Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Peter Wieck Peter Wieck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,418
Default under $100 cartridge for classical music?

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 9:34:04 AM UTC-4, chip j wrote:
I have a Pioneer PL-12d turntable, and want a cartridge that does well
w/classical. I was told years ago that B&O was the best for classical,
but I can't pay that much anymore. Thanks for any advice!




--
chip j


Shure makes several cartridges that are as good as, or better than your turntable for reasonable prices. This is not to suggest that you have a bad TT, but to suggest that concept of diminishing returns applies.

B&O makes all sorts of eyewash, not very much otherwise.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
  #2   Report Post  
chip j chip j is offline
Junior Member
 
Posts: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Wieck View Post
On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 9:34:04 AM UTC-4, chip j wrote:
I have a Pioneer PL-12d turntable, and want a cartridge that does well
w/classical. I was told years ago that B&O was the best for classical,
but I can't pay that much anymore. Thanks for any advice!




--
chip j


Shure makes several cartridges that are as good as, or better than your turntable for reasonable prices. This is not to suggest that you have a bad TT, but to suggest that concept of diminishing returns applies.

B&O makes all sorts of eyewash, not very much otherwise.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
Thanks, Peter. I was thinking of ortofon, but I had one many years ago and wasn't too thrilled. I WILL check out shure!
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
John Stone John Stone is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 117
Default under $100 cartridge for classical music?

On 9/23/15, 8:16 AM, in article ,
" wrote:

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 9:34:04 AM UTC-4, chip j wrote:
I have a Pioneer PL-12d turntable, and want a cartridge that does well
w/classical. I was told years ago that B&O was the best for classical,
but I can't pay that much anymore. Thanks for any advice!




--
chip j


Shure makes several cartridges that are as good as, or better than your
turntable for reasonable prices. This is not to suggest that you have a bad
TT, but to suggest that concept of diminishing returns applies.

B&O makes all sorts of eyewash, not very much otherwise.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA


What exactly does "eyewash" mean? First of all, B & O stopped making
cartridges a long time ago. But when they did make them, they were
considered very good, contrary to what you might think. Most were used in
B&O tables, of course. But you could buy versions with adapters for standard
arms. It's all history now so the point is moot. But there is a company
called Soundsmith that has taken over manufacture of B & O compatible
cartridges using the same design principles and these are also highly rated.
For the OP, The arm on the PL12D looks to be pretty high mass as was the
practice with Japanese turntables of the day. That would dictate a cartridge
with medium compliance and tracking in the 2-3 gram range. Something like a
lower priced Audio Technica would fill the bill. Stay away from the light
tracking low mass types with this turntable.
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Peter Wieck Peter Wieck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,418
Default under $100 cartridge for classical music?

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 11:27:30 PM UTC-4, John Stone wrote:

=20
What exactly does "eyewash" mean? First of all, B & O stopped making
cartridges a long time ago. But when they did make them, they were
considered very good, contrary to what you might think.


John:

B&O makes (and made) all kinds of equipment that was eye-catching, sounded =
reasonably good, but was (and is) essentially unserviceable. Yes, their car=
tridges were considered "very good", but any company that limits its users =
to proprietary parts (as if a car maker were to require a buyer to use only=
*their* tires, *their* oil and so forth) is simply wrong. That is a matter=
of opinion, of course. But that level of decision-making has obsoleted tho=
usands of B&) TTs if the owner does not wish to invest in a Soundsmith cart=
ridge. The cost of that part will exceed the value of the TT by a large mar=
gin.

But, for a definiton of eyewash: insert "nonsense" and you would be close. =
Soothing to the eyes, not a lot of substance.
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
John Stone John Stone is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 117
Default under $100 cartridge for classical music?

On 9/29/15, 9:15 AM, in article ,
" wrote:

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 11:27:30 PM UTC-4, John Stone wrote:


What exactly does "eyewash" mean? First of all, B & O stopped making
cartridges a long time ago. But when they did make them, they were
considered very good, contrary to what you might think.


John:

B&O makes (and made) all kinds of equipment that was eye-catching, sounded
reasonably good, but was (and is) essentially unserviceable. Yes, their
cartridges were considered "very good", but any company that limits its users
to proprietary parts (as if a car maker were to require a buyer to use only
*their* tires, *their* oil and so forth) is simply wrong. That is a matter of
opinion, of course. But that level of decision-making has obsoleted thousands
of B&) TTs if the owner does not wish to invest in a Soundsmith cartridge. The
cost of that part will exceed the value of the TT by a large margin.

