Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Andrew Haley Andrew Haley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default Moving-coil cartridges

I know that moving-coil cartridges are much loved by the hi-fi press
and by many audiophiles. I also know that there are many claims about
the performance of cartridges, but there doesn't seem to be much in
the way of measurements available.

So, I'm wondering if there is any actual technical information
available that compares moving-coil and other designs. I've done a
web search and while opinions are plentiful, facts are pretty thin on
the ground. It's fair enough to prefer one cartridge over another,
but are any of the new moving-coil cartridges objectively more
accurate than, say, a V15? Or does no-one bother actually measuring
any more?

Thanks,
Andrew.
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Harry Lavo Harry Lavo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default Moving-coil cartridges

"Andrew Haley" wrote in message
...
I know that moving-coil cartridges are much loved by the hi-fi press
and by many audiophiles. I also know that there are many claims about
the performance of cartridges, but there doesn't seem to be much in
the way of measurements available.

So, I'm wondering if there is any actual technical information
available that compares moving-coil and other designs. I've done a
web search and while opinions are plentiful, facts are pretty thin on
the ground. It's fair enough to prefer one cartridge over another,
but are any of the new moving-coil cartridges objectively more
accurate than, say, a V15? Or does no-one bother actually measuring
any more?

Thanks,
Andrew.


This isn't going to satisfy you, I am sure....but in answer to your question
"are any of the new moving-coil cartridges objectively more
accurate than, say, a V15?" If you value transparency and "you are there"
realism, the answer is yes...from many of them. And they don't have to be
new....my thirty year old Accuphase AC-2 playing through a modified Marcof
battery-driven headamp beats the pants off the Shure...and my old and
beloved ADC XLII ... and any Grado I've heard.

Back when measurements were common, the most distinquishing characteristics
of the better moving coils was a much faster rise time, with a very quick
cycle of overshoot and the a steady "top" to the square wave. By comparison
the moving magnets and moving irons generally had much slower rise times and
overly dampened transient response due to rolled off hghs (and that included
the V15). So the moving coils simply sounded more lifelike and "real"
(read: less "canned") when reproducing actual music. You heard this not
only in the featured instruments, but also in the amount of room ambience
caught that lent separation, body, and dimensionality to the reproduction.

Not objective enough for you? I'd suggest a library visit into the High
Fidelity and Audio magazine libraries, circa late sixties - early eighties.

  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] sorabji666@att.net is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Moving-coil cartridges

Harry Lavo wrote:

Back when measurements were common, the most distinquishing characteristics
of the better moving coils was a much faster rise time, with a very quick
cycle of overshoot and the a steady "top" to the square wave. By comparison
the moving magnets and moving irons generally had much slower rise times and
overly dampened transient response due to rolled off hghs (and that included
the V15). So the moving coils simply sounded more lifelike and "real"
(read: less "canned") when reproducing actual music. You heard this not
only in the featured instruments, but also in the amount of room ambience
caught that lent separation, body, and dimensionality to the reproduction.

Not objective enough for you? I'd suggest a library visit into the High
Fidelity and Audio magazine libraries, circa late sixties - early eighties.


Almost all moving coil cartridges have a rising top end response
deviating from flat, with a peak at tip resonance, which is why they
have the square wave response you described. Most of them are better
than they used to be in this respect, but this characteristic still
exists. The V15 is relatively flat in comparison. Do you know how to
interpret square waves? From your comments, you know just enough to be
misrepresentative.

Have you actually measured any cartridges? I've measured quite a few of
them with much better resolution than what was published in the rags of
which you speak. It's not hard. This is 2009. You're at the mercy of
the test record, but when the same characteristics show up with several
different test records, one can draw some fairly reasonable conclusions.
You can also draw reasonable conclusions about the test records
themselves by comparing them with a cartridge that can be shown to be
relatively flat.

To rational people, it's really more important that the cartridge have
flat response for frequencies that are actually physically audible.
Sure, MC's usually can go out higher. But it's because of the rising
top end in the audible range. That's why they usually sound different
too. Turning up the treble control from flat on an amplifier generally
does the same thing. Some people like this. I don't. Recordings
usually have way too much high frequency information in the first place
because of the unfortunate practice microscopic miking. But many
audiophiles seem to like this. It also keeps the biz going by churning
the market.

What I say here is pretty much the same thing as Robert Greene says in
your beloved Absolute Sound rag and on his mailing list. At least
someone is telling some truths there. Those darned mathematicians... ;-)

All this doesn't mean you can't like MC cartridges personally. Enjoy
them if you wish, but please - don't pass them off as more accurate
except within your own personal preferences.

  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Moving-coil cartridges

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:27:10 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Andrew Haley" wrote in message
...
I know that moving-coil cartridges are much loved by the hi-fi press
and by many audiophiles. I also know that there are many claims about
the performance of cartridges, but there doesn't seem to be much in
the way of measurements available.

So, I'm wondering if there is any actual technical information
available that compares moving-coil and other designs. I've done a
web search and while opinions are plentiful, facts are pretty thin on
the ground. It's fair enough to prefer one cartridge over another,
but are any of the new moving-coil cartridges objectively more
accurate than, say, a V15? Or does no-one bother actually measuring
any more?

Thanks,
Andrew.


This isn't going to satisfy you, I am sure....but in answer to your question
"are any of the new moving-coil cartridges objectively more
accurate than, say, a V15?" If you value transparency and "you are there"
realism, the answer is yes...from many of them. And they don't have to be
new....my thirty year old Accuphase AC-2 playing through a modified Marcof
battery-driven headamp beats the pants off the Shure...and my old and
beloved ADC XLII ... and any Grado I've heard.

Back when measurements were common, the most distinquishing characteristics
of the better moving coils was a much faster rise time, with a very quick
cycle of overshoot and the a steady "top" to the square wave. By comparison
the moving magnets and moving irons generally had much slower rise times and
overly dampened transient response due to rolled off hghs (and that included
the V15). So the moving coils simply sounded more lifelike and "real"
(read: less "canned") when reproducing actual music. You heard this not
only in the featured instruments, but also in the amount of room ambience
caught that lent separation, body, and dimensionality to the reproduction.

Not objective enough for you? I'd suggest a library visit into the High
Fidelity and Audio magazine libraries, circa late sixties - early eighties.


Measurements for cartridges don't really tell you much. Sure, they can show
frequency response, square-wave response, ringing, output level, compliance,
tracking ability, distortion, etc., etc., etc. But none of these tells you
how the cartridge will sound. In this regard, cartridges are much like
speakers. While measurements can tell one a lot about speakers, ultimately,
you have to listen. Same with cartridges.
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Moving-coil cartridges

"Andrew Haley" wrote in message
...

I know that moving-coil cartridges are much loved by the hi-fi press
and by many audiophiles. I also know that there are many claims about
the performance of cartridges, but there doesn't seem to be much in
the way of measurements available.


There have been measurements of them in the past. They generally don't
measure out to be very accurate. But playing vinyl in general is not usually
about accuracy.

Objectively, vinyl playback is very inaccurate, something that just about
everybody was aware of in the day. If you ever heard the HS master tapes
that LPs were made from, you knew that putting music on vinyl was a step
backward from accuracy, musicality, enjoyability, you name it.

The #1 problem in cartridge design is minimizing moving mass while
providing appropriate durability and rigidity.

So, I'm wondering if there is any actual technical information
available that compares moving-coil and other designs.


The challenge has always been to make a couple of coils of wire less massy
than an iron reluctor or a small magnet.

I've done a
web search and while opinions are plentiful, facts are pretty thin on
the ground. It's fair enough to prefer one cartridge over another,
but are any of the new moving-coil cartridges objectively more
accurate than, say, a V15?


Not that I'm aware of.

Or does no-one bother actually measuring any more?


It's very easy to do with a computer and a good test record. I would have
done it long ago for some MC cartridges but I don't have access to any.




