But that's a micro-ridge stylus, am I the only one who thinks this thread has taken a turn for the surreal?
Here is a complete set of those "DYNAGROOVE" Stereophile articles by J. Gordon Holt.
Down with Dynagroove! | Stereophile.com
Cheers.
ZAP
Down with Dynagroove! | Stereophile.com
Cheers.
ZAP
I agree with Mr. Holt the EMI disks of that era are often stunning, really compelling (any stylus geometry as far as I could tell).
There is nothing 'surreal' here. People have been making phono cartridges for many decades, AND many find that the more sophisticated styli actually sound better, and extract more information from the vinyl grove. To imply that they are all 'crooks' or 'crazy' is just another professional 'impugning' of audio designers.
Scott, first of all, are you going to talk to John Meyer about direct disc recording? His experience should get you 'up to speed' so to speak, at least about disc recording and reproduction. John Meyer and I ran an advanced audio lab at IHEM in Switzerland for 1 1/2 years, and we tested every MC phono cartridge that we could get our hands on, up to 50 KHz. We learned a thing or two, but I don't pretend to be a phono cartridge designer, and perhaps, neither should you. '-)
Scott, first of all, are you going to talk to John Meyer about direct disc recording? His experience should get you 'up to speed' so to speak, at least about disc recording and reproduction. John Meyer and I ran an advanced audio lab at IHEM in Switzerland for 1 1/2 years, and we tested every MC phono cartridge that we could get our hands on, up to 50 KHz. We learned a thing or two, but I don't pretend to be a phono cartridge designer, and perhaps, neither should you. '-)
I admired J. Gordon Holt a great deal. However, I think he was overly harsh about some aspects the overall RCA DYNAGROOVE approach.
DYNAGROOVE actually encompassed important and wide ranging improvements to RCA recording techniques.
IMO, this article is a better presentation of what the DYNAGROOVE approach was attempting to accomplish at that time:
Article: Dynagroove: The Sound of Tomorrow
Cheers.
ZAP
DYNAGROOVE actually encompassed important and wide ranging improvements to RCA recording techniques.
IMO, this article is a better presentation of what the DYNAGROOVE approach was attempting to accomplish at that time:
Article: Dynagroove: The Sound of Tomorrow
Cheers.
ZAP
Phono is a 'pain'. Part of what needs fixing first, usually depends on what annoys you the most. Some people hate ticks and pops, and hate to clean the stylus after every play, so these people should seriously consider cleaning their records, often.
Others, listen through that (me) and listen to the sound quality. This is where phono cartridge quality counts most. Many cheaper cartridges will usually sound 'dull' or opaque.
Better cartridges can just sound more 'real'. However, proper set-up and adjustment becomes more and more important when a 'serious' phono cartridge is used with some sort of exotic stylus. That is one of the advantages of something like a Denon 103C (conical) cartridge. IF you insist on easy set-up, the conical stylus is ideal. However, a 103D, or a 103S would be more sensitive to a sloppy set-up. This is just a 30 year old example. The newer cartridges can be formidable in their set-up, and I tend to avoid it without expert help.
Others, listen through that (me) and listen to the sound quality. This is where phono cartridge quality counts most. Many cheaper cartridges will usually sound 'dull' or opaque.
Better cartridges can just sound more 'real'. However, proper set-up and adjustment becomes more and more important when a 'serious' phono cartridge is used with some sort of exotic stylus. That is one of the advantages of something like a Denon 103C (conical) cartridge. IF you insist on easy set-up, the conical stylus is ideal. However, a 103D, or a 103S would be more sensitive to a sloppy set-up. This is just a 30 year old example. The newer cartridges can be formidable in their set-up, and I tend to avoid it without expert help.
While I agree in general I haven't found the standard or Zu version of the DL-103 to be particularly easy to set up well. Seems to need as much attention to the details as anything I've tried. I'll admit though that I am a big fan of the SPU (GM E II) on a Schick arm which has made my life very simple and trouble free, and musical. I also have a DL103D on a rigid low mass headshell on an SME 3009 Series II that I like, but it is also quite fussy about set up.. (Both tables are antique TD-124s)
Quality of set up as well as arm compatibility are always going to be an issue with any cartridge that offers the potential of decent performance.
