Recently I helped with the design of a box speaker. Very hard for me as they don't float my boat. My friend Martyn as mentioned before lent me his home made LS3/5A to compare. I suspect the Martyn Miles versions the best I ever heard. Jerry Bloomfield of Falcon made sure they were top grade and measured everything at every stage. Cabinets were Harbeth .
To my astonishment Martyn sold the clones on eBay at £650. Sorry to say Martyn you dropped the biggest b.ll..k of your life doing that. He has some Harbeth top of the range of similar size that he thinks wonderful. I don't. in fact I think they are rather poor ( box sound, constricted and don't show recording quirks ) . His clones were rather exceptional ( fast , tight, no obvious box sound as it is hidden under well controlled low end boom ) . If you are the one who bought them lucky you. Even allowing for taste I feel I am right about this. Being a hi fi person you have to be confident. Many are not and it kills any chance they have.
To my astonishment Martyn sold the clones on eBay at £650. Sorry to say Martyn you dropped the biggest b.ll..k of your life doing that. He has some Harbeth top of the range of similar size that he thinks wonderful. I don't. in fact I think they are rather poor ( box sound, constricted and don't show recording quirks ) . His clones were rather exceptional ( fast , tight, no obvious box sound as it is hidden under well controlled low end boom ) . If you are the one who bought them lucky you. Even allowing for taste I feel I am right about this. Being a hi fi person you have to be confident. Many are not and it kills any chance they have.
It might just be the cutting is bass light and the LF boost helps . I suspect a truly accurate bass is slightly bass light. If the mass of a linear tracker is increased it should be the same if using conventional bearings. The cartridges are sometimes unique so hard to know where you are ( Technics ) . As Tim de Paravacini told me the LF of air bearing arm is set by the pressure and acts like a capacitor in that the greater the pressure the lower the frequency that can be reached ( more uF if you like). The other LF quality is just that of an un-damped system when conventional.
Yes. No bass (bass light) and LF boost are BOTH incorrect. But LF boost often sound better so...
I personally think LF boost often sounds more like music (i.e. flat full bandwidth) than missing lows.
Hi,
That's correct. It is then a matter of finding a compromise between LF extension and a whooshing sound emanating from the bearing sleeve.
Still, the point was, do we want our tone arms to boost LF or do we leave it entirely with the RIAA de-emphasis ?
Kind of makes you wonder how "neutral" some tone arms really are, does it not?
Cheers,
That's correct. It is then a matter of finding a compromise between LF extension and a whooshing sound emanating from the bearing sleeve.
Still, the point was, do we want our tone arms to boost LF or do we leave it entirely with the RIAA de-emphasis ?
Kind of makes you wonder how "neutral" some tone arms really are, does it not?
Cheers,
Actually, fdegrove, there IS a way out, but it is never used any more.
I used it myself many years ago. I was auditioning an integrated amp from Pioneer for a local audio magazine. It consistently sounded a bit bass heavy to me, although it measured linear enough across a high power lab resistor. And to be honest, it wasn't bad sounding at all. So, what to do, not to mislead the reader, and yet do justice to the manufacturer?
So, I ended the text by saying that this was a good product, even very good in view of its modest price, even if it isn't my kind of sound. I suggested people with smaller, bass deficient speakers will probably like it a lot, while those with more linear speakers may not like it as much.
That was the truth as I heard it. And, oddly enough, several people said that was a very good summation.
I used it myself many years ago. I was auditioning an integrated amp from Pioneer for a local audio magazine. It consistently sounded a bit bass heavy to me, although it measured linear enough across a high power lab resistor. And to be honest, it wasn't bad sounding at all. So, what to do, not to mislead the reader, and yet do justice to the manufacturer?
So, I ended the text by saying that this was a good product, even very good in view of its modest price, even if it isn't my kind of sound. I suggested people with smaller, bass deficient speakers will probably like it a lot, while those with more linear speakers may not like it as much.
That was the truth as I heard it. And, oddly enough, several people said that was a very good summation.
This "neutrality" of tone arms, I think, is connected to the type and quality of cartridge one is using. The mass and compliance of the cartridge, as well as its output, play a big role in it all.
