Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
I know that moving-coil cartridges are much loved by the hi-fi press
and by many audiophiles. I also know that there are many claims about the performance of cartridges, but there doesn't seem to be much in the way of measurements available. So, I'm wondering if there is any actual technical information available that compares moving-coil and other designs. I've done a web search and while opinions are plentiful, facts are pretty thin on the ground. It's fair enough to prefer one cartridge over another, but are any of the new moving-coil cartridges objectively more accurate than, say, a V15? Or does no-one bother actually measuring any more? Thanks, Andrew. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Andrew Haley" wrote in message
... I know that moving-coil cartridges are much loved by the hi-fi press and by many audiophiles. I also know that there are many claims about the performance of cartridges, but there doesn't seem to be much in the way of measurements available. So, I'm wondering if there is any actual technical information available that compares moving-coil and other designs. I've done a web search and while opinions are plentiful, facts are pretty thin on the ground. It's fair enough to prefer one cartridge over another, but are any of the new moving-coil cartridges objectively more accurate than, say, a V15? Or does no-one bother actually measuring any more? Thanks, Andrew. This isn't going to satisfy you, I am sure....but in answer to your question "are any of the new moving-coil cartridges objectively more accurate than, say, a V15?" If you value transparency and "you are there" realism, the answer is yes...from many of them. And they don't have to be new....my thirty year old Accuphase AC-2 playing through a modified Marcof battery-driven headamp beats the pants off the Shure...and my old and beloved ADC XLII ... and any Grado I've heard. Back when measurements were common, the most distinquishing characteristics of the better moving coils was a much faster rise time, with a very quick cycle of overshoot and the a steady "top" to the square wave. By comparison the moving magnets and moving irons generally had much slower rise times and overly dampened transient response due to rolled off hghs (and that included the V15). So the moving coils simply sounded more lifelike and "real" (read: less "canned") when reproducing actual music. You heard this not only in the featured instruments, but also in the amount of room ambience caught that lent separation, body, and dimensionality to the reproduction. Not objective enough for you? I'd suggest a library visit into the High Fidelity and Audio magazine libraries, circa late sixties - early eighties. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
Harry Lavo wrote:
Back when measurements were common, the most distinquishing characteristics of the better moving coils was a much faster rise time, with a very quick cycle of overshoot and the a steady "top" to the square wave. By comparison the moving magnets and moving irons generally had much slower rise times and overly dampened transient response due to rolled off hghs (and that included the V15). So the moving coils simply sounded more lifelike and "real" (read: less "canned") when reproducing actual music. You heard this not only in the featured instruments, but also in the amount of room ambience caught that lent separation, body, and dimensionality to the reproduction. Not objective enough for you? I'd suggest a library visit into the High Fidelity and Audio magazine libraries, circa late sixties - early eighties. Almost all moving coil cartridges have a rising top end response deviating from flat, with a peak at tip resonance, which is why they have the square wave response you described. Most of them are better than they used to be in this respect, but this characteristic still exists. The V15 is relatively flat in comparison. Do you know how to interpret square waves? From your comments, you know just enough to be misrepresentative. Have you actually measured any cartridges? I've measured quite a few of them with much better resolution than what was published in the rags of which you speak. It's not hard. This is 2009. You're at the mercy of the test record, but when the same characteristics show up with several different test records, one can draw some fairly reasonable conclusions. You can also draw reasonable conclusions about the test records themselves by comparing them with a cartridge that can be shown to be relatively flat. To rational people, it's really more important that the cartridge have flat response for frequencies that are actually physically audible. Sure, MC's usually can go out higher. But it's because of the rising top end in the audible range. That's why they usually sound different too. Turning up the treble control from flat on an amplifier generally does the same thing. Some people like this. I don't. Recordings usually have way too much high frequency information in the first place because of the unfortunate practice microscopic miking. But many audiophiles seem to like this. It also keeps the biz going by churning the market. What I say here is pretty much the same thing as Robert Greene says in your beloved Absolute Sound rag and on his mailing list. At least someone is telling some truths there. Those darned mathematicians... ;-) All this doesn't mean you can't like MC cartridges personally. Enjoy them if you wish, but please - don't pass them off as more accurate except within your own personal preferences. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:27:10 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ): "Andrew Haley" wrote in message ... I know that moving-coil cartridges are much loved by the hi-fi press and by many audiophiles. I also know that there are many claims about the performance of cartridges, but there doesn't seem to be much in the way of measurements available. So, I'm wondering if there is any actual technical information available that compares moving-coil and other designs. I've done a web search and while opinions are plentiful, facts are pretty thin on the ground. It's fair enough to prefer one cartridge over another, but are any of the new moving-coil cartridges objectively more accurate than, say, a V15? Or does no-one bother actually measuring any more? Thanks, Andrew. This isn't going to satisfy you, I am sure....but in answer to your question "are any of the new moving-coil cartridges objectively more accurate than, say, a V15?" If you value transparency and "you are there" realism, the answer is yes...from many of them. And they don't have to be new....my thirty year old Accuphase AC-2 playing through a modified Marcof battery-driven headamp beats the pants off the Shure...and my old and beloved ADC XLII ... and any Grado I've heard. Back when measurements were common, the most distinquishing characteristics of the better moving coils was a much faster rise time, with a very quick cycle of overshoot and the a steady "top" to the square wave. By comparison the moving magnets and moving irons generally had much slower rise times and overly dampened transient response due to rolled off hghs (and that included the V15). So the moving coils simply sounded more lifelike and "real" (read: less "canned") when reproducing actual music. You heard this not only in the featured instruments, but also in the amount of room ambience caught that lent separation, body, and dimensionality to the reproduction. Not objective enough for you? I'd suggest a library visit into the High Fidelity and Audio magazine libraries, circa late sixties - early eighties. Measurements for cartridges don't really tell you much. Sure, they can show frequency response, square-wave response, ringing, output level, compliance, tracking ability, distortion, etc., etc., etc. But none of these tells you how the cartridge will sound. In this regard, cartridges are much like speakers. While measurements can tell one a lot about speakers, ultimately, you have to listen. Same with cartridges. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Andrew Haley" wrote in message
