hhoyt,
Can you even produce a true square wave on a vinyl album. I would think that wouldn't be a very nice thing for a cartridge to have to handle and would think that it would quickly lose the sharp rise of a square shape and could any cartridge actually follow that without bouncing over the top of the square-wave without losing contact with the groove?
Can you even produce a true square wave on a vinyl album. I would think that wouldn't be a very nice thing for a cartridge to have to handle and would think that it would quickly lose the sharp rise of a square shape and could any cartridge actually follow that without bouncing over the top of the square-wave without losing contact with the groove?
Damping is relevant everywhere in the mechanical chain - I suggested to a friend who has extremely modified a basic Pro-ject unit that he try a layer of viscoelastic goo that he happened to have, with exactly the right consistency, inbetween the cartridge and the headshell, and of course it made a considerable difference, in a positive sense. Next problem was how to deal with viscoelastic creep - the fasteners had to be regularly retightened as the goo slowly oozed out ... 😉
Most of you could use a course in vinyl reproduction. I can't do it for you, but most of what is being mentioned is inaccurate, or at least inaccurate enough to be confusing.
You have to STUDY phono cartridge characteristics or find some publication that makes the measurements for you.
For example, the so called square wave record is really a triangular wave that is differentiated by the dv/dt characteristic of both MM and MC cartridges. IF you overdamp this square wave, usually you get poor sound, and if you significantly underdamp the square wave you also get poor sound. In reality, the actual frequency response can be darn flat, at least compared to a loudspeaker, and very extended, maybe twice as good as a CD, at least with MC cartridges. The distortion (of almost every kind) at high levels is embarrassingly high, but at low levels can be very low, and this seems to be the key to the background detail that gives the music life. Analog magnetic tape has a similar characteristic, except that it has dominant 3'rd harmonic, and phono has dominant 2'nd harmonic.
Serious efforts over the decades has reduced the distortion due to physical tracing errors to almost nothing, and mis-tracking can be handled by a properly designed phono stage. However, I have found that a 'reasonable' mechanical playback system, usually costing retail at least a few thousand dollars, coupled with a decent phono stage also costing retail of a few thousand dollars can beat just about any digital presentation. Yes it is expensive, but you can buy USED or DIY some of it, yourself, to keep costs down. That's what I do.
I have a feeling that many of you have never lived with a really good vinyl playback system, and that is why you don't give it much respect. Oh well. '-(
You have to STUDY phono cartridge characteristics or find some publication that makes the measurements for you.
For example, the so called square wave record is really a triangular wave that is differentiated by the dv/dt characteristic of both MM and MC cartridges. IF you overdamp this square wave, usually you get poor sound, and if you significantly underdamp the square wave you also get poor sound. In reality, the actual frequency response can be darn flat, at least compared to a loudspeaker, and very extended, maybe twice as good as a CD, at least with MC cartridges. The distortion (of almost every kind) at high levels is embarrassingly high, but at low levels can be very low, and this seems to be the key to the background detail that gives the music life. Analog magnetic tape has a similar characteristic, except that it has dominant 3'rd harmonic, and phono has dominant 2'nd harmonic.
Serious efforts over the decades has reduced the distortion due to physical tracing errors to almost nothing, and mis-tracking can be handled by a properly designed phono stage. However, I have found that a 'reasonable' mechanical playback system, usually costing retail at least a few thousand dollars, coupled with a decent phono stage also costing retail of a few thousand dollars can beat just about any digital presentation. Yes it is expensive, but you can buy USED or DIY some of it, yourself, to keep costs down. That's what I do.
I have a feeling that many of you have never lived with a really good vinyl playback system, and that is why you don't give it much respect. Oh well. '-(
What about those using digital , interest or knowledge of digital issues, most listen to MP3 downloads . My in-laws are an example, they download and use mp3 mostly , last xmas they brought they music and was astonished at how poor the quality was when we switched from playing Analog and 16/44 Cd's to their "disc" ( his words not mine) ...
Just saying ....
Yes. Engineers over the past decades have worked hard to analyse and then reduce the multiple mechanical problems.
Usually if not always, high price component manufacturers optimise one or two parameters leaving the user to make the synthesis and clean the dirt. .
