• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Objective measurements of phono cartridges

Don Hills

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
708
Likes
464
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Back in my vinyl days, we would place the stylus on a stationary LP and record it on tape. At the same time, we would play loud music from another source. We would then listen to the recorded results. Lid up/down, placement of damping material in the turntable chassis, type of turntable stand, positioning in the room etc all made significant differences. But by far the biggest difference was made at LF, by paying attention to what was under the stand. Since the most common house construction was suspended wooden floors, we sometimes had to go to heroic lengths. Basements weren't common, so we'd get under the house and place concrete foundation blocks under the turntable location and hammer in wedges to bow the floor up slightly. One person drilled small holes in the floor under long stand spikes so that they passed through the carpet and rested on the concrete blocks underneath, which didn't quite touch the underside of the floor.

Since houses usually had ready access to the underside of the floor, we also were able to neatly hide the speaker cables. We'd carefully pull back the carpet slightly and drill a hole through the floor next to the baseboard, then run the cables under the house. These were mostly rental properties, so when we moved on we'd just remove the cables and smooth the carpet back down... undetectable. :) It wouldn't be an option in houses with finished basements.
 

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,198
Likes
16,981
Location
Riverview FL
It wouldn't be an option in houses with finished basements.

No basement here.

Florida is mostly slab on grade (concrete) in modern construction, at least after the mid-1960s or so.

Although you could hammer-drill through the concrete, you'd still have to excavate a void below for cables.

But I suppose it is good for basing a turntable. Low seismic activity, too.
 

Fitzcaraldo215

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
1,440
Likes
632
Back in my vinyl days, we would place the stylus on a stationary LP and record it on tape. At the same time, we would play loud music from another source. We would then listen to the recorded results. Lid up/down, placement of damping material in the turntable chassis, type of turntable stand, positioning in the room etc all made significant differences. But by far the biggest difference was made at LF, by paying attention to what was under the stand. Since the most common house construction was suspended wooden floors, we sometimes had to go to heroic lengths. Basements weren't common, so we'd get under the house and place concrete foundation blocks under the turntable location and hammer in wedges to bow the floor up slightly. One person drilled small holes in the floor under long stand spikes so that they passed through the carpet and rested on the concrete blocks underneath, which didn't quite touch the underside of the floor.

Since houses usually had ready access to the underside of the floor, we also were able to neatly hide the speaker cables. We'd carefully pull back the carpet slightly and drill a hole through the floor next to the baseboard, then run the cables under the house. These were mostly rental properties, so when we moved on we'd just remove the cables and smooth the carpet back down... undetectable. :) It wouldn't be an option in houses with finished basements.
I have often wondered why audiophiles have closen to almost totally ignore wall mounting for turntables, as opposed to often heroic and/or stupidly expensive floor stands, floor reinforcements, etc. Yes, the wall can be stimulated by the sound in the room, as can the floor. But, even with typical Sheetrock construction in the US, mounting to the wall studs will be much better dampened than a suspended, load bearing floor.

One of my biggest problems was always with footfalls, whether the turntable used a springy suspension or not. I learned this early in my vinyl days. Wall mounting was always totally impervious to footfalls and most any other effects for me.
 

Don Hills

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
708
Likes
464
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
I used wall mounting on occasion. But I learnt early on not to place it on a wall with a door... or, in this city, the world's windiest, on a wall exposed to the prevailing winds. The best places were usually in corners. In my current house, the best place was on a "chimney breast", the box constructed around a chimney feeding two back-to-back fireplaces in adjacent rooms.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,521
Likes
37,050
I have often wondered why audiophiles have closen to almost totally ignore wall mounting for turntables, as opposed to often heroic and/or stupidly expensive floor stands, floor reinforcements, etc. Yes, the wall can be stimulated by the sound in the room, as can the floor. But, even with typical Sheetrock construction in the US, mounting to the wall studs will be much better dampened than a suspended, load bearing floor.

One of my biggest problems was always with footfalls, whether the turntable used a springy suspension or not. I learned this early in my vinyl days. Wall mounting was always totally impervious to footfalls and most any other effects for me.

I suspect because if you decide to re-arrange your room, or in time change speakers requiring other gear to move, then such a mounting seems inconvenient compared to a stand which you can just move. Also, having no experience with wall mounting, I would have thought while one gains resistance to footfalls, the large thin diaphragm of most walls would have a greater tendency to pick up sound from the speakers.
 

