"Max Metral" wrote in message

So I think I bought this Thorens 125:


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ategory=32 83

After the 33/45 switching problems of my 160 and the lack of built in
strobe I thought it would be good to get a 125 instead for my
transcription work. Anybody have any recommendations for what I
should change on this 125? Looks like it could use a new cartridge.
Previously folks have recommended the Grado DJ-100 and the
Audio-Technica AT-440. Same recommendations for this arm (which I
don't yet know what it is)?

My TD-125 (may it r.i.p) had a SME 3009II and a Sure V-15II & IV. I think
I'd still prefer that combination over the Sony arm and any cartridge you've
mentioned so far.

My TD-125 (may it r.i.p) had a SME 3009II and a Sure V-15II & IV. I think
I'd still prefer that combination over the Sony arm and any cartridge you've
mentioned so far.

I'd suggest the V-15VxMR. For serious transcription work, though, use it with
the brush/stabilizer retracted, as the brush tends to play the record and add
noise to the background. You need to adjust the tracking force if you do this,
of course, and you lose the damping of the low-frequency resonance, but you
also lose a lot of muddle, audible during quiet passages and between cuts.

For an arm, since you probably won't be changing cartridges much, go for
something with a non-detachable headshell. More rigid.

Peace,
Paul

"Max Metral" wrote:

So I think I bought this Thorens 125:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ategory=32 83

After the 33/45 switching problems of my 160 and the lack of built in strobe
I thought it would be good to get a 125 instead for my transcription work.
Anybody have any recommendations for what I should change on this 125?
Looks like it could use a new cartridge. Previously folks have recommended
the Grado DJ-100 and the Audio-Technica AT-440. Same recommendations for
this arm (which I don't yet know what it is)?

Thanks all, and especially Scott D who always responds.
--Max


I thought the Stanton 681 EEE sounded pretty good on mine.

"Max Metral" wrote in message ...
So I think I bought this Thorens 125:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ategory=32 83

After the 33/45 switching problems of my 160 and the lack of built in strobe
I thought it would be good to get a 125 instead for my transcription work.
Anybody have any recommendations for what I should change on this 125?
Looks like it could use a new cartridge. Previously folks have recommended
the Grado DJ-100 and the Audio-Technica AT-440. Same recommendations for
this arm (which I don't yet know what it is)?

Thanks all, and especially Scott D who always responds.
--Max

Are you sure you have this ?It sez "reseve not met".

Steve Lane

i love the grado sound, and once you get into the wood body ones, the highs,
while "relaxed" compared to some cartridges, are certainly there and pleasant.
It's a sound though, very much like a cartdige I hate ; The Blue Point Special
is a sound. If i were doing transcription work for 33's I'd also probably
reccomend the shure because it's such a good tracker and fairly neutral. The AT
is good too. I have never found the stanton to be as good as either the AT or
the shure to my ears.


P h i l i p

______________________________

"I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa"

- Dorothy Parker

Fill X wrote:
i love the grado sound, and once you get into the wood body ones, the highs,
while "relaxed" compared to some cartridges, are certainly there and pleasant.

A lot of people who don't like the "Grado sound" don't like it because all
they have heard are Grados that are close tooscillating out of control.
The Grados on the wrong arm will sound just godawful. The DJ-100 is a bit
less touchy than most but still very touchy.

It's a sound though, very much like a cartdige I hate ; The Blue Point Special
is a sound.

The Blue Point is very, very dry and very etched on the top end. When it
was a $99 cartridge that could easily be modified for a cleaner top end,
it was a great deal and I'd recommend it for a lot of work. Now that it
costs a bloody fortune and the body has been altered to make 'nuding' it more
difficult, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

If i were doing transcription work for 33's I'd also probably
reccomend the shure because it's such a good tracker and fairly neutral. The AT
is good too.

The V-15VMR is a great cartridge, but because it's a fineline stylus it needs
to be on an arm with adjustable VTA. It tracks amazingly well, though.

The AT 440 tracks as well as the V-15, with a little harsher top end, for
a lot less money. It's a great deal for a cartridge that does very well on
old worn records. It also is a fineline, so it also needs an arm with
adjustable VTA.

