Exactly here we have the problem.
ONLY Spheric Tip have a constant contact area on cantilever based cartridges, because the pivot and cantilever form a circlelike movement, NOT a radial one.
But cutter cut radial, since the suspension is on top and works like a pendulum.
If you use elliptic shape, no matter which kind, the diameter of the ellipse changes his angle with the modulation, this is for vertical AND horizontal movement.
Thus the contact area changes with Modulation. More movement = lesser contact area.
Spherics also change the angle with the same phase error, but since they are round, the contact area stays pretty much the same.
This is the basic problem, believe or not.
Thats why Decca London made a cartdrige with a different kind of cantilever/suspension, which reduced teh effect and introduced other problems. Also the Myabi with ringcantilever, which tried to imitate the cutting stylus movement. Both have their flaws.
Try changing the tracking force slightly just for the next time you play this record. That may move the point of contact and give you a bit of untouched groove surface. Also a wet cleaning may help.
Furthermore, the top resonance of MMs can easily be controlled with capacitors and resistors to make the FR response pretty flat. This is good.
Bute then they roll off. This is not so good.
MCs have a different suspension, requiring more damping , because the resonance is usually more expressive. You can measure, most have between 3 and 12 db plus at apx. 20 Khz.
This come from the ultrastiff cantilevers.
Using a selfdamping cantilever made from alutube kills this resonance and make the FR flat up to 40 Khz easy.
But it require therefor highmass arms to track correct.
With spheric tip we go apx. 2,5gramms tracking force and it works faboulus, since the contact area is not getting smaller with modulation.
Elliptic tips reduce the contact area easliy by factor 4 due movement, thus your 1 gr tracking force is now the equivalent of 4 gramms. Oops!
Bute then they roll off. This is not so good.
MCs have a different suspension, requiring more damping , because the resonance is usually more expressive. You can measure, most have between 3 and 12 db plus at apx. 20 Khz.
This come from the ultrastiff cantilevers.
Using a selfdamping cantilever made from alutube kills this resonance and make the FR flat up to 40 Khz easy.
But it require therefor highmass arms to track correct.
With spheric tip we go apx. 2,5gramms tracking force and it works faboulus, since the contact area is not getting smaller with modulation.
Elliptic tips reduce the contact area easliy by factor 4 due movement, thus your 1 gr tracking force is now the equivalent of 4 gramms. Oops!
Having used low mass MC cartridges since a SPU/GTE in the 1960s, my experience of record damage has been almost non-existent from the time in the late 1970s I changed to a very high quality very close tolerance PU arm. I am quite convinced that in most cases the problem comes from a poorly assembled PU arm rattling around in it's less than perfect bearings. We must remember that these low compliance MCs do produce an amazing amount of purely mechanical energy and therefore need the best of arms to behave properly.....The old arms such as the early Thorens still used by some are not suitable unless the bearings are replaced with the best modern equivalents and then correctly adjusted. The old Fidelity Research 64s and 66s arms were probably as good a match for such cartridges as was ever available. With high compliance MMs - and I also had the ADC 26 way a long time ago - the high compliance came into play before poor bearings had too much effect other than on the sonics. Used properly in an appropriate arm the better low compliance MCs have a magical quality in their reproduction of decent recordings on pressings in good condition. [I had an early Wheaton Triplanar which, despite its obvious design and build quality, the bearings adjustments were never stable with an Audionote (Japan) original Io MC. The bearings needed tightening after as few as ten record sides.
The original Orton SPU has a spheric tip!
Also the Denon DL 103 Original.
The FR 64 and & 66 works very well with low compliance MCs.
Chapeau! You got it right this time. Just talking about "tracking force" is misleading. Elastic deformation limits are related to pressure, not force.
Yes I know that the original SPU hada spherical tip, but the /GTE had an elliptical tip. The Denon 103 is as you know still available with an elliptical tip and I have one on order for testing a new tonearm which I am having machined right now ( to be fitted to a highly modified Lenco from your Country - which is where my family originated. I would like to still own my old FR arms again!!
Good luck.
If you go with the 103 and spheric tip, you should decouple it from the headshell.
Use 2 small copper bars ( cut from antenna cable) between headshell and cartridge. Do NOT tighten the srews hard. Lift the arm apx 3-6 mm.
The 103 is good damped and this way it will not sound dull, like many people
say.
Thank you. I intend using a 3mm purest fine grain carbon as a damper between headshell and cartridge. (I use 5mm with the Io cartridge.) But I will try your method and report back.
Last edited:
The stress on the vinyl is also related to the compliance of the suspension. It's not as though the stylus is an immovable object that crashes into the ridges of the groove. The dynamics and the forces involved have been oversimplified in this thread and it seems that the static contact pressure between the stylus tip and the walls of the groove is the only thing being considered. Furthermore, not a single figure has been offered as to what the real forces involved are and how they compare to the actual elastic deformation limits of or how plastic the vinyl is.
