Hi Hans
Thanks for commenting.
With good headphones I can’t say of any difference between the two M97 files, except from the better bass of Aurak.
With loudspeakers, I too prefer the Aurak (space and more clear treble).
Kudos to Lucky for the design !
Two sections are of importance if there is no time listening to the whole recording (or don’t like the composition)
Section from 1min 5s to 1min 36s and section from 17min 47s to 18min 27s
Another surprise is that M97 stands very well against the DL-103.
George
This came out a few years before V15-4 and its damping brush and also the Townsend damper. The V15-4 brush addresses nearly all the problems that Lipshitz mentions.
It applies damping at the Cartridge end of the arm but not to the cartridge itself. The roll-off it introduces can be 12dB/8ve Butterworth or matched to the IEC 20Hz roll-off for 18dB/8ve classical Butterworth/Bessel etc.
It's not without its CONS though. You can often hear it. A good damping mat like the original Thorens TD160S mat helps a lot. The felt mats like the Linn were poor.
I am planning a trough a la Townsend add once I can work out easiest way to make it with the limited workshop facilities I have. For me on inspection cartridge end damping seems better for the non-warp induced case.
Can't work out why a mat would damp the cartridge wibbles though. It would certainly damp energy into the vinyl, but how large is that? I am reminded of some comments by John Crabbe who showed that, if you have 2 tonearms you can hear how much energy is put into the vinyl by playing one on a silent groove. His conclusion from that was that high compliance is good and he believed the V15-V to be the best cartridge ever.
I remain unconvinced, but it's something we can measure, and given that, in the ortofon line you can go from 7cu* up to 25cu there is testing to be done. In theory you could part with some £££ and get expert to knock up something that was off menu from the standard offerings by chopping and changing.
*I know a low compliance MM is unusual but the DJs like it.
Can't work out why a mat would damp the cartridge wibbles though. It would certainly damp energy into the vinyl, but how large is that? I am reminded of some comments by John Crabbe who showed that, if you have 2 tonearms you can hear how much energy is put into the vinyl by playing one on a silent groove. His conclusion from that was that high compliance is good and he believed the V15-V to be the best cartridge ever.
I remain unconvinced, but it's something we can measure, and given that, in the ortofon line you can go from 7cu* up to 25cu there is testing to be done. In theory you could part with some £££ and get expert to knock up something that was off menu from the standard offerings by chopping and changing.
*I know a low compliance MM is unusual but the DJs like it.
Bill,
Cart/arm res. frequency Fr should always be somewhere around 10Hz.
So a low Cu Cart needs a heavier arm and vice versa.
Fr is causing IM distortion as can be seen in the image below where a 1Khz tone is playing. You can see 1Khz +/- Fr, +/- 2Fr etc.
Damping can reduce the Q of Fr, resulting in less IM distortion.
The somewhat complex Townshend solution could very well help in reducing this IM distortion, but I doubt whether Cu is an important parameter when mounted in the correct arm.
And the best remedy for me to prevent warp is a peripheral ring, clamping the LP to the TT.
Hans
Hi Hans,
B&K disagree with you on that. They recommend 13-16Hz, some research that was ignored by most. To get that high you either need an SME 3009 SIII, a Morch red dot or a low compliance!
Now once you introduce damping this may become less of an issue but it is something worthy of some investigation. If only I could find what DJs do with their worn out concorde stylii...
B&K disagree with you on that. They recommend 13-16Hz, some research that was ignored by most. To get that high you either need an SME 3009 SIII, a Morch red dot or a low compliance!
Now once you introduce damping this may become less of an issue but it is something worthy of some investigation. If only I could find what DJs do with their worn out concorde stylii...
This is all what I could find on Wayne's forum.
In 2007 a comparable experiment has been performed with 60 test persons, from young to old, male and female, by Meyer and D. R. Moran, “Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High Resolution Audio Playback," J.Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 55, pp. 775-779, 2007 Sep.), testing whether a statistical difference could be determined between different digital formats.
The outcome as surprisingly as it may be, was that no significance difference could be established between 16/44.1, SACD and 24/96 !!
And that differences in sound quality between commercial products from the same recording on different formats were to blame to less care in getting the content on 16/44.1 CD.
Is this what you meant ? If not please tell me where exactly you read it.
Hans
Isn't there an issue with "scratching", I had a friend who just replaced his cart for $$ and at a party and he thought he would be cool with his home TT. Running it backwards bent it right off.
The cantilevers on the DJ carts are somewhat studly. I did email LD to ask if he had mk1 eyeballed the S-120 to work out how much excess mass is in play. I don't think Ortofon use a suspension wire so in theory you could plop a light cantilever into a low compliance suspension (or pay likes of expert to do it for you). So for £200 you could if that way inclined get yourself a 7cu cart with line contact stylus and blingy sapphire cantilever. For research purposes this might be an interesting experiment.
Dunno if ortofon would ever build specials. Suspect not unless you know someone on the production line who can do a homer.
Dunno if ortofon would ever build specials. Suspect not unless you know someone on the production line who can do a homer.