I have never found the stanton to be as good as either the AT or
the shure to my ears.

The Stantons have very poor top end response and really lousy separation.
They don't track worn records very well. However, they have a huge variety
of weird styli available for them, and so they are a great choice for working
with 78s where the separation is a non-issue.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:59:12 -0700, James Boyk
wrote:

I don't know the arm in the picture--is it an Audio-Technica?--but it
looks quite high-mass. You may find that only a moving-coil cartridge
has low enough compliance to put the resonant freq. in the right range.

Sony PUA-237. Comparable to its contemporary SME 3009. Medium to
medium-low mass. I can look it up tonight.

Kal

hey, scott and I agree. I must be learning something!



Fill X wrote:
i love the grado sound, and once you get into the wood body ones, the highs,
while "relaxed" compared to some cartridges, are certainly there and
pleasant.

A lot of people who don't like the "Grado sound" don't like it because all
they have heard are Grados that are close tooscillating out of control.
The Grados on the wrong arm will sound just godawful. The DJ-100 is a bit
less touchy than most but still very touchy.

It's a sound though, very much like a cartdige I hate ; The Blue Point
Special
is a sound.

The Blue Point is very, very dry and very etched on the top end. When it
was a $99 cartridge that could easily be modified for a cleaner top end,
it was a great deal and I'd recommend it for a lot of work. Now that it
costs a bloody fortune and the body has been altered to make 'nuding' it more
difficult, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

If i were doing transcription work for 33's I'd also probably
reccomend the shure because it's such a good tracker and fairly neutral. The
AT
is good too.

The V-15VMR is a great cartridge, but because it's a fineline stylus it needs
to be on an arm with adjustable VTA. It tracks amazingly well, though.

The AT 440 tracks as well as the V-15, with a little harsher top end, for
a lot less money. It's a great deal for a cartridge that does very well on
old worn records. It also is a fineline, so it also needs an arm with
adjustable VTA.

I have never found the stanton to be as good as either the AT or
the shure to my ears.

The Stantons have very poor top end response and really lousy separation.
They don't track worn records very well. However, they have a huge variety
of weird styli available for them, and so they are a great choice for working
with 78s where the separation is a non-issue.
--scott




P h i l i p

______________________________

"I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa"

- Dorothy Parker

The Hi fi news review test record has a number of good anti-skating and arm
resonance tests, as well as tones in and out of phase etc. It's the best of the
currently available ones, I think.


P h i l i p

______________________________

"I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa"

- Dorothy Parker

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 18:13:44 GMT, Techmeister
wrote:

UGH!

NEVER use the Stanton on any critical disk. I have mastered for years, back to
learning at Bob Ludwig's side in NY. The Stanton is a DJ cartridge, way too stiff.
If it cannot track a passage, it literally REGROOVES it!

Are you kidding? Perhaps other Stanton's are DJ cartidges but the
681EEE is decidedly not! It is a high quality, high compliance
pickup.

I trashed a number of test pressing with one before I realized how bad it was.

Again, another model or defective.

Kal

While the Stanton 681EEE is not nearly as brutal on a record as the 680EL &
etc., it's still a dreadful sounding cartridge, to my ears, at least. Top
end is not even remotely close to as smooth & detailed as the Shure, and
overall very unmusical. I'll take a well used V15-II over the Stanton.
And I have heard the best & worst Grados on very properly setup & appropiate
arms, and I still think they suck.

--
Stephen Sank, Owner & Ribbon Mic Restorer
Talking Dog Transducer Company
http://stephensank.com
5517 Carmelita Drive N.E.
Albuquerque, New Mexico [87111]
505-332-0336
Auth. Nakamichi & McIntosh servicer
Payments preferred through Paypal.com
"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 18:13:44 GMT, Techmeister
wrote:

UGH!

NEVER use the Stanton on any critical disk. I have mastered for years,
back to
learning at Bob Ludwig's side in NY. The Stanton is a DJ cartridge, way
too stiff.
If it cannot track a passage, it literally REGROOVES it!

Are you kidding? Perhaps other Stanton's are DJ cartidges but the
681EEE is decidedly not! It is a high quality, high compliance
pickup.

