Moving-coil cartridges
Andrew Haley
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
news:h1h4b...@news1.newsguy.com...
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.
sorab...@att.net
> 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.
Sonnova
(in article <h1hhd...@news5.newsguy.com>):
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.
Arny Krueger
news:h1h4b...@news1.newsguy.com...
>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.
Harry Lavo
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".
Harry Lavo
news:h1irs...@news5.newsguy.com...
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
(in article <h1irs...@news5.newsguy.com>):
> 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
(in article <h1j02...@news6.newsguy.com>):
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.
Sonnova
(in article <7a4c2sF...@mid.individual.net>):
> "Andrew Haley" <andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message
> news:h1h4b...@news1.newsguy.com...
>
>> 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.
Harry Lavo
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
(in article <7a4lceF...@mid.individual.net>):
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.
Dick Pierce
> "Sonnova" <sonn...@audiosanatorium.com> 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
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:42:39 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
> (in article <7a4lceF...@mid.individual.net>):
[ 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.
Sonnova
(in article <7a5nnhF...@mid.individual.net>):
Was the Infinity "Black-Widow" arm low enough in mass for you? Because that's
what I was using in my "ADC days".
Sonnova
(in article <h1jma...@news6.newsguy.com>):
> "Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
> news:h1jg9...@news3.newsguy.com...
[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]
Harry Lavo
news:7a58plF...@mid.individual.net...
> On Jun 20, 1:42 pm, "Harry Lavo" <hl...@hotmail.com> 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.
Harry Lavo
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.
Dick Pierce
> "Dick Pierce" <dpierce.cartchunk....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7a58plF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > On Jun 20, 1:42 pm, "Harry Lavo" <hl...@hotmail.com> 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.
>
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.
Arny Krueger
news:h1jma...@news6.newsguy.com...
> 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.
Arny Krueger
> 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.
Arny Krueger
> 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.
Harry Lavo
news:7a9gisF...@mid.individual.net...
> "Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
> news:h1irs...@news5.newsguy.com...
>
>> 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<
Harry Lavo
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.
Andrew Haley
> 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.
Scott
> "Sonnova" <sonn...@audiosanatorium.com> 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.
Dick Pierce
> 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.
Harry Lavo
> "Harry Lavo" <hl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7a7a28F...@mid.individual.net...
>
>> 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.
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:7a9gisF...@mid.individual.net...
>> "Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
>> news:h1irs...@news5.newsguy.com...
>>
>>> 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
(in article <7a9gisF...@mid.individual.net>):
> "Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
> news:h1irs...@news5.newsguy.com...
>
>> 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.
Sonnova
(in article <7a9gimF...@mid.individual.net>):
> "Harry Lavo" <hl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h1jma...@news6.newsguy.com...
>
>> 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.
Sonnova
(in article <7a9trqF...@mid.individual.net>):
Would you (or someone) like to explain to me how one would go about cutting a
square wave into a record groove?
Arny Krueger
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.)
Arny Krueger
> 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.
Arny Krueger
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:51:24 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <7a9gisF...@mid.individual.net>):
>
>> "Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
>> news:h1irs...@news5.newsguy.com...
>>
>>> 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.
Harry Lavo
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.
Harry Lavo
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.
sorab...@att.net
> 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.
Arny Krueger
> 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.
Arny Krueger
news:h1p36...@news5.newsguy.com...
> On Jun 22, 6:51 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> "Sonnova" <sonn...@audiosanatorium.com> 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.
Harry Lavo
news:7abobmF...@mid.individual.net...
Yes, but it is my understanding that has been a solved problem in the
audible frequency band for decades. And I suppose frquencies could be eq'd
before that. In any case, the frequencies were there on the record. Theory
does not supercede practice.
Arny Krueger
If a test record does not have the desired response, it is the fault of the
cutting engineer. An independent evaluation of the amplitude of sine waves
and the shape of square waves can be obtained by examining the freshly-cut
groove using a microscope with a reticle. Of course, the effects of
equalization and amplitude versus velocity effects had to be considered.
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:7a9jhdF...@mid.individual.net...
>> "Harry Lavo" <hl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7a7a28F...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>> Dick, for all that, I don't think we are disagreeing.
>>
>> Interesting claim, given that you essentially repeat the same pack of
>> errors
>> that caused Dick's initial response.
>>
>>> A fast rise time,
>>> coupled with a single overshoot will also certainly result in an optimum
>>> or
>>> near-optimum transient response in your terms.
>>
>> Not really. A critically damped system has a certain well-defined amount
>> of
>> overshoot. The phrase "single overshoot" allows a wide range of
>> overshooting, so it is vague and therefore meaningless.
>
> Again, debating points.
That in itself is an attempt to conceal a common audiophile mistake.
> In reality, most cartridges that have a single
> overshoot have behave similarly.
Not in this universe.
> If the overshoot is very large it almost
> always is followed by secondary ringing, and if it is small or
> non-existant
> the cartridge will be slow in settling and sound dull.
Ignores the fact that there are an infinite number of variations in
overshoot from more than one cycle to no apparent overshoot at all.
> This is practical
> experience speaking, from back in the day when these cartridge
> measurements
> were made and widely available, and I had the money and interest to listen
> to a wide range of cartridges.
Harry, I can and have measured modern cartridges, So I don't have to rely on
hearsay from the days when people took vinyl seriously.
>Yes, there a technical caveats, but it is
> nit-picking.
No, it is how things work. Harry you can spend all the time you want to
trying to deduce what matters (frequency response) from things that don't
matter but are all conflated and wrapped up in the audiophile myth called
square wave response.
>> And obviously it depends on
>> the input signal from the test record.
>> However, this disagrees with your previous claim that this test is easy
>> to
>> do and meaningful.
>>
>>
>>> But it wasn't difficult to get
>>> useful square wave input off test records back in the day.
>>
>> Again, "useful" = vague. The square wave responses were useful as fluff
>> for
>> advertising and not much else. Flat, smooth frequency response is of the
>> essence.
>
> And you don't think test records that also included frequency response
> tests
> from 20hz to 20khz had flat, smooth response?
Its the flat response from 50-15KHz that matters the most. Below 50-100 Hz
vinyl response is not solely dependent on the cartridge.
>>>..and they were designed specifically for this purpose.
>>
>> This time the antecedent is vague - was it the test records or the
>> cartridges that were designed to give good square wave response for
>> publication?
> See my above comment. You and Dick want to score points...
No, we want to spike common audiophile myths about vinyl.
>I want to tell
> people something about how to translate the most common cartridge
> measurement technique into anticipated sound.
Well, that's frequency response, so why are you going on about square wave
response?
>> In either case, the answer should be no. Square wave response is one of
>> the
>> more meaningless tests around because it confounds flat frequency
>> response
>> and phase response. Flat frequency response is of the essence, while
>> phase
>> response above 1 KHz applied equally to both channels has no audible
>> significance unless very, very extreme.
> It also tells you alot about damping and mechanical reaction of the
> cartridge/stylus, which is critical to pickups.
Please see frequency response.
Arny Krueger
news:h1p33...@news5.newsguy.com...
> 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. ;-)
Harry Lavo
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:51:18 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <7a9gimF...@mid.individual.net>):
>
>> "Harry Lavo" <hl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:h1jma...@news6.newsguy.com...
>>
>>> What you say is true...I've had both high output and low output. But as
>>> a
>>> general rule, the low output moving coils have a lower effective
>>> tip-mass
>>> and therefore tend to sound smoother and track better.
>>
>> Typical MC tip mass = 0.3 mg.
>>
>> Shure MM tip mass = 0.040 - 0.139 mg
>>
>> Besides, tip mass is not of the essence.
>
> It's mostly irrelevant, that's for sure. Like most cartridge measurements,
> it
> tells one little about how the cartridge will actually perform.
Along with compliance, it tells you something about how well and with what
force the cartridge is likely to track. It tells you nothing about
cantilever performance or stylus impact on overall performance.
>> This is just another audiophile myth, perpetuated by people who lack the
>> proper background in mechanics and dynamic systems to understand how
>> these
>> things work.
>>
>> The important parameter is stylus inertia, which is based on both mass
>> and
>> distance from the center of rotation.
>
> Stylus assembly compliance is also a factor and there is no hard-and-fast
> rule about that EITHER.
Agree, but they and tip mass work together to affect trackability, along
with cantilever design and damping and stylus design. These things must be
optimized as a system.
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:7a9gimF...@mid.individual.net...
>> "Harry Lavo" <hl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:h1jma...@news6.newsguy.com...
>>
>>> What you say is true...I've had both high output and low output. But as
>>> a
>>> general rule, the low output moving coils have a lower effective
>>> tip-mass
>>> and therefore tend to sound smoother and track better.
>>
>> Typical MC tip mass = 0.3 mg.
