Introducing the Phono Cartridge Measurement Library

[JP]

What would the point of that be?

 

[Balle Clorin]

It should be obvious why the posts of a cartridge must he with a standard 47k load as a minimum , and tuned as an optional addition.
We want to compare cartridges in a relative way then a standard load is a must. Just as with cars fuel consumption .
Posting at 27k is misleading and making it impossible to evaluate reketive differences. People may want an alternative cartridge that is brighter or warmer , without a standard load it makes it impossible to know the relative difference.


The regular nerds here may be using loading plugs etc , but the wast majority of hi-fi users do not. If we want to be useful and relevant a standard 47k load and typical capacitance 200pf should be posted, any loading option may of course be added as an optimal utilisation.

 

[watchnerd]

What would the point of that be?

Same as the point for sharing results that use cartridge loading.

Cartridge loading = "I made these electrical circuit changes, here is the result"

EQ changes = "I made these specific PEQ tweaks, here is the result"

And the same reason Amir shares headphone PEQ settings. So people can try it out, too.

 

[DSJR]

Lowering the R loading is easily achieved using a simple RCA double adapter with an appropriately calculated R loading plug (very minor soldering required - and only inside the RCA load plug, although there used to be loading plug kits available...)

Raising the R load above 47k is where things get tricky, as you need to open up and change the load inside your phono stage...

But we're talking VINYL here - and please don't forget other things such as mat choice, isolation/siting of the player in the listening room and with some pickups like my B&Os, temperature of the playing environment too and so on.

As you were folks and sincere apologies for possibly rocking the hobby-boat here as much of the posted info is genuinely useful...

 

[Thomas_A]

If anybody doing measurements my personal view is to do it at 47k and whatever is recommended (100-400 pF) and if possible add mesurements with optimized load. Not all have this possibility even if I think a competent phono pre should have this feature.

 

[Watire]

I'm repeating myself and I apologise for that, but testing a pickup on 38k loading only, just 'cos it looks best on a graph is academic really, so please fellas, can't you do a conventional response plot as well at the nominal 47 - 50k, to show how these now ancient relic cartridges really perform in the real word (ALL my twenty odd cartridge collection fits the 'ancient relic' brief as do I now ).

Thanks @DSJR to point this out. There is nothing to disagree with here IMHO. Your sentence was quite clear.
But it seems in our troubled time "academic" is also a loaded word ...
So I will go along with you pointing that one can subsitute "academic" with "experimental" and one can read "do a conventional response plot as well" as : these plots would benefit from a VAT (Value Added Test) validating the results from a standard configuration measurements set.

 

[Watire]

Same as the point for sharing results that use cartridge loading.

Cartridge loading = "I made these electrical circuit changes, here is the result"

EQ changes = "I made these specific PEQ tweaks, here is the result"

And the same reason Amir shares headphone PEQ settings. So people can try it out, too.

Speakers and headphones are the last item in the chain and are more subjected to external condition. They are not a source going thru devices. Every signal can be EQ at will. It sure can be fun by itself. But every correction would be mostly specific to an individual cartridge. We can already see notable variation between the same model on different setup.
As it has been pointed out before, tone controls on the amplifier panel where invented to manage the turntable frequency response issue.

I think the real treasure trove of the corpus of plots brought by this library and its users in this thread is in the distorsion charateristics of each model, brand and stylus cut/form.
In pratical terms it helps judge the wisdom of looking for old cartridge, it helps comparing with the current market offering. When you can do it yourself, it allows the validation of old stock. I was shocked when I realised with the help of the library that my 42 years old Sony cartridge + new stylus didn't distort more than a current Audio Technica. I understand now why one can go for a brand new Shibata replacement stylus for their old cartridge before looking for a new mesmerising Ortofon.
My deepest gratitude goes to the frequent posters and those who dare to try to "measure" up.

 

[USER]

The regular nerds here may be using loading plugs etc , but the wast majority of hi-fi users do not. If we want to be useful and relevant a standard 47k load and typical capacitance 200pf should be posted, any loading option may of course be added as an optimal utilisation.

