Introducing the Phono Cartridge Measurement Library

[USER]

Back to the questions I asked previously, thank you to the suggestions of particular cartridges. Looking at what you’ve recommended was helpful. On the question of MC cartridges — I see some interesting ones here, but I’m wondering if it’s worth going down that road. Is there really an advantage? I’m not sure I see it in measurements, but maybe I’m missing something?

This is a difficult question as there are so many different variables that you can privilege that changes the situation. Are you looking for flat FR? Is there something to taking advantage of a (well-controlled) high frequency resonance in order to mitigate a bit of the FR sloping that occurs as the cartridge moves toward the outer groove? (MC cartridges tend to slope upward more generally speaking.) Then of course there is cost (MCs tend to be more expensive) and whatever your definition of value is. Then there is the set-up you have and the question of whether the cartridge is compatible. (See the last few measurements.)

Assuming "going down that road" means having to buy a MC phono stage in addition to the cartridge the way I personally think about it is that there is nothing the best MC cartridge in the world can do that a MM can't do so the question is whether the extra expense is worth it. (Though of course making sure your MM cartridge is performing optimally may require a phono stage with more loading options.) It could simply be a question of comparing the final costs of the options you are interested in, and this is assuming "value" really matters to you. Remember too that you can also invest in EQ in order to try different FR responses. You don't even need "the best" MM cartridge either.

Other things that to me are much more important are the stylus and cantilever. I think having a nice micro-linear diamond based cartridge that tracks well is much more important than whether it is MM or MC.

Funny enough the early version of the script as we now know it emerged in the MM vs MC thread. So this thread is very much related to your question. (And I think you kind of have your answer already because of it.) You may find it interesting.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/mm-vs-mi-vs-mc.18636/

 

[JP]

Back to the questions I asked previously, thank you to the suggestions of particular cartridges. Looking at what you’ve recommended was helpful. On the question of MC cartridges — I see some interesting ones here, but I’m wondering if it’s worth going down that road. Is there really an advantage? I’m not sure I see it in measurements, but maybe I’m missing something?

Vast majority of audible difference, assuming it's tracking well enough, is the frequency response. Here are some comparisons of an Ortofon 2m Blue vs. a Lyra Kleos. The FR isn't actually that close across the full audio band, but close enough that no one has demonstrate that they can reliably distinguish them. There are even tells in the Norah track that should make it easier. Of course, being elliptical, the 2M readily betrays itself on inner grooves.

Not too long ago on a different forum a similar question was asked, and someone posted a YT video of an AT 740ML vs. an OC9XEN, stating that the benefits of MC were essentially legion, and obvious. I extracted the audio, did a rough EQ on the 740ML to match the OC9.

It's likely there was an inherent advantage to MC over four decades ago, but not since then. At least not an audible one.

 

[JP]

Please explain to me if you think I don't know what I'm talking about

1. All I have to do is set the cartridge a little differently and the measurement result will be different.
Yes or no?
Of course. I made the last two measurements several times, changing the position each time, and each time the measurement result is different.
Which ones should be considered the correct ones? Because I don't know.

2. The preamplifiers or amplifiers used for the measurements, for example, are made with some response tolerance.
My step-up had the following parameters 45 years ago: + 0.3 dB/-1 dB, given by the manufacturer, what it has today after 45 years, I don't know.
The parameters of the output in the amplifier from which the signal is taken to the sound card are also unknown, and this amplifier is over 40 years old.
Do all the sound cards used here have a linear response? Would you bet your arm for that?

3. Does my test board have a perfect test signal? I believe it does. And what if it doesn't?

So if the measurement result is around +3 dB/-1 dB, I treat that result with a pinch of salt. Unless I'm wrong.

The program measures well, but it measures what it is given to measure, and that is the sum of the different +/- performance of each element.

I'll respond to this only this one time in this thread simply because I don't want people reading uninformed FUD and thinking it true.