Fitzcaraldo215

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
1,440
Likes
632
I suspect because if you decide to re-arrange your room, or in time change speakers requiring other gear to move, then such a mounting seems inconvenient compared to a stand which you can just move. Also, having no experience with wall mounting, I would have thought while one gains resistance to footfalls, the large thin diaphragm of most walls would have a greater tendency to pick up sound from the speakers.
Yes, the flexibility to move the TT could be a minor issue, but not much more than moving wall art, etc. Also, if you consider mounting the TT wall bracket to wood studs with torqued lag screws through the Sheetrock which compresses and dampens the whole assembly, I doubt there would be much of a problem. Even with Molly bolt attachment to just the 'rock between studs, I never had my biggest problem which is footfalls. My experience was mostly with spring suspensions, which did not like footfalls near their resonant frequency.

But, any actual measurements that are contrary to this might be useful for anyone who still cares about vinyl. I just think it works. I never see it discussed, but I do see the all the heroic measures for floor mounts, many at stupid prices for just rigid metal stands with a few bells and whistles, ball bearings, cones, or whatever.
 

Don Hills

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
708
Likes
464
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Corners are best from a wall flex point of view, and load bearing walls (the ones with piles or other foundations underneath).
But corners have a problem with acoustic coupling due to bass buildup, so it's swings and roundabouts.
I did have some floor-standing success with a "Big Mac" - a cheap isolator made from 3 concrete paving slabs with 2 inflated childs' bicycle innertubes between them.
 

tomelex

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
990
Likes
572
Location
So called Midwest, USA
How many phono cartridge manufacturers measure their product/designs to this extent?

I think the high frequency roll off would sound pleasing to many folks. To me, LPs fall apart at low frequency.


We might agree somewhat. I agree that vinyl falls apart at the lower frequencies, however, those particular distortions of vinyl, when the recording is good, they make the upper mids on up sound better to me. They also make the overall image more interesting to me as well, all that IMD and intechannel crosstalk and a few other things I know about. Hands down, digital correctness for the lowerish midrange down to the lowest frequencies is far far superior to this old boys ears, and always has been.

But I don't get all jacked up about my source anyway as I have realistic (some may say low) expectation from two channel stereo.
 
Last edited:

Phelonious Ponk

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 26, 2016
Messages
859
Likes
215
We need a fancy name for the hobbyists / eccentrics.

In the watch collecting world, the collectors of mechanical timepieces like to refer to themselves as 'horologists'.
We should call them Expectationists.
 

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,459
Location
Australia
Audiomythologisers. :cool:
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
We might agree somewhat. I agree that vinyl falls apart at the lower frequencies, however, those particular distortions of vinyl, when the recording is good, they make the upper mids on up sound better to me. They also make the overall image more interesting to me as well, all that IMD and intechannel crosstalk and a few other things I know about.
As a digital purist, I do note this argument all the time: effectively a variant of "Sure, I know that vinyl is technically inferior to digital - no one is fooling me. But I like it because distortion/rumble/crosstalk/surface noise warms up the sound. "

But the irony is that the vinyl system's objective performance is judged by how close it gets to CD. There are people out there as we speak developing new stylus materials in order to kill the resonances and distortion that you like. Or better arrangements of tonearm geometries, suspensions, etc. Audiophile albums are being released as double albums at 45 rpm. 3D-printed "HD vinyl" is on the horizon. In other words everyone gets excited when they can show that vinyl is getting a bit closer to sounding like digital. And they are prepared to pay huge sums for it.

Is this a good idea? Why not preserve vinyl technology in the state it was circa 1972 because that's what everyone supposedly likes? Or go digital.
 

watchnerd

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
12,449
Likes
10,408
Location
Seattle Area, USA
As a digital purist, I do note this argument all the time: effectively a variant of "Sure, I know that vinyl is technically inferior to digital - no one is fooling me. But I like it because distortion/rumble/crosstalk/surface noise warms up the sound. "

But the irony is that the vinyl system's objective performance is judged by how close it gets to CD. There are people out there as we speak developing new stylus materials in order to kill the resonances and distortion that you like. Or better arrangements of tonearm geometries, suspensions, etc. Audiophile albums are being released as double albums at 45 rpm. 3D-printed "HD vinyl" is on the horizon. In other words everyone gets excited when they can show that vinyl is getting a bit closer to sounding like digital. And they are prepared to pay huge sums for it.

Is this a good idea? Why not preserve vinyl technology in the state it was circa 1972 because that's what everyone supposedly likes? Or go digital.