I trashed a number of test pressing with one before I realized how bad it
was.

Again, another model or defective.

Kal

Yeah, it is spec'd as a regular cartridge but they don't track worth a damn. the
spec may say high compliance, but i have heard them shred grooves more than once.

Trust me, I have only been doing this since 1969. You will not find ANY MAstering
Engineer that has used these for decades.

Listen to a Grado or an AKG or similar cartridge, you will NEVER use a Stanton again.

In article ,
Kalman Rubinson wrote:

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 18:13:44 GMT, Techmeister
wrote:

UGH!

NEVER use the Stanton on any critical disk. I have mastered for years, back
to
learning at Bob Ludwig's side in NY. The Stanton is a DJ cartridge, way too
stiff.
If it cannot track a passage, it literally REGROOVES it!

Are you kidding? Perhaps other Stanton's are DJ cartidges but the
681EEE is decidedly not! It is a high quality, high compliance
pickup.

I trashed a number of test pressing with one before I realized how bad it
was.

Again, another model or defective.

Kal


--
David 'db' Butler, Consultant
Acoustics by db
"...all the rest are just brokers"
now on the web at http://www.db-engineering.com
Boston, Mass
Phone 617 969-0585 Fax 617 964-1590

Well, we agree on the Stantons. I am surprised to see you have such a bad impression
of the Grado, given that you like the Shure.

have you ever heard any of the AKG cartridges ?

David

In article , "Stephen Sank"
wrote:

While the Stanton 681EEE is not nearly as brutal on a record as the 680EL &
etc., it's still a dreadful sounding cartridge, to my ears, at least. Top
end is not even remotely close to as smooth & detailed as the Shure, and
overall very unmusical. I'll take a well used V15-II over the Stanton.
And I have heard the best & worst Grados on very properly setup & appropiate
arms, and I still think they suck.

--
Stephen Sank, Owner & Ribbon Mic Restorer
Talking Dog Transducer Company
http://stephensank.com
5517 Carmelita Drive N.E.
Albuquerque, New Mexico [87111]
505-332-0336
Auth. Nakamichi & McIntosh servicer
Payments preferred through Paypal.com
"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 18:13:44 GMT, Techmeister
wrote:

UGH!

NEVER use the Stanton on any critical disk. I have mastered for years,
back to
learning at Bob Ludwig's side in NY. The Stanton is a DJ cartridge, way
too stiff.
If it cannot track a passage, it literally REGROOVES it!

Are you kidding? Perhaps other Stanton's are DJ cartidges but the
681EEE is decidedly not! It is a high quality, high compliance
pickup.

I trashed a number of test pressing with one before I realized how bad it
was.

Again, another model or defective.

Kal




--
David 'db' Butler, Consultant
Acoustics by db
"...all the rest are just brokers"
now on the web at http://www.db-engineering.com
Boston, Mass
Phone 617 969-0585 Fax 617 964-1590

Looked up the manual for the Sony PUA-237. Unfortunately, Sony only
quotes vertical and lateral resonances (9, 11Hz, respectively) with
their own VC-8E cartridge and I do not know mass/compliance for that
one.

Kal

No, I've never listened to an AKG cart. I think I have an old one around
here, maybe a model 520, or that's the number that comes to mind.

--
Stephen Sank, Owner & Ribbon Mic Restorer
Talking Dog Transducer Company
http://stephensank.com
5517 Carmelita Drive N.E.
Albuquerque, New Mexico [87111]
505-332-0336
Auth. Nakamichi & McIntosh servicer
Payments preferred through Paypal.com
"Techmeister" wrote in message
...
Well, we agree on the Stantons. I am surprised to see you have such a bad
impression
of the Grado, given that you like the Shure.

have you ever heard any of the AKG cartridges ?

David

In article , "Stephen Sank"

wrote:

While the Stanton 681EEE is not nearly as brutal on a record as the
680EL &
etc., it's still a dreadful sounding cartridge, to my ears, at least.
Top
end is not even remotely close to as smooth & detailed as the Shure, and
overall very unmusical. I'll take a well used V15-II over the Stanton.
And I have heard the best & worst Grados on very properly setup &
appropiate
arms, and I still think they suck.

