Hallo anadicts.
Does anyone in this forum have any experience of the Nagaoka MP-50 p.u?? Is it good for 300$?
I´m looking for a new MM cartridge and don´t really know what to buy. Or do you have any suggestions on any other p.u in the pricerange of 300-500$.
I have a very limited posibitlity to test the p.u´s, becaues I live very far from a deasent audiodealer so I must trust your ears (or the reviews)...
THANX
Does anyone in this forum have any experience of the Nagaoka MP-50 p.u?? Is it good for 300$?
I´m looking for a new MM cartridge and don´t really know what to buy. Or do you have any suggestions on any other p.u in the pricerange of 300-500$.
I have a very limited posibitlity to test the p.u´s, becaues I live very far from a deasent audiodealer so I must trust your ears (or the reviews)...
THANX
As far as I know the MP50 is no longer made, I would
expect there to be more suitable choices available.
What cartridge you need depends first and
foremost on the quality of your turntable and arm.
Secondly the mass of the arm and to a degree
the type of arm fixed or detachable headshell.
Thirdly to a degree the sort of tonal balance you
want, rich, neutral or bright.
Fourthly to a degree practical issues, stylus
life, cost of spare styli, ease of mounting etc.
What turntable and arm do you have ?
What sort of sound are you looking for / expecting ?
sreten.
expect there to be more suitable choices available.
What cartridge you need depends first and
foremost on the quality of your turntable and arm.
Secondly the mass of the arm and to a degree
the type of arm fixed or detachable headshell.
Thirdly to a degree the sort of tonal balance you
want, rich, neutral or bright.
Fourthly to a degree practical issues, stylus
life, cost of spare styli, ease of mounting etc.
What turntable and arm do you have ?
What sort of sound are you looking for / expecting ?
sreten.
sreten: Today I´ve got a Thoréns TD320mkII, but I´m building an own designed table at the moment. It will be non suspension table with lots of mass and a glued birch platter (84mm thick, leadfilled) with external motor (teres) and a copy of there bearing.
The arm is an homemade 'Ladegaard's Air Bearing Tangential Tonearm' with a balsa arm (don´t know the word in english but it´s built with many small pieces crossing eachother, like bridges are built....hope you understand) so the arm is very lightweight.
I would like a natural sound, not to warm anyhow, I use tube amplifiers and they are quite rich in there sound.
The arm is an homemade 'Ladegaard's Air Bearing Tangential Tonearm' with a balsa arm (don´t know the word in english but it´s built with many small pieces crossing eachother, like bridges are built....hope you understand) so the arm is very lightweight.
I would like a natural sound, not to warm anyhow, I use tube amplifiers and they are quite rich in there sound.
Wow !
Not an easy thing to give an opinion on, but I will.
From what I remember the MP50 was a fairly heavy cartridge
and high compliance, too much for almost the cartridge itself
and a poor choice for a typical japanese turntable.
However your "lattice work" arm is very hard to picture,
except its like a crain arm, or as you say like a bridge.
You say it will be very low mass, fair enough but how much
the lateral mass is higher than the vertical mass is hard to
judge, assuming you do not have a lateral pivot.
For these types of arms a decent tracking weight is a positive
help but if it is low mass in both planes you need a high compliance.
Given the construction of the arm a low mass cartridge will help
the arm "have its own sound" compared to a heavy cartridge.
From what you've said and the application I think the Ortofon
OM 30 Super with the weight removed is a great choice for a
"blind" purchase, far more so than the Nagoaka.
It has an extended line contact stylus (which lasts more
than twice as long as and also sounds better than an
elliptical stylus) and allows decent tracking force without
record wear due to the extended contact.
It may be a little bright but you say that's not a problem.
Should also work well in your current Thorens, though
you may need the weight to balance the arm correctly.
As its not popular in the UK (we like the 530) from here :
http://www.mantra-audio.co.uk/mantraonline.htm
Its available for 137 euros which if you check european prices
also makes it extremely good value - its 200 to 250 in Europe.
sreten.