>>
>> Shure MM tip mass = 0.040 - 0.139 mg
>>
>> Besides, tip mass is not of the essence.
>>
>> This is just another audiophile myth, perpetuated by people who lack the
>> proper background in mechanics and dynamic systems to understand how
>> these
>> things work.
>> The important parameter is stylus inertia, which is based on both mass
>> and
>> distance from the center of rotation.
> Of course. But for a given stylus design, tip mass is the determining
> factor.
Harry, you just agreed with me when I said that tip mass and stylus rotation
can be irrelevant.
>And as a reality check, there is very little difference in stylus
> length pivot to tip for most cartridge designs, so tip mass becomes the
> main
> variable.
Simply not true.
> Score debating points if you wish....but it doesn't invalidate
> the general observation.
Except it does. Effective mass and damping have a great deal to do with
trackability, which many high end MC cartrdiges lack.
Dick Pierce
> Well there is. The high frequency resonance is
> dependent on inertia and compliance of the groove. �
> The low frequency resonance is dependent on
> compliance and tone arm inertia (not tone arm
> mass, as is commonly cliamed.)
Wrong, it is dependent upon effective mass, not inertia.
Do a dimensional analysis of the formula for resonance
using inertia instead of mass and you come up with a
nonsensical result. Do it with mass, and your result is
in units of reciprocal time, which is frequency.
This is the same nonsense that Ivor Tiffenbrun tried to
pull back in the '70's claiming that tone arms didn't have
mass, they had moment of inertia. He neglected the
final step in the process which is that all of that moment
of inertia manifests itself as simple mass at any point
from the pivot equal to the moment of inertia divided
by the distance to the pivot point squared.
Dick Pierce
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> points...
Arny can and will, I am sure, speak for himself.
I am not interested in scoring any points: I have
nothing to gain by such.
But you have made a number of technical assertions
which I believe are not technically supportable, and
I am objecting to them on a technical basis. If you
think you can dismiss my objections by calling
it "scoring points," then you detract from the value
of your own points.
> I want to tell people something about how to
> translate the most common cartridge
> measurement technique into anticipated sound.
And I am saying that, save your repeated restatement
of the same claims, you have not provided any technical
support for those claims.
> It also tells you alot about damping and mechanical
> reaction of the cartridge/stylus, which is critical to pickups.
And you repeat this claim as if the claim itself was
proof of the claim. It is not.
Dick Pierce
> "Dick Pierce" <dpierce.cartchunk....@gmail.com> wrote in message
You are, indeed saying that if you are claiming that
the square wave response correlates as strongly as
you claim to any audible properties.
And I am saying that your fundamental claim is
unsupportable. The above example with the delay
line is simply an existance proof of a practical,
realizable example of two systems that can be
shown to have identical square-wave response
yet vastly different and obvious audible differences.
Pick a different measurement, such as a simple
broad-band frequency response or an impulse
response, and you'll get wildly different
measurements.
> Cartridges as you well know are imperfect,
> electro-mechanical devises. �
Yes, so what?
> What I am saying is that there is a correlation
> between certain aspects of how a cartridge
> handles the test square wave and certain
> commonalities of sound. �So that with
> experience, it is possible to say some things
> aforehand about their "likely" sound after
> seeing the square wave.
And I am saying you're wrong, and have provided
several technical explanations as to why and an
an existence proof of why.
If you have something other than a repeat of
the same claim to support the claim, I would be
interested in hearing it. But repeating the
claim yet again is not proof of the claim.
Harry Lavo
> "Harry Lavo" <hl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h1p37...@news5.newsguy.com...
>> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:7a9jhdF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> "Harry Lavo" <hl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:7a7a28F...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>> Dick, for all that, I don't think we are disagreeing.
>>>
>>> Interesting claim, given that you essentially repeat the same pack of
>>> errors
>>> that caused Dick's initial response.
>>>
>>>> A fast rise time,
>>>> coupled with a single overshoot will also certainly result in an
>>>> optimum
>>>> or
>>>> near-optimum transient response in your terms.
>>>
>>> Not really. A critically damped system has a certain well-defined amount
>>> of
>>> overshoot. The phrase "single overshoot" allows a wide range of
>>> overshooting, so it is vague and therefore meaningless.
>>
>> Again, debating points.
>
>
> That in itself is an attempt to conceal a common audiophile mistake.
>
>> In reality, most cartridges that have a single
>> overshoot have behave similarly.
>
> Not in this universe.
Why bother to even comment, then?
>
>> If the overshoot is very large it almost
>> always is followed by secondary ringing, and if it is small or
>> non-existant
>> the cartridge will be slow in settling and sound dull.
>
> Ignores the fact that there are an infinite number of variations in
> overshoot from more than one cycle to no apparent overshoot at all.
Doesn't ignore it at all. Most cartridges have some....and as I just
pointed out before your "debating point" reflex response, "more than one
cycle" = "followed by secondary ringing", and "no apparent overshoot at all"
= "if it is small or non-existent". In other words you are just blabbing to
hear yourself, and are adding nothing.
>
>> This is practical
>> experience speaking, from back in the day when these cartridge
>> measurements
>> were made and widely available, and I had the money and interest to
>> listen
>> to a wide range of cartridges.
>
> Harry, I can and have measured modern cartridges, So I don't have to rely
> on
> hearsay from the days when people took vinyl seriously.
Funny, I just saw you tell Dick a few days ago that you were not equipped to
measure cartridges.
But leaving that aside, listening to and measuring cartridges "back in the
day" may have taught you some things that now, in your CD prejudice, you
overlook or don't take seriously. It is hard to do critical listening when
you don't believe what you are listeing to has any significant merit.
>
>>Yes, there a technical caveats, but it is
>> nit-picking.
>
> No, it is how things work. Harry you can spend all the time you want to
> trying to deduce what matters (frequency response) from things that don't
> matter but are all conflated and wrapped up in the audiophile myth called
> square wave response.
How things "work" for audio equipment is how the "sound", a fact that seems
to escape you.
>
>
>
>>> And obviously it depends on
>>> the input signal from the test record.
>
>>> However, this disagrees with your previous claim that this test is easy
>>> to
>>> do and meaningful.
>>>
>>>
>>>> But it wasn't difficult to get
>>>> useful square wave input off test records back in the day.
>>>
>>> Again, "useful" = vague. The square wave responses were useful as fluff
>>> for
>>> advertising and not much else. Flat, smooth frequency response is of
>>> the
>>> essence.
>>
>> And you don't think test records that also included frequency response
>> tests
>> from 20hz to 20khz had flat, smooth response?
>
> Its the flat response from 50-15KHz that matters the most. Below 50-100 Hz
> vinyl response is not solely dependent on the cartridge.
So? Isn't that contained within 20hz - 20khz? If it is flat 20hz to 20khz,
it in all probability is extremely flat from 50hz - 15khz. Your point is?
(Oh I forgot, you like to hear yourself talk.)
>
>>>>..and they were designed specifically for this purpose.
>>>
>>> This time the antecedent is vague - was it the test records or the
>>> cartridges that were designed to give good square wave response for
>>> publication?
>
>> See my above comment. You and Dick want to score points...
>
> No, we want to spike common audiophile myths about vinyl.
And replace them with your own prejudice regarding vinyl? Dick can speak
for himself if he wishes.
>>I want to tell
>> people something about how to translate the most common cartridge
>> measurement technique into anticipated sound.
>
> Well, that's frequency response, so why are you going on about square wave
> response?
Back in the day, the two went together. And nowadays, neither is ever in
evidence. I stand by my statement.
>
>>> In either case, the answer should be no. Square wave response is one of
>>> the
>>> more meaningless tests around because it confounds flat frequency
>>> response
>>> and phase response. Flat frequency response is of the essence, while
>>> phase
>>> response above 1 KHz applied equally to both channels has no audible
>>> significance unless very, very extreme.
>
>> It also tells you alot about damping and mechanical reaction of the
>> cartridge/stylus, which is critical to pickups.
>
> Please see frequency response.
So I can get an "incomplete" on my test? I think not.
ScottW2
>
> > Stylus assembly compliance is also a factor and there is no hard-and-fast
> > rule about that EITHER.
>
> Agree, but they and tip mass work together to affect trackability, along
> with cantilever design and damping and stylus design. �These things must be
> optimized as a system.
I've owned a couple of Shure carts, a Signet and now an AT OC9
on a variety of tables.
While I've seen different results in tracking on my test record, I've
never at all felt that any of the carts exhibited tracking deficiency
with music. As such, tracking performance has never been high on my
list of cart concerns. It seems to be a solved problem.
Anyone know of any current carts that have unacceptable tracking
performance?
ScottW
Sonnova
(in article <7aaohgF...@mid.individual.net>):
You miss my point. My point is that the measurements tell one little about
how the cartridge will perform unless the end user has some way to measure
tone arm "interia" (since inertia is the product of mass, I don't see how you
can divorce effective tonearm mass from inertia) he has no way to determine
whether his arm and cartridge are a good match for one another other than to
try them - I.E. listen.