  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Harry Lavo Harry Lavo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default Moving-coil cartridges

wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote:

Back when measurements were common, the most distinquishing
characteristics of the better moving coils was a much faster rise time,
with a very quick cycle of overshoot and the a steady "top" to the square
wave. By comparison the moving magnets and moving irons generally had
much slower rise times and overly dampened transient response due to
rolled off hghs (and that included the V15). So the moving coils simply
sounded more lifelike and "real" (read: less "canned") when reproducing
actual music. You heard this not only in the featured instruments, but
also in the amount of room ambience caught that lent separation, body,
and dimensionality to the reproduction.

Not objective enough for you? I'd suggest a library visit into the High
Fidelity and Audio magazine libraries, circa late sixties - early
eighties.


Almost all moving coil cartridges have a rising top end response deviating
from flat, with a peak at tip resonance, which is why they have the square
wave response you described. Most of them are better than they used to be
in this respect, but this characteristic still exists. The V15 is
relatively flat in comparison. Do you know how to interpret square waves?
From your comments, you know just enough to be misrepresentative.

Have you actually measured any cartridges? I've measured quite a few of
them with much better resolution than what was published in the rags of
which you speak. It's not hard. This is 2009. You're at the mercy of
the test record, but when the same characteristics show up with several
different test records, one can draw some fairly reasonable conclusions.
You can also draw reasonable conclusions about the test records themselves
by comparing them with a cartridge that can be shown to be relatively
flat.

To rational people, it's really more important that the cartridge have
flat response for frequencies that are actually physically audible. Sure,
MC's usually can go out higher. But it's because of the rising top end in
the audible range. That's why they usually sound different too. Turning
up the treble control from flat on an amplifier generally does the same
thing. Some people like this. I don't. Recordings usually have way too
much high frequency information in the first place because of the
unfortunate practice microscopic miking. But many audiophiles seem to
like this. It also keeps the biz going by churning the market.

What I say here is pretty much the same thing as Robert Greene says in
your beloved Absolute Sound rag and on his mailing list. At least someone
is telling some truths there. Those darned mathematicians... ;-)

All this doesn't mean you can't like MC cartridges personally. Enjoy them
if you wish, but please - don't pass them off as more accurate except
within your own personal preferences.


Frankly, of when I spoke twenty-five years ago, MC's WERE more accurate.
The rising resonance was generally out in the 25khz-35khz range and up to
about 15khz, they wee flat. The moving irons, however, were very
capacitive-sensative and in most preamps rolled off audibly, starting as low
as 8-10Khz.

An MC that was underdamped or badly designed would ring like crazy....the
best only one major overshoot. The moving irons couldn't get out of their
own way...no matter how the measured they simply didn't sound "live".

  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Harry Lavo Harry Lavo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default Moving-coil cartridges

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:27:10 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Andrew Haley" wrote in message
...
I know that moving-coil cartridges are much loved by the hi-fi press
and by many audiophiles. I also know that there are many claims about
the performance of cartridges, but there doesn't seem to be much in
the way of measurements available.

So, I'm wondering if there is any actual technical information
available that compares moving-coil and other designs. I've done a
web search and while opinions are plentiful, facts are pretty thin on
the ground. It's fair enough to prefer one cartridge over another,
but are any of the new moving-coil cartridges objectively more
accurate than, say, a V15? Or does no-one bother actually measuring
any more?

Thanks,
Andrew.


This isn't going to satisfy you, I am sure....but in answer to your
question
"are any of the new moving-coil cartridges objectively more
accurate than, say, a V15?" If you value transparency and "you are
there"
realism, the answer is yes...from many of them. And they don't have to
be
new....my thirty year old Accuphase AC-2 playing through a modified
Marcof
battery-driven headamp beats the pants off the Shure...and my old and
beloved ADC XLII ... and any Grado I've heard.

Back when measurements were common, the most distinquishing
characteristics
of the better moving coils was a much faster rise time, with a very quick
cycle of overshoot and the a steady "top" to the square wave. By
comparison
the moving magnets and moving irons generally had much slower rise times
and
overly dampened transient response due to rolled off hghs (and that
included
the V15). So the moving coils simply sounded more lifelike and "real"
(read: less "canned") when reproducing actual music. You heard this not
only in the featured instruments, but also in the amount of room ambience
caught that lent separation, body, and dimensionality to the
reproduction.

Not objective enough for you? I'd suggest a library visit into the High
Fidelity and Audio magazine libraries, circa late sixties - early
eighties.


Measurements for cartridges don't really tell you much. Sure, they can
show
frequency response, square-wave response, ringing, output level,
compliance,
tracking ability, distortion, etc., etc., etc. But none of these tells you
how the cartridge will sound. In this regard, cartridges are much like
speakers. While measurements can tell one a lot about speakers,
ultimately,
you have to listen. Same with cartridges.


Those thinks told you a lot...sure the overshoot told you that they were
ringing at some frequency...but if it was a single overshoot and well damped
thereafter, then you knew the cartridge was properly designed and would
probably sound pretty good. Those that rang "forever" were underdamped, and
those that had a soft leading edge were overdamped or had badly rolled off
high ends (most moving irons due to capacitive loading). These things were
audible and directly effected the sound. My very first home audition of a
MC was the primitive Ortofon SL-15. Compared to both the Shure V-15II and
the ADC-25, it sounded both more lifelike and horribly bright in the treble.
I wasn't too surprised to find, therefore, that it had a very fast rise-time
but twin resonances at 9khz and 12khz (but was reasonble flat to about
7.5khz and above 14khz). The square wave response gave a pretty good clue
to how the cartridge sounded, and I found this to be true for other
cartridges as well. For example, the ADC's inevitably had better square
wave response that the Shures, which were over-damped and required very low
cable capacitances compared to most cables available in those days.


  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Moving-coil cartridges

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 07:31:28 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

Harry Lavo wrote:

Back when measurements were common, the most distinquishing characteristics
of the better moving coils was a much faster rise time, with a very quick
cycle of overshoot and the a steady "top" to the square wave. By
comparison
the moving magnets and moving irons generally had much slower rise times
and
overly dampened transient response due to rolled off hghs (and that
included
the V15). So the moving coils simply sounded more lifelike and "real"
(read: less "canned") when reproducing actual music. You heard this not
only in the featured instruments, but also in the amount of room ambience
caught that lent separation, body, and dimensionality to the reproduction.

Not objective enough for you? I'd suggest a library visit into the High
Fidelity and Audio magazine libraries, circa late sixties - early eighties.


Almost all moving coil cartridges have a rising top end response
deviating from flat, with a peak at tip resonance, which is why they
have the square wave response you described. Most of them are better
than they used to be in this respect, but this characteristic still
exists. The V15 is relatively flat in comparison. Do you know how to
interpret square waves? From your comments, you know just enough to be
misrepresentative.


Yes, most moving coils have a rising high-end response. It doesn't matter.
In fact, in and of itself, it's totally irrelevant. How does the cartridge
SOUND, that's all that is important. Unfortunately, cartridges are difficult
to audition before purchase, so one has to rely mostly on reviews.

Have you actually measured any cartridges? I've measured quite a few of
them with much better resolution than what was published in the rags of
which you speak. It's not hard. This is 2009. You're at the mercy of
the test record, but when the same characteristics show up with several
different test records, one can draw some fairly reasonable conclusions.
You can also draw reasonable conclusions about the test records
themselves by comparing them with a cartridge that can be shown to be
relatively flat.


Measurements with regard to cartridges, like measurements with regard to
speakers are largely meaningless, except in the grossest way. Sure, a
cartridge with a +15 dB peak at 12 KHz or one that rolls off rapidly above 7
KHz is going to sound terrible. But modern cartridges don't do those things.

To rational people, it's really more important that the cartridge have
flat response for frequencies that are actually physically audible.
Sure, MC's usually can go out higher. But it's because of the rising
top end in the audible range. That's why they usually sound different
too. Turning up the treble control from flat on an amplifier generally
does the same thing.