FWIW I would recommend an audio-technica techni-hard headshell or a Yamamoto over the SME S2 shell on a 3009 any day of the week.
Chris H makes an important point as well.
Quality of set up as well as arm compatibility are always going to be an issue with any cartridge that offers the potential of decent performance.
FWIW I would recommend an audio-technica techni-hard headshell or a Yamamoto over the SME S2 shell on a 3009 any day of the week.
Chris H makes an important point as well.
Of course, no-one did that, but sure, whatever. Keep whacking it, the straw will come out eventually.
I'm trying to have a disscussion here and wade through decades of confusion. Both Thorsten and Groove-T said basicly only a spherical stylus "works" on many classic LP's. Who said crooks? There is serious confusion here, the major cutting lathe makers decide to compensate for spherical stylii, obviating the cartridge makers "continuous improvement" of geometries, to me simply a classic conflict of economic interests. The cartridge makers simply ignore what would hurt their bottom line.
Hi,
Why?
Ever seen the pricetag on a Ferrari Testarossa or a Rolex, or of role of branded toilet paper you recently saw the TV advert for (which incidentally is much worse at cleaning your behind than a Bidet), or that branded washing powder which, according to the adverts on TV's provides whites so white, they are whiter than white... (would that make it a whiter shade of pale?)?
Do you really think they are that much more expensive to make than a nice 20K Saloon or 5$ Quartz watch? Or that that the massive mark up when buying branded and heavily TV promoted washing powder or even toilet paper is justified by any actual equal increase in "performance""?
And don't get me started on the actual cost of software (and no, this cost is not the cost of actual support, you get charged extra for that)...
Why is it invariably high end audio that is singled out, when there so many more juicy and more promising targets?
I guess that's life, that what all the people say...
Ciao T
The value for money ratio of extreme high end gear baffles me.
Why?
Ever seen the pricetag on a Ferrari Testarossa or a Rolex, or of role of branded toilet paper you recently saw the TV advert for (which incidentally is much worse at cleaning your behind than a Bidet), or that branded washing powder which, according to the adverts on TV's provides whites so white, they are whiter than white... (would that make it a whiter shade of pale?)?
Do you really think they are that much more expensive to make than a nice 20K Saloon or 5$ Quartz watch? Or that that the massive mark up when buying branded and heavily TV promoted washing powder or even toilet paper is justified by any actual equal increase in "performance""?
And don't get me started on the actual cost of software (and no, this cost is not the cost of actual support, you get charged extra for that)...
Why is it invariably high end audio that is singled out, when there so many more juicy and more promising targets?
I guess that's life, that what all the people say...
Ciao T
Scott,
Buy a Denon DL-103R.
I have access to pretty much anything I fancy at least a major markdown, often for the asking (I rarely ask, I do not like to owe people "for that cartridge I have in 1979..."). I have played with a lot of the really high $ stuff. I do appreciate the things they do better than the Denon, but I'm not willing to put my hand into my pocket for change for that.
Plus, with a DL-103R I will not get a major crisis if the cleaning lady lunches the stylus (just take another one out of the null entropy capsule kept in the freezer) or when my attempt to solder the arm wire to the cartridge ***** the pin a little...
The only issue is that DL-103 does not work well bolted to modern, rigid arms and sadly the price of used early SME 3009 Arms have been going up...
Ciao T
Buy a Denon DL-103R.
I have access to pretty much anything I fancy at least a major markdown, often for the asking (I rarely ask, I do not like to owe people "for that cartridge I have in 1979..."). I have played with a lot of the really high $ stuff. I do appreciate the things they do better than the Denon, but I'm not willing to put my hand into my pocket for change for that.
Plus, with a DL-103R I will not get a major crisis if the cleaning lady lunches the stylus (just take another one out of the null entropy capsule kept in the freezer) or when my attempt to solder the arm wire to the cartridge ***** the pin a little...
The only issue is that DL-103 does not work well bolted to modern, rigid arms and sadly the price of used early SME 3009 Arms have been going up...
Ciao T
Scott, why don't you do some research on the subject, yourself? I do not know what T is talking about, but then my association was normally with Ortofon, and even visiting them at the factory over the years did NOT clue me in as to any pre-distortion.
