Introducing the Phono Cartridge Measurement Library

[melloncolliecat]

Bonus fact: The XSV 3000 and the Stanton 881s are NOT electrically and mechanically compatible. I tried using the D81s stylus from the 881s on the XSV 3000 body: it fit snugly, but HF response was not flat and it had much higher distortion than the Stanton. I also inserted the stylus from the XSV 3000 on the 881s body, the fit was very loose and it would wiggle around. I don't think it is a good idea to mix and match.

This sounds strange to me. I've had a ton of overlapping Stanton 880/980 and Pickering XSV/XUV models and they've all fitted perfectly. The XUV 4500 is much lower in inductance, so with a Stanton D81 stylus the high freq peak is higher (kind of like my measurement with the LP Gear Vivid Line in this thread, but not as high a peak), but otherwise they all seem to work perfectly fine with each other.

If I can muster up the energy I'll try to measure one or two.

And oh, sorry, great to see your measurements of these classics here! Thanks for that!

 

[fricc]

This sounds strange to me. I've had a ton of overlapping Stanton 880/980 and Pickering XSV/XUV models and they've all fitted perfectly. The XUV 4500 is much lower in inductance, so with a Stanton D81 stylus the high freq peak is higher (kind of like my measurement with the LP Gear Vivid Line in this thread, but not as high a peak), but otherwise they all seem to work perfectly fine with each other.

Yea, I also assumed they were the same, strange surprise. Maybe the XSV 4000 is different from the 3000?
Here is the measurement, in case.

Notice the distortion being higher than either the XSV 3000 and the 881s.

It kind of looks cool though.

 

[melloncolliecat]

Yeah, about the same distortion around 5kHz though, but higher around 10kHz. Wonder if there's a difference between the D81 and D81S styli. I have the latter... @fricc

 

[fricc]

Yeah, about the same distortion around 5kHz though, but higher around 10kHz. Wonder if there's a difference between the D81 and D81S styli. I have the latter... @fricc

The cantilever of the XSV 3000 and that of the 881s are very different in length. Indeed the D81s has a very small one, perhaps made possible by the stronger samarium-cobalt magnet they use? In any case it is a different geometry and these things need to be just right to achieve the design specs.
So much knowledge disappeared with these brands being gone. It would be fascinating to talk to any of the original designers from Shure or Stanton.

 

[MMJ]

VM95ML stylus XP body - TRS-1007

- Remeasured with correct sampling
- 150pf and 47kOhm on the Fosi, I cannot measure the totals
- I changed turntables since the last measurement, the 140xp has the same arm

 

[fricc]

Shure V15 V HE (Hyper Elliptical)

I bought this cartridge in the late 90s, the cheaper Hyper Elliptical version. I didn't use it that much, at that time CDs were more the thing, so it has relatively low hours (<100).
It is interesting to compare against the MR version I tested yesterday. I used the same body for the measurements (they're supposedly identical) so we know that the difference in performance is actually due to the stylus itself.
The MR version has appreciably lower distortion (5dB at 1kHz, and it stays like that in all the HF range) but with a rather similar "shape".
For the first time we're able to verify some of the marketing claims of these older HIFI brands, and I'd say that the MR diamond is definitively an improvement over the HE
BTW: The HE appears to have a higher compliance, and with the same 1g weight it definitively rides lower than the MR.

 

[rob_l]

Ortofon Quintet Bronze

Similar results to those from @mackat a few years ago - possibly of interest to @Stereo20.

I've been lucky enough to marry in to an inherited Linn LP12 - my wife had no idea that the turntable her dad left behind was anything high end. The cartridge on it was broken so I wanted to replace it with something vaguely price appropriate. The Bronze lists at about EUR 750 and claims flat response +/- 1.5dB, so to say this performance is a disappointing is an understatement. The sound is noticeably warm, as you would expect with 6db of slope. I've managed to EQ a version within +/- 0.5dB though I do now need to adjust for the flaws in the STR-100.

Thanks to everyone involved in this community - I've really enjoyed learning from all this detail.

