Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
wrote in message
... 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. Yes, but it is my understanding that has been a solved problem in the audible frequency band for decades. And I suppose frquencies could be eq'd before that. In any case, the frequencies were there on the record. Theory does not supercede practice. |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
wrote in message
... 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. If a test record does not have the desired response, it is the fault of the cutting engineer. An independent evaluation of the amplitude of sine waves and the shape of square waves can be obtained by examining the freshly-cut groove using a microscope with a reticle. Of course, the effects of equalization and amplitude versus velocity effects had to be considered. |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... "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. That in itself is an attempt to conceal a common audiophile mistake. In reality, most cartridges that have a single overshoot have behave similarly. Not in this universe. 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. Ignores the fact that there are an infinite number of variations in overshoot from more than one cycle to no apparent overshoot at all. 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. Harry, I can and have measured modern cartridges, So I don't have to rely on hearsay from the days when people took vinyl seriously. Yes, there a technical caveats, but it is nit-picking. No, it is how things work. Harry you can spend all the time you want to trying to deduce what matters (frequency response) from things that don't matter but are all conflated and wrapped up in the audiophile myth called square wave response. 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? Its the flat response from 50-15KHz that matters the most. Below 50-100 Hz vinyl response is not solely dependent on the cartridge. ..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... No, we want to spike common audiophile myths about vinyl. I want to tell people something about how to translate the most common cartridge measurement technique into anticipated sound. Well, that's frequency response, so why are you going on about square wave response? 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. Please see frequency response. |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Andrew Haley" wrote in message
... 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. Frequency response often has a great deal to do with it. Most high end audiophiles lack what it takes to properly load most MM cartridges so that they have optimum response. So, they evaluate cartrdiges based on unecessarily non-flat response. Most high end audiophiles do not have references to compare to that have truely flat response. So, they wouldn't know flat response if it came up and bit them. ;-) |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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. Along with compliance, it tells you something about how well and with what force the cartridge is likely to track. It tells you nothing about cantilever performance or stylus impact on overall performance. 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. Agree, but they and tip mass work together to affect trackability, along with cantilever design and damping and stylus design. These things must be optimized as a system. |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... "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. Harry, you just agreed with me when I said that tip mass and stylus rotation can be irrelevant. 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. Simply not true. Score debating points if you wish....but it doesn't invalidate the general observation. Except it does. Effective mass and damping have a great deal to do with trackability, which many high end MC cartrdiges lack. |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Jun 22, 9:13*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
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.) Wrong, it is dependent upon effective mass, not inertia. Do a dimensional analysis of the formula for resonance using inertia instead of mass and you come up with a nonsensical result. Do it with mass, and your result is in units of reciprocal time, which is frequency. This is the same nonsense that Ivor Tiffenbrun tried to pull back in the '70's claiming that tone arms didn't have mass, they had moment of inertia. He neglected the final step in the process which is that all of that moment of inertia manifests itself as simple mass at any point from the pivot equal to the moment of inertia divided by the distance to the pivot point squared. |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Jun 22, 7:13*pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message See my above comment. *You and Dick want to score points... Arny can and will, I am sure, speak for himself. I am not interested in scoring any points: I have nothing to gain by such. But you have made a number of technical assertions which I believe are not technically supportable, and I am objecting to them on a technical basis. If you think you can dismiss my objections by calling it "scoring points," then you detract from the value of your own points. I want to tell people something about how to translate the most common cartridge measurement technique into anticipated sound. And I am saying that, save your repeated restatement of the same claims, you have not provided any technical support for those claims. It also tells you alot about damping and mechanical reaction of the cartridge/stylus, which is critical to pickups. And you repeat this claim as if the claim itself was proof of the claim. It is not. |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Jun 22, 10:08*pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"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. * You are, indeed saying that if you are claiming that the square wave response correlates as strongly as you claim to any audible properties. And I am saying that your fundamental claim is unsupportable. The above example with the delay line is simply an existance proof of a practical, realizable example of two systems that can be shown to have identical square-wave response yet vastly different and obvious audible differences. Pick a different measurement, such as a simple broad-band frequency response or an impulse response, and you'll get wildly different measurements. Cartridges as you well know are imperfect, electro-mechanical devises. * Yes, so what? 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. And I am saying you're wrong, and have provided several technical explanations as to why and an an existence proof of why. If you have something other than a repeat of the same claim to support the claim, I would be interested in hearing it. But repeating the claim yet again is not proof of the claim. |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... "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. That in itself is an attempt to conceal a common audiophile mistake. In reality, most cartridges that have a single overshoot have behave similarly. Not in this universe. Why bother to even comment, then? 