Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
First off, I've never posted here, or been here, before so let me start by
saying "HI" to everyone!!! I have an old Technics SL-B2 turntable that is in perfect shape and works perfectly as well. I have had it for many, many years. However, it has been relagated to a box that is kept in my attic or garage for the last 25 years. I still have my record collection going back to 1978 when I purchased my first LP, and I accumulated records at a pretty good clip (perhaps 2 a week) until, I would say, 1988, when EVERYTHING was switched to CD's. Even the EP's that were the last hold-out of recordings not found on CD, but only on vinyl, really disappeared by 1992. By '91-'93, except for an extremelly small niche market of audiophiles (who to THIS DAY will claim that LP's still sound better than CD's given very HIGH quality recordings, EXPERT mastering techniques, and EXCEPTIONAL equipment used in playback). Also, besides Audiophiles, DJ's continue to this day to use vinyl in clubs as mxing one song to the next is MUCH easier than with CD's (though advances in DJ oriented CD mixing gear with controls like BPM synchrnozation has leveled the playing field to a large degree). However, besides those two groups, NOBODY BUYS vinyl anymore. Anyway, I have about 400-500 LP's I was flipping through the other day and felt nostalgic and wanted to hear some of this old stuff. However, my turntable is just missing a headshell and cartride (stylus too, of course). I gave it to someone (the headshell and cartride) about 10 years ago as I thought I would NEVER want to use the turntable again and he needed one, I nearly threw my turntable out after that (well, I was going to give it to the Salvation Army, same diff.)!!!!! I have already ordered the headshell and it should be here tommorrow or the next day. My question is about what would give me the best bang for my buck in terms of cartridges (with stylus, of course). I definately want to buy new as you NEVER know how many hours a used needle may have seen. I am NOT an audiophile NUT when it comes to my home gear (OK, a little bit) and my turntable is certainly not one you would consider "high-end". But it's built like a tank (surprisingly heavy) and after literally decades of collecting dust it fired right up, by using the strobe adjustment I dialed in the PERFECT 33 1/3 and it never wavered (wow and flutter) at all. I have no doubt it's as good (SQ wise) as any other Technics turntable (I know, I know, DJ's all prefer the 1200 series with direct drive, mine's belt driven, as the 1200's can go from 0-60 MPH in like .02 seconds or some damn thing like that which is advantages to DJ's). But again, sound quality wise, they all SOUND the same (given the same cartride) and it becomes more a factor of, again, your cartridege and stylus selection as Technics does not employ more esoteric turntable construction techniques (like thick glass platters, drive-motors COMPLETELY seperated from the spinning table itself, only joined by the belt in an attempt to COMPLETELY erradicate any motor noise that might creep in, and EVEN MORE essoteric and complicated means of isolating ANY vibrations in the environment or the surface the turntable is placed upon. These esoteric turntables might empoly (to name only a few) double decker affairs where the first part of the table is simply a vibrations absorber; different materials employed in constructing some tables such as carbon fiber, fiberglass, REAL glass, and so on and so on......). Anyway, back to my original question. Do any of you out there have a favorite cartridge maker and if so why? I don't want to spend a ridiculous amount of money, I just want my records to sound decent as I plan to transpose them to MP3. I used to buy only Audio Technica cartridges as a kid as I thought they made a very good product at a reasonable price. Is that still the case? Are there others to consider? Like I said, I am DEINATELY looking for a NEW cartridge and stylus (I do a lot of shopping on Ebay), but I am not going to spend $500 on a Grado flagship model. It MUST be under $100, preferably under $50. Thank you in advance for any advice in this matter!!!! MOSFET |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:14:17 -0700, MOSFET wrote
(in article ): First off, I've never posted here, or been here, before so let me start by saying "HI" to everyone!!! I have an old Technics SL-B2 turntable that is in perfect shape and works perfectly as well. I have had it for many, many years. However, it has been relagated to a box that is kept in my attic or garage for the last 25 years. I still have my record collection going back to 1978 when I purchased my first LP, and I accumulated records at a pretty good clip (perhaps 2 a week) until, I would say, 1988, when EVERYTHING was switched to CD's. Even the EP's that were the last hold-out of recordings not found on CD, but only on vinyl, really disappeared by 1992. By '91-'93, except for an extremelly small niche market of audiophiles (who to THIS DAY will claim that LP's still sound better than CD's given very HIGH quality recordings, EXPERT mastering techniques, and EXCEPTIONAL equipment used in playback). Well, obviously LPs do sound better than CDs TO THEM. I hear more live music than most people and I have LPs that definitely sound better than the CD of the same performance. So, in some instances those who think LPs sound more like real music than do CDs are correct. Also, besides Audiophiles, DJ's continue to this day to use vinyl in clubs as mxing one song to the next is MUCH easier than with CD's (though advances in DJ oriented CD mixing gear with controls like BPM synchrnozation has leveled the playing field to a large degree). However, besides those two groups, NOBODY BUYS vinyl anymore. Anyway, I have about 400-500 LP's I was flipping through the other day and felt nostalgic and wanted to hear some of this old stuff. However, my turntable is just missing a headshell and cartride (stylus too, of course). I gave it to someone (the headshell and cartride) about 10 years ago as I thought I would NEVER want to use the turntable again and he needed one, I nearly threw my turntable out after that (well, I was going to give it to the Salvation Army, same diff.)!!!!! I have already ordered the headshell and it should be here tommorrow or the next day. My question is about what would give me the best bang for my buck in terms of cartridges (with stylus, of course). I definately want to buy new as you NEVER know how many hours a used needle may have seen. I am NOT an audiophile NUT when it comes to my home gear (OK, a little bit) and my turntable is certainly not one you would consider "high-end". But it's built like a tank (surprisingly heavy) and after literally decades of collecting dust it fired right up, by using the strobe adjustment I dialed in the PERFECT 33 1/3 and it never wavered (wow and flutter) at all. I suggest the Sumiko Blue-Point No. 2. It tracks beautifully, sounds great and only costs about $300. It is also a high-output moving coil and does not require a head-amp or a transformer. You can order one from Needle Doctor. I have no doubt it's as good (SQ wise) as any other Technics turntable (I know, I know, DJ's all prefer the 1200 series with direct drive, mine's belt driven, as the 1200's can go from 0-60 MPH in like .02 seconds or some damn thing like that which is advantages to DJ's). But again, sound quality wise, they all SOUND the same (given the same cartride) and it becomes more a factor of, again, your cartridege and stylus selection as Technics does not employ more esoteric turntable construction techniques (like thick glass platters, drive-motors COMPLETELY seperated from the spinning table itself, only joined by the belt in an attempt to COMPLETELY erradicate any motor noise that might creep in, and EVEN MORE essoteric and complicated means of isolating ANY vibrations in the environment or the surface the turntable is placed upon. These esoteric turntables might empoly (to name only a few) double decker affairs where the first part of the table is simply a vibrations absorber; different materials employed in constructing some tables such as carbon fiber, fiberglass, REAL glass, and so on and so on......). Actually, your Technics table is not very good. The platter rings, the bearing is relatively poor and the arm is both resonant and poorly designed. You'd be better off with a new Pro-Ject Debut III, a Rega P1, or a Music Hall MMF-2.2. But if you get a decent cartridge first, you can start enjoying your records now, and when you can afford it, you can upgrade your turntable. Then you will be better able to appreciate the improvement that even a modest modern turntable will bring to your listening. Anyway, back to my original question. Do any of you out there have a favorite cartridge maker and if so why? I don't want to spend a ridiculous amount of money, I just want my records to sound decent as I plan to transpose them to MP3. I used to buy only Audio Technica cartridges as a kid as I thought they made a very good product at a reasonable price. Is that still the case? Are there others to consider? Like I said, I am DEINATELY looking for a NEW cartridge and stylus (I do a lot of shopping on Ebay), but I am not going to spend $500 on a Grado flagship model. It MUST be under $100, preferably under $50. Sorry. There's nothing decent in that price range. Thank you in advance for any advice in this matter!!!! MOSFET |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