My own stock Dual CS 604, an honest but not exceptional TT, with Dual's low mass, gimbal suspension arm sounded the life out of a friend's Thorens 126 with an SME arm (3009 Mk.II). Switching cartridges for more conventional (than Ortofon's LM20) gave us completely different results, the Thorens/SME combo was clearly better, both used in the same system, and on the same place. According to the manufacturer's specs, both cartridges delivered the same output voltage, 3.5 mV at 5 cm/s.
It appears the Thorens/SME combo wasn't very keen on low mass, high compliance cartridges (properly terminated as per Ortofon's recommendation). But, at the time, Ortofon was the first to offer really low mass cartridges, so the mismatch is understandable.
My own stock Dual CS 604, an honest but not exceptional TT, with Dual's low mass, gimbal suspension arm sounded the life out of a friend's Thorens 126 with an SME arm (3009 Mk.II). Switching cartridges for more conventional (than Ortofon's LM20) gave us completely different results, the Thorens/SME combo was clearly better, both used in the same system, and on the same place. According to the manufacturer's specs, both cartridges delivered the same output voltage, 3.5 mV at 5 cm/s.
It appears the Thorens/SME combo wasn't very keen on low mass, high compliance cartridges (properly terminated as per Ortofon's recommendation). But, at the time, Ortofon was the first to offer really low mass cartridges, so the mismatch is understandable.
Made things easy for me, Fdegrove.
That particular model of Dual was made with the Ortofom imn mind, I believe, and they did appear simultaneously on the market, although Dual supplied it an Audio Technica cartridge in drag, stating it a Dual DM xxx.
I did try several other designs from Shure, Stanton, Audio Technica, etc, but the best overall results were still achieved with Ortofon's LM20. Stanton, for example, had better bass lines, but the rest was not up to par.
The Dual/Ortofon combo got even better some years later, when I exchanged the stylus. Since the whole family (LM10, LM20, LM30) had the same basic cartridge body and magnets, the variation being only on the stylus itself, I did put in the stylus from LM30. The difference was not astonishing or some such, it was relatively small, but big enough to be easily heard.
Never looked back since then. But then, not too long after that, the CD arrived in full force, so the TT is currently dormant.
That particular model of Dual was made with the Ortofom imn mind, I believe, and they did appear simultaneously on the market, although Dual supplied it an Audio Technica cartridge in drag, stating it a Dual DM xxx.
I did try several other designs from Shure, Stanton, Audio Technica, etc, but the best overall results were still achieved with Ortofon's LM20. Stanton, for example, had better bass lines, but the rest was not up to par.
The Dual/Ortofon combo got even better some years later, when I exchanged the stylus. Since the whole family (LM10, LM20, LM30) had the same basic cartridge body and magnets, the variation being only on the stylus itself, I did put in the stylus from LM30. The difference was not astonishing or some such, it was relatively small, but big enough to be easily heard.
Never looked back since then. But then, not too long after that, the CD arrived in full force, so the TT is currently dormant.
Last edited:
The nice thing about EQ is that it can be turned on and off. Not all my records were made by people pursuing highest possible fidelity.
Then what's the point in pursuing highest possible fidelity?
Cheers,
I don't understand your question.
Vinyl reproduction uses lots of eq all throughout the chain.
Does this mean that for pursuing the highest possible fidelity, you can't use vinyl?
Do you know any recording with no EQ whatsoever, including the mic itself?
Not sure which one it was, and I'm not in the mood to search it out.
Maybe there are good albums from BR.
The one I tried (from a recommendation on this forum) totally turned me off, thinking: any artists who accepts such crap from her producer doesn't deserve to be listened to...
Edit: The Best of Bonnie Raitt, 2003.
Jan
Last edited:
I was very upset to find what I thought was laid down fact was anecdote given by recording engineers when searching for cutting lathe data. My guess would be 40 to 18 kHz - 3 db for the whole chain if wanting 22 minutes . The engineer can play with EQ to do better. It might cause cutting problems to go much further. I really have no idea as facts seem hard to come by.
Although no one seems to want to answer the question this confirms the anecdotal evidence.
