"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
That's one of the compare-and-contrasts between Grado and Shure
cartridges.
The Shure cartridges are less sensitive to tone arm mass, and the Grado
cartridges are less sensitive to cartridge capacitive loading.

Yes, but it's *SO* much easier to try a few 10 cent capacitors across the
pre-amp input, than to change tone arms :-)

TonyP.

TonyP wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

That's one of the compare-and-contrasts between Grado and Shure
cartridges. The Shure cartridges are less sensitive to tone arm
mass, and the Grado cartridges are less sensitive to cartridge
capacitive loading.

Yes, but it's *SO* much easier to try a few 10 cent capacitors across
the pre-amp input, than to change tone arms :-)

I agree and I've definately done so myself on numerous occasions.

Surprisingly, there seem to be a lot of audiophiles who feel differently.

Probably, a big part of the problem is that the right way to do this
involves also having a test record and doing some frequency response
measurements.

TonyP wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

That's one of the compare-and-contrasts between Grado and Shure
cartridges. The Shure cartridges are less sensitive to tone arm
mass, and the Grado cartridges are less sensitive to cartridge
capacitive loading.

Yes, but it's *SO* much easier to try a few 10 cent capacitors across
the pre-amp input, than to change tone arms :-)

I agree and I've definately done so myself on numerous occasions.

Surprisingly, there seem to be a lot of audiophiles who feel differently.

Probably, a big part of the problem is that the right way to do this
involves also having a test record and doing some frequency response
measurements.

TonyP wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

That's one of the compare-and-contrasts between Grado and Shure
cartridges. The Shure cartridges are less sensitive to tone arm
mass, and the Grado cartridges are less sensitive to cartridge
capacitive loading.

Yes, but it's *SO* much easier to try a few 10 cent capacitors across
the pre-amp input, than to change tone arms :-)

I agree and I've definately done so myself on numerous occasions.

Surprisingly, there seem to be a lot of audiophiles who feel differently.

Probably, a big part of the problem is that the right way to do this
involves also having a test record and doing some frequency response
measurements.

TonyP wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

That's one of the compare-and-contrasts between Grado and Shure
cartridges. The Shure cartridges are less sensitive to tone arm
mass, and the Grado cartridges are less sensitive to cartridge
capacitive loading.

Yes, but it's *SO* much easier to try a few 10 cent capacitors across
the pre-amp input, than to change tone arms :-)

I agree and I've definately done so myself on numerous occasions.

Surprisingly, there seem to be a lot of audiophiles who feel differently.

Probably, a big part of the problem is that the right way to do this
involves also having a test record and doing some frequency response
measurements.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
TonyP wrote:
Yes, but it's *SO* much easier to try a few 10 cent capacitors across
the pre-amp input, than to change tone arms :-)

I agree and I've definately done so myself on numerous occasions.
Surprisingly, there seem to be a lot of audiophiles who feel differently.
Probably, a big part of the problem is that the right way to do this
involves also having a test record and doing some frequency response
measurements.

I do of course, but if someone can't tell what sounds right to them, then
they probably don't need to worry anyway.
However many audiophiles like to adjust frequency response by changing the
most expensive components instead. And would NEVER use a tone control :-)

TonyP.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
TonyP wrote:
Yes, but it's *SO* much easier to try a few 10 cent capacitors across
the pre-amp input, than to change tone arms :-)

I agree and I've definately done so myself on numerous occasions.
Surprisingly, there seem to be a lot of audiophiles who feel differently.
Probably, a big part of the problem is that the right way to do this
involves also having a test record and doing some frequency response
measurements.

I do of course, but if someone can't tell what sounds right to them, then
they probably don't need to worry anyway.
However many audiophiles like to adjust frequency response by changing the
most expensive components instead. And would NEVER use a tone control :-)

TonyP.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
TonyP wrote:
Yes, but it's *SO* much easier to try a few 10 cent capacitors across
the pre-amp input, than to change tone arms :-)

I agree and I've definately done so myself on numerous occasions.
Surprisingly, there seem to be a lot of audiophiles who feel differently.
Probably, a big part of the problem is that the right way to do this
involves also having a test record and doing some frequency response
measurements.