You have to be rather grossly off in setup to affect FR in any meaningful way, and as the curator of this thread has measured over 50 cartridges, he has a rather good nose for anything that looks amiss, as do others. Fortunately, to date only one person has chosen to ignore warnings that something was clearly amiss. The vast majority do a good job an we can see where differences are likely to be coming from in the test specifics that we ask be listed.

The majority of electronics are more than linear enough for cartridge measurements, and when they're not, we usually see it as the characteristics of the cartridges are rather specific. For anything beyond that, so far, all but one tester has been happy to take necessary steps to validate their signal chain. BTW, your +0.3/-1dB spec on the T-30 is 8Hz - 90kHz. It's just fine 20Hz-20kHz.

We know the response of all the popular test records (even the different pressings). That's why we ask that certain records be used.

Reality is that there is more variance in different copies of the same cartridge than there are in the test setups.

 

[USER]

and as the curator of this thread has measured over 50 cartridges, he has a rather good nose for anything that looks amiss, as do others.

As the curator has fucked up in every way possible

 

[JP]

If you didn't, you wouldn't have worthwhile experience.

 

[USER]

If you didn't, you wouldn't have worthwhile experience.

I'll always be there to wreck havoc on your scripts.

 

[JP]

 

[mglobe]

This is a difficult question as there are so many different variables that you can privilege that changes the situation. Are you looking for flat FR? Is there something to taking advantage of a (well-controlled) high frequency resonance in order to mitigate a bit of the FR sloping that occurs as the cartridge moves toward the outer groove? (MC cartridges tend to slope upward more generally speaking.) Then of course there is cost (MCs tend to be more expensive) and whatever your definition of value is. Then there is the set-up you have and the question of whether the cartridge is compatible. (See the last few measurements.)

Assuming "going down that road" means having to buy a MC phono stage in addition to the cartridge the way I personally think about it is that there is nothing the best MC cartridge in the world can do that a MM can't do so the question is whether the extra expense is worth it. (Though of course making sure your MM cartridge is performing optimally may require a phono stage with more loading options.) It could simply be a question of comparing the final costs of the options you are interested in, and this is assuming "value" really matters to you. Remember too that you can also invest in EQ in order to try different FR responses. You don't even need "the best" MM cartridge either.

Other things that to me are much more important are the stylus and cantilever. I think having a nice micro-linear diamond based cartridge that tracks well is much more important than whether it is MM or MC.

Funny enough the early version of the script as we now know it emerged in the MM vs MC thread. So this thread is very much related to your question. (And I think you kind of have your answer already because of it.) You may find it interesting.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/mm-vs-mi-vs-mc.18636/

So a substantial part of my interest in MC is that I have an Apt Holman Pre that has an MC module in it. I’ve never used it, as I couldn’t afford MC back in the day, and then later had transitioned out of vinyl. I’ve had the pre restored by Quirk Audio. The Apt also has a decent amount of loading options for MM, and I’ve learned from this forum how to customize.

I’m in the flat response camp, and I’ve always been skeptical of the MC hype, and that hasn’t changed. But there is that button on my pre…

 

[USER]

So a substantial part of my interest in MC is that I have an Apt Holman Pre that has an MC module in it. I’ve never used it, as I couldn’t afford MC back in the day, and then later had transitioned out of vinyl. I’ve had the pre restored by Quirk Audio. The Apt also has a decent amount of loading options for MM, and I’ve learned from this forum how to customize.

I’m in the flat response camp, and I’ve always been skeptical of the MC hype, and that hasn’t changed. But there is that button on my pre…

What flat MC are you considering? Denon DL-1000A? A mythical Dynavector? (Something that we really, really need measured so, ummm, yeah, get that, lol.) Those are expensive and very hard to find, especially in good condition and from a reliable vendor. It could take years. It may be too late. If you are looking to try an excellent but not entirely flat MC you can always start with an Audio-Technica AT33PTG/II --though of course the comparable MM version will get you everything for half the price and you need an appropriate tonearm. Part of me thinks that if you do end up getting something historically great you will consider it a museum piece and never play it. (There's nothing wrong with that.)

