not have the wherewithal to adjust loading properly for each cartridge.... when tuned properly I expect the peak variation will increase between best and worst..... I also don't think that the measured difference will be very large... we are talking the fine details here. We tend to be aware of these fine differences although they are hard to pin down.. and therefore I think we identify some of these by their symptoms ... ie better rhythm, timing, dynamics.
Another thing (which I cannot comment experientially on... only by hearsay) is that the table / arm are likely to have a greater impact on rhythm than the cartridge... especially the table.... And the immeasurably small microdetail - which the ear can pick up but instrumentation may not - are very sensitive to arm, table damping, platform etc...
The other thing I feel (ie gut feel, and the conclusion of reading many articles going back 30 years)... is that there is a lot to be gained from the High Compliance / Low Mass school of turntable design.... and much of that gain is precisely in rhythm, dynamics and microdetail. (obviously along with HC/ULM you need very light effective tip mass, and cantilevers that have resonances outside the audible range.... etc...)
I find it telling that the ADC cartridges that had the highest compliance ended up getting a reputation for "collapsing suspension"... frequently (usually!?) caused by being mounted in a mid to high mass arm.... These are the same cartridges that were also supposed to be legendarily good (ZLM / Super XLM II) - and they were also those designed to work with CD4/Quad .... Anything that can go to 50KHz should be able to make a meal of 20KHz and hit the beat without breaking a sweat....
But then as now, you have to spend the time setting these up right (Reviews of the ADC's did make the point that they were setup sensitive...) - so electrical loading and mechanical loading both have to be right to make them sing.
I think ultimately the factors that led to the success of MC's were (in no particular order) - reduced sensitivity to capacitance, increased robustness/ability to handle higher VTF and heavier mass tonearms (fat fingered punters putting them on inappropriate arms are less likely to end up with a destroyed cartridge... ), and (of course) fashion...(but platform shoes have already made several comebacks .... so there is hope for MM's - although I think MC's are more the "platforms" of cartridges and MM's the brogues... but there is no acounting for fashion)
MM/MI is far more awkward to set up - getting capacitance down low enough to be able to best take advantage of them requires some effort, and low C cables are not readily available (at a reasonable price).
You can make a MM sound like an MC - but you have to get the C down to 100pf ... or lower.... and then raise the impedance.... and .... but that's why this thread is here isn't it!
Note that the cartridge showing the greatest dynamic differences in the list above is an MC (Sony) - but this same cartridge fails to track a +16db 300Hz tone.... is some of that peak tracking distortion? (the track I used has some very dynamic percussion on it....)
The close second place Shure 1000e (MM) with SAS stylus tracks just about anything with ease....
Both were setup wrong ... the Shure in that setup was showing HF rolloff from around 13k, and the Sony - well I never got around to measuring its F/R... They were both running at circa 650pf and 47k at the time. Which is wrong for both of them - although it is a common situation .... standard 47k/220pf phono stage with normal (audiophile brand) interconnect (1.5m - measured it the other day at around 400pf) ouch.
Today's High output "standard" is 47k / 400pf (roughly), and in the early 80's the "standard" was either 47k/400pf or 47k/100pf (like the sony's specs) for the quad cartridges... the reality is of course that cartridges have hugely varying requirements. (eg: Shure M97's purportedly do best at 62k/100pf....)
Bye for now
David I've spent the last 2 days working on the phono stage... I hope to be able to get back to listening and the front end in the New Year... |
good line Raul "wrong but I like it".... |
Hi Raul,
with the various capacitances and cartridges, what was the difference?
Was there a quantifiable aspect to it?
I have just finished testing my Shure 1000e/SAS across 5 Capacitances and 5 Impedances (25 tests in all for 150pf, 250pf, 350pf, 500pf, 700pf, 22k, 47k, 62k, 82k, 100k), I posted the graphs on the VE loading thread...
There are clear differences in Frequency Response linearity, and the resonant peaks (both of them, electrical and mechanical) are present - although they are too close to each other for most of the measures to seperate out until the C drops to 150 when the mechanical resonance just starts to peak out independently. - All 25 possibilities show a different compromise between frequency extension, and linearity - some have a mid suckout, others a high peak, high C's show a suckout with a F/R dropoff within the audible range....
So what I am asking is whether in your loading test there was some aspect that could be identified on a technical measure to assist in zeroing in on the best setup.... (or perhaps zeroing in on your preferred setup...)
bye for now
David |
lewm - link to VE where I posted the graphs http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6674&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=240
Raul - as usual thank you for your ongoing insight...
I have digressed a little the last few days in refurbishing my JVC TT, putting 2.5kg of plasticine inside it, and I am in the process of finalising a new platform for my 2 main tables, using Ikea Lack tables + sorbothane, spikes, and/or ball bearing stands... the end combination is yet to be decided on as not all the gear has been delivered yet for testing and implementing. I also resoldered the captive leads on the JVC - finally getting its capacitance down to around 100pf. (Using BlueJeans LC1 Cable)
Also ongoing testing and experiments with my Digital Phono stage configuration.... but I will return to the cartridge tuning side of things shortly!
Halcro - I've noticed the same type of phenomenon ("loses it's composure on very complex high energy and loud passages") both with my HOMC's (Benz/Empire MC1 & Sony XL-MC104) - I've also used "big" symphonic music frequently as a system test.... lots of speakers can't reproduce it effectively, and start getting "muddled" - also can happen when an amp starts pushing its limits....
But previously my HOMC's were sitting on an ultra low mass 4g tonearm - the results may be very different in the JVC's tonearm. (which is one of the reasons I got it)
I really wonder whether the issue is not in fact related to low compliance and tracking capability... (ie the weaknesses of low compliance ?) - Of course when talking tracking capability we are talking cantilever construction, effective mass etc....
I started doing some measurements of a "basic" eliptical stylus in my Shure 1000e vs a SAS stylus. Forgetting a moment about the Exotic line contact stylus - I think the biggest difference may not be the stylus at all, it may be the far more sophisticated and light weight cantilever. ( at some stage I will get back to that comparison and report...)
It leads me to wonder whether rather than spending big bucks on some of the name brand styli (TOTL LC's from AT etc..) for some of my cartridges, I might be better off sending a stylus to Soundsmith (US) or Expert (UK) for a cantilever + stylus upgrade.
I think one of the biggest gains that the exotic MC's get is to do with their exotic cantilevers - you can get Shibata, LC or MicroRidge/Fineline for a range of MM's and MI's - and all at around $100 - but usually on fairly coarse cantilevers... therefore heavy, and due to excess mass, slow moving ... not nimble enough. Has anyone on here taken a good MM and had it re-cantilevered with a soundsmith Ruby cantilever?
bye for now
David |
Hmm with all this Signet info flying around, does anyone here have any specs or other information on the Signet Tk6Ep?
This is the same format p-mount body as the AT102/112/122/132/142/152.... and accepts the same styli as the "2" series and the AT130/140/150 etc... series.
I just received a AT440MLa donor cartridge - the stylus from which is intended for the Signet.... would be nice to have more info on the Signet though!
On another topic..... (or back to the main topic)...
I have been reading about phase response.... MC's overall have apparently far less phase issues than MM/MI.
Some have written that to ensure ideal phase response within the audible range, the cartridge should have useful response out to 200KHz (!?!)
Has anyone measured phase response of various cartridges? How would one measure this? (it would need to be a phase/frequency graph I think...)
There may be a case to be made for many MC's versus MM's that they have far closer to ideal phase response...
MM's designed for Quad may be the best phase performing MM's due to extended F/R...
Just poking about curiously in my usual way
bye for now
David |
Hi Timeltel...
apparently Ortofon have been pushing the Linear Phase wagon for many years.... it was mentioned in a Gramophone review from the 70's or early 80's I was reading... "Orthophase"?
