[Andrew Haley]

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.

[Harry Lavo]

"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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[Harry Lavo]

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".

[Sonnova]

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.

[Harry Lavo]

"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.

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 07:31:28 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

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.

Yes, most moving coils have a rising high-end response. It doesn't matter.
In fact, in and of itself, it's totally irrelevant. How does the cartridge
SOUND, that's all that is important. Unfortunately, cartridges are difficult
to audition before purchase, so one has to rely mostly on reviews.

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.

Measurements with regard to cartridges, like measurements with regard to
speakers are largely meaningless, except in the grossest way. Sure, a
cartridge with a +15 dB peak at 12 KHz or one that rolls off rapidly above 7
KHz is going to sound terrible. But modern cartridges don't do those things.

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.

No, it doesn't. Turning up the treble on a baxandall type of tone control
sounds nothing like a decent modern moving coil cartridge. First of all the
corner frequency on a treble control is MUCH too low (around 2.5 KHz) with
respect to the rising top end on a moving coil (which is caused by the
resonance of the moving mass of the stylus/generator assembly). If they were
similar, one could also TAME the rising top end of a moving coil with that
self-same treble control and one can't. Also, turning up a treble control
accentuates surface noise because of it's relatively low corner frequency.
Most modern moving coils do not accentuate surface noise.

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.

I don't like it. I hated the early "high end" MCs such as the Koetsus. They
were too bright by far. But good modern moving coils sound very neutral and
do not exhibit the characteristics that you mention unless they are
improperly loaded.

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.

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. There are more important considerations than frequency response,
which as I said earlier, is largely irrelevant these days. 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.

[Sonnova]

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.

[Harry Lavo]

"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.

[Sonnova]

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.

[Harry Lavo]

"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.

[Dick Pierce]

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.

[Harry Lavo]

"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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Harry Lavo]

"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

[Dick Pierce]

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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Sonnova]

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?

[Scott[_6_]]

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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Sonnova]

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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Andrew Haley]

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Andrew Haley" wrote in message
...

Those measurements I have seen of cartridges suggest that there can be
quite wide differences in frequency response, certainly wide enough to
be audible. And surely frequency response differences are going to
have a pretty big effect on the way they sound.

Jim Lesurf's rather wonderful web page [1] shows that a v15, properly
loaded, has a pretty flat frequency response, and it tracks well, as
low distortion, and so on. So, whatever is wrong with the v15, it
isn't frequency response.

Frequency response often has a great deal to do with it.

Most high end audiophiles lack what it takes to properly load most MM
cartridges so that they have optimum response. So, they evaluate cartrdiges
based on unecessarily non-flat response.

Most high end audiophiles do not have references to compare to that have
truely flat response. So, they wouldn't know flat response if it came up and
bit them. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Sonnova]

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.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 20, 12:44*am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
So, I'm wondering if there is any actual technical information
available that compares moving-coil and other designs. *I've done a
web search and while opinions are plentiful, facts are pretty thin on
the ground. *It's fair enough to prefer one cartridge over another,
but are any of the new moving-coil cartridges objectively more
accurate than, say, a V15? *Or does no-one bother actually measuring
any more?

Here's an excerpt of an old Audio article (1982 March, p.42, Milton,
"How phono cartridges work"):

"The ultimate test of a phono cartridge is the listening test. It is
almost impossible to control all factors in a listening test, but
interesting results can be obtained if a large panel of listeners
undertakes a series of blind tests and the responses subjected to
statistical analysis. Dr. Floyd Toole from National Research Council
in Canada conducted large scale tests in Ottawa during 1980, first of
all with nine cartridges and 16 listeners, and then three cartridges ,
selected from the first batch, with 13 listeners. The listeners were
placed in the optimum stereo seats, not more than three at a time, and
were cautioned against moving, since some of the differences would be
subtle. They were also cautioned about the possibility of nonverbal
communication (body language) influencing the opinion of the group.
The three final cartridges selected were the Ortofon MC30, the Denon
DL 103D and the Shure V15 IV, with the tests ided into two sections -
equalized and non-equalized.

Differences were noted during the tests with the non-equalized
cartridges. The Denon was found to be brighter than the Ortofon, and
the Ortofon seemed to sound similar to the Shure. In most of the cases
the excess of high frequencies was criticized, although there were two
listeners who consistently preferred the extra highs of the moving
coil. The effects were noticeable only with selected good records,
during certain passages and with experienced listeners, but even then,
the differences were not particularly different statistically.

During the second part of the test, the Shure was equalized using a
Technics 9010 parametric sequalizer so that the response was within
0.2 dB of the Ortofon. Again, the results were close, with the
interesting result that the moving magnet gained a slight edge over
the moving moving coils, not so much by increasing its score on the
evaluation sheet, but by causing the marks given to the moving coil to
drop slightly.