On Jun 20, 7:14*pm, "MOSFET" wrote:
to MP3. *I used to buy only Audio Technica cartridges as a kid as I thought they made a very good product at a reasonable price. *Is that still the case? *Are there others to consider? *Like I said, I am DEINATELY looking for a NEW cartridge and stylus (I do a lot of shopping on Ebay), but I am not going to spend $500 on a Grado flagship model. *It MUST be under $100, preferably under $50. Thank you in advance for any advice in this matter!!!! There are very many both standard and P-mount cartridges within your price range: http://www.needledoctor.com/Online-S...ono-Cartridges The Sumiko Pearls prefably the Oyster or the Grados (the Green or even the less expensive Grados). I'll even go so far as to dare say that they will produce results equal to many which cost thousands of dollars. (This was true many years ago in my relative youth when my hearing was a lot better :-( The Sumiko Oyster and Grado Green will even track as well as their more expensive brethren. To generate excellent sounding MP3s from your old LP collection you needn't spend big bucks. MOSFET |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
On Jun 20, 7:14*pm, "MOSFET" wrote:
First off, I've never posted here, or been here, before so let me start by saying "HI" to everyone!!! I have an old Technics SL-B2 turntable that is in perfect shape and works perfectly as well. *I have had it for many, many years. *However, it has been relagated to a box that is kept in my attic or garage for the last 25 years. *I still have my record collection going back to 1978 when I purchased my first LP, and I accumulated records at a pretty good clip (perhaps 2 a week) until, I would say, 1988, when EVERYTHING was switched to CD's. *Even the EP's that were the last hold-out of recordings not found on CD, but only on vinyl, really disappeared by 1992. *By '91-'93, except for an extremelly small niche market of audiophiles (who to THIS DAY will claim that LP's still sound better than CD's given very HIGH quality recordings, EXPERT mastering techniques, and EXCEPTIONAL equipment used in playback). Also, besides Audiophiles, DJ's continue to this day to use vinyl in clubs as mxing one song to the next is MUCH easier than with CD's (though advances in DJ oriented CD mixing gear with controls like BPM synchrnozation has leveled the playing field to a large degree). *However, besides those two groups, NOBODY BUYS vinyl anymore. Anyway, I have about 400-500 LP's I was flipping through the other day and felt nostalgic and wanted to hear some of this old stuff. *However, my turntable is just missing a headshell and cartride (stylus too, of course). I gave it to someone (the headshell and cartride) about 10 years ago as I thought I would NEVER want to use the turntable again and he needed one, I nearly threw my turntable out after that (well, I was going to give it to the Salvation Army, same diff.)!!!!! I have already ordered the headshell and it should be here tommorrow or the next day. My question is about what would give me the best bang for my buck in terms of cartridges (with stylus, of course). *I definately want to buy new as you NEVER know how many hours a used needle may have seen. *I am NOT an audiophile NUT when it comes to my home gear (OK, a little bit) and my turntable is certainly not one you would consider "high-end". *But it's built like a tank (surprisingly heavy) and after literally decades of collecting dust it fired right up, by using the strobe adjustment I dialed in the PERFECT 33 1/3 and it never wavered (wow and flutter) at all. I have no doubt it's as good (SQ wise) as any other Technics turntable (I know, I know, DJ's all prefer the 1200 series with direct drive, mine's belt driven, as the 1200's can go from 0-60 MPH in like .02 seconds or some damn thing like that which is advantages to DJ's). *But again, sound quality wise, they all SOUND the same (given the same cartride) and it becomes more a factor of, again, your cartridege and stylus selection as Technics does not employ more esoteric turntable construction techniques (like thick glass platters, drive-motors COMPLETELY seperated from the spinning table itself, only joined by the belt in an attempt to COMPLETELY erradicate any motor noise that might creep in, and EVEN MORE essoteric and complicated means of isolating ANY vibrations in the environment or the surface the turntable is placed upon. *These esoteric turntables might empoly (to name only a few) double decker affairs where the first part of the table is simply a vibrations absorber; different materials employed in constructing some tables such as carbon fiber, fiberglass, REAL glass, and so on and so on......). Anyway, back to my original question. *Do any of you out there have a favorite cartridge maker and if so why? *I don't want to spend a ridiculous amount of money, I just want my records to sound decent as I plan to transpose them to MP3. *I used to buy only Audio Technica cartridges as a kid as I thought they made a very good product at a reasonable price. *Is that still the case? *Are there others to consider? *Like I said, I am DEINATELY looking for a NEW cartridge and stylus (I do a lot of shopping on Ebay), but I am not going to spend $500 on a Grado flagship model. *It MUST be under $100, preferably under $50. Thank you in advance for any advice in this matter!!!! MOSFET Ignore the attitude. Your turntable is fine if it seems fine to you. Nice carts you can find for under $100: Grado Black Shure M97 A-T 440 Enjoy. bob |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
Well, obviously LPs do sound better than CDs TO THEM. I hear more live
music than most people and I have LPs that definitely sound better than the CD of the same performance. So, in some instances those who think LPs sound more like real music than do CDs are correct. Well, actually that's part of the reason I want to resurrect my turntable. Like I said, I know it's not what you would consider a super-high-end machine, but I have always been impressed with how solidly it is built (compared with other turntables I may come across at second-hand stores or people's homes who still have turntables). I mean, every component (tone-arm, controls, platter) are built incredibly solidly and NOTHING on that entire machine is even slightly "loose". I have a friend who believes very strongly in the superiority of vinyl over CD's and it is he who convinced me to resurrect mine. I have to admitt, listening to his system certainly made me think there's something to that. AND, he and I both felt the SL-B2 was certainly worthy of getting the most out of my LP's. And although it's true, you get what you pay for, the rest of my system is really just OK; a Denon AVR-3600, Michael Green Designs speakers, Discovery speaker and Interconnect wires, however, it really does not warrent a ridculously expensive cartride as I would probably not hear the subtle differences given my turntable and the rest of my system. I will be happy if I find it is the equall of my CD's. And as I recall, I always thought that CD's did not sound any better than my vinyl. It was more a matter of convience and being able to play them in my car that drove my to make the switch, not really that I felt CD's were any better sounding. Also, besides Audiophiles, DJ's continue to this day to use vinyl in clubs as mxing one song to the next is MUCH easier than with CD's (though advances in DJ oriented CD mixing gear with controls like BPM synchrnozation has leveled the playing field to a large degree). However, besides those two groups, NOBODY BUYS vinyl anymore. Anyway, I have about 400-500 LP's I was flipping through the other day and felt nostalgic and wanted to hear some of this old stuff. However, my turntable is just missing a headshell and cartride (stylus too, of course). I gave it to someone (the headshell and cartride) about 10 years ago as I thought I would NEVER want to use the turntable again and he needed one, I nearly threw my turntable out after that (well, I was going to give it to the Salvation Army, same diff.)