Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   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:

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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default 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   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
...
"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   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
...

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   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 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   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
...
"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   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, 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   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, 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   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, 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   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
...
"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   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 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   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 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   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 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   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 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Norman Schwartz Norman Schwartz is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 28
Default 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   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, 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
dave a dave a is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default 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   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 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   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 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   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 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   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 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   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 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   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 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] klausrampelmann@hotmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default 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   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 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   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
...
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   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


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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] klausrampelmann@hotmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default 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

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

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 05:44:45 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

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:


I would define a "High-End" cartridge as one costing more than $300.

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?


You don't.

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 1982 dollars, all of the above would be considered high-end cartridges by
me. I come from an era when the best cartridges money could buy would be
either a B&O "Stereodyne" or an Grado moving coil for about $30.

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.


I don't think that anyone would disagree with that. Like many things in
engineering, its mostly the execution that determines excellence, not the
underlying methodology. Another example would be tube vs transistors in
amplifiers, or discrete components vs integrated circuit op-amps. The method
of amplification is not nearly as important as the execution. I can show you
examples of all of those technologies that are just awful and examples of all
of them that are superb.

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.


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). Cartridge
design is probably, at least as much as speaker design, dependent upon
improvements in materials and manufacturing technology to move forward. 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, yet they use the same
generating principles as they did then. What has changed are the materials
used in the stylus suspensions, the stylus shank itself, and even the magnets
used. 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.

Klaus




  #76   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
...
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   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


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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Harry Lavo Harry Lavo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Norman Schwartz Norman Schwartz is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 28
Default 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

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 09:40 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"