A number of people have stated that getting Phase right (Linear phase) is more critical to microdetail than Linear Frequency Response...
Apparently MC cartridges as a genre have fewer phase aberations than MM/MI cartridges... (I have seen this mentioned a few times, but little supporting data)
Also saw some mention of requiring 4x to 10x the Frequency Response to ensure Phase Linearity (hence the 200kHz) - but the wording there was "frequency response" no frequency linearity was mentioned (ie no +/- db) so we might be talking about having a slowly drooping amplitude response with some remaining level at 200kHz (would -30db do? -50db? - don't know)
There is also some discussion about phase issues caused by the cantilever.... and particularly at the cantilever resonant frequency. (A good reason to design the cantilever resonance outside the audible range!)
Adding all these up, it seems that what is desirable is a combination that moves the electrical resonance out as far as possible, and if at all possible eliminates (or massively reduces) the electrical resonance. (the resonance is always followed by a massive drop off in level - so if extension is the goal....) This implies: 1) Very Low C - maybe lower than 100pf? 2) Careful use of R loading (too much R raises the electrical peak, and exagerates the following level drop) 3) Selecting cantilever design for resonant frequencies as far above 20kHz as possible (back to discussing stiff light cantilever materials, and shapes) 4) Inductance as low as possible - interacts with R & C - lower inductance results in more extended F/R - resonant peak is pushed further out.
Like I mentioned before, much of these criteria sound like Quad cartridges/styli.
Playing with the Hagtech loading calculator is quite fascinating.... watch what happens when you drop inductance and capacitance.... a C of 50pf with an I of 300mH provides a F/R of over 40kHz. - suggested R is 77.5k ohm.
It also seems to me that the proposed setups that people rave about on this thread, and the most popular vintage MM/MI's also frequently meet these criteria!
Perhaps the secret of MC's success is the relative effortlessness of achieving an electrical resonance well outside the audible range (due to very low I ). Whereas with the MM/MI's this is difficult to achieve. Is there a justification in there for LO MM/MI's?? (eg: Soundsmith Sussurro) - Fewer turns of the coils = very low I / mH... = very extended F/R, with Resonance pushed out far enough that phase becomes linear (more linear?) in the audible range.
Just thinking out loud... while searching for more data on the phase linearity related aspects.... |
Yep ... what about:
MF Astatic series - MF200 = 90mH Elac ESG896 & ESG870 = 200mH Elac ESG791 = 250mH Grado Prestige series = 45mH AKG P15/P25/P8 = 150mH Empire 66 = 225mH AT180ML = 240mH Empire 3000-I = 280mH Empire 2000E = 300mH Shure V15V = 330mH Empire 4000XL I/II = 330mH Empire EXL-10 = 350mH
Lots of options - some of them as rare as hens teeth (which do indeed exist!)....
But the Empires are not that scarce, nor are the Grado's
I should have a needle for my EXL-10 in the next week or so... And I am considering a Grado as well so I can hear the "grado sound" as well as experiment with a low inductance MI.
I only just picked up a meter with inductance measurement capability.... I am somewhat horrified by the variance in inductance within reputable cartridges.... I am seeing far lower variance in resistance - which is less critical for frequency linearity - than I am seeing in Inductance. (Which explains why so many cartridges read quite differently for L & R channels on a F/R chart)
Switching from 500mH down to 300mH can have a massive influence on extension.... |
I was just reviewing the specs of my Sony XL-MC104 HO MC cartridge... (which is a very sweet sounding cartridge...)
Having just measured the cartridges inductance (0.6mH) I then plugged it into the Hagtech calculator - and with an inductance of 100pf... the resonant frequency is 650kHz...
The F/R graph that came with it however, shows a peak at around 30kHz - presumably the cantilever resonance...
Seems to me that if we can take an MM / MI and move the e-resonance out to 30 or 40kHz (or higher) the benefits of MC would acrue alongside the advantages of MM/MI.
I will be trying my Empire 999 (360mH) with a C load of 65pf later this week (or early next week) and trying it with different loads to see what happens. 360mH + 65pf = resonant f of 33kHz
One of the issues I have is that once it moves outside the audible range (20-20kHz) I no longer have a test source that can measure anything .... my current pink noise track (HFN test record) is apparently unreliable past 16KHz and certainly not designed for use past 20k.
This thread got me working on the loading + low C exercise, as a result of which I now have one of my TT's +Cables down at 51pf (!)- which gives me lots of scope to experiment - although it is also a pain with locating the Phono stage. (Short cable).
bye for now
David |
Still no one out there with info on the Signet TK6Ep ?
I have fitted mine with a 440MLa.
And I have measured it as follows: Inductance 565/567 mH Resistance 791/797 Ohm
I don't know at what frequency my multimeter measures, but the normal AT specs are given as Inductance at 1KHz.... and from my measurements it appears that my meter is giving me a higher figure. I would estimate highish 300mH??
Based on measuring a whole bunch of cartridges the closeness between the two channels is usually a good indicator of quality - and the two channels are VERY close on this one.
Still curious about OEM Specs
bye for now
David |
Hi Timeltel,
to the best of my knowledge the 6006 (2002/3003/4004/8008) is part of the same family as the AT3282/300/301/311.
Apparently some members of that family were available in a low inductance (unknown stats) 3mV output version. According the the specs on the x00x series (on Vinylengine) they all had 5mV output. BUT: The AT331LP had 3mV output - apparently Ed Saunders had a batch of these (not sure of precise labeling) - long since sold out. LPGear have the AT Series V from the same family - which also has the 3mV generator - and is still available. They sell it as "LPGear Series VL" - Vivid Line, and "LPGear Series VS" - Shibata. All of these use the "213" style needles interchangeably... eg:http://www.turntableneedles.com/Needle-213-Dshibata_p_960.html
However the Signet TK6Ep I have is from the p-mount versions of the AT120/120/140/150/440 family (Which I believe includes the TK5ea) - I currently have it mounted with a 440MLa stylus. - It appears physically identical to an Audio Technica SLT96e cartridge I also have... Which in turn looks to be the same as any of the AT102/112/122/132/142/152p family...http://www.vinylengine.com/images/cartridgedb/at102p.jpg But like the other family I believe the upper end models may have had a lower voltage output (and a lower inductance) - as per the AT10/AT11/AT12Sa - the AT12Sa was lower voltage and inductance too...
With regards to phase... once the phase is stuffed up, all the various artifacts will become audible/measurable... obviously the place were they become audible is at the listening point - after exiting the speaker.
And there are a number of places where phase issues can happen well before the speaker - stylus (cartridge alignment), cantilever resonances/behaviour, electrical interaction between capacitance/inductance in the leads and cartridge before the phono stage... and then the electronics chain.
And of course many (most?) speakers are NOT phase coherent... (I used primarily electrostatics for most of 20 years - which are one of the few types that usually IS phase coherent) - so the question arises as to how audible phase issues are/can be?
There is an interesting article on research done by Ortofon on phase - scanned on posted on VE http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=33679 Dated 1983... so none of this is news!
But current mainstream speakers are gradually becoming more phase coherent. (or rather the developments in speaker tech have allowed "ordinary" speaker to be built that have the phase coherence previously reserved for panels) - which moves the ability to hear phase differences from the realm of exotica into the realm of the "ordinary" Audiophile.
So having read all this stuff - I thought, what would it take to provide high resolution, linear/flat Frequency response, and phase coherence within the audio band.... the answer is - Line Contact stylus, exotic cantilever/suspension and low inductance and capacitance. Which is a very good description of most original Quad cartridges. - And perhaps explains the popularity on this thread of cartridges such as the 4000D's, EPC100, etc... These are cartridges that in most ways (and sometimes all ways) meet the above description.
