new cartridge question

[3DSonics]

Hi,

I do however feel that you are somebody who finds it hard to consider any opinion that is contrary to your own as valid.

I consider any opinion valid for the person holding it. That may however still make it an opinion that drastically wrong to anyone else.

You will find that I usually qualify very clearly what I am saying.

The qualifications may sound like a putdown, they are not to me, to me they are observations. If you decide to take a neutral obvservation as putting you/your gear down then I think you are not really sure of what you actually like and want.

I know what I like (and while I like certain drugs I do not like guns, but I find them an unfortunate neccessity which currently various governments deny, try to deny their subjects as it would place too much power in their hands) and if you draw out a large map of Audio you find me somewhere surprisingly close to the center in the things I am trying to achieve, though usually at the fringes with the methodes.

So, if make certain statements do not take them the wrong way. And note that I have done most of the other things previously as well.

Ciao T

 

[bottleneck]

Hi,



I consider any opinion valid for the person holding it. That may however still make it an opinion that drastically wrong to anyone else.

You will find that I usually qualify very clearly what I am saying.

I agree. You frequently qualify your subjective opinion about what sounds good with some technical jargon.

Of course, this means very little to me, or many others.

 

[3DSonics]

Hi,

I agree. You frequently qualify your subjective opinion about what sounds good with some technical jargon.

Of course, this means very little to me, or many others.

Actually, I think you must mistake me for someone else, or your definition of technical jargon differs vastly from mine.

An example of such qualifications you find when I hold forth about why only cartridges with a spherical allow a reasonably accurate reproduction of LP's pressed in the late 60's, the 70's and much of the 80's, the qualification tends to take a form like the following:

"A spherical stylus is essential if the goal is to reproduce the recording without gross distortion."

Here the qualification if the bit: "if the goal is to reproduce the recording without gross distortion."

You may of course prefer a lot of distortion, or you may not mind it or whatever, hence my contention is valid only if your goal matches mine.

If that is "technical jargon" to you then perhaps you best stop reading my posts for being too technical.

Ciao T

 

[titian]

"A spherical stylus is essential if the goal is to reproduce the recording without gross distortion."

where did you get that from?

 

[3DSonics]

Hi,

where did you get that from?

What do you mean?

Surely you are aware that since the late 60's practically all LP's where cut using a tracing simulator, which applied a pre-distortion to the signal being cut.

This pre-distortion, being the inverse of the mechanical distortion which accrued from the fact that the spherical stylii used at the time had a shape different to the cutting stylus thus causing high levels of distortion (Decca measured double number percentages at nominal 0db levels), is cancelled by the behaviour of the spherical stylus, leading to a low distortion output.

The use of the tracing simulator only diminished in the late 80's as the major labels shut down their own cutting facilities and started to rely on outside facilities which where often run by "closet audiophiles" who tended to remove/bypass most of the original electronics in their lathes, use audiophile amplifiers to drive the cutterheads and often even disabled the motional feedback on the cutter head.

You would be shocked what other sorts of nastiness happened when records where cut. From the mid 70's the use of a "preview" head on the tape machines (which allowed to use an automated system to regulate the variation in advancing the cutting stylus across the LP surface to fit more groves on the surface) was replaced by a 48KHz samping, 14Bit digital delay in the signal path of the cutting signal.

You might find yourself equally shocked by knowing that despite the notional RIAA standardistation in the 1950's many Labels persisted in using their own cutting equalisers which obviously contributed to the "House Sound" together with their recording methodes.

Of course, you may ignore all that jazz and just enjoy listening to whatever you like. If the inverse pre-distortion on an LP is not cancelled due to the failure of not using a spherical stylus a fairly strong "Aphex" effect is noted (much stronger than I would normally dial up on an "Aphex Aural Exciter" myself when using for live sound) which will produce the subjective impression of increased loudness (more dynamic) and a more three dimensional sound up to the point where the inverse predistortion exceeds the annoyance treshold (usually on orchestral tutti's).

As said before to Bottleneck, like what you like, I know what I like....

Ciao T

 

[RobHolt]

Hi,



What do you mean?

Surely you are aware that since the late 60's practically all LP's where cut using a tracing simulator, which applied a pre-distortion to the signal being cut.

This pre-distortion, being the inverse of the mechanical distortion which accrued from the fact that the spherical stylii used at the time had a shape different to the cutting stylus thus causing high levels of distortion (Decca measured double number percentages at nominal 0db levels), is cancelled by the behaviour of the spherical stylus, leading to a low distortion output.