--
Stephen Sank, Owner & Ribbon Mic Restorer
Talking Dog Transducer Company
http://stephensank.com
5517 Carmelita Drive N.E.
Albuquerque, New Mexico [87111]
505-332-0336
Auth. Nakamichi & McIntosh servicer
Payments preferred through Paypal.com
"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 18:13:44 GMT, Techmeister
wrote:

UGH!

NEVER use the Stanton on any critical disk. I have mastered for
years,
back to
learning at Bob Ludwig's side in NY. The Stanton is a DJ cartridge,
way
too stiff.
If it cannot track a passage, it literally REGROOVES it!

Are you kidding? Perhaps other Stanton's are DJ cartidges but the
681EEE is decidedly not! It is a high quality, high compliance
pickup.

I trashed a number of test pressing with one before I realized how
bad it
was.

Again, another model or defective.

Kal




--
David 'db' Butler, Consultant
Acoustics by db
"...all the rest are just brokers"
now on the web at http://www.db-engineering.com
Boston, Mass
Phone 617 969-0585 Fax 617 964-1590

Techmeister wrote:
Trust me, I have only been doing this since 1969. You will not find ANY MAstering
Engineer that has used these for decades.

Actually, I have one rigged on the arm on my lathe, because I consider it
a good way to judge trackability. If it'll play on a 681, it'll play on
typical consumer gear.

I know other folks who use M44s for the same thing, and one guy who had
some horrible ceramic jukebox thing.

Listen to a Grado or an AKG or similar cartridge, you will NEVER use a Stanton again.

Unfortunately there are very limited 78 styli for these. When you want
a 3.8 mil, or a ball stylus, or you need to play a stamper, the 681EEE
is sometimes the only thing you can get a stylus for.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Techmeister wrote: ...You will not find ANY MAstering Engineer that has
used these for decades.

I've known cutting engineers use them as a reference for tracking
ability; meaning, not that they have the best ability, but that their
ability is what one can expect to find in the hands of consumers. If the
test pressing can't be tracked by a 681EEE, they recut. (One has to have
*some* reference. We can't assume everyone has a V15-V/MR. But if they
did, wouldn't it be nice: you could up the cutting level by several dB!
The cutting engineer's estimate of the tracking ability of the
customer's cartridge defines, as I understand it, the upper end of the
dynamic level.

By the way, at least *some* records can't be tracked because they're
mis-cut. I remember a detailed paper put out by Ortofon showing grooves
that went backwards in a famous audiophile Lp. Yes, I know this is
"impossible"; but it happened.


Listen to a Grado or an AKG or similar cartridge, you will NEVER use a Stanton again.

Any Stanton? No one mentions the 881S, which is a superb cartridge. I've
heard one playing back a "blown" lacquer in a direct-disk session
moments after I heard the live feed. We were goggle-eyed at how close
the reproduction was to the mike feed!

James Boyk

James Boyk wrote:
By the way, at least *some* records can't be tracked because they're
mis-cut. I remember a detailed paper put out by Ortofon showing grooves
that went backwards in a famous audiophile Lp. Yes, I know this is
"impossible"; but it happened.

It's possible and it's caused by the stylus moving in some plane other
than the one along the radius of the disc.

This can be because the azimuth of the cutting head isn't correct, or
if the cutting head has some parasitic forward-back movement due to
being badly worn out.

Any Stanton? No one mentions the 881S, which is a superb cartridge. I've
heard one playing back a "blown" lacquer in a direct-disk session
moments after I heard the live feed. We were goggle-eyed at how close
the reproduction was to the mike feed!

You know, I have never used the 881. But for that price, you can get
an entry-level moving coil.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:...I have never used the 881. But for that price,
you can get an entry-level moving coil.

Well, in theory there can't be any inherent superiority of moving-coils;
for that would violate Special Relativity. Presumably the idea about
their being better was due to two things: lower effective tip mass and
greater integrity of the geometrical relationship between coil and
magnet, due to the stylus assembly being integral to the cartridge. But
modern moving-magnet types can have very low tip masses--whether as low
as the lowest moving coils, I don't know--and at least some m-c units
have replaceable styli.