(P.S. given your arm balsa construction I'd check the model
plane making community as to how to add very lightweight
wrap around sheeting - its the way to do it )
Not an easy thing to give an opinion on, but I will
.From what I remember the MP50 was a fairly heavy cartridge
and high compliance, too much for almost the cartridge itself
and a poor choice for a typical japanese turntable.
However your "lattice work" arm is very hard to picture,
except its like a crain arm, or as you say like a bridge.
You say it will be very low mass, fair enough but how much
the lateral mass is higher than the vertical mass is hard to
judge, assuming you do not have a lateral pivot.
For these types of arms a decent tracking weight is a positive
help but if it is low mass in both planes you need a high compliance.
Given the construction of the arm a low mass cartridge will help
the arm "have its own sound" compared to a heavy cartridge.
From what you've said and the application I think the Ortofon
OM 30 Super with the weight removed is a great choice for a
"blind" purchase, far more so than the Nagoaka.
It has an extended line contact stylus (which lasts more
than twice as long as and also sounds better than an
elliptical stylus) and allows decent tracking force without
record wear due to the extended contact.
It may be a little bright but you say that's not a problem.
Should also work well in your current Thorens, though
you may need the weight to balance the arm correctly.
As its not popular in the UK (we like the 530) from here :
http://www.mantra-audio.co.uk/mantraonline.htm
Its available for 137 euros which if you check european prices
also makes it extremely good value - its 200 to 250 in Europe.
sreten.(P.S. given your arm balsa construction I'd check the model
plane making community as to how to add very lightweight
wrap around sheeting - its the way to do it
)
The Nagaoka MP 50 is available NOS in Sweden but they are of course old and probably overpriced.
Sretens wiev on "covering" the arm is rigt, this is done with ricepaper glued onto the structure and then "doped" with a laquer shrinking the paper resulting in a very stiff and strong structure.
Add a little weigth and go for a good Grado, it will at least work good in the Thorens if You find it too "gentle" soundwise.
Sretens wiev on "covering" the arm is rigt, this is done with ricepaper glued onto the structure and then "doped" with a laquer shrinking the paper resulting in a very stiff and strong structure.
Add a little weigth and go for a good Grado, it will at least work good in the Thorens if You find it too "gentle" soundwise.
Hmmm, "ricepaper glued onto the structure and then "doped" with a laquer shrinking", then it will kill the stunning looks and look more like a threewalled tube. I will give it a try naked first.
Should I put weight in the arm, if so should it be evenly spread from top to back, in apperance of ex. a brassrod?? How much is needed? I don´t want a too heavy arm, because then I must have a more powerful airpump.
Thankyou so far.
Should I put weight in the arm, if so should it be evenly spread from top to back, in apperance of ex. a brassrod?? How much is needed? I don´t want a too heavy arm, because then I must have a more powerful airpump.
Thankyou so far.
I was just woundering about the weight considering what IA wrote: "Add a little weigth and go for a good Grado".
If it´s not nessesary i won´t do it.
Summa summarum as we say in Sweden (The sum of it all):
I need a high compliance and a low mass cartridge, maybe some wrapping to damp and stiffen up the structure of the arm....
I´ll give the Ortofon a chance and see how it falls out.
Thanks for all, cheers
If it´s not nessesary i won´t do it.
Summa summarum as we say in Sweden (The sum of it all):
I need a high compliance and a low mass cartridge, maybe some wrapping to damp and stiffen up the structure of the arm....
I´ll give the Ortofon a chance and see how it falls out.
Thanks for all, cheers
plysch said:
Hi,
just to clarify, your arms lateral mass will probably mean medium
compliance is better, if the arm does not have a lateral pivot.
Without a pivot lateral effective mass of the arm is its total
moving mass, whilst vertically is will be much lower, this is why
the LABTT shows 3Hz lateral and 10Hz vertical resonances.
Note that by having a relatively long counterweight stub and
therefore relatively low mass counterweight you can reduce
the lateral effective mass, all moving parts should be as
lightweight as possible.
sreten.