Chicago Mastering Service--CD and Vinyl Mastering Facility in Chicago, IL
78's probably would exceed 33 1/3 if pressed on vinyl. I have heard microgroove 78 against the mastertape and can say it is the closest approach to the original. A SACD copy was seemingly not Led Zeppelin when compared with the production master. Great care was taken as this was a serious commercial venture and the CD was sold.
What was more intriguing in the AES books was page after page devoted to ceramic cartridges. As these are engineering solutions for things made in the millions they are taken far more seriously than MM or MC. Reading these pages would almost make you think ceramic as the only possible solution and MM/MC as an aberration. What seems uncomfortably true is these are genuine high fidelity devices if enough trouble taken. Perhaps these people were familiar with cutting lathes and saw similar solutions? The MM and more so MC are so easy to make by comparison.
Some years ago my neighbour asked if I would like listen to some LP's. She had the standard BSR idler drive turntable and BSR ceramic cartridge. She apologized for the system. Somehow it was instantly likable. Now I know why. The idler drive is considerably superior to belt drive. Even this horribly cheap version had the reality of sound idlers have with tons of rumble and wow thrown in. In fact if I could be transported to BSR in a time machine I think I could put that right for £0. I was offered to run a division of BSR in the past so it nearly was possible . I failed an intervene at Garrard when very young . Not really my fault as my qualifications were in electronics at the time. Later I learnt mechanical engineering in my own time. Ironically the man Brian Mortimer who interviewed me is now a friend, his dad designed the 301 and RC1 ( many others ) . Trouble is at BSR I would have done belt drive then if the possibility was offered ( a Rega clone ). I was not wrong as Projekt did exactly that. BSR had to reject my plan as it would have clashed with the unions. If I could have projected idler drive with my now knowledge I don't know? Prejudice is hard to overcome. The BSR HT70 was not far from fantastic. With that Linn arm who knows? How come no one noticed? Mostly as BSR would never have rated 1% of what a properly PR savvy company would expect is the reason. Getting drunk at a brewery would have been beyond them . Ceramic also has it's advantages. Mostly it emerges at 250 mV on a high grade and 1V when required. When a Dansette that might mean a single UCL 82 valve or whatever. The Motor used as a step down auto-transformer for the heater and the PU into the triode section. The HT from 240 V made DC with no isolation. A foot note. Many do not know that Linn and BSR were friendly companies. The Linn LVV arm was a BSR ( ADC ). Linn platters cast in the same facility at Birmingham Master Casters ( Told by BSR, sure it must be true). Linn aged theirs as Garrard had and machined them 4 times in 7 months if like Garrard. At Garrard that meant left in the rain and snow as that was best. I have seem Ford brake components at Lucy's of Oxford doing the same. I parked my car with permission there for years. Such a shame a 1700's factory turned into nasty houses. Morris also had a factory very nearby in the middle of the City of Dreaming Spires that made radiators.
BTW. The nasty motor of a BSR is a work of art. It is the over simplification that spoils it. The hysteresis type still is the best. Simply rotate the spindle to understand. No pole jumps are felt. That is the prime requirement of a high quality drive system. When made 4 pole it begins to work. The vague phase shift is not ideal ( circa 60 degrees by short turns ). The near elastic slippage of the motor makes it synchronous at low loading as in a tunable. It will show perhaps a 0.2% change with temperature. The elastic quality means less vibration. So much so direct coupling is possible via a gear reduction. The idler plays no part in the speed as it is just an intermediate connector. It does take rumble down to acceptable levels when enough trouble taken. The problem with belt drives is the vibration of the invariably nasty motor is eliminated. This alas works the same on stylus vibration. If you think about it it must be a two way street. I know the arguments. Owning a idler drive makes it instantly obvious that belt drive is a cheap engineering solution. The belt drive I devised for the Loricarft PRC record cleaner was made by Terry and me in 20 minutes. Apart from fitting a triple row needle bearings that was all it needed. If wondering a standard bearing was shot to pieces in two weeks due to the torque we need when cleaning records. It went egg shaped. Vastly superior to most belt drive turntables ( 11 watt synchronous motor ) and much less than an hours work to perfect. An idler drive would be 2 years work if it is to be of any value. I doubt two years enough if wanting to beat a Garrard. I remember when MC pick ups were laughed at so will cope if you do. As for the cost I won't say except far more than anyone would guess.