Sonnova
(in article <7aaohmF...@mid.individual.net>):
> "Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
> news:h1p3a...@news5.newsguy.com...
>
>> Would you (or someone) like to explain to me how one would go about
>> cutting a
>> square wave into a record groove?
>
> You use a cutting lathe with a power amplifier and appropriate test signal
> which is contrived to produce a square wave with an ideal cartridge and
> preamp, if the preamp is equalized.
As someone who used to master records, and therefore knows what a lash-up a
record cutting lathe and head and ancillary equipment is, I say that it can't
really be done and if it could, no cartridge on earth could track it.
>
> However, the question is misstated because quality cartridges as a rule
> have velocity-sensitive response, and require a non-square wave cut into the
> record groove in order to produce a square wave at either the output of the
> cartridge, or as it is more commonly done, at the output of a RIAA preamp.
OK. That I'll buy.
Sonnova
(in article <7aaohsF...@mid.individual.net>):
Did I say that they were?
Arny Krueger
> "Dick Pierce" <dpierce.ca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7aahhiF...@mid.individual.net...
>> On Jun 22, 1:38 pm, "Harry Lavo" <hl...@hotmail.com> 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
>> band-limited system MUST have a substantial
>> amount of ringing, Gibbs says so. You say different,
>> in contradiction to well-known facts.
This is no doubt to the problems of bringing non-engineers up to speed with
real-world engineering technology, as opposed to the watered-down legend and
myth that are frequently circulated by high end publications. I had my first
conversation with a cartridge design engineer in the 60s, which got me very
interested in the relevant JAES papers which were available in my university
library.
> Dick, I've never seen two cartridges that have identical square wave
> response to the same test record.
That says you've never effectively used cartridge loading to adjust the
response of a phono cartridge.
> Cartridges as you well know are imperfect, electro-mechanical devises.
Cartridges are also electro-mechanical systems with well-known electrical
and mechanical properties. Modeling a cartridge as a reasonably simple
electrical network was not uncommon in the days before computers.
People who are familiar with the professional literature from the days when
people took vinyl seriously are aware of this.
> What I am saying is that there is a
> correlation between certain aspects of how a cartridge handles the test
> square wave and certain commonalities of sound.
And I've twice explained why this is a myth.
> So that with experience,
Obtained with no measuring equipment and without the benefit of
bias-controlled testing...
> it is possible to say some things aforehand about their "likely" sound
> after
> seeing the square wave.
Trouble is, they aren't the best knowledge that is readily available.
Furthermore this obsession with square waves often feeds a pre-existing
prejudice against audio CDs.
Norman Schwartz
>
> Dick, I've never seen twocartridgesthat have identical square wave
> response to the same test record. �Cartridgesas you well know are
> imperfect, electro-mechanical devises. �What I am saying is that there is a
> correlation between certain aspects of how a cartridge handles the test
> square wave and certain commonalities of sound. �So that with experience, it
> is possible to say some things aforehand about their "likely" sound after
> seeing the square wave.-
As is probably well known, the different levels of the Grado
cartridges all derive from the same product but are selected on the
basis of their performance, "detail and frequency extension".
Now how does one measure detail?
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/frr.pl?ranlg&1077312050&read&3&4
"Every step up through the Prestige line of cartridges yields minor
(but significant) improvements in detail and frequency extension.
There are three tiers: Black and Green, Blue and Red, and Silver and
Gold. It�s the same cartridge at each tier; samples that test slightly
better than others wear the higher designation. For instance, a great-
performing Black becomes a Green and costs $20 extra. If you could
care less about a slight, possibly inaudible, improvement, then go for
the cheaper of the two."
Dick Pierce
> > one would go about cutting a square wave into a
> > record groove?
>
> You use a cutting lathe with a power amplifier and
> appropriate test signal which is contrived to produce
> a square wave with an ideal cartridge and preamp,
> if the preamp is equalized.
>
> However, the question is misstated because quality �
> cartridges as a rule have velocity-sensitive response,
> and require a non-square wave cut into the record
> groove in order to produce a square wave at either
> the output of the cartridge, or as it is more commonly
> done, at the output of a RIAA preamp.
No, not correct either.
You are right: the output of the phono cartridge is a
function of the instantaneous velocity of the stylus:
a sqquare wave physically cut into the groove will
result in an alternating train of positive- and negative-
going unit impulses. In that sense, the cartridge is
acting as a differentiator.
But you forget that the frequency response of the
phono preamp has TWO components to it: one of
them is the "RIAA EQ" shelf response with a zero
at 318 uS and a pole at 75 uS. This is what gives
the little shelf between 500 and 2 kHz, roughly.
But the overall response is dominated by the
-6 dB per octave slope across the entire band.
This is an integration function: it will take a train
of alternating unit impulse responses and turn it
back into a train of square waves, e.g.:
integral(derivative(f(x)) = f(x), w.r.t.t.
Thus, ignoring the little shelf around 1 kHz, a
square wave on the disk result in a square wave
coming out of the of the phono preamp.
Which points even more ot the effective
impossibility of cutting anything remotely
resembling a real square wave on a disk: it's
really an compromises, non-optimum exercise
in black magic.
Arny Krueger
> On Jun 22, 9:13 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> Well there is. The high frequency resonance is
>> dependent on inertia and compliance of the groove.
>> The low frequency resonance is dependent on
>> compliance and tone arm inertia (not tone arm
>> mass, as is commonly claimed.)
> Wrong, it is dependent upon effective mass, not inertia.
You changed the rules of the gain by saying "effective mass" as opposed to
what I said, which is "mass".
> Do a dimensional analysis of the formula for resonance
> using inertia instead of mass and you come up with a
> nonsensical result. Do it with mass, and your result is
> in units of reciprocal time, which is frequency.
Sorry Dick, but if you get your math right, it all works. It's all about
knowing which of the six dimensions you are doing your math in.
Whether its one of the 3 linear dimensions (x,y,z) or one of the 3
rotational dimensions, the results for a calculation of resonance always
come out in Hz. Note that a simple suspended body can be oscillating at
six different frequencies at the same time because the six dimensions are
orthogonal.
> This is the same nonsense that Ivor Tiffenbrun tried to
> pull back in the '70's claiming that tone arms didn't have
> mass, they had moment of inertia.
Well, aside from a common simplifying assumption, tone arms exist in six
dimensions, like the rest of the universe.
> He neglected the
> final step in the process which is that all of that moment
> of inertia manifests itself as simple mass at any point
> from the pivot equal to the moment of inertia divided
> by the distance to the pivot point squared.
That's the simplifying assumption I was talking about. Since the
displacements are small, its a pretty good assumption. It's also a
difference between mass and effective mass.
Sonnova
(in article <7ac60qF...@mid.individual.net>):
> On Jun 22, 9:13ï¿œpm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> Well there is. The high frequency resonance is
>> dependent on inertia and compliance of the groove. ￜ
>> The low frequency resonance is dependent on
>> compliance and tone arm inertia (not tone arm
>> mass, as is commonly cliamed.)
>
> Wrong, it is dependent upon effective mass, not inertia.
> Do a dimensional analysis of the formula for resonance
> using inertia instead of mass and you come up with a
> nonsensical result. Do it with mass, and your result is
> in units of reciprocal time, which is frequency.
>
> This is the same nonsense that Ivor Tiffenbrun tried to
> pull back in the '70's claiming that tone arms didn't have
> mass, they had moment of inertia. He neglected the
> final step in the process which is that all of that moment
> of inertia manifests itself as simple mass at any point
> from the pivot equal to the moment of inertia divided
> by the distance to the pivot point squared.
>
That's what I've been saying. You cannot divorce mass from "inertia" any more
than you can divorce voltage from current or resistance in applying Ohms Law.
They are a inexorably interconnected by the laws of nature.
Sonnova
(in article <7abobmF...@mid.individual.net>):
Much worse than cartridges.
Sonnova
(in article <7ac604F...@mid.individual.net>):
No argument there. A phonograph is a complete mechanical system and when
optimized, all of the components work synergistically to elicit the most
information from the record grooves. Start mismatching any of the parameters
and the "Fi" decreases. These interactive parameters include the cartridge ,
the design and execution of the arm as well as the platter and the platter
bearing, the motor, motor decoupling and the 'table's suspension.
Sonnova
(in article <7ac5v0F...@mid.individual.net>):
They are EQ'd. They are also electronically excursion and stylus acceleration
and velocity limited. Cutter heads also require lots of amplifier power to
get them to move at all, and just a few more Watts to burn them out. Although
modern computer control has taken a lot of the work and know-how out of the
record cutting business, at one time a mastering engineer was considered a
GOD. He had to know exactly how to use the equipment to get the maximum
level, and dynamic range possible on a record without cutting through the
groove walls, or burning out the cutter head all the while making sure that
the final product could be successfully played on the cheapest "record
player" . If you think that's easy, then I suggest that you think again.