!!!!! I have already ordered the headshell and it should be here tommorrow or the next day. My question is about what would give me the best bang for my buck in terms of cartridges (with stylus, of course). I definately want to buy new as you NEVER know how many hours a used needle may have seen. I am NOT an audiophile NUT when it comes to my home gear (OK, a little bit) and my turntable is certainly not one you would consider "high-end". But it's built like a tank (surprisingly heavy) and after literally decades of collecting dust it fired right up, by using the strobe adjustment I dialed in the PERFECT 33 1/3 and it never wavered (wow and flutter) at all. I suggest the Sumiko Blue-Point No. 2. It tracks beautifully, sounds great and only costs about $300. It is also a high-output moving coil and does not require a head-amp or a transformer. You can order one from Needle Doctor. I am familiar with Sumiko and the Blue-Point. I have no doubt it would make an outstanding cartridge for my application. It's just a little on the pricy side for something my wife feels is not exactly a necessay expense.I really need to keep it under $100. I have no doubt it's as good (SQ wise) as any other Technics turntable (I know, I know, DJ's all prefer the 1200 series with direct drive, mine's belt driven, as the 1200's can go from 0-60 MPH in like .02 seconds or some damn thing like that which is advantages to DJ's). But again, sound quality wise, they all SOUND the same (given the same cartride) and it becomes more a factor of, again, your cartridege and stylus selection as Technics does not employ more esoteric turntable construction techniques (like thick glass platters, drive-motors COMPLETELY seperated from the spinning table itself, only joined by the belt in an attempt to COMPLETELY erradicate any motor noise that might creep in, and EVEN MORE essoteric and complicated means of isolating ANY vibrations in the environment or the surface the turntable is placed upon. These esoteric turntables might empoly (to name only a few) double decker affairs where the first part of the table is simply a vibrations absorber; different materials employed in constructing some tables such as carbon fiber, fiberglass, REAL glass, and so on and so on......). Actually, your Technics table is not very good. The platter rings, the bearing is relatively poor and the arm is both resonant and poorly designed. You'd be better off with a new Pro-Ject Debut III, a Rega P1, or a Music Hall MMF-2.2. But if you get a decent cartridge first, you can start enjoying your records now, and when you can afford it, you can upgrade your turntable. Then you will be better able to appreciate the improvement that even a modest modern turntable will bring to your listening. I know there have been some big improvements in turntables in the last few years. Although many "appear" similar to their older brethren, I know that the technolgy employed in modern high-end turntables has advanced greatly. Thank you for all your great advice!!!!! MOSFET |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:14:17 -0700, MOSFET wrote It MUST be under $100, preferably under $50. Sorry. There's nothing decent in that price range. Sure there is - the Shure M97Xe. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
On Jun 21, 10:50*pm, "MOSFET" wrote:
I know there have been some big improvements in turntables in the last few years. *Although many "appear" similar to their older brethren, I know that the technolgy employed in modern high-end turntables has advanced greatly. Yes, they've added USB ports. Anything else? bob |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:51:05 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:14:17 -0700, MOSFET wrote It MUST be under $100, preferably under $50. Sorry. There's nothing decent in that price range. Sure there is - the Shure M97Xe. Yeccchhh! If you think those are decent, then I begin to understand your bias against vinyl records. If I listened to records with a cartridge like that, I'd probably hate records too. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:51:05 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:14:17 -0700, MOSFET wrote It MUST be under $100, preferably under $50. Sorry. There's nothing decent in that price range. Sure there is - the Shure M97Xe. Yeccchhh! If you think those are decent, then I begin to understand your bias against vinyl records. If I listened to records with a cartridge like that, I'd probably hate records too. Sue me for not being prejudiced against hhigh performance equipment just because it lacks a 3 or 4 digit price tag. I''ve heard many high end cartridges that people worship, and very much of what they idolize disappears in a blind test. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:51:05 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:14:17 -0700, MOSFET wrote It MUST be under $100, preferably under $50. Sorry. There's nothing decent in that price range. Sure there is - the Shure M97Xe. Yeccchhh! If you think those are decent, then I begin to understand your bias against vinyl records. If I listened to records with a cartridge like that, I'd probably hate records too. Sue me for not being prejudiced against hhigh performance equipment just because it lacks a 3 or 4 digit price tag. I''ve heard many high end cartridges that people worship, and very much of what they idolize disappears in a blind test. I think Sonnova's reaction is a bit of overkill..for $100 it is okay, bu IMO it is outperformed in it's own price range by the AT-440, which is enough better that I would (and did) make it my recommendation instead. The Shure for one thing is inferior in imaging to cartridges most would consider high-end. If you have never heard a cartridge that sounds substantially better than the 97xE you just haven't listened to enough...or the right...cartridges. And while their may be a correlation with price, that is not the only factor, and better sound doesn't require a mega-thousand-dollar cartridge. A Blue Point Special (at $400) and to a much greater degree a Dynavector Ruby (at $800) or Shelter 501 II (at $900) will wipe the Shure (and its more expensive siblings). That is, if reproducing a facsimile of live acoustic instruments and voice is your standard and you use well-recorded records of same as your souce. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:51:05 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:14:17 -0700, MOSFET wrote It MUST be under $100, preferably under $50. Sorry. There's nothing decent in that price range. Sure there is - the Shure M97Xe. Yeccchhh! If you think those are decent, then I begin to understand your bias against vinyl records. If I listened to records with a cartridge like that, I'd probably hate records too. Sue me for not being prejudiced against hhigh performance equipment just because it lacks a 3 or 4 digit price tag. I''ve heard many high end cartridges that people worship, and very much of what they idolize disappears in a blind test. I think Sonnova's reaction is a bit of overkill..for $100 it is okay, Actually, it costs $61.17 postpaid at Amazon, bu IMO it is outperformed in it's own price range by the AT-440, At $169.90 same place, same terms. And way over the OP's price range. Well opinions are indisputable, but how do we know that your opinion is more accurate than your pricing information? which is enough better that I would (and did) make it my recommendation instead. The Shure for one thing is inferior in imaging to cartridges most would consider high-end. Absence of reliable confirmation for that opinion noted. If you have never heard a cartridge that sounds substantially