No, it doesn't. Turning up the treble on a baxandall type of tone control
sounds nothing like a decent modern moving coil cartridge. First of all the
corner frequency on a treble control is MUCH too low (around 2.5 KHz) with
respect to the rising top end on a moving coil (which is caused by the
resonance of the moving mass of the stylus/generator assembly). If they were
similar, one could also TAME the rising top end of a moving coil with that
self-same treble control and one can't. Also, turning up a treble control
accentuates surface noise because of it's relatively low corner frequency.
Most modern moving coils do not accentuate surface noise.

Some people like this. I don't. Recordings
usually have way too much high frequency information in the first place
because of the unfortunate practice microscopic miking. But many
audiophiles seem to like this. It also keeps the biz going by churning
the market.


I don't like it. I hated the early "high end" MCs such as the Koetsus. They
were too bright by far. But good modern moving coils sound very neutral and
do not exhibit the characteristics that you mention unless they are
improperly loaded.

What I say here is pretty much the same thing as Robert Greene says in
your beloved Absolute Sound rag and on his mailing list. At least
someone is telling some truths there. Those darned mathematicians... ;-)

All this doesn't mean you can't like MC cartridges personally. Enjoy
them if you wish, but please - don't pass them off as more accurate
except within your own personal preferences.


Accuracy is not really important in a phono cartridge. The only thing that is
important is how the cartridge sounds with the records you listen to on your
system. There are more important considerations than frequency response,
which as I said earlier, is largely irrelevant these days. Things like
tracking ability, transient response, suppression of surface noise (largely a
product of stylus shape), channel separation, and low distortion are more
important than a flat, as opposed to a rising, top end.

  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Moving-coil cartridges

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:43:21 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote:

Back when measurements were common, the most distinquishing
characteristics of the better moving coils was a much faster rise time,
with a very quick cycle of overshoot and the a steady "top" to the square
wave. By comparison the moving magnets and moving irons generally had
much slower rise times and overly dampened transient response due to
rolled off hghs (and that included the V15). So the moving coils simply
sounded more lifelike and "real" (read: less "canned") when reproducing
actual music. You heard this not only in the featured instruments, but
also in the amount of room ambience caught that lent separation, body,
and dimensionality to the reproduction.

Not objective enough for you? I'd suggest a library visit into the High
Fidelity and Audio magazine libraries, circa late sixties - early
eighties.


Almost all moving coil cartridges have a rising top end response deviating
from flat, with a peak at tip resonance, which is why they have the square
wave response you described. Most of them are better than they used to be
in this respect, but this characteristic still exists. The V15 is
relatively flat in comparison. Do you know how to interpret square waves?
From your comments, you know just enough to be misrepresentative.

Have you actually measured any cartridges? I've measured quite a few of
them with much better resolution than what was published in the rags of
which you speak. It's not hard. This is 2009. You're at the mercy of
the test record, but when the same characteristics show up with several
different test records, one can draw some fairly reasonable conclusions.
You can also draw reasonable conclusions about the test records themselves
by comparing them with a cartridge that can be shown to be relatively
flat.

To rational people, it's really more important that the cartridge have
flat response for frequencies that are actually physically audible. Sure,
MC's usually can go out higher. But it's because of the rising top end in
the audible range. That's why they usually sound different too. Turning
up the treble control from flat on an amplifier generally does the same
thing. Some people like this. I don't. Recordings usually have way too
much high frequency information in the first place because of the
unfortunate practice microscopic miking. But many audiophiles seem to
like this. It also keeps the biz going by churning the market.

What I say here is pretty much the same thing as Robert Greene says in
your beloved Absolute Sound rag and on his mailing list. At least someone
is telling some truths there. Those darned mathematicians... ;-)

All this doesn't mean you can't like MC cartridges personally. Enjoy them
if you wish, but please - don't pass them off as more accurate except
within your own personal preferences.


Frankly, of when I spoke twenty-five years ago, MC's WERE more accurate.
The rising resonance was generally out in the 25khz-35khz range and up to
about 15khz, they wee flat. The moving irons, however, were very
capacitive-sensative and in most preamps rolled off audibly, starting as low
as 8-10Khz.

An MC that was underdamped or badly designed would ring like crazy....the
best only one major overshoot. The moving irons couldn't get out of their
own way...no matter how the measured they simply didn't sound "live".


Modern MCs, even "low" priced ones like the current Sumiko Blue-Point II
don't exhibit those characteristics. They are very musical, extremely fast,
and cartridges like the Blue-Point are high enough in output and source
impedance to sound their best when loaded with a standard 47K Ohm phono stage
input. Low output MCs, are, in my opinion, much too fussy. They require lots
of gain making them very susceptible to hum, and they usually require
precise, custom loading to sound their best.
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Moving-coil cartridges

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:03:57 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Andrew Haley" wrote in message
...

I know that moving-coil cartridges are much loved by the hi-fi press
and by many audiophiles. I also know that there are many claims about
the performance of cartridges, but there doesn't seem to be much in
the way of measurements available.


There have been measurements of them in the past. They generally don't
measure out to be very accurate. But playing vinyl in general is not usually
about accuracy.


Correct. It's about sounding "musical".

Objectively, vinyl playback is very inaccurate, something that just about
everybody was aware of in the day. If you ever heard the HS master tapes
that LPs were made from, you knew that putting music on vinyl was a step
backward from accuracy, musicality, enjoyability, you name it.

The #1 problem in cartridge design is minimizing moving mass while
providing appropriate durability and rigidity.

So, I'm wondering if there is any actual technical information
available that compares moving-coil and other designs.


The challenge has always been to make a couple of coils of wire less massy
than an iron reluctor or a small magnet.


Difficult to do. Usually efforts in this direction led to coils with just a
few turns on them resulting in extremely low output voltages making said
cartridges very susceptible to hum, and requiring either a step-up
transformer or a pre-preamp. Low-output MCs also require custom loading with
regard to input impedance requiring that the user try a combination of
capacitors and resistors to get it right. Most never do. I learned a long
time ago that high-output MCs designed for standard 47K-Ohm phono inputs
offered the best compromise. The slight increase in mass was more than offset
by the ease of amplification and lack of fussy (and usually totally
empirical) resistor and capacitive loading techniques.

I've done a
web search and while opinions are plentiful, facts are pretty thin on
the ground. It's fair enough to prefer one cartridge over another,
but are any of the new moving-coil cartridges objectively more
accurate than, say, a V15?


Not that I'm aware of.


Actually, I have a Shure V-15 Type Vx-MR (last of the breed) and my $350
Sumiko Bluse-Point II blows it out of the water in every way.

Or does no-one bother actually measuring any more?


It's very easy to do with a computer and a good test record. I would have
done it long ago for some MC cartridges but I don't have access to any.


It's largely an irrelevant academic exercise anyway. The measurements don't
tell you anything about how the cartridge sounds, and may actually prove to
be prejudicial.


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Moving-coil cartridges

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:42:39 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:27:10 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Andrew Haley" wrote in message
...
I know that moving-coil cartridges are much loved by the hi-fi press
and by many audiophiles. I also know that there are many claims about
the performance of cartridges, but there doesn't seem to be much in
the way of measurements available.

So, I'm wondering if there is any actual technical information
available that compares moving-coil and other designs. I've done a
web search and while opinions are plentiful, facts are pretty thin on
the ground. It's fair enough to prefer one cartridge over another,
but are any of the new moving-coil cartridges objectively more
accurate than, say, a V15? Or does no-one bother actually measuring
any more?

Thanks,
Andrew.

This isn't going to satisfy you, I am sure....but in answer to your
question
"are any of the new moving-coil cartridges objectively more
accurate than, say, a V15?" If you value transparency and "you are
there"
realism, the answer is yes...from many of them. And they don't have to
be
new....my thirty year old Accuphase AC-2 playing through a modified
Marcof
battery-driven headamp beats the pants off the Shure...and my old and
beloved ADC XLII ... and any Grado I've heard.

