UUUU "cross-shaped chemically-purified high-purity iron former"
Recommended tracking force: 1.65 ~ 1.75g (1.72g recommended)
Recommended load directly into MC phono input: 104ohm ~ 887ohm 🙂
Seems serious
Last edited:
I have the Atlas playing now.
Lyras are known for the speed, resolution and air they command and the Atlas has that in spades. But that is not what really surprised me. The tone it has contains a power and fullness that sounds like the real thing. There is absolutely no brightness, spit or harshness. The bass goes down very deep and is powerful.
I had to lower the volume on my sub a bit and play with the crossover frequency to my Enviee drivers. Ones adjusted the bass shows great ability to differentiate. The Atlas puts out a healthy volume so i get a very dynamic and loud sound without cranking my preamp much.
I heard many great cartridges but i have to agree with most that heard it :
This is one of the finest cartridges out there, maybe the finest.
I have absolutely no complain.
Lyras are known for the speed, resolution and air they command and the Atlas has that in spades. But that is not what really surprised me. The tone it has contains a power and fullness that sounds like the real thing. There is absolutely no brightness, spit or harshness. The bass goes down very deep and is powerful.
I had to lower the volume on my sub a bit and play with the crossover frequency to my Enviee drivers. Ones adjusted the bass shows great ability to differentiate. The Atlas puts out a healthy volume so i get a very dynamic and loud sound without cranking my preamp much.
I heard many great cartridges but i have to agree with most that heard it :
This is one of the finest cartridges out there, maybe the finest.
I have absolutely no complain.
Thanks J. It seems that the Spiral arm is more to your liking than the Wheaton which you were using, which makes your newer arm absolutely brilliant!🙂
The Wheaton is a great arm too. I really like it with the Olypos.
That gives a rather warm presentation.
The major flaw of the Wheaton is a beam resonance at ca.300Hz.
I think that gives it this robust tone.
I always used the Whetaon before i got the Centroid.
It was the first arm to my knowledge that had all 5 parameters adjustable incl. azimuth.
That gives a rather warm presentation.
The major flaw of the Wheaton is a beam resonance at ca.300Hz.
I think that gives it this robust tone.
I always used the Whetaon before i got the Centroid.
It was the first arm to my knowledge that had all 5 parameters adjustable incl. azimuth.
Is this measured resonance or subjective impression?
Never had one but have enjoyed the reviews and the super adjustments that every arm should have available like this one.
The new 12" Triplanar had to keep the effective arm mass down and went to carbon fiber, but is still slightly heavier.
Not sure if Cf will be the band aid needed and how they suppress those out in the end.
Interesting times with vinyl now!
Regards
David
Never had one but have enjoyed the reviews and the super adjustments that every arm should have available like this one.
The new 12" Triplanar had to keep the effective arm mass down and went to carbon fiber, but is still slightly heavier.
Not sure if Cf will be the band aid needed and how they suppress those out in the end.
Interesting times with vinyl now!
Regards
David
Thank you for that Joachim as it may explain a problem I had a few years ago.
I used a Tri-PLanar MKIV (the first fat tube one) with SPU and Io cartridges. The bearings would unlock after about an hour. I knew that those cartridges were producing a lot of mechanical energy and maybe the beam resonance hastened the un-screwing of the bearings? I went back to a Zeta and a heavy unipivot. But, when all was well the Wheaton was very good.
When i measure the frequency response of a cartridge in my Wheaton there is a small "blimp" there. There is another way to measure the beam resonance. That is with a lead weight on a string. I published both measurements here before.
It is not a big deal.
It is not a big deal.
You can also place another arm and cartridge on top of the headshell and adjust accordingly the tracking weight, and note the output of the combo placed on top.
Kind of a cheap poor mans strain gauge
Been awhile since I have done it though
Kind of a cheap poor mans strain gauge
Been awhile since I have done it though
I got a Quantum Asylum Audio Analyzer.
I made a loop back measurement and got the 3rd harmonic at ca.-105dB. That is around 10dB worse then Audio Precission teritory but 10dB better then i get with my E-MU 0202USB so i think this is usefull.
Just for fun i measured the B1 buffer i build quite a long time ago.
At ca 1.3V RMS ( around 4V P-P ) i get around -95dB distortion. I think for something so simple this is very good. I also show distortion at lower volume and the volume where the third disappeares in the noise. The first picture is a loop back measurement of the analyzer.
The last picture is intermodulation with a 10kHz -10dB sine mixed in.
I made a loop back measurement and got the 3rd harmonic at ca.-105dB. That is around 10dB worse then Audio Precission teritory but 10dB better then i get with my E-MU 0202USB so i think this is usefull.
Just for fun i measured the B1 buffer i build quite a long time ago.
At ca 1.3V RMS ( around 4V P-P ) i get around -95dB distortion. I think for something so simple this is very good. I also show distortion at lower volume and the volume where the third disappeares in the noise. The first picture is a loop back measurement of the analyzer.
The last picture is intermodulation with a 10kHz -10dB sine mixed in.
Attachments
Nice tool 😉
Would you mind to measure also the "JG" buffer used in the DAC filter buffer? Just for fun 😀
Would you mind to measure also the "JG" buffer used in the DAC filter buffer? Just for fun 😀
If i had one in isolation, yes.
I have it on the XEN ESS board and on the Paradise.
We simulated it though and it has ( much ) lower distortion provided it is not driven out of class A or voltage overdriven.
I can make an even better buffer especially if more voltage and current is needed.
The attractive thing with the BF862 based version is the extreme compactness.
I have it on the XEN ESS board and on the Paradise.
We simulated it though and it has ( much ) lower distortion provided it is not driven out of class A or voltage overdriven.
I can make an even better buffer especially if more voltage and current is needed.
The attractive thing with the BF862 based version is the extreme compactness.
Concerning measurements, an AD797 buffer with common mode compensation would have no measurable distortion, even on an AP. Does it sound better ?
I think the success, subjectively, of my buffer-filter is the extreme simplicity combined with the good performance.
I do not think that static distortion measurements tell us all about the sound.
I wish it would be that easy.
I think the success, subjectively, of my buffer-filter is the extreme simplicity combined with the good performance.
I do not think that static distortion measurements tell us all about the sound.
I wish it would be that easy.
I am fully aware of the fact that good numbers do not necessarily correlate with good sound. I just wanted to get an idea of the measured performance of the buffer.
I was too lazy to simulate it on my own. If I would have done it, I would have seen that the buffers distortion figures will probably not be measurable with the given equipment😀 Just found the thread from calvin about preamp buffers with simulation results.
The subjectively perceived quality I know very well 😉
I was too lazy to simulate it on my own. If I would have done it, I would have seen that the buffers distortion figures will probably not be measurable with the given equipment😀 Just found the thread from calvin about preamp buffers with simulation results.
The subjectively perceived quality I know very well 😉