I think I will add something like this to the post guidelines, thank you.

I always welcomed posts with interesting loading options because the project was new and it was important to gather as much data as possible to better understand the measurements and, of course, it is neat to see the results. I still like the idea of them.

However, I agree that to be useful to others posts should all begin with a "standard" 47k load measurement if it is appropriate (e.g. MM carts).

As far as EQ measurements go, we have a couple already for the same reasons. I think that If they are going to be posted here there they should also come after a reference measurement BUT these posts need to be done with a JVC TRS-1007 or CA TRS-1007 as they are the most accurate test records and there is no point of doing so with something like a CBS STR-100, which is off in terms of frequency response. I guess they should also include the actual EQ information. (I'm now thinking we aren't going to see many of these going forward.)

I have also always thought about having members also include a measurement with loading between 200-350pF if the cartridge is an outlier that requires odd loading but I think I will hold back on adding that to the guidelines. I still welcome this as a supplement if the measurer has the time. (I myself add as much supplemental data as I can including middle of the record FR track, crosstalk from DIN 45 543, and pictures, which I consider important.)

I love supplemental data but we should do it right. Additional thoughts are welcome.

 

[watchnerd]

Speakers and headphones are the last item in the chain and are more subjected to external condition.

Along with cartridges, they're all transducers, electro-mechanical devices with interfaces to both the electrical and physical realms.

But every correction would be mostly specific to an individual cartridge.

Why would this vary more by cartridge than electrical loading?

Surely it applies to both.

 

[Watire]

Along with cartridges, they're all transducers, electro-mechanical devices with interfaces to both the electrical and physical realms.

The context is the chains of devices where the last one is always household specific. If you consider that cartridges introduce as much variance as speakers in a random room, then it negates the point of a generic EQ.

Why would this vary more by cartridge than electrical loading?

Surely it applies to both.

You must be right on this, but are the variance through loading and the specs tolerance between similar cartridges on the same scale ?
Nobody is against the tweeks and pushing the enveloppe of getting a flat RF. We learn from it with the help of a wonderful script. Tayloring the sound of cartridges seems to merit it own discussion thread.

What is pinpointed here is that the value of this thread is the corpus of plots produced from the same models in standard condition. Every AT-3600LC measurements made from different records, different turntables and ADC, different phono preamps, different shape and hours of stylus usage adds up to a global plot pattern. That gives us a picture of the sonic personality of this AT cartridge. and how an eliptical stylus modifies it with subsequent tests. While every user setup is mostly unique.
What exactly 7 perfect plots via EQ from the same cartridge would bring as a matter of knowledge without reference starting point ?
Without a reference point, we simply don't know what compromise is being made, if any, when sliding away from 47K or modifying the signal with DSP.
So let's keep experimenting and enjoy meaningful plots. That is the message I got.

 

[watchnerd]

The context is the chains of devices where the last one is always household specific. If you consider that cartridges introduce as much variance as speakers in a random room, then it negates the point of a generic EQ.

I don't understand what the room has to do with it.

It's no different in objective from electrically loading a cartridge to make the FR flatter.

The only difference is that instead of using electrical loading, you're using something like a Puffin to apply EQ.

You would do this based upon the FR test sweep from the record, not the room.

Toole did exactly this in his MM vs MC test.

EQing a cartridge to be flatter, according to FR test sweeps, would actually make speaker + room EQ easier, as then you could apply a universal EQ to sources both digital and vinyl.

 

[narud]

I think I will add something like this to the post guidelines, thank you.

I always welcomed posts with interesting loading options because the project was new and it was important to gather as much data as possible to better understand the measurements and, of course, it is neat to see the results. I still like the idea of them.

However, I agree that to be useful to others posts should all begin with a "standard" 47k load measurement if it is appropriate (e.g. MM carts).

As far as EQ measurements go, we have a couple already for the same reasons. I think that If they are going to be posted here there they should also come after a reference measurement BUT these posts need to be done with a JVC TRS-1007 or CA TRS-1007 as they are the most accurate test records and there is no point of doing so with something like a CBS STR-100, which is off in terms of frequency response. I guess they should also include the actual EQ information. (I'm now thinking we aren't going to see many of these going forward.)

