Sound Quality Vs. Measurements - Page 292 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 28th February 2012, 06:32 PM   #2911
bcarso is offline bcarso  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canoga Park, California
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcx View Post
http://es.shure.com/idc/groups/tech_...o_v15iv_ug.pdf

page 4 has some measured points over 70 cm/s - presumably intentional music recording velocity
Thanks for that! That's a wonderful amount of information. Would that contemporary vendors manage as much.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2012, 06:47 PM   #2912
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Yet, has anyone who had that cartridge ever observed mistracking? I never did, my V15-IV was a very solid tracker. It would be interesting to know where they got those numbers for the sales brochure.

In any case, those velocities, if believable, yield at most 56mV, still safely under the limit for the B-B MM stage.
__________________
You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.- Wilford Brimley
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2012, 06:57 PM   #2913
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
I can mistrack virtually any MC cartridge with a specific direct disc record. I did it 100's of times with a number of MC cartidges and published the results in 1978, in an IEEE paper.
It is true that it is more difficult to mistrack a Shure, but the main thing is that the Shure cartridge has a 4 pole low pass filter connected to it above 20KHz, and that keeps any mistracking from being detected as such. The problem with the Shure, is that it did not sound as good as other phono cartridges, on the whole. That is why most serious audiophiles do not use Shure phono cartridges as their reference cartridge.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2012, 07:03 PM   #2914
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by john curl View Post
That is why most serious audiophiles do not use Shure phono cartridges as their reference cartridge.
Perhaps it's that they stopped making that cartridge 40 years ago. At that time, it was Gordon Holt's top choice (with a G stylus), but I guess he wasn't a serious audiophile.
__________________
You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.- Wilford Brimley
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2012, 07:30 PM   #2915
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
I can't speak for Gordon Holt, but I did comparison tests between a Shure and an Ortofon MC, and put out the extra money for the Ortofon, for my personal system in 1965. However, for many customers, Berkeley Custom Electronics, where I worked part time, recommended the Shure M91 or M93 phono cartridges for less discriminate use.
For the record, I used the Shure M3D-N21 from 1963-1965, then switching to an Ortofon SPU, and then from 1970-1971 with a Shure M91, as a house guest in someone else's home, that I had installed for them. I then returned the Ortofon, and went on to the Supex, when it became available, then EMT, FR, etc. and never looked back, except to measure the Shure for my 1978 paper. It couldn't rise-time its way out of a paper bag, until the V15-V! '-)
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2012, 08:24 PM   #2916
dvv is offline dvv  Serbia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Quote:
Originally Posted by john curl View Post
I can mistrack virtually any MC cartridge with a specific direct disc record. I did it 100's of times with a number of MC cartidges and published the results in 1978, in an IEEE paper.
It is true that it is more difficult to mistrack a Shure, but the main thing is that the Shure cartridge has a 4 pole low pass filter connected to it above 20KHz, and that keeps any mistracking from being detected as such. The problem with the Shure, is that it did not sound as good as other phono cartridges, on the whole. That is why most serious audiophiles do not use Shure phono cartridges as their reference cartridge.
My first Dual 1019 TT in 1970 was delivered with a Shure M75 cartridge. I kept it until 1977 (or was that 1978?), and had many opportunities to compare it with the V-15 series. These were sometimes mounted in much better TTs than mine was, being a sort of a middle-of-the-road model.

To my ears, the difference in price between a V-15 and my M75 was far greater than the difference in the sound, which was on the side of V-15. It was the better cartridge by a relatively small margin for a relatively large price difference.

Then I discovered Ortofon's LM series. I bought into it and have stayed there ever since. The only hassle I had with it was that I had to solder a 100 pF small cap to get the total capacitance to the 400 pF which Ortofon demanded. At the time, my reVox integrated amp had no adjustments, except for level, no R, no C.

So, personally, I tend to agree with John. However, many thought otherwise. In Europe at the time, a Shure V-15 in an SME 3009 arm was considered a standard for serious audiophilia, even if it was not regarded as the best ever.

What got me sold on Ortofon were two things: they were (to me) much more dynamic, more go and pazzazz, and they offered a cleaner treble.

Last edited by dvv; 28th February 2012 at 08:26 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2012, 08:25 PM   #2917
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Holt felt that the MCs of that time were quite tonally colored compared to the Shure. Maybe, I didn't have the piles of master tape comparisons that he did, but I was quite happy with the Shure. I wasn't thrilled with too many of the MCs of that era, there was a pervasive upper midrange dip and upper treble peak. After trying a bunch, the best one I owned was a Dynavector Diamond, which was very good, but not nearly as good as a Technics MM I replaced it with. When the Technics became unobtainable, I switched to a Troika, which was also pretty good, though a step down from the Technics. I'm back to an MM, though (an A-T, really quiet, good tracking, and tonally similar to digital, which I consider a virtue).
__________________
You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.- Wilford Brimley
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2012, 08:27 PM   #2918
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
Oh well, what can I say?
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2012, 10:02 PM   #2919
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Oakmont PA
One of those fun things I learned from a major studio monitor manufacturer was that most of the first studio monitors (Think Altec to JBL dominant time) rolled off the high end a bit. That was because they were using 1" measurement microphones and did not allow for the HF rise caused by such a large diaphragm. As a result most of the records were mixed with a boosted HF content. The home reproduction systems were of course voiced to sound best with the best source of music.. records.

It took the studio monitor guys a while to fix the problem. When they showed truly flat monitor loudspeakers to the studio guys the response was they were too bright. So they basically improved about a db per decade until folks would accept flat.

So when the Shure V15 was popular a slight HF rolloff (3 db / 20K) would have sounded right.

So cartridge choice would have been influenced by the record source!
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2012, 10:03 PM   #2920
tvrgeek is offline tvrgeek  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Md
Now I know why I never liked the V15. I was a Grace F9e fan. I would take the Grace arm over the SME any day. Linn if you were patient enough to get it set up. I miss the cartridge wars. They were almost like religion.

Moved from SIMetrix to LTSpice. A lot more tedious data entry, but a lot more capability.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Quality Control differences = variations in sound quality? KT Class D 3 4th June 2014 12:02 AM
Sound Card for Measurements Marik Solid State 2 2nd January 2012 08:59 PM
Sound Card Recommendations (For Audio Measurements) dchisholm Equipment & Tools 5 16th July 2011 09:40 AM
How to protect sound card during amp measurements? okapi Everything Else 13 2nd September 2008 03:06 PM
Sound cards - test and measurements jackinnj Everything Else 2 5th July 2003 03:02 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:07 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2