But, for a definiton of eyewash: insert "nonsense" and you would be close.
Soothing to the eyes, not a lot of substance.


Peter
I was the technical manager of B & O of America for over 5 years, I feel
confident in telling you that your take on their serviceability is way off
the mark. If their products were so unserviceable, then why was I hired to
train technicians how to service them? Why did we have excellent service
manuals for everything and a well stocked parts department? I spent 3 months
out of each year conducting service seminars on all new product releases. As
for the turntables, yes they had proprietary cartridges and did so because
they wanted the lowest possible moving mass in the arm. They never hid that
fact, and they supplied replacement cartridges at least 15 yrs after they
produced the last turntables and then licensed the cartridge manufacture to
a third party. Companies discontinue parts all the time, Peter. Get over it.
Try finding a new headshell or an idler for a Dual, Miracord, or Garrard.
Try getting arm components or a new drive motor for a Pioneer or Sony. Yes
the replacements are expensive for B & O cartridges. But they're available.
Ask Shure if they've got any replacement styli for their V15 series.
As for substance, you've got a lot of nerve making such a statement, while
obviously knowing nothing about the company and its history. They've got a
huge portfolio of patents, invented technologies like Dolby HX Pro and line
contact styli, were the earliest to make an electronic servo driven linear
tracking arm (again patented) have done a lot of basic research into
loudspeaker technology, etc. And in Europe, they did a lot of breakthrough
work on the video side as well.


  #6   Report Post  
chip j chip j is offline
Junior Member
 
Posts: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Stone View Post
On 9/29/15, 9:15 AM, in article ,
" wrote:

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 11:27:30 PM UTC-4, John Stone wrote:


What exactly does "eyewash" mean? First of all, B & O stopped making
cartridges a long time ago. But when they did make them, they were
considered very good, contrary to what you might think.


John:

B&O makes (and made) all kinds of equipment that was eye-catching, sounded
reasonably good, but was (and is) essentially unserviceable. Yes, their
cartridges were considered "very good", but any company that limits its users
to proprietary parts (as if a car maker were to require a buyer to use only
*their* tires, *their* oil and so forth) is simply wrong. That is a matter of
opinion, of course. But that level of decision-making has obsoleted thousands
of B&) TTs if the owner does not wish to invest in a Soundsmith cartridge. The
cost of that part will exceed the value of the TT by a large margin.

But, for a definiton of eyewash: insert "nonsense" and you would be close.
Soothing to the eyes, not a lot of substance.


Peter
I was the technical manager of B & O of America for over 5 years, I feel
confident in telling you that your take on their serviceability is way off
the mark. If their products were so unserviceable, then why was I hired to
train technicians how to service them? Why did we have excellent service
manuals for everything and a well stocked parts department? I spent 3 months
out of each year conducting service seminars on all new product releases. As
for the turntables, yes they had proprietary cartridges and did so because
they wanted the lowest possible moving mass in the arm. They never hid that
fact, and they supplied replacement cartridges at least 15 yrs after they
produced the last turntables and then licensed the cartridge manufacture to
a third party. Companies discontinue parts all the time, Peter. Get over it.
Try finding a new headshell or an idler for a Dual, Miracord, or Garrard.
Try getting arm components or a new drive motor for a Pioneer or Sony. Yes
the replacements are expensive for B & O cartridges. But they're available.
Ask Shure if they've got any replacement styli for their V15 series.
As for substance, you've got a lot of nerve making such a statement, while
obviously knowing nothing about the company and its history. They've got a
huge portfolio of patents, invented technologies like Dolby HX Pro and line
contact styli, were the earliest to make an electronic servo driven linear
tracking arm (again patented) have done a lot of basic research into
loudspeaker technology, etc. And in Europe, they did a lot of breakthrough
work on the video side as well.
Dear John, do you mean it"s possible for me to get a new motor for my Beogram RX?
  #7   Report Post  
dolph dolph is offline
Junior Member
 
Posts: 11
Default

Thank u very much for the posts!
192.168.l.2

Last edited by dolph : September 6th 16 at 01:20 PM
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
compression in classical music Zigo Zago Pro Audio 83 November 30th 06 07:31 PM
Recording Classical music Jenn Audio Opinions 33 February 12th 06 07:54 AM
Recording Classical music Jenn High End Audio 3 February 12th 06 12:28 AM
Pop/Classical Music needs to be found ppk Pro Audio 60 March 30th 04 08:50 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:26 AM.

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"