I have also always thought about having members also include a measurement with loading between 200-350pF if the cartridge is an outlier that requires odd loading but I think I will hold back on adding that to the guidelines. I still welcome this as a supplement if the measurer has the time. (I myself add as much supplemental data as I can including middle of the record FR track, crosstalk from DIN 45 543, and pictures, which I consider important.)

I love supplemental data but we should do it right. Additional thoughts are welcome.

has @JP ever posted plots comparing the jvc to the clearaudio with the same cart? i think i remember seeing the comparison between the inner and outer sweeps of the jvc and there seemed to be considerably less roll off on the inner sweep compared to the inner and outers of the clearaudio that have been posted. i may be imagining things, but i feel like i remember reading maybe over at vinyl engine that the clearaudio didnt completely match the jvc either?

 

[Thomas_A]

has @JP ever posted plots comparing the jvc to the clearaudio with the same cart? i think i remember seeing the comparison between the inner and outer sweeps of the jvc and there seemed to be considerably less roll off on the inner sweep compared to the inner and outers of the clearaudio that have been posted. i may be imagining things, but i feel like i remember reading maybe over at vinyl engine that the clearaudio didnt completely match the jvc either?

I am interested in this as well. If the CA-TRS1007 sweep which is more or less in the middle of the record is "correct", there is compromise to be made.

 

[wpbilderback]

@wpbilderback ,and how is it at a more standard 47k and 225pF?

Shure V15 VMR with Jico SAS boron stylus 2

Notes: As requested, here are the results for my older Shure V15 VMR Jico boron stylus using a standard loading. They are pretty similar to the measurements I took of my newer SAS boron stylus using the same cartridge.

 

[Thomas_A]

Shure V15 VMR with Jico SAS boron stylus 2

View attachment 454960
Notes: As requested, here are the results for my older Shure V15 VMR Jico boron stylus using a standard loading. They are pretty similar to the measurements I took of my newer SAS boron stylus using the same cartridge.

I think the optimum loading for the V15V + SAS/B would be between 400-500 pF and 30-36k. This is because the standard loading 250 pF/47k has its resonance at 17-18 kHz, i.e. the same region where the SAS/B cantilever has a lift. Original beryllium stylus had its resonance >30 kHz, so there was no effect on frequency response. By lower Fr to 12-13 kHz followed by smooth drop, it should match the SAS/B cantilever resonance quite nicely.

 

[RoA]

Great measurement of the AT-VM745xML (repeating the name to maximize webcrawler exposure). You are helping make this a destination thread for vinyl lovers. But yeah, goes to show that there has been zero "innovation" of this medium in 40 years despite what the marketing says. However $329 is not unreasonable for an ML cartridge in 2025. My only complaint is that most people can't load it optimally at 105pF total.

Thank you!

What about the Shibata version. Any less peak?

 

[Thomas_A]

Shure V15V HE

Notes:

• The original 1982 V15V with hyperelliptical stylus
• Bought used, no information of stylus age
• Stylus looks fine in microscope, suspension seems ok
• A bit high distortion at 5 kHz, drops a bit 20 kHz
• Lack the 2-20 kHz drop as the later V15Vx suffered from
• JICO SAS/B on the way...

 

[watchnerd]

What about the Shibata version. Any less peak?

If the LCR values are the same I’d be surprised if stylus shape changed that meaningfully

 

[USER]

Shure V15V HE
View attachment 455847

View attachment 455849
Notes:

• The original 1982 V15V with hyperelliptical stylus
• Bought used, no information of stylus age
• Stylus looks fine in microscope, suspension seems ok
• A bit high distortion at 5 kHz, drops a bit 20 kHz
• Lack the 2-20 kHz drop as the later V15Vx suffered from
• JICO SAS/B on the way...

Working suspension. Nice!

 

[Thomas_A]

Working suspension. Nice!

It sounds a bit smoother in the highs vs. my V15Vx/SAS/B. I will do a loading opt for the SAS/B for the V15V and upload two files for comparison.