... I know that moving-coil cartridges are much loved by the hi-fi press and by many audiophiles. I also know that there are many claims about the performance of cartridges, but there doesn't seem to be much in the way of measurements available. There have been measurements of them in the past. They generally don't measure out to be very accurate. But playing vinyl in general is not usually about accuracy. Objectively, vinyl playback is very inaccurate, something that just about everybody was aware of in the day. If you ever heard the HS master tapes that LPs were made from, you knew that putting music on vinyl was a step backward from accuracy, musicality, enjoyability, you name it. The #1 problem in cartridge design is minimizing moving mass while providing appropriate durability and rigidity. So, I'm wondering if there is any actual technical information available that compares moving-coil and other designs. The challenge has always been to make a couple of coils of wire less massy than an iron reluctor or a small magnet. I've done a web search and while opinions are plentiful, facts are pretty thin on the ground. It's fair enough to prefer one cartridge over another, but are any of the new moving-coil cartridges objectively more accurate than, say, a V15? Not that I'm aware of. Or does no-one bother actually measuring any more? It's very easy to do with a computer and a good test record. I would have done it long ago for some MC cartridges but I don't have access to any. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote: Back when measurements were common, the most distinquishing characteristics of the better moving coils was a much faster rise time, with a very quick cycle of overshoot and the a steady "top" to the square wave. By comparison the moving magnets and moving irons generally had much slower rise times and overly dampened transient response due to rolled off hghs (and that included the V15). So the moving coils simply sounded more lifelike and "real" (read: less "canned") when reproducing actual music. You heard this not only in the featured instruments, but also in the amount of room ambience caught that lent separation, body, and dimensionality to the reproduction. Not objective enough for you? I'd suggest a library visit into the High Fidelity and Audio magazine libraries, circa late sixties - early eighties. Almost all moving coil cartridges have a rising top end response deviating from flat, with a peak at tip resonance, which is why they have the square wave response you described. Most of them are better than they used to be in this respect, but this characteristic still exists. The V15 is relatively flat in comparison. Do you know how to interpret square waves? From your comments, you know just enough to be misrepresentative. Have you actually measured any cartridges? I've measured quite a few of them with much better resolution than what was published in the rags of which you speak. It's not hard. This is 2009. You're at the mercy of the test record, but when the same characteristics show up with several different test records, one can draw some fairly reasonable conclusions. You can also draw reasonable conclusions about the test records themselves by comparing them with a cartridge that can be shown to be relatively flat. To rational people, it's really more important that the cartridge have flat response for frequencies that are actually physically audible. Sure, MC's usually can go out higher. But it's because of the rising top end in the audible range. That's why they usually sound different too. Turning up the treble control from flat on an amplifier generally does the same thing. Some people like this. I don't. Recordings usually have way too much high frequency information in the first place because of the unfortunate practice microscopic miking. But many audiophiles seem to like this. It also keeps the biz going by churning the market. What I say here is pretty much the same thing as Robert Greene says in your beloved Absolute Sound rag and on his mailing list. At least someone is telling some truths there. Those darned mathematicians... ;-) All this doesn't mean you can't like MC cartridges personally. Enjoy them if you wish, but please - don't pass them off as more accurate except within your own personal preferences. Frankly, of when I spoke twenty-five years ago, MC's WERE more accurate. The rising resonance was generally out in the 25khz-35khz range and up to about 15khz, they wee flat. The moving irons, however, were very capacitive-sensative and in most preamps rolled off audibly, starting as low as 8-10Khz. An MC that was underdamped or badly designed would ring like crazy....the best only one major overshoot. The moving irons couldn't get out of their own way...no matter how the measured they simply didn't sound "live". |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:27:10 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote (in article ): "Andrew Haley" wrote in message ... I know that moving-coil cartridges are much loved by the hi-fi press and by many audiophiles. I also know that there are many claims about the performance of cartridges, but there doesn't seem to be much in the way of measurements available. So, I'm wondering if there is any actual technical information available that compares moving-coil and other designs. I've done a web search and while opinions are plentiful, facts are pretty thin on the ground. It's fair enough to prefer one cartridge over another, but are any of the new moving-coil cartridges objectively more accurate than, say, a V15? Or does no-one bother actually measuring any more? Thanks, Andrew. This isn't going to satisfy you, I am sure....but in answer to your question "are any of the new moving-coil cartridges objectively more accurate than, say, a V15?" If you value transparency and "you are there" realism, the answer is yes...from many of them. And they don't have to be new....my thirty year old Accuphase AC-2 playing through a modified Marcof battery-driven headamp beats the pants off the Shure...and my old and beloved ADC XLII ... and any Grado I've heard. Back when measurements were common, the most distinquishing characteristics of the better moving coils was a much faster rise time, with a very quick cycle of overshoot and the a steady "top" to the square wave. By comparison the moving magnets and moving irons generally had much slower rise times and overly dampened transient response due to rolled off hghs (and that included the V15). So the moving coils simply sounded more lifelike and "real" (read: less "canned") when reproducing actual music. You heard this not only in the featured instruments, but also in the amount of room ambience caught that lent separation, body, and dimensionality to the reproduction. Not objective enough for you? I'd suggest a library visit into the High Fidelity and Audio magazine libraries, circa late sixties - early eighties. Measurements for cartridges don't really tell you much. Sure, they can show frequency response, square-wave response, ringing, output level, compliance, tracking ability, distortion, etc., etc., etc. But none of these tells you how the cartridge will sound. In this regard, cartridges are much like speakers. While measurements can tell one a lot about speakers, ultimately, you have to listen. Same with cartridges. Those thinks told you a lot...sure the overshoot told you that they were ringing at some frequency...but if it was a single overshoot and well damped thereafter, then you knew the cartridge was properly designed and would probably sound pretty good. Those that rang "forever" were underdamped, and those that had a soft leading edge were overdamped or had badly rolled off high ends (most moving irons due to capacitive loading). These things were audible and directly effected the sound. My very first home audition of a MC was the primitive Ortofon SL-15. Compared to both the Shure V-15II and the ADC-25, it sounded both more lifelike and horribly bright in the treble. I wasn't too surprised to find, therefore, that it had a very fast rise-time but twin resonances at 9khz and 12khz (but was reasonble flat to about 7.5khz and above 14khz). The square wave response gave a pretty good clue to how the cartridge sounded, and I found this to be true for other cartridges as well. For example, the ADC's inevitably had better square wave response that the Shures, which were over-damped and required very low cable capacitances compared to most cables available in those days. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:43:21 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ): wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: Back when measurements were common, the most distinquishing characteristics of the better moving coils was a much faster rise time, with a very quick cycle of overshoot and the a steady "top" to the square wave. By comparison the moving magnets and moving irons generally had much slower rise times and overly dampened transient response due to rolled off hghs (and that included the V15). So the moving coils simply sounded more lifelike and "real" (read: less "canned") when reproducing actual music. You heard this not only in the featured instruments, but also in the amount of room ambience caught that lent separation, body, and dimensionality to the reproduction. Not objective enough for you? I'd suggest a library visit into the High Fidelity and Audio magazine libraries, circa late sixties - early eighties. Almost all moving coil cartridges have a rising top end response deviating from flat, with a peak at tip resonance, which is why they have the square wave response you described. Most of them are better than they used to be in this respect, but this characteristic still exists. The V15 is relatively flat in comparison. Do you know how to interpret square waves? From your comments, you know just enough to be misrepresentative. Have you actually measured any cartridges? I've measured quite a few of them with much better