Sonnova
(in article <7acqq2F...@mid.individual.net>):
> On Jun 23, 7:09ï¿œam, "Harry Lavo" <hl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Stylus assembly compliance is also a factor and there is no hard-and-fast
>>> rule about that EITHER.
>>
>> Agree, but they and tip mass work together to affect trackability, along
>> with cantilever design and damping and stylus design. ï¿œThese things must be
>> optimized as a system.
>
> I've owned a couple of Shure carts, a Signet and now an AT OC9
> on a variety of tables.
>
> While I've seen different results in tracking on my test record, I've
> never at all felt that any of the carts exhibited tracking deficiency
> with music. As such, tracking performance has never been high on my
> list of cart concerns. It seems to be a solved problem.
> Anyone know of any current carts that have unacceptable tracking
> performance?
>
> ScottW
>
>
No. Like you say, it's a solved problem. Any modern cartridge (except perhaps
the very cheapest, and I don't even know that for sure - no pun intended)
will track anything one can throw at it, and track it well. Anything above
that is just overkill and marketing malarky (put out a test record that has a
tracking "test track" that is way beyond what anyone would ever encounter in
any publicly released recording, and then build a cartridge that will track
it and promote the hell out of that ability).
dave a
> "Dick Pierce" <dpierce.ca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7ac60qF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>> On Jun 22, 9:13 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>>> Well there is. The high frequency resonance is
>>> dependent on inertia and compliance of the groove.
>>> The low frequency resonance is dependent on
>>> compliance and tone arm inertia (not tone arm
>>> mass, as is commonly claimed.)
>
>> Wrong, it is dependent upon effective mass, not inertia.
>
> You changed the rules of the gain by saying "effective mass" as opposed to
> what I said, which is "mass".
>
>> Do a dimensional analysis of the formula for resonance
>> using inertia instead of mass and you come up with a
>> nonsensical result. Do it with mass, and your result is
>> in units of reciprocal time, which is frequency.
>
> Sorry Dick, but if you get your math right, it all works. It's all about
> knowing which of the six dimensions you are doing your math in.
>
> Whether its one of the 3 linear dimensions (x,y,z) or one of the 3
> rotational dimensions, the results for a calculation of resonance always
> come out in Hz. Note that a simple suspended body can be oscillating at
> six different frequencies at the same time because the six dimensions are
> orthogonal.
>
resonance frequency of a simple mechanical system = 1/2pi * (k/M)^-2,
where M is the mass.
The units used to measure inertia are Kg*m^2 (kilograms * meters squared)
I don't see how inertia can be used to measure mechanical resonance.
As far as there being six dimensions, well, I'll leave that to the UFO team.
Scott
> "Scott" <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:h1p36...@news5.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> >> There's some heavy hitters in the industry who will disagree with you
> >> about
> >> that, too.
>
> > Which "heavy hitters" have asserted that one need not ultimately
> > listen to speakers to evaluate them? I find that a rather shocking
> > claim. I would be very skeptical of any such person's opinions
> > regardless of the alleged weight of their punch.
>
> Apparently you don't keep up with the lead tech guys are Harmon.
>
Aren't they the ones who built a multi-million dollar facility to use
controled listening tests as the final arbitrator of quality? Did they
abandon that philosophy and tear down the building? If so you are
right, I haven't been keeping up.
Dick Pierce
> "Dick Pierce" <dpierce.cartchunk....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7ac60qF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > On Jun 22, 9:13 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >> Well there is. The high frequency resonance is
> >> dependent on inertia and compliance of the groove.
> >> The low frequency resonance is dependent on
> >> compliance and tone arm inertia (not tone arm
> >> mass, as is commonly claimed.)
> > Wrong, it is dependent upon effective mass, not inertia.
>
> You changed the rules of the gain by saying
> "effective mass" as opposed to
> what I said, which is "mass".
No, I did not. Might I suggest you consult a physical
mechanics text for a definition and exposition of
the subject?
> > Do a dimensional analysis of the formula for resonance
> > using inertia instead of mass and you come up with a
> > nonsensical result. Do it with mass, and your result is
> > in units of reciprocal time, which is frequency.
>
> Sorry Dick, but if you get your math right, it all works. �
> It's all about knowing which of the six dimensions you
> are doing your math in.
>
> Whether its one of the 3 linear dimensions (x,y,z) or
> one of the 3 rotational dimensions, the results for a
> calculation of resonance always come out in Hz. �
> Note that a simple suspended body can be oscillating
> at six different frequencies at the same time because
> the six dimensions are orthogonal.
My goodness gracious, Arny, do you even know what
you are talking about? Do you even know what the
term "dimensional analysis" means? Do you know
the difference between "dimensions" and "degrees of
freedom? Do you understand what kinematical
analysis is? Your comments here would strongly
suggest you do not.
It's not clear that you are any longer interested in
a technical discussion based on the technical
merits or shortcomings of the topic, so,
For everyone else that might be interested:
dimensional analysis is a mathematical technique
invented by Fourier to, among other things, determine
the plausibility of equations involving physical quantities
or dimensions. It involves checking the consistency of
each term in an equation to make sure that they are
consistent. Let's use the formula for mechanical
resonant frequency as an illustration
As someone pointed out, the resonance of a simple
mechanical harmonic system is:
F = 1 / ( 2 pi sqrt(M/k) )
where F is frequency, m is mass, and k is stiffness.
If you want, instead, to use compliance (the
reciprocal of stiffness), it becomes:
F = 1 / ( 2 pi sqrt(MC) )
Now, the units or "dimensions" of each term are of
great significance here. I'm not talking dimensions
as in x, y, z, or positions in space, as Arny
misconstrued.
Rather, in what dimensions are each of the terms
of the equations expressed. Mass M, for example,
is expressed in dimensions of kilograms. Compliance
C could be expressed in dimensions of meters per
Newton. Frequency F is in units of reciprocal time:
F [s-1] = 1 / ( 2 pi sqrt( M [kg] C [m/N]) )
A dimensional analysis of the equation would involve
making sure that the units required on the left side of
the are a direct result of the units on the right side.
Let's look and see if that's the case. First, let's break
down the the units of compliance in to their fundamental
parts.
Compliance, as said, is in units of meters per Newton.
A Newton is a unit of force. From:
F = ma
or mass times acceleration, and acceleration is in
units meters per second squared. Substituting,
we have:
C = m / N
and since a Newton is a kg m/s^2, then
C = m / (kg m/s^2)
Let's start checking the consistency and see
what we end up with.
Starting with inside the radical:
M * C
put the units in, M = kg and C = m/(kg m/s^2),
and we get
kg * m / kg m/s^2
Eliminate like terms in the numerator and
denominator: since kg/kg = 1 and m/m = 1,
then we are left with:
1/1/s^2
which simplifies to
s^2
So inside the radical we have dimensions of
seconds squared.
The square root of that will be in seconds. So
our original formula is now reduces to:
F = 1 / 2 pi s
and since pi is a dimensionless quantity, the
result is that the right hand side of the equation
has dimensions of reciprocal seconds, and
frequency itself is in terms of reciprocal time.
Thus dimensional analysis shows that our formula
based on mass and mechanical compliance is
consistent and plausible.
Now, do the same, instead substitute inertia,
with dimensions of kg m^2, for mass, with
dimensions of kg, and see what you get.
Skipping the detailed derivation, the right hand
side of the equation ends up in units of meters
per second, which is velocity and very DEFINITELY
not frequency. Dimensional analysis shows that
an equation for frequency using inertia is
dimensionally inconsistent and thus not plausible.
> Well, aside from a common simplifying assumption,
> tone arms exist in six dimensions, like the rest of
> the universe.
You have clear confused the fact that an unrestrained
body in 3-dimensional space exhibits 6 DEGREES
OF FREEDOM of motion, 3 translational, 3 rotational.
That's totally different than claiming tone arms exist in
6 dimensions.
And that's an UNRESTRAINED body. Tone arms aren't
unrestrained: they have bearings, pivots and such that
contrain several of those degrees of freedom. This is
where kinematics comes in to play. The simple fact is
the motion of a tone arm is restricted to only two
degrees of freedom of motion, hopefully, two rotationally
about two mutually perpendicular axes.
> > He neglected the
> > final step in the process which is that all of that moment
> > of inertia manifests itself as simple mass at any point
> > from the pivot equal to the moment of inertia divided
> > by the distance to the pivot point squared.
>
> That's the simplifying assumption I was talking about.
That's NOT a simplifying assumption: it is a physical
fact.
> Since the displacements are small, its a pretty good
> assumption. It's also a difference between mass and
> effective mass.