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. Ignores the fact that there are an infinite number of variations in overshoot from more than one cycle to no apparent overshoot at all. Doesn't ignore it at all. Most cartridges have some....and as I just pointed out before your "debating point" reflex response, "more than one cycle" = "followed by secondary ringing", and "no apparent overshoot at all" = "if it is small or non-existent". In other words you are just blabbing to hear yourself, and are adding nothing. 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. Harry, I can and have measured modern cartridges, So I don't have to rely on hearsay from the days when people took vinyl seriously. Funny, I just saw you tell Dick a few days ago that you were not equipped to measure cartridges. But leaving that aside, listening to and measuring cartridges "back in the day" may have taught you some things that now, in your CD prejudice, you overlook or don't take seriously. It is hard to do critical listening when you don't believe what you are listeing to has any significant merit. Yes, there a technical caveats, but it is nit-picking. No, it is how things work. Harry you can spend all the time you want to trying to deduce what matters (frequency response) from things that don't matter but are all conflated and wrapped up in the audiophile myth called square wave response. How things "work" for audio equipment is how the "sound", a fact that seems to escape you. 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? Its the flat response from 50-15KHz that matters the most. Below 50-100 Hz vinyl response is not solely dependent on the cartridge. So? Isn't that contained within 20hz - 20khz? If it is flat 20hz to 20khz, it in all probability is extremely flat from 50hz - 15khz. Your point is? (Oh I forgot, you like to hear yourself talk.) ..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... No, we want to spike common audiophile myths about vinyl. And replace them with your own prejudice regarding vinyl? Dick can speak for himself if he wishes. I want to tell people something about how to translate the most common cartridge measurement technique into anticipated sound. Well, that's frequency response, so why are you going on about square wave response? Back in the day, the two went together. And nowadays, neither is ever in evidence. I stand by my statement. 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. Please see frequency response. So I can get an "incomplete" on my test? I think not. |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:13:20 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "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.) You miss my point. My point is that the measurements tell one little about how the cartridge will perform unless the end user has some way to measure tone arm "interia" (since inertia is the product of mass, I don't see how you can divorce effective tonearm mass from inertia) he has no way to determine whether his arm and cartridge are a good match for one another other than to try them - I.E. listen. |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:13:26 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "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. As someone who used to master records, and therefore knows what a lash-up a record cutting lathe and head and ancillary equipment is, I say that it can't really be done and if it could, no cartridge on earth could track it. 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. OK. That I'll buy. |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:13:32 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "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. Did I say that they were? |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... "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 significance 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. This is no doubt to the problems of bringing non-engineers up to speed with real-world engineering technology, as opposed to the watered-down legend and myth that are frequently circulated by high end publications. I had my first conversation with a cartridge design engineer in the 60s, which got me very interested in the relevant JAES papers which were available in my university library. Dick, I've never seen two cartridges that have identical square wave response to the same test record. That says you've never effectively used cartridge loading to adjust the response of a phono cartridge. Cartridges as you well know are imperfect, electro-mechanical devises. Cartridges are also electro-mechanical systems with well-known electrical and mechanical properties. Modeling a cartridge as a reasonably simple electrical network was not uncommon in the days before computers. People who are familiar with the professional literature from the days when people took vinyl seriously are aware of this. 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. And I've twice explained why this is a myth. So that with experience, Obtained with no measuring equipment and without the benefit of bias-controlled testing... it is possible to say some things aforehand about their "likely" sound after seeing the square wave. Trouble is, they aren't the best knowledge that is readily available. Furthermore this obsession with square waves often feeds a pre-existing prejudice against audio CDs. |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Jun 22, 10:08*pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
Dick, I've never seen twocartridgesthat have identical square wave response to the same test record. *Cartridgesas 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.- As is probably well known, the different levels of the Grado cartridges all derive from the same product but are selected on the basis of their performance, "detail and frequency extension". Now how does one measure detail? http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr...12050&read&3&4 "Every step up through the Prestige line of cartridges yields minor (but significant) improvements in detail and frequency extension. There are three tiers: Black and Green, Blue and Red, and Silver and Gold. It’s the same cartridge at each tier; samples that test slightly better than others wear the higher designation. For instance, a great- performing Black becomes a Green and costs $20 extra. If you could care less about a slight, possibly inaudible, improvement, then go for the cheaper of the two." |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Jun 22, 9:13*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"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. No, not correct either. You are right: the output of the phono cartridge is a function of the instantaneous velocity of the stylus: a sqquare wave physically cut into the groove will result in an alternating train of positive- and negative- going unit impulses. In that sense, the cartridge is acting as a differentiator. But you forget that the frequency response of the phono preamp has TWO components to it: one of them is the "RIAA EQ" shelf response with a zero at 318 uS and a pole at 75 uS. This is what gives the little shelf between 500 and 2 kHz, roughly. But the overall response is dominated by the -6 dB per octave slope across the entire band. This is an integration function: it will take a train of alternating unit impulse responses and turn it back into a train of square waves, e.g.: integral(derivative(f(x)) = f(x), w.r.t.t. Thus, ignoring the little shelf around 1 kHz, a square wave on the disk result in a square wave coming out of the of the phono preamp. Which points even more ot the effective impossibility of cutting anything remotely resembling a real square wave on a disk: it's really an compromises, non-optimum exercise in black magic. |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