In the Dansette you have the basic recipe for ultra high end hi fi. A CD player about the same level will feed in the PU input if asked . Thus an Ongaku and Garrard 301 or EMT are generically a Dansette. If a Miniconic PU all is the same, it was called a strain gauge PU and was more expensive than top end cartridges. As far as I know their description was a smoke screen for it being very like a ceramic. Full range speakers also have their admirers.
I lent some stuff like Revox, Quad plus Garrard 401 for a film. They also wanted a Dansette. The Dansette was seen far more often in the film .
One thing I strongly advise is a variable 75 uS passive EQ for records. Reason is seldom is it exactly 75 uS. A range of 100 to 50 uS should be OK . The 3180/318 are best left alone if active EQ. I did make a variable EQ box for an ex Decca engineer Colin Brown. Because it was too difficult to do all the EQ's on knobs I did it by capacitor choice. He had a table of EQ's by dialing up numbers like on a safe. All caps were polystyrene and all resistor Soviet silver wired where possible. Colin found many EQ not known to the books. He showed that something very like true focus occurred with correct EQ. As Colin said Marijuana is the unknown EQ factor in many recordings. Colin was at Parophone if that means anything to anyone. He also said how the government paid for the FFRR and FFSS cutting head. It was also a sonar device Decca made in the middle 1940's . FFSS was just a microgroove stylus and new cutting screw. FFSS s slightly different EQ to RIAA. It makes a big difference to reset it. Sometimes the transformation is out of all proportion to how a graphic equalizer might have further ruined the sound. Colin said the FFRR 78 stampers had 32 kHz on them. Maybe 7 kHz was available on the shellac due to the fillers in the material.
Although no one seems to want to answer the question this confirms the anecdotal evidence.
Chicago Mastering Service--CD and Vinyl Mastering Facility in Chicago, IL
78's probably would exceed 33 1/3 if pressed on vinyl. I have heard microgroove 78 against the mastertape and can say it is the closest approach to the original. A SACD copy was seemingly not Led Zeppelin when compared with the production master. Great care was taken as this was a serious commercial venture and the CD was sold.
What was more intriguing in the AES books was page after page devoted to ceramic cartridges. As these are engineering solutions for things made in the millions they are taken far more seriously than MM or MC. Reading these pages would almost make you think ceramic as the only possible solution and MM/MC as an aberration. What seems uncomfortably true is these are genuine high fidelity devices if enough trouble taken. Perhaps these people were familiar with cutting lathes and saw similar solutions? The MM and more so MC are so easy to make by comparison.
Some years ago my neighbour asked if I would like listen to some LP's. She had the standard BSR idler drive turntable and BSR ceramic cartridge. She apologized for the system. Somehow it was instantly likable. Now I know why. The idler drive is considerably superior to belt drive. Even this horribly cheap version had the reality of sound idlers have with tons of rumble and wow thrown in. In fact if I could be transported to BSR in a time machine I think I could put that right for £0. I was offered to run a division of BSR in the past so it nearly was possible . I failed an intervene at Garrard when very young . Not really my fault as my qualifications were in electronics at the time. Later I learnt mechanical engineering in my own time. Ironically the man Brian Mortimer who interviewed me is now a friend, his dad designed the 301 and RC1 ( many others ) . Trouble is at BSR I would have done belt drive then if the possibility was offered ( a Rega clone ). I was not wrong as Projekt did exactly that. BSR had to reject my plan as it would have clashed with the unions. If I could have projected idler drive with my now knowledge I don't know? Prejudice is hard to overcome. The BSR HT70 was not far from fantastic. With that Linn arm who knows? How come no one noticed? Mostly as BSR would never have rated 1% of what a properly PR savvy company would expect is the reason. Getting drunk at a brewery would have been beyond them . Ceramic also has it's advantages. Mostly it emerges at 250 mV on a high grade and 1V when required. When a Dansette that might mean a single UCL 82 valve or whatever. The Motor used as a step down auto-transformer for the heater and the PU into the triode section. The HT from 240 V made DC with no isolation. A foot note. Many do not know that Linn and BSR were friendly companies. The Linn LVV arm was a BSR ( ADC ). Linn platters cast in the same facility at Birmingham Master Casters ( Told by BSR, sure it must be true). Linn aged theirs as Garrard had and machined them 4 times in 7 months if like Garrard. At Garrard that meant left in the rain and snow as that was best. I have seem Ford brake components at Lucy's of Oxford doing the same. I parked my car with permission there for years. Such a shame a 1700's factory turned into nasty houses. Morris also had a factory very nearby in the middle of the City of Dreaming Spires that made radiators.