It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the
size of the displacement. The effective mass is simply
the total moment of inertia about the axis, which
in dimensions of kg m^2, divided by the distance from
the point of interest to the axis of rotation squared,
in units of m^2. The result, again subject to dimensional
analysis:
M [kg] = R [kg m^2] / d [m] ^2
m [kg] = kg
is completely consistent.
Recal that to take a rotating mass to begin with and
turn it into moment of inertia is:
R [kg m^2] = M [kg] * d [m] ^2
that is, a point mass M at a distance D from the axis
of rotation d has a moment of inertia of M d^2. The
equation is perfectly symmetrical: it works perfectly
fine in both directions.
Arny, sorry, but I have to absolutely agree with the
good Mr. Lavo on one point: in what appears now to
be your attempt to score debating points, you have
made ridiculous, physically nonsensical assertions.
You have confused "dimensions" with "degrees of
freedom," you have completely ignored the kinematical
properties of physical bodies in general and tonearms
in particular, and you have made a mess of trying to
work within the well-defined and widely known and used
methodology of dimensional analysis.
If you want to respond to my post, might I suggest
you confine yourself to the technical points and
their technical merits or shortcomings.
I am not saying you yourself are a fool, this post,
in the context of a discussion of fundamental
physical mechanics, is foolish. Please do recognize
the difference, and provide us with renewed evidence
to the contrary.
For anyone who's actually interested in a more
detailed analysis of the fundamental mechanics
of tonearms, you are welcome to peruse an article
I wrote some years ago, which can be found at
http://www.cartchunk.org/audiotopics/ToneArmMechanics.pdf
There are a few other articles on other topics at:
http://www.cartchunk.org/audiotopics
For anyone else interested in understanding what's
really going on, do searches for "degrees of freedom,"
"kinimatics", "dimensional analysis." All of them lead
to reasonable definitions and expositions of the subjects,
though some may seem, due to the math involved, a
little obscure.
Harry Lavo
I don't recall saying it was easy. I knew some of the guys at CBS Labs, and
know it was not. But I also know they knew how to do it.
Arny Krueger
>>>
>>>> Stylus assembly compliance is also a factor and there is no
>>>> hard-and-fast
>>>> rule about that EITHER.
>>>
>>> Agree, but they and tip mass work together to affect trackability, along
>>> optimized as a system.
> I've owned a couple of Shure carts, a Signet and now an AT OC9
>> on a variety of tables.
>> While I've seen different results in tracking on my test record, I've
>> never at all felt that any of the carts exhibited tracking deficiency
>> with music.
Part of your "problem" is that you've been working with a few cartridges
that have above-average trackability.
>> As such, tracking performance has never been high on my
>> list of cart concerns. It seems to be a solved problem.
>> Anyone know of any current carts that have unacceptable tracking
>> performance?
> No. Like you say, it's a solved problem. Any modern cartridge (except
> perhaps
> the very cheapest, and I don't even know that for sure - no pun intended)
> will track anything one can throw at it, and track it well.
Proof?
Arny Krueger
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:13:26 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <7aaohmF...@mid.individual.net>):
>
>> "Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
>> news:h1p3a...@news5.newsguy.com...
>>
>>> Would you (or someone) like to explain to me how one would go about
>>> cutting a
>>> square wave into a record groove?
>>
>> You use a cutting lathe with a power amplifier and appropriate test
>> signal
>> which is contrived to produce a square wave with an ideal cartridge and
>> preamp, if the preamp is equalized.
>
> As someone who used to master records, and therefore knows what a lash-up
> a
> record cutting lathe and head and ancillary equipment is, I say that it
> can't
> really be done and if it could, no cartridge on earth could track it.
If good square waves can't be cut, then all this discussion of square wave
response is balderdash like I've been saying all along.
Arny Krueger
> You miss my point.
What, that a college-level discussion of the basic mechanics of a tone arm
goes beyond what you're read in high end audio magazines?
> My point is that the measurements tell one little about
> how the cartridge will perform unless the end user has some way to measure
> tone arm "interia" (since inertia is the product of mass, I don't see how
> you
> can divorce effective tonearm mass from inertia) he has no way to
> determine
> whether his arm and cartridge are a good match for one another other than
> to
> try them - I.E. listen.
Well-educated end users can measure the dynamics of a tone arm for
themselves with common household and shop items. It's a pity that
manufacturers don't do their homework and just puplish good specs for their
products. Perhaps part of their problem is that they are more interested in
visual asthetics than how tone arms are designed.
klausra...@hotmail.com
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
Dick Pierce
> You miss my point. My point is that the measurements
> tell one little about how the cartridge will perform unless
> the end user has some way to measure tone arm "interia"
> (since inertia is the product of mass, I don't see how you
> can divorce effective tonearm mass from inertia) he has
> no way to determine whether his arm and cartridge are a
> good match for one another other than to
> try them - I.E. listen.
Lordy, how difficult do you all want to make this?
Take a collection of masses co-rotating about an
axis. Each mass contributes to the total moment
of inertia of the system as:
R(n) = m(n) * d(n)^2
where R(n) is the contribution to the total moment
by mass m(n) located d(n) distance from the axis.*
Calculate R(1) through R(n). Sum them. That's the
total moment of inertia of all the contributing masses.
Now, what's the mass at the stylus point. Well, the
stylus is located x distance from the pivot. Since
R = m * x^2
then
m = R / x^2
So take the total moment of the arm system, divide
it by the stylus-pivot distance squared, and there's
effective mass of the whole system at the stylus,
which is the only place it matters for this discussion.
* For distributed masses, the tone arm tube, as
an example, one actually has to integrate the
contributions of each portion of the mass as
distributed from the pivot point. Standard
engineering reference texts have these formula
pre-calculated. In the example of a long thin
uniform tube of length x rotated at one end,
the total moment of inertia is
R = 1/3 m x^2
But goodness gracious, folks, this is not college
mechanics, this is high-school stuff.
In the URL I referred to elsewhere in this thread,
I work out the total effective mass of a real tone
arm in detail. It's hardly rocket science, glory it's
barely high school science.
Sigh, watching this has been painful.
Harry Lavo
news:h210j...@news2.newsguy.com...
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
> 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.
klausra...@hotmail.com
> 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
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
M�ller 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
(in article <7ap6ttF...@mid.individual.net>):
> On Jun 26, 4:56 pm, "Harry Lavo" <hl...@hotmail.com> 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), ￜEarcanal pressure generated by a free sound fieldￜ, J.
> of Acoust. Soc. of America, vol. 39, no.3, p.465
>
> Mï¿œller et al. (1995), ï¿œHead-related transfer functions of human
> subjectsￜ, 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 ï¿œonly
> hifiￜ ?
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 havenï¿œt 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
>
Harry Lavo
news:7ap6ttF...@mid.individual.net...
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.
Arny Krueger
> 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.
ScottW2
> <klausrampelm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
How did a product come to acquire "listening acclaim" garned (sic)
among audiophiles?
I've concluded that audiophiles, by their very nature of devotion to
something better must be out there, always disdain a well accepted and
readily available mass market product no matter it's performance. They
must because if a mainstream product provides the pinnacle of
performance and is as good as it gets then their basis for being
audiophiles disappears.
ScottW
Harry Lavo
news:7askvtF...@mid.individual.net...
That may well be, but I have yet to audition a "mainstream" product that
sounded as good as certain others, often produced by folk who prize a single
goal...sound quality...over other considerations. For example, for what one
paid for a Dynaco Preamp and Power Amp back in the day, you could also buy
any number of integrated amplifiers with lots of bells and whistles that
many considered very fine hi-fi. Only thing is...music played through them
just didn't sound as "real" as through the Dynaco and were often lacking in
deep bass power. The Dynaco's were not considered mainstream, but
eventually they earned a place of respect among audiophiles ever though they
were not terribly expensive.....simply because they sounded better than the
"mainstream" of that day.
Sonnova
(in article <7ars7pF...@mid.individual.net>):
> "Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
> news:h28ml...@news7.newsguy.com
>
>> As a concept, you're probably right. You can make a good
>> or a bad magnetic cartridge using any of the three
>> generating principles (moving coil, moving magnet, or
>> moving iron - sometimes called variable reluctance).
>
> Agreed. And in the day of, I experienced all of the above personally.
>
>> Cartridge design is probably, at least as much as speaker
>> design, dependent upon improvements in materials and
>> manufacturing technology to move forward.
>
> Regrettably untrue due to the fact that even 30 years ago, the limiting
> factor was that nasty slug of vinyl that this whole discussion centers on.
Except that this "nasty slug of vinyl" (prejudice again noted) has a lot of
information stored in it, and better cartridges retrieve more of it than do
poorer cartridges.
