I have no real idea about that module. I also make modules, but they are more simple in thru-path.
Also, I do know about proper cartridge selection for a given tone arm or visa-versa. It has been years since I last discussed it, however.
And I do know the difference between effective tip mass and effective tonearm mass-compliance. I just do not want to go through all that here.
Also, I do know about proper cartridge selection for a given tone arm or visa-versa. It has been years since I last discussed it, however.
And I do know the difference between effective tip mass and effective tonearm mass-compliance. I just do not want to go through all that here.
Well all my MC 's are lighter than my MM/MI cartridges, so whats the magic with MC's , with there low gain , expensive non replaceable stylus, all the negatives , yet considered the best and way up the food chain ...
Must be sumting to low gain/ pre combo ...
Boulder
Boulder has really stepped up their enclosure and machining game...beautiful aesthetics! How is their equipment regarded these days performance-wise? My last brush with them was back in the 1980's when they were using JE990s all over their topologies...and it was excellent performing stuff. A Boulder amp I installed with a pair of Quad ESL-63's in 1985 is still running strong last time I checked. Their equipment looks WAYYYY more complicated now, so I would posit that the reliability is perhaps not as good?
Scott, given your experience with production IC reliability, any opinion on the MTBF today vs. 30 years ago taking into account the explosion in actual part count? (too many variables to comment, maybe...)
Howie
Howard Hoyt
CE - WXYC-FM 89.3
UNC Chapel Hill, NC
www.wxyc.org
Boulder has really stepped up their enclosure and machining game...beautiful aesthetics! How is their equipment regarded these days performance-wise? My last brush with them was back in the 1980's when they were using JE990s all over their topologies...and it was excellent performing stuff. A Boulder amp I installed with a pair of Quad ESL-63's in 1985 is still running strong last time I checked. Their equipment looks WAYYYY more complicated now, so I would posit that the reliability is perhaps not as good?
Scott, given your experience with production IC reliability, any opinion on the MTBF today vs. 30 years ago taking into account the explosion in actual part count? (too many variables to comment, maybe...)
Howie
Howard Hoyt
CE - WXYC-FM 89.3
UNC Chapel Hill, NC
www.wxyc.org
Heard them on martin logans thought they performed very well . Bought the speakers.
On the average things are much better. That being said I routinely pull out parts with 80's date codes from my junk bins and they are still right on. I keep the 8-legs versions around because the SMT's are harder these days since I damaged my right index/thumb nerve overdoing a T-spine opening exercise.
Luckily I'm left handed.
So there you have your shoot out, Boulder vs BT. I have no intention of doing a one off the likes of the Boulder, I have much better things to do with my time. In any case I would never bother with most of the features and way to many parts. It looks like 100's of tiny SMT things too, what would ED say?
24 - 8-legs vs a pile of hand matched FET's per channel, no peeking though.
Keep your teeth in good condition (for to bite the handle of the soldering iron).
George
I don't heavy handed intervention, and the nerve regeneration time is ~1mm of finger/month they say.
I know this will bore most of you, but for those of you who want my 'slant' on phono cartridges, I will give some history here.
My first 'hi fi' cartridge. a MM, was the granddad of them all (for stereo) the Shure M3D that I got used along with a Rek-o-kut turntable in 1963. I used this set-up though 1966. My associates then would ask me what phono cartridge to buy, and I usually recommended a Shure V15 or even an ADC, that also had some good recommendations in the mags.
Then, in late 1965, I started working with a 'hi end' audio dealer in Berkeley, CA. Now they sold Shure cartridges, but only for modest systems. For the 'best' they used the Ortofon SPU with at transformer, and we would run listening tests between the Shure and the Ortofon MC. The Ortofon, while difficult to set up, and relatively expensive, just sounded CLEARER, so when I could, I switched to the Ortofon MC for my home system, and I never looked back. By the early 70's some newer MC cartridges came in from Japan, and Mark Levinson and I listened to them as well, and ultimately we went for these newer MC's, and we sought to replace the transformer that had to be purchased separately, and this became the Levinson JC-1 pre-preamp. We got great reviews, and this started my design of phono stages, not only for Mark, but HK, Symmetry, SOTA, and others. It took me almost 10 years before I switched to all jfet phono designs, with the Vendetta Research. However, for other manufacturers, including Levinson, and Dennesen, we had to handle MM cartridges as well. Still MC ruled supreme with our crowd.
Why did MC or alternative designs than MM, first come to being 'necessary'? In the '60's the effective tip mass was LOWER with MC or Decca cartridges compared to just about any MM. This meant wider bandwidth, and less record damage, and this was very important to us.
Now, Shure and other MM cartridge manufacturers did not stop with the 60's designs, and they too lowered their effective tip mass, sometimes to record low levels. Now, below 1mg effective tip mass, it might not be that important, but you know engineers, they love good specs and brag points.
Shure's last efforts were pretty spectacular, but I would not necessarily think they are better or even equal to the best MC's, but I would not reject them entirely. For me, I have to use an MC, and I am not sorry.
My first 'hi fi' cartridge. a MM, was the granddad of them all (for stereo) the Shure M3D that I got used along with a Rek-o-kut turntable in 1963. I used this set-up though 1966. My associates then would ask me what phono cartridge to buy, and I usually recommended a Shure V15 or even an ADC, that also had some good recommendations in the mags.