 

[MMJ]

Ortofon Quintet Bronze

View attachment 557207

Similar results to those from @mackat a few years ago - possibly of interest to @Stereo20.

I've been lucky enough to marry in to an inherited Linn LP12 - my wife had no idea that the turntable her dad left behind was anything high end. The cartridge on it was broken so I wanted to replace it with something vaguely price appropriate. The Bronze lists at about EUR 750 and claims flat response +/- 1.5dB, so to say this performance is a disappointing is an understatement. The sound is noticeably warm, as you would expect with 6db of slope. I've managed to EQ a version within +/- 0.5dB though I do now need to adjust for the flaws in the STR-100.

Thanks to everyone involved in this community - I've really enjoyed learning from all this detail.

Ortofon seems to disappoint across the board

 

[dougi]

Jeez, that's even warmer than my AT OC9XEN i measured early on in this thread. Distortion better on the AT too.
I remeasured it last weekend to test a new "interface". My RME ADI-2 PRO has failed so I needed a new optical to USB. DON'T buy the CUBILIX one (does not work, limited to 48kHz and gets strange ripple artifacts), get the HiFiME, if you need something.

This is after 200 or so hours, at 2.0g

STR VERSION for a better comparison. Second hand copy.

 

[Balle Clorin]

Does AT deliberately ruin the OC9XEN response? To make the other more expensive ones seem better?

 

[exponent_of_sock]

So much knowledge disappeared with these brands being gone. It would be fascinating to talk to any of the original designers from Shure or Stanton.

Yes, I've been trying to track down Richard Steinfeld's self-published Stanton/Pickering handbook, but he's off the grid. There's a lot of info on Stanton and Pickering sprinkled across audio forums, and it's difficult to digest it all. There's a lot more I'd like to know myself but will have to figure out the expensive way. I'm in the process of getting a lot of Stanton and Pickering 78 assemblies retipped. Some are good with some records and bad with others; kind of hard to figure. Shure SS35C, on the other hand, are extremely consistent but only track up to 5 grams as opposed to 7. I'm also eager to figure out whether the later Stanton OEM DJ assemblies hold a candle to the older ones in terms of tracking ability and signal quality.

And yes, good to finally see some of the Stantons and Pickerings finally measured. I have a bunch but work almost exclusively with 78s and have them on the back burner in case I want to transfer LPs. They've been absent for far too long!

 

[USER]

Does AT deliberately ruin the OC9XEN response? To make the other more expensive ones seem better?

Oh for sure they handicap many of their cartridges. (The high frequency response of the AT95ML is the clearest example for me and luckily it doesn't really matter.) When you are left the same 4 or so designs that haven't really changed in 40 years because the tech has long been abandoned you sort of have to. At least the build quality is high from them as opposed most of the others like Ortofon and Nagaoka.

Here however it looks to me that it is tuned to a particular FR that dips a bit that was once popular. (Think Stanton 681EEE or even the Nagaoka MP500 before they seemingly changed the FR to flat). The big mistake is not being clear about it if that is the case. The one here may be asking for more capacitance though.

 

[exponent_of_sock]

This sounds strange to me. I've had a ton of overlapping Stanton 880/980 and Pickering XSV/XUV models and they've all fitted perfectly. The XUV 4500 is much lower in inductance, so with a Stanton D81 stylus the high freq peak is higher (kind of like my measurement with the LP Gear Vivid Line in this thread, but not as high a peak), but otherwise they all seem to work perfectly fine with each other.

If I can muster up the energy I'll try to measure one or two.

And oh, sorry, great to see your measurements of these classics here! Thanks for that!

I think there may have been some quality control issues with some of the 800 series stylii. I have two different D827 stylii for my 78 RPM records that I had retipped. One fits snugly, and the other is extremely loose. They both sound great, though. I solved the problem by putting some Blu-Tac on the cartridge body. No movement at all now. They're too expensive and rare not to mention ruler-flat even with 78s to try to get by with inferior products. I did measure a bit of a peak at 14 kHz with 78s, but I transfer most things at half-speed. It's dead-flat at half speed to 20 kHz as far as I can tell using the ancient Decca and Columbia frequency test records which have a wide margin of error. Others, like the Shure SS35Cs, naturally roll off around 4 dB at 10 kHz. That's probably ideal for a lot of old records, but for my own purposes I want the high frequencies as clean as possible for retrieval and correction of transients like clicks.