... On Jun 22, 9:13 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: 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 claimed.) Wrong, it is dependent upon effective mass, not inertia. You changed the rules of the gain by saying "effective mass" as opposed to what I said, which is "mass". Do a dimensional analysis of the formula for resonance using inertia instead of mass and you come up with a nonsensical result. Do it with mass, and your result is in units of reciprocal time, which is frequency. Sorry Dick, but if you get your math right, it all works. It's all about knowing which of the six dimensions you are doing your math in. Whether its one of the 3 linear dimensions (x,y,z) or one of the 3 rotational dimensions, the results for a calculation of resonance always come out in Hz. Note that a simple suspended body can be oscillating at six different frequencies at the same time because the six dimensions are orthogonal. This is the same nonsense that Ivor Tiffenbrun tried to pull back in the '70's claiming that tone arms didn't have mass, they had moment of inertia. Well, aside from a common simplifying assumption, tone arms exist in six dimensions, like the rest of the universe. He neglected the final step in the process which is that all of that moment of inertia manifests itself as simple mass at any point from the pivot equal to the moment of inertia divided by the distance to the pivot point squared. That's the simplifying assumption I was talking about. Since the displacements are small, its a pretty good assumption. It's also a difference between mass and effective mass. |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:09:31 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ): On Jun 22, 9:13*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: 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.) Wrong, it is dependent upon effective mass, not inertia. Do a dimensional analysis of the formula for resonance using inertia instead of mass and you come up with a nonsensical result. Do it with mass, and your result is in units of reciprocal time, which is frequency. This is the same nonsense that Ivor Tiffenbrun tried to pull back in the '70's claiming that tone arms didn't have mass, they had moment of inertia. He neglected the final step in the process which is that all of that moment of inertia manifests itself as simple mass at any point from the pivot equal to the moment of inertia divided by the distance to the pivot point squared. That's what I've been saying. You cannot divorce mass from "inertia" any more than you can divorce voltage from current or resistance in applying Ohms Law. They are a inexorably interconnected by the laws of nature. |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:09:09 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ): "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. Along with compliance, it tells you something about how well and with what force the cartridge is likely to track. It tells you nothing about cantilever performance or stylus impact on overall performance. 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. Agree, but they and tip mass work together to affect trackability, along with cantilever design and damping and stylus design. These things must be optimized as a system. No argument there. A phonograph is a complete mechanical system and when optimized, all of the components work synergistically to elicit the most information from the record grooves. Start mismatching any of the parameters and the "Fi" decreases. These interactive parameters include the cartridge , the design and execution of the arm as well as the platter and the platter bearing, the motor, motor decoupling and the 'table's suspension. |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:16:22 -0700, wrote
(in article ): 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. Much worse than cartridges. |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:08:33 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ): wrote in message ... 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. Yes, but it is my understanding that has been a solved problem in the audible frequency band for decades. And I suppose frquencies could be eq'd before that. In any case, the frequencies were there on the record. Theory does not supercede practice. They are EQ'd. They are also electronically excursion and stylus acceleration and velocity limited. Cutter heads also require lots of amplifier power to get them to move at all, and just a few more Watts to burn them out. Although modern computer control has taken a lot of the work and know-how out of the record cutting business, at one time a mastering engineer was considered a GOD. He had to know exactly how to use the equipment to get the maximum level, and dynamic range possible on a record without cutting through the groove walls, or burning out the cutter head all the while making sure that the final product could be successfully played on the cheapest "record player" . If you think that's easy, then I suggest that you think again. |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:04:18 -0700, ScottW2 wrote
(in article ): On Jun 23, 7:09*am, "Harry Lavo" wrote: Stylus assembly compliance is also a factor and there is no hard-and-fast rule about that EITHER. Agree, but they and tip mass work together to affect trackability, along with cantilever design and damping and stylus design. *These things must be optimized as a system. I've owned a couple of Shure carts, a Signet and now an AT OC9 on a variety of tables. While I've seen different results in tracking on my test record, I've never at all felt that any of the carts exhibited tracking deficiency with music. As such, tracking performance has never been high on my list of cart concerns. It seems to be a solved problem. Anyone know of any current carts that have unacceptable tracking performance? ScottW No. Like you say, it's a solved problem. Any modern cartridge (except perhaps the very cheapest, and I don't even know that for sure - no pun intended) will track anything one can throw at it, and track it well. Anything above that is just overkill and marketing malarky (put out a test record that has a tracking "test track" that is way beyond what anyone would ever encounter in any publicly released recording, and then build a cartridge that will track it and promote the hell out of that ability). |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message ... On Jun 22, 9:13 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: 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 claimed.) Wrong, it is dependent upon effective mass, not inertia. You changed the rules of the gain by saying "effective mass" as opposed to what I said, which is "mass". Do a dimensional analysis of the formula for resonance using inertia instead of mass and you come up with a nonsensical result. Do it with mass, and your result is in units of reciprocal time, which is frequency. Sorry Dick, but if you get your math right, it all works. It's all about knowing which of the six dimensions you are doing your math in. Whether its one of the 3 linear dimensions (x,y,z) or one of the 3 rotational dimensions, the results for a calculation of resonance always come out in Hz. Note that a simple suspended body can be oscillating at six different frequencies at the same time because the six dimensions are orthogonal. resonance frequency of a simple mechanical system = 1/2pi * (k/M)^-2, where M is the mass. The units used to measure inertia are Kg*m^2 (kilograms * meters squared) I don't see how inertia can be used to measure mechanical resonance. As far as there being six dimensions, well, I'll leave that to the UFO team. |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Jun 23, 7:08*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message ... 