better than the 97xE you just haven't listened to enough...or the right...cartridges. That would be a gratuitous insult given the fact that it is well known that I have heard very many so-called "better" cartridges. It's completely mind-blowing how quick some are to accuse people of something that is in fact far more true of themselves. It's also unfounded, since I'm the only person in this conversation (probably the entire forum) that has ever done level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled evaluations of phono cartridges of various price levels and perceived quality levels. Some of those tests, and they were true tests, were done about 30 years ago when unlike most people here, I didn't have the hearing of someone who is well into the second half-century of their lives. I was in my early 30s at the time. And while their may be a correlation with price, that is not the only factor, and better sound doesn't require a mega-thousand-dollar cartridge. A Blue Point Special (at $400) and to a much greater degree a Dynavector Ruby (at $800) or Shelter 501 II (at $900) will wipe the Shure (and its more expensive siblings). Well, based on widely-separated listenings, no level matching, no time-synch, and no bias controls. IOW, nothing but the unsupported beliefs of some one, some place. That is, if reproducing a facsimile of live acoustic instruments and voice is your standard and you use well-recorded records of same as your souce. This dogmatic posturing is indeed getting tiring. :-( |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:13:12 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:51:05 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:14:17 -0700, MOSFET wrote It MUST be under $100, preferably under $50. Sorry. There's nothing decent in that price range. Sure there is - the Shure M97Xe. Yeccchhh! If you think those are decent, then I begin to understand your bias against vinyl records. If I listened to records with a cartridge like that, I'd probably hate records too. Sue me for not being prejudiced against hhigh performance equipment just because it lacks a 3 or 4 digit price tag. I''ve heard many high end cartridges that people worship, and very much of what they idolize disappears in a blind test. Have it your own way, but an M97Xe isn't even as good as the old V-15 Type VxMR, and it's not as good as hundreds of better cartridges then or now (it was a hell of a tracker, though, I'll give the V15 Type VxMR that!). |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: It's also unfounded, since I'm the only person in this conversation (probably the entire forum) that has ever done level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled evaluations of phono cartridges of various price levels and perceived quality levels. Could you describe how you time synch these tests? |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
On Jun 22, 6:13*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:51:05 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:14:17 -0700, MOSFET wrote It MUST be under $100, preferably under $50. Sorry. There's nothing decent in that price range. Sure there is - the Shure M97Xe. Yeccchhh! If you think those are decent, then I begin to understand your bias against vinyl records. If I listened to records with a cartridge like that, I'd probably hate records too. Sue me for not being prejudiced against hhigh performance equipment just because it lacks a 3 or 4 digit price tag. I''ve heard many high end cartridges that people worship, and very much of what they idolize disappears in a blind test.- Hide quoted text - I'd love to hear about those time synched, level matched double blind comparisons you did between the Shure and the four digit price tagged cartridges. I mean if you are playing the blind test card you must have the goods. Which four digit price tagged cartridges did you use? How did you manage to do the time syncing and level matching? What tables and arms did you use? What preamp? What LPs did you use? Must have been quite a job. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
"Jenn" wrote in message
... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: It's also unfounded, since I'm the only person in this conversation (probably the entire forum) that has ever done level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled evaluations of phono cartridges of various price levels and perceived quality levels. Could you describe how you time synch these tests? Precise adjustment of speed on identical variable speed turntables. Bring the discs into synch by braking the LP that was leading by dragging a finger on the outside of the TT platter. Once the (hidden) person who does the adjusting hears that they are in synch, he enables the ABX comparison to proceed. We used the same basic means to time-synch CD players, except we used a variable high-precision clock. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: It's also unfounded, since I'm the only person in this conversation (probably the entire forum) that has ever done level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled evaluations of phono cartridges of various price levels and perceived quality levels. Could you describe how you time synch these tests? Precise adjustment of speed on identical variable speed turntables. Bring the discs into synch by braking the LP that was leading by dragging a finger on the outside of the TT platter. Once the (hidden) person who does the adjusting hears that they are in synch, he enables the ABX comparison to proceed. Do you remember what variable speed turntables were used? |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
"Jenn" wrote in message
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: It's also unfounded, since I'm the only person in this conversation (probably the entire forum) that has ever done level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled evaluations of phono cartridges of various price levels and perceived quality levels. Could you describe how you time synch these tests? Precise adjustment of speed on identical variable speed turntables. Bring the discs into synch by braking the LP that was leading by dragging a finger on the outside of the TT platter. Once the (hidden) person who does the adjusting hears that they are in synch, he enables the ABX comparison to proceed. Do you remember what variable speed turntables were used? TD 125 comes to mind. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:26:34 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: It's also unfounded, since I'm the only person in this conversation (probably the entire forum) that has ever done level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled evaluations of phono cartridges of various price levels and perceived quality levels. Could you describe how you time synch these tests? Precise adjustment of speed on identical variable speed turntables. Bring the discs into synch by braking the LP that was leading by dragging a finger on the outside of the TT platter. Once the (hidden) person who does the adjusting hears that they are in synch, he enables the ABX comparison to proceed. Do you remember what variable speed turntables were used? TD 125 comes to mind. With or without the lousy Thorens TP125 Arm? |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message Do you remember what variable speed turntables were used? TD 125 comes to mind. The VPI Synchronous Drive System is also highly adjustable. -- Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883 bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac] rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office] |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
"Robert Peirce" wrote in