 

[Balle Clorin]

Posting for a friend..EDIT: CA TRS-1007 used for
Ortofon X50… , nice in general , distortion not as high as some other Ortofons,probably the sweet spot of Ortofon MC

 

[USER]

What test record was used? If it was the CBS then the channel separation measurements aren't usable. Also, from personal experience, I have never found channel separation to make an audible difference for me. Somewhere in this archive there is a comparison I posted between a cartridge with "bad" crosstalk and one with "good" crosstalk. I could never distinguish the results based on what I think its effects are. Not sure if its because we are already in the terrible category or if the room and set-up dominate by such a large degree.

 

[fricc]

What test record was used? If it was the CBS then the channel separation measurements aren't usable.

Could you point me to an explanation of why they aren't usable? Is there a limitation in the record's crosstalk itself, or is it something more profound?
Are the absolute measurements incorrect or even relative measurements between different cartridges?
Thanks!

 

[USER]

Could you point me to an explanation of why they aren't usable? Is there a limitation in the record's crosstalk itself, or is it something more profound?
Are the absolute measurements incorrect or even relative measurements between different cartridges?
Thanks!

One quick thing: that post was a response to a now-deleted post.

But yes, there are limitations to both the CBS and Clearaudio test record, with the CBS being so bad it is useless. My best CBS copy "tops out" at -25 dB but this is also cartridge dependent--some just don't play well with the record for reasons unknown to me. The results can "break apart" at different points so it is not consistent. Plus warping and record condition come to play. Many CBS records are in particularly terrible shape because of the tight plastic wrap, but in the end this doesn't matter as the measurements aren't useful. (This is why it is called a Frequency Response script --crosstalk is a bonus of varying quality.) For a comparison between those two records see my first measurement of the Shure V15 V-MR. More, my DIN 45 543 test record does around 5 dB better than my Clearaudio consistently so I include those measurements in my current posts. So for *me* that's what I go with. (I would say that Clearaudio does around 10 dB better than CBS but CBS is so inconsistent I can't rely on that. So maybe DIN is 15 dB better for a perfect CBS result????) Unfortunately the FR of the DIN is incorrect. Can't win them all. Crosstalk is a bit of a mess when it comes to test records and I would recommend the Fun with Measurements for the latest thoughts on the subject. Questions about VTA, azimuth adjustment, etc. also come into play and further complicate things. Not sure if there is consensus as to any test record that provides accurate measurements. So I don't have a proper answer for you unfortunately other than crosstalk capability in optimal set-up is likely much better than what we see and ignore the CBS results.

 

[richjoh]

Audio Technica VM745xML, Darlington Lab MM6B, Technics 1200 MKIII. This is the second Audio Technica product where the imbalance at 10k to 20k region is unacceptable. My first Audio Technica MC, AT-OC9XEB, had the same issue.

 

[Thomas_A]

Audio Technica VM745xML, Darlington Lab MM6B, Technics 1200 MKIII. This is the second Audio Technica product where the imbalance at 10k to 20k region is unacceptable. My first Audio Technica MC, AT-OC9XEB, had the same issue.

View attachment 563532

Channel imbalance is around 1.1 dB at 1 kHz. Not ideal but not very unusual. Have you confirmed with another test record?

 

[fricc]

Audio Technica VM745xML, Darlington Lab MM6B, Technics 1200 MKIII. This is the second Audio Technica product where the imbalance at 10k to 20k region is unacceptable. My first Audio Technica MC, AT-OC9XEB, had the same issue.

I tested a bunch of older cartridges recently, 1dB channel imbalance is quite common. My VM 750xSH shows a very similar asymmetry.