And in the other direction, there are those who are pleased when their digital sounds more like "analog'...

Humans are silly!
 

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,198
Likes
16,981
Location
Riverview FL
The irony of Digital is that it must be converted to Analog.
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,780
Location
Oxfordshire
As a digital purist, I do note this argument all the time: effectively a variant of "Sure, I know that vinyl is technically inferior to digital - no one is fooling me. But I like it because distortion/rumble/crosstalk/surface noise warms up the sound. "

But the irony is that the vinyl system's objective performance is judged by how close it gets to CD. There are people out there as we speak developing new stylus materials in order to kill the resonances and distortion that you like. Or better arrangements of tonearm geometries, suspensions, etc. Audiophile albums are being released as double albums at 45 rpm. 3D-printed "HD vinyl" is on the horizon. In other words everyone gets excited when they can show that vinyl is getting a bit closer to sounding like digital. And they are prepared to pay huge sums for it.

Is this a good idea? Why not preserve vinyl technology in the state it was circa 1972 because that's what everyone supposedly likes? Or go digital.
To be honest the LP technology limitations haven't changed since I was involved in the 70s and things like fine line styluses are nothing new, though more recent than that.
The basic effect of the resonances and (huge in some cases) variations in frequency response of some cartridges plus feedback reverb can be tuned to taste, but no more now that decades ago.
What has changed?
The absurd, ridiculous and obscene amount of money being asked for basic to poor engineering with pretty styling.
A Garrard 401 cost £72 when I worked there. Using clever engineering it would certainly be possible to make a turntable system as good as the compromises allow for £2500, maybe less. I have seen a pickup arm for £22,000, I mean this is taking the mickey big time, A one off prototype wouldn't cost that.
 

watchnerd

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
12,449
Likes
10,408
Location
Seattle Area, USA
To be honest the LP technology limitations haven't changed since I was involved in the 70s and things like fine line styluses are nothing new, though more recent than that.
The basic effect of the resonances and (huge in some cases) variations in frequency response of some cartridges plus feedback reverb can be tuned to taste, but no more now that decades ago.
What has changed?
The absurd, ridiculous and obscene amount of money being asked for basic to poor engineering with pretty styling.
A Garrard 401 cost £72 when I worked there. Using clever engineering it would certainly be possible to make a turntable system as good as the compromises allow for £2500, maybe less. I have seen a pickup arm for £22,000, I mean this is taking the mickey big time, A one off prototype wouldn't cost that.

I think the new Technics SL-1200GR for $1700 is probably best bang/buck right now in terms of new, well-engineered, legitimately made advances in the art (new motor, better than the old direct drives).
 

tomelex

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
990
Likes
572
Location
So called Midwest, USA
As a digital purist, I do note this argument all the time: effectively a variant of "Sure, I know that vinyl is technically inferior to digital - no one is fooling me. But I like it because distortion/rumble/crosstalk/surface noise warms up the sound. "

But the irony is that the vinyl system's objective performance is judged by how close it gets to CD. There are people out there as we speak developing new stylus materials in order to kill the resonances and distortion that you like. Or better arrangements of tonearm geometries, suspensions, etc. Audiophile albums are being released as double albums at 45 rpm. 3D-printed "HD vinyl" is on the horizon. In other words everyone gets excited when they can show that vinyl is getting a bit closer to sounding like digital. And they are prepared to pay huge sums for it.

Is this a good idea? Why not preserve vinyl technology in the state it was circa 1972 because that's what everyone supposedly likes? Or go digital.


There is more than just warmth being added. vinyl increases the loudness, adds L-R and R-L distortions to the midrange and on up, and partly due to that, the overall imaging blends the instruments and they fill up more space across the image (think less pin point imaging). These things combined can make vinyl sound better than the master tape, and because of the accuracy of digital, the digital sound more like the master tape. It's a happy accident I guess that vinyl distortions can sound better than tape and digitals distortions over two channel plain old stereo. Happily for me, since no one has any idea what the original recording "should" sound like, whatever I get, if it sounds good, it is good.
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,780
Location
Oxfordshire
I think the new Technics SL-1200GR for $1700 is probably best bang/buck right now in terms of new, well-engineered, legitimately made advances in the art (new motor, better than the old direct drives).
Quite agree.