Xuse me, but I don´t follow, what is 'lateral mass' & 'lateral pivot'?
About the counterweight, should I have it mounted low, like in the horisontally plane of the bearing or lower (hanging down), or doesn´t it matter if it´s mounted straight out from the arm? Then it will be placed about 15mm above the bearingpoint.
About the counterweight, should I have it mounted low, like in the horisontally plane of the bearing or lower (hanging down), or doesn´t it matter if it´s mounted straight out from the arm? Then it will be placed about 15mm above the bearingpoint.
Hello Plysch,
(hoping i'm not cvaryiong water to the river )
concerning lateral mass:
the tonearm together with the cartridge forms a mass-spring-damper system capable of damped oscillations at a natural resonace frequency. Location of this resonace frequency is determined by the spring constant of the spring (the cartridge's cantilever susoension) and the effective mass: the lower the spring constant and the higher the mass, the lower the freqency will be.
So: the higher your tonearms mass, the lower the resonance freqency.
For lateral movement the tonearms full moving mass is the effective mass.
For vertical movement (rotation around the horizantally oriented tonearm pivot axis) we have the rotational equivalent of the mass: moment of inertia. And this moment of inertia J depends on the distribution of mass elements dm as well as on their radius r in respect ot the pivot axis:
J=integral(r^2*dm)
In any case the rot.inertia results into someting behaving like a point-shaped mass located at the stylus tip and the equivalent value of this mass point is called "effective mass" (in any direction for pivoted tonearms and in vertical direction for linear tracking tonearms). And yo can count on the vertically "effective mass" being considerably lower that the actual moving mass of the tonearm.
Lateral pivot:
for a pivoted arm it is effective tonearm length
for a liner tracker is is infinity.
Vertical pivot:
for both pivoted and linear tracking tonearms it is the effective tonearm length, measured form the stylus tip. It's the horizantally oriented tonearm pivot axis that i mentioned above.
So, now to your cartridge choice:
Your Ladegaard arm is air-borne but the the bearing is not alltoo stiff. A cartridge with high lateral compliance should be prone for hefty oscillations with this arm.
I would join the recommendation for medium compliance cartridges, no, i would go further and recommend low compliance cartridges. Hint: get yourself a medium stiff to stiff MC cartridge. There are some nice Ortofons around with 12-17 µm/mN and why not use a Denon 103 with 5 µm/mN. Denons are repute to cooperate well with Ladegaards, technically as well as sonically.
For my own tonearm (which has a very stiff bearing, BTW) i go on the same path: if i get the thing to make a Shure V15V (>40µm/mN) sing and swing, bingo. But i doubt this will happen and i'm happy using MC carts making life easier for a linear tracker.
BTW, i am glad that a passive linear tracker (like the Ladegaard and my design) has a lateral resonance frequency much lower that the vertical one. I think this provides better guidance for the cartridge (i know there are numerous experts out there fervently disagreeing with me and claiming this is an inherent drawback of the linear tracker... and fervently trying to find other proofs why a linear tracker cannot work ).
I expect low frequency trackability to improve considerably by low lateral resonance: possibly the famous Telarc 1812 cannons become trackable with a plain ordinary MC cartridge
Concerning your tonearm wand design maybe you find some inspirations on my website, look at the pixes in the LT-2 section.
Hint: the material of the frame work is 7-layer plywood, about 2mm thick.
I would hesitate to cover my framework with paper or fabric tightened by contracting lacquer: the thought of designing a tambourine into my tonearm wand would certainly frighten me.
(hoping i'm not cvaryiong water to the river
)concerning lateral mass:
the tonearm together with the cartridge forms a mass-spring-damper system capable of damped oscillations at a natural resonace frequency. Location of this resonace frequency is determined by the spring constant of the spring (the cartridge's cantilever susoension) and the effective mass: the lower the spring constant and the higher the mass, the lower the freqency will be.
So: the higher your tonearms mass, the lower the resonance freqency.