By the way - for those with a full wallet needing some lightening - there's a NOS 4000D up on fleabay. I have also recently seen some EPC100's and EPC101's up there for around the same (extravagant) price.
Bye for now
David |
Hi Timeltel, yes indeed - also I have read references to a paper Ortofon put out in the late 70's or early 80's about their "Ortophase" methodology, theory etc... But so far I have not been able to find a copy.
The trouble with using resonance to correct frequency response is that it messes with phase. This clearly applies to both electrical and mechanical resonance (circuit of capacitive cables / inductive cartrive, and Cantilever/suspension respectively).
The graphs in that Article clearly demonstrate it - the phase non linearity is always associated with a resonant peak - it either coincides with it, or begins with the resonant peak and then gets worse with increasing frequency. In most cases the resonant peaks seem to be a design choice linked to Frequency Linearity at the expense of phase.
I found the TK6 on fleabay - it was delivered to me with an AT102p conical fitted...
Didn't think that this would be indicative of its performance - choices out there came down to either AT150MLx or 440MLa.... given that I didn't know what its "sound" was like, I couldn't justify the cost of the 150.... so the 440 it is!
It arrived a little over a week ago but I havn't had a chance to listen to it enough to characterise it.
I'm still working on the phono / loading side of things before I get back to listening.... |
Hi Raul,
re: Listening levels
My own observations are that the Level dependency is very speaker related...
Some speakers need to be driven to a certain level before the details (in the recording) start to become apparent. - I used to have a pair of Klipsch Forte's that just wouldn't strut their stuff with a 100w amp, but with a 200W amp, and given a LOT of "stick" they were impressive...
Boston A400's didn't need the high powered amp as much (100W was OK) but they didn't wake up until a certain volume level was reached.
Quad Electrostatics on the other hand were quite the opposite - the challenge was making the environment sufficiently quiet - the micro and macro detail was always there, even at the very lowest volume levels... but sometimes obfuscated by environmental noise (aircon, footsteps, cars passing in the street etc...). Sure you could turn them up - but the detail was there from the very lowest volume levels.
Hence my next question - what kind of speakers are you using, and how do they respond at various levels?
Another speaker related issue - I found the electrostatics were always capable of providing detailed insight into the music and the recording space regardless of the complexity of the music itself (eg: large symphonic crescendo's)... my current Gallo Ref3.2's are very good but don't quite match the Quads (they had to vacate the premises due to WAF / Lifestyle issues.... but I hope to find a way to have ESL's again in the future). I believe the difference may in fact be related to phase coherence of the speaker. And it may in fact be impossible with some speakers to identify phase related cartridge/stylus variations as the speakers themselves become the limiting factor.
I would suggest that Headphones are the ideal phase coherent simple and economical solution.... it is far far cheaper and easier to build a good set of headphones than a good set of speakers.... and the cost / performance ratio of headphones to speakers is more than 10:1. (ie: a pair of Headphones will on average outperform a pair of speakers costing 10 times more.... ) In fact the cost performance ration between HP's and Speakers is probably around 50:1.
So rather than pushing SPL levels up in a search for additional detail - the simpler solution is to get a good set of Headphones.... They are a far more effective tool for critical listening. (Also tends to eliminate microphony issues!)
bye for now
David |
Timeltel....
an observation - usually lower voltage cartridges also have lower inductance. (more coils = more inductance and more voltage)
Lower inductance leads to more extended frequency response especially with low Capacitance.
AND if the electrical resonance is moved further out (preferably outside the audio zone ... ie above 20kHz) then you also get massively improved phase linearity.
I have been hunting out there for a stylusless AT150ea - why the older "ea" model? Because it has lower inductance than the later model (and along with that, chances are that the voltage is lower too...)
So it might also be worth having a comparative audition of an AT150ea vs an AT150MLX - they can "share needles" - and I believe Raul is likely to prefer the ea to the MLX.
There are other similarly interesting variances... AT10/11/12 all have higher inductance and voltage, but the AT12Sa has lower voltage and inductance.... that's the TOTL model in that range... |
Hi Timeltel, Raul,
could you guys please post... 1) The load capacitance of your phono stage and cables (total capacitance), 2) The Impedance/Resistance load used in the configuration, 3) The Inductance (and if possible resistance) spec of the cartridges tested...
LuckyDog on VE has posted a useful modeling spreadsheet which allows one to display the theoretical electrical response of a phono system given the above variables. (we are still working through ironing out the bugs in the model)
I strongly believe that (as per Timeltel's comments) perceived differences and subjective responses to cartridges/needles are primarily driven by F/R non linearities.
It would be interesting to graph the theoretical electrical response of the cartridges discussed - and then compare that response to the subjective listening responses.
Also the electrical response is independent of the stylus used - the stylus then adds into the mix a mechanical response.... the biggest drivers being 1) Stylus minor radius (Frequency Response and Distortion) and 2) Cantilever/Suspension design (phase response and frequency linearity driven by mechanical resonance)
This is also particularly interesting when you start hybridising the cartridges by mixing styli - the E-Response is identical, but the M-Response varies.... gaining an understanding of this interaction may be achievable with this type of testing.
Finally you cannot compare Cartridge / Stylus performance without the full loading parameters for that configuration, as the loading makes a HUGE difference to the F/R and hence to the tonality of the setup. (Regardless of the rest of the system... including tonearm/table)
Referring to High Fidelity Magasine's review of the "recently released" (1978) ADC ZLM cartridge...: The ZLM appears to be a little fussy about its loading - as are many other fine cartridges. Feeding a high quality feedback-equalized phono stage with no provision for custom capacitive loading (and an unknown input capacitance), the unit sounds like a first-rate phono cartridge; loaded correctly and isolated from undersirable interaction by a buffer stage, the ZLM is simply superb. (Article then proceeds to wax lyrical about the ADC ZLM ...)
Like I have said before - this setup sensitivity probably is what killed high end MM/MI...
Understanding how to best set these beasties up for optimal performance is therefore the key to unlocking their "Joys of Vinyl".... you might call it the Kama Sutra of Analogue.... The "Vinyl Sutra".
I would happily post some of the performance graphs from my own tests - but I don't see that there is a place for it on this forum....
bye for now
David |
Raul - thank you .... sometimes a bit of a reality check is required! I still recall with fondness my first "stereo" of Rotel Integrated, Radio Shack speakers and pioneer PL-320... I must say though that my first experience of high end, was with a pair of Headphones (Radio Shack - AKG OEM)... it was many years later that I purchased my first Electrostatics and managed to achieve a similar level of performance without headphones.
Timeltel - excellent point! - I had not considered the impact of compliance on stroke length, which in turn might affect the magnetics and result in increased output V.
I'll have a browse through some cartridge specs for any empirical info on compliance vs voltage taking into account inductance. (ie for a fixed inductance does V increase with compliance?) Empirical research is also of course limited by the fact that most cartridges were not sold with multiple styli - and comparing differing styli is difficult as the cantilever/pivot point length differs, and therefore stroke length would differ (regardless of compliance).
But I may ask someone who is more of a physicist - as there should be some means of calculating this - and it would be worthwhile understanding the "orders of magnitude" involved.
I do note that the same cartridges we have been discussing are either Quad or descendants of Quad cartridges, and that the Quad era, also coincided with the Ultra-Low-Mass / High Compliance Era.... Is this a coincidence? Or a link?
I think one of the difficulties in running many of these cartridges today is arm matching - the ongoing popularity of med/high mass arms means that many people have a setup that just doesn't suit these cartridges.
I recently picked up an ADC cartridge which I suspect to be a SuperXLM (based on its very low inductance - it is unlabelled) - I also have a virgin SuperXLM shibata stylus.... but with a compliance of 40 (!!) it really is a mismatch for my JVC QL-Y5F arm. (even with the servo damping... I am concerned about a resonant frequency of around 5Hz!!!)