Back when measurements were common, the most distinquishing
characteristics
of the better moving coils was a much faster rise time, with a very quick
cycle of overshoot and the a steady "top" to the square wave. By
comparison
the moving magnets and moving irons generally had much slower rise times
and
overly dampened transient response due to rolled off hghs (and that
included
the V15). So the moving coils simply sounded more lifelike and "real"
(read: less "canned") when reproducing actual music. You heard this not
only in the featured instruments, but also in the amount of room ambience
caught that lent separation, body, and dimensionality to the
reproduction.

Not objective enough for you? I'd suggest a library visit into the High
Fidelity and Audio magazine libraries, circa late sixties - early
eighties.


Measurements for cartridges don't really tell you much. Sure, they can
show
frequency response, square-wave response, ringing, output level,
compliance,
tracking ability, distortion, etc., etc., etc. But none of these tells you
how the cartridge will sound. In this regard, cartridges are much like
speakers. While measurements can tell one a lot about speakers,
ultimately,
you have to listen. Same with cartridges.


Those thinks told you a lot...sure the overshoot told you that they were
ringing at some frequency...but if it was a single overshoot and well damped
thereafter, then you knew the cartridge was properly designed and would
probably sound pretty good. Those that rang "forever" were underdamped, and
those that had a soft leading edge were overdamped or had badly rolled off
high ends (most moving irons due to capacitive loading). These things were
audible and directly effected the sound.


Yet, I've heard cartridges that were well damped and sounded dull and
lifeless and vice-versa.

My very first home audition of a
MC was the primitive Ortofon SL-15. Compared to both the Shure V-15II and
the ADC-25, it sounded both more lifelike and horribly bright in the treble.
I wasn't too surprised to find, therefore, that it had a very fast rise-time
but twin resonances at 9khz and 12khz (but was reasonble flat to about
7.5khz and above 14khz). The square wave response gave a pretty good clue
to how the cartridge sounded, and I found this to be true for other
cartridges as well. For example, the ADC's inevitably had better square
wave response that the Shures, which were over-damped and required very low
cable capacitances compared to most cables available in those days.


Yet, I always found the ADC cartridges to be very "colored" sounding. Kind of
thick and distorted on high-level stuff, and very molasses-like and
homogeneous the rest of the time.
  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Harry Lavo Harry Lavo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default Moving-coil cartridges

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:43:21 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

Back when measurements were common, the most distinquishing
characteristics of the better moving coils was a much faster rise time,
with a very quick cycle of overshoot and the a steady "top" to the
square
wave. By comparison the moving magnets and moving irons generally had
much slower rise times and overly dampened transient response due to
rolled off hghs (and that included the V15). So the moving coils
simply
sounded more lifelike and "real" (read: less "canned") when reproducing
actual music. You heard this not only in the featured instruments, but
also in the amount of room ambience caught that lent separation, body,
and dimensionality to the reproduction.

Not objective enough for you? I'd suggest a library visit into the
High
Fidelity and Audio magazine libraries, circa late sixties - early
eighties.

Almost all moving coil cartridges have a rising top end response
deviating
from flat, with a peak at tip resonance, which is why they have the
square
wave response you described. Most of them are better than they used to
be
in this respect, but this characteristic still exists. The V15 is
relatively flat in comparison. Do you know how to interpret square
waves?
From your comments, you know just enough to be misrepresentative.

Have you actually measured any cartridges? I've measured quite a few of
them with much better resolution than what was published in the rags of
which you speak. It's not hard. This is 2009. You're at the mercy of
the test record, but when the same characteristics show up with several
different test records, one can draw some fairly reasonable conclusions.
You can also draw reasonable conclusions about the test records
themselves
by comparing them with a cartridge that can be shown to be relatively
flat.

To rational people, it's really more important that the cartridge have
flat response for frequencies that are actually physically audible.
Sure,
MC's usually can go out higher. But it's because of the rising top end
in
the audible range. That's why they usually sound different too.
Turning
up the treble control from flat on an amplifier generally does the same
thing. Some people like this. I don't. Recordings usually have way
too
much high frequency information in the first place because of the
unfortunate practice microscopic miking. But many audiophiles seem to
like this. It also keeps the biz going by churning the market.

What I say here is pretty much the same thing as Robert Greene says in
your beloved Absolute Sound rag and on his mailing list. At least
someone
is telling some truths there. Those darned mathematicians... ;-)

All this doesn't mean you can't like MC cartridges personally. Enjoy
them
if you wish, but please - don't pass them off as more accurate except
within your own personal preferences.


Frankly, of when I spoke twenty-five years ago, MC's WERE more accurate.
The rising resonance was generally out in the 25khz-35khz range and up to
about 15khz, they wee flat. The moving irons, however, were very
capacitive-sensative and in most preamps rolled off audibly, starting as
low
as 8-10Khz.

An MC that was underdamped or badly designed would ring like crazy....the
best only one major overshoot. The moving irons couldn't get out of
their
own way...no matter how the measured they simply didn't sound "live".


Modern MCs, even "low" priced ones like the current Sumiko Blue-Point II
don't exhibit those characteristics. They are very musical, extremely
fast,
and cartridges like the Blue-Point are high enough in output and source
impedance to sound their best when loaded with a standard 47K Ohm phono
stage
input. Low output MCs, are, in my opinion, much too fussy. They require
lots
of gain making them very susceptible to hum, and they usually require
precise, custom loading to sound their best.


What you say is true...I've had both high output and low output. But as a
general rule, the low output moving coils have a lower effective tip-mass
and therefore tend to sound smoother and track better.
Headamps used to be a problem (an may still be) but most MC's now are
designed to work into 100 ohms with some capacitor trimming capability, and
people have discovered how to create much quieter gain stages (I've used the
Marcoff since the earliy eighties....it was one of the first battery driven
headamps and has customizeable resistance.....it is dead quiet.

  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Dick Pierce Dick Pierce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default Moving-coil cartridges

On Jun 20, 1:42*pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message
speakers. While measurements can tell one a
lot about speakers, ultimately,
you have to listen. Same with cartridges.


Those thinks told you a lot...sure the overshoot told you
that they were ringing at some frequency


Actually, it tells you nothing of the sort. A system
with both flat amplitude response and flat phase
response in the pass band will have no resonances
AND will have ringing. Consider the well-known Gibbs
phenomenon where simply truncating the number of
terms in the series will result in symmetrical ringing:
the response is both the amplitude- and phase-domain
is absolutely dead-nuts flat with no resonances.

but if it was a single overshoot and well damped
thereafter, then you knew the cartridge was
properly designed and would probably sound
pretty good. *Those that rang "forever" were
underdamped,


Wrong. Unless you are arbitrarily changing the
definitions of "damped," which are quite well
established without the misguided aid of the
high-end realm, ANY overshoot indicates the
system is under-damped.

and those that had a soft leading edge were
overdamped or had badly rolled off high ends


This example of discussion of "rise time" and
"over damped" and "under damped" and all
that is illustrative of what's wrong with the high
end realm and "measurements." I don't mean
to pick on you specifically, Harry (though I might
be accused of using you as an example), but
this is a case of knowing just enough to have
the buzzwords but not enough to have it mean
anything.

"Rise time" is but one, and on VERY narrow and
limited measure that, by itself, means nothing.
If you're looking at transient response, a better
measure is total settling time: which not only
include the rise time, but ALSO includes the time
for any overshoot to approach within some accepted
limits of the final value.

Minimizing rise time leads to severe response
anomalies in the frequency domain and being
such a limited measure, has no means of defining
an optimum value. Instead selecting a criteria such
as the minimum time to settle to the final value
gives you an optimization goal. And that's something
that's quite easily defined.

The result is that since the high-end cutoff of a
phono cartridge SYSTEM is effectively a 2nd-
order low-pass, and since such present a minimum-
phase response, we CAN say the the optimum
transient performance of such a system occurs
when the Q of the cutoff is approximately 0.58.
This is the critically damped point, the response
which provides the best transient performance
(minimum transition and settling time).