Then, in late 1965, I started working with a 'hi end' audio dealer in Berkeley, CA. Now they sold Shure cartridges, but only for modest systems. For the 'best' they used the Ortofon SPU with at transformer, and we would run listening tests between the Shure and the Ortofon MC. The Ortofon, while difficult to set up, and relatively expensive, just sounded CLEARER, so when I could, I switched to the Ortofon MC for my home system, and I never looked back. By the early 70's some newer MC cartridges came in from Japan, and Mark Levinson and I listened to them as well, and ultimately we went for these newer MC's, and we sought to replace the transformer that had to be purchased separately, and this became the Levinson JC-1 pre-preamp. We got great reviews, and this started my design of phono stages, not only for Mark, but HK, Symmetry, SOTA, and others. It took me almost 10 years before I switched to all jfet phono designs, with the Vendetta Research. However, for other manufacturers, including Levinson, and Dennesen, we had to handle MM cartridges as well. Still MC ruled supreme with our crowd.
Why did MC or alternative designs than MM, first come to being 'necessary'? In the '60's the effective tip mass was LOWER with MC or Decca cartridges compared to just about any MM. This meant wider bandwidth, and less record damage, and this was very important to us.
Now, Shure and other MM cartridge manufacturers did not stop with the 60's designs, and they too lowered their effective tip mass, sometimes to record low levels. Now, below 1mg effective tip mass, it might not be that important, but you know engineers, they love good specs and brag points.
Shure's last efforts were pretty spectacular, but I would not necessarily think they are better or even equal to the best MC's, but I would not reject them entirely. For me, I have to use an MC, and I am not sorry.
Last edited:
effective arm mass posts:
effective tip mass posts:
That’s the effect, although in principle, they are both LP filters
Using a simplifying description:
1. Effective tip mass interacts with the dynamic compliance of the vinyl. Turnover point ~10kHz-40kHz.
This mechanical LP filter is in series with the flow of transcription information
2. Effective arm mass interacts with the dynamic compliance (vertical and horizontal) of the cartridge cantilever’s suspension.
The resonance (~5Hz-25Hz) of this parallel mechanical system affects (increases) the mechanical impedance at the diamond tip causing a response peak at that frequency and a dynamic instability of the complete mechanical system, causing the needle to mistrack when a strong modulation –at any frequency-is read.
There is adequate LF energy from 0.5Hz and above in the grooves to excite resonances.
Thus, it is much more effective and beneficial to introduce damping for to lower the Q of the resonance than to merely shift the frequency of the resonance.
George
No, the arm-cartridge system is a high-pass filter because the cartridge is sensitive to the differential movement of the cantilever vs. cartridge/headshell/arm.gpapag said:
You could, I suppose, think of it as being mechanically 'wired' like an LP filter but with output being taken across the series element instead of the shunt element.
You are absolutely correct. This differential movement is the key for a clear uncomplicated explanation.
When I wrote ‘in principle’, I was meaning each system in isolation.
George
MC & MM
And my experience as well. Better MC carts have a lack of smearing or something which does not show up in steady-state measurements...maybe reproducing a square-wave would be a good way to quantify the difference...I'll have to check my CBS test disc to see if it has something useful.
And I'll share what I have found to give one of the biggest differences in vinyl playback: arm damping. It is the reason I bought an SME V tonearm with the silicone oil trough. The difference with and without the damping is startling, especially with LPs that have vertical deviation. Even with very flat discs, the absorbance of resonances by the damping really seems to clear up the soundstage. Without the damping the image seems to wander a bit, which you don't realize until you initiate the damping. The image then seems locked in very solidly by comparison. I have attributed it to both absorption of resonances and down-shifting low-frequency arm movements which reduces their audibility.
The only time I do not use the damping is reproducing discs with noticeable vertical deviation or those which are punched off-center. The damping then can cause large-scale cantilever movements which (which I have never seen happen) could potentially damage the cartridge.
I have used this tonearm with the Ortofon MC2000 MC cart (until the cantilever broke...and it was a roommate, not the damping that broke it!) and a Shure V15MKIV MM cart, with similar observations on the damping's effect for both.
Just my $0.015 worth (devaluing as I type...)
Howie
Howard Hoyt
CE - WXYC-FM 89.3
UNC Chapel Hill, NC
www.wxyc.org
And my experience as well. Better MC carts have a lack of smearing or something which does not show up in steady-state measurements...maybe reproducing a square-wave would be a good way to quantify the difference...I'll have to check my CBS test disc to see if it has something useful.
And I'll share what I have found to give one of the biggest differences in vinyl playback: arm damping. It is the reason I bought an SME V tonearm with the silicone oil trough. The difference with and without the damping is startling, especially with LPs that have vertical deviation. Even with very flat discs, the absorbance of resonances by the damping really seems to clear up the soundstage. Without the damping the image seems to wander a bit, which you don't realize until you initiate the damping. The image then seems locked in very solidly by comparison. I have attributed it to both absorption of resonances and down-shifting low-frequency arm movements which reduces their audibility.
The only time I do not use the damping is reproducing discs with noticeable vertical deviation or those which are punched off-center. The damping then can cause large-scale cantilever movements which (which I have never seen happen) could potentially damage the cartridge.
I have used this tonearm with the Ortofon MC2000 MC cart (until the cantilever broke...and it was a roommate, not the damping that broke it!) and a Shure V15MKIV MM cart, with similar observations on the damping's effect for both.
Just my $0.015 worth (devaluing as I type...)
Howie
Howard Hoyt
CE - WXYC-FM 89.3
UNC Chapel Hill, NC
www.wxyc.org
- Status
- Not open for further replies.