message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message Do you remember what variable speed turntables were used? TD 125 comes to mind. The VPI Synchronous Drive System is also highly adjustable. In this day and age just about any turntable is adjustable. If it has got a synchronous motor, just set up a variable frequency power line source with about 10 watts of power available. |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:26:34 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: It's also unfounded, since I'm the only person in this conversation (probably the entire forum) that has ever done level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled evaluations of phono cartridges of various price levels and perceived quality levels. Could you describe how you time synch these tests? Precise adjustment of speed on identical variable speed turntables. Bring the discs into synch by braking the LP that was leading by dragging a finger on the outside of the TT platter. Once the (hidden) person who does the adjusting hears that they are in synch, he enables the ABX comparison to proceed. Do you remember what variable speed turntables were used? TD 125 comes to mind. With or without the lousy Thorens TP125 Arm? SME 3009, of course. ;-) Of course I know that today it is fashionable to bash both of these components. But in the day, they were arguably SOTA. Not only that, but they both measured well and sounded good. BTW, the whole ensemble ran me less than $150 via mail to APO addresses from a West German retailer who plied the Armed Forces trade. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:42:07 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:26:34 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: It's also unfounded, since I'm the only person in this conversation (probably the entire forum) that has ever done level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled evaluations of phono cartridges of various price levels and perceived quality levels. Could you describe how you time synch these tests? Precise adjustment of speed on identical variable speed turntables. Bring the discs into synch by braking the LP that was leading by dragging a finger on the outside of the TT platter. Once the (hidden) person who does the adjusting hears that they are in synch, he enables the ABX comparison to proceed. Do you remember what variable speed turntables were used? TD 125 comes to mind. With or without the lousy Thorens TP125 Arm? SME 3009, of course. ;-) That's better. At least the 3009 had decent bearings. Of course I know that today it is fashionable to bash both of these components. But in the day, they were arguably SOTA. Not only that, but they both measured well and sounded good. Thorens 'tables rang like a bell. Mine had little bass until I installed one of those heavy, 5 pound Naoka (SP?) turntable mats which consisted of a rubber compound mixed with ground-up lead. I had to re-adjust the turntable's suspension to keep the mat from pushing the platter down to where it touched the plinth, but the improvement in low frequency response was simply astounding! Before the mat the TD125 rendered the bass drum whacks on the Frederick Fennell Telarc recording of the Holst 'Suites for Military Band' as an anemic thwack. After the mat, they were rendered as a startling, loud, deep BANG just the way they sounded in the Soundstream demonstration room at the NYC AES Convention at the Waldorf Astoria several years earlier! There is a reason why the better 'tables these days have platters made out of more sonically "inert" materials (such as machined acrylics, MDF, etc) rather than cast, machined aluminum. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:42:07 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:26:34 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: It's also unfounded, since I'm the only person in this conversation (probably the entire forum) that has ever done level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled evaluations of phono cartridges of various price levels and perceived quality levels. Could you describe how you time synch these tests? Precise adjustment of speed on identical variable speed turntables. Bring the discs into synch by braking the LP that was leading by dragging a finger on the outside of the TT platter. Once the (hidden) person who does the adjusting hears that they are in synch, he enables the ABX comparison to proceed. Do you remember what variable speed turntables were used? TD 125 comes to mind. With or without the lousy Thorens TP125 Arm? SME 3009, of course. ;-) That's better. At least the 3009 had decent bearings. Of course I know that today it is fashionable to bash both of these components. But in the day, they were arguably SOTA. Not only that, but they both measured well and sounded good. Thorens 'tables rang like a bell. Mine had little bass until I installed one of those heavy, 5 pound Naoka (SP?) turntable mats which consisted of a rubber compound mixed with ground-up lead. I had to re-adjust the turntable's suspension to keep the mat from pushing the platter down to where it touched the plinth, but the improvement in low frequency response was simply astounding! Before the mat the TD125 rendered the bass drum whacks on the Frederick Fennell Telarc recording of the Holst 'Suites for Military Band' as an anemic thwack. After the mat, they were rendered as a startling, loud, deep BANG just the way they sounded in the Soundstream demonstration room at the NYC AES Convention at the Waldorf Astoria several years earlier! There is a reason why the better 'tables these days have platters made out of more sonically "inert" materials (such as machined acrylics, MDF, etc) rather than cast, machined aluminum. I had a Thorens 160 Super as a second TT back in the early '80's, an a Marcoff Glassmat made all the difference in the world, with much the same results. |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:42:07 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:26:34 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: It's also unfounded, since I'm the only person in this conversation (probably the entire forum) that has ever done level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled evaluations of phono cartridges of various price levels and perceived quality levels. Could you describe how you time synch these tests? Precise adjustment of speed on identical variable speed turntables. Bring the discs into synch by braking the LP that was leading by dragging a finger on the outside of the TT platter. Once the (hidden) person who does the adjusting hears that they are in synch, he enables the ABX comparison to proceed. Do you remember what variable speed turntables were used? TD 125 comes to mind. With or without the lousy Thorens TP125 Arm? SME 3009, of course. ;-) That's better. At least the 3009 had decent bearings. Of course I know that today it is fashionable to bash both of these components. But in the day, they were arguably SOTA. Not only that, but they both measured well and sounded good. Thorens 'tables rang like a bell. Only if you played the high end audio dealer game of removing the mat. If the resonance of the turntable makes a difference, then it would show up in some kind of objective test? I've done all sorts of measurements on turntables, and while the resonances that are described in the technical literature of the LP are there, many of the things that audiophiles have been *taught* to believe by high end marketing teams masquerading as high end audio ragazines, are not. There's a reason why almost nobody does technical tests on turntables - most of the things that people have been *taught* to pay the big bucks on are figments of someone's overheated and/or greedy imagination. There does happen to be an archive of objective and material for blind subjective tests of some very inexpensive turntables and one or two very expensive turntables on the web. Given how crappy much of what was tested is, one the better inexpensive turntables acquitted itself remarkably well. This shows once again that audiophiles have been getting sold a bill of goods. Actually, many bills of goods. Most of the technical problems with the LP format are on the disk, and giving it a golden throne to squat on does not make the bad smell go away. ;-) Mine had little bass until I installed one of those heavy, 5 pound Naoka (SP?) turntable mats which consisted of a rubber compound mixed with ground-up lead. Reliance on sighted evaluation noted. I had to re-adjust the turntable's suspension to keep the mat from pushing the platter down to where it touched the plinth, but the improvement in low frequency response was simply astounding! If that were true it would be measurable. Trust me, it most likely is not. The platter/arm substructure's resonance on the TD125 is already well below the audible range. You did change that, most likely. You changed it from doesn't matter to a slightly different doesn't matter. I tire of continually pointing out that the current audiophile lore of the LP is heavily dominated by unsubstantiated blather, unless you call "Tell an audiophile a bedtime story that he will drink it up like fine wine because he is totally unlettered, uneducated and has suspended rational disbelief anyway", substantiation. I don't! |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