(most moving irons due to capacitive loading). *


So fix the load capacitance. Why is the incorrect
load capacitance such an issue, given how easy
it is to fix. The vast, vast majority of MM phono
inputs compined with the vast, vast majority of
cable harnsess have to LITTLE capacitance, so
it's a trivially easy fix.

I wasn't too surprised to find, therefore, that it
had a very fast rise-time


And I'll assert, with a couple thousand person-
centuries of of experience, theory and practice
to back it up, that the rise time is defined as much
IF NOT MORE by the input signal than by the
response of the cartrdige system. Explain, for
example how it can be any faster than the input
signal.

Square wave response tests have the advantage
of being quite easy to generate, quite easy to view,
and especially easy to (mis)interpret. As a real
measurement tool that's capable of revealing any
information, square waves are extremely limited
in utility and content. The complex transfer function
will tell you everything a square wave does, and
much, much more and without the huge interpretive
ambiguity of square waves.

  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Harry Lavo Harry Lavo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default Moving-coil cartridges

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:42:39 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):


[ Excess quoting snipped -- dsr ]

My very first home audition of a
MC was the primitive Ortofon SL-15. Compared to both the Shure V-15II
and
the ADC-25, it sounded both more lifelike and horribly bright in the
treble.
I wasn't too surprised to find, therefore, that it had a very fast
rise-time
but twin resonances at 9khz and 12khz (but was reasonble flat to about
7.5khz and above 14khz). The square wave response gave a pretty good
clue
to how the cartridge sounded, and I found this to be true for other
cartridges as well. For example, the ADC's inevitably had better square
wave response that the Shures, which were over-damped and required very
low
cable capacitances compared to most cables available in those days.


Yet, I always found the ADC cartridges to be very "colored" sounding. Kind
of
thick and distorted on high-level stuff, and very molasses-like and
homogeneous the rest of the time.


They were colored, from a frequency response point of view. A
lower-midrange emphasis that some like (I among them) but others did not (as
you have noted was true in your case). They had to be matched to a low mass
tonearm/headshell which required some effort and $, but when done so,
tracking at one gram or slightly less, they had a realistic transient
response and a 3-D sense of "body" that many MC's have, and the Shures of
that era totally lacked. The more common medium and high-mass arms of the
day never got the ADCs to sound right. I've got open reel tape reordings
of cartridge comparisons I did back in 1967...interetingly enough the
cartridge that sounded a bit cold and sterile then (a Stanton 681EEE) sounds
most neutral to my ears today. But the ADC's were the most realistic
sounding, and the Ortofon SL-15 sounded as bright as I have previously
described.


  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Moving-coil cartridges

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:28:50 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:42:39 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):


[ Excess quoting snipped -- dsr ]

My very first home audition of a
MC was the primitive Ortofon SL-15. Compared to both the Shure V-15II
and
the ADC-25, it sounded both more lifelike and horribly bright in the
treble.
I wasn't too surprised to find, therefore, that it had a very fast
rise-time
but twin resonances at 9khz and 12khz (but was reasonble flat to about
7.5khz and above 14khz). The square wave response gave a pretty good
clue
to how the cartridge sounded, and I found this to be true for other
cartridges as well. For example, the ADC's inevitably had better square
wave response that the Shures, which were over-damped and required very
low
cable capacitances compared to most cables available in those days.


Yet, I always found the ADC cartridges to be very "colored" sounding. Kind
of
thick and distorted on high-level stuff, and very molasses-like and
homogeneous the rest of the time.


They were colored, from a frequency response point of view. A
lower-midrange emphasis that some like (I among them) but others did not (as
you have noted was true in your case). They had to be matched to a low mass
tonearm/headshell which required some effort and $, but when done so,
tracking at one gram or slightly less, they had a realistic transient
response and a 3-D sense of "body" that many MC's have, and the Shures of
that era totally lacked.


Was the Infinity "Black-Widow" arm low enough in mass for you? Because that's
what I was using in my "ADC days".

The more common medium and high-mass arms of the
day never got the ADCs to sound right. I've got open reel tape reordings
of cartridge comparisons I did back in 1967...interetingly enough the
cartridge that sounded a bit cold and sterile then (a Stanton 681EEE) sounds
most neutral to my ears today. But the ADC's were the most realistic
sounding, and the Ortofon SL-15 sounded as bright as I have previously
described.





  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Moving-coil cartridges

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:02:54 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...


[quoted text deleted -- deb]


Modern MCs, even "low" priced ones like the current Sumiko Blue-Point II
don't exhibit those characteristics. They are very musical, extremely
fast,
and cartridges like the Blue-Point are high enough in output and source
impedance to sound their best when loaded with a standard 47K Ohm phono
stage
input. Low output MCs, are, in my opinion, much too fussy. They require
lots
of gain making them very susceptible to hum, and they usually require
precise, custom loading to sound their best.


What you say is true...I've had both high output and low output. But as a
general rule, the low output moving coils have a lower effective tip-mass
and therefore tend to sound smoother and track better.


Not my experience. Even relatively cheap high-output MC cartridges will
already track the "Audio Obstacle Course" track on the Shure (?) test record
and do it perfectly, so tracking wise, these MCs are "overkill" as it is. As
for smoother sounding. You could be right, but I listen to the overall
musicality, and some high-output MCs sound more life-like than some
low-output MCs and vice versa. I've never noticed the strict correlation that
you imply, although, logically, it makes sense.

[quoted text deleted -- deb]

  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Harry Lavo Harry Lavo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default Moving-coil cartridges

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
...
On Jun 20, 1:42 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:


[ Excess quotation snipped. Folks, please trim more carefully;
most people have the history of the thread at hand. -- dsr ]

I wasn't too surprised to find, therefore, that it
had a very fast rise-time


And I'll assert, with a couple thousand person-
centuries of of experience, theory and practice
to back it up, that the rise time is defined as much
IF NOT MORE by the input signal than by the
response of the cartrdige system. Explain, for
example how it can be any faster than the input
signal.

Square wave response tests have the advantage
of being quite easy to generate, quite easy to view,
and especially easy to (mis)interpret. As a real
measurement tool that's capable of revealing any
information, square waves are extremely limited
in utility and content. The complex transfer function
will tell you everything a square wave does, and
much, much more and without the huge interpretive
ambiguity of square waves.



Dick, for all that, I don't think we are disagreeing. A fast rise time,
coupled with a single overshoot will also certainly result in an optimum or
near-optimum transient response in your terms. And obviously it depends on
the input signal from the test record. But it wasn't difficult to get
useful square wave input off test records back in the day...and they were
designed specifically for this purpose.


  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Harry Lavo Harry Lavo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default Moving-coil cartridges

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:28:50 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:42:39 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):


[ Excess quoting snipped -- dsr ]

My very first home audition of a
MC was the primitive Ortofon SL-15. Compared to both the Shure V-15II
and
the ADC-25, it sounded both more lifelike and horribly bright in the
treble.
I wasn't too surprised to find, therefore, that it had a very fast
rise-time
but twin resonances at 9khz and 12khz (but was reasonble flat to about
7.5khz and above 14khz). The square wave response gave a pretty good
clue
to how the cartridge sounded, and I found this to be true for other
cartridges as well. For example, the ADC's inevitably had better
square
wave response that the Shures, which were over-damped and required very
low
cable capacitances compared to most cables available in those days.

Yet, I always found the ADC cartridges to be very "colored" sounding.
Kind
of
thick and distorted on high-level stuff, and very molasses-like and
homogeneous the rest of the time.


They were colored, from a frequency response point of view. A
lower-midrange emphasis that some like (I among them) but others did not
(as
you have noted was true in your case). They had to be matched to a low
mass
tonearm/headshell which required some effort and $, but when done so,
tracking at one gram or slightly less, they had a realistic transient
response and a 3-D sense of "body" that many MC's have, and the Shures of
that era totally lacked.