I do of course, but if someone can't tell what sounds right to them, then
they probably don't need to worry anyway.
However many audiophiles like to adjust frequency response by changing the
most expensive components instead. And would NEVER use a tone control :-)

TonyP.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
TonyP wrote:
Yes, but it's *SO* much easier to try a few 10 cent capacitors across
the pre-amp input, than to change tone arms :-)

I agree and I've definately done so myself on numerous occasions.
Surprisingly, there seem to be a lot of audiophiles who feel differently.
Probably, a big part of the problem is that the right way to do this
involves also having a test record and doing some frequency response
measurements.

I do of course, but if someone can't tell what sounds right to them, then
they probably don't need to worry anyway.
However many audiophiles like to adjust frequency response by changing the
most expensive components instead. And would NEVER use a tone control :-)

TonyP.

TonyP wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
TonyP wrote:
Yes, but it's *SO* much easier to try a few 10 cent capacitors
across the pre-amp input, than to change tone arms :-)

I agree and I've definitely done so myself on numerous occasions.
Surprisingly, there seem to be a lot of audiophiles who feel
differently. Probably, a big part of the problem is that the right
way to do this involves also having a test record and doing some
frequency response measurements.

I do of course, but if someone can't tell what sounds right to them,
then they probably don't need to worry anyway.

We seem to see a number of people who only know what sounds wrong to them.

However many audiophiles like to adjust frequency response by
changing the most expensive components instead. And would NEVER use a
tone control :-)

All too true. I've seen a ton of bitching about the sound quality of Shure
cartridges from people who have no concept of adjusting capacitive loading.

TonyP wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
TonyP wrote:
Yes, but it's *SO* much easier to try a few 10 cent capacitors
across the pre-amp input, than to change tone arms :-)

I agree and I've definitely done so myself on numerous occasions.
Surprisingly, there seem to be a lot of audiophiles who feel
differently. Probably, a big part of the problem is that the right
way to do this involves also having a test record and doing some
frequency response measurements.

I do of course, but if someone can't tell what sounds right to them,
then they probably don't need to worry anyway.

We seem to see a number of people who only know what sounds wrong to them.

However many audiophiles like to adjust frequency response by
changing the most expensive components instead. And would NEVER use a
tone control :-)

All too true. I've seen a ton of bitching about the sound quality of Shure
cartridges from people who have no concept of adjusting capacitive loading.

TonyP wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
TonyP wrote:
Yes, but it's *SO* much easier to try a few 10 cent capacitors
across the pre-amp input, than to change tone arms :-)

I agree and I've definitely done so myself on numerous occasions.
Surprisingly, there seem to be a lot of audiophiles who feel
differently. Probably, a big part of the problem is that the right
way to do this involves also having a test record and doing some
frequency response measurements.

I do of course, but if someone can't tell what sounds right to them,
then they probably don't need to worry anyway.

We seem to see a number of people who only know what sounds wrong to them.

However many audiophiles like to adjust frequency response by
changing the most expensive components instead. And would NEVER use a
tone control :-)

All too true. I've seen a ton of bitching about the sound quality of Shure
cartridges from people who have no concept of adjusting capacitive loading.

TonyP wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
TonyP wrote:
Yes, but it's *SO* much easier to try a few 10 cent capacitors
across the pre-amp input, than to change tone arms :-)

I agree and I've definitely done so myself on numerous occasions.
Surprisingly, there seem to be a lot of audiophiles who feel
differently. Probably, a big part of the problem is that the right
way to do this involves also having a test record and doing some
frequency response measurements.

I do of course, but if someone can't tell what sounds right to them,
then they probably don't need to worry anyway.

We seem to see a number of people who only know what sounds wrong to them.

However many audiophiles like to adjust frequency response by
changing the most expensive components instead. And would NEVER use a
tone control :-)

All too true. I've seen a ton of bitching about the sound quality of Shure
cartridges from people who have no concept of adjusting capacitive loading.

I do of course, but if someone can't tell what sounds right to them,
then they probably don't need to worry anyway.

We seem to see a number of people who only know what sounds
wrong to them.

A good point. If you're picking equipment on the basis of euphony or
"musicality," why do you need a reviewer to tell you what you like?