Suits my Revox ULM arm very well mind you ... just fitting a cartridge is a PITA. (whereas fitting and aligning a headshell on the JVC is a quick and easy job - relatively)
In any case it is a perfect example of the genre - high compliance and low inductance, Shibata tip.... SuperXLM specs are 2mV and 3mV (Standard/Improved) - also consistent with the observations about low output.
bye for now
David |
Does anyone know where one could find a Line Contact / Shibata stylus for an Azden YM-P20/P50 cartridge? (an original P50VL would be lovely...)
thanks |
Hi Raul
thank you for your response.
Let me first say that from a pure listening (the ears rule) perspective, my vintage Quad ESL57's fed from my Quad303's are among the sweetest speakers I have ever heard. They do not extend far up or down - but the midrange is superb. I have also owned the 63's and 989's - so as a listener I am definitely of the religion that midrange comes first and damn the bass/treble if it affects the midrange.
Having said that - a certain stubborn perfectionist streak persists.... and Nirvana can only be achieved with perfectly linear response within the audible range... so the midrange must remain its beautiful self, and we need to refine, add, and do that which is required to complete the audio spectrum. (even if at my age I can no longer hear past 15k consciously.....)
Having recently received a stylus for my AT20SLa (ATN15ss)
I ran it through a measurement cycle (measured F/R using pink noise at 4 capacitances and 5 resistances - 20 combinations).
Then I take the data and plug it into an excel spreadsheet where I combine an electrical model, calibrated with the measured performance (to estimate the mechanical resonance) - and then interpolating from the measurements. Using this I can then use excels "solver" to try out an infinite series of possible R/C values in a search for the lowest possible variance in level within a given frequency range.
So far my best results (numerical modeling - no listening involved... as I am trying to winnow the possibilities down to 2 or 3 for listening) - this table shows the total variance in db for each capacitance/R combination (so +/-1db = variance of 2... etc...)
VAR VAR VAR VAR VAR VAR 1) 20 - 20K Hz 8.76 8.88 7.81 8.63 7.81 16.38 1) 30 - 18k Hz 5.89 5.98 5.36 5.80 5.36 12.69 1) 100 - 15kHz 2.94 2.94 2.37 2.90 2.48 6.04 1) 700 - 15kHz 1.72 1.76 1.26 1.68 1.27 6.04 1) 1k - 15kHz 1.71 1.76 1.26 1.68 1.05 6.04 1) 50 - 13kHz 3.07 3.07 3.07 3.07 3.07 4.83 1) 50 - 15kHz 3.07 3.07 3.07 3.07 3.07 6.69 PF Tot 76 58 409 104 380 100 R Tot 34 36 27 33 26 97
At no stage (even with limited frequency range) does a numerical approach start to point the way to 100/100 (I have included the 100/100 values for reference - or to be precise the 100/97)
Also as I have mentioned before there is a low end hump goin from 100Hz to 700Hz with a peak of around 1db around 300Hz... so this is factored into all the above measures when including that frequency range. (so far this is common to all the MM/MI's I have measured)
Cantilever resonance on the ATN15ss peaks at 22.5kHz but its influence goes all the way back to 6kHz. This is why getting the audible range flat seems to be best achieved with R <47k and C around 400pf.
What are other people's experiences with this cartridge?
(At 60pf/97kohm I measured +1.4db@10k, +5.5db@16k +9db@20k)
Is the issue perhaps that it has become fashionable to have a rising high end (in the style of many MC's)? And perhaps those makers that have pursued that profile have been most successful.... (hence the expiry of Technics/Matsushita in the cartridge game?)
In my search for a combination that achieves a flat linear response - I appear to be swimming upstream against the flow of audiophilia!
bye for now
David |
Hi Raul
I considered organising a calibrated Mic, and doing the whole end to end thing...
But room EQ is a whole different beast - and the associated psycho acoustics are critical. (so reflections delayed by a certain amount of time will not affect imaging, but do affect overall tone, etc...)
So I have left that aspect of the environment alone for now. I do a substantial amount of listening using headphones - as these are a very critical tool, but also because I share my home, and do not have a specialised listening room!
At this stage all my measurements are in a simple loop that has Cartridge/TT/Phono Stage and ADC (Analogue to Digital Converter). The ADC is connected via a 10m digital cable to my media PC, where I can then measure/analyse and manipulate the data.
I am absolutely certain that everything can be taken another notch up using Room EQ, but the amount of time and effort involved in this hobby is infinite and the amount of time I have available is strictly finite. (some time needs to be reserved for actual listening too....)
I have yet to do a full calibration test of the JLTI phono stage I am now using - I did this with my previous Creek stage... but so far have taken the JLTI on trust and reputation. At some point when I have an afternoon free I will test the JLTI (attenuated output from my DAC providing signal into the phono stage, output into my ADC for measurement)
My philosophy is to get each step in the chain as technically "right" as possible, so as to minimise the dependency on "synergy". (which I believe to be code for unintended equalisation in most cases!)
Once each part is as well set up as possible/viable - then final polishing is potentially provided using Digital EQ. (for room effects as well as for frequency response defects...)
Also once the signal goes digital it obviously needs to be kept that way until it comes out at the power amp....
bye for now
David |
Hi Raul,
I particularly like the idea of a self designed cartridge.
I have been disappointed somewhat by the SAS stylus - when I found the mechanical resonance to be within the audible HF range (13-17k Hz). (this being for a SAS M97xE stylus)
The original Shure V15VMR claimed a mechanical resonance at 33kHz, the Technics EPC-100 claimed a resonance above 50kHz... With mechanical resonance so high up, the audible range becomes predictable, and driven primarily by electrical parameters (inductance/capacitance) which are more easily controlled for an optimal result.
With this in mind I wonder whether any of the stylus/cantilever manufacturers out there provide specifications for the resonant frequency of their styli?
Has anyone measured some of the Soundsmith retip/recantilevers with the Ruby cantilever to identify their resonant frequency?
What do Expert Stylus Co. in the UK provide in the way of cantilever? (and VdH in Holland?)
Has anyone measured other alternative cantilevers ?
We have a wealth of superb cartridge generators available to us - most without styli. It is relatively easy to get hold of an AT15, or V15V, or 999 .... but getting the the ideal stylus for them is a whole different matter.
What are your thoughts on this? How would you approach the problem of the stylus/cantilever for your own cartridge design?
bye for now
David |
P.S. additionally and as an aside - I will shortly be testing the following Styli as well:
ATN15ss (Beryllium) ATN152LP (Beryllium)
It will be interesting to see what happens with these... the cartridges for which these were intended are mid inductance (450mH) although low inductance models were also available for both (350/370mH) - the measurements will tell the story.
bye for now
David |
Hi fleib/Neo
not offended by any means...
I measured the 1000e with SAS N97xE mounted (I also tested it on an Me105p and Me75p).
I measured it varying the resistance -10k/22k/46k/82k/100k ohm and the capacitance 60pf/250pf/420pf/535pf.
The electrical variances shift the electrical resonance - this is predictable and modelable. Those aspects of the performance that shift in frequency as the loading varies are electrical. The model is imperfect - and I am getting some variations from the model (a real world inductor does not quite behave the way a theoretical perfect inductor would - also the signal acts as an inductor biasing current, and in turn influences the output signal - so there are a range of areas still being investigated to understand why the electrical model is imperfect) - but overall the behaviour does follow the model - and the resonance rise, as well as the drop post resonance do reflect the model.
But there is part of the measured response which does not follow the electrical model, and it is freqency static.
ie: this resonance may vary somewhat in magnitude as the electrical damping is applied to it via the loading - but it's frequency does not shift with the loading.