I had a Thorens 160 Super as a second TT back in the early '80's, an a Marcoff Glassmat made all the difference in the world, with much the same results. The 160 was a cheap joke compared to the TD 125. However, again we see nothing but a sighted evauation by someone who invested in questionable pseudo-technology. FWIW, my Rega has a glass turntable, and without its mat, it rings like a big glass bowl. At least die cast turntables provide some eddy-current shielding for the motor's EM field. But, I just thought of a great tweak for my Rega. I have a big sheet of 1/16" steel. I think I will cut a circle out of it with my diamond saw, and punch a hole in the middle. Then I can fend of complaints of what it is said that Rega's do to Grado cartridges, one of which I commonly use. BTW, I took my own advice and scooped up on Amazon's $62 sale on Shure M97XEs. If Harry or Sonova were up to it, I would challenge them to a measurement/ABX comparison test with their choice of high end *treasures*. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
On Jun 28, 4:15*pm, Sonnova wrote:
That's better. At least the 3009 had decent bearings. Thorens 'tables rang like a bell. Mine had little bass until I installed one of those heavy, 5 pound Naoka (SP?) turntable mats which consisted of a rubber compound mixed with ground-up lead. I had to re-adjust the turntable's suspension to keep the mat from pushing the platter down to where it touched the plinth, but the improvement in low frequency response was simply astounding! Before the mat the TD125 rendered the bass drum whacks on the Frederick Fennell Telarc recording of *the Holst 'Suites for Military Band' as an anemic thwack. After the mat, they were rendered as a startling, loud, deep BANG just the way they sounded in the Soundstream demonstration room at the NYC AES Convention at the Waldorf Astoria several years earlier! *There is a reason why the better *'tables these days have platters made out of more sonically "inert" materials (such as machined acrylics, MDF, etc) rather than cast, machined aluminum.- Hide quoted text - I find this interesting and/or questionable. Perhaps it's the difference in listening environments or memory which contributed to the effects you describe. Today this very day I use the TD-125 with the original SME arm with detachable headshell. My cartridge is a Sumiko Andante FGV with the Fritz Gyger I stylus configuration. It resembles the Sumiko Pearls of today in output and shape. At 1.8 grams it tracks anything and everything including the Telarc 1812 cannons (first recording). I own both the LP and CD releases of the Holst Military Suites. Using a hybrid Magneplanar system comprised of Tympani IVa panels on the bottom end (powered by a Bryston 4B-SST) + a 3.6R on the top (powered by two Bryston 7B-STs) I hear no discernible difference in the bass drum between the LP and CD versions. Age and listening to loud music has taken its toll on my ability to hear upper frequencies, but I'm thinking that the bass drum comes across as it should. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 02:02:38 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... [quoted text deleted -- deb] Thorens 'tables rang like a bell. Mine had little bass until I installed one of those heavy, 5 pound Naoka (SP?) turntable mats which consisted of a rubber compound mixed with ground-up lead. I had to re-adjust the turntable's suspension to keep the mat from pushing the platter down to where it touched the plinth, but the improvement in low frequency response was simply astounding! Before the mat the TD125 rendered the bass drum whacks on the Frederick Fennell Telarc recording of the Holst 'Suites for Military Band' as an anemic thwack. After the mat, they were rendered as a startling, loud, deep BANG just the way they sounded in the Soundstream demonstration room at the NYC AES Convention at the Waldorf Astoria several years earlier! There is a reason why the better 'tables these days have platters made out of more sonically "inert" materials (such as machined acrylics, MDF, etc) rather than cast, machined aluminum. I had a Thorens 160 Super as a second TT back in the early '80's, an a Marcoff Glassmat made all the difference in the world, with much the same results. I often hear people say that the platter has no effect on the performance of a record player. That is totally wrong. Those who say that the mechanical impedance of the record and the platter together have a lot to do with the quality of the reproduction are quite correct. In my experience, every part of the turntable, the platter, the suspension, the motor and how well it's de-coupled from the platter, the platter bearing(s), arm bearings, arm tube construction and material, how the counterweight is decoupled from the arm tube, the rigidity of the head-shell, whether or not the head-shell is permanently attached or detachable, as well as how good a match, resonance-wise the chosen cartridge is to the arm being used, all contribute (or detract) from a turntable's overall performance and ability to elicit from a phonograph record all of the information that's embossed in those grooves. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
On Jun 29, 6:01*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:42:07 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:26:34 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Jenn" wrote in In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: It's also unfounded, since I'm the only person in this conversation (probably the entire forum) that has ever done level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled evaluations of phono cartridges of various price levels and perceived quality levels. Could you describe how you time synch these tests? Precise adjustment of speed on identical variable speed turntables. Bring the discs into synch by braking the LP that was leading by dragging a finger on the outside of the TT platter. Once the (hidden) person who does the adjusting hears that they are in synch, he enables the ABX comparison to proceed. Do you remember what variable speed turntables were used? TD 125 comes to mind. With or without the lousy Thorens *TP125 Arm? SME 3009, of course. ;-) That's better. At least the 3009 had decent bearings. Of course I know that today it is fashionable to bash both of these components. But in the day, they were arguably SOTA. Not only that, *but they both measured well and sounded good. Thorens 'tables rang like a bell. Only if you played the high end audio dealer game of removing the mat. If the resonance of the turntable makes a difference, then it would show up in some kind of objective test? Please show us the objective test results that prove your assertions that one needed to remove the mat to get bell like ringing. I've done all sorts of measurements on turntables, and while the resonances that are described in the technical literature of the LP are there, many of the things that audiophiles have been *taught* to believe by high end marketing teams masquerading as high end audio ragazines, are not. Then you should be able to cite the actual data from said objective tests and then corolate it to data from controlled listening tests. There's a reason why almost *nobody does technical tests on turntables - most of the things that people have been *taught* to pay the big bucks on are figments of someone's overheated and/or greedy imagination. Please show us the evidence that the reason almost nobody does technical measurements on turntables is because people have been taught to pay big bucks figments of someone's overheated imagination. There does happen to be an archive of objective and material for blind subjective tests of some very inexpensive turntables and one or two very expensive turntables on the web. Given how crappy much of what was tested is, one the better inexpensive turntables acquitted itself remarkably well. Link please. This *shows once again that audiophiles have been getting sold a bill of goods. Actually, many bills of goods. Most of the technical problems with the LP format are on the