But, I confess, I've never been a big customer of the moving-coil hype.
Historically, so few of them have been tonally neutral; whereas when you
have a really fine m-m unit and have terminated it carefully, you can
get extreme neutrality.

I'm sure that m-c's exist that are superlative; and it wouldn't surprise
me if the world's best cartridge were a moving-coil----but I haven't
heard it. Of course, as "everybody" "knows," the Lp was such a faulty
medium that one should pay no attention to it. The mere fact that it's
the finest medium yet devised for capturing and archiving musical sound
MUST not sway our judgment!

James Boyk

On 31 Jul 2003 20:42:44 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

But for that price, you can get an entry-level moving coil.

Which is my entre to recommend the Denon DL-160, less than
$200 new, very affordable to "retip" (actually exchange),
output comparable to Shures and Stantons, low stray fields,
beautiful tip shape and alignment, step-tapered cantilever.

Tracking is excellent at 1.6 grams and exceptional at 1.75,
still below the Young's modulus. Perceived surface noise
is lower than any Shure or Stanton.

And like any good dynamic cartridge, distortion is low.
Try it; you'll like it.


Chris Hornbeck,
guyville{at}aristotle{dot}net
question Authority

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
the Denon DL-160.... Perceived surface noise is lower than any Shure or Stanton.

This has to do w/ stylus profile, or what? (I hope it's not from rolloff
of frequency response!)

James Boyk

Techmeister wrote:

Trust me

Why?

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

But, I confess, I've never been a big customer of the moving-coil hype.
Historically, so few of them have been tonally neutral; whereas when you
have a really fine m-m unit and have terminated it carefully, you can
get extreme neutrality.

well, once you get into the high end MC's you can get a lot of detail, maybe
it's hyped maybe it's not. Something like a Koetsu tends a certain kind of
romantic sound on purpose. I find it appealing but I don;t know if I'd call it
neutral. My Lyra Helikon SL, on the other hand, is pretty strong in my system
in all respects. It doesnt track as well as a new v15 but it has a lot more
detail without sounding overly puffed up in any one frequency range. Turntables
are all about syncronicity between table, arm cartridge and phono stage so I
think a lot of our experiences don't translate.


P h i l i p

______________________________

"I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa"

- Dorothy Parker

"Max Metral" wrote in message ...
So I think I bought this Thorens 125:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ategory=32 83

After the 33/45 switching problems of my 160 and the lack of built in strobe
I thought it would be good to get a 125 instead for my transcription work.
Anybody have any recommendations for what I should change on this 125?
Looks like it could use a new cartridge. Previously folks have recommended
the Grado DJ-100 and the Audio-Technica AT-440. Same recommendations for
this arm (which I don't yet know what it is)?

Thanks all, and especially Scott D who always responds.
--Max

The stock arm on the 125 is best suited to high compliance carts, so
the Grados are not the best choice. I'd be inclined to try some of the
'best buy' MM carts in your Thorens. A Nagoka MP-55, Rega Elys or if
you can find one, a Shure Ultra 400. The Grados need a ton of tonearm
so work right, so unless you have a super table with a Fidelity
Research arm on it and like cheap carts, there are better things than
the Grado out there.

And I agree with the other posters - what is up with the Blue Point?
It used to be a good cheap cart. Now over $200? That puts it in range
of a Signet OC9.

-Skunkie

Sorry; I can't understand what you're saying. What reason are you
putting forward for the lower subjective surface noise? Or are you
simply presenting it as an observation? The tip-mass resonance of the
Stanton 881S, if I remember correctly, is above 20kHz, by the way.

Remember Special Relativity, folks: if there's a difference between m-c
and m-m -- and there may be -- it's *not* inherent!

James Boyk

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:16:24 -0700, James Boyk
wrote:

Sorry; I can't understand what you're saying. What reason are you
putting forward for the lower subjective surface noise? Or are you
simply presenting it as an observation?

Yes. I'd have to know a lot more about the subject than I do
to make any causal connection. That way lies madness.