This fact points to it being a mechanical and not an electrical phenomena.
Doing the same tests with Ortofon OM20, and AT440MLa (and others) shows similar interesting properties - the electrical behaviour again is very similar to the Shure/SAS (taking into account differing inductances etc...) but the Ortofon and the AT have their own differing resonance - which again is fixed in frequency. (identifying it as mechanical)
One might assume that the resonance is caused by something else in the TT system - but if this was the case a larger variance would be expected, and the frequency response charts, when compared to those published in audiophile publications, would differ. (ie the resonant flaws in my system would be visible when comparing the plots to those taken by other instruments). There is no variance - the overall F/R plots/profile are identical - the difference is that in my case I am taking the analysis further by calculating the difference between the theoretical electrical model and the actual performance - this difference exposes the low level non-linearities (caused by the flaws in the model) - but also the very high level resonances.
I have a strong feeling that different SAS styli may be tuned for different resonances (using the tension in the wire connecting the rear of the cantilever). And that Jico tunes this resonance to match it as closely as possible to the original manufacturers setup, as this is required to allow a cartridge to be relatively neutral at its specific recommended loadings. Without that I expect the results would be all over the place.
This I must stress is an assumption, and induction. The Boron with tension wire design of the SAS stylus should easily be capable of a resonant frequency well outside the audio range.
But if you mounted such a stylus onto a M97xE - a high inductance cartridge - the F/R profile would almost perfectly follow the electrical model. In an electrical model, with a high inductance cartridge at mid to high capacitance (the normal M97xE setup) your HF drops off dramatically and sharply quite early. - it would not sound Neutral at all - it would sound dull and wooly/warm.
Original Shure M97xE styli overcome this by having a mechanical resonance in the middle of the HF range, compensating for the electrical drop off, and resulting in a neutral albeit not very extended F/R.
Now if we look at the V15VMR - we have a low inductance cartridge, specified for low to low-mid capacitance - and we have the advertising info from Shure in the 80's/90's telling us that its mechanical resonance is around 33k. (it was never great for CD4.... and the mechanical resonance explains why - the resonant peak would generate phase anomalies right around the area of the HF carrier at 38k... it might work, but not an ideal design for CD4 - which is why Shure had a specialised CD4 cartridge....M24H)
Given resonance at 33k and a very flat F/R through low inductance and capacitance - one would expect a very flat and neutral F/R across the audible spectrum - and that is what all listeners tend to report.
People who have purchased the SAS VN5MR also report this result - which implies that the Jico VN5MR SAS has a different resonant frequency from the Jico N97xE SAS.
Unless someone is willing to loan me a SAS stylus for testing (one designed for an appropriate low inductance cartridge!) moving from inductive logic to actual measurement will have to wait till I bite the bullet and get a SAS for my V15V...
It also means that anyone considering a Jico SAS stylus for their cartridge (and there are many SAS styli availabel for many different cartridges!) - should assume that the stylus will be "tuned" to match that specific cartridge. - With all the potential flaws that this may entail.
In a perfect world, I would take a low inductance body, set it up in my low capacitance setup (60pf) - resulting in very very flat electrical response within the audio range - then request a SAS stylus with the resonance tuned as high up as possible.... and I would have my customised perfect cartridge.
In the real world, when you order a SAS it comes (I believe) tuned to match the tonal imperfections of the cartridge it is designed to mate with.
Bye for now
David |
I am at the point now where I can relatively quickly put together a good estimate of a stylus' mechanical resonance.
My conclusion is that a huge % if differences are down to this single parameter.
I have been unable to get a response from any cantilever/stylus maker with regards to any capability as to tuning and adjusting the mechanical resonance.
Having stated the above, there is no possible way an after market stylus can sound like the original unless it is a perfect copy. (including the detailed tuning of the suspension which adjusts the resonant frequency!)
You may like or dislike the sound of the aftermarket needle - some are good some are bad, some are excellent.
But once mounted on your cartridge you have created a "new" cartridge bearing no relationship (other than cosmetic) with the original.
I wish it were otherwise I really do - and I have an extensive collection of cartridges and styli now to show for the fact that I have been searching through a wide range of manufacturers and designs for information about this - but the real info is this:
The M-resonance is fixed in the construction of the stylus/suspension combo.
When the electrical parameters are then laid over this (and these include the cartridge loading) - you get the real life performance.
As a result- the original manufacturers loading recommendations are meaningless once you use a different needle.
Hard - but c'est la vie.
It also means that if you want to work to a recommended setup from a manufacturer - you better stick to original styli. - Otherwise it is ultra-tweak time, and you have to work through the process of determining optimal loading yourself - much as the manufacturer must do when designing a cartridge.
Bye for now
David
P.S. my signets and AT's for comparison now include TK4ep TK6ep and TK7SU (all without original styli... so I will be testing with ATN440MLa and ATN152LP) - AT150ea (also no stylus), AT440MLa, AT20SLa (with ATN15ss stylus) - I will at some point weigh into the comparison discussion but not quite yet.... first as per my comments above, I need to determine an optimum setup for each cartridge with my available styli - then I will be able to start comparing various cartridges using the same stylus.... |
Hi Raul
thanks for the response
I have a stylusless Z1, I believe the body may be compatible with X1 styli (not sure)
I came across an X2 stylus going cheap so I picked it up.... now I need to find a cartridge to go with it.
As an aside - Jico are making SAS styli (as well as Shibata) for the Z1, X1, and X2....
So there may be great potential in these...
bye for now
David |
Hi Folks,
A question and a request...
1) has anyone listened to the classic Quad JVC cartridges - the X-1 and X-2 (and their baby brother the Z-1)? I have heard occasional mention of these as top cartridges but they appear to be sleepers.
These seem to have been Native JVC cartridges as opposed to JVC badged AT's. (or I may not be aware of the equivalent AT's?)
I have a Z-1 but no stylus I have a X-2 stylus but no cartridge.
Which brings me to the second item 2) Does anyone know where I might find a X-2 cartridge ?
bye for now
David |
Timeltel, you talked about analysing Square Waves in evaluating phono stages...
What tools did you use for the analysis?
Have you looked at similar analysis for cartridges?
This is one of the ways of looking at both impulse response and phase response... but it requires the right test track, and the right analytic software...
I do have at least one record with a square wave track - but need to find a way to analyse it!
thanks
David |
Hi Folks
Halcro in your postings about the AT7V and the ATN155LC you asked about the reason for the differences between styli and the concomittant need for loading adjustments....
I've been thinking of writing a lot of this down.... an article for somewhere perhaps.
But taking a shot at it here and on the fly!
First the needles ability to follow the groove varies by shape and particularly by side radius... this will change the distortion levels (and some of that distortion may contribute to "enhancements" at certain frequencies)... but will not for the most part affect the fundamental "sound" of the stylus (in other words it affects fine details but not overall tone).
The cantilever is very much more critical: 1) it is the prime contributor to effective mass - and the lower the total effective mass, the better both tracking and high frequency becomes - this is however another "detail" aspect.
2) Mechanical Resonance and Damping thereof - this is the core and hub of the matter - the tone/sound of a stylus is fundamentally driven by this! The frequency response of the stylus will be altered by the resonance, and by the damping (and suspension - which is part of the damping) used. The Ortofon Ortophase article has graphs showing 4 different cantilever setups on an Ortofon MC200 cartridge - minimula/no damping through to heavily damped. This affects the amplitude frequency response as well as the phase frequency response substantially. Many of the cartridges regarded as "the best" have their resonances placed well outside the audio range (EPC100 well over 50kHz, Shure V15V 33kHz to 35k Hz)
Placing the resonance that high ensures that the stylus and cantilever can respond in a (relatively) pure linear way within the audio band... and a close to linear way well above the audio band.