disk, and giving it a golden throne to squat on does not make the bad smell go away. ;-) Actually you have "shown" nothing but unsupported assertions. * Mine had little bass until I installed one of those heavy, 5 pound Naoka (SP?) turntable mats which consisted of a rubber compound mixed with ground-up lead. Reliance on sighted evaluation noted. Lack of any support of alleged control evaluation noted. Still waiting for the names of the alleged four figured cartridges that you tested. I had to re-adjust the turntable's suspension to keep the mat from pushing the platter down to where it touched the plinth, but the improvement in low frequency response was simply astounding! If that were true it would be measurable. Trust me, it most likely is not. Sorry I don't trust you on that one. Please show us the actual objective technical data to support your assertion. The platter/arm substructure's resonance on the TD125 is already well below the audible range. You did change that, *most likely. You changed it from doesn't matter to a slightly different doesn't matter. Please show us the actual measurements and the corolated controlled listening tests that support this assertion. I tire of continually pointing out that the current audiophile lore of the LP is heavily dominated by unsubstantiated blather, unless you call "Tell an audiophile a bedtime story that he will drink it up like fine wine because he is totally unlettered, uneducated and has suspended rational disbelief anyway", substantiation. I don't! Then lets see you substantiate *your* assertions and differentiate them from the very blather you claim to tire of. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message I had a Thorens 160 Super as a second TT back in the early '80's, an a Marcoff Glassmat made all the difference in the world, with much the same results. The 160 was a cheap joke compared to the TD 125. However, again we see nothing but a sighted evauation by someone who invested in questionable pseudo-technology. FWIW, my Rega has a glass turntable, and without its mat, it rings like a big glass bowl. At least die cast turntables provide some eddy-current shielding for the motor's EM field. But, I just thought of a great tweak for my Rega. I have a big sheet of 1/16" steel. I think I will cut a circle out of it with my diamond saw, and punch a hole in the middle. Then I can fend of complaints of what it is said that Rega's do to Grado cartridges, one of which I commonly use. BTW, I took my own advice and scooped up on Amazon's $62 sale on Shure M97XEs. If Harry or Sonova were up to it, I would challenge them to a measurement/ABX comparison test with their choice of high end *treasures*. The TD160 Super was quite different sonically from an ordinary 160, which I agree was "ordinary". And the Glassmat was not just glass, but glass damped by felt and specifically designed to dampen the ringing of Thorens turntables. It helps if you know what you are talking about, Arny. |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
On Jun 29, 9:01*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
There does happen to be an archive of objective and material for blind subjective tests of some very inexpensive turntables and one or two very expensive turntables on the web. Could we get a link? bob |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
"Scott" wrote in message
Please show us the objective test results that prove your assertions that one needed to remove the mat to get bell like ringing. I'll do that as soon as you provide me with a TD125. |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
The TD160 Super was quite different sonically from an ordinary 160, which I agree was "ordinary". Please provide evidence for that claim that is obtained by reliable, unbiased means. And the Glassmat was not just glass, but glass damped by felt and specifically designed to dampen the ringing of Thorens turntables. Please provide evidence for that claim that is obtained by reliable, unbiased means. |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
"bob" wrote in message
On Jun 29, 9:01 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: There does happen to be an archive of objective and material for blind subjective tests of some very inexpensive turntables and one or two very expensive turntables on the web. Could we get a link? Cheap turntable tests: http://www.knowzy.com/usb-turntable-samples.htm Expensive turntable tests: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/compo...7.html?start=1 |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
On Jun 29, 7:17*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message Please show us the objective test results that prove your assertions that one needed to remove the mat to get bell like ringing. I'll do that as soon as you provide me with a TD125. I thought you said you already did all these objective measurements and controlled listening tests. |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "bob" wrote in message On Jun 29, 9:01 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: There does happen to be an archive of objective and material for blind subjective tests of some very inexpensive turntables and one or two very expensive turntables on the web. Could we get a link? Cheap turntable tests: http://www.knowzy.com/usb-turntable-samples.htm The link won't open/doesn't exist on my computer...and why would a test of USB turntables be relevant to a high-end newsgroup anyway? Expensive turntable tests: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/compo...7.html?start=1 This is a test of cd vs lp distortion....it has nothing to say of the differences between turntables. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
"Scott" wrote in message
On Jun 29, 7:17 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Scott" wrote in message Please show us the objective test results that prove your assertions that one needed to remove the mat to get bell like ringing. I'll do that as soon as you provide me with a TD125. I thought you said you already did all these objective measurements and controlled listening tests. Yup, and that was some time ago. Since then I sold my TD125, which is why I bought that Rega a few years back. If I were to do LP-related comparisons today, I'd just compare needle drops. |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
On Jun 30, 2:07*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"bob" wrote in message On Jun 29, 9:01 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: There does happen to be an archive of objective and material for blind subjective tests of some very inexpensive turntables and one or two very expensive turntables on the web. Could we get a link? Cheap turntable tests: http://www.knowzy.com/usb-turntable-samples.htm There are no tests there that I can see. There are samples, Samples that have virtually no relevance to your assertions about vinyl playback sound quality much less any corolation with sound quality to objective measurements. IOW it is a link to nothing relevant much less supportive of you many assertions. Expensive turntable tests: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/compo...e/427.html?sta... Once again this completely lacks the very things you demand from others, that being time synced, level matched bias controlled listening tests. The objective technical measurements do not address resonant frequenies of the platters of the tables being tested. You have made many assertions about the reletive sonic merits of high end cartridges and the Shure. You have made many assertions about high end turntable design being based in figments of audiophile imagination. You claimed that you did propper bias controlled listening tests and objective technical measurements to substantiate all these assertions. All you offer is other peoples' irrelevant data. |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:12:01 -0700, Norman Schwartz wrote