BTW. The nasty motor of a BSR is a work of art. It is the over simplification that spoils it. The hysteresis type still is the best. Simply rotate the spindle to understand. No pole jumps are felt. That is the prime requirement of a high quality drive system. When made 4 pole it begins to work. The vague phase shift is not ideal ( circa 60 degrees by short turns ). The near elastic slippage of the motor makes it synchronous at low loading as in a tunable. It will show perhaps a 0.2% change with temperature. The elastic quality means less vibration. So much so direct coupling is possible via a gear reduction. The idler plays no part in the speed as it is just an intermediate connector. It does take rumble down to acceptable levels when enough trouble taken. The problem with belt drives is the vibration of the invariably nasty motor is eliminated. This alas works the same on stylus vibration. If you think about it it must be a two way street. I know the arguments. Owning a idler drive makes it instantly obvious that belt drive is a cheap engineering solution. The belt drive I devised for the Loricarft PRC record cleaner was made by Terry and me in 20 minutes. Apart from fitting a triple row needle bearings that was all it needed. If wondering a standard bearing was shot to pieces in two weeks due to the torque we need when cleaning records. It went egg shaped. Vastly superior to most belt drive turntables ( 11 watt synchronous motor ) and much less than an hours work to perfect. An idler drive would be 2 years work if it is to be of any value. I doubt two years enough if wanting to beat a Garrard. I remember when MC pick ups were laughed at so will cope if you do. As for the cost I won't say except far more than anyone would guess.
In the Dansette you have the basic recipe for ultra high end hi fi. A CD player about the same level will feed in the PU input if asked . Thus an Ongaku and Garrard 301 or EMT are generically a Dansette. If a Miniconic PU all is the same, it was called a strain gauge PU and was more expensive than top end cartridges. As far as I know their description was a smoke screen for it being very like a ceramic. Full range speakers also have their admirers.
I lent some stuff like Revox, Quad plus Garrard 401 for a film. They also wanted a Dansette. The Dansette was seen far more often in the film .
One thing I strongly advise is a variable 75 uS passive EQ for records. Reason is seldom is it exactly 75 uS. A range of 100 to 50 uS should be OK . The 3180/318 are best left alone if active EQ. I did make a variable EQ box for an ex Decca engineer Colin Brown. Because it was too difficult to do all the EQ's on knobs I did it by capacitor choice. He had a table of EQ's by dialing up numbers like on a safe. All caps were polystyrene and all resistor Soviet silver wired where possible. Colin found many EQ not known to the books. He showed that something very like true focus occurred with correct EQ. As Colin said Marijuana is the unknown EQ factor in many recordings. Colin was at Parophone if that means anything to anyone. He also said how the government paid for the FFRR and FFSS cutting head. It was also a sonar device Decca made in the middle 1940's . FFSS was just a microgroove stylus and new cutting screw. FFSS s slightly different EQ to RIAA. It makes a big difference to reset it. Sometimes the transformation is out of all proportion to how a graphic equalizer might have further ruined the sound. Colin said the FFRR 78 stampers had 32 kHz on them. Maybe 7 kHz was available on the shellac due to the fillers in the material.
... and then put them in a room and leave it to work its tricks?
If I was to equlize, I'd do it in the specfic room only. That way, I'd include the room effects and get a linear reposnse in my room, not only free field. No room is equal to an anechoic chamber.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.