Pearl Two - Page 180 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Amplifiers > Pass Labs

Pass Labs This forum is dedicated to Pass Labs discussion.

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 10th February 2013, 09:38 PM   #1791
Salas is offline Salas  Greece
diyAudio Chief Moderator
 
Salas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens-Greece
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siberia View Post
Wonderful link. Hard to settle on one preference. What's your pick over those samples, Nick?
Hmm tough call to say in general because he uses one TT, arm, amp, recorder for all. So some carts may very well perform better or worse with other TT and gear. There is the standardization element in his comparison though that is valid for that system context. For balance between performance and value I liked the DL-304 for LOMC, the 10X5 for HMC, the 881S for MM. For vintage tone super value the cake goes to 103R again. Best pricey MM the 2M.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th February 2013, 12:33 AM   #1792
diyAudio Member
 
bnorrish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Boston
Do you prefer HOMC, LOMC or MM with the Pearl 2 ? In regards to using them with the Pearl 2, what other factors would come into play in selecting the type of cartridge?
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th February 2013, 01:28 AM   #1793
6L6 is offline 6L6  United States
diyAudio Member
 
6L6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Denver, Colorado
The biggest factors in cartridge selection are loading, gain, and compliance.

Gain - The Pearl 2 has enough for practically anything. No worries there.

Loading - This is DIY, we can load it any way we want, and the Pearl 2 also has places on the PCB for R and C loading. Nice.

Compliance - This is a bit weirder, but there are a few things to know about - In general, only 'old fashioned' or 'classic' cartridges have compliances that don't jive with modern arms. (And by modern, I mean about 1970 forward) The other cool thing is all you need to do to a modern arm to use it with the classic carts is add mass. Easy.

As for preference, I have only HOMC and MM, and of those carts, I prefer HOMC. I believe that's more because the ones I have are simply better carts than my MMs.

So, to conclude, there is practically no limit to the type of cartridge you can use with this phonostage. Except your budget...These things can get silly expensive!
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th February 2013, 11:02 AM   #1794
Siberia is offline Siberia  Lithuania
diyAudio Member
 
Siberia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Vilnius
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salas View Post
Hmm tough call to say in general because he uses one TT, arm, amp, recorder for all. So some carts may very well perform better or worse with other TT and gear. There is the standardization element in his comparison though that is valid for that system context. For balance between performance and value I liked the DL-304 for LOMC, the 10X5 for HMC, the 881S for MM. For vintage tone super value the cake goes to 103R again. Best pricey MM the 2M.
Listening to the files via AKG K 271, I quite enjoyed AT OC 9 looking at the price vs performance. I have to pass them through my system, though.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th February 2013, 01:33 PM   #1795
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Regarding gain and loading the Pearl II can be adapted to most cartridges like 6L6 says. Matching a cartridge with the tone arm is important. See this article on the Ortofon website: Cartridge & tonearm resonance frequency

In general high compliance MM carts don't match well with heavy tone arms and low compliance MC's don't match well with low mass tone arms. Although some have a combo that should not match but still seems to be working fine.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th February 2013, 01:51 PM   #1796
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hamilton, was Ottawa (Canada)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6L6 View Post
...

Compliance - This is a bit weirder, but there are a few things to know about - In general, only 'old fashioned' or 'classic' cartridges have compliances that don't jive with modern arms. (And by modern, I mean about 1970 forward) The other cool thing is all you need to do to a modern arm to use it with the classic carts is add mass. Easy.
...
I just got into vinyl a few months ago and the learning curve is steep! Holy crud, there's a lot to know!

Here's the formula

The resonant frequency:

Fr= 1000 / [2 pi * sqrt(M * C)]

where, pi = 3.14 (approx), M = total effective mass in gm of the arm plus cartridge, and C = compliance of the cartridge in um/mN (um is micrometer and mN is milliNewton; um/MN is the same unit as micro cm/Dyne).

You're looking for Fr=~10Hz to keep the resonance away from any music (20Hz) or turntable 'rumbles' (<5Hz?)

Make sure you're using the 'dynamic compliance' not the 'static compliance'!

Arm + cart = total effective mass

For my SL-220, the arm is 230mm and 13g.
(Apparently this arm has the same geometry and other features of the SL-1200!)
Great entry table Technics SL-220: upgrade paths?

My Ortofon OM5E is 5g
http://www.ortofon.com/products/cart...p-series/om-5e

13g + 5g = 18g =M

Compliance, dynamic, lateral = 20 m/mN =C

Fr= 1000 / [2 pi * sqrt(M * C)]
Fr= 1000 / [2 pi * sqrt(18 * 20]

Fr= 8.4Hz

Here's a spreadsheet with a few carts in it (Red Ed, M97eX, AT440MLa, 2M Red, Grado [green, black, red, blue], and the OM5E+stylus10 that I have) that I was checking with my

Fr calc w a few carts.png

Here's the excel (2003) file:
Turntable compliance calculator.zip

Cheers,
Jeff

PS As well, from the manual's recommendation of 5.5 to 8.5 I used the spreadsheet to reverse calculate the compliance spread for these cart weights

5.5g to 8.5g as recommended in the manual:

5.5g, dyn comp~14
8.5g, dyn comp~12

(assuming linear type relationship: 7g, dyn comp~13?)

for Fr~10z

So, according to this I'm looking for carts with:

Light
5.5g, comp~14
...