It is very tempting to generalize from a test of this nature. One
listener was able to pick out the moving coil cartridge consistently
and expressed a clear preference for it. The closeness of the results
surprised several listeners, particularly the moving coil aficionados
who were embarassed to find that they had given their votes to the
moving magnet."

Klaus

[Harry Lavo]

wrote in message
...
On Jun 20, 12:44 am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
So, I'm wondering if there is any actual technical information
available that compares moving-coil and other designs. I've done a
web search and while opinions are plentiful, facts are pretty thin on
the ground. It's fair enough to prefer one cartridge over another,
but are any of the new moving-coil cartridges objectively more
accurate than, say, a V15? Or does no-one bother actually measuring
any more?

Here's an excerpt of an old Audio article (1982 March, p.42, Milton,
"How phono cartridges work"):

"The ultimate test of a phono cartridge is the listening test. It is
almost impossible to control all factors in a listening test, but
interesting results can be obtained if a large panel of listeners
undertakes a series of blind tests and the responses subjected to
statistical analysis. Dr. Floyd Toole from National Research Council
in Canada conducted large scale tests in Ottawa during 1980, first of
all with nine cartridges and 16 listeners, and then three cartridges ,
selected from the first batch, with 13 listeners. The listeners were
placed in the optimum stereo seats, not more than three at a time, and
were cautioned against moving, since some of the differences would be
subtle. They were also cautioned about the possibility of nonverbal
communication (body language) influencing the opinion of the group.
The three final cartridges selected were the Ortofon MC30, the Denon
DL 103D and the Shure V15 IV, with the tests ided into two sections -
equalized and non-equalized.

Differences were noted during the tests with the non-equalized
cartridges. The Denon was found to be brighter than the Ortofon, and
the Ortofon seemed to sound similar to the Shure. In most of the cases
the excess of high frequencies was criticized, although there were two
listeners who consistently preferred the extra highs of the moving
coil. The effects were noticeable only with selected good records,
during certain passages and with experienced listeners, but even then,
the differences were not particularly different statistically.

During the second part of the test, the Shure was equalized using a
Technics 9010 parametric sequalizer so that the response was within
0.2 dB of the Ortofon. Again, the results were close, with the
interesting result that the moving magnet gained a slight edge over
the moving moving coils, not so much by increasing its score on the
evaluation sheet, but by causing the marks given to the moving coil to
drop slightly.

It is very tempting to generalize from a test of this nature. One
listener was able to pick out the moving coil cartridge consistently
and expressed a clear preference for it. The closeness of the results
surprised several listeners, particularly the moving coil aficionados
who were embarassed to find that they had given their votes to the
moving magnet."

The only problem with this test is that it didn't include any truly high-end
cartridges. I wonder what/why was left out of the other ten in the initial
test? My guess, either high end or low end carts that were readily
distinquishable, but perhaps not.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


The only problem with this test is that it didn't include
any truly high-end cartridges.

They probably didn't meet minimum standards for frequency response and
tracking.

That's why there are no extant unbiased tests of them - the vendors won't
supply them to reviewers who will give them an unbiased examination.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 26, 4:56 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
The only problem with this test is that it didn't include any truly high-end
cartridges. I wonder what/why was left out of the other ten in the initial
test? My guess, either high end or low end carts that were readily
distinquishable, but perhaps not.-

How do you define a high-end cartridge? Subjective criteria or
impressions cannot be used because different individuals have
different tastes and because of the fact that in-ear frequency
responses between individuals may show substantial differences:

Shaw (1965), “Earcanal pressure generated by a free sound field”, J.
of Acoust. Soc. of America, vol. 39, no.3, p.465

Møller et al. (1995), “Head-related transfer functions of human
subjects”, J. of Audio Eng. Soc., p.300

So how do you OBJECTIVELY define high-end?

In 1982 the Shure V15 IV retailed at $200, the Ortofon MC30 at $850,
the Denon 103D at $295 (prices from Audio annual component directory).
Was the $850 Ortofon high-end or had it to be a $1000 Denon DL-1000,
or a $1300 van den Hul. When is a cartridge high-end, when is it “only
hifi” ?

What this test convincingly shows is that the moving coil principle is
not inherently superior. If it was, then any MC cartridge would be
subjectively better than any MM, which obviously it is not, provided,
of course, that one does not know the identity of the cartridges being
tested.

When I was buying my first cartridge ever 10 years ago (the ones
before were factory mounted on the turntables), I could not find any
arguments, other than subjective, to convince me of the superiority of
the moving coil cartridge. Today, 10 years later, I still haven’t seen
any convincing arguments for the superiority of MC.