We KNOW from history that Dynagroove was a real failure. It was apparently great in theory. NOW, a little extra 2'nd harmonic to offset expected 2'nd harmonic from a number of phono cartridge related sources, such as alignment and arm geometry, to probably could not do any harm, either for conical, or to some extreme Shibata stylus. There is just TOO MUCH 2'nd harmonic to easily compare between conical or an extreme Shibata type stylus.
Is ANYONE here a REAL expert in phono design and playback? I doubt it, including me, and I am years ahead of most of you. I have done the measurements on a number of phono cartridges, and developed communication channels with phono cartridge and disc cutter engineers. Still, mistakes are made in assembly, for example, and different model phono cartridges do sound different, and some can sound absolutely amazing! I have heard this with my own ears, however, I could NEVER afford what I liked best. But I keep trying.
I have also gone BACKWARD, like trying a cheap Grado as a first cartridge after I lost everything in a firestorm. It was essentially junk. Then somebody gave me a British turntable (not Linn) with an SME arm. After a year, I gave it away, going back to a Linn Table, like I had previously.
Then I have tried different MC phono cartridges, and found a really good one, BUT I broke it accidently in a major apartment move, so I went back to the manufacturer to get another. Ultimately, I got a slightly cheaper version at a very good price, only used at a CES by my office partner, Brian Cheney, and I am living with that today. However, it is NOT as good as I previously had, and I am always complaining to myself about it. Now, I have what I want, AND was previously recommended to me, but I am reluctant to put it in, myself, with my eyes as they are. So it sits, next to the turntable.
Once I have lived with a really good vinyl playback system, it is hard to find any other source quite as good. This is my position and experience. However, I have NOT heard 'the best of the best' digital playback in my own system. However, every digital playback system, at ANY price, that I have heard at shows or in rich person's homes (for example a 1/3 million dollar system) bores me after 1/2 hour. Vinyl does NOT bore me, it excites me! It is just such a hassle that I don't play it that often.
We KNOW from history that Dynagroove was a real failure. It was apparently great in theory. NOW, a little extra 2'nd harmonic to offset expected 2'nd harmonic from a number of phono cartridge related sources, such as alignment and arm geometry, to probably could not do any harm, either for conical, or to some extreme Shibata stylus. There is just TOO MUCH 2'nd harmonic to easily compare between conical or an extreme Shibata type stylus.
Is ANYONE here a REAL expert in phono design and playback? I doubt it, including me, and I am years ahead of most of you. I have done the measurements on a number of phono cartridges, and developed communication channels with phono cartridge and disc cutter engineers. Still, mistakes are made in assembly, for example, and different model phono cartridges do sound different, and some can sound absolutely amazing! I have heard this with my own ears, however, I could NEVER afford what I liked best. But I keep trying.
I have also gone BACKWARD, like trying a cheap Grado as a first cartridge after I lost everything in a firestorm. It was essentially junk. Then somebody gave me a British turntable (not Linn) with an SME arm. After a year, I gave it away, going back to a Linn Table, like I had previously.
Then I have tried different MC phono cartridges, and found a really good one, BUT I broke it accidently in a major apartment move, so I went back to the manufacturer to get another. Ultimately, I got a slightly cheaper version at a very good price, only used at a CES by my office partner, Brian Cheney, and I am living with that today. However, it is NOT as good as I previously had, and I am always complaining to myself about it. Now, I have what I want, AND was previously recommended to me, but I am reluctant to put it in, myself, with my eyes as they are. So it sits, next to the turntable.
Once I have lived with a really good vinyl playback system, it is hard to find any other source quite as good. This is my position and experience. However, I have NOT heard 'the best of the best' digital playback in my own system. However, every digital playback system, at ANY price, that I have heard at shows or in rich person's homes (for example a 1/3 million dollar system) bores me after 1/2 hour. Vinyl does NOT bore me, it excites me! It is just such a hassle that I don't play it that often.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Denon is short money, is there any hope in my Premier MMT arm? I really do want to repeat my experiments but the thought of a new arm and all that work. Oh the pain the pain. Someone from the Pass Labs forum was kind enough to send me some crazy low noise JFET's from Interfet and I think I have a neat Zen type MC stage which would make for more fun.