The use of the tracing simulator only diminished in the late 80's as the major labels shut down their own cutting facilities and started to rely on outside facilities which where often run by "closet audiophiles" who tended to remove/bypass most of the original electronics in their lathes, use audiophile amplifiers to drive the cutterheads and often even disabled the motional feedback on the cutter head.

You would be shocked what other sorts of nastiness happened when records where cut. From the mid 70's the use of a "preview" head on the tape machines (which allowed to use an automated system to regulate the variation in advancing the cutting stylus across the LP surface to fit more groves on the surface) was replaced by a 48KHz samping, 14Bit digital delay in the signal path of the cutting signal.

You might find yourself equally shocked by knowing that despite the notional RIAA standardistation in the 1950's many Labels persisted in using their own cutting equalisers which obviously contributed to the "House Sound" together with their recording methodes.

Of course, you may ignore all that jazz and just enjoy listening to whatever you like. If the inverse pre-distortion on an LP is not cancelled due to the failure of not using a spherical stylus a fairly strong "Aphex" effect is noted (much stronger than I would normally dial up on an "Aphex Aural Exciter" myself when using for live sound) which will produce the subjective impression of increased loudness (more dynamic) and a more three dimensional sound up to the point where the inverse predistortion exceeds the annoyance treshold (usually on orchestral tutti's).

As said before to Bottleneck, like what you like, I know what I like....

Ciao T

So why do I hear less HF distortion from a good LC tip with a fine minor radius?

This isn't a one-off phenomenon either - it goes back over 20 years and with literally dozens of cartridges on vinyl from the 60s to date.

Perhaps the tracing simulator is only partly effective with the correction is tries to achieve?

 

[titian]

I'm not trying in anyway to critize your taste.
I just thought you could put links to tests or articles which prove (with measurments) that non spherical stylii produce "a lot of distortion" while spherical none.

 

[3DSonics]

Hi,

I just thought you could put links to tests or articles which prove (with measurments) that non spherical stylii produce "a lot of distortion" while spherical none.

You will not find any of this in the common HiFi press, sadly. There are many relevant and interresting articles in the JAES.

Try this:

A New Method of Disc Recording for Reproduction with Reduced Distortion: The Tracing Simulator

In order to see the effects of using a line contact stylus to play a record cut using a tracing simulator study the distortions produced by playing a LP cut without tracing simulator, as detailed here:

The Genesis Of Vinyl Stereo Record

If you need more info, please google it yourself.

Ciao T

 

[ShinOBIWAN]

This makes you blinkered in my view - and although I admire you're knowledge and understanding, I find it a shame that I can't get more benefit from it.

I read some interesting stuff from George Short.

Thorsten is a self appointed expert and his advice is free, he's a hobbiest like most of us and although he does have more formal experience that doesn't make his opinion anymore or less valid to anyone.

Best not to read too much into advice that's given on forums. Thorsten clearly has a way of working and that suits him well, through his years of experience he's tried many things and found most to be inferior to his current methodologies. Of course this is valid only from his perspective, everyone else will find a way that equally suits them and brings enjoyment. Thorsten' advice is merely that, its not a definitive thing written by an expert, half the fun with audio is experimenting, building, experiencing and the other half is sitting back and enjoying your system. If there was one sure way to audio nirvana then we'd have a more cohesive opinion of what hi-end is. As it stands, hi-end is rather diverse and despite Thorsten's lack of deviation from his own course and subsequent 'advice', we all have methods that are equally valid although some folks get so opinionated that they stop listening and merely agree to disagree.

My father owns a 1979 Pontiac Firebird, its uneconomical, has a horrible ride, handles like a turd but sounds better than anything I've ever heard in my life and its like poop off a scoop powered by 6ltr V12. If you asked him to swap it for a modern Pontiac, he'd tell you he'd rather die. Its completely illogical really because everything about it is inferior to a modern sports car.

Same thing happen in all sorts of hobbies, including audio and many opinions are based on such preferences. Dishing these opinions out with such certainty that they're correct and mostly superior is a bit rich IMO.

 

[3DSonics]

Hi,

So why do I hear less HF distortion from a good LC tip with a fine minor radius?

Do you remember the scene in "The Martix" where Morpheus asks Neo: "Do you think this is air that you are breathing? Interesting!".

Perhaps the tracing simulator is only partly effective with the correction is tries to achieve?