7g, comp~13

...
8.5g, comp~12
Heavy

Last edited by AudioLapDance; 11th February 2013 at 02:04 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th February 2013, 02:07 PM   #1797
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hamilton, was Ottawa (Canada)
Thanks Wellerman, it doesn't get 'clearer' than Ortofon

Cartridge & tonearm resonance frequency

Cartridge/tonearm systems resonance frequency

To maintain a cartridge/tonearm system resonance frequency within the acceptable range of 7 to 12 Hz, whereas 10 Hz recommended, it is necessary to choose a cartridge with the mass and compliance matching the tonearm

When selecting either MC or MM cartridges for your record player, total mass of tonearm (including cartridge and headshell) has to be taken into account in relation to the mechanical compliance (elasticity) of the cartridge cantilever system.

The high mass of the combination needs low mechanical compliance, otherwise record warps can easily provoke tonearm vibrations at frequencies around 4 to 6 Hz, that will bring degradation of performance (at least 8 Hz is advisable)

A phono cartridge with the compliance in the range of 5 to 10 m/mN is considered as a very low compliance cartridge, a cartridge with the compliance in the range of 10 to 20 m/mN is moderate compliance cartridge and a cartridge with the compliance value above 35m/mN is very high compliance cartridge.

Low mass arms* mate well with both moderately high and very high compliance phono cartridges

*A tonearm whose effective mass is rated at 10 grams or below is considered low mass (e.g. early SME’s, Grace 747).
Moderate mass tonearms** are good companions for moderate to low compliance cartridges

**A tonearm whose effective mass is rated between 11 and 25 grams is considered moderate mass (e.g. SME 309, IV, IV-Vi, V, Triplanar, Graham). Arms above 25 grams of mass are high mass in nature (Eminent Technology, Dynavector).



If a low compliance cartridge is used with a low mass tonearm, undesirable resonances can occur in the audible range. Mistracking may also be a problem.

When a high compliance cartridge is mated with a moderate mass tonearm, resonances in the infrasonic range may occur in addition to some unwanted high frequency damping.




PS And they use "whereas", haven't heard that outside of a debate introduction in a while! :-)

Last edited by AudioLapDance; 11th February 2013 at 02:10 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th February 2013, 09:34 AM   #1798
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Now that I've almost finished testing the Pearl II, I wonder if I can improve the power supply some more. I now have the power supply featured in the Pearl II article (+ 2 CL60's), and as can be seen in post 1711 there is not a lot of room left in the PSU chassis. Things I was thinking about:

1. bypassing the electrolytics with a film cap. Useful? Which value would be good?
2. replacing the rectifier bridges with discrete diodes. Ideally with LQA06T300 from Power Integrations, but they are hard to come by. Would eliminate the need for a snubber. Any other suggestions for diodes?
3. Snubbers across the secondary. I read the Hagerman article, and I will not be able to measure what is needed to calculate custom RC values for my transformer. Any suggestions for values that would be OK with a 50VA 2x24V toroid?

Any comments welcome. Soon I will finish the Pearl II and post some pictures of the final result (and impressions of the sound).
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th February 2013, 03:24 PM   #1799
Siberia is offline Siberia  Lithuania
diyAudio Member
 
Siberia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Vilnius
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salas View Post
Hmm tough call to say in general because he uses one TT, arm, amp, recorder for all. So some carts may very well perform better or worse with other TT and gear. There is the standardization element in his comparison though that is valid for that system context. For balance between performance and value I liked the DL-304 for LOMC, the 10X5 for HMC, the 881S for MM. For vintage tone super value the cake goes to 103R again. Best pricey MM the 2M.
I've played files on my system and I ended up with a lesson one of those evenings. Differences where extremely subtle to my unexperienced ears or to my current system for that matter. I can hear pleasant virtues of DL-304 vs budget Denons. But I would have hard time justifying it's difference in price to my brain and wallet. As for DL-S1 it's impossible for me to grab hundreds $ difference. Maybe if files were played through a DAC, maybe if this cart would played on a better phono it would tell a different story to me.

I found 10X5 pleasantly dynamic in comparison, pity there was only one file for that cartridge. I also quite liked AT-OC9ML/II. Sounded like a well-traveled japanese gentleman. Dig the groove and the tone of DL103R too. I'm going to do some blind testing, just randomly playing files and picking what I like the most some time.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th February 2013, 03:36 PM   #1800
Salas is offline Salas  Greece
diyAudio Chief Moderator
 
Salas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens-Greece
How did you replay those files? Computer analog out to the hifi?
  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
Another diy-pearl... lykkedk Pass Labs 18 15th June 2007 05:44 PM
ono or pearl PCB's mantisory Pass Labs 1 29th September 2006 12:12 AM
Pearl need help dzkh63 Pass Labs 1 26th September 2006 04:16 PM
WTB: Pearl PCB aire Pass Labs 1 26th February 2006 11:51 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:47 AM.


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