For lateral movement the tonearms full moving mass is the effective mass.
For vertical movement (rotation around the horizantally oriented tonearm pivot axis) we have the rotational equivalent of the mass: moment of inertia. And this moment of inertia J depends on the distribution of mass elements dm as well as on their radius r in respect ot the pivot axis:
J=integral(r^2*dm)
In any case the rot.inertia results into someting behaving like a point-shaped mass located at the stylus tip and the equivalent value of this mass point is called "effective mass" (in any direction for pivoted tonearms and in vertical direction for linear tracking tonearms). And yo can count on the vertically "effective mass" being considerably lower that the actual moving mass of the tonearm.
Lateral pivot:
for a pivoted arm it is effective tonearm length
for a liner tracker is is infinity.
Vertical pivot:
for both pivoted and linear tracking tonearms it is the effective tonearm length, measured form the stylus tip. It's the horizantally oriented tonearm pivot axis that i mentioned above.
So, now to your cartridge choice:
Your Ladegaard arm is air-borne but the the bearing is not alltoo stiff. A cartridge with high lateral compliance should be prone for hefty oscillations with this arm.
I would join the recommendation for medium compliance cartridges, no, i would go further and recommend low compliance cartridges. Hint: get yourself a medium stiff to stiff MC cartridge. There are some nice Ortofons around with 12-17 µm/mN and why not use a Denon 103 with 5 µm/mN. Denons are repute to cooperate well with Ladegaards, technically as well as sonically.
For my own tonearm (which has a very stiff bearing, BTW) i go on the same path: if i get the thing to make a Shure V15V (>40µm/mN) sing and swing, bingo. But i doubt this will happen and i'm happy using MC carts making life easier for a linear tracker.
BTW, i am glad that a passive linear tracker (like the Ladegaard and my design) has a lateral resonance frequency much lower that the vertical one. I think this provides better guidance for the cartridge (i know there are numerous experts out there fervently disagreeing with me and claiming this is an inherent drawback of the linear tracker... and fervently trying to find other proofs why a linear tracker cannot work
). I expect low frequency trackability to improve considerably by low lateral resonance: possibly the famous Telarc 1812 cannons become trackable with a plain ordinary MC cartridge
Concerning your tonearm wand design maybe you find some inspirations on my website, look at the pixes in the LT-2 section.
Hint: the material of the frame work is 7-layer plywood, about 2mm thick.
I would hesitate to cover my framework with paper or fabric tightened by contracting lacquer: the thought of designing a tambourine into my tonearm wand would certainly frighten me.
There are two types of air bearing arms :
type 1:
The LABTT only has a vertical pivot, laterally the whole
assembly moves as one piece along the air bearing,
as far as can tell.
For circular air bearing arms the air bearing is the
vertical pivot and the horizontal / lateral slide.
(e.g. the Rockport, Air Tangent)
These arms are very torsionally stiff.
Type 1 arms have very different effective masses seen
by the catridge in the vertical and lateral planes.
type 2 :
The arm has both a lateral and vertical pivot, could
even be a unipivot, as well as the air bearing slide.
Type 1 arms move the arm along the slide by a slight
deflection of the stylus (hopefully), whilst for type 2
the drag on the stylus pulls the arm straight.
Note that the lateral bearing only needs a few degrees
movement, and this is generally arranged to allow cueing.
Type 2 arms are very similar to normal arms in
terms of the effective mass seen at the catridge.
Most parallel trackers seem to be type 1 with
very different effective mass in the two planes.
Horizontally the cartridge sees the total moving mass
of the arm, vertically the mass seen is much less.
I've searched for an example of a homemade type 2 which
I've seen in the past on the web but can't find one, I'm sure
they exist though.
Nearly all servo controlled parallel trackers are type 2.
Hope this helps,
sreten.
P.S. IMO the hieght of the counterweight is not critical.
type 1:
The LABTT only has a vertical pivot, laterally the whole
assembly moves as one piece along the air bearing,
as far as can tell.
For circular air bearing arms the air bearing is the
vertical pivot and the horizontal / lateral slide.