Was the Infinity "Black-Widow" arm low enough in mass for you? Because
that's
what I was using in my "ADC days".

The more common medium and high-mass arms of the
day never got the ADCs to sound right. I've got open reel tape
reordings
of cartridge comparisons I did back in 1967...interetingly enough the
cartridge that sounded a bit cold and sterile then (a Stanton 681EEE)
sounds
most neutral to my ears today. But the ADC's were the most realistic
sounding, and the Ortofon SL-15 sounded as bright as I have previously
described.


Yes, but it had a resonance due to the hinged headshell, as The Absolute
Sound eventually determined despite it being their reference for a period of
time. Nor was I implying that YOUR reaction was due to a mismatched arm. I
was rather saying that many of the critics of that era never heard the
cartridges in properly matched tonearms.

  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Dick Pierce Dick Pierce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default Moving-coil cartridges

On Jun 21, 1:47*pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message

...

On Jun 20, 1:42 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:


[ Excess quotation snipped. Folks, please trim more carefully;
* most people have the history of the thread at hand. *-- dsr ]



I wasn't too surprised to find, therefore, that it
had a very fast rise-time


And I'll assert, with a couple thousand person-
centuries of of experience, theory and practice
to back it up, that the rise time is defined as much
IF NOT MORE by the input signal than by the
response of the cartrdige system. Explain, for
example how it can be any faster than the input
signal.


Square wave response tests have the advantage
of being quite easy to generate, quite easy to view,
and especially easy to (mis)interpret. As a real
measurement tool that's capable of revealing any
information, square waves are extremely limited
in utility and content. The complex transfer function
will tell you everything a square wave does, and
much, much more and without the huge interpretive
ambiguity of square waves.


Dick, for all that, I don't think we are disagreeing. *


We are, indeed.

A fast rise time, coupled with a single overshoot will
also certainly result in an optimum or near-optimum
transient response in your terms. *


It will not. The behavior described is significantly
underdamped, by every objective definition of the
term. The optimum transient response is that
which reaches the final value in the minimum time.
A faster rise time in and of itself is NOT the sole
indicator. The very existence of the overshoot says
the system is NOT reaching its final state in the
shortest time.

And obviously it depends on the input signal from
the test record. *
But it wasn't difficult to get useful square wave
input off test records back in the day...and they were
designed specifically for this purpose.


And in that, you've missed the point: you CAN'T
cut a record to reproduce a square wave: the
bandwidth of the cutter kills it. The very fact that
the bandwidth is limited in and of itself can and
very often does result in things like overshoot.

And the ringing per se, as I said, is a red herring.

Square wave testing is a simple, easy to view,
intuitively obvious and almost totally useless
methodology.

  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Moving-coil cartridges

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

What you say is true...I've had both high output and low output. But as a
general rule, the low output moving coils have a lower effective tip-mass
and therefore tend to sound smoother and track better.


Typical MC tip mass = 0.3 mg.

Shure MM tip mass = 0.040 - 0.139 mg

Besides, tip mass is not of the essence.

This is just another audiophile myth, perpetuated by people who lack the
proper background in mechanics and dynamic systems to understand how these
things work.

The important parameter is stylus inertia, which is based on both mass and
distance from the center of rotation.




  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Moving-coil cartridges

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...

Measurements for cartridges don't really tell you much. Sure, they can
show
frequency response, square-wave response, ringing, output level,
compliance,
tracking ability, distortion, etc., etc., etc.


All of which (other than square wave response,) tell you lots about how the
cartridge sounds.

But none of these tells you how the cartridge will sound.


Experience says otherwise.

Back in the day we found that people can't successfully ABX cartridges that
track well, have low enough distortion, etc. OTOH if the FR is a little off
or you can find one mistracking or otherwise distortion, you can sort them
like Easter eggs with ABX.

In this regard, cartridges are much like /
speakers. While measurements can tell one a lot about speakers,
ultimately,
you have to listen.


There's some heavy hitters in the industry who will disagree with you about
that, too.

One big problem with speakers is that by the time their output hits your ear
it has been heavily modified by the room. The modifications by your personal
listening room is obviously not part of the manufacturer's specs for the
product.

Same with cartridges.


IME, even more untrue.


  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Moving-coil cartridges

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

Dick, for all that, I don't think we are disagreeing.


Interesting claim, given that you essentially repeat the same pack of errors
that caused Dick's initial response.

A fast rise time,
coupled with a single overshoot will also certainly result in an optimum
or
near-optimum transient response in your terms.


Not really. A critically damped system has a certain well-defined amount of
overshoot. The phrase "single overshoot" allows a wide range of
overshooting, so it is vague and therefore meaningless.


And obviously it depends on
the input signal from the test record.


However, this disagrees with your previous claim that this test is easy to
do and meaningful.


But it wasn't difficult to get
useful square wave input off test records back in the day.


Again, "useful" = vague. The square wave responses were useful as fluff for
advertising and not much else. Flat, smooth frequency response is of the
essence.


..and they were designed specifically for this purpose.


This time the antecedent is vague - was it the test records or the
cartridges that were designed to give good square wave response for
publication?

In either case, the answer should be no. Square wave response is one of the
more meaningless tests around because it confounds flat frequency response
and phase response. Flat frequency response is of the essence, while phase
response above 1 KHz applied equally to both channels has no audible
significance unless very, very extreme.




  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Harry Lavo Harry Lavo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default Moving-coil cartridges

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sonnova" wrote in message
...

Measurements for cartridges don't really tell you much. Sure, they can
show
frequency response, square-wave response, ringing, output level,
compliance,
tracking ability, distortion, etc., etc., etc.


All of which (other than square wave response,) tell you lots about how
the
cartridge sounds.

But none of these tells you how the cartridge will sound.


Experience says otherwise.


Not only that, but square wave response tells you much about frequency
response, ringing, and tracking response as well. Ergo, square wave
response tells you much about what to expect in the way a cartridge sounds.



snip, no comment on what follows



  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Harry Lavo Harry Lavo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default Moving-coil cartridges

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

What you say is true...I've had both high output and low output. But as
a
general rule, the low output moving coils have a lower effective tip-mass
and therefore tend to sound smoother and track better.


Typical MC tip mass = 0.3 mg.

Shure MM tip mass = 0.040 - 0.139 mg

Besides, tip mass is not of the essence.

This is just another audiophile myth, perpetuated by people who lack the
proper background in mechanics and dynamic systems to understand how these
things work.

The important parameter is stylus inertia, which is based on both mass and
distance from the center of rotation.


Of course. But for a given stylus design, tip mass is the determining
factor. And as a reality check, there is very little difference in stylus
length pivot to tip for most cartridge designs, so tip mass becomes the main
variable. Score debating points if you wish....but it doesn't invalidate
the general observation.


  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Andrew Haley Andrew Haley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default Moving-coil cartridges

Sonnova writes:

Measurements for cartridges don't really tell you much. Sure, they
can show frequency response, square-wave response, ringing, output
level, compliance, tracking ability, distortion, etc., etc.,
etc. But none of these tells you how the cartridge will sound. In
this regard, cartridges are much like speakers. While measurements
can tell one a lot about speakers, ultimately, you have to
listen. Same with cartridges.


I don't see how this can possibly work. All that listening will tell
you is what you prefer, but I was asking about fidelity, which isn't
the same thing. Unless you happen to have the master tape that was
used to do the cutting, there's no way to judge fidelity by this
method.

Later you say:

Accuracy is not really important in a phono cartridge. The only
thing that is important is how the cartridge sounds with the records
you listen to on your system.


OK, you don't believe it's important. But surely you can't be denying
even the possibility that one cartridge might be more accurate than
another.

There are more important considerations than frequency response,
which as I said earlier, is largely irrelevant these days.


Those measurements I have seen of cartridges suggest that there can be
quite wide differences in frequency response, certainly wide enough to
be audible. And surely frequency response differences are going to
have a pretty big effect on the way they sound.