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. Aren't they the ones who built a multi-million dollar facility to use controled listening tests as the final arbitrator of quality? Did they abandon that philosophy and tear down the building? If so you are right, I haven't been keeping up. |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Jun 23, 7:25*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message ... On Jun 22, 9:13 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: 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 claimed.) Wrong, it is dependent upon effective mass, not inertia. You changed the rules of the gain by saying "effective mass" as opposed to what I said, which is "mass". No, I did not. Might I suggest you consult a physical mechanics text for a definition and exposition of the subject? Do a dimensional analysis of the formula for resonance using inertia instead of mass and you come up with a nonsensical result. Do it with mass, and your result is in units of reciprocal time, which is frequency. Sorry Dick, but if you get your math right, it all works. * It's all about knowing which of the six dimensions you are doing your math in. Whether its one of the 3 linear dimensions (x,y,z) or one of the 3 rotational dimensions, the results for a calculation of resonance always come out in Hz. * Note that a simple suspended body can be oscillating at six different frequencies at the same time because the six dimensions are orthogonal. My goodness gracious, Arny, do you even know what you are talking about? Do you even know what the term "dimensional analysis" means? Do you know the difference between "dimensions" and "degrees of freedom? Do you understand what kinematical analysis is? Your comments here would strongly suggest you do not. It's not clear that you are any longer interested in a technical discussion based on the technical merits or shortcomings of the topic, so, For everyone else that might be interested: dimensional analysis is a mathematical technique invented by Fourier to, among other things, determine the plausibility of equations involving physical quantities or dimensions. It involves checking the consistency of each term in an equation to make sure that they are consistent. Let's use the formula for mechanical resonant frequency as an illustration As someone pointed out, the resonance of a simple mechanical harmonic system is: F = 1 / ( 2 pi sqrt(M/k) ) where F is frequency, m is mass, and k is stiffness. If you want, instead, to use compliance (the reciprocal of stiffness), it becomes: F = 1 / ( 2 pi sqrt(MC) ) Now, the units or "dimensions" of each term are of great significance here. I'm not talking dimensions as in x, y, z, or positions in space, as Arny misconstrued. Rather, in what dimensions are each of the terms of the equations expressed. Mass M, for example, is expressed in dimensions of kilograms. Compliance C could be expressed in dimensions of meters per Newton. Frequency F is in units of reciprocal time: F [s-1] = 1 / ( 2 pi sqrt( M [kg] C [m/N]) ) A dimensional analysis of the equation would involve making sure that the units required on the left side of the are a direct result of the units on the right side. Let's look and see if that's the case. First, let's break down the the units of compliance in to their fundamental parts. Compliance, as said, is in units of meters per Newton. A Newton is a unit of force. From: F = ma or mass times acceleration, and acceleration is in units meters per second squared. Substituting, we have: C = m / N and since a Newton is a kg m/s^2, then C = m / (kg m/s^2) Let's start checking the consistency and see what we end up with. Starting with inside the radical: M * C put the units in, M = kg and C = m/(kg m/s^2), and we get kg * m / kg m/s^2 Eliminate like terms in the numerator and denominator: since kg/kg = 1 and m/m = 1, then we are left with: 1/1/s^2 which simplifies to s^2 So inside the radical we have dimensions of seconds squared. The square root of that will be in seconds. So our original formula is now reduces to: F = 1 / 2 pi s and since pi is a dimensionless quantity, the result is that the right hand side of the equation has dimensions of reciprocal seconds, and frequency itself is in terms of reciprocal time. Thus dimensional analysis shows that our formula based on mass and mechanical compliance is consistent and plausible. Now, do the same, instead substitute inertia, with dimensions of kg m^2, for mass, with dimensions of kg, and see what you get. Skipping the detailed derivation, the right hand side of the equation ends up in units of meters per second, which is velocity and very DEFINITELY not frequency. Dimensional analysis shows that an equation for frequency using inertia is dimensionally inconsistent and thus not plausible. Well, aside from a common simplifying assumption, tone arms exist in six dimensions, like the rest of the universe. You have clear confused the fact that an unrestrained body in 3-dimensional space exhibits 6 DEGREES OF FREEDOM of motion, 3 translational, 3 rotational. That's totally different than claiming tone arms exist in 6 dimensions. And that's an UNRESTRAINED body. Tone arms aren't unrestrained: they have bearings, pivots and such that contrain several of those degrees of freedom. This is where kinematics comes in to play. The simple fact is the motion of a tone arm is restricted to only two degrees of freedom of motion, hopefully, two rotationally about two mutually perpendicular axes. He neglected the final step in the process which is that all of that moment of inertia manifests itself as simple mass at any point from the pivot equal to the moment of inertia divided by the distance to the pivot point squared. That's the simplifying assumption I was talking about. That's NOT a simplifying assumption: it is a physical fact. Since the displacements are small, its a pretty good assumption. It's also a difference between mass and effective mass. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the size of the displacement. The effective mass is simply the total moment of inertia about the axis, which in dimensions of kg m^2, divided by the distance from the point of interest to the axis of rotation squared, in units of m^2. The result, again subject to dimensional analysis: M [kg] = R [kg m^2] / d [m] ^2 m [kg] = kg is completely consistent. Recal that to take a rotating mass to begin with and turn it into moment of inertia is: R [kg m^2] = M [kg] * d [m] ^2 that is, a point mass M at a distance D from the axis of rotation d has a moment of inertia of M d^2. The equation is perfectly symmetrical: it works perfectly fine in both directions. Arny, sorry, but I have to absolutely agree with the good Mr. Lavo on one point: in what appears now to be your attempt to score debating points, you have made ridiculous, physically nonsensical assertions. You have confused "dimensions" with "degrees of freedom," you have completely ignored the kinematical properties of physical bodies in general and tonearms in particular, and you have made a mess of trying to work within the well-defined and widely known and used methodology of dimensional analysis. If you want to respond to my post, might I suggest you confine yourself to the technical points and their technical merits or shortcomings. I am not saying you yourself are a fool, this post, in the context of a discussion of fundamental physical mechanics, is foolish. Please do recognize the difference, and provide us with renewed evidence to the contrary. For anyone who's actually interested in a more detailed analysis of the fundamental mechanics of tonearms, you are welcome to peruse an article I wrote some years ago, which can be found at http://www.cartchunk.org/audiotopics...mMechanics.pdf There are a few other articles on other topics at: http://www.cartchunk.org/audiotopics For anyone else interested in understanding what's really going on, do searches for "degrees of freedom," "kinimatics", "dimensional analysis." All of them lead to reasonable definitions and expositions of the subjects, though some may seem, due to the math involved, a little obscure. |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:08:33 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote (in article ): wrote in message ... 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. Yes, but it is my understanding that has been a solved problem in the audible frequency band for decades. And I suppose frquencies could be eq'd before that. In any case, the frequencies were there on the record. Theory does not supercede practice. They are EQ'd. They are also electronically excursion and stylus acceleration and velocity limited. Cutter heads also require lots of amplifier power to get them to move at all, and just a few more Watts to burn them out. Although modern computer control has taken a lot of the work and know-how out of the record cutting business, at one time a mastering engineer was considered a GOD. He had to know exactly how to use the equipment to get the maximum level, and dynamic range possible on a record without cutting through the groove walls, or burning out the cutter head all the while making sure that the final product could be successfully played on the cheapest "record player" . If you think that's easy, then I suggest that you think again. I don't recall saying it was easy. I knew some of the guys at CBS Labs, and know it was not. But I also know they knew how to do it. |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:04:18 -0700, ScottW2 wrote (in article ): On Jun 23, 7:09 am, "Harry Lavo" wrote: Stylus assembly compliance is also a factor and there is no hard-and-fast rule about that EITHER. Agree, but they and tip mass work together to affect trackability, along with cantilever design and damping and stylus design. These things must be optimized as a system. I've owned a couple of Shure carts, a Signet and now an AT OC9 on a variety of tables. While I've seen different results in tracking on my test record, I've never at all felt that any of the carts exhibited tracking deficiency with music. Part of your "problem" is that you've been working with a few cartridges that have above-average trackability. As such, tracking performance has never been high on my list of cart concerns. It seems to be a solved problem. Anyone know of any current carts that have unacceptable tracking performance? No. Like you say, it's a solved problem. Any modern cartridge (except perhaps the very cheapest, and I don't even know that for sure - no pun intended) will track anything one can throw at it, and track it well. Proof? |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:13:26 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "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. As someone who used to master records, and therefore knows what a lash-up a record cutting lathe and head and ancillary equipment is, I say that it can't really be done and if it could, no cartridge on earth could track it. If good square waves can't be cut, then all this discussion of square wave response is balderdash like I've been saying all along. |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:13:20 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "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.) You miss my point. What, that a college-level discussion of the basic mechanics of a tone arm goes beyond what you're read in high end audio magazines? My point is that the measurements tell one little about how the cartridge will perform unless the end user has some way to measure tone arm "interia" (since inertia is the product of mass, I don't see how you can divorce effective tonearm mass from inertia) he has no way to determine whether his arm and cartridge are a good match for one another other than to try them - I.E. listen. Well-educated end users can measure the dynamics of a tone arm for themselves with common household and shop items. It's a pity that manufacturers don't do their homework and just puplish good specs for their products. Perhaps part of their problem is that they are more interested in visual asthetics than how tone arms are designed. |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Jun 20, 12:44*am, Andrew Haley
wrote: 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? Here's an excerpt of an old Audio article (1982 March, p.42, Milton, "How phono cartridges work"): "The ultimate test of a phono cartridge is the listening test. It is almost impossible to control all factors in a listening test, but interesting results can be obtained if a large panel of listeners undertakes a series of blind tests and the responses subjected to statistical analysis. Dr. Floyd Toole from National Research Council in Canada conducted large scale tests in Ottawa during 1980, first of all with nine cartridges and 16 listeners, and then three cartridges , selected from the first batch, with 13 listeners. The listeners were placed in the optimum stereo seats, not more than three at a time, and were cautioned against moving, since some of the differences would be subtle. They were also cautioned about the possibility of nonverbal communication (body language) influencing the opinion of the group. The three final cartridges selected were the Ortofon MC30, the Denon DL 103D and the Shure V15 IV, with the tests ided into two sections - equalized and non-equalized. Differences were noted during the tests with the non-equalized cartridges. The Denon was found to be brighter than the Ortofon, and the Ortofon seemed to sound similar to the Shure. In most of the cases the excess of high frequencies was criticized, although there were two listeners who consistently preferred the extra highs of the moving coil. The effects were noticeable only with selected good records, during certain passages and with experienced listeners, but even then, the differences were not particularly different statistically. During the second part of the test, the Shure was equalized using a Technics 9010 parametric sequalizer so that the response was within 0.2 dB of the Ortofon. Again, the results were close, with the interesting result that the moving magnet gained a slight edge over the moving moving coils, not so much by increasing its score on the evaluation sheet, but by causing the marks given to the moving coil to drop slightly. It is very tempting to generalize from a test of this nature. One listener was able to pick out the moving coil cartridge consistently and expressed a clear preference for it. The closeness of the results surprised several listeners, particularly the moving coil aficionados who were embarassed to find that they had given their votes to the moving magnet." Klaus |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Jun 23, 7:19*pm, Sonnova wrote:
You miss my point. My point is that the measurements tell one little about how the cartridge will perform unless the end user has some way to measure tone arm "interia" (since inertia is the product of mass, I don't see how you can divorce effective tonearm mass from inertia) he has no way to determine whether his arm and cartridge are a good match for one another other than to try them - I.E. listen. Lordy, how difficult do you all want to make this? Take a collection of masses co-rotating about an axis. Each mass contributes to the total moment of inertia of the system as: R(n) = m(n) * d(n)^2 where R(n) is the contribution to the total moment by mass m(n) located d(n) distance from the axis.* Calculate R(1) through R(n). Sum them. That's the total moment of inertia of all the contributing masses. Now, what's the mass at the stylus point. Well, the stylus is located x distance from the pivot. Since R = m * x^2 then m = R / x^2 So take the total moment of the arm system, divide it by the stylus-pivot distance squared, and there's effective mass of the whole system at the stylus, which is the only place it matters for this discussion. * For distributed masses, the tone arm tube, as an example, one actually has to integrate the contributions of each portion of the mass as distributed from the pivot point. Standard engineering reference texts have these formula pre-calculated. In the example of a long thin uniform tube of length x rotated at one end, the total moment of inertia is R = 1/3 m x^2 But goodness gracious, folks, this is not college mechanics, this is high-school stuff. In the URL I referred to elsewhere in this thread, I work out the total effective mass of a real tone arm in detail. It's hardly rocket science, glory it's barely high school science. Sigh, watching this has been painful. |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
wrote in message
... On Jun 20, 12:44 am, Andrew Haley wrote: 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? Here's an excerpt of an old Audio article (1982 March, p.42, Milton, "How phono cartridges work"): "The ultimate test of a phono cartridge is the listening test. It is almost impossible to control all factors in a listening test, but interesting results can be obtained if a large panel of listeners undertakes a series of blind tests and the responses subjected to statistical analysis. Dr. Floyd Toole from National Research Council in Canada conducted large scale tests in Ottawa during 1980, first of all with nine cartridges and 16 listeners, and then three cartridges , selected from the first batch, with 13 listeners. The listeners were placed in the optimum stereo seats, not more than three at a time, and were cautioned against moving, since some of the differences would be subtle. They were also cautioned about the possibility of nonverbal communication (body language) influencing the opinion of the group. The three final cartridges selected were the Ortofon MC30, the Denon DL 103D and the Shure V15 IV, with the tests ided into two sections - equalized and non-equalized. Differences were noted during the tests with the non-equalized cartridges. The Denon was found to be brighter than the Ortofon, and the Ortofon seemed to sound similar to the Shure. In most of the cases the excess of high frequencies was criticized, although there were two listeners who consistently preferred the extra highs of the moving coil. The effects were noticeable only with selected good records, during certain passages and with experienced listeners, but even then, the differences were not particularly different statistically. During the second part of the test, the Shure was equalized using a Technics 9010 parametric sequalizer so that the response was within 0.2 dB of the Ortofon. Again, the results were close, with the interesting result that the moving magnet gained a slight edge over the moving moving coils, not so much by increasing its score on the evaluation sheet, but by causing the marks given to the moving coil to drop slightly. It is very tempting to generalize from a test of this nature. One listener was able to pick out the moving coil cartridge consistently and expressed a clear preference for it. The closeness of the results surprised several listeners, particularly the moving coil aficionados who were embarassed to find that they had given their votes to the moving magnet." The only problem with this test is that it didn't include any truly high-end cartridges. I wonder what/why was left out of the other ten in the initial test? My guess, either high end or low end carts that were readily distinquishable, but perhaps not. |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
The only problem with this test is that it didn't include any truly high-end cartridges. They probably didn't meet minimum standards for frequency response and tracking. That's why there are no extant unbiased tests of them - the vendors won't supply them to reviewers who will give them an unbiased examination. |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Jun 26, 4:56 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
The only problem with this test is that it didn't include any truly high-end cartridges. I wonder what/why was left out of the other ten in the initial test? My guess, either high end or low end carts that were readily distinquishable, but perhaps not.- How do you define a high-end cartridge? Subjective criteria or impressions cannot be used because different individuals have different tastes and because of the fact that in-ear frequency responses between individuals may show substantial differences: Shaw (1965), “Earcanal pressure generated by a free sound field”, J. of Acoust. Soc. of America, vol. 39, no.3, p.465 Møller et al. (1995), “Head-related transfer functions of human subjects”, J. of Audio Eng. Soc., p.300 So how do you OBJECTIVELY define high-end? In 1982 the Shure V15 IV retailed at $200, the Ortofon MC30 at $850, the Denon 103D at $295 (prices from Audio annual component directory). Was the $850 Ortofon high-end or had it to be a $1000 Denon DL-1000, or a $1300 van den Hul. When is a cartridge high-end, when is it “only hifi” ? What this test convincingly shows is that the moving coil principle is not inherently superior. If it was, then any MC cartridge would be subjectively better than any MM, which obviously it is not, provided, of course, that one does not know the identity of the cartridges being tested. When I was buying my first cartridge ever 10 years ago (the ones before were factory mounted on the turntables), I could not find any arguments, other than subjective, to convince me of the superiority of the moving coil cartridge. Today, 10 years later, I still haven’t seen any convincing arguments for the superiority of MC. Klaus |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
