Groove damage from spherical styli

did you see the sights as to??

 

Digitise the buggers, Rob.

That's what I am doing for the 100 or so out of 1100 LPs I have that I cannot get digital copies of.

Chris

 

Now, before we both start, I am genuinely not wanting to get into a stramach here, Richard.

However, what form does your proof take?

Chris

 

I would have thought it is obvious, but of course it will start all the who-ha again. Proof is individual not universal, in this case and is experience based, so you give the person extra experience.

In the IPs (intervention poster as opposed to opening poster) case he has heard a difference between 32 and 47k on a specific cart with his phono stage, and one is superior to the other, so intimates that this is normal with this cart. I can put together two phono stages with both input loads and you will not hear any difference and both will be good. So my point is that it is a reaction in the phono stages and not reaction in the cart that is causing this. So I prove it is not normal with this cart and when making his preferencial statement he should qualify it by stating - "with such and such phonostage". That is all this part of the thread boils down to.

 

Fair enough. But I have problems with your concept of proof, but then you knew I would. Let's leave it at that.

Chris

 

Well sod it - its recommended by loads of others prior to me, do you want proof of their phonostages as well? You either trust your own ears or not, I've learned to trust mine & my reaction. Besides I recorded the difference so I could do an A B test & I'm satisfied. The difference is not huge and altering the setting works better with some carts & not others but the 440 benefits IMO. Others can try it & come to their own conclusions.

In my room I'm the only one that needs to be satisfied.

 

And I understand fully why you are saying this, it seems to have become accepted practice like lots of thing in the hi-fi industry, just like some sort of folk law. All I am doing here is trying to give correct information. I do not challenge what you hear, I am not being an objectivist with this. I fully understand for you it is right, for you because of your phono stage, it is good proceedure and you should do it. I am just saying that the *presumption* that it will be the same with *all* phono stages is wrong. So the answer that I think people should follow is to recommend but just state what phono stage you use, then people will not take it as an across the board / blanket statement that applies to all phono stages. Then I don't get *my* customers saying the same to me and me having to explain to them it is unnecessary and wrong with my phono stage (and some others).

 

why all thrads that are here are warfare and most are not of civil discussion , but must they all be personal?

 

WTF you talking about, Nando?

This particular thread has been the very model of reasoned discussion. Richard's behaving himself, so am I, Rob has been doing his usual stout defense of the rational...

A bloody good thread IMO.

Chris

 

Excellent we agree then - I thought we did

The question posed was confined to MM only and that formed the basis of my answer.

I broadly agree with you re MC in that the whole issue of matching is over-played.
There are differences with different loads but these are relatively small IMO.
You can sometimes detect differences at LF, probably due to electrical damping if a very low impedance load is used. The cartridge is obviously a generator and it's motion reacts to electrical damping.
Capacitance can usually be ignored with MC since no sensibly designed phono stage has enough to alter the sound of MC.

 

You are still ignoring the part the phono stage design plays in this, and I don't just mean its input loading. That input loading is to create an interface and the veracity of that interface doesn't only depend on what is feeding it, it also depends on what it is feeding. If we agree on that then you have got my point.

 

quote

when i like to **** it is for enjoyment, if you can not take it , don't do it , i want to know if i may , how most of you in this thred used loading capatiances and tried different loding divices as to how audiobla sound can differ or change the different tonal balance of "either" a m.c. or m.m. carts? have you all prefered a personal loading settings for the cart''s you used? does it make a difference in room temperature on witch a cart can perform? i think it does specially on MC.'S read my previous as humer , not wtf :JPS:get me.

 

Even though I can only partially translate this post, I suppose my provisional answer would be - yes!

 

Different issue entirely though - and very subjective.

From what I've read on load rejection, I think I erm.... reject it
I enderstand what you say re stiff power supplies and headroom but don't agree at all that you need go to the lengths you suggest for good performance.

Technically, any cartridge will perfrom identically be it feeding my Quad phono card running from the integral 15VA transformer or your Phono 2 with 160VA or whatever based PSU, assuming the same input loading conditions. It sees the same load in each case and will behave in the same way.

You will argue that your method produces better subjective results, and it might since I haven't made the direct A/B comparison but its a different issue to the one raised in this thread.

 

thanks richard, that proofes the point you were trieng to put across,

 

I would confront you technically but I don't feel or need the point, plus why should I teach people how to design phono stages, but I will say that there seems to be very little understanding of the influence of power supply impedance, yet you spout load impedance. Sorry simplistic and yet again a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and perpetrates ignorance, and the certainty that some read out on a piece of metal with components in it convinces you that you are right, to the point you will deny your ears.

Well it just leads into a circular argument back to the subjective v the objective, and the lowest common demoninator removing choice. So I am afraid it is your loss not mine.

What I don't understand is the whole point of this hobby is music! so WTF is going on with this nonsense.

 

As I said - a purely subjective argument being advanced in relation to a purely technical question.

You don't need to teach anyone about phono stage design, certainly not if they reject your ideas in this area.

I go back to the question again, which is about altering the HF response of an Audio technica MM. Nothing you have said adresses that issue.

The reproduction of music is directly related to the technical.
If someone enjoys their AT cartridge more with a little extra capacitance, that is the application of a technical, measurable solution to a musical issue.
That's the bit you don't understand.

 

So once again the same old same old, you reject an argument purely because it doesn't satisfy your lack of technical awareness, or because your simplistic understanding is as far as you can take it. And that is the crux of the matter, there are no absolutes in terms of specs, designs. There is only one arbetter and that is experience and ears. I produce four different variations on the same circuit - THEY SPEC AND MEASURE IDENTICALLY!! - they sound the same on a product signature level, but as you progress from the base as a built in PCB in pre and integrated through to a four seperate 160va power supplied unit totalling 640va and other parameters changed I will not go into, they produce more information and more access to the music. To the point you just wouldn't think they are the same circuit. Following your logic this can't be happening, well as I say your loss if you can't hear it.

 

Not a problem I have anymore, Nando. I'm giving my t/t the elbow just as soon as I get around to finishing the digitisation of my LPs. As I said in an earlier post, I will not regret the passing of vinyl from my life one little bit.

And sorry for not picking upon your humour mate.

Chris

 

I reject the argument you make because it is patently wrong.

If your phono stages 'spec and measure identically' irrespective of the additional PSU stiffness, to use your own words, this simply proves that they are no more 'load rejecting' than any other competent phono stage, of which there are very many.

All you are describing is the requirement for stable power supply rails.
This is good practice for any circuit and is neither revolutionary nor original.

... and it has naff-all to do with correctly loading a MM cartridge!