Do you have a flat MM? If not, while it may take some time a Shure V15 V-MR seems like a grail that is more easily doable than those and certainly a whole lot cheaper (for now, though we haven't helped).

 

[Palmer]

This is intriguing, but I'm hopelessly addicted to the higher Benz Micro range. No affiliation.

Online Catalog • Upgrade your System with Le Son

Explore our exclusive online catalog of MC cartridges and pure silver cables. Try our products risk-free and elevate your analog sound experience.

www.leson.org

 

[mglobe]

As you probably know already, stylus replacement down the road is the drawback with moving coil. I have had Soundsmith retip carts for me, and I find the cost rather reasonable and the work outstanding.

Peter Lederman has excellent videos out there about the challenges in cartridge designs and he knows what he is taking about. No affiliation other than being a customer.

Best non-moving coil I had was the Garrot Brothers P77i , but I haven't looked what the stylus availability is these days. Can be had just shy of 700.- and I'd buy it again.

Garrott Brothers P77i Moving Magnet Cartridge - Len Wallis Audio

In order to understand how the Garrott P-77 gives such unique sound quality you need to know something of its special design features. Until now, it has been generally considered impossible to harmoniously combine the best features of the 3 major types of stereo cartridge design - that is...

lenwallisaudio.com

Have you considered running a test on your Soundsmith? I see it on the want list here.

 

[Palmer]

Have you considered running a test on your Soundsmith? I see it on the want list here.

Ha! I wish I had a Soundsmith cartridge, his stuff is out of range for me - I had a Shelter 701 re-tipped, and two Benz Micro in progress: RefS and Scheu rebranded Glider...
Am busy with coming out of Milton, haven't had time to play with Python and SJPlot. I can get some .wav to you of the Shelter and hopefully the Gullwing SLR - shoot me a message of what you'd like and if I have it on Vinyl, I'd be happy to send that to you.

 

[USER]

Technics EPC-205CII-L
Click to increase size

This last measurement is from @mackat (thanks for your patience, this one was long overdue).

Notes

• New old stock cartridge
• Gorgeous titanium cantilever and one chunky nude, elliptical diamond
• This is the low impedance version of the cartridge (IIL)
• Not sure what to make of the FR
  • No amount of capacitance made a difference (which I think is right according to the marketing)
  • Mackat's measurements of another copy seem to be similar
  • Is this the way they were or is this another case of the dreaded Technics disintegrating suspension?
    • I bought this thinking this line was not affected by that suspension issue
    • The fact that FR rises at the end makes me think it is not entirely the suspension
  • Are these voiced this way (sort of like the more well-loved Stantons)?
• The best crosstalk I have measured on my CA TRS-1007!

 

[red_delta]

Soundsmith The Voice

Notes

• Cartridge: SoundSmith The Voice
• Stylus condition <10 hrs on vinyl
• Test record: CBS STR100 issue 3
• Turntable: Technics 1200g
• Tracking force: 1.8g
• Phono stage: MMP3 MK2
• ADC: Scarlett 2i2 gen 3
• Capacitance- Unknown
• Offered to send my test record to an acquaintance who had just purchased this cartridge, who graciously accepted

 

[USER]

THANKS SO MUCH FOR THIS! OUR FIRST SOUNDSMITH!

If you account for the ~0.75 dB dip on the CBS test record this seems to come reasonably close to spec. (I can try to convert it for you if you provide me the original file.) You may want to have your friend confirm the results with Soundsmith just in case. I'd wager they would be receptive to this.

Edit: lowbeats measurements.