Remember Special Relativity, folks: if there's a difference between m-c
and m-m -- and there may be -- it's *not* inherent!

Sure it is. So-called "moving magnet" generators aren't. They're
variable reluctance, which is only very approximately linear.
Wonder why you never see any other transducers made that way,
that's why.

They're also a large inductive source impedance; not a fatal
flaw, but not ideal. Flat frequency response must be approximated
by balancing the rolloff from the inductive source with the
low-Q resonance of the source L and load C and R.

In contrast, dynamic ("moving coil") generators have a low flat-ish
source impedance that doesn't interact with loading or add another
resonance.

BTW, this second difference can be removed by loading the higher
Z cartridge with a suitably low resistive load. Usually a value
on the coupla-K ohm range will provide the RIAA 75uS pole. Removes
a *lot* of the generic differences, but not all.

Chris Hornbeck,
guyville{at}aristotle{dot}net
question Authority

James Boyk wrote: Sorry; I can't understand what you're saying. What
reason are you
putting forward for the lower subjective surface noise? Or are you
simply presenting it as an observation?

Chris Hornbeck wrote: Yes. I'd have to know a lot more about the subject
than I do
to make any causal connection. That way lies madness.

Gosh, you seemed to put it forth as an absolute truth; now it's
down-rated to... what? An observation about one particular m-c cartridge?


Remember Special Relativity, folks: if there's a difference
between m-c and m-m -- and there may be -- it's *not* inherent!

Sure it is.

An inherent difference between "coil stationary and magnet moving" and
"magnet stationary and coil moving" would violate Special Relativity.

Are you really asserting that all m-m units are variable reluctance?

James Boyk

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:16:24 -0700, James Boyk
wrote:

Sorry; I can't understand what you're saying. What reason are you
putting forward for the lower subjective surface noise? Or are you
simply presenting it as an observation?

Yes. I'd have to know a lot more about the subject than I do
to make any causal connection.

Lower LP surface noise absent some kind of high frequency dip or rolloff
generally comes from smooth, balanced response (ideally both, since smooth
but tipped-up is a possiblity and not good) and a stylus that stays out of
the dirty and damaged parts of the groove, and/or does a better job of
averaging the groove wall vertically, and/or does a better job of
effectively smoothing out the groove wall.

The benefits of smoothing and averaging the walls of the groove were
demonstrated by the ELP laser pickup. It did neither, and is often
recommended without digital noise reduction following it.

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

One working theory is that the lower the effective tip mass, the
higher the frequency of the tip mass/ vinyl compliance resonance.
A good nude-mounted diamond and low-mass cantilever, even with
the effective vinyl compliance associated with an elliptical
stylus, can have a resonant frequency above 20KHz. Cantilever
resonances can occur as low as the audible range, but not in
any cartridges we're discussing. So frequency response is pretty
flat. Can't hurt.

Line contact styli push the e.t.m./v.c. resonant frequency up as
much as an octave, which should be even better. What gives?
Linearity, maybe. Lower distortion may allow the listener to
mentally separate noise and signal.

Line contact styli are a huge win for me for transcription work, because
they track worn records much better than styli with more contact area.
So measured distortion on a square wave test may be higher, but the actual
distortion on a typical pressing is lower because of the reduced tracking
error.

An interesting topic, but I hesitate to extrapolate too far from
personal experience. Probably best just to try one; they're
common and cheap enough.

I have not tried any of the current Denons at all. I probably should.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 09:28:22 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The benefits of smoothing and averaging the walls of the groove were
demonstrated by the ELP laser pickup. It did neither, and is often
recommended without digital noise reduction following it.

I've also heard that the most difficult part of bringing one
to market was the noise reduction *built into* the player.
Cleanliness at this level is really, really close to
Godliness.

For discussion: the walls of the groove may not actually
contain the right information. Cutting and conventional
playing both involve large plastic deformations, implying
that information is stored in a more distributed way
deeper into the media.

Sounds fuzzy, I know, but it ties into ideas of long-term
memory in the media, easily observable, and the bumblebee
impossibility of the whole enterprise.



