I had both the spherical and microridge styli for the Shure V15 type V. Very similar in the same body except for the top octave,
where the spherical was slightly rolled off, and the microridge was slightly too much.
Yes I could do that. Then, after several weeks worth of testing you probably will say that it is all irrelevant because it's mid-fi and hi-end is completely different....
I've been here too long I guess.
Jan
Of course, Jan, I would not bother with that level of phono cartridge, I would always choose the MC variety, as I have for the last 50 years. Still, the COMPARISON would be useful for people like Scott, who apparently does not think much of refined stylii.
If I were doing the measurement, I would probably use a summing type input, in order to separate away the electrical resonance from the mechanical resonance. In theory, only the mechanical resonance should be significantly effected by the stylus mass and shape.
If I were doing the measurement, I would probably use a summing type input, in order to separate away the electrical resonance from the mechanical resonance. In theory, only the mechanical resonance should be significantly effected by the stylus mass and shape.
But why not? Are MC that superior or have we been made to believe it or experienced it due a lack of understanding how to measure or load MMs properly.
The late Joe Grado had no truck with MC and he invented the things?
The total load capacitance that I used was the same for both styli types, 250pF in parallel with 47k, Shure's spec.
This seemed to be a good example of the relative sound of the two stylus types, but less difference than I would have thought.
Also I tried the Denon 103C, which was very close in sound to the Shure spherical, at least without a step-up device (I didn't have any).
Last edited:
We were talking pre-distorted LP's tracked with other than the designed shape, in other words an effects tool.
That's part of it. Part of it is the "hifi" sound of MCs (they tend to have a slightly depressed upper midrange, then ring in the treble). Part of it is the hair-shirt aspect (expensive and difficult must be better in fashion audio). And yes, part of it is the criticality of loading for most MMs, which is pretty much ignored or done incorrectly in most preamps.
The last expensive MC I owned was quite good (Troika), but not as good as the best MMs I've owned (Technics). Is that because one is MC and one is MM? I doubt it- my guess is that the boron cantilever and insanely low tip mass of the Technics was the secret, and that if they did the generator in reverse, it would have been just as good. Flat response, excellent bandwidth, no ringing, so no surprise that it sounds great.
At the moment, the best MM I have on hand is ridiculously sensitive to loading, and I suspect that if you used any old cables and any old preamp, it won't sound very good. At a Chicago Audio Society meeting a few months back, someone was demoing the same cartridge and it sounded way overbright; the model calculations I showed in Linear Audio certainly correlated that sound with a loading issue!
cartridge loading C
One thing I wonder about: when someone says they are loading a cartridge with a specified capacitance, does she or he account for the cable capacitance?
One feature I've considered for a "deluxe" preamp is the ability to determine the cable capacitance. Of course one could do this with a built-in fixture independent of the preamp proper, simply a capacitance meter with a range appropriate to typical cables, maybe 1nF down to tens of picofarads. A more difficult measurement would determine the total capacitance including the tonearm wiring and the interconnect. This would be done as an operation independent of actual playback. Then the machine would allow the total capacitance to be set, which would be stored in some non-volatile fashion.
In cases (one hopes rare cases) where the cable capacitance is higher than the recommended total capacitance, one could make the preamp's input capacitance negative. Needless to say if not done with care, you will have the makings of a nice oscillator.
Such an approach to capacitance determination also suggests moving on into the measurement of the other components of the cartridge. If the equivalent circuit is as simple as a lossy inductor, if desired the loading could be adjusted to realize the 75us time constant, as suggested by Cordell.
Brad
One thing I wonder about: when someone says they are loading a cartridge with a specified capacitance, does she or he account for the cable capacitance?
One feature I've considered for a "deluxe" preamp is the ability to determine the cable capacitance. Of course one could do this with a built-in fixture independent of the preamp proper, simply a capacitance meter with a range appropriate to typical cables, maybe 1nF down to tens of picofarads. A more difficult measurement would determine the total capacitance including the tonearm wiring and the interconnect. This would be done as an operation independent of actual playback. Then the machine would allow the total capacitance to be set, which would be stored in some non-volatile fashion.
In cases (one hopes rare cases) where the cable capacitance is higher than the recommended total capacitance, one could make the preamp's input capacitance negative. Needless to say if not done with care, you will have the makings of a nice oscillator.
Such an approach to capacitance determination also suggests moving on into the measurement of the other components of the cartridge. If the equivalent circuit is as simple as a lossy inductor, if desired the loading could be adjusted to realize the 75us time constant, as suggested by Cordell.
Brad
Long long ago Toole did a series of articles for a Canadian magazine somewhat resembling the old Audio, about vinyl playback and cartridges in particular, including the results of listening tests that mixed MC and MM cartridges. He forwarded some of the material to me, but he wants to review it and possibly rewrite some of it if it should see the light of day now. Since his enthusiasm for vinyl is pretty negligible these days I doubt that it will be forthcoming soon.