I do of course, but if someone can't tell what sounds right to them,
then they probably don't need to worry anyway.

We seem to see a number of people who only know what sounds
wrong to them.

A good point. If you're picking equipment on the basis of euphony or
"musicality," why do you need a reviewer to tell you what you like?

I do of course, but if someone can't tell what sounds right to them,
then they probably don't need to worry anyway.

We seem to see a number of people who only know what sounds
wrong to them.

A good point. If you're picking equipment on the basis of euphony or
"musicality," why do you need a reviewer to tell you what you like?

I do of course, but if someone can't tell what sounds right to them,
then they probably don't need to worry anyway.

We seem to see a number of people who only know what sounds
wrong to them.

A good point. If you're picking equipment on the basis of euphony or
"musicality," why do you need a reviewer to tell you what you like?

William Sommerwerck wrote:
I do of course, but if someone can't tell what sounds right to them,
then they probably don't need to worry anyway.

We seem to see a number of people who only know what sounds
wrong to them.

A good point. If you're picking equipment on the basis of euphony or
"musicality," why do you need a reviewer to tell you what you like?

Because a good reviewer will tell you that. A good reviewer will say,
"This measured this way, but it sounded this other way to me. It
sounds brighter than the model X and less bright than the model Y, and
it has a particular thing going on in the upper midrange like model Z."
This lets you get some vague sort of sense about how it sounds, or at
least how it doesn't sound. It's nowhere near enough information to
pick equipment, but it should be enough to specifically rule out some
gear, and give you a short list of equipment to audition.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

William Sommerwerck wrote:
I do of course, but if someone can't tell what sounds right to them,
then they probably don't need to worry anyway.

We seem to see a number of people who only know what sounds
wrong to them.

A good point. If you're picking equipment on the basis of euphony or
"musicality," why do you need a reviewer to tell you what you like?

Because a good reviewer will tell you that. A good reviewer will say,
"This measured this way, but it sounded this other way to me. It
sounds brighter than the model X and less bright than the model Y, and
it has a particular thing going on in the upper midrange like model Z."
This lets you get some vague sort of sense about how it sounds, or at
least how it doesn't sound. It's nowhere near enough information to
pick equipment, but it should be enough to specifically rule out some
gear, and give you a short list of equipment to audition.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

William Sommerwerck wrote:
I do of course, but if someone can't tell what sounds right to them,
then they probably don't need to worry anyway.

We seem to see a number of people who only know what sounds
wrong to them.

A good point. If you're picking equipment on the basis of euphony or
"musicality," why do you need a reviewer to tell you what you like?

Because a good reviewer will tell you that. A good reviewer will say,
"This measured this way, but it sounded this other way to me. It
sounds brighter than the model X and less bright than the model Y, and
it has a particular thing going on in the upper midrange like model Z."
This lets you get some vague sort of sense about how it sounds, or at
least how it doesn't sound. It's nowhere near enough information to
pick equipment, but it should be enough to specifically rule out some
gear, and give you a short list of equipment to audition.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

William Sommerwerck wrote:
I do of course, but if someone can't tell what sounds right to them,
then they probably don't need to worry anyway.

We seem to see a number of people who only know what sounds
wrong to them.

A good point. If you're picking equipment on the basis of euphony or
"musicality," why do you need a reviewer to tell you what you like?

Because a good reviewer will tell you that. A good reviewer will say,
"This measured this way, but it sounded this other way to me. It
sounds brighter than the model X and less bright than the model Y, and
it has a particular thing going on in the upper midrange like model Z."
This lets you get some vague sort of sense about how it sounds, or at
least how it doesn't sound. It's nowhere near enough information to
pick equipment, but it should be enough to specifically rule out some
gear, and give you a short list of equipment to audition.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Ken Bouchard wrote:
yes, the DJ100 is built "heavy duty" to withstand the rigors of dj use and
the harsh treatment of old 78's.

It also has very different compliance than the regular Grado line, and so it
is less likely to go into bizarre dance movements if you put it on a heavy
arm.