(e.g. the Rockport, Air Tangent)
These arms are very torsionally stiff.
Type 1 arms have very different effective masses seen
by the catridge in the vertical and lateral planes.
type 2 :
The arm has both a lateral and vertical pivot, could
even be a unipivot, as well as the air bearing slide.
Type 1 arms move the arm along the slide by a slight
deflection of the stylus (hopefully), whilst for type 2
the drag on the stylus pulls the arm straight.
Note that the lateral bearing only needs a few degrees
movement, and this is generally arranged to allow cueing.
Type 2 arms are very similar to normal arms in
terms of the effective mass seen at the catridge.
Most parallel trackers seem to be type 1 with
very different effective mass in the two planes.
Horizontally the cartridge sees the total moving mass
of the arm, vertically the mass seen is much less.
I've searched for an example of a homemade type 2 which
I've seen in the past on the web but can't find one, I'm sure
they exist though.
Nearly all servo controlled parallel trackers are type 2.
Hope this helps,
sreten.P.S. IMO the hieght of the counterweight is not critical.
dice45, are you some tonearmdoctor that was an impressiv answer, I think I´ll print that out.
I just spoke with a bloke who said that I must try the Dynavector 10X5 (could that one be an option?) if I should use a MC cartridge it must be a high output. (don´t have the money for a desent mc-stage)
About your own tonearm: looks awsome
My own arm looks very similar to your LT-2, but it is a bit higher at the rear.
Have you built it yet or is it in construction-phase???
Nice work!!
that was an impressiv answer, I think I´ll print that out.I just spoke with a bloke who said that I must try the Dynavector 10X5 (could that one be an option?) if I should use a MC cartridge it must be a high output. (don´t have the money for a desent mc-stage)
About your own tonearm: looks awsome
My own arm looks very similar to your LT-2, but it is a bit higher at the rear.
Have you built it yet or is it in construction-phase???
Nice work!!
dice45 said:
Hmmm......
I think we are the same page but I was thinking with a Balsa
arm keeping mass low is important, the counterweight becomes
less massive so supporting it less of issue etc.
For this to work keeping the slide mass low is very important.
The point is via very low total mass to make the medium
compliance OM 30 behave as if it had low compliance.
I completely agree for a more "normal" say aluminium arm with
an emphasis on rigidity not weight, low compliance is the only
option, but I'd still advise against heavy (10g) MC's.
sreten.dice45 said:
BTW, i am glad that a passive linear tracker (like the Ladegaard and my design) has a lateral resonance frequency much lower that the vertical one. I think this provides better guidance for the cartridge (i know there are numerous experts out there fervently disagreeing with me and claiming this is an inherent drawback of the linear tracker... and fervently trying to find other proofs why a linear tracker cannot work
I expect low frequency trackability to improve considerably by low lateral resonance: possibly the famous Telarc 1812 cannons become trackable with a plain ordinary MC cartridge
I'm not prepared to argue with your first statement other than
to point out it makes them completely unuseable with any form
of suspended subchassis deck, with main modes of 3 to 5Hz
and usually lateral and rotatational modes 2 to 10Hz, the
change of level as the arm moves across also doesn't help.
Your second point I will take issue with. Low frequency trackability
is directly proportional to compliance and the frequency of the
lateral resonance if below a reasonable value does not affect
trackability in the Audio range.
A reasonable estimate of low frequency tracking
capability is compliance times tracking weight.
sreten.plysch said:
IMO the OM30 suits the very low mass "Balsa lattice" approach.
IMO if your approach is higher mass and more rigidity then an MC
becomes your only option, for high ouput MC's the Denon DL110
and DL160, 4.8g, 8/10 cu become good choices, as does the
Dynavector 10X5 at 6.6g , 12cu on a higher budget.
You are looking at target masses twice those of the Ortofon.
They should work without problems in your Thorens.
Note that none of the MC's have a line contact tip like the
OM 30 and stylus life will be less than half of the OM 30.
sreten.- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.