Last edited:
LOL. If you haven't figured that one out yet, there ain't much hope.
You don't work for TAS by chance, do you?
.
Scott,
There are several issues at play.
Just as most customers at MickeyD's never know how their so-called "food" is manufactured (trust me, you don't want to) most people heavily into analogue do not really know how most LP's where made in the Heydays (50's to mid 80's). So they find them,selves on a permanent search for a single holy grail that does not and cannot exist.
Those who know are more pragmatic, but usually lack the necessary profile to be taken serious. I do happen to know about the different EQ curves, the tracing simulators, the digital delay lines for automated variable groove spacing, the motional feedback in the cutter heads which singularly failed to suppress the cutterheads resonances effectively and much else.
I still enjoy listening to LP's (but I normally try to avoid fast food joints) and I even like to do so with open loop electronics, despite all the negative feedback on "the other side. But I entertain few illusions about how they where made and indeed, I entertain equally few ïllusions about how CD's are made, possibly even fewer, if that where possible.
Ciao T
PS, if the tooling and research for the Denon DL-103 would not have been written off decades ago and if the development and tooling for the Technics SL-1200 turntable range would not have been written almost equally far back, and if these two items would not (have) be made with mass production industrial methods but with the usual high end industry extremely small scale methods; the combination of a SL12XX and a DL-103 would nowadays command serious coin and not be the bargain at all, that it is now.
For fun, I've had a modded SL12XX with a DL-103R go up against a serious High End Table, Arm and Cartridge (around 5K US each - so 15K total) and it did not come off worse in this case and the High End turntable was rather good...
There are several issues at play.
Just as most customers at MickeyD's never know how their so-called "food" is manufactured (trust me, you don't want to) most people heavily into analogue do not really know how most LP's where made in the Heydays (50's to mid 80's). So they find them,selves on a permanent search for a single holy grail that does not and cannot exist.
Those who know are more pragmatic, but usually lack the necessary profile to be taken serious. I do happen to know about the different EQ curves, the tracing simulators, the digital delay lines for automated variable groove spacing, the motional feedback in the cutter heads which singularly failed to suppress the cutterheads resonances effectively and much else.
I still enjoy listening to LP's (but I normally try to avoid fast food joints) and I even like to do so with open loop electronics, despite all the negative feedback on "the other side. But I entertain few illusions about how they where made and indeed, I entertain equally few ïllusions about how CD's are made, possibly even fewer, if that where possible.
Ciao T
PS, if the tooling and research for the Denon DL-103 would not have been written off decades ago and if the development and tooling for the Technics SL-1200 turntable range would not have been written almost equally far back, and if these two items would not (have) be made with mass production industrial methods but with the usual high end industry extremely small scale methods; the combination of a SL12XX and a DL-103 would nowadays command serious coin and not be the bargain at all, that it is now.
For fun, I've had a modded SL12XX with a DL-103R go up against a serious High End Table, Arm and Cartridge (around 5K US each - so 15K total) and it did not come off worse in this case and the High End turntable was rather good...
DL-103 is a low compliance cartridge which transmits a lot of energy in the tonearm. It needs a rigid arm bolted to 0.4Nm torque.
With a lower torque value ,I remember that it was sounding imprecise, fat and with less sharp stereo image.A classic cartridge which stood test of time well.
John,
In the latter 80's much of europe's vinyl masters where cut, plated and pressed in East Germany (and pressed also in the former eastern and souther provinces) under contract as the west had gone hell bent for leather onto CD. On Teldec/Neumann DMM Gear too.
The company I worked with at the time (due to being blacklisted by the communists I had to work for a small audio company as my real job's where not available to me one the people doing the hiring saw my file) manufactured and serviced much of the other electronics in these studios and on occasion also the western cutting gear. Plus I even got to watch having some of my own master tapes cut into metal disks...
There are a few still alive (and not so completely senile that get dates wrong by decades like the sources of you know who), but not many. And most share the irrational disdain of all things audiophile often found among former or current Pro's...
There is some serious literature too, but again it rarely intrudes into audiophile conciousness...
Maybe you should check out the Lathe Trolls, some at least know some things...