No, the styli available with a "Grado" are not simply a 5 pack of the same
stylus but rather a full range of different sizes much like those available
for the Stanton 500 but don't cost as much, I got a DJ100 with a 3.5 mil
stylus mounted in a "universal" head-shell for $40 less than the Stanton
(and that was with the Grado cart. costing more than twice the Stanton 500!)
and from what I'm reading here, the Grado is at least as good as the
Stanton. (also, KAB was out of stock and since custom styli come from the
UK, estimate was 10 weeks for a 500 stylus)

It'll check out the KAB set!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Ken Bouchard wrote:
yes, the DJ100 is built "heavy duty" to withstand the rigors of dj use and
the harsh treatment of old 78's.

It also has very different compliance than the regular Grado line, and so it
is less likely to go into bizarre dance movements if you put it on a heavy
arm.

No, the styli available with a "Grado" are not simply a 5 pack of the same
stylus but rather a full range of different sizes much like those available
for the Stanton 500 but don't cost as much, I got a DJ100 with a 3.5 mil
stylus mounted in a "universal" head-shell for $40 less than the Stanton
(and that was with the Grado cart. costing more than twice the Stanton 500!)
and from what I'm reading here, the Grado is at least as good as the
Stanton. (also, KAB was out of stock and since custom styli come from the
UK, estimate was 10 weeks for a 500 stylus)

It'll check out the KAB set!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Ken Bouchard wrote:
yes, the DJ100 is built "heavy duty" to withstand the rigors of dj use and
the harsh treatment of old 78's.

It also has very different compliance than the regular Grado line, and so it
is less likely to go into bizarre dance movements if you put it on a heavy
arm.

No, the styli available with a "Grado" are not simply a 5 pack of the same
stylus but rather a full range of different sizes much like those available
for the Stanton 500 but don't cost as much, I got a DJ100 with a 3.5 mil
stylus mounted in a "universal" head-shell for $40 less than the Stanton
(and that was with the Grado cart. costing more than twice the Stanton 500!)
and from what I'm reading here, the Grado is at least as good as the
Stanton. (also, KAB was out of stock and since custom styli come from the
UK, estimate was 10 weeks for a 500 stylus)

It'll check out the KAB set!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Ken Bouchard wrote:
yes, the DJ100 is built "heavy duty" to withstand the rigors of dj use and
the harsh treatment of old 78's.

It also has very different compliance than the regular Grado line, and so it
is less likely to go into bizarre dance movements if you put it on a heavy
arm.

No, the styli available with a "Grado" are not simply a 5 pack of the same
stylus but rather a full range of different sizes much like those available
for the Stanton 500 but don't cost as much, I got a DJ100 with a 3.5 mil
stylus mounted in a "universal" head-shell for $40 less than the Stanton
(and that was with the Grado cart. costing more than twice the Stanton 500!)
and from what I'm reading here, the Grado is at least as good as the
Stanton. (also, KAB was out of stock and since custom styli come from the
UK, estimate was 10 weeks for a 500 stylus)

It'll check out the KAB set!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

A good point. If you're picking equipment on the basis of euphony or
"musicality," why do you need a reviewer to tell you what you like?

Because a good reviewer will tell you that. A good reviewer will say,
"This measured this way, but it sounded this other way to me. It
sounds brighter than the model X and less bright than the model Y, and
it has a particular thing going on in the upper midrange like model Z."
This lets you get some vague sort of sense about how it sounds, or at
least how it doesn't sound. It's nowhere near enough information to
pick equipment, but it should be enough to specifically rule out some
gear, and give you a short list of equipment to audition.

You're right, but I'm thinking in broader terms -- "euphony versus accuracy."
Telling the reader what something really (???) sounds like is certainly useful,
but I was much more interested in determining whether it was literally accurate,
something that wasn't of much interest to the editor, publisher, or readers of
Stereophile.

This wasn't the main reason, but it was _one_ reason I stopped reviewing.

A good point. If you're picking equipment on the basis of euphony or
"musicality," why do you need a reviewer to tell you what you like?

Because a good reviewer will tell you that. A good reviewer will say,
"This measured this way, but it sounded this other way to me. It
sounds brighter than the model X and less bright than the model Y, and
it has a particular thing going on in the upper midrange like model Z."
This lets you get some vague sort of sense about how it sounds, or at
least how it doesn't sound. It's nowhere near enough information to
pick equipment, but it should be enough to specifically rule out some
gear, and give you a short list of equipment to audition.

