Is there a website that actually tests phono cartridges?

[Busaboy]

They do a null test or something?
Rip the music and analyze it somehow?
How flat is it?
See if a MC really retrieves more information?
Cause I trust my ears (and reviewers)
as much as I trusted my late uncle
with a bottle bourbon.

LOL

cheers
ken

 

[GXAlan]

Nagaoka MP-500 Cartridge Lab Report

Lab Report Last tested over a decade ago [HFN Feb '11], Nagaoka's 'Moving Permalloy' pick-up has remained very consistent in production. By current standards, its output into a standard 47kohm load remains a 'middling' 3.1mV (the Ortofon 2M series MMs will achieve up to 7mV/1kHz re. 5cm/sec) but...

www.hifinews.com

Hifi News has consistent measurements.

 

[JP]

There are a fair number of measurements here as well.

 

[DVDdoug]

I don't know... In the old days, I think Stereo Review Magazine measured cartridges with a test record.

It would be good to at-least see some standardized measurements so you could compare the results but I'm not sure if I would trust the test record to be "flat". I'd be willing to bet that different test records vary by at least 1dB and are probably no more accurate than any good cartridge. Not that I personally care... I haven't "played records" in 30 or 40 years and I only occasionally digitize one.

And in the old days the records varied more than the cartridges. "Good sounding" records were rare but I was still foolishly always upgrading or wanting to upgrade my cartridge. The main difference I heard (or thought I heard) was high-frequency response but I didn't "feel right" if I had to boost the treble... Also foolish. Maybe "modern" records are better and more consistent?

They do a null test or something?

A regular null test would be "imperfect" because even if you digitize the same-exact analog signal twice, you get "different numbers". Each sample represents a single instant in-time and the waveform will be sampled at different "random" (uncorrelated) points each time.

When it comes to null tests I always say, "The sound of the difference isn't the same as the difference in the sound". It's TRUE that if two files (or signals) null to silence when subtracted, there is no difference in the sound. But if you don't get silence it doesn't prove anything... The most obvious example is if you add a few milliseconds of silence to the beginning of one copy to get a delay. It doesn't change the sound at all but subtraction gives you a "louder" file than the original(s) and you get comb filtering. And although you might recognize comb filtering as a phase/timing related effect it, doesn't sound like a delay.

 

[anmpr1]

Once every year or two, could be three, David Rich will submit an in-depth review of a phono cartridge at the Home Hi-Fi Secrets site. You have to dig around, because it's not easy to find his stuff. Almost as if they bury it intentionally, but who knows what is going on over there?

Other than Rich, most 'reviews' are worthless from a technical standpoint, and exist simply to advertise the product. That is, the 'press' is an extension of the manufacturer's advertising department. Or it might be the other way around-- manufacturers are an extension of the magazine's circulation department.

Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity

Home Theater Reviews for Systems and Audio Components - Audio Visual Product Reviews, Technical AV Guides, Home Theater Equipment and Product Reviews

hometheaterhifi.com

 

[JP]

There are a number of folks that would contest the rigor of the reviews on that site. I’d read that they were using a phono pre where the capacitance could’ve been an order of magnitude different than they thought due to a mfg change but they refused to verify it. Could explain some of the odd MM measurements I’ve seen there.

 

[morillon]

Audio-Technics AT155LC Phono cartridge Review price specs - Hi-Fi Classic

www.hifi-classic.net

there was this kind of thing in the past... and we were already in the tail of the comet of vinyl... before its relative recent return (of comet ;-)) "in fashion"...
It's interesting to observe the approach, test discs, etc. in the 80s...

 

[anmpr1]

There are a number of folks that would contest the rigor of the reviews on that site. I’d read that they were using a phono pre where the capacitance could