resolution than what was published in the rags of which you speak. It's not hard. This is 2009. You're at the mercy of the test record, but when the same characteristics show up with several different test records, one can draw some fairly reasonable conclusions. You can also draw reasonable conclusions about the test records themselves by comparing them with a cartridge that can be shown to be relatively flat. To rational people, it's really more important that the cartridge have flat response for frequencies that are actually physically audible. Sure, MC's usually can go out higher. But it's because of the rising top end in the audible range. That's why they usually sound different too. Turning up the treble control from flat on an amplifier generally does the same thing. Some people like this. I don't. Recordings usually have way too much high frequency information in the first place because of the unfortunate practice microscopic miking. But many audiophiles seem to like this. It also keeps the biz going by churning the market. What I say here is pretty much the same thing as Robert Greene says in your beloved Absolute Sound rag and on his mailing list. At least someone is telling some truths there. Those darned mathematicians... ;-) All this doesn't mean you can't like MC cartridges personally. Enjoy them if you wish, but please - don't pass them off as more accurate except within your own personal preferences. Frankly, of when I spoke twenty-five years ago, MC's WERE more accurate. The rising resonance was generally out in the 25khz-35khz range and up to about 15khz, they wee flat. The moving irons, however, were very capacitive-sensative and in most preamps rolled off audibly, starting as low as 8-10Khz. An MC that was underdamped or badly designed would ring like crazy....the best only one major overshoot. The moving irons couldn't get out of their own way...no matter how the measured they simply didn't sound "live". Modern MCs, even "low" priced ones like the current Sumiko Blue-Point II don't exhibit those characteristics. They are very musical, extremely fast, and cartridges like the Blue-Point are high enough in output and source impedance to sound their best when loaded with a standard 47K Ohm phono stage input. Low output MCs, are, in my opinion, much too fussy. They require lots of gain making them very susceptible to hum, and they usually require precise, custom loading to sound their best. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:03:57 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Andrew Haley" wrote in message ... I know that moving-coil cartridges are much loved by the hi-fi press and by many audiophiles. I also know that there are many claims about the performance of cartridges, but there doesn't seem to be much in the way of measurements available. There have been measurements of them in the past. They generally don't measure out to be very accurate. But playing vinyl in general is not usually about accuracy. Correct. It's about sounding "musical". Objectively, vinyl playback is very inaccurate, something that just about everybody was aware of in the day. If you ever heard the HS master tapes that LPs were made from, you knew that putting music on vinyl was a step backward from accuracy, musicality, enjoyability, you name it. The #1 problem in cartridge design is minimizing moving mass while providing appropriate durability and rigidity. So, I'm wondering if there is any actual technical information available that compares moving-coil and other designs. The challenge has always been to make a couple of coils of wire less massy than an iron reluctor or a small magnet. Difficult to do. Usually efforts in this direction led to coils with just a few turns on them resulting in extremely low output voltages making said cartridges very susceptible to hum, and requiring either a step-up transformer or a pre-preamp. Low-output MCs also require custom loading with regard to input impedance requiring that the user try a combination of capacitors and resistors to get it right. Most never do. I learned a long time ago that high-output MCs designed for standard 47K-Ohm phono inputs offered the best compromise. The slight increase in mass was more than offset by the ease of amplification and lack of fussy (and usually totally empirical) resistor and capacitive loading techniques. I've done a web search and while opinions are plentiful, facts are pretty thin on the ground. It's fair enough to prefer one cartridge over another, but are any of the new moving-coil cartridges objectively more accurate than, say, a V15? Not that I'm aware of. Actually, I have a Shure V-15 Type Vx-MR (last of the breed) and my $350 Sumiko Bluse-Point II blows it out of the water in every way. Or does no-one bother actually measuring any more? It's very easy to do with a computer and a good test record. I would have done it long ago for some MC cartridges but I don't have access to any. It's largely an irrelevant academic exercise anyway. The measurements don't tell you anything about how the cartridge sounds, and may actually prove to be prejudicial. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:42:39 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:27:10 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote (in article ): "Andrew Haley" wrote in message ... I know that moving-coil cartridges are much loved by the hi-fi press and by many audiophiles. I also know that there are many claims about the performance of cartridges, but there doesn't seem to be much in the way of measurements available. So, I'm wondering if there is any actual technical information available that compares moving-coil and other designs. I've done a web search and while opinions are plentiful, facts are pretty thin on the ground. It's fair enough to prefer one cartridge over another, but are any of the new moving-coil cartridges objectively more accurate than, say, a V15? Or does no-one bother actually measuring any more? Thanks, Andrew. This isn't going to satisfy you, I am sure....but in answer to your question "are any of the new moving-coil cartridges objectively more accurate than, say, a V15?" If you value transparency and "you are there" realism, the answer is yes...from many of them. And they don't have to be new....my thirty year old Accuphase AC-2 playing through a modified Marcof battery-driven headamp beats the pants off the Shure...and my old and beloved ADC XLII ... and any Grado I've heard. Back when measurements were common, the most distinquishing characteristics of the better moving coils was a much faster rise time, with a very quick cycle of overshoot and the a steady "top" to the square wave. By comparison the moving magnets and moving irons generally had much slower rise times and overly dampened transient response due to rolled off hghs (and that included the V15). So the moving coils simply sounded more lifelike and "real" (read: less "canned") when reproducing actual music. You heard this not only in the featured instruments, but also in the amount of room ambience caught that lent separation, body, and dimensionality to the reproduction. Not objective enough for you? I'd suggest a library visit into the High Fidelity and Audio magazine libraries, circa late sixties - early eighties. Measurements for cartridges don't really tell you much. Sure, they can show frequency response, square-wave response, ringing, output level, compliance, tracking ability, distortion, etc., etc., etc. But none of these tells you how the cartridge will sound. In this regard, cartridges are much like speakers. While measurements can tell one a lot about speakers, ultimately, you have to listen. Same with cartridges. Those thinks told you a lot...sure the overshoot told you that they were ringing at some frequency...but if it was a single overshoot and well damped thereafter, then you knew the cartridge was properly designed and would probably sound pretty good. Those that rang "forever" were underdamped, and those that had a soft leading edge were overdamped or had badly rolled off high ends (most moving irons due to capacitive loading). These things were audible and directly effected the sound. Yet, I've heard cartridges that were well damped and sounded dull and lifeless and vice-versa. My very first home audition of a MC was the primitive Ortofon SL-15. Compared to both the Shure V-15II and the ADC-25, it sounded both more lifelike and horribly bright in the treble. I wasn't too surprised to find, therefore, that it had a very fast rise-time but twin resonances at 9khz and 12khz (but was reasonble flat to about 7.5khz and above 14khz). The square wave response gave a pretty good clue to how the cartridge sounded, and I found this to be true for other cartridges as well. For example, the ADC's inevitably had better square wave response that the Shures, which were over-damped and required very low cable capacitances compared to most cables available in those days. Yet, I always found the ADC cartridges to be very "colored" sounding. Kind of thick and distorted on high-level stuff, and very molasses-like and homogeneous the rest of the time. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:43:21 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote (in article ): wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: Back when measurements were common, the most distinquishing characteristics of the better moving coils was a much faster rise time, with a very quick cycle of overshoot and the a steady "top" to the square wave. By comparison the moving magnets and moving irons generally had much slower rise times and overly dampened transient response due to rolled off hghs (and that included the V15). So the moving coils simply sounded more lifelike and "real" (read: less "canned") when reproducing actual music. You heard this not only in the featured instruments, but also in the amount of room ambience caught that lent separation, body, and dimensionality to the reproduction. Not objective enough for you? I'd suggest a library visit into the High Fidelity and Audio magazine libraries, circa late sixties - early eighties. Almost all moving coil cartridges have a rising top end response deviating from flat, with a peak at tip resonance, which is why they have the square wave response you described. Most of them are better than they used to be in this respect, but this characteristic still exists. The V15 is relatively flat in comparison. Do you know how to interpret square waves? From your comments, you know just enough to be misrepresentative. Have you actually measured any cartridges? I've measured quite a few of them with much better resolution than what was published in the rags of which you speak. It's not hard. This is 2009. You're at the mercy of the test record, but when the same characteristics show up with several different test records, one can draw some fairly reasonable conclusions. You can also draw reasonable conclusions about the test records themselves by comparing them with a cartridge that can be shown to be relatively flat. To rational people, it's really more important that the cartridge have flat response for frequencies that are actually physically audible. Sure, MC's usually can go out higher. But it's because of the rising top end in the audible range. That's why they usually sound different too. Turning up the treble control from flat on an amplifier generally does the same thing. Some people like this. I don't. Recordings usually have way too much high frequency information in the first place because of the unfortunate practice microscopic miking. But many audiophiles seem to like this. It also keeps the biz going by churning the market. What I say here is pretty much the same thing as Robert Greene says in your beloved Absolute Sound rag and on his mailing list. At least someone is telling some truths there. Those darned mathematicians... ;-) All this doesn't mean you can't like MC cartridges personally. Enjoy them if you wish, but please - don't pass them off as more accurate except within your own personal preferences. Frankly, of when I spoke twenty-five years ago, MC's WERE more accurate. The rising resonance was generally out in the 25khz-35khz range and up to about 15khz, they wee flat. The moving irons, however, were very capacitive-sensative and in most preamps rolled off audibly, starting as low as 8-10Khz. An MC that was underdamped or badly designed would ring like crazy....the best only one major overshoot. The moving irons couldn't get out of their own way...no matter how the measured they simply didn't sound "live". Modern MCs, even "low" priced ones like the current Sumiko Blue-Point II don't exhibit those characteristics. They are very musical, extremely fast, and cartridges like the Blue-Point are high enough in output and source impedance to sound their best when loaded with a standard 47K Ohm phono stage input. Low output MCs, are, in my opinion, much too fussy. They require lots of gain making them very susceptible to hum, and they usually require precise, custom loading to sound their best. What you say is true...I've had both high output and low output. But as a general rule, the low output moving coils have a lower effective tip-mass and therefore tend to sound smoother and track better. Headamps used to be a problem (an may still be) but most MC's now are designed to work into 100 ohms with some capacitor trimming capability, and people have discovered how to create much quieter gain stages (I've used the Marcoff since the earliy eighties....it was one of the first battery driven headamps and has customizeable resistance.....it is dead quiet. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Jun 20, 1:42*pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message speakers. While measurements can tell one a lot about speakers, ultimately, you have to listen. Same with cartridges. Those thinks told you a lot...sure the overshoot told you that they were ringing at some frequency Actually, it tells you nothing of the sort. A system with both flat amplitude response and flat phase response in the pass band will have no resonances AND will have ringing. Consider the well-known Gibbs phenomenon where simply truncating the number of terms in the series will result in symmetrical ringing: the response is both the amplitude- and phase-domain is absolutely dead-nuts flat with no resonances. but if it was a single overshoot and well damped thereafter, then you knew the cartridge was properly designed and would probably sound pretty good. *Those that rang "forever" were underdamped, Wrong. Unless you are arbitrarily changing the definitions of "damped," which are quite well established without the misguided aid of the high-end realm, ANY overshoot indicates the system is under-damped. and those that had a soft leading edge were overdamped or had badly rolled off high ends This example of discussion of "rise time" and "over damped" and "under damped" and all that is illustrative of what's wrong with the high end realm and "measurements." I don't mean to pick on you specifically, Harry (though I might be accused of using you as an example), but this is a case of knowing just enough to have the buzzwords but not enough to have it mean anything. "Rise time" is but one, and on VERY narrow and limited measure that, by itself, means nothing. If you're looking at transient response, a better measure is total settling time: which not only include the rise time, but ALSO includes the time for any overshoot to approach within some accepted limits of the final value. Minimizing rise time leads to severe response anomalies in the frequency domain and being such a limited measure, has no means of defining an optimum value. Instead selecting a criteria such as the minimum time to settle to the final value gives you an optimization goal. And that's something that's quite easily defined. The result is that since the high-end cutoff of a phono cartridge SYSTEM is effectively a 2nd- order low-pass, and since such present a minimum- phase response, we CAN say the the optimum transient performance of such a system occurs when the Q of the cutoff is approximately 0.58. This is the critically damped point, the response which provides the best transient performance (minimum transition and settling time). (most moving irons due to capacitive loading). * So fix the load capacitance. Why is the incorrect load capacitance such an issue, given how easy it is to fix. The vast, vast majority of MM phono inputs compined with the vast, vast majority of cable harnsess have to LITTLE capacitance, so it's a trivially easy fix. I wasn't too surprised to find, therefore, that it had a very fast rise-time And I'll assert, with a couple thousand person- centuries of of experience, theory and practice to back it up, that the rise time is defined as much IF NOT MORE by the input signal than by the response of the cartrdige system. Explain, for example how it can be any faster than the input signal. Square wave response tests have the advantage of being quite easy to generate, quite easy to view, and especially easy to (mis)interpret. As a real measurement tool that's capable of revealing any information, square waves are extremely limited in utility and content. The complex transfer function will tell you everything a square wave does, and much, much more and without the huge interpretive ambiguity of square waves. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:42:39 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote (in article ): [ Excess quoting snipped -- dsr ] My very first home audition of a MC was the primitive Ortofon SL-15. Compared to both the Shure V-15II and the ADC-25, it sounded both more lifelike and horribly bright in the treble. I wasn't too surprised to find, therefore, that it had a very fast rise-time but twin resonances at 9khz and 12khz (but was reasonble flat to about 7.5khz and above 14khz). The square wave response gave a pretty good clue to how the cartridge sounded, and I found this to be true for other cartridges as well. For example, the ADC's inevitably had better square wave response that the Shures, which were over-damped and required very low cable capacitances compared to most cables available in those days. Yet, I always found the ADC cartridges to be very "colored" sounding. Kind of thick and distorted on high-level stuff, and very molasses-like and homogeneous the rest of the time. They were colored, from a frequency response point of view. A lower-midrange emphasis that some like (I among them) but others did not (as you have noted was true in your case). They had to be matched to a low mass tonearm/headshell which required some effort and $, but when done so, tracking at one gram or slightly less, they had a realistic transient response and a 3-D sense of "body" that many MC's have, and the Shures of that era totally lacked. The more common medium and high-mass arms of the day never got the ADCs to sound right. I've got open reel tape reordings of cartridge comparisons I did back in 1967...interetingly enough the cartridge that sounded a bit cold and sterile then (a Stanton 681EEE) sounds most neutral to my ears today. But the ADC's were the most realistic sounding, and the Ortofon SL-15 sounded as bright as I have previously described. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:28:50 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:42:39 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote (in article ): [ Excess quoting snipped -- dsr ] My very first home audition of a MC was the primitive Ortofon SL-15. Compared to both the Shure V-15II and the ADC-25, it sounded both more lifelike and horribly bright in the treble. I wasn't too surprised to find, therefore, that it had a very fast rise-time but twin resonances at 9khz and 12khz (but was reasonble flat to about 7.5khz and above 14khz). The square wave response gave a pretty good clue to how the cartridge sounded, and I found this to be true for other cartridges as well. For example, the ADC's inevitably had better square wave response that the Shures, which were over-damped and required very low cable capacitances compared to most cables available in those days. Yet, I always found the ADC cartridges to be very "colored" sounding. Kind of thick and distorted on high-level stuff, and very molasses-like and homogeneous the rest of the time. They were colored, from a frequency response point of view. A lower-midrange emphasis that some like (I among them) but others did not (as you have noted was true in your case). They had to be matched to a low mass tonearm/headshell which required some effort and $, but when done so, tracking at one gram or slightly less, they had a realistic transient response and a 3-D sense of "body" that many MC's have, and the Shures of that era totally lacked. Was the Infinity "Black-Widow" arm low enough in mass for you? Because that's what I was using in my "ADC days". The more common medium and high-mass arms of the day never got the ADCs to sound right. I've got open reel tape reordings of cartridge comparisons I did back in 1967...interetingly enough the cartridge that sounded a bit cold and sterile then (a Stanton 681EEE) sounds most neutral to my ears today. But the ADC's were the most realistic sounding, and the Ortofon SL-15 sounded as bright as I have previously described. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:02:54 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... [quoted text deleted -- deb] Modern MCs, even "low" priced ones like the current Sumiko Blue-Point II don't exhibit those characteristics. They are very musical, extremely fast, and cartridges like the Blue-Point are high enough in output and source impedance to sound their best when loaded with a standard 47K Ohm phono stage input. Low output MCs, are, in my opinion, much too fussy. They require lots of gain making them very susceptible to hum, and they usually require precise, custom loading to sound their best. What you say is true...I've had both high output and low output. But as a general rule, the low output moving coils have a lower effective tip-mass and therefore tend to sound smoother and track better. Not my experience. Even relatively cheap high-output MC cartridges will already track the "Audio Obstacle Course" track on the Shure (?) test record and do it perfectly, so tracking wise, these MCs are "overkill" as it is. As for smoother sounding. You could be right, but I listen to the overall musicality, and some high-output MCs sound more life-like than some low-output MCs and vice versa. I've never noticed the strict correlation that you imply, although, logically, it makes sense. [quoted text deleted -- deb] |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
... On Jun 20, 1:42 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote: [ Excess quotation snipped. Folks, please trim more carefully; most people have the history of the thread at hand. -- dsr ] I wasn't too surprised to find, therefore, that it had a very fast rise-time And I'll assert, with a couple thousand person- centuries of of experience, theory and practice to back it up, that the rise time is defined as much IF NOT MORE by the input signal than by the response of the cartrdige system. Explain, for example how it can be any faster than the input signal. Square wave response tests have the advantage of being quite easy to generate, quite easy to view, and especially easy to (mis)interpret. As a real measurement tool that's capable of revealing any information, square waves are extremely limited in utility and content. The complex transfer function will tell you everything a square wave does, and much, much more and without the huge interpretive ambiguity of square waves. Dick, for all that, I don't think we are disagreeing. A fast rise time, coupled with a single overshoot will also certainly result in an optimum or near-optimum transient response in your terms. And obviously it depends on the input signal from the test record. But it wasn't difficult to get useful square wave input off test records back in the day...and they were designed specifically for this purpose. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:28:50 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:42:39 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote (in article ): [ Excess quoting snipped -- dsr ] My very first home audition of a MC was the primitive Ortofon SL-15. Compared to both the Shure V-15II and the ADC-25, it sounded both more lifelike and horribly bright in the treble. I wasn't too surprised to find, therefore, that it had a very fast rise-time but twin resonances at 9khz and 12khz (but was reasonble flat to about 7.5khz and above 14khz). The square wave response gave a pretty good clue to how the cartridge sounded, and I found this to be true for other cartridges as well. For example, the ADC's inevitably had better square wave response that the Shures, which were over-damped and required very low cable capacitances compared to most cables available in those days. Yet, I always found the ADC cartridges to be very "colored" sounding. Kind of thick and distorted on high-level stuff, and very molasses-like and homogeneous the rest of the time. They were colored, from a frequency response point of view. A lower-midrange emphasis that some like (I among them) but others did not (as you have noted was true in your case). They had to be matched to a low mass tonearm/headshell which required some effort and $, but when done so, tracking at one gram or slightly less, they had a realistic transient response and a 3-D sense of "body" that many MC's have, and the Shures of that era totally lacked. Was the Infinity "Black-Widow" arm low enough in mass for you? Because that's what I was using in my "ADC days". The more common medium and high-mass arms of the day never got the ADCs to sound right. I've got open reel tape reordings of cartridge comparisons I did back in 1967...interetingly enough the cartridge that sounded a bit cold and sterile then (a Stanton 681EEE) sounds most neutral to my ears today. But the ADC's were the most realistic sounding, and the Ortofon SL-15 sounded as bright as I have previously described. Yes, but it had a resonance due to the hinged headshell, as The Absolute Sound eventually determined despite it being their reference for a period of time. Nor was I implying that YOUR reaction was due to a mismatched arm. I was rather saying that many of the critics of that era never heard the cartridges in properly matched tonearms. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Jun 21, 1:47*pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message ... On Jun 20, 1:42 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote: [ Excess quotation snipped. Folks, please trim more carefully; * most people have the history of the thread at hand. *-- dsr ] I wasn't too surprised to find, therefore, that it had a very fast rise-time And I'll assert, with a couple thousand person- centuries of of experience, theory and practice to back it up, that the rise time is defined as much IF NOT MORE by the input signal than by the response of the cartrdige system. Explain, for example how it can be any faster than the input signal. Square wave response tests have the advantage of being quite easy to generate, quite easy to view, and especially easy to (mis)interpret. As a real measurement tool that's capable of revealing any information, square waves are extremely limited in utility and content. The complex transfer function will tell you everything a square wave does, and much, much more and without the huge interpretive ambiguity of square waves. Dick, for all that, I don't think we are disagreeing. * We are, indeed. A fast rise time, coupled with a single overshoot will also certainly result in an optimum or near-optimum transient response in your terms. * It will not. The behavior described is significantly underdamped, by every objective definition of the term. The optimum transient response is that which reaches the final value in the minimum time. A faster rise time in and of itself is NOT the sole indicator. The very existence of the overshoot says the system is NOT reaching its final state in the shortest time. And obviously it depends on the input signal from the test record. * But it wasn't difficult to get useful square wave input off test records back in the day...and they were designed specifically for this purpose. And in that, you've missed the point: you CAN'T cut a record to reproduce a square wave: the bandwidth of the cutter kills it. The very fact that the bandwidth is limited in and of itself can and very often does result in things like overshoot. And the ringing per se, as I said, is a red herring. Square wave testing is a simple, easy to view, intuitively obvious and almost totally useless methodology. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... What you say is true...I've had both high output and low output. But as a general rule, the low output moving coils have a lower effective tip-mass and therefore tend to sound smoother and track better. Typical MC tip mass = 0.3 mg. Shure MM tip mass = 0.040 - 0.139 mg Besides, tip mass is not of the essence. This is just another audiophile myth, perpetuated by people who lack the proper background in mechanics and dynamic systems to understand how these things work. The important parameter is stylus inertia, which is based on both mass and distance from the center of rotation. |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... Measurements for cartridges don't really tell you much. Sure, they can show frequency response, square-wave response, ringing, output level, compliance, tracking ability, distortion, etc., etc., etc. All of which (other than square wave response,) tell you lots about how the cartridge sounds. But none of these tells you how the cartridge will sound. Experience says otherwise. Back in the day we found that people can't successfully ABX cartridges that track well, have low enough distortion, etc. OTOH if the FR is a little off or you can find one mistracking or otherwise distortion, you can sort them like Easter eggs with ABX. In this regard, cartridges are much like / speakers. While measurements can tell one a lot about speakers, ultimately, you have to listen. There's some heavy hitters in the industry who will disagree with you about that, too. One big problem with speakers is that by the time their output hits your ear it has been heavily modified by the room. The modifications by your personal listening room is obviously not part of the manufacturer's specs for the product. Same with cartridges. IME, even more untrue. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... Dick, for all that, I don't think we are disagreeing. Interesting claim, given that you essentially repeat the same pack of errors that caused Dick's initial response. A fast rise time, coupled with a single overshoot will also certainly result in an optimum or near-optimum transient response in your terms. Not really. A critically damped system has a certain well-defined amount of overshoot. The phrase "single overshoot" allows a wide range of overshooting, so it is vague and therefore meaningless. And obviously it depends on the input signal from the test record. However, this disagrees with your previous claim that this test is easy to do and meaningful. But it wasn't difficult to get useful square wave input off test records back in the day. Again, "useful" = vague. The square wave responses were useful as fluff for advertising and not much else. Flat, smooth frequency response is of the essence. ..and they were designed specifically for this purpose. This time the antecedent is vague - was it the test records or the cartridges that were designed to give good square wave response for publication? In either case, the answer should be no. Square wave response is one of the more meaningless tests around because it confounds flat frequency response and phase response. Flat frequency response is of the essence, while phase response above 1 KHz applied equally to both channels has no audible significance unless very, very extreme. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Sonnova" wrote in message ... Measurements for cartridges don't really tell you much. Sure, they can show frequency response, square-wave response, ringing, output level, compliance, tracking ability, distortion, etc., etc., etc. All of which (other than square wave response,) tell you lots about how the cartridge sounds. But none of these tells you how the cartridge will sound. Experience says otherwise. Not only that, but square wave response tells you much about frequency response, ringing, and tracking response as well. Ergo, square wave response tells you much about what to expect in the way a cartridge sounds. snip, no comment on what follows |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... What you say is true...I've had both high output and low output. But as a general rule, the low output moving coils have a lower effective tip-mass and therefore tend to sound smoother and track better. Typical MC tip mass = 0.3 mg. Shure MM tip mass = 0.040 - 0.139 mg Besides, tip mass is not of the essence. This is just another audiophile myth, perpetuated by people who lack the proper background in mechanics and dynamic systems to understand how these things work. The important parameter is stylus inertia, which is based on both mass and distance from the center of rotation. Of course. But for a given stylus design, tip mass is the determining factor. And as a reality check, there is very little difference in stylus length pivot to tip for most cartridge designs, so tip mass becomes the main variable. Score debating points if you wish....but it doesn't invalidate the general observation. |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
Sonnova writes:
Measurements for cartridges don't really tell you much. Sure, they can show frequency response, square-wave response, ringing, output level, compliance, tracking ability, distortion, etc., etc., etc. But none of these tells you how the cartridge will sound. In this regard, cartridges are much like speakers. While measurements can tell one a lot about speakers, ultimately, you have to listen. Same with cartridges. I don't see how this can possibly work. All that listening will tell you is what you prefer, but I was asking about fidelity, which isn't the same thing. Unless you happen to have the master tape that was used to do the cutting, there's no way to judge fidelity by this method. Later you say: Accuracy is not really important in a phono cartridge. The only thing that is important is how the cartridge sounds with the records you listen to on your system. OK, you don't believe it's important. But surely you can't be denying even the possibility that one cartridge might be more accurate than another. There are more important considerations than frequency response, which as I said earlier, is largely irrelevant these days. Those measurements I have seen of cartridges suggest that there can be quite wide differences in frequency response, certainly wide enough to be audible. And surely frequency response differences are going to have a pretty big effect on the way they sound. Jim Lesurf's rather wonderful web page [1] shows that a v15, properly loaded, has a pretty flat frequency response, and it tracks well, as low distortion, and so on. So, whatever is wrong with the v15, it isn't frequency response. Things like tracking ability, transient response, suppression of surface noise (largely a product of stylus shape), channel separation, and low distortion are more important than a flat, as opposed to a rising, top end. OK. So, to return to my original question, is there any reason to believe that moving-coil cartridges might have an advantage in any of these areas? I am beginning to wonder if the moving-coil cartridge is better than moving-iron in the same way that, say, single-ended triode amplifiers are better than modern solid-state designs. In reality, not any better at all from a fidelity point of view, but some people prefer the sound. This question surely is important because there are a lot of valuable sound recordings on vinyl that are being transferred to digital media. I have heard unsourced rumours that organizations like Sony and the Library of Congress snatched up the last few V15s for this purpose. Assuming this is true, might they have been mistaken? Should they be using a real "Stereophile Class A" design such as the Air Tight PC-1 or Transfiguration Orpheus? Andrew. [1] http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/LP4/NewLampsForOld.html |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Jun 22, 6:51*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message In this regard, cartridges are much like / speakers. While measurements can tell one a lot about speakers, ultimately, you have to listen. There's some heavy hitters in the industry who will disagree with you about that, too. Which "heavy hitters" have asserted that one need not ultimately listen to speakers to evaluate them? I find that a rather shocking claim. I would be very skeptical of any such person's opinions regardless of the alleged weight of their punch. One big problem with speakers is that by the time their output hits your ear it has been heavily modified by the room. It's simply the reality of audio though. The modifications by your personal listening room is obviously not part of the manufacturer's specs for the product. Which would make any claims that one need not ultimately listen for final evaluation of speakers all the more dubious. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... Dick, for all that, I don't think we are disagreeing. Interesting claim, given that you essentially repeat the same pack of errors that caused Dick's initial response. A fast rise time, coupled with a single overshoot will also certainly result in an optimum or near-optimum transient response in your terms. Not really. A critically damped system has a certain well-defined amount of overshoot. The phrase "single overshoot" allows a wide range of overshooting, so it is vague and therefore meaningless. Again, debating points. In reality, most cartridges that have a single overshoot have behave similarly. If the overshoot is very large it almost always is followed by secondary ringing, and if it is small or non-existant the cartridge will be slow in settling and sound dull. This is practical experience speaking, from back in the day when these cartridge measurements were made and widely available, and I had the money and interest to listen to a wide range of cartridges. Yes, there a technical caveats, but it is nit-picking. And obviously it depends on the input signal from the test record. However, this disagrees with your previous claim that this test is easy to do and meaningful. But it wasn't difficult to get useful square wave input off test records back in the day. Again, "useful" = vague. The square wave responses were useful as fluff for advertising and not much else. Flat, smooth frequency response is of the essence. And you don't think test records that also included frequency response tests from 20hz to 20khz had flat, smooth response? ..and they were designed specifically for this purpose. This time the antecedent is vague - was it the test records or the cartridges that were designed to give good square wave response for publication? See my above comment. You and Dick want to score points...I want to tell people something about how to translate the most common cartridge measurement technique into anticipated sound. In either case, the answer should be no. Square wave response is one of the more meaningless tests around because it confounds flat frequency response and phase response. Flat frequency response is of the essence, while phase response above 1 KHz applied equally to both channels has no audible significance unless very, very extreme. It also tells you alot about damping and mechanical reaction of the cartridge/stylus, which is critical to pickups. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Jun 22, 1:38*pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
Not only that, but square wave response tells you much about frequency response, ringing, and tracking response as well. *Ergo, square wave response tells you much about what to expect in the way a cartridge sounds. No matter how many times you say it, no matter how firmly you believe it, it does nothing of the sort. You assertion is that two systems with the same square wave response will sound the same, or certainly alike, and that's provably hooey. Consider the following as a practical counterexample: Take a perfectly flat, linear- phase system. It will have, for its bandwidth, "perfect" square wave response. Listen to it, it will sound fine. Now, take the input, delay it 10 mS, and sum it with the output of the system. Put a 1 kHz square wave in to the system: it will have an identical square wave response. Now, listen to it, it will sound absolutely dreadful. You keep going back to the ringing canard as if it had any signifance in and of itself. A PERFECT band-limited system MUST have a substantial amount of ringing, Gibbs says so. You say different, in contradiction to well-known facts. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Sonnova" wrote in message ... Measurements for cartridges don't really tell you much. Sure, they can show frequency response, square-wave response, ringing, output level, compliance, tracking ability, distortion, etc., etc., etc. All of which (other than square wave response,) tell you lots about how the cartridge sounds. But none of these tells you how the cartridge will sound. Experience says otherwise. Not only that, but square wave response tells you much about frequency response, ringing, and tracking response as well. That would be completely wrong. I've already explained to you how square wave response confuses frequency response (which matters) with phase response which in general does not. Please provide equations that unambiguously convert square wave response into traditional or non-traditional measures of nonlinear distortion. Of course, no such thing exists nor can it exist because of all of the confusion factors. |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:51:18 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... What you say is true...I've had both high output and low output. But as a general rule, the low output moving coils have a lower effective tip-mass and therefore tend to sound smoother and track better. Typical MC tip mass = 0.3 mg. Shure MM tip mass = 0.040 - 0.139 mg Besides, tip mass is not of the essence. It's mostly irrelevant, that's for sure. Like most cartridge measurements, it tells one little about how the cartridge will actually perform. This is just another audiophile myth, perpetuated by people who lack the proper background in mechanics and dynamic systems to understand how these things work. The important parameter is stylus inertia, which is based on both mass and distance from the center of rotation. Stylus assembly compliance is also a factor and there is no hard-and-fast rule about that EITHER. |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:51:24 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... Measurements for cartridges don't really tell you much. Sure, they can show frequency response, square-wave response, ringing, output level, compliance, tracking ability, distortion, etc., etc., etc. All of which (other than square wave response,) tell you lots about how the cartridge sounds. Not in my experience it doesn't. But none of these tells you how the cartridge will sound. Experience says otherwise. My experience (and I have auditioned hundreds of cartridges over the years) says that measured parameters tell you very little that's useful about how a cartridge will sound. Sure, a frequency response graph included with some cartridges will tell you if the cartridge is going to be bright or dull, whether it has decent bass, etc, but I've two cartridges here now that both have very similar frequency response graphs accompanying them, yet they sound totally different. Back in the day we found that people can't successfully ABX cartridges that track well, have low enough distortion, etc. OTOH if the FR is a little off or you can find one mistracking or otherwise distortion, you can sort them like Easter eggs with ABX. In this regard, cartridges are much like / speakers. While measurements can tell one a lot about speakers, ultimately, you have to listen. There's some heavy hitters in the industry who will disagree with you about that, too. I'm sorry. They're wrong. One big problem with speakers is that by the time their output hits your ear it has been heavily modified by the room. The modifications by your personal listening room is obviously not part of the manufacturer's specs for the product. With cartridges, the arm with which the cartridge is mated has a big effect on cartridge performance. After all it's a mechanical system and every part plays a role in the overall performance. Same with cartridges. IME, even more untrue. So, you would buy speakers and cartridges sound unheard? I wouldn't. |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:38:02 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ): "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Sonnova" wrote