You're right, but I'm thinking in broader terms -- "euphony versus accuracy."
Telling the reader what something really (???) sounds like is certainly useful,
but I was much more interested in determining whether it was literally accurate,
something that wasn't of much interest to the editor, publisher, or readers of
Stereophile.

This wasn't the main reason, but it was _one_ reason I stopped reviewing.

A good point. If you're picking equipment on the basis of euphony or
"musicality," why do you need a reviewer to tell you what you like?

Because a good reviewer will tell you that. A good reviewer will say,
"This measured this way, but it sounded this other way to me. It
sounds brighter than the model X and less bright than the model Y, and
it has a particular thing going on in the upper midrange like model Z."
This lets you get some vague sort of sense about how it sounds, or at
least how it doesn't sound. It's nowhere near enough information to
pick equipment, but it should be enough to specifically rule out some
gear, and give you a short list of equipment to audition.

You're right, but I'm thinking in broader terms -- "euphony versus accuracy."
Telling the reader what something really (???) sounds like is certainly useful,
but I was much more interested in determining whether it was literally accurate,
something that wasn't of much interest to the editor, publisher, or readers of
Stereophile.

This wasn't the main reason, but it was _one_ reason I stopped reviewing.

A good point. If you're picking equipment on the basis of euphony or
"musicality," why do you need a reviewer to tell you what you like?

Because a good reviewer will tell you that. A good reviewer will say,
"This measured this way, but it sounded this other way to me. It
sounds brighter than the model X and less bright than the model Y, and
it has a particular thing going on in the upper midrange like model Z."
This lets you get some vague sort of sense about how it sounds, or at
least how it doesn't sound. It's nowhere near enough information to
pick equipment, but it should be enough to specifically rule out some
gear, and give you a short list of equipment to audition.

You're right, but I'm thinking in broader terms -- "euphony versus accuracy."
Telling the reader what something really (???) sounds like is certainly useful,
but I was much more interested in determining whether it was literally accurate,
something that wasn't of much interest to the editor, publisher, or readers of
Stereophile.

This wasn't the main reason, but it was _one_ reason I stopped reviewing.

William Sommerwerck wrote:

I do of course, but if someone can't tell what sounds right to them,
then they probably don't need to worry anyway.

We seem to see a number of people who only know what sounds
wrong to them.

A good point. If you're picking equipment on the basis of euphony or
"musicality," why do you need a reviewer to tell you what you like?

Because so many aspects of euphony are generalized. Example: absence of
high-order nonlinear distortion. This would be a classic parameter for
people who like to (correctly) claim that THD measurements are a lot less
meaningful than we might like them to be.

William Sommerwerck wrote:

I do of course, but if someone can't tell what sounds right to them,
then they probably don't need to worry anyway.

We seem to see a number of people who only know what sounds
wrong to them.

A good point. If you're picking equipment on the basis of euphony or
"musicality," why do you need a reviewer to tell you what you like?

Because so many aspects of euphony are generalized. Example: absence of
high-order nonlinear distortion. This would be a classic parameter for
people who like to (correctly) claim that THD measurements are a lot less
meaningful than we might like them to be.

William Sommerwerck wrote:

I do of course, but if someone can't tell what sounds right to them,
then they probably don't need to worry anyway.

We seem to see a number of people who only know what sounds
wrong to them.

A good point. If you're picking equipment on the basis of euphony or
"musicality," why do you need a reviewer to tell you what you like?

Because so many aspects of euphony are generalized. Example: absence of
high-order nonlinear distortion. This would be a classic parameter for
people who like to (correctly) claim that THD measurements are a lot less
meaningful than we might like them to be.

William Sommerwerck wrote:

I do of course, but if someone can't tell what sounds right to them,
then they probably don't need to worry anyway.

We seem to see a number of people who only know what sounds
wrong to them.

A good point. If you're picking equipment on the basis of euphony or
"musicality," why do you need a reviewer to tell you what you like?

Because so many aspects of euphony are generalized. Example: absence of
high-order nonlinear distortion. This would be a classic parameter for
people who like to (correctly) claim that THD measurements are a lot less
meaningful than we might like them to be.