Ciao T
In the latter 80's much of europe's vinyl masters where cut, plated and pressed in East Germany (and pressed also in the former eastern and souther provinces) under contract as the west had gone hell bent for leather onto CD. On Teldec/Neumann DMM Gear too.
The company I worked with at the time (due to being blacklisted by the communists I had to work for a small audio company as my real job's where not available to me one the people doing the hiring saw my file) manufactured and serviced much of the other electronics in these studios and on occasion also the western cutting gear. Plus I even got to watch having some of my own master tapes cut into metal disks...
There are a few still alive (and not so completely senile that get dates wrong by decades like the sources of you know who), but not many. And most share the irrational disdain of all things audiophile often found among former or current Pro's...
There is some serious literature too, but again it rarely intrudes into audiophile conciousness...
Maybe you should check out the Lathe Trolls, some at least know some things...
Ciao T
I'm not buying the argument at all that the DL-103 is the ideal cartridge for playing vintage stereo recordings, my experience is quite the contrary. If you were to say it offers one hell of a lot of bang for the buck I'd agree completely..
The classical portion of my record collection consists primarily of late 1950's through mid 1960s RCA LSC a large % of which are Dyna-Groove. I also have a smaller number of Mercury LPS, and a few EMI FFSS. I also have recordings from Chandos, RR, and Chesky. The rest of my collection consists of records I purchased new from my teens onwards.
I found the ZU DL-103 (less so the stock DL-103) to offer a lot of resolution, good imaging, but lots of sibilance of female vocals in general and very poor performance on the inner grooves of even the Dyna-Groove recordings which supposedly pre-distort the grooves in order to cancel most of the tracking distortion generated by a spherical stylus. This was true in every arm I tried the ZU and stock DL-103 in.
I evaluated a conventional DL-103, DL-103D, DL-103SA, ZU DL-103, SPU T/E and SPU GM E II in a Schick 12" transcription tone arm. Headshells included the stock SPU shells, AT Techni-hard LH18, and Orsonic AV-101S, and some generic eBay shells. The DL-103, ZU DL-103/D/SA were also evaluated on one of my SME 3009 Series II (Unimproved) arms. A very good vintage Shure with both oem elliptical and spherical styli was also evaluated. (Honor bound not to mention what it is.. sorry)
In all cases the DL-103 and ZU DL-103 offered the poorest inner groove performance of the cartridges tried. (And the most sibilance of all cartridges tried, noting that in many cases the SPUs and DL-103D tracked the same material with little or no sibilance at all.)
The DL-103D offered significantly better performance on the SME 3009 II than the ZU or stock DL-103 did in any arm. The SPU T/E and the GM E II (my ultimate choice) cleaned the DL-103's clock, offering more of everything.
I do not believe the DL-103R offers any improvement over the DL-103 in tracking performance although it will offer slightly more HF extension and its self noise due to winding R will be somewhat lower.
Scott I do not believe that a DL-103R is going to be a good match for your arm at all. Perhaps the DL-304 would be a better match, and good used ones may sometimes be found. (Noting it is an elliptical, and has almost twice the compliance of the DL-103/R further noting that I have heard just two spherical tipped cartridges I liked one of which was another SPU, the other a Shure, and noting in general that to some approximation you get what you pay for. The DL-103 is a very cheap cartridge for what it has to offer, but sometimes it is a bit undone by what it encounters in the grooves..)
The guys at www.vinylengine.com and www.lencoheaven.net can probably provide some additional useful insight.
I should mention that the ZU DL-103 offers substantially better sound than a DL-103 in stock housing. The bass is tighter, and better defined, some odd colorations completely disappear, resolution, apparent speed, and HF extension are markedly better. Many if not all of these benefits are available with several of the aftermarket wood or metal bodies that you can install yourself. (The probably unobtainium UWE and its various descendents.)
The one other thing I wanted to mention is that I doubt that RCA's pre-distortion techniques were widely adopted by their competitors. There are hints of improved cutting processes at many of them, but no mention I am aware of, of the deliberate pre-distortion of the signal during the cutting of the inner grooves by anyone but RCA. Anyone know a bit more about this?