On the contrary, it is very efficient.

If you use a line contact stylus in a pivoted tonearm you will get over most of the surface of the LP an increased amount of HF distortion (again, this is simple geometry) over a spherical stylusdue to the fact that the tracking error varies materially from zero.

Of course, how you percieve the results is another story.

Ciao T

 

[7_V]

... I written a short note on this:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=2052

Thanks for that.

Originally Posted by 7_V
I also find that positioning of all the boxes and cables is critical to minimise the hum but it's always audible, never disappearing completely.

Then there is something wrong with the cabling. If you have the MC3 it should be absolutely quiet. What interconnects are you using? How have you arranged things?

What's the MC3?

I go from the Rohmann via the interconnect supplied with the OL Silver arm into the transformer which is unmarked in a black wooden cabinet. I purchased it as a TdP tranny but can't be sure. From this I use silver hand-built interconnects to the 834P (serial number: 014899) and silver interconnects to my preamp.

I have now placed the MC tranny and 834P to the right hand side of the main equipment rack as this reduces the hum. The turntable is on top of the rack. The hum is still audible.

The downside is that upgrades cannot be made. It either works or doesn't. I personally tend to prefer integrated solutions.

But using an EAR preamp with integrated MC transformer and phono stage one can still (presumably) make the sort of upgrades that you've suggested at the link above. No?

Regards
Steve

 

[3DSonics]

Hi,

Thorsten is a self appointed expert and his advice is free, he's a hobbiest like most of us, although he does have more formal experience that doesn't make his opinion anymore or less valid to anyone.

What MAY however be of interrest is that I have about as much experience on the recording side as on the replay one. This gives a perspective rather different to that of most audiophiles.

Most critically, when I write for example something sounds compressed I actually mean an effect analogous to placing a compressor into the signal path and turning compression up.

At the same time I notice in the writings of many audiophiles and High End reviewers that their vocabulary for the objective effect of compression seems to be "good dynamics" and they often react badly to being told that they evidently like compressed (and thus processed) sound, the same to any other observations that suggest that someone in this sort of circle find strongly "processed" sound preferable to "unprocessed".

To someone from a recording background ANYTHING is allowed that gives you the sound you want. Using all sorts of different microphones, deliberatly compressing peaks via tape saturation, dynamic compressors, Aphex Aural Exciters, artificial reverb and many other things that make audiophiles shudder.

Of course, if you want a recording that gives the listener teh experience of having been there, at the recording, in the recording venue you MUST NOT use any of the above and limit yourself to "gainriding" and minimal microphone arrangement, but not everyone wants to achieve such a result during recording.

The same applies to the replay side, I'll repeat, anyone may like what they like and enjoy it. However, certain thing are counter indicated if certain results are desired. Failure to avoid them has a number of objective results, which have subjective results and depending on taste, prejudices and predilections will be considered "good", "bad" or "neutral" to varying degrees.

Ciao T

 

[3DSonics]

Hi,

Thanks for that.

No sweat

What's the MC3?

Tim's Stepup. It's just been upgraded to "MC-4", but it seems to be the same in general terms and looks the same:

I go from the Rohmann via the interconnect supplied with the OL Silver arm into the transformer which is unmarked in a black wooden cabinet. I purchased it as a TdP tranny but can't be sure.

This was sold by HiFi-News/Accessory Club IIRC. Yes, it is a TdP design but very much a "budget" one and it is notorious for picking up a lot of noise.

From this I use silver hand-built interconnects to the 834P

They should be VERY WELL screened AND as short as possible.

Due to the square of winding ratio impedance stepup of the MC transformer the output side is EXTREMELY sensitive to noise, while the input side surprisingly is pretty unsensitive to noisepickup, if a transformer is employed.

But using an EAR preamp with integrated MC transformer and phono stage one can still (presumably) make the sort of upgrades that you've suggested at the link above. No?

Maybe. Depends on the specific item. In most cases the schematics are not available and TdP tends towards circuitry that is less than usual, making it harder to be specific about upgrades.

What you might want to try is a pair of S&B TX-103 MC Stepups, just twist the output wires and cover with screening braid and heatshrinkl sleeving, solder on RCA connectors. Twist/Braid the input wires and again use screening braid and fit a in line cable RCA Socket. Keep the screen/case wires completely seperate and connect to the preamp's grounding post.

This kind of arrangement is very good and I have made several for friends, non have yet reported any issues with hum, the TX-103 has one of the highest ratios of magnetic screeing available from any transformers available for MC.