Coming back to earth, and considering some styli I have measured....
The AT440MLa has a nice stylus and cantilever, but the mechanical resonance is spread from about 13kHz to 17kHz - the wide spread and "double peak" pattern of that resonance appears to indicate quite heavy use of damping... (internal to cantilever? - different materials in the suspension? not sure...) - Keep in mind that damping also does terrible things to phase linearity.... and these are difficult to measure or pin down subjectively...
So the ATN440MLa stylus has a tone which is driven by the raised area across the high frequencies - and the fact that this raised area is spread across a relatively wide frequency range.
Moving to the ATN15/20SS - with the beryllium cantilever... The mechanical resonance is just barely outside the audible area (21k to 23k) but the rise to that peak has an influence down to around 15kHz. because the peak is outside the audio area, it doesn't need to be damped so heavily - so the peak it much higher than the ATN440MLa peak, but its influence at 20kHz is only a touch more than the height of the ATN440MLa's peak - and by the time you get down to 16kHz the influence is negligible, where the ATN440MLa is at it's maximum influence around that frequency area.
The ATN15/20ss therefore sounds much more inherently neutral as a result (its midrange is well outside the influence of the resonance - where the ATN440Mla resonance influence extends down to 8kHz or perhaps even 5kHz)
3) Loading: given a rise at the extreme high end, on the ATN20ss stylus - Neutral results require a load that drops off in an inverse relationship to the rise, resulting in a relatively flat frequency response. - This drop off needs to start quite late - so low capacitance and inductance is important, and avoiding high R loads as these may raise the high end exacerbating the already raised fundamental cantilever performance.
By contrast the ATN440MLa needs to have a rolloff that starts earlier as its own peak starts earlier - so different capacitance - and a lower R loading to keep from adding a rise in those frequencies...
You can see that these two cantilevers will have very different "sounds" - their fundamental frequency response is very different - and therefore the right loading to provide a flat F/R is different - the loading must match the stylus - not the cartridge! (the cartridge is of course a factor)
Now the cartridge - in the past I have said the cartridge has the least impact - which I still hold to, but they are interesting beasts too... Cartridge electrical frequency response is NOT linear A cartridge is a coil/magnet system much like a transformer, and suffers from increasing inefficiency as frequency rises. The quality of the materials and construction will affect the level of inefficiency - as will voltage levels & frequencies involved.
What I am observing is that when looking closely at cartridge frequency response, all cartridges have a response peak in the lower mid/high bass region (between 150Hz and 300Hz) and then response shows a consistent downwards slope thereafter. The angle of that downwards slope is most likely related to the effectiveness/efficiency of the construction. This means that all magnetic cartridges tend to have a slight bass "hump" (the "warmth" of vinyl) and then a midrange slump. Many cartridges then use a combination of electrical and mechanical resonance to "fill out" that drop. (there is also a much more dramatic drop when the LCR response shoulder is reached...) The better the quality of construction/design, the lower the slope angle - and the less need there is to use resonances to fill things out. (and therefore top end cartridges tend to push the resonances further out... because they can!) You can easily plot the Inductance, Capacitance, Resistance frequency response of a cartridge, and then you can experiment with differing values of C & R which will show how the response can be tailored- high end can be raised or lowered, a peak can be induced, and the shoulder after which performance drops rapidly can be shifted back or forwards in frequency.
When you change styli - the cantilever F/R is different, and to balance it out, you then need to adjust the capacitance and resistance, to change the cartridge curve to properly match the cantilever curve and provide a "flat" frequency response..... so it is definitely stylus driven - not cartridge. Using a different model form the same manufacturer, or using a stylus from an after market manufacturer - regardless of its quality - will require a change to the loading.
Another example - a Shure M97xE will tend to sound best at 62k with its original stylus, but tends to sound best at 47k with the SAS N97xE stylus...
Other cartridge related thoughts: A cartridge is a self biasing environment - applying a voltage to the cartridge changes its frequency response (marginally but still changes!). There are some discussions on VE about the possibility of phono stages providing some biasing voltage... But the important thing to consider is that the signal produced - the music itself - is in fact a bias current, affecting the frequency response.
Keeping in mind that I am not a physicist or Electrical engineer.... but I believe that this biasing influence is non linear with voltage - that is to say, at lower voltages and inductances the influence of the sound may be proportionally reduced. The advantage of LO systems may in fact be the improved linearity due to reduced self biasing influence. This may also be one of the reasons why many of the higher quality styli have a lower output (along with having lighter magnets to reduce effective mass...). Lower inductances tend to push electrical resonances further up the frequency range (good!) - but may also be shifting to a range where self biasing is also reduced....
In any case - coming back to the point... yes - loading follows stylus... Switching AT cartridge bodies allows experiments with differing inductances and the same styli... the overall "sound" follows the stylus. Differences tend to be driven first by the stylus - then beyond that there are the differences driven by the various types of non-linearities and the effectiveness of the designs in coping with them - areas where some people may not even hear a difference.
bye for now
David |
Hi Raul,
noted your comments about RIAA accuracy...
This brings to mind the question of what is the RIAA encoding accuracy of the standard lathes used for cutting the masters?
Not that there is justification for varying from the standard... and doing so involves every increasing risks (in terms of reproducing the recording).
But I do wonder, what are the RIAA margins of error in the mastering process, and therefore what is a reasonable margin of error to aim for in reproduction?
No point sweating over 0.0005% if the mastering error is within 2%... But if mastering error is within 0.001% then ideally you would want reproduction within the same order of magnitude or better!
bye for now
David |
Thanks for that link Timeltel...
An excellent article - and valuable as much for its inherent content as for its references...
I need to try to track down Hallgren's "RLT" parameter - I have been kludging this in my model, but if that reference leads me to something a bit more scientific than my approach that would be great!
Right now I measure the loss slope with excel apply it back as an adjustment factor to the cartridge model - once done for a cartridge, it improves the accuracy of the model across all the possible loadings for that cartridge markedly. (makes it much easier to decide on an optimal loading - and to reduce the number of options that get listened to)
Some of the stuff in there is a bit too technical for me (like I said - I'm not an EE!) - but I get the impression that in the discussion of cartridge/phono stage interaction, there is also the possibility of certain loads (too high? too low?) causing additional distortion and non-linearity...
This is a factor I have never considered! Is this common? - Quite a few of you are designing and building your own phono stages - is this a concern, and should this be considered when choosing the load for a cartridge? - Or is this in fact something which post this article and ongoing developments became merely a footnote in history, not a concern for phono stages post 1980 (?).
In any case an excellent article covering a lot of the limitations and inter-related variables of cartridges... good stuff!
bye for now
David |
Hi Fleib,
with regards to damping, the type of damping I am talking about is within the stylus mount - direct cantilever damping, as opposed to cartridge body damping...
Which means that when you exchange styli on you AT440MLa to a beryllium ML tip (155LC? 152?) you are changing the cantilever damping as well... - and of course the compliance is another cantilever suspension parameter - so placing an AT-7V stylus on an AT440MLa would obviouly give the AT440MLa the compliance of the AT-7V.
With regards to square waves, I was hoping to find some software suggestions that would analyse the square wave by FFT, breaking it down into its component parts to allow identification of its component parts... ie: rather than looking at the square wave on an oscilloscope (I have software oscilloscopes), come back with data on that square wave in terms of phase/frequency, rise time/slew rate and distortion...
Hi Pryso,
thank you for that link - an interesting article- particularly the part about the saccule. It is clear that the presence of ultrasonic sound can be perceived.
What is not clear and is hotly debated is to what degree the perception of that ultrasonic sound is direct perception of the utrasonics themselves, or indirect perception of the intermodulation artifacts of the ultrasonics which are in turn within the audible range.