Chris Hornbeck,
guyville{at}aristotle{dot}net
question Authority

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 09:28:22 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The benefits of smoothing and averaging the walls of the groove were
demonstrated by the ELP laser pickup. It did neither, and is often
recommended without digital noise reduction following it.

I've also heard that the most difficult part of bringing one
to market was the noise reduction *built into* the player.
Cleanliness at this level is really, really close to
Godliness.

For discussion: the walls of the groove may not actually
contain the right information. Cutting and conventional
playing both involve large plastic deformations, implying
that information is stored in a more distributed way
deeper into the media.

That's both the good thing and the bad thing about the Finial. With the
laser, even if the groove is totally hacked to hell, if you can find even
a small section that is intact you can get a good clean playback out of
it. On the other hand, it does not track the groove in the same way that
a stylus does, so in some ways the distortion due to tracking errors is
higher and difficult to model.

Sounds fuzzy, I know, but it ties into ideas of long-term
memory in the media, easily observable, and the bumblebee
impossibility of the whole enterprise.

It's basically a matter of whether you want an object to measure the whole
groove or a part of the groove, or just a few parts of the groove. The
Finial is a nice machine to have in the arsenal, just as it's nice to have
both elliptical and fineline cartridges.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 09:28:22 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The benefits of smoothing and averaging the walls of the groove were
demonstrated by the ELP laser pickup. It did neither, and is often
recommended without digital noise reduction following it.

I've also heard that the most difficult part of bringing one
to market was the noise reduction *built into* the player.

I don't believe there was any NR built into the player. At one point they
sold it packaged with well-known NR software, which one has slipped my mind.

http://www.elpj.com currently seems to say nothing. Perhaps including the
software was too much of a frank admission. At other times it was sold with
a well-known record cleaning machine.

Cleanliness at this level is really, really close to
Godliness.

I don't think man can get LPs that clean!

;-)

For discussion: the walls of the groove may not actually
contain the right information. Cutting and conventional
playing both involve large plastic deformations, implying
that information is stored in a more distributed way
deeper into the media.

I think that this is accepted as fact.

Sounds fuzzy, I know, but it ties into ideas of long-term
memory in the media, easily observable, and the bumblebee
impossibility of the whole enterprise.

Vinyl is a legacy format, pure and simple. We have something much better now
for the purpose. There is still unique music that is trapped in vinyl,
available no other way until transcribed.

WHERE do you come up with this ridiculous statement?

Special Relativity is irrelevant to this discussion. Did you actually PASS Physics
101 ??

This is NEWTONIAN physics here, DUH! Special Relativity my BUTT!

The mechanics are drastically different between the two systems, hence there are
certain "inherent" differences. in theory, each COULD be overcome. It just happens
no-one ever has.

the AKG was a good example of a MM that sounds much like a MC but lacks some of the
resonance flaws. i refer to the P8e and later models. Not sure if they even make
them any more...

db


An inherent difference between "coil stationary and magnet moving" and
"magnet stationary and coil moving" would violate Special Relativity.

Are you really asserting that all m-m units are variable reluctance?

James Boyk


--
David 'db' Butler, Consultant
Acoustics by db
"...all the rest are just brokers"
now on the web at http://www.db-engineering.com
Boston, Mass
Phone 617 969-0585 Fax 617 964-1590

Always found Denon ANYTHING kind of irritating and harsh on the top, FWIW

An interesting topic, but I hesitate to extrapolate too far from
personal experience. Probably best just to try one; they're
common and cheap enough.

I have not tried any of the current Denons at all. I probably should.
--scott

--
David 'db' Butler, Consultant
Acoustics by db
"...all the rest are just brokers"
now on the web at http://www.db-engineering.com
Boston, Mass
Phone 617 969-0585 Fax 617 964-1590

No, I mean the high end P8-* series, VERY high-res, sound like moving coils but
aren't and don't ring.

How about Ortofon ??

David

No, I've never listened to an AKG cart. I think I have an old one around
here, maybe a model 520, or that's the number that comes to mind.