Klaus

[Sonnova]

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

On Jun 26, 4:56 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
The only problem with this test is that it didn't include any truly high-end
cartridges. I wonder what/why was left out of the other ten in the initial
test? My guess, either high end or low end carts that were readily
distinquishable, but perhaps not.-

How do you define a high-end cartridge? Subjective criteria or
impressions cannot be used because different individuals have
different tastes and because of the fact that in-ear frequency
responses between individuals may show substantial differences:

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

Shaw (1965), “Earcanal pressure generated by a free sound field”, J.
of Acoust. Soc. of America, vol. 39, no.3, p.465

Møller et al. (1995), “Head-related transfer functions of human
subjects”, J. of Audio Eng. Soc., p.300

So how do you OBJECTIVELY define high-end?

You don't.

In 1982 the Shure V15 IV retailed at $200, the Ortofon MC30 at $850,
the Denon 103D at $295 (prices from Audio annual component directory).
Was the $850 Ortofon high-end or had it to be a $1000 Denon DL-1000,
or a $1300 van den Hul. When is a cartridge high-end, when is it “only
hifi” ?

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

What this test convincingly shows is that the moving coil principle is
not inherently superior. If it was, then any MC cartridge would be
subjectively better than any MM, which obviously it is not, provided,
of course, that one does not know the identity of the cartridges being
tested.

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

When I was buying my first cartridge ever 10 years ago (the ones
before were factory mounted on the turntables), I could not find any
arguments, other than subjective, to convince me of the superiority of
the moving coil cartridge. Today, 10 years later, I still haven’t seen
any convincing arguments for the superiority of MC.

As a concept, you're probably right. You can make a good or a bad magnetic
cartridge using any of the three generating principles (moving coil, moving
magnet, or moving iron - sometimes called variable reluctance). Cartridge
design is probably, at least as much as speaker design, dependent upon
improvements in materials and manufacturing technology to move forward. There
is no doubt that even a relatively inexpensive cartridge these days from
Audio Technica, Grado, or Sumiko, to name a few, is equal to or superior to
the best cartridges available 20-30 years ago, yet they use the same
generating principles as they did then. What has changed are the materials
used in the stylus suspensions, the stylus shank itself, and even the magnets
used. Concurrent with that are manufacturing processes for shaping and
polishing the stylus as well as how the stylus is mounted to the cantilever
and even assembly techniques.

Klaus

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message


As a concept, you're probably right. You can make a good
or a bad magnetic cartridge using any of the three
generating principles (moving coil, moving magnet, or
moving iron - sometimes called variable reluctance).

Agreed. And in the day of, I experienced all of the above personally.

Cartridge design is probably, at least as much as speaker
design, dependent upon improvements in materials and
manufacturing technology to move forward.

Regrettably untrue due to the fact that even 30 years ago, the limiting
factor was that nasty slug of vinyl that this whole discussion centers on.

The reason why we moved on to digital was that it was no secret then, and
since the laws of physics have not changed in any relevant way since then,
it is no secret now; that as long as you use a relatively slow-moving piece
of vinyl with mechanically transcribed analog grooves, ca. late 60s early
70s performance is all you are ever going to beat out of the vinyl dead
horse.

There were several attempts do take vinyl to the next step that failed
miserably. One was the DMM process which removed a mechanical step from the
tooling process of pressing the same limp old LPs. Then there RCA's lame
attempt to keep the mechanical disc format but change the mode of data
coding from direct analog to FM and possibly even digital, with a
contact-based capacitive pickup. This actually came close to seeing the
light of day as a format for distributing video. Optical-based storage blew
it all out of water before it ever went mainstream. The Laser Disc in both
FM and digital audio formats was generally accepted technology for years
before the CD was introduced.

There is no
doubt that even a relatively inexpensive cartridge these
days from Audio Technica, Grado, or Sumiko, to name a
few, is equal to or superior to the best cartridges
available 20-30 years ago,

I own one of those Grados and it has a chance of approaching the M97XE.

yet they use the same
generating principles as they did then.

More significantly they have the same old analog noose around their neck.

What has changed
are the materials used in the stylus suspensions, the
stylus shank itself, and even the magnets used.

Not so much.

Concurrent with that are manufacturing processes for
shaping and polishing the stylus as well as how the
stylus is mounted to the cantilever and even assembly
techniques.

That's probably more automated than it was in the day. The inflation
adjusted price of a Grado Black is still far more than a late-60s V15.