Jim Lesurf's rather wonderful web page [1] shows that a v15, properly
loaded, has a pretty flat frequency response, and it tracks well, as
low distortion, and so on. So, whatever is wrong with the v15, it
isn't frequency response.

Things like tracking ability, transient response, suppression of
surface noise (largely a product of stylus shape), channel
separation, and low distortion are more important than a flat, as
opposed to a rising, top end.


OK. So, to return to my original question, is there any reason to
believe that moving-coil cartridges might have an advantage in any of
these areas?

I am beginning to wonder if the moving-coil cartridge is better than
moving-iron in the same way that, say, single-ended triode amplifiers
are better than modern solid-state designs. In reality, not any
better at all from a fidelity point of view, but some people prefer
the sound.

This question surely is important because there are a lot of valuable
sound recordings on vinyl that are being transferred to digital media.
I have heard unsourced rumours that organizations like Sony and the
Library of Congress snatched up the last few V15s for this purpose.
Assuming this is true, might they have been mistaken? Should they be
using a real "Stereophile Class A" design such as the Air Tight PC-1
or Transfiguration Orpheus?

Andrew.

[1] http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/LP4/NewLampsForOld.html


  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Moving-coil cartridges

On Jun 22, 6:51*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message


In this regard, cartridges are much like /
speakers. While measurements can tell one a lot about speakers,
ultimately,
you have to listen.


There's some heavy hitters in the industry who will disagree with you about
that, too.


Which "heavy hitters" have asserted that one need not ultimately
listen to speakers to evaluate them? I find that a rather shocking
claim. I would be very skeptical of any such person's opinions
regardless of the alleged weight of their punch.


One big problem with speakers is that by the time their output hits your ear
it has been heavily modified by the room.


It's simply the reality of audio though.

The modifications by your personal
listening room is obviously not part of the manufacturer's specs for the
product.


Which would make any claims that one need not ultimately listen for
final evaluation of speakers all the more dubious.

  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Harry Lavo Harry Lavo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default Moving-coil cartridges

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

Dick, for all that, I don't think we are disagreeing.


Interesting claim, given that you essentially repeat the same pack of
errors
that caused Dick's initial response.

A fast rise time,
coupled with a single overshoot will also certainly result in an optimum
or
near-optimum transient response in your terms.


Not really. A critically damped system has a certain well-defined amount
of
overshoot. The phrase "single overshoot" allows a wide range of
overshooting, so it is vague and therefore meaningless.


Again, debating points. In reality, most cartridges that have a single
overshoot have behave similarly. If the overshoot is very large it almost
always is followed by secondary ringing, and if it is small or non-existant
the cartridge will be slow in settling and sound dull. This is practical
experience speaking, from back in the day when these cartridge measurements
were made and widely available, and I had the money and interest to listen
to a wide range of cartridges. Yes, there a technical caveats, but it is
nit-picking.

And obviously it depends on
the input signal from the test record.


However, this disagrees with your previous claim that this test is easy to
do and meaningful.


But it wasn't difficult to get
useful square wave input off test records back in the day.


Again, "useful" = vague. The square wave responses were useful as fluff
for
advertising and not much else. Flat, smooth frequency response is of the
essence.


And you don't think test records that also included frequency response tests
from 20hz to 20khz had flat, smooth response?

..and they were designed specifically for this purpose.


This time the antecedent is vague - was it the test records or the
cartridges that were designed to give good square wave response for
publication?


See my above comment. You and Dick want to score points...I want to tell
people something about how to translate the most common cartridge
measurement technique into anticipated sound.

In either case, the answer should be no. Square wave response is one of
the
more meaningless tests around because it confounds flat frequency response
and phase response. Flat frequency response is of the essence, while phase
response above 1 KHz applied equally to both channels has no audible
significance unless very, very extreme.


It also tells you alot about damping and mechanical reaction of the
cartridge/stylus, which is critical to pickups.

  #28   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Dick Pierce Dick Pierce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default Moving-coil cartridges

On Jun 22, 1:38*pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
Not only that, but square wave response tells you
much about frequency response, ringing, and tracking
response as well. *Ergo, square wave response tells
you much about what to expect in the way a cartridge
sounds.


No matter how many times you say it, no matter how
firmly you believe it, it does nothing of the sort.

You assertion is that two systems with the same square
wave response will sound the same, or certainly alike,
and that's provably hooey. Consider the following as a
practical counterexample: Take a perfectly flat, linear-
phase system. It will have, for its bandwidth, "perfect"
square wave response. Listen to it, it will sound fine.
Now, take the input, delay it 10 mS, and sum it with
the output of the system.

Put a 1 kHz square wave in to the system: it will
have an identical square wave response.

Now, listen to it, it will sound absolutely dreadful.

You keep going back to the ringing canard as if it
had any signifance in and of itself. A PERFECT
band-limited system MUST have a substantial
amount of ringing, Gibbs says so. You say different,
in contradiction to well-known facts.



  #29   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Moving-coil cartridges

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sonnova" wrote in message
...

Measurements for cartridges don't really tell you much. Sure, they can
show
frequency response, square-wave response, ringing, output level,
compliance,
tracking ability, distortion, etc., etc., etc.


All of which (other than square wave response,) tell you lots about how
the
cartridge sounds.

But none of these tells you how the cartridge will sound.


Experience says otherwise.


Not only that, but square wave response tells you much about frequency
response, ringing, and tracking response as well.


That would be completely wrong. I've already explained to you how square
wave response confuses frequency response (which matters) with phase
response which in general does not.

Please provide equations that unambiguously convert square wave response
into traditional or non-traditional measures of nonlinear distortion. Of
course, no such thing exists nor can it exist because of all of the
confusion factors.

  #30   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Moving-coil cartridges

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:51:18 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

What you say is true...I've had both high output and low output. But as a
general rule, the low output moving coils have a lower effective tip-mass
and therefore tend to sound smoother and track better.


Typical MC tip mass = 0.3 mg.

Shure MM tip mass = 0.040 - 0.139 mg

Besides, tip mass is not of the essence.


It's mostly irrelevant, that's for sure. Like most cartridge measurements, it
tells one little about how the cartridge will actually perform.

This is just another audiophile myth, perpetuated by people who lack the
proper background in mechanics and dynamic systems to understand how these
things work.

The important parameter is stylus inertia, which is based on both mass and
distance from the center of rotation.


Stylus assembly compliance is also a factor and there is no hard-and-fast
rule about that EITHER.


  #31   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Moving-coil cartridges

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:51:24 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...

Measurements for cartridges don't really tell you much. Sure, they can
show
frequency response, square-wave response, ringing, output level,
compliance,
tracking ability, distortion, etc., etc., etc.


All of which (other than square wave response,) tell you lots about how the
cartridge sounds.


Not in my experience it doesn't.

But none of these tells you how the cartridge will sound.


Experience says otherwise.


My experience (and I have auditioned hundreds of cartridges over the years)
says that measured parameters tell you very little that's useful about how a
cartridge will sound. Sure, a frequency response graph included with some
cartridges will tell you if the cartridge is going to be bright or dull,
whether it has decent bass, etc, but I've two cartridges here now that both
have very similar frequency response graphs accompanying them, yet they sound
totally different.

Back in the day we found that people can't successfully ABX cartridges that
track well, have low enough distortion, etc. OTOH if the FR is a little off
or you can find one mistracking or otherwise distortion, you can sort them
like Easter eggs with ABX.

In this regard, cartridges are much like /
speakers. While measurements can tell one a lot about speakers,
ultimately,
you have to listen.


There's some heavy hitters in the industry who will disagree with you about
that, too.


I'm sorry. They're wrong.

One big problem with speakers is that by the time their output hits your ear
it has been heavily modified by the room. The modifications by your personal
listening room is obviously not part of the manufacturer's specs for the
product.


With cartridges, the arm with which the cartridge is mated has a big effect
on cartridge performance. After all it's a mechanical system and every part
plays a role in the overall performance.