My feeling is that a high quality cartridge that is set up correctly causes no damage to a record at all. I say this because I have compared identical pressings, one with many plays and one that is brand new, and any difference is inaudible. I know people who have been very careful with their records that they bought new decades ago and have hundreds of plays on some of them and they lack nothing at the frequency extremes. Damage is more likely to be caused by a cartridge with a dried up suspension.
John
Last edited:
John, i use 1.75 gr., but in general it is true. The less downpreasure you need to get a result without misstracking, the better. As for record wear you can ask Jan. I played some records for him that i have since 35 years and i have played them often. He was really surprised how low noise they where. OK, since i was 16 i had a Dynavector Ultimo Cartridge and later even better stuff. I just handle and store them well and clean them regulary on a record cleaning machine. Under this conditions they last a lifetime and yes, they sound better now then they did 20 years ago because i made progress in my system
Well, the 103 is best value for money, but this is the Blowtorchthread.
Thats why i jumped into the discussion. On one side here are effects and distorsion discussed, which are very low or not known how to measure, on the other side some people ignore facts.
Abouth Cartridges i know a lot and owned a lot, bee it Kiseki Agaat, Koetsu Urushi, Clearaudio Accurate, DEnon DL 1000, ART 1 and so on.
Changed to those with spherics tips, because they sound more real and closer to the Master tape. Thats what i understand to talk right.
Other things like feedback or sillver wire with burn in are complicated and create believers and non believers.
I tend to be a believer, since i never heard a bad sounding JC Product.
For example, i have here two Amps from NAD, both designed by Bjoern Erik Edvardsen. The little 326 for a few 100 bucks, and the M3 for a few 1'000 bucks. The M3 offers more details, more power, more ... but, if i want listen music, the small 326 blows the expensive M3 away with hands down.
No matter which speaker or source.
Technicallyspoken this is not possible, since the M3 datas ar far better by a magnitude, but with this machine i only want to turn the volume down while listening.
But with the small 326 there is music. Not perfect, but not fatiguing.
Explanation therefore ? I have none.
Groove T, have you ever MEASURED the power amp that you don't like to listen to? Look for 7th harmonic. Perhaps you won't find it, but it is probably something like that.
I now make 3 different power amps, one at less than $1000, another at less than $2500, and my best at $9,000. (big bucks, at least to me). They all get awards, IN THEIR PRICE RANGE. Why? What am I doing right? For the record, they are very similar in circuit topology, on paper.
I now make 3 different power amps, one at less than $1000, another at less than $2500, and my best at $9,000. (big bucks, at least to me). They all get awards, IN THEIR PRICE RANGE. Why? What am I doing right? For the record, they are very similar in circuit topology, on paper.
You're not implying that John has some sort of financial interest in phono cartridges, are you?
se
Do I? Does Steve Eddy have an interest in connecting wires? In Steve's case, he DOES have an interest in connecting wires, because he makes and sells them. I have an indirect interest in phono cartridges in that I make phono cartridge reproduce equipment. However, I have NO connections with phono cartridge manufacturers, except as a professional audio designer who sometimes buys cartridges from a cartridge wholesaler.
Personally, what I am interested in is: Phono cartridge differences, even cartridges that may not work with my own phono playback system, such as laser, strain gauge, RF, and in my own personal case, moving magnet. What are the differences, what are the good features, and the bad ones? That is my quest, as I have little or no knowledge of the internals of phono cartridge design and manufacture. Thanks, those of you who have contributed here in a helpful way, even you, soundminded.
Personally, what I am interested in is: Phono cartridge differences, even cartridges that may not work with my own phono playback system, such as laser, strain gauge, RF, and in my own personal case, moving magnet. What are the differences, what are the good features, and the bad ones? That is my quest, as I have little or no knowledge of the internals of phono cartridge design and manufacture. Thanks, those of you who have contributed here in a helpful way, even you, soundminded.
No, I'm not implying anything. I'm saying he doesn't ever seem to see the forest for the trees. He usually focuses on just one tree and stays there. If you are a hammer, every problem is a nail. If you are a preamplifier designer, every defect in a sound recording/reproducing system is the fault of a bad preamplifier. The magnitude of every little problem with it is blown way out of proportion to its significance in the larger scheme of things. And every little tweak becomes a big deal. It gets to the point where the focus is on minutae so tiny you can't be sure of whether they are even real or not. Like intelligent chips.
There are many factors which affect the performance of a phonograph cartridge. To focus on the mass of the stylus tip to the exclusion of all of the other factors seems preposterous to me.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.