in message ... Measurements for cartridges don't really tell you much. Sure, they can show frequency response, square-wave response, ringing, output level, compliance, tracking ability, distortion, etc., etc., etc. All of which (other than square wave response,) tell you lots about how the cartridge sounds. But none of these tells you how the cartridge will sound. Experience says otherwise. Not only that, but square wave response tells you much about frequency response, ringing, and tracking response as well. Ergo, square wave response tells you much about what to expect in the way a cartridge sounds. snip, no comment on what follows Would you (or someone) like to explain to me how one would go about cutting a square wave into a record groove? |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:51:18 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... What you say is true...I've had both high output and low output. But as a general rule, the low output moving coils have a lower effective tip-mass and therefore tend to sound smoother and track better. Typical MC tip mass = 0.3 mg. Shure MM tip mass = 0.040 - 0.139 mg Besides, tip mass is not of the essence. It's mostly irrelevant, that's for sure. Like most cartridge measurements, it tells one little about how the cartridge will actually perform. This is just another audiophile myth, perpetuated by people who lack the proper background in mechanics and dynamic systems to understand how these things work. The important parameter is stylus inertia, which is based on both mass and distance from the center of rotation. Stylus assembly compliance is also a factor and there is no hard-and-fast rule about that EITHER. Well there is. The high frequency resonance is dependent on inertia and compliance of the groove. The low frequency resonance is dependent on compliance and tone arm inertia (not tone arm mass, as is commonly cliamed.) |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... Would you (or someone) like to explain to me how one would go about cutting a square wave into a record groove? You use a cutting lathe with a power amplifier and appropriate test signal which is contrived to produce a square wave with an ideal cartridge and preamp, if the preamp is equalized. However, the question is misstated because quality cartridges as a rule have velocity-sensitive response, and require a non-square wave cut into the record groove in order to produce a square wave at either the output of the cartridge, or as it is more commonly done, at the output of a RIAA preamp. |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:51:24 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... Measurements for cartridges don't really tell you much. Sure, they can show frequency response, square-wave response, ringing, output level, compliance, tracking ability, distortion, etc., etc., etc. All of which (other than square wave response,) tell you lots about how the cartridge sounds. Not in my experience it doesn't. But none of these tells you how the cartridge will sound. Experience says otherwise. My experience (and I have auditioned hundreds of cartridges over the years) says that measured parameters tell you very little that's useful about how a cartridge will sound. Since the word "audition" was used we know that the above anecdotes are not the results of proper level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled listening tests. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
... On Jun 22, 1:38 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote: Not only that, but square wave response tells you much about frequency response, ringing, and tracking response as well. Ergo, square wave response tells you much about what to expect in the way a cartridge sounds. No matter how many times you say it, no matter how firmly you believe it, it does nothing of the sort. You assertion is that two systems with the same square wave response will sound the same, or certainly alike, and that's provably hooey. Consider the following as a practical counterexample: Take a perfectly flat, linear- phase system. It will have, for its bandwidth, "perfect" square wave response. Listen to it, it will sound fine. Now, take the input, delay it 10 mS, and sum it with the output of the system. Put a 1 kHz square wave in to the system: it will have an identical square wave response. Now, listen to it, it will sound absolutely dreadful. You keep going back to the ringing canard as if it had any signifance in and of itself. A PERFECT band-limited system MUST have a substantial amount of ringing, Gibbs says so. You say different, in contradiction to well-known facts. Dick, I've never seen two cartridges that have identical square wave response to the same test record. Cartridges as you well know are imperfect, electro-mechanical devises. What I am saying is that there is a correlation between certain aspects of how a cartridge handles the test square wave and certain commonalities of sound. So that with experience, it is possible to say some things aforehand about their "likely" sound after seeing the square wave. |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:38:02 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote (in article ): "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Sonnova" wrote in message ... Measurements for cartridges don't really tell you much. Sure, they can show frequency response, square-wave response, ringing, output level, compliance, tracking ability, distortion, etc., etc., etc. All of which (other than square wave response,) tell you lots about how the cartridge sounds. But none of these tells you how the cartridge will sound. Experience says otherwise. Not only that, but square wave response tells you much about frequency response, ringing, and tracking response as well. Ergo, square wave response tells you much about what to expect in the way a cartridge sounds. snip, no comment on what follows Would you (or someone) like to explain to me how one would go about cutting a square wave into a record groove? You would have to ask the engineers at CBS Labs. They were the ones who did it. But the waves were there after deemphasis, and they were available to we audiophiles and were used by both Audio Magazine and High Fidelity in their cartridge testing. And yes, the very best cartridges did deliver very respectable square wave approximations from those test records. Perhaps if John Atkinson is monitoring this discussion he might be able to shed some light, although most of this was before his time at Hi-Fi News. |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
Harry Lavo wrote:
And you don't think test records that also included frequency response tests from 20hz to 20khz had flat, smooth response? Actually, they don't. Cutter heads have resonance problems that are similar to cartridges. |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... You would have to ask the engineers at CBS Labs. Most such questions are answered in the relevant JAES papers. The name Benjamin Bauer comes to mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS_Laboratories Harry, why don't you try to actually read them and document your claims using them as references? They were the ones who did it. Let's just say that if you believe what you read, they had a fuller understanding of the situation. But the waves were there after de-emphasis, and they were available to we audiophiles and were used by both Audio Magazine and High Fidelity in their cartridge testing. And yes, the very best cartridges did deliver very respectable square wave approximations from those test records. Perhaps if John Atkinson is monitoring this discussion he might be able to shed some light, although most of this was before his time at Hi-Fi News. Given John Atkinson's umm, questionable position on such well-known floobydust as LP demagnetizers, it is hard to know that he could say that would be believable. |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Moving-coil cartridges
"Scott" wrote in message
... On Jun 22, 6:51 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Sonnova" wrote in message In this regard, cartridges are much like / speakers. While measurements can tell one a lot about speakers, ultimately, you have to listen. There's some heavy hitters in the industry who will disagree with you about that, too. Which "heavy hitters" have asserted that one need not ultimately listen to speakers to evaluate them? I find that a rather shocking claim. I would be very skeptical of any such person's opinions regardless of the alleged weight of their punch. Apparently you don't keep up with the lead tech guys are Harmon. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FA: Van den Hul MC2 Moving Coil Cartridge | Marketplace | |||
WTB:USED MOVING COIL PHONO CARTRIDGES< TONEARMS | Marketplace | |||
WTB:USED MOVING COIL CARTRIDGES< ASUSA PHONO PREAMP | Vacuum Tubes | |||
WTB:USED MOVING COIL CARTRIDGES, ASUSA PHONO PREAMP | Marketplace | |||
WTB:USED MOVING COIL CARTRIDGES, ASUSA PHONO PREAMP | Marketplace |