In any event, the listeners were all audiophiles and convinced of the clear superiority of MC to MM. When the frequency response of the MM cartridge was mildly equalized (based on test records) to be comparable to the MC ones, there was no preference in the blind tests for MC. Explanations abounded about how there had to be something peculiar about the equipment used (not the cartridges). No beliefs were changed.
Of course, you guys don't notice what is wrong with MM cartridges, you are used to a severely rolled off high end at around 20KHz.
A serious difference between MOST MM cartridges and MC cartridges is the added rolloff between 10K-20K,(11K-16K in the Ortofon red-blk series) in the MM cartridges WITH the proper cap loading. You have never thought it through. How do you get a flat response when the mechanical resonance is RISING within the audio bandwidth? You adjust it to flat with the ELECTRICAL rolloff, composed of the cartridge inductance, 47K loading, and the recommended capacitance. Do a calculation yourself, if you doubt this.
A serious difference between MOST MM cartridges and MC cartridges is the added rolloff between 10K-20K,(11K-16K in the Ortofon red-blk series) in the MM cartridges WITH the proper cap loading. You have never thought it through. How do you get a flat response when the mechanical resonance is RISING within the audio bandwidth? You adjust it to flat with the ELECTRICAL rolloff, composed of the cartridge inductance, 47K loading, and the recommended capacitance. Do a calculation yourself, if you doubt this.
You are either looking at the wrong cartridges, or the night before is still happening John.
What is interesting about the "MM" Ortofon cartridges is that both the coil and the magnet are stationary. Without having to wave a coil of wire around, it can be larger like a MM design. Hence the high output level. VMS stands for "Variable Magnetic Shunt". They move a vane of metal, not the entire magnet (= higher compliance, similar to an MC design). Of all the various cartridges I have heard and / or tested over the years, I have not found a compelling reason to shoot myself in the foot with an expensive, low output cartridge that I can't replace the stylus on my own.
Looking down your nose at otherwise fine cartridges isn't flattering John. This is a world of grey tones, compromise is part of every design. This is a world where the most expensive product is almost certain to under perform less costly products. Audio snobbery is as unattractive as it was in the 70's. That has not changed.
-Chris
What is interesting about the "MM" Ortofon cartridges is that both the coil and the magnet are stationary. Without having to wave a coil of wire around, it can be larger like a MM design. Hence the high output level. VMS stands for "Variable Magnetic Shunt". They move a vane of metal, not the entire magnet (= higher compliance, similar to an MC design). Of all the various cartridges I have heard and / or tested over the years, I have not found a compelling reason to shoot myself in the foot with an expensive, low output cartridge that I can't replace the stylus on my own.
Looking down your nose at otherwise fine cartridges isn't flattering John. This is a world of grey tones, compromise is part of every design. This is a world where the most expensive product is almost certain to under perform less costly products. Audio snobbery is as unattractive as it was in the 70's. That has not changed.
-Chris
Listen guys, I used MM cartridges for years. I even reverted to an inexpensive Grado (I had heard good things about it) back in 1992 after my hi fi system was destroyed in a firestorm. I gave the cartridge away as soon as I could, and got an MC. I have been using MC cartridges for 50 years now, being shown the difference when I used to sell Ortofon MC cartridges (we were the largest seller of Ortofon in the San Francisco Bay area at that time). Once I shifted from Shure or ADC to MC, I NEVER looked back.
For those of you who wonder what I am talking about, just COMPUTE the ELECTRICAL (RLC) frequency response of the Ortofon MM cartridge, like the Ortofon RED. IF you do you will find an overdamped resonance of about 11KHz.
Come on everybody, you still have a calculator don't you? You know 2piF=1/sq.rt LC (sorry, I can't write it any plainer)
You will be stunned, because IF the mechanical resonance was high and damped, you would NOT have any high frequency response at all.
Yes, you have a 4 pole Butterworth filter (best case) with a rolloff just around 20KHz. There is no way around it. In my measuring experience, MC cartridges have a fairly damped resonance between 30KHz-50KHz or even higher sometimes, making a 2 pole rolloff after. Just look at the measured risetime between a typical Shure and an Ortofon MC. Just look! Do I have to look up the numbers for you?
For those of you who wonder what I am talking about, just COMPUTE the ELECTRICAL (RLC) frequency response of the Ortofon MM cartridge, like the Ortofon RED. IF you do you will find an overdamped resonance of about 11KHz.
Come on everybody, you still have a calculator don't you? You know 2piF=1/sq.rt LC (sorry, I can't write it any plainer)
You will be stunned, because IF the mechanical resonance was high and damped, you would NOT have any high frequency response at all.
Yes, you have a 4 pole Butterworth filter (best case) with a rolloff just around 20KHz. There is no way around it. In my measuring experience, MC cartridges have a fairly damped resonance between 30KHz-50KHz or even higher sometimes, making a 2 pole rolloff after. Just look at the measured risetime between a typical Shure and an Ortofon MC. Just look! Do I have to look up the numbers for you?
Last edited:
For those who are too lazy to pull out their HPs or Casios
Hagerman Technology LLC: Cartridge Loading
- Status
- Not open for further replies.