Several other problems exist too - Ultrasonics are incredibly "beamy" the beam from an ultrasonic tweeter is incredibly narrow - and the appropriate "sweet spot" is therefore very narrow too. Reproduction and effective use in a stereo (if warranted which is by no means certain!) - is problematic. (although there have been experiments in it)
The commonly accepted approach to ultrasonics (which various research groups are researching... and may in due course change) is that 1) there is definitely ultrasonic components to many many instruments, 2) These are (primarily?) perceived through the intermodulation of these frequencies with other frequencies present at the time of recording, producing IM that is within the audible range, 3) Reproducing the original ultrasonics in a stereo system is doubly problematic as it invites a secondary IM of the recorded ultrasonics with the reproduced music - the resulting IM being another form of distortion.
Further problems exist! - An analysis of many different forms of amplifiers, recorders, and other electronic equipment used in the audio chain, will frequently show ultrasonic distortion or simply RF pickup of various forms - even when nothing is being played back. The recording/playback chain is not usually designed to cater to ultrasound, and therefore this range is not kept "clean" and "noise free" - hence there is frequent use of HF filtering to clean up the "grunge" - which otherwise can affect the primary audio signal through IM (within the electronics).
Personally I know that with my own recordings, an analysis of the frequencies above 20kHz always shows the system picking up various signals that are clearly not related the recording (I can unplug the input and they are still there!) - their levels are lowish (below -60db) but would be considered unacceptable within the audio range. The signals vary by time of day, and perhaps other conditions ie: it is not clear whether they are products of radio interference or carried by the powerline (even though I run power fitering) I get better results in an audible sense, by filtering above 20kHz - which I do in the digital domain, after recording.... but I believe another level of improvement is possible by moving the filtering to prior to the ADC, and therefore taking a part of the spectrum away from the ADC to facilitate more accurate reproduction of the audio spectrum, (this would need to be done keeping in mind phase issues - so a gentle slope analogue filter?)
An interesting topic.... LP's can certainly have signals well beyond 20kHz, and a well pressed LP can have reasonable level material through to 50kHz without a problem. But whether the material above 20kHz SHOULD be reproduced is quite a different question - and the reproductive tools we have available - the entire chain in point of fact- is designed only for and around the audio range. Although some components have extended frequency response, this is usually claimed and published as a means of demonstrating that the more limited audio range is therefore clean and linear as the device can perform well outside that range. We have not even discussed the limitations in the vast majority of microphones...
bye for now
David |
Hi Halcro,
I don't think that is right....
I think that the resonance is definitely an issue, and a good starting point in terms of enabling effective tracking.
The better engineered the arm the more it will facilitate and enable configurations that are further from the optimum - but that does not change what the optimum is likely to be.
A good mid-heavy arm with fluid damping can easily handle many high compliance cartridges.... But would a light-mid arm with fluid damping do better?
The problem is with absolutes - there aren't any! - these systems are highly complex and there are plentiful outriders on the statistical curves of effective combinations.
But if one is talking about recommendations for the average user - rules of thumb, then in statistical terms one is talking about 2Sigma of the bell curve - 94% of the turntable users.... Those users will be using classic hand me down turntables, a random mix of various mass produced products, with little or no knowledge or experience to base decisions on.
The rules of thumb very much apply to these people! If arm is light - use a high compliance cartridge If arm is heavy - use a low compliance cartridge Shure Damper brush cartriges are handy as they are flexible
The outliers - which is where many if not most of the people on this thread reside - are/represent less than 6% of the TT users - in actual fact I would argue they represent less than 1%. An influential 1% as we get called on for advice... and sometimes that 1% can generate new trends, movements. (The great return of MM cartridge has begun.... ) But we do need those rules of thumb to help neophytes with.
To reiterate - I sincerely doubt that the arms used by many of the contributors here, are representative of the marketplace and the average user - their tracking ability is far greater than the average.
The rules of thumb used for most TT's/arms/cartridges therefore break down at this level.... this does not make them invalid. (it merely demonstrates that they are indeed "rules of thumb")
bye for now
David |
Dertonearm...
Please do not limit your explanation for the success of some high mass arms with high compliance cartridge to PM's...
We are here a forum discussing specifically MM cartridges many if not most of which are high compliance - and in an environment where many (perhaps most?) arms are high (higher?) mass... this is very relevant and valued input.
bye for now
David |
Hi Folks,
I am the new caretaker for Travbrows TK9/ATN25...
So it is staying "in the family"... rather looking forward to it... I actually had not conneted the dots in my mind between username here and ebay seller name (which are the same!).
It went for a reasonable price, and I could not resist.... (a terrible weakness I have...) I can resist anything except temptation.
bye for now
David |
There was also a remark about the Stanton Pickering LOMM carts...
I would be interested in peoples comments as I am about to start testing one - would be good to compare notes...
bye for now
David |
Raul,
With regards to your comment of a TOTL cartridge working best with its intended stylus.
With the greatest of respect I disagree.
At the manufacturer recommended loading - this will be partially true - but the loadings are always limited by market forces (47k / 100k are the only options, and in later periods 47k only)
From my own testing, I think that any blend of stylus and cartridge can be optimised using both C and R loading, and that the end results are primarily (90%+) dependent on the stylus.
With sufficiently low C, higher inductance designs can be given the same performance parameters as lower inductance designs....
When we are talking the last 5% of a cartridges performance potential - details of construction of the cartridge body will start to make a difference, as will firmness of stylus mounting... but cartridge loading will easily overwhelm all of these in terms of its impact.
On a related topic... I was recently looking at early 80's reviews of TOTL cartridges - all were showing square wave plots. All the MC's showed overshoot and ringing, but the waveform was very square. The MM's showed well controlled overshoot and relatively minimal ringing - but the waveform was somewhat curved.
A test of a Talisman IIIs cartridge, showed that increasing the capacitance on this MC cartridge, reduced the overshoot and the ringing (on a cartridge with negligible inductance!).
Are there similar phenomena to be found in MM cartridges?
Are there transient response issues that can be adjusted using loading on an MM?
The frequency response adjustments using loading are very clear - not so for transients!
bye for now
David |
Hi Guys,
yes when talking about the "stylus" I am talking about the entire removeable unit on a typical MM / MI setup
That is to say the needle itself, the cantilever, the suspension and the damping...
Although the needle affects the levels of distortion and detail extracted from the groove, it doesn't so much affect the sound... The cantilever/suspension/damping is the key to that!
I consider them as a single unit, because I am not willing to take the risks involved in attempting actual direct cantilever and suspension modifications - or the transfer of cantilever/suspension to alternate styli.... this is beyond me (at least for now) - so I treat the units as an integral whole.
When considering the "building blocks" of a turntable setup, I therefore consider the Stylus unit to be the single most critical aspect.
The needle will define the detail and distortion limitations, cantilever and suspension will define mechanical resonance - and damping will in turn modify the resonance - the resonance, and its damping will in turn influence phase and transient behaviour.
Most MM /MI bodies of standard output (ie not the very low output Pickering XLZ/Stanton 980LZ - but most others) - can be configured to very similar electrical performance.... - so the transfer of an ATN440MLa stylus to a TK6Ep cartridge carries the "character" of the AT440MLa with it.
Hi Timeltel - I actually agree that once the overall sound has been handled with loading, then detail aspects like the wire types, cartridge construction, damping internally within the cartridge, firm stylus mounting (blue-tack, glue) - etc... start to get their chance to make a difference. The more you get sorted, the more it exposes the remaining flaws.... which is one of the aspects that give this hobby its charm.
On your other comment about critically damped response - I understand how to achieve this with the electrical system. However within a cartridges mechanical system this is only possible by modifying the damping and suspension of the cantilever - mechanical mods I am just not willing to do. (call me chicken...)