>
> The reason why we moved on to digital was that it was no secret then, and
> since the laws of physics have not changed in any relevant way since then,
> it is no secret now; that as long as you use a relatively slow-moving piece
> of vinyl with mechanically transcribed analog grooves, ca. late 60s early
> 70s performance is all you are ever going to beat out of the vinyl dead
> horse.
That's not true at all. I am amazed at how much better modern cartridges - on
the whole- sound and track over their forbearers.
>
> There were several attempts do take vinyl to the next step that failed
> miserably. One was the DMM process which removed a mechanical step from the
> tooling process of pressing the same limp old LPs. Then there RCA's lame
> attempt to keep the mechanical disc format but change the mode of data
> coding from direct analog to FM and possibly even digital, with a
> contact-based capacitive pickup. This actually came close to seeing the
> light of day as a format for distributing video. Optical-based storage blew
> it all out of water before it ever went mainstream. The Laser Disc in both
> FM and digital audio formats was generally accepted technology for years
> before the CD was introduced.
Huh? By the RCA "FM" attempt, I assume that you are talking about Q4? It only
used FM for the subcarrier attached to each channel in order to encode 4
discrete channels into a two channel disc. It never worked right.
>
>> There is no
>> doubt that even a relatively inexpensive cartridge these
>> days from Audio Technica, Grado, or Sumiko, to name a
>> few, is equal to or superior to the best cartridges
>> available 20-30 years ago,
>
> I own one of those Grados and it has a chance of approaching the M97XE.
>
>> yet they use the same
>> generating principles as they did then.
>
> More significantly they have the same old analog noose around their neck.
>
>> What has changed
>> are the materials used in the stylus suspensions, the
>> stylus shank itself, and even the magnets used.
>
> Not so much.
Yes, much.
>
>> Concurrent with that are manufacturing processes for
>> shaping and polishing the stylus as well as how the
>> stylus is mounted to the cantilever and even assembly
>> techniques.
>
> That's probably more automated than it was in the day. The inflation
> adjusted price of a Grado Black is still far more than a late-60s V15.
Ah, the V-15. Tracked so much better than it needed to track, and sounded
like crap. Finally, the V-15-VxM actually sounded decent (not great though),
then they dropped it.
Norman Schwartz
> 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.
Arny Krueger
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 06:00:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <7ars7pF...@mid.individual.net>):
>
>>> Cartridge design is probably, at least as much as
>>> speaker design, dependent upon improvements in
>>> materials and manufacturing technology to move forward.
>>
>> Regrettably untrue due to the fact that even 30 years
>> ago, the limiting factor was that nasty slug of vinyl
>> that this whole discussion centers on.
>
> Except that this "nasty slug of vinyl" (prejudice again
> noted) has a lot of information stored in it,
Not nearly enough to give good reproduction of the music. Vinyl lacks both
dynamic range and power bandwidth. While it can theoretically respond to
high frequencies, the response is extremely weak and/or distorted. This is
one reason why the CD-4 system fails to be reliable, after a few playings
the ultrasonic carrier can't be recovered with adequate level and
cleanliness to be useful. This happens quite quickly to any high frequency
information that may be recorded on a LP. Furthermore, the dynamic range of
a good live performance isn't there. These two limitations mean that the
information is simply not there, no matter what fantasies that audiophiles
have been told by greedy merchants over the years.
> and better cartridges retrieve more of it than do poorer cartridges.
To an extent that is true. However, beyond a surprisingly minimal
performance point, better cartrdiges don't retrieve any more, because you
can't retrieve what isn''t there.
>> The reason why we moved on to digital was that it was no
>> secret then, and since the laws of physics have not
>> changed in any relevant way since then, it is no secret
>> now; that as long as you use a relatively slow-moving
>> piece of vinyl with mechanically transcribed analog
>> grooves, ca. late 60s early 70s performance is all you
>> are ever going to beat out of the vinyl dead horse.
> That's not true at all. I am amazed at how much better
> modern cartridges - on the whole- sound and track over
> their forbearers.
Persaonal anecdote with no reliable evidence to back it up.
>> There were several attempts do take vinyl to the next
>> step that failed miserably. One was the DMM process
>> which removed a mechanical step from the tooling process
>> of pressing the same limp old LPs. Then there RCA's lame
>> attempt to keep the mechanical disc format but change
>> the mode of data coding from direct analog to FM and
>> possibly even digital, with a contact-based capacitive
>> pickup. This actually came close to seeing the light of
>> day as a format for distributing video. Optical-based
>> storage blew it all out of water before it ever went
>> mainstream. The Laser Disc in both FM and digital audio
>> formats was generally accepted technology for years
>> before the CD was introduced.
> Huh? By the RCA "FM" attempt, I assume that you are
> talking about Q4? It only used FM for the subcarrier
> attached to each channel in order to encode 4 discrete
> channels into a two channel disc. It never worked right.
No, I'm talking about the RCA Selectavision CED system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdDskCvk6Uo
>>> There is no
>>> doubt that even a relatively inexpensive cartridge these
>>> days from Audio Technica, Grado, or Sumiko, to name a
>>> few, is equal to or superior to the best cartridges
>>> available 20-30 years ago,
>> I own one of those Grados and it has a chance of
>> approaching the M97XE.
>>> yet they use the same
>>> generating principles as they did then.
>>
>> More significantly they have the same old analog noose
>> around their neck.
>>> What has changed
>>> are the materials used in the stylus suspensions, the
>>> stylus shank itself, and even the magnets used.
>>
>> Not so much.
>
> Yes, much.
Provide evidence for that claim that is obtained by reliable, unbiased
means.
>>> Concurrent with that are manufacturing processes for
>>> shaping and polishing the stylus as well as how the
>>> stylus is mounted to the cantilever and even assembly
>>> techniques.
>> That's probably more automated than it was in the day.
>> The inflation adjusted price of a Grado Black is still
>> far more than a late-60s V15.
> Ah, the V-15. Tracked so much better than it needed to
> track, and sounded like crap.
Provide evidence for that claim that is obtained by reliable, unbiased
means.
> Finally, the V-15-VxM actually sounded decent (not great though), then
> they
> dropped it.
Provide evidence for that claim that is obtained by reliable, unbiased
means.
Jenn
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> "Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
> news:h2bi1...@news5.newsguy.com
> > On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 06:00:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> > (in article <7ars7pF...@mid.individual.net>):
> >
>
> >>> Cartridge design is probably, at least as much as
> >>> speaker design, dependent upon improvements in
> >>> materials and manufacturing technology to move forward.
> >>
> >> Regrettably untrue due to the fact that even 30 years
> >> ago, the limiting factor was that nasty slug of vinyl
> >> that this whole discussion centers on.
> >
> > Except that this "nasty slug of vinyl" (prejudice again
> > noted) has a lot of information stored in it,
>
> Not nearly enough to give good reproduction of the music.
I disagree. Are you more qualified to judge the reproduced SOUND of
music than are others?
Sonnova
(in article <7assp6F...@mid.individual.net>):
> "ScottW2" <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7askvtF...@mid.individual.net...
[quoted text deleted -- deb]
>>
>> I've concluded that audiophiles, by their very nature of devotion to
>> something better must be out there, always disdain a well accepted and
>> readily available mass market product no matter it's performance. They
>> must because if a mainstream product provides the pinnacle of
>> performance and is as good as it gets then their basis for being
>> audiophiles disappears.
>>
>> ScottW
>
> That may well be, but I have yet to audition a "mainstream" product that
> sounded as good as certain others, often produced by folk who prize a single
> goal...sound quality...over other considerations. For example, for what one
> paid for a Dynaco Preamp and Power Amp back in the day, you could also buy
> any number of integrated amplifiers with lots of bells and whistles that
> many considered very fine hi-fi. Only thing is...music played through them
> just didn't sound as "real" as through the Dynaco and were often lacking in
> deep bass power. The Dynaco's were not considered mainstream, but
> eventually they earned a place of respect among audiophiles ever though they
> were not terribly expensive.....simply because they sounded better than the
> "mainstream" of that day.
>
>
I can only assume that by "Dynaco pre-amp and amp" you were referring to the
tube stuff, the PAS-3 and the Stereo 70, or Mark II, or Mark III tube
equipment because the Solid State PAT-5 and Stereo 120 were terrible (and the
Stereo 120 was unreliable too).
Sonnova
(in article <h2bi2...@news5.newsguy.com>):
> On Jun 28, 7:44ï¿œam, klausrampelm...@hotmail.com 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 ï¿œonly
>> hifiￜ ?
>>
>
> 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!
Sonnova
(in article <7atasvF...@mid.individual.net>):
> "Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
> news:h2bi1...@news5.newsguy.com
>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 06:00:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article <7ars7pF...@mid.individual.net>):
>>
>
>>>> Cartridge design is probably, at least as much as
>>>> speaker design, dependent upon improvements in
>>>> materials and manufacturing technology to move forward.