One of the important shortcomings of record players, though, is environmental pickup, and re-broadcasting, of mechanical and airborne vibration, both from the music playing and the environment.
One of the first jobs I was given as a young R&D engineer at Garrard was to measure the rumble on a turntable. It was to check my familiarity with the B&K instrumentation they were using (no problem) and my understanding of record players (still a lot to learn).
The test turntable was a studio one with a Garrard 401 with SME arm. It was on an oak workbench on the 4th floor (5th floor in the US :)) of the factory building. I couldn't get consistent results, and they eventually pointed out to me that the results were influenced by busses driving by on the road outside, on the other side of the company car park.
They had a concrete block suspended on undamped springs with a Fn of about 3Hz on which test TTs were put for measurement.
There are several lessons from this, the first of which is that since few TTs have an effective full band isolation system few people will ever have heard an LP played without environmental pickup. The problem is that the best isolation at higher frequencies requires minimal damping (dampers can "short circuit" the suspension at higher frequencies) which means handling will provoke resonance, even though this gives the most accurate results whilst actually playing. Also to isolate over the full audible range requires a very soft suspension, so a really effective passive isolation system is all but un-saleable to Joe Public.
The other problem is the RIAA curve, this boosts bass frequencies on replay. The original RIAA curve continued to boost sub-bass frequencies by 20dB. The 1976 (iirc) revision rolled this off, but even today some RIAA stages don't do this properly.
When I bought a bigger house I decided to put all my hifi in a separate room to where I listened, to avoid thesde problems. I wouldn't say I preferered the sound like that though, I think the added pickup is like a bit more reverb, and "more bass" is popular, even if an artifact.
 

watchnerd

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
12,449
Likes
10,408
Location
Seattle Area, USA
Quite agree.

One of the important shortcomings of record players, though, is environmental pickup, and re-broadcasting, of mechanical and airborne vibration, both from the music playing and the environment.
One of the first jobs I was given as a young R&D engineer at Garrard was to measure the rumble on a turntable. It was to check my familiarity with the B&K instrumentation they were using (no problem) and my understanding of record players (still a lot to learn).
The test turntable was a studio one with a Garrard 401 with SME arm. It was on an oak workbench on the 4th floor (5th floor in the US :)) of the factory building. I couldn't get consistent results, and they eventually pointed out to me that the results were influenced by busses driving by on the road outside, on the other side of the company car park.
They had a concrete block suspended on undamped springs with a Fn of about 3Hz on which test TTs were put for measurement.
There are several lessons from this, the first of which is that since few TTs have an effective full band isolation system few people will ever have heard an LP played without environmental pickup. The problem is that the best isolation at higher frequencies requires minimal damping (dampers can "short circuit" the suspension at higher frequencies) which means handling will provoke resonance, even though this gives the most accurate results whilst actually playing. Also to isolate over the full audible range requires a very soft suspension, so a really effective passive isolation system is all but un-saleable to Joe Public.
The other problem is the RIAA curve, this boosts bass frequencies on replay. The original RIAA curve continued to boost sub-bass frequencies by 20dB. The 1976 (iirc) revision rolled this off, but even today some RIAA stages don't do this properly.
When I bought a bigger house I decided to put all my hifi in a separate room to where I listened, to avoid thesde problems. I wouldn't say I preferered the sound like that though, I think the added pickup is like a bit more reverb, and "more bass" is popular, even if an artifact.

My turntable is a Michell Gyro SE with the inverted spring suspension.

I've never been sure I got the bounce right, but it looks awesome.
 

Fitzcaraldo215

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
1,440
Likes
632
My turntable is a Michell Gyro SE with the inverted spring suspension.

I've never been sure I got the bounce right, but it looks awesome.
I had the same problems with an also beautiful Oracle Delphi II. And, the bounce became a problem from footfalls, unless I wall mounted it, as I previously described. I did like the screw on record clamp, which made an audible difference as far as airborne acoustic pickup by the LP disc itself was concerned. But, no doubt, there were still isolation issues short of perfection.

Another thing I always saw as a major problem in my vinyl days, when everyone was into selecting cartridges subjectively by ear. You could not audition different cartridges yourself in the same TT/arm to see if you audibly preferred one over another. No dealer I knew of would lend you a cartridge for home audition, and few multi-arm TTs existed. You just had to look at very limited measurements, specs, reviews and word of mouth, hoping you were buying the right thing with no return privilege. Too much guesswork. Too much reliance on anecdotal beliefs. Even today, objective measurements for cartridges, TTs, arms are simply inadequate, but vinyl afficianados don't seem to care.
 
Top Bottom