(in article ): On Jun 28, 4:15*pm, Sonnova wrote: That's better. At least the 3009 had decent bearings. Thorens 'tables rang like a bell. Mine had little bass until I installed one of those heavy, 5 pound Naoka (SP?) turntable mats which consisted of a rubber compound mixed with ground-up lead. I had to re-adjust the turntable's suspension to keep the mat from pushing the platter down to where it touched the plinth, but the improvement in low frequency response was simply astounding! Before the mat the TD125 rendered the bass drum whacks on the Frederick Fennell Telarc recording of *the Holst 'Suites for Military Band' as an anemic thwack. After the mat, they were rendered as a startling, loud, deep BANG just the way they sounded in the Soundstream demonstration room at the NYC AES Convention at the Waldorf Astoria several years earlier! *There is a reason why the better *'tables these days have platters made out of more sonically "inert" materials (such as machined acrylics, MDF, etc) rather than cast, machined aluminum.- Hide quoted text - I find this interesting and/or questionable. Perhaps it's the difference in listening environments or memory which contributed to the effects you describe. Today this very day I use the TD-125 with the original SME arm with detachable headshell. My cartridge is a Sumiko Andante FGV with the Fritz Gyger I stylus configuration. It resembles the Sumiko Pearls of today in output and shape. At 1.8 grams it tracks anything and everything including the Telarc 1812 cannons (first recording). I own both the LP and CD releases of the Holst Military Suites. Using a hybrid Magneplanar system comprised of Tympani IVa panels on the bottom end (powered by a Bryston 4B-SST) + a 3.6R on the top (powered by two Bryston 7B-STs) I hear no discernible difference in the bass drum between the LP and CD versions. Age and listening to loud music has taken its toll on my ability to hear upper frequencies, but I'm thinking that the bass drum comes across as it should. First of all, my memory is working better today than it did yesterday, and the company which made the mat was Nagaoka, not Naoka. I performed measurements using a test record and a Hewlett-Packard model 400 audio voltmeter. Starting at a 30 Hz and ascending to 100 Hz, I plotted the output of my preamp at each frequency band up to 100 Hz both with the Thorens mat fitted and then with the Nagaoka mat fitted. Without the Nagaoka mat the, response fell off below 100Hz and was down about 6dB at 30 Hz. With the Nagaoka mat fitted, the response below 100 Hz was practically flat with just shy of a 1dB lift at 30 Hz. It's been many years but I recall that the test record was an Emory Cook test record originally from the early '60's, which, at the time (mid '80's), was being sold by Radio Shack undr their "Realistic" trade name. IIRC, the Shure test record did not have a banded frequency response "sweep" and neither did the then popular Orion test record (which I still have). The arm I used at the time was an Infinity "Black Widow" and the cartridge was a Signet TK7E. BTW, today, I use a JA Michelle Gyro SE turntable (with no mat of any kind -just a record clamp) fitted with an AudioQuest PT-9 tone arm and, at the moment, a Grado Reference Master cartridge. I still have the Frederick Fennel recording of the Holst "Military Suites" album. Also, I have the CD of the same performance. The record has mighty bass drum whacks that one can actually feel, but on the CD, they are quite attenuated, anemic, actually. I originally heard these two pieces played back from a Soundstream recorder into a pair of large Westlake monitor speakers in a special listening room set up at the AES convention at the Waldorf Astoria in NYC either in 1979 or 1980 ( I forget which). The bass on the record (played back on a well designed table) sounds much more like the digital master (or a copy of same) that I heard at that AES convention than does the CD on any player or any outboard D/A converter that I have ever played it through. I'm convinced that this is another instance where the vinyl record definitely has it over the CD. Other examples of this phenomenon are the Classic Records single-sided 45 RPM release of the Mercury recording of Stravinsky's Firebird vs the latest CD release of the same title, or the the original RCA Red Seal pressing of "Also Sprach Zarathustra" With Reiner and the Chicago Symphony vs the latest BMG SACD pressing. I might add, with regard to the latter example, that RCA has re-issued this performance many times under many different guises as both LPs (Victrola, RCA Gold Seal) and CDs (under the RCA label in the late eighties, the "Red Seal" label in the 'nineties, and as an SACD Red Seal in the 2000's.) None of these later releases, either vinyl or CD reproduces that opening sustained low C , 32' pitch, on the double basses, contrabassoon and organ like the original LP pressing played on a well designed and well adjusted turntable! |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "bob" wrote in message On Jun 29, 9:01 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: There does happen to be an archive of objective and material for blind subjective tests of some very inexpensive turntables and one or two very expensive turntables on the web. Could we get a link? Cheap turntable tests: http://www.knowzy.com/usb-turntable-samples.htm The link won't open/doesn't exist on my computer. You apparently need some onsite service for your computer. I just double-checked the link and it opens as expected. ..and why would a test of USB turntables be relevant to a high-end newsgroup anyway? Help educate people to understand what new technology has wrought? Expensive turntable tests: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/compo...7.html?start=1 This is a test of cd vs lp distortion....it has nothing to say of the differences between turntables. The intent might be that you compare the USB turntable performance with that of a high end turntable. One problem is that needle drops from high end turntables seem to be hard to find. Apparently, it requires expertise that some people don't have. |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on phono cartridges......
"Scott" wrote in message
On Jun 30, 2:07 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "bob" wrote in message On Jun 29, 9:01 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: There does happen to be an archive of objective and material for blind subjective tests of some very inexpensive turntables and one or two very expensive turntables on the web. Could we get a link? Cheap turntable tests: http://www.knowzy.com/usb-turntable-samples.htm There are no tests there that I can see. There are samples, Samples that have virtually no relevance to your assertions about vinyl playback sound quality much less any corolation with sound quality to objective measurements. IOW it is a link to nothing relevant much less supportive of you many assertions. I guess you didn't notice the reference samples taken from CDs. Expensive turntable tests: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/compo...e/427.html?sta... Once again this completely lacks the very things you demand from others, that being time synced, level matched bias controlled listening tests. Right, they are technical tests, which support my claims about the fact that no way can an expensive turntable provide vinyl playback that is even within an order of magnitude as clean as digital can. It's not my fault that high end turntable owners lack the wherewithall that it takes to post relevant samples. It is surely not up to me to waste my money like they did. The objective technical measurements do not address resonant frequenies of the platters of the tables being tested. You don't need expensive turntables to make that point. You have made many assertions about the reletive sonic merits of high end cartridges and the Shure. Prove me wrong. You have made many assertions about high end turntable design being based in figments of audiophile imagination. That's apparent to anybody with a little bit of knowlege about mechanical engineering. You claimed that you did propper bias controlled listening tests and objective technical measurements to substantiate all these assertions. Yes I did, but much of that information has never been placed on the web. All you offer is other peoples' irrelevant data. Wrong again. I'm not responsible for other people's inability to interpret relevant technical data, or do their homework for them. You've got a turntable, a PC asnd all of the resources to do your own tests, don't you? |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Opinions about phono cartridges...... | General | |||
What to do with old phono cartridges? | Tech | |||
WTB:USED MOVING COIL PHONO CARTRIDGES< TONEARMS | Marketplace | |||
Audioquest Phono Cartridges | High End Audio |