Unfortunately, the balance btn these problems is delicate (interaction of the many parameters).
Problems of complex mechanical origin can’t be remedied with the electronics at the phono stage.
Enjoying the analogue sound and understanding what this sound consists of, are two different fields of activity.
IMO, the only certain (predictable) advantage of MCs as hitsware noted, is it’s low impedance.
To add to this, if the whole circuit there ( cart out - pre in) is kept low impedance, we have the benefit of reduced subseptibility to UHF and micro wave that surrounds us today. (as the E- component dominates at the far field).
Howard and Brian, I think you describe a mistuned system.
Damping has a long history of implementation, not all successful or easy to apply.
If you are interested, here is the earliest analytical/practical treatment I could trace (the subject of the patent will remind you who the grand mother of some notable tonearms is)
Phonograph reproducer arm assembly
George
This is true.
Also true. The time domain response of cartridges using this test is, not surprisingly, indicative of the frequency response, including the poorly damped HF resonance characteristic of many "high end" cartridges. My old mentor, Murray Zeligman, chose his cartridges on the basis of what the square waves looked like- that apparently worked well enough to result in two "sleeper" Class A recommendations in the old JGH Stereophile days. He also used it for tuning his mod to the Grado cartridges of that era, which also got top ratings. The idea was to minimize cartridge ringing while still resolving the cutter ringing from the test record.
And also at not-so-high levels- the key is lateral versus vertical. You might also mention high crosstalk as one of the features of "vinyl sound."
Yes, that must be my problem.
As a general note, with the demise of Audio and HPR, it's just about impossible to find reliable cartridge measurements any more. This is the gaping hole in Stereophile's otherwise good measurement regime.
Psychoacoustical masking caters for high level cases.
The interesting things (music life
) are to be seen during low modulation velocity levels.Check posts within 1st half of Dec 2013
George
I was simply quoting the article, and I do wonder about the vinyl fussiness those here engage in and the people buying into the "revival". I suspect for the most part at best they are modest turnkey systems.
Some are willing to deal with the fussiness because they enjoy what LP's bring to the table. Kinda like 40 years from now where everyone and his aunt drives a Prius and you back out your 427 gas hog with all of its fussiness ...
Yep ..
Some are willing to deal with the fussiness because they enjoy what LP's bring to the table. Kinda like 40 years from now where everyone and his aunt drives a Prius and you back out your 427 gas hog with all of its fussiness ...
Yep ..
So I was asking, are these back to LP folks tweeking the azimuth, dabbing the mortite here and there, etc.? BTW did you forget I still enjoy LP and to a point fuss a little, though I can't get my head around adjusting VTA for each record.
This vid actually has the inventor explaining things, quite amusing a docking station based on an F1 exhaust manifold. He does start with a solid billet.🙄
ixoost inter 120 SECCO - YouTube
Last edited:
a.wayne,
Have you ever considered scaling Nelsons SOZ up to a 1 Ohm load? Just think it could be like Julia Child's gold omlette pan, you could build one to see how it sounds and break it down and put the parts back in stock. Thermal issues might preclude the possibility.
http://www.firstwatt.com/pdf/art_soz.pdf
Have you ever considered scaling Nelsons SOZ up to a 1 Ohm load? Just think it could be like Julia Child's gold omlette pan, you could build one to see how it sounds and break it down and put the parts back in stock. Thermal issues might preclude the possibility.
http://www.firstwatt.com/pdf/art_soz.pdf
A lidl Ferrari.
(which can be honed to perfection with a meticulous administered amount of goo)
If sensitive to vta , use shims under the mat , no need to move arm, as to those being fussy, not sure but i do want to believe anyone making the effort to go LP, is more likely than not to learn and play around ..
Well the mk2 version picked up 10db in sensitivity and i'm already moving to a new frame that should net another 3 db , had to keep the 1 ohm load for now unless i want to give up some of the gains. Playing around with less sensitivity 2 ohm or more @1 ohm ..
Amp type will make the difference via load, I'm speculating ...
To appreciate MC's compared to MM's, you have to try the two, AND you have to invest in the MC if you want a good one. Some MM's look pretty good at a reasonable price, but they usually sound 'laid back' or 'muffled' compared to MC's, even with the essentially same frequency response up to 20K.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.