wrote in message
... On Jun 26, 4:56 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote: The only problem with this test is that it didn't include any truly high-end cartridges. I wonder what/why was left out of the other ten in the initial test? My guess, either high end or low end carts that were readily distinquishable, but perhaps not.- How do you define a high-end cartridge? Subjective criteria or impressions cannot be used because different individuals have different tastes and because of the fact that in-ear frequency responses between individuals may show substantial differences: Shaw (1965), "Earcanal pressure generated by a free sound field", J. of Acoust. Soc. of America, vol. 39, no.3, p.465 Møller et al. (1995), "Head-related transfer functions of human subjects", J. of Audio Eng. Soc., p.300 So how do you OBJECTIVELY define high-end? In 1982 the Shure V15 IV retailed at $200, the Ortofon MC30 at $850, the Denon 103D at $295 (prices from Audio annual component directory). Was the $850 Ortofon high-end or had it to be a $1000 Denon DL-1000, or a $1300 van den Hul. When is a cartridge high-end, when is it "only hifi" ? What this test convincingly shows is that the moving coil principle is not inherently superior. If it was, then any MC cartridge would be subjectively better than any MM, which obviously it is not, provided, of course, that one does not know the identity of the cartridges being tested. When I was buying my first cartridge ever 10 years ago (the ones before were factory mounted on the turntables), I could not find any arguments, other than subjective, to convince me of the superiority of the moving coil cartridge. Today, 10 years later, I still haven't seen any convincing arguments for the superiority of MC. Klaus Back in that day, a Dynavector Diamond or Ruby, an Accuphase AC-2, or an original Koetsu would qualify....it is not so much price...the Ortofon MC30 (at $850) was their top of the line, and it was one of the worst sounding top-of-the-line MC's to ever be put on the market. The Diamond cost in the same range as the Ortofon ($670) and the Dynavector Ruby was cheaper still ($310), about the same as the Denon. The Accuphase in this same price range ($475) was so good that it has served as my standard ever since, and has stood off many other (more expensive) contenders. The simple fact is that what was considered high-end was determined by the listening acclaim that certain cartridges garned among audiophiles, and what was low-end the same. For most people in those days, the Shure and MC-30 ranked lower-middle and the Denon just a notch above. To repeat, it had little or nothing to do with cost. |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Sonnova" wrote in message
As a concept, you're probably right. You can make a good or a bad magnetic cartridge using any of the three generating principles (moving coil, moving magnet, or moving iron - sometimes called variable reluctance). Agreed. And in the day of, I experienced all of the above personally. Cartridge design is probably, at least as much as speaker design, dependent upon improvements in materials and manufacturing technology to move forward. Regrettably untrue due to the fact that even 30 years ago, the limiting factor was that nasty slug of vinyl that this whole discussion centers on. The reason why we moved on to digital was that it was no secret then, and since the laws of physics have not changed in any relevant way since then, it is no secret now; that as long as you use a relatively slow-moving piece of vinyl with mechanically transcribed analog grooves, ca. late 60s early 70s performance is all you are ever going to beat out of the vinyl dead horse. There were several attempts do take vinyl to the next step that failed miserably. One was the DMM process which removed a mechanical step from the tooling process of pressing the same limp old LPs. Then there RCA's lame attempt to keep the mechanical disc format but change the mode of data coding from direct analog to FM and possibly even digital, with a contact-based capacitive pickup. This actually came close to seeing the light of day as a format for distributing video. Optical-based storage blew it all out of water before it ever went mainstream. The Laser Disc in both FM and digital audio formats was generally accepted technology for years before the CD was introduced. There is no doubt that even a relatively inexpensive cartridge these days from Audio Technica, Grado, or Sumiko, to name a few, is equal to or superior to the best cartridges available 20-30 years ago, I own one of those Grados and it has a chance of approaching the M97XE. yet they use the same generating principles as they did then. More significantly they have the same old analog noose around their neck. What has changed are the materials used in the stylus suspensions, the stylus shank itself, and even the magnets used. Not so much. Concurrent with that are manufacturing processes for shaping and polishing the stylus as well as how the stylus is mounted to the cantilever and even assembly techniques. That's probably more automated than it was in the day. The inflation adjusted price of a Grado Black is still far more than a late-60s V15. |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"ScottW2" wrote in message
... On Jun 28, 3:30 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jun 26, 4:56 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote: The only problem with this test is that it didn't include any truly high-end cartridges. I wonder what/why was left out of the other ten in the initial test? My guess, either high end or low end carts that were readily distinquishable, but perhaps not.- How do you define a high-end cartridge? Subjective criteria or impressions cannot be used because different individuals have different tastes and because of the fact that in-ear frequency responses between individuals may show substantial differences: Shaw (1965), "Earcanal pressure generated by a free sound field", J. of Acoust. Soc. of America, vol. 39, no.3, p.465 Møller et al. (1995), "Head-related transfer functions of human subjects", J. of Audio Eng. Soc., p.300 So how do you OBJECTIVELY define high-end? In 1982 the Shure V15 IV retailed at $200, the Ortofon MC30 at $850, the Denon 103D at $295 (prices from Audio annual component directory). Was the $850 Ortofon high-end or had it to be a $1000 Denon DL-1000, or a $1300 van den Hul. When is a cartridge high-end, when is it "only hifi" ? What this test convincingly shows is that the moving coil principle is not inherently superior. If it was, then any MC cartridge would be subjectively better than any MM, which obviously it is not, provided, of course, that one does not know the identity of the cartridges being tested. When I was buying my first cartridge ever 10 years ago (the ones before were factory mounted on the turntables), I could not find any arguments, other than subjective, to convince me of the superiority of the moving coil cartridge. Today, 10 years later, I still haven't seen any convincing arguments for the superiority of MC. Klaus Back in that day, a Dynavector Diamond or Ruby, an Accuphase AC-2, or an original Koetsu would qualify....it is not so much price...the Ortofon MC30 (at $850) was their top of the line, and it was one of the worst sounding top-of-the-line MC's to ever be put on the market. The Diamond cost in the same range as the Ortofon ($670) and the Dynavector Ruby was cheaper still ($310), about the same as the Denon. The Accuphase in this same price range ($475) was so good that it has served as my standard ever since, and has stood off many other (more expensive) contenders. The simple fact is that what was considered high-end was determined by the listening acclaim that certain cartridges garned among audiophiles, and what was low-end the same. For most people in those days, the Shure and MC-30 ranked lower-middle and the Denon just a notch above. To repeat, it had little or nothing to do with cost. How did a product come to acquire "listening acclaim" garned (sic) among audiophiles? I've concluded that audiophiles, by their very nature of devotion to something better must be out there, always disdain a well accepted and readily available mass market product no matter it's performance. They must because if a mainstream product provides the pinnacle of performance and is as good as it gets then their basis for being audiophiles disappears. ScottW That may well be, but I have yet to audition a "mainstream" product that sounded as good as certain others, often produced by folk who prize a single goal...sound quality...over other considerations. For example, for what one paid for a Dynaco Preamp and Power Amp back in the day, you could also buy any number of integrated amplifiers with lots of bells and whistles that many considered very fine hi-fi. Only thing is...music played through them just didn't sound as "real" as through the Dynaco and were often lacking in deep bass power. The Dynaco's were not considered mainstream, but eventually they earned a place of respect among audiophiles ever though they were not terribly expensive.....simply because they sounded better than the "mainstream" of that day. |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 06:00:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message As a concept, you're probably right. You can make a good or a bad magnetic cartridge using any of the three generating principles (moving coil, moving magnet, or moving iron - sometimes called variable reluctance). Agreed. And in the day of, I experienced all of the above personally. Cartridge design is probably, at least as much as speaker design, dependent upon improvements in materials and manufacturing technology to move forward. Regrettably untrue due to the fact that even 30 years ago, the limiting factor was that nasty slug of vinyl that this whole discussion centers on. Except that this "nasty slug of vinyl" (prejudice again noted) has a lot of information stored in it, and better cartridges retrieve more of it than do poorer cartridges. The reason why we moved on to digital was that it was no secret then, and since the laws of physics have not changed in any relevant way since then, it is no secret now; that as long as you use a relatively slow-moving piece of vinyl with mechanically transcribed analog grooves, ca. late 60s early 70s performance is all you are ever going to beat out of the vinyl dead horse. That's not true at all. I am amazed at how much better modern cartridges - on the whole- sound and track over their forbearers. There were several attempts do take vinyl to the next step that failed miserably. One was the DMM process which removed a mechanical step from the tooling process of pressing the same limp old LPs. Then there RCA's lame attempt to keep the mechanical disc format but change the mode of data coding from direct analog to FM and possibly even digital, with a contact-based capacitive pickup. This actually came close to seeing the light of day as a format for distributing video. Optical-based storage blew it all out of water before it ever went mainstream. The Laser Disc in both FM and digital audio formats was generally accepted technology for years before the CD was introduced. Huh? By the RCA "FM" attempt, I assume that you are talking about Q4? It only used FM for the subcarrier attached to each channel in order to encode 4 discrete channels into a two channel disc. It never worked right. There is no doubt that even a relatively inexpensive cartridge these days from Audio Technica, Grado, or Sumiko, to name a few, is equal to or superior to the best cartridges available 20-30 years ago, I own one of those Grados and it has a chance of approaching the M97XE. yet they use the same generating principles as they did then. More significantly they have the same old analog noose around their neck. What has changed are the materials used in the stylus suspensions, the stylus shank itself, and even the magnets used. Not so much. Yes, much. Concurrent with that are manufacturing processes for shaping and polishing the stylus as well as how the stylus is mounted to the cantilever and even assembly techniques. That's probably more automated than it was in the day. The inflation adjusted price of a Grado Black is still far more than a late-60s V15. Ah, the V-15. Tracked so much better than it needed to track, and sounded like crap. Finally, the V-15-VxM actually sounded decent (not great though), then they dropped it. |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Jun 28, 7:44*am, wrote:
How do you define a high-end cartridge? Subjective criteria or impressions cannot be used because different individuals have different tastes and because of the fact that in-ear frequency responses between individuals may show substantial differences: So how do you OBJECTIVELY define high-end? In 1982 the Shure V15 IV retailed at $200, the Ortofon MC30 at $850, the Denon 103D at $295 (prices from Audio annual component directory). Was the $850 Ortofon high-end or had it to be a $1000 Denon DL-1000, or a $1300 van den Hul. When is a cartridge high-end, when is it “only hifi” ? In the late 1970s the Grado FTE+1 cartridge costing a mere $15.00 was highly regarded in the high end community. Although it picked up some hum as it approached a turntable's motor and exhibited the so-called "Grado Dance" in a LP's lead-in grooves, accolades came from every corner. Turning to CD players, according to some reviewers at Stereophile magazine the mass-produced Radio Shack Portable Optimus 3400 for $180 was ranked in the high-end crowd. I owned a FTE+1, but for CDs I still have and use the famous mid 80s Magnavox CDB-650 which is completely functional (amongst more recent ones). As of today it feeds a vintage tube ARC pre-amp. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FA: Van den Hul MC2 Moving Coil Cartridge | Marketplace | |||
WTB:USED MOVING COIL PHONO CARTRIDGES< TONEARMS | Marketplace | |||
WTB:USED MOVING COIL CARTRIDGES< ASUSA PHONO PREAMP | Vacuum Tubes | |||
WTB:USED MOVING COIL CARTRIDGES, ASUSA PHONO PREAMP | Marketplace | |||
WTB:USED MOVING COIL CARTRIDGES, ASUSA PHONO PREAMP | Marketplace |