The classical portion of my record collection consists primarily of late 1950's through mid 1960s RCA LSC a large % of which are Dyna-Groove. I also have a smaller number of Mercury LPS, and a few EMI FFSS. I also have recordings from Chandos, RR, and Chesky. The rest of my collection consists of records I purchased new from my teens onwards.
I found the ZU DL-103 (less so the stock DL-103) to offer a lot of resolution, good imaging, but lots of sibilance of female vocals in general and very poor performance on the inner grooves of even the Dyna-Groove recordings which supposedly pre-distort the grooves in order to cancel most of the tracking distortion generated by a spherical stylus. This was true in every arm I tried the ZU and stock DL-103 in.
I evaluated a conventional DL-103, DL-103D, DL-103SA, ZU DL-103, SPU T/E and SPU GM E II in a Schick 12" transcription tone arm. Headshells included the stock SPU shells, AT Techni-hard LH18, and Orsonic AV-101S, and some generic eBay shells. The DL-103, ZU DL-103/D/SA were also evaluated on one of my SME 3009 Series II (Unimproved) arms. A very good vintage Shure with both oem elliptical and spherical styli was also evaluated. (Honor bound not to mention what it is.. sorry)
In all cases the DL-103 and ZU DL-103 offered the poorest inner groove performance of the cartridges tried. (And the most sibilance of all cartridges tried, noting that in many cases the SPUs and DL-103D tracked the same material with little or no sibilance at all.)
The DL-103D offered significantly better performance on the SME 3009 II than the ZU or stock DL-103 did in any arm. The SPU T/E and the GM E II (my ultimate choice) cleaned the DL-103's clock, offering more of everything.
I do not believe the DL-103R offers any improvement over the DL-103 in tracking performance although it will offer slightly more HF extension and its self noise due to winding R will be somewhat lower.
Scott I do not believe that a DL-103R is going to be a good match for your arm at all. Perhaps the DL-304 would be a better match, and good used ones may sometimes be found. (Noting it is an elliptical, and has almost twice the compliance of the DL-103/R further noting that I have heard just two spherical tipped cartridges I liked one of which was another SPU, the other a Shure, and noting in general that to some approximation you get what you pay for. The DL-103 is a very cheap cartridge for what it has to offer, but sometimes it is a bit undone by what it encounters in the grooves..)
The guys at www.vinylengine.com and www.lencoheaven.net can probably provide some additional useful insight.
I should mention that the ZU DL-103 offers substantially better sound than a DL-103 in stock housing. The bass is tighter, and better defined, some odd colorations completely disappear, resolution, apparent speed, and HF extension are markedly better. Many if not all of these benefits are available with several of the aftermarket wood or metal bodies that you can install yourself. (The probably unobtainium UWE and its various descendents.)
The one other thing I wanted to mention is that I doubt that RCA's pre-distortion techniques were widely adopted by their competitors. There are hints of improved cutting processes at many of them, but no mention I am aware of, of the deliberate pre-distortion of the signal during the cutting of the inner grooves by anyone but RCA. Anyone know a bit more about this?
Scott,
Some, I think.
The key is not to mount the 103 rigidly. It is a quite cute design and the body must be allowed to resonate, otherwise it does not work as designed. It comes with two small plastic washers. Put them between headshell and cartridge and do not he-man over-tighten this frankecartridges bolts...
Check the LF resonance, if too high add weight around 2/3rds down the arm (lead tape is useful) and crank the counterweight outwards, add more weight if needed.
Not the INF146, which is low but not crazy. If you get the plain 103 watch the capacitive and resistive load, it does not like as much load as most MC's. The 103R is more mainstream for load but the output voltage rapidly disappears into transformer land...
Ciao T
Some, I think.
The key is not to mount the 103 rigidly. It is a quite cute design and the body must be allowed to resonate, otherwise it does not work as designed. It comes with two small plastic washers. Put them between headshell and cartridge and do not he-man over-tighten this frankecartridges bolts...
Check the LF resonance, if too high add weight around 2/3rds down the arm (lead tape is useful) and crank the counterweight outwards, add more weight if needed.
Not the INF146, which is low but not crazy. If you get the plain 103 watch the capacitive and resistive load, it does not like as much load as most MC's. The 103R is more mainstream for load but the output voltage rapidly disappears into transformer land...
Ciao T
- Status
- Not open for further replies.