>>>
>>> Regrettably untrue due to the fact that even 30 years
>>> ago, the limiting factor was that nasty slug of vinyl
>>> that this whole discussion centers on.
>>
>> Except that this "nasty slug of vinyl" (prejudice again
>> noted) has a lot of information stored in it,
>
> Not nearly enough to give good reproduction of the music.
That's one opinion. I happen to find that some LPs sound very good.
> Vinyl lacks both
> dynamic range and power bandwidth.
As if that's all there is to it....
While it can theoretically respond to
> high frequencies, the response is extremely weak and/or distorted.
Again, that's an opinion.
This is
> one reason why the CD-4 system fails to be reliable, after a few playings
> the ultrasonic carrier can't be recovered with adequate level and
> cleanliness to be useful.
While true, most of them wouldn't play reliably the first time. The decoders
didn't work very well, and the Shibata-stylused cartridges designed to play
these discs were not very flat in the 20KHz-50KHz region -where the
subcarriers lived. Also, most arms of the day weren't good enough to track
that high-frequency stuff.
> This happens quite quickly to any high frequency
> information that may be recorded on a LP.
Photomicrographs of high frequencies on vinyl records show this not to be the
case with cartridges that aren't mistracking. While high frequencies are
deformed by the passing stylus, vinyl has a memory and they spring back to
their former shape very quickly. Now, what you say is true for frequencies
above about 15 Khz, They are attenuated by wear after a few playings, but
they're not all that important anyway.
Furthermore, the dynamic range of
> a good live performance isn't there. These two limitations mean that the
> information is simply not there, no matter what fantasies that audiophiles
> have been told by greedy merchants over the years.
There's more to a performance than your obviously biased opinions of vinyl's
shortcomings. They still give a great deal of sonic pleasure to many, and no
greedy merchant put that idea in MY head, I haven't bought a new LP in over a
decade.
>
>> and better cartridges retrieve more of it than do poorer cartridges.
>
> To an extent that is true. However, beyond a surprisingly minimal
> performance point, better cartrdiges don't retrieve any more, because you
> can't retrieve what isn''t there.
But you'd be surprised how much of what IS there poor cartridges and poor
'tables miss.
>
>>> The reason why we moved on to digital was that it was no
>>> secret then, and since the laws of physics have not
>>> changed in any relevant way since then, it is no secret
>>> now; that as long as you use a relatively slow-moving
>>> piece of vinyl with mechanically transcribed analog
>>> grooves, ca. late 60s early 70s performance is all you
>>> are ever going to beat out of the vinyl dead horse.
>
>> That's not true at all. I am amazed at how much better
>> modern cartridges - on the whole- sound and track over
>> their forbearers.
>
> Persaonal anecdote with no reliable evidence to back it up.
There's as much evidence to back my assertions as you have provided to back
yours...
>
>>> There were several attempts do take vinyl to the next
>>> step that failed miserably. One was the DMM process
>>> which removed a mechanical step from the tooling process
>>> of pressing the same limp old LPs. Then there RCA's lame
>>> attempt to keep the mechanical disc format but change
>>> the mode of data coding from direct analog to FM and
>>> possibly even digital, with a contact-based capacitive
>>> pickup. This actually came close to seeing the light of
>>> day as a format for distributing video. Optical-based
>>> storage blew it all out of water before it ever went
>>> mainstream. The Laser Disc in both FM and digital audio
>>> formats was generally accepted technology for years
>>> before the CD was introduced.
>
>> Huh? By the RCA "FM" attempt, I assume that you are
>> talking about Q4? It only used FM for the subcarrier
>> attached to each channel in order to encode 4 discrete
>> channels into a two channel disc. It never worked right.
>
> No, I'm talking about the RCA Selectavision CED system.
That was VIDEO! You should have made clear that you were talking about the
RCA CED video disc system. In that system, the stylus wasn't used to retrieve
information, the grooves had NO mechanical modulation in them, they were used
only to track the groove to allow the capacitive pick-up, which rode above
the surface to read the disc. It has nothing to do with phonograph records.
You first....
Arny Krueger
> (and the Stereo 120 was unreliable too).
So much so that I have a factory-wired Stereo 120 that is 100% original
parts many decades after it was built. When bench tested a couple of years
back, it beat factory specs. I use it with a pair of KEF Q10 speakers that
do just about everything that a speaker can do to destroy amps it or at
least sound horrible with a marginal amp. Sounds great!
Harry Lavo
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:17:33 -0700, Norman Schwartz wrote
> (in article <h2bi2...@news5.newsguy.com>):
>
>>
>>> 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,
>>> 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!
Agree. I never could afford it, but wished I could (or an SP-10). But I
use an ARC-6B to this day which ain't far behind those two.
>
Harry Lavo
Yes, that is what I was referring to.
On the other hand, at the time the Dynaco stuff went transistor and sounded
like crap, there were many even more awful sounding stuff
introduced....remember Acoustech? But I was referring to the line that
established Dynaco...and the integrated amps I referred to were also tube.
>
Arny Krueger
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:17:04 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <7atasvF...@mid.individual.net>):
>
>> "Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
>> news:h2bi1...@news5.newsguy.com
>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 06:00:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>>> (in article <7ars7pF...@mid.individual.net>):
>>>
>>
>>>>> Cartridge design is probably, at least as much as
>>>>> speaker design, dependent upon improvements in
>>>>> materials and manufacturing technology to move
>>>>> forward.
>>>>
>>>> Regrettably untrue due to the fact that even 30 years
>>>> ago, the limiting factor was that nasty slug of vinyl
>>>> that this whole discussion centers on.
>>>
>>> Except that this "nasty slug of vinyl" (prejudice again
>>> noted) has a lot of information stored in it,
>>
>> Not nearly enough to give good reproduction of the
>> music.
>
> That's one opinion. I happen to find that some LPs sound
> very good.
That's fine for you, but it says nothing that we can logically transfer to
anybody else. 99% of all music lovers in the world have abandoned the LP for
general music listening because of their inconvenience and substandard sound
quality.
>> Vinyl lacks both
>> dynamic range and power bandwidth.
> As if that's all there is to it....
If you understood Information Theory and its practical ramifications w/r/t
music listening, you'd understand that dynamic range and power bandwidth are
almost all of *it*, if by *it* you mean sonic accuracy.
>> While it can theoretically respond to
>> high frequencies, the response is extremely weak and/or
>> distorted.
> Again, that's an opinion.
No, its a scientific fact, and one that well-known even 30+ years ago. You
need to read and understand Poul Ladegaard's (Bruel and Kjaer) 1977 paper
about turntable vibrations. I think it is somewhere on the Vinyl Engene's
web site.
Sonnova
(in article <7b16ecF...@mid.individual.net>):
99% of people who abandoned LP did so for reasons of convenience and
availability, not for the sake of fidelity (which, given how small the audio
community has become in the past few decades, must be about 99% of that
99%!). The fact that record stores the world over switched, virtually
overnight from LP to CD in such a way that LP became, essentially,
unavailable, sort of forced the issue. It's not like people had much choice.
But, yes, the CD is better, and yes, people recognize that it is better, but
just because the market turned over toward CD doesn't instantly (or
otherwise) make the older medium worthless as you assert.
>
>>> Vinyl lacks both
>>> dynamic range and power bandwidth.
>
>> As if that's all there is to it....
>
> If you understood Information Theory and its practical ramifications w/r/t
> music listening, you'd understand that dynamic range and power bandwidth are
> almost all of *it*, if by *it* you mean sonic accuracy.
Oh, pish. Accuracy, paccuracy. Most people are interested in an emotionally
satisfying recreation of a musical event. If that recreation sounds good and
engages the listener, then that's the better recreation. That recreation can
be on 78's, LP, CD, SACD, reel-to-reel tape or even live FM. To dismiss an
entire media technology because it has flaws is like throwing the baby out
with the bath water and does no one a good service.
Sonnova
(in article <h2fmf...@news6.newsguy.com>):
We've been through this before. At some point, Dynaco FIXED the Stereo 120's
problems. Later ones no longer used 2N3055 output transistors that had to be
selected at the factory for V sub CEO lest the transistors instantly self
destruct when power was applied. They also re-biased the amp more strongly
into class A-B to eliminate the horrible cross-over notch that first
generation 120's exhibited. If you look on the web (I did it once and
published the results for you last year, I'm not going to search for it
again) you can find a list of the old parts vs the revised 120's parts list
and see this for yourself (although, in actuality, you already have).
I'm not sure exactly when Dynaco did this, but it was well after the amp had
lost much of it's original "must-have" appeal. I bought mine in 1968 and kept
it until about 1973 when I replaced it with a Citation 12. In that time it
blew it's output transistors and complementary-pair of driver transistors
FOUR times (if any of those four transistors went, it took the other three
with it). The last time I repaired it was in late 1972 and Dynaco was still
supplying selected 2N3055s and selected drivers as replacements.