You might also find the TX-103 a significant improvement, BUT it is essential to "break in" the transformer as described here:

http://www.high-endaudio.com/RC-Step-ups.html

The sound of a brand new TX-103 is pretty grotty and at MC levels they never ever break in. While we have never really worked out the mechanisms that cause the breakin, the changes in objective performance are quite notable on analysers. I personally suspect that the Mu Metal core laminations are stressed and magnetised during assembly and need to be "re-randomised", but I may be wrong....

Ciao T

 

[RobHolt]

Hi,



Do you remember the scene in "The Martix" where Morpheus asks Neo: "Do you think this is air that you are breathing? Interesting!".



On the contrary, it is very efficient.

If you use a line contact stylus in a pivoted tonearm you will get over most of the surface of the LP an increased amount of HF distortion (again, this is simple geometry) over a spherical stylusdue to the fact that the tracking error varies materially from zero.

Of course, how you percieve the results is another story.

Ciao T

Perception has little to do with this.

End of side vocals replay with distorted, scratchy sibilance and cymbals lack detail and metalic ring. A good cartridge with a small minor radius (<5um) will be dramatically cleaner. Getting the geometry spot on with the latter in a pivoted arm does effect distortion but the sperical is still far worse.

I find it difficult to believe that the likes of Ortofon, Koetsu, FR, Lyra and goldring, with decades of experince in building cartridges would use LC tips if they produced more distortion.

If the tracing simulator is a good as suggested I can only conclude that it was left out of circuit most of the time
Of course we have little evidence as to how widespread the use of the TS might have been and very little chance of ever finding out now.

 

[7_V]

What you might want to try is a pair of S&B TX-103 MC Stepups

How much is that likely to set me back?

Regards
Steve

 

[RobHolt]

These are good from Sowter:

http://www.sowter.co.uk/2phono.htm

Cost is around £100 pair and they will wind them to your spec for no extra cost. Nice people to deal with.

 

[3DSonics]

Hi,

How much is that likely to set me back?

As you are a hifi manufacturer you can directly apply to S&B to buy a pair at OEM pricing as samples for evaluation. Same for other S&B products.

http://www.stevens-billington.co.uk/pagehifi.htm

Give them a call and you may find things a little easier if you mention I send you.

BTW, being trade, you can likely also get trade pricing on the assembled products from Music First Audio:

Music First Audio MC Stepup

Music First Audio Passive Magentic Preamp

Again, give them a ring.

Ciao T

 

[7_V]

Yes T, I know I could get trade prices.
I was just wondering whether you knew the approximate retail price offhand. No matter, I can give them a ring. Sowter are interesting as well.

By coincidence I need a transformer designed and built for a new product. Tim de P has said he would do it and I guess that Sowter and S&B would be alternative candidates.

Cheers
Steve

 

[RobHolt]

Yes T, I know I could get trade prices.
I was just wondering whether you knew the approximate retail price offhand. No matter, I can give them a ring. Sowter are interesting as well.

By coincidence I need a transformer designed and built for a new product. Tim de P has said he would do it and I guess that Sowter and S&B would be alternative candidates.

Cheers
Steve

£250-ish a pair I believe. Tenson bought a batch recently so can advise.

 

[3DSonics]

Hi,

Yes T, I know I could get trade prices.
I was just wondering whether you knew the approximate retail price offhand.[/B]

The raw TX-103's retail at $ US 515 plus import duties/taxes from www.diyhifisupply.com, who may also grant trade pricing of course.

The retail for assembled Stepup Units and Passive Preamplifiers from Music First Audio is £ 1,500 each in copper and £ 2,750 in silver (meaning silver windings with Audio Note Silver wire and internal silver wiring et al.).

Sowter are interesting as well.[/B]

I think I might still have a pair of Sowter MC Stepups somewhere in a box (I might have given them away), they made me appreciate J-Fet MC Stepups. You are welcome to them if I find them.

By coincidence I need a transformer designed and built for a new product. Tim de P has said he would do it and I guess that Sowter and S&B would be alternative candidates.

Well, I'm not allowed to say who actually produces and in some cases designs the transformers for a number of british HiFi companies (read between the lines). Disregardless of that right now S&B is completely maxed out on capacity, even I cannot get anything developmentwise out of Jonathan Billington, not for love, money and goodwill (I have a list, pretty long by now).

Ciao T