I think we see here the strange resonance/dip at around 12kHz that seems to plague a lot of MC cartridges. See for example all the Denon DL-103R measurements in this thread. Seems to be there in the lowbeats results as well though the resolution makes it hard to see. Could the ruby cantilever exacerbate the issue?

Edit: Is there a reason tracking force is set to 1.8g instead of, say, 1.4g like in the specs above? Does it not track as well? It may not dip as much and meet spec with a lower setting.

This is very interesting when compared to the Technics I just posted. And in this same respect I think you guys will get a kick out of the cartridge I have on queue for tomorrow.

If the folks at Soundsmith read this once word gets around, hello! As you will see, we aren't here to "get" anyone and we engage in earnest.

 

[melloncolliecat]

Very nice to see the Technics EPC-205CII-L, @USER ! Stereo separation is really out of this world! Or at least out the window... I wonder if the Mk3 and 4 have a more linear FR.

 

[mglobe]

THANKS SO MUCH FOR THIS! OUR FIRST SOUNDSMITH!

View attachment 398989View attachment 398990

If you account for the ~0.75 dB dip on the CBS test record this seems to come reasonably close to spec. (I can try to convert it for you if you provide me the original file.) You may want to have your friend confirm the results with Soundsmith just in case. I'd wager they would be receptive to this.

Edit: lowbeats measurements.

View attachment 399000

I think we see here the strange dip at around 12kHz that seems to plague a lot of MC cartridges. See for example all the Denon DL-103R measurements in this thread. Seems to be there in the lowbeats results as well.

Edit: Is there a reason tracking force is set to 1.8g instead of, say, 1.4g like in the specs above? Does it not track as well? It may not dip as much and meet spec with a lower setting.

This is very interesting when compared to the Technics I just posted. And in this same respect I think you guys will get a kick out of the cartridge I have on queue for tomorrow.

If the folks at Soundsmith read this once word gets around, hello! As you will see, we aren't here to "get" anyone and we engage in earnest.

What’s up with the crosstalk results? Looks very similar in both measurements.

 

[USER]

Shure M97HE Part 1
Click to increase size

Official Shure advertisement measurement and Radio Electronics (11-1980) Review

Notes

• IMHO this is one of the most important cartridges ever released
  • The marketing campaign was also significant and I'll bring up some highlights in the follow-up
  • With it Shure established its hyperelliptical-based (upper) middle-class of cartridges
    • They threw down the gauntlet in terms of technology and value
• This was sold to me as "open box"
  • If you buy used cartridges the best investment you can make is purchasing a good microscope
• Modestly worn stylus with a hyperelliptical diamond on an a telescope shanked aluminum cantilever
  • Don't forget the "dynamic stabilizer" brush
  • These were touted as revolutionary features at the time (1978) for the class and price
    • Why on Earth do we still use elliptical cartridges in 2024?
• This is an old measurement as I returned it
  • The second set is of a CA TRS-1007 frequency response conversion
• FR is flatter here compared to the last few cartridges with only a wide ~0.5 dB dip at this load!
• I have a NOS copy forthcoming

 

[Palmer]

Thanks for that enlightening post, I second the recommendation for a good microscope, wish I had a camera split on mine ...
Did read the LowBeats article, fortunately no language barrier here . Having an Audio Precision analyzer doesn't hurt.

 

[USER]

Very nice to see the Technics EPC-205CII-L, @USER ! Stereo separation is really out of this world! Or at least out the window... I wonder if the Mk3 and 4 have a more linear FR.

A little birdie told me that you may soon find out...

What’s up with the crosstalk results? Looks very similar in both measurements.

Good eye. This is especially interesting as the lowbeats result seem to be based on a JVC TRS-1007. Otherwise I would simply say that the CBS record could not handle it. It is not a test record for this purpose anyways.

On the cartridge manual Soundsmith recommends against using test records for azimuth adjustment. Nonetheless it would be interesting to see the results on one of the few good records for that purpose such as the Ortofon, DIN 45 543, or Mérőlemez.