Sonnova
(in article <h2fme...@news6.newsguy.com>):
> "Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
> news:h2eeb...@news7.newsguy.com...
>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:17:33 -0700, Norman Schwartz wrote
>> (in article <h2bi2...@news5.newsguy.com>):
>>
>>> On Jun 28, 7:44 am, klausrampelm...@hotmail.com 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 ï¿œonly
>>>> hifiￜ ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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!
>
> Agree. I never could afford it, but wished I could (or an SP-10). But I
> use an ARC-6B to this day which ain't far behind those two.
>>
>
True. I have a friend who still uses an ARC SP-9 brought up to Mark III specs
by the factory. It still sounds excellent.
For power amps, I use a pair of VTL 140 monoblocks the combo of the SP-11 and
the VTLs is magic with my Martin Logan Vistas (and my Sunfire subwoofers)
Sonnova
(in article <7b16e3F...@mid.individual.net>):
I agree. The original Dyna Stereo 120 (their first SS amp) was crap. But to
be fair, they were pushing the envelope. Getting 60 Watts RMS out of a pair
of 2N3055s was playing with fire and the amps using that transistor
complement would blow if you looked at it wrong. I have often thought that
Dynaco would have been much better-off had they released that design as a
"Stereo 80" rather than as a Stereo 120. They'd have been much more reliable.
But of course, that still wouldn't have addressed the terrible crossover
notch that these amps exhibited. This was caused by biasing them much more
into class "B" than into class "A-B" (in order to get the power, no doubt)
which was the main reason that these amps sounded so crappy.
But like you say, they weren't the only ones. The Acoustech amps used to
self-destruct as well, but for a different reason, as I recall. The Acoustech
amp was unstable and couldn't make up it's mind whether it wanted to be a
power amplifier or a runaway ultrasonic power oscillator! ;-)
Harry Lavo
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 05:57:03 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
> (in article <h2fme...@news6.newsguy.com>):
>
>> "Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
>> news:h2eeb...@news7.newsguy.com...
>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:17:33 -0700, Norman Schwartz wrote
>>> (in article <h2bi2...@news5.newsguy.com>):
>>>
>>>> On Jun 28, 7:44 am, klausrampelm...@hotmail.com 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,
>>>>> 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!
>>
>> Agree. I never could afford it, but wished I could (or an SP-10). But I
>> use an ARC-6B to this day which ain't far behind those two.
>>>
>>
>
> True. I have a friend who still uses an ARC SP-9 brought up to Mark III
> specs
> by the factory. It still sounds excellent.
>
> For power amps, I use a pair of VTL 140 monoblocks the combo of the SP-11
> and
> the VTLs is magic with my Martin Logan Vistas (and my Sunfire subwoofers)
Having owned VTL's myself (although a more lowly model) I can only imagine.
The magic was there when driving a pair of Thiel 3.5's (and later 2 2's).
Arny Krueger
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 06:25:33 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <7b16ecF...@mid.individual.net>):
>
>> "Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
>> news:h2eeg...@news7.newsguy.com
>>> That's one opinion. I happen to find that some LPs sound
>>> very good.
>> That's fine for you, but it says nothing that we can
>> logically transfer to anybody else. 99% of all music
>> lovers in the world have abandoned the LP for general
>> music listening because of their inconvenience and
>> substandard sound quality.
> 99% of people who abandoned LP did so for reasons of
> convenience and availability,
Obviously false because at the point of the introduction of the CD, just
about everybody who listened to music did so with LPs. Nothing is more
convenient and available than what you already have. Yet the music industry
was able to earn literally billions by reselling the same music in the CD
format to the same people who already had that music on LPs, due to the CDs
improved sound quality.
For the first 4-5 years after the introduction of the CD, CDs were in short
supply and there was only a limited selection of titles. The least expensive
CD players that were available in the early days cost 10 times or more than
a minimal LP player, but did of course sound fantastically better.
Furthermore, CD prices were a healthy premium (often 2-3 times) over what
the same music on LP sold for in the same store. If you walked into a store
in those days there could easily be far more floor space devoted to LPs than
CDs, and often by a non-trivial margins. The first year there might have
been only a few feet of bin space devoted to CDs in stores that had yard
after yard of LPs.
In order to prevail, the CD format had to overcome strong competition for
the music-lover's dollar, which did eventually happen to the point of nearly
extincting the LP format.
Norman Schwartz
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:17:33 -0700, Norman Schwartz wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 28, 7:44 am, klausrampelm...@hotmail.com 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,
> >> 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
>
Although not my every day pre-amp, I maintain a perfectly performing
ARC SP-3-A1(black faceplate), with all of ARC's updates and the last
Van Alstine mod on top of those..
Arny Krueger
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 05:57:32 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <h2fmf...@news6.newsguy.com>):
>
>> "Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
>> news:h2eeb...@news7.newsguy.com
>>
>>> (and the Stereo 120 was unreliable too).
>>
>> So much so that I have a factory-wired Stereo 120 that
>> is 100% original parts many decades after it was built.
>> When bench tested a couple of years back, it beat
>> factory specs. I use it with a pair of KEF Q10 speakers
>> that do just about everything that a speaker can do to
>> destroy amps it or at least sound horrible with a
>> marginal amp. Sounds great!
>>
>
> We've been through this before. At some point, Dynaco
> FIXED the Stereo 120's problems.
So then you admit that your initial claim that the Stereo120 was unreliable
is an over-simplification?
The fact of the matter is that some early production was unreliable, but by
taking a little more care in the choice of output devices, it became
reliable.
"I bought mine in 1968 and keptit until about 1973 when I replaced it with a
Citation 12."
My records show that the ST-120 was introduced in late 1966, so it is quite
possible that yours was still one of the early ones. I don't have
information that relates serious numbers to build dates, so I don't know
when mine was built. In those days 5 or so years was all the longer that
most audiophiles kept power amps before they traded up.
The Citation 12 was HK's second generation SS power amp (after the Citation
B) and came almost 5 years after the ST-120 in a time when SS device
technology was improving very rapidly. It was quickly eclipsed by power amps
with several times the power output but competitive pricing.
Scott
> "Sonnova" <sonn...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message> > (in article <7b16ecF1u4bp...@mid.individual.net>):
>
> >> "Sonnova" <sonn...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
> >>news:h2eeg...@news7.newsguy.com
> >>> That's one opinion. I happen to find that some LPs sound
> >>> very good.
> >> That's fine for you, but it says nothing that we can
> >> logically transfer to anybody else. 99% of all music
> >> lovers in the world have abandoned the LP for general
> >> music listening because of their inconvenience and
> >> substandard sound quality.
> > 99% of people who abandoned LP did so for reasons of
> > convenience and availability,
>
> Obviously false because at the point of the introduction of the CD, just
> about everybody who listened to music did so with LPs.
Actually cassettes had already taken over the top market share.
Convenience in portability being the obvious driving force in that
switch over.
> Nothing is more
> convenient and available than what you already have.
That is not true. Cassettes were more convenient and when CD players
became cheap and mobile they were also more convenient for most people
who clearly valued portability over everything else. CD didn't really
take off until then.
> Yet the music industry
> was able to earn literally billions by reselling the same music in the CD
> format to the same people who already had that music on �LPs, due to the CDs
> improved sound quality.
Where is the direct evidence of causality? That is not to say that
many people didn't percieve CDs to be sonically superior at the time.
I know I did. And it was quite superior to my Yamaha rack system
turntable with my factory suplied P mount cartridge. When one compares
inferior vinyl playback hardware to CD it is not unusual for one to
prefer CD playback. Most people never have had the opportunity to make
the comparisons with a geniune high end rig much less a state of the
art high end rig. So most opinions were and still are profoundly
uninformed.
>
> For the first 4-5 years after the introduction of the CD, CDs were in short
> supply and there was only a limited selection of titles. The least expensive
> CD players that were available in the early days cost 10 times or more than
> a minimal LP player, but did of course sound fantastically better.
Indeed. Rather *inconvenient* wouldn't you say? But it was not a case
of no stock available to consumers. Anyone with the money could walk
into any hifi store and buy a CD player and CDs. But when LPs were
practically wiped off the shelves a vinylphile could not do the same.
That was an artificial market situation.
>
> Furthermore, CD prices were a healthy premium (often 2-3 times) over what
> the same music on LP sold for in the same store. If you walked into a store
> in those days there could easily be far more floor space devoted to LPs than
> CDs, and often by a non-trivial margins. The first year there might have
> been only a few feet of bin space devoted to CDs in stores that had yard
> after yard of LPs.
And now we have audiophile LPs selling for an even greater premium at
5 times the price of some CDs of the same title. And these LPs are
selling out on a regular basis and then comanding upwards of 250
bucks.