Same with cartridges.


IME, even more untrue.


So, you would buy speakers and cartridges sound unheard? I wouldn't.

  #32   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Moving-coil cartridges

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:38:02 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sonnova" wrote in message
...

Measurements for cartridges don't really tell you much. Sure, they can
show
frequency response, square-wave response, ringing, output level,
compliance,
tracking ability, distortion, etc., etc., etc.


All of which (other than square wave response,) tell you lots about how
the
cartridge sounds.

But none of these tells you how the cartridge will sound.


Experience says otherwise.


Not only that, but square wave response tells you much about frequency
response, ringing, and tracking response as well. Ergo, square wave
response tells you much about what to expect in the way a cartridge sounds.



snip, no comment on what follows




Would you (or someone) like to explain to me how one would go about cutting a
square wave into a record groove?
  #33   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Moving-coil cartridges

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:51:18 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

What you say is true...I've had both high output and low output. But as
a
general rule, the low output moving coils have a lower effective
tip-mass
and therefore tend to sound smoother and track better.


Typical MC tip mass = 0.3 mg.

Shure MM tip mass = 0.040 - 0.139 mg

Besides, tip mass is not of the essence.


It's mostly irrelevant, that's for sure. Like most cartridge measurements,
it
tells one little about how the cartridge will actually perform.

This is just another audiophile myth, perpetuated by people who lack the
proper background in mechanics and dynamic systems to understand how
these
things work.

The important parameter is stylus inertia, which is based on both mass
and
distance from the center of rotation.


Stylus assembly compliance is also a factor and there is no hard-and-fast
rule about that EITHER.


Well there is. The high frequency resonance is dependent on inertia and
compliance of the groove. The low frequency resonance is dependent on
compliance and tone arm inertia (not tone arm mass, as is commonly cliamed.)


  #34   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Moving-coil cartridges

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...

Would you (or someone) like to explain to me how one would go about
cutting a
square wave into a record groove?


You use a cutting lathe with a power amplifier and appropriate test signal
which is contrived to produce a square wave with an ideal cartridge and
preamp, if the preamp is equalized.

However, the question is misstated because quality cartridges as a rule
have velocity-sensitive response, and require a non-square wave cut into the
record groove in order to produce a square wave at either the output of the
cartridge, or as it is more commonly done, at the output of a RIAA preamp.


  #35   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Moving-coil cartridges

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:51:24 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...

Measurements for cartridges don't really tell you much. Sure, they can
show
frequency response, square-wave response, ringing, output level,
compliance,
tracking ability, distortion, etc., etc., etc.


All of which (other than square wave response,) tell you lots about how
the
cartridge sounds.


Not in my experience it doesn't.

But none of these tells you how the cartridge will sound.


Experience says otherwise.


My experience (and I have auditioned hundreds of cartridges over the
years)
says that measured parameters tell you very little that's useful about how
a
cartridge will sound.


Since the word "audition" was used we know that the above anecdotes are not
the results of proper level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled listening
tests.





  #36   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Harry Lavo Harry Lavo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default Moving-coil cartridges

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
...
On Jun 22, 1:38 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
Not only that, but square wave response tells you
much about frequency response, ringing, and tracking
response as well. Ergo, square wave response tells
you much about what to expect in the way a cartridge
sounds.


No matter how many times you say it, no matter how
firmly you believe it, it does nothing of the sort.

You assertion is that two systems with the same square
wave response will sound the same, or certainly alike,
and that's provably hooey. Consider the following as a
practical counterexample: Take a perfectly flat, linear-
phase system. It will have, for its bandwidth, "perfect"
square wave response. Listen to it, it will sound fine.
Now, take the input, delay it 10 mS, and sum it with
the output of the system.

Put a 1 kHz square wave in to the system: it will
have an identical square wave response.

Now, listen to it, it will sound absolutely dreadful.

You keep going back to the ringing canard as if it
had any signifance in and of itself. A PERFECT
band-limited system MUST have a substantial
amount of ringing, Gibbs says so. You say different,
in contradiction to well-known facts.


Dick, I've never seen two cartridges that have identical square wave
response to the same test record. Cartridges as you well know are
imperfect, electro-mechanical devises. What I am saying is that there is a
correlation between certain aspects of how a cartridge handles the test
square wave and certain commonalities of sound. So that with experience, it
is possible to say some things aforehand about their "likely" sound after
seeing the square wave.


  #37   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Harry Lavo Harry Lavo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default Moving-coil cartridges

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:38:02 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sonnova" wrote in message
...

Measurements for cartridges don't really tell you much. Sure, they can
show
frequency response, square-wave response, ringing, output level,
compliance,
tracking ability, distortion, etc., etc., etc.

All of which (other than square wave response,) tell you lots about how
the
cartridge sounds.

But none of these tells you how the cartridge will sound.

Experience says otherwise.


Not only that, but square wave response tells you much about frequency
response, ringing, and tracking response as well. Ergo, square wave
response tells you much about what to expect in the way a cartridge
sounds.



snip, no comment on what follows




Would you (or someone) like to explain to me how one would go about
cutting a
square wave into a record groove?


You would have to ask the engineers at CBS Labs. They were the ones who did
it. But the waves were there after deemphasis, and they were available to
we audiophiles and were used by both Audio Magazine and High Fidelity in
their cartridge testing. And yes, the very best cartridges did deliver very
respectable square wave approximations from those test records. Perhaps if
John Atkinson is monitoring this discussion he might be able to shed some
light, although most of this was before his time at Hi-Fi News.


  #38   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] sorabji666@att.net is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Moving-coil cartridges

Harry Lavo wrote:

And you don't think test records that also included frequency response tests
from 20hz to 20khz had flat, smooth response?


Actually, they don't. Cutter heads have resonance problems that are
similar to cartridges.

  #39   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Moving-coil cartridges

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

You would have to ask the engineers at CBS Labs.


Most such questions are answered in the relevant JAES papers.

The name Benjamin Bauer comes to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS_Laboratories

Harry, why don't you try to actually read them and document your claims
using them as references?

They were the ones who did it.


Let's just say that if you believe what you read, they had a fuller
understanding of the situation.

But the waves were there after de-emphasis, and they were available to
we audiophiles and were used by both Audio Magazine and High Fidelity in
their cartridge testing. And yes, the very best cartridges did deliver
very
respectable square wave approximations from those test records. Perhaps
if
John Atkinson is monitoring this discussion he might be able to shed some
light, although most of this was before his time at Hi-Fi News.


Given John Atkinson's umm, questionable position on such well-known
floobydust as LP demagnetizers, it is hard to know that he could say that
would be believable.


  #40   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Moving-coil cartridges

"Scott" wrote in message
...
On Jun 22, 6:51 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message


In this regard, cartridges are much like /
speakers. While measurements can tell one a lot about speakers,
ultimately,
you have to listen.


There's some heavy hitters in the industry who will disagree with you
about
that, too.


Which "heavy hitters" have asserted that one need not ultimately
listen to speakers to evaluate them? I find that a rather shocking
claim. I would be very skeptical of any such person's opinions
regardless of the alleged weight of their punch.


Apparently you don't keep up with the lead tech guys are Harmon.

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FA: Van den Hul MC2 Moving Coil Cartridge Stephen F. Marsh Marketplace 0 January 15th 06 12:14 AM
WTB:USED MOVING COIL PHONO CARTRIDGES< TONEARMS Sonnysound Marketplace 0 December 14th 03 07:09 PM
WTB:USED MOVING COIL CARTRIDGES< ASUSA PHONO PREAMP Sonnysound Vacuum Tubes 1 October 10th 03 04:40 AM
WTB:USED MOVING COIL CARTRIDGES, ASUSA PHONO PREAMP Sonnysound Marketplace 0 October 9th 03 10:29 PM
WTB:USED MOVING COIL CARTRIDGES, ASUSA PHONO PREAMP Sonnysound Marketplace 0 October 9th 03 10:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:48 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"