--
Stephen Sank, Owner & Ribbon Mic Restorer
Talking Dog Transducer Company
http://stephensank.com
5517 Carmelita Drive N.E.
Albuquerque, New Mexico [87111]
505-332-0336
Auth. Nakamichi & McIntosh servicer
Payments preferred through Paypal.com
"Techmeister" wrote in message
...
Well, we agree on the Stantons. I am surprised to see you have such a bad
impression
of the Grado, given that you like the Shure.

have you ever heard any of the AKG cartridges ?

David

In article , "Stephen Sank"

wrote:

While the Stanton 681EEE is not nearly as brutal on a record as the
680EL &
etc., it's still a dreadful sounding cartridge, to my ears, at least.
Top
end is not even remotely close to as smooth & detailed as the Shure, and
overall very unmusical. I'll take a well used V15-II over the Stanton.
And I have heard the best & worst Grados on very properly setup &
appropiate
arms, and I still think they suck.

--
Stephen Sank, Owner & Ribbon Mic Restorer
Talking Dog Transducer Company
http://stephensank.com

--
David 'db' Butler, Consultant
Acoustics by db
"...all the rest are just brokers"
now on the web at http://www.db-engineering.com
Boston, Mass
Phone 617 969-0585 Fax 617 964-1590

Techmeister wrote:

Always found Denon ANYTHING kind of irritating and harsh on the top, FWIW

Well I disagree. I have a Denon cassette deck which sounds great for
recording and playback. I have had good luck with Denon cassettes
(though I don't know who actually made them). And I have used the Denon
high output moving coil cartridges and was please with the tonal balance.

-Rob


An interesting topic, but I hesitate to extrapolate too far from
personal experience. Probably best just to try one; they're
common and cheap enough.

I have not tried any of the current Denons at all. I probably should.
--scott

Techmeister wrote:
what lathe and cutter?

I'm running an ancient Scully with a Westrex head. RCA amps, with the
7027 output tubes replaced with Sovtek 5881WXGTs for a bit more headroom.

You never told me you were a vinyl junky ?

So, send the ten bucks and get the RAP LP, which was cut in my back
bedroom.

A 681, shades of 1975, dude!

Sadly, a lot of the DJs out there are using things far worse than the 681,
and if you're cutting for that market (and most vinyl IS being cut for
that market), you need to make sure they can play the stuff.

The RAP LP has one cut that cannot be played on a 681 without breakup.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Line contact styli are a huge win for me for transcription work, because
they track worn records much better than styli with more contact area.
So measured distortion on a square wave test may be higher, but the actual
distortion on a typical pressing is lower because of the reduced tracking
error.

this is why I like the lyra cartridges.

I have not tried any of the current Denons at all. I probably should.
--scott

They are pretty nice and the 103 is a bargain.


P h i l i p

______________________________

"I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa"

- Dorothy Parker

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

An inherent difference between "coil stationary and magnet moving" and "magnet stationary and coil moving" would violate Special Relativity.

I'm guessing you really mean Maxwell here, but I get your point.

No, I mean what I said. Special Relativity says that there's no fixed
frame of reference, which is what would be required for m-c to differ
from m-m.


I just don't agree that it's applicable. Do you remember the
Lirpa cartridge that was a little car riding around on a fixed
record? Works the same, but not the best engineering choice.

Right. That's what I'm saying. It's a matter of engineering details, not
of fundamental principle. In terms of fundamentals, there can be no
difference between the two types.


Are you really asserting that all m-m units are variable reluctance?

Yes. And will be until magnets can be made lighter than coils.

I'd love to see a citation on this.

James Boyk

Techmeister wrote:
Special Relativity is irrelevant to this discussion. Did you actually PASS Physics 101 ??

Special Relativity says, among other things, that there's no absolute
frame of reference, and therefore in this very specific case, there's no
inherent difference between m-c and m-m. In both case, the coil and
magnetic field move relative to each other. In neither case is either of
them Absolutely Stationary.

By the way, for what it's worth, when I first realized this simple
truth, I did check it with a Caltech colleague who's a physics professor
in the field of theoretical particle physics, and he confirmed my view
of the matter. Admittedly, it's a little unusual to invoke Special
Relativity in what appears to be an everyday situation; but in fact it's
necessary.

James Boyk