Also it is easy enough to "flatten" the frequency response using either analoge EQ circuits or Digital Linear EQ. BUT - this will not repair the phase anomalies generated by the resonance and its damping. And there is not way of correcting them without being able to measure them - which is not readily viable.
So we need to strive to select styli and configurations that minimise the phase anomalies - because once they have happened, there is not much we can do about them. (unlike F/R amplitude anomalies that we can correct far more easily)
I have been on the hunt for low inductance design cartridges for this very reason.... (which I will explain) A low inductance cartridge makes it almost impossible on a standard configuration (47k, 100-400pf) to generate an electrical resonance - so electrical resonance tends not to be used as a corrective mechanism for the amplitude F/R.
Without this corrective mechanism - and with the typical very linear extended F/R provided by a low inductance setup - there is nowhere to hide a mechanical resonance - so the Stylus designs tend towards designs that push the mechanical resonance beyond the audible zone. This ensures that the phase anomalies are also pushed beyond the resonant zone.
So there is therefore the potential for providing performance which is linear in both amplitude and phase...
Lots of guessing going on here.
So far what I have that I have measured is an ADC SuperXLM - inductance around 280mH - not really low enough - but the concept works - stylus resonance is somewhere between 21k and 23k - so it still impinges on the audible area, but to a more limited degree.
Today I received a Pickering XLZ-7500-S - with what appears to be a good condition stylus (!) - with inductance of 1mH, resitance of 3 ohm and output similar to a LOMC - I expect that it will support my theses .... I will know more in a few days.
Other cartridges of interest would be the Technics EPC100 (33mH - too expensive nowadays...), AT22/23/24/25-TK9/10 family (88mH - on its way to me now!).
My first try at this was the Grado - which at 50mH is right in there - but its electro-magnetic design is such as to make it difficult to seperate electrical from mechanical response, and therefore it does not help in shedding light on things (not to mention being more difficult to optimise).
Raul - In amplitude F/R terms I can see the purpose of capacitance.... in phase terms I consider it risky - if not critically damped that is. The other thing that I do not yet understand is the transient response and how various things affect it. I can now relatively easily optimise a cartridge for flattest F/R possible while maintaining critical electrical damping. It appears that capacitance might be a factor however in controlling ringing and overshoot (as mentioned in my previous post) - ie improving transient response - this I need to get a handle on now... A step at a time.
Bye for now
David
p.s. I should probably clean up the model and publish it out to those who are interested... it is after all just an excel spreadsheet! |
Fleib - I hear what you are saying... and I will try it out experimentally.
I have a LOMM (XLZ) and currently a matching HOMM (XSV) - and can customise their loading to match!
Same design house, using same cartridge, in same turntable, with same stylus, comparing high output vs low output...
At this stage I am not convinced - but this may change.
One of my reasons for getting the XLZ was the hope of finding a stylus with mechanical resonance well outside the audio range... which I can then also use in a HO body as well.
I believe the phase anomalies common to most MM setups - caused by resonances within the audible range - are to blame for the rounded square waves - they may also have something to do with that "live" sound. - After all real music includes very complex waveforms not just sine waves - and the flaw in the reproduction of square waves indicates something....
I note that on the Ortofon link, 2 measurements are ignored... transient response and phase response. Probably not relevant to the production process?
bye for now
David |
Honestly I see no reason why a MM cannot achieve ultra low mass - the Technics EPC100 series achieved effective stylus mass of 0.055g - which I think is the lowest I have seen...
Inductance was 33mH.
I am not yet convinced about the need for hyper low inductance (a la LOMC) - but am in the process of setting up a Pickering XLZ7500S - maybe it will convince me otherwise.
I figure you need sufficiently low inductance to linearise and facilitate the 20-20k range with no phase or amplitude anomalies.
Then comes the other side of the balance - higher voltage = reduced noise and problems in the amplification parts of the setup. - So rather than drop below a certain point, you might aim for a slightly higher inductance in exchange for higher voltage. (ie more turns in the coil...)
The Technics EPC100 is a perfect example of MM taken to the max.
The B&O and Soundsmith series similarly take MI to the max
Do we really need Low Output ? What is really gained by it?
In MC's I understand it, you can lighten the cantilever by reducing the weight of the coil... makes perfect sense.
But on a MM or MI - what do you really gain by reducing the coil?
bye for now
David |
Travbrow - I was by no means making any negative comments.... the cartridge is superb, as is that stylus. I was making comments about the confusion out on the web with regards to what type of tip the ATn25 should have...
The cartridge is a corker - really fabulous sound.
Lewm - I calculated compliance by working backwards... 1) Calculate "real" effective mass of the arm by weighing the CW, Headshell, cartridge and fixings, as well as naked armtube at horizontal. - Then use the appropriate formulae (Luckydog made it easy for me by building his spreadsheet available at: www.luckydog.demon.co.uk/images/EMC.xls - I did do something similar in my own spreadsheet, but LD's effort was much slicker!) - and calculate the Total Effective Mass 2) Record the low frequency sweep from HFN Test record, and run it through an FFT RTA to identify and plot the peak response - peak was found to be 5.9Hz 3) Use the 5.9Hz + Tonearm mass in the relevant formulae to reverse calculate the (vertical) compliance.
I also noted that the damping on the JVC servo arm when enabled reduced the resonant peak from +4db to +1db - I could potentially increase the damping but I left it at that... a 3db improvement is not to be sneezed at! I will measure again when I experiment with headshells...
Given the level of sound I am getting from it, this is one that I would definitely look to retip in a future where the eliptical is worn out.... This baby deserves nothing but the best.
I will post more comments on its performance and comparisons in the near future - I have been doing some initial comparisons with my Shure 1000e-N97xE-SAS and the Shure is by no means shamed - in fact it shows its strength particularly with tonal presentation of the lower midrange - details for the Shure are mid stage, where for the TK9 they are front stage - the TK9 is "sweeter" with better seperation - both in terms of stereo effect/soundstage and space, but also in terms of identifying individual notes and harmonics in a mix - also the decay of notes seems more authentic. But with woodies, everything from Oboe/Clarinet, Double Bass to Piano - the lower midrange wood tones come through better on the Shure.... is the Shure accentuating them unrealistically? - Is the TK9 unrealistically depressing that frequency range? - Hard to tell, but the Piano in one piece sounded like a different piano... on the TK9e it sounded more "Japanese" (Yamaha) and on the Shure it sounded more "European". On critical listening I think the Shure was not tracking at its best and I may have to readjust it - perhaps also try it without the damping brush in use (it is theoretically redundant in any case given the arm damping)
Bye for now
David |
Hi Lewm,
Yes - I was channeling "Audio Golem" - I have been a fan of the Lord of the Rings books since first reading them in the mid 70's... and with a name like Sussuro... how could I resist!
With regards to the conflation of low inductance and low output - "It ain't necessarily so" (Paul Robeson version)
Lowering inductance from the 800mH that some cartridges use has definite tangible benefits...
But you soon start reaching the point of reducing returns, and at some point reducing the inductance further no longer improves things, Once you reach that stage, you start increasing the problems/issues in the amplification stage by continuing to lower output, while no longer gaining tangible benefits from lower induction.
The Shure V15 is around 330mH, ADC SuperXLM 250mH, Signet TK9/10 88mH, Technics EPC100 33mH.
All of these are traditional High Output designs (output above 1mV@5cm/s) - and all of these are highly regarded top flight MM / MI designs.
In marketing terms, there are myths that can be leveraged by selling a LO MM/MI - but in engineering terms, I am not convinced that a true advantage exists. But I am open to being convinced!
bye for now
David |
Sussuro.... my precious.... (licks cartridge.... gently cuddles it against his cheek....).... pressssioussss..... |