[Harry Lavo]

wrote in message
...
On Jun 26, 4:56 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
The only problem with this test is that it didn't include any truly
high-end
cartridges. I wonder what/why was left out of the other ten in the
initial
test? My guess, either high end or low end carts that were readily
distinquishable, but perhaps not.-

How do you define a high-end cartridge? Subjective criteria or
impressions cannot be used because different individuals have
different tastes and because of the fact that in-ear frequency
responses between individuals may show substantial differences:

Shaw (1965), "Earcanal pressure generated by a free sound field", J.
of Acoust. Soc. of America, vol. 39, no.3, p.465

Møller et al. (1995), "Head-related transfer functions of human
subjects", J. of Audio Eng. Soc., p.300

So how do you OBJECTIVELY define high-end?

In 1982 the Shure V15 IV retailed at $200, the Ortofon MC30 at $850,
the Denon 103D at $295 (prices from Audio annual component directory).
Was the $850 Ortofon high-end or had it to be a $1000 Denon DL-1000,
or a $1300 van den Hul. When is a cartridge high-end, when is it "only
hifi" ?

What this test convincingly shows is that the moving coil principle is
not inherently superior. If it was, then any MC cartridge would be
subjectively better than any MM, which obviously it is not, provided,
of course, that one does not know the identity of the cartridges being
tested.

When I was buying my first cartridge ever 10 years ago (the ones
before were factory mounted on the turntables), I could not find any
arguments, other than subjective, to convince me of the superiority of
the moving coil cartridge. Today, 10 years later, I still haven't seen
any convincing arguments for the superiority of MC.

Klaus

Back in that day, a Dynavector Diamond or Ruby, an Accuphase AC-2, or an
original Koetsu would qualify....it is not so much price...the Ortofon MC30
(at $850) was their top of the line, and it was one of the worst sounding
top-of-the-line MC's to ever be put on the market. The Diamond cost in the
same range as the Ortofon ($670) and the Dynavector Ruby was cheaper still
($310), about the same as the Denon. The Accuphase in this same price range
($475) was so good that it has served as my standard ever since, and has
stood off many other (more expensive) contenders. The simple fact is that
what was considered high-end was determined by the listening acclaim that
certain cartridges garned among audiophiles, and what was low-end the same.
For most people in those days, the Shure and MC-30 ranked lower-middle and
the Denon just a notch above. To repeat, it had little or nothing to do
with cost.

[Norman Schwartz]

On Jun 28, 7:44*am, wrote:

How do you define a high-end cartridge? Subjective criteria or
impressions cannot be used because different individuals have
different tastes and because of the fact that in-ear frequency
responses between individuals may show substantial differences:


So how do you OBJECTIVELY define high-end?

In 1982 the Shure V15 IV retailed at $200, the Ortofon MC30 at $850,
the Denon 103D at $295 (prices from Audio annual component directory).
Was the $850 Ortofon high-end or had it to be a $1000 Denon DL-1000,
or a $1300 van den Hul. When is a cartridge high-end, when is it “only
hifi” ?


In the late 1970s the Grado FTE+1 cartridge costing a mere $15.00 was
highly regarded in the high end community. Although it picked up some
hum as it approached a turntable's motor and exhibited the so-called
"Grado Dance" in a LP's lead-in grooves, accolades came from every
corner. Turning to CD players, according to some reviewers at
Stereophile magazine the mass-produced Radio Shack Portable Optimus
3400 for $180 was ranked in the high-end crowd. I owned a FTE+1, but
for CDs I still have and use the famous mid 80s Magnavox CDB-650 which
is completely functional (amongst more recent ones).
As of today it feeds a vintage tube ARC pre-amp.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:17:33 -0700, Norman Schwartz wrote
(in article ):

On Jun 28, 7:44*am, wrote:

How do you define a high-end cartridge? Subjective criteria or
impressions cannot be used because different individuals have
different tastes and because of the fact that in-ear frequency
responses between individuals may show substantial differences:


So how do you OBJECTIVELY define high-end?

In 1982 the Shure V15 IV retailed at $200, the Ortofon MC30 at $850,
the Denon 103D at $295 (prices from Audio annual component directory).
Was the $850 Ortofon high-end or had it to be a $1000 Denon DL-1000,
or a $1300 van den Hul. When is a cartridge high-end, when is it “only
hifi” ?


In the late 1970s the Grado FTE+1 cartridge costing a mere $15.00 was
highly regarded in the high end community. Although it picked up some
hum as it approached a turntable's motor and exhibited the so-called
"Grado Dance" in a LP's lead-in grooves, accolades came from every
corner. Turning to CD players, according to some reviewers at
Stereophile magazine the mass-produced Radio Shack Portable Optimus
3400 for $180 was ranked in the high-end crowd. I owned a FTE+1, but
for CDs I still have and use the famous mid 80s Magnavox CDB-650 which
is completely functional (amongst more recent ones).
As of today it feeds a vintage tube ARC pre-amp.

Which ARC preamp do you have? I still use an SP-11 and to this day have never
heard anything better!