Bill,
Please read around 10Hz as 13-16Hz if you prefer. It does not change anything to the general issues that I mentioned 🙂
Hans
No. Meyer & Moran is well known if disputed ad nauseaum by da deaf Audiophools.
What I'm referring to is BANDWIDTH LIMITATION which is much less well known. If you do DBLTs with and without a sharp cut filter above eg 17kHz, you find that of those who can reliably tell the difference, the preference is ALWAYS for the bandlimited channel.
I did my test in the late 70s with vinyl and 2nd generation master tapes that we cadged of the major record companies. There were similar tests done in the 80s by some of the broadcast organisations with the same results.
This Millenium, I was somewhat surprised to find that tests done with digital material (which is already bandwidth limited) came up with the same results. One of the moderators here was involved with one of the tests which used a 17kHz filter.
Mr. Polak, are you the Hans in
Pro Audio Design Forum • View topic - A Low Noise Balanced In Moving Coil Preamp Using the ZTX851
He mentioned a test in the Nederlands which, if true, would be the first properly conducted DBLT which shows the opposite.
Maybe I have the wrong Hans 🙂 ... but I would be really interested in this test and how it was carried out.
Last edited:
It doesn't other than making more tonearms usable IF you make a low cu cart. I think we are in violent agreement!
My memory is a bit confused. Is the Townsend trough similar to the SME 3009 II Improved and III troughs? ie damping at arm pivot.
I thought the Townsend was a dashpot contraption at the headshell ie a Heath Robinson attempt at the V15-4 damped brush.
It's to damp vibrations excited by the brush into the vinyl. The extra vibrations were the price you paid for good LF behaviour.
Old fogeys like me will remember the Watts Dust Bug which was a good way to check out turntable mats. 🙂 Much cheaper than a TD126 or TD124 and another SME 3009 😀
V15-V was certainly the best cartridge ever for certain parameters.
In da 70s & 80s when Linn was one of the founders of da Audiophool brigade, V15/SME/Thorens was often derided. But in BLTs (proper DBLTs difficult with vinyl) this combination always came up consistently recommended.
If you want a V15-V, you need to raid the Library of Congress Archiv. They bought up the entire existing stock when SHURE announced they were discontinuing it.
pic of rock here Townshend Audio Rock 7 - £3,300 - Turntables / Arms / Cartridges . Someone on here was selling the trough parts last year but I just didn't have the money at the time. Plus it only really fits the intended turntable. But the concept is easily copied.
What is wrong with the townsend (although I am sure cranfield institute did their research) is it only really damps in one plane whereas the stylus wiggles in 2.
What is wrong with the townsend (although I am sure cranfield institute did their research) is it only really damps in one plane whereas the stylus wiggles in 2.
Bill, here are some more nice pics: Townshend Audio Rock 7 Turntable (TAS 209) | The Absolute Sound
EDIT: More here: http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue62/townshend.htm
Last edited:
Yes that's me, and now I know where to look, it was a test performed in the Netherlands.
I'll try to get some more information, but as I wrote at that time, everybody was upset with the outcome.
I'll come back with more info.
Hans
Ah yes, those are better ones. I always liked the Rock, it was just too expensive for me. but some perspex sheet and a dremel I should be able to get the function if not the looks 🙂
Maybe LD could give some comment on damping in the horizontal plane only.
With my arm Fr vert is much better damped as Fr hor, causing the IM products produced by a horizontally cut 1Khz test tone to be clearly visible (#724).
Could it be that in general most of the needle movement is in the horizontal plane, but that noise (from a blank track) is only in vertical direction ?
That would explain why I hardly see any resonance in the noise spectrum, but when playing infrasonic tones horizontal resonance is clearly visible.
Hans
Last edited:
well ticks and pops are generally vertical so one would expect excitation to be more in that plane, but the cantiliver is being excited in all directions all the time at lower levels. I guess taking one of George's files and converting from stereo to M+S will give us a very good idea.
Hans, this may help.
Compilation (same cart/arm/TT/flat preamplifier)
White trace: Pink noise lateral . (test track: UAT S2 T2)
Green trace: Pink noise vertical . (test track: UAT S2 T3)
First FFT:262144 points
Second FFT: 8388608 points
George
Compilation (same cart/arm/TT/flat preamplifier)
White trace: Pink noise lateral . (test track: UAT S2 T2)
Green trace: Pink noise vertical . (test track: UAT S2 T3)
First FFT:262144 points
Second FFT: 8388608 points
George
Attachments
George,
It is perfectly possible to produce the mono signals in hor and in vert direction like you are showing, no doubt about that, although in the last case the signals from the Cart have opposite direction and cannot be used for producing mono music.
So the mono component in music means lateral movement, and stereo information is a mix of lateral + vertical movement.
And since the Cart's poles are positioned under 45 degrees, a mono signal having to produce the same audio volume as a pure L or R stereo signal, needs twice the horizontal displacement on the LP.
That's why I expect much more energy content in the horizontal plane.
That could have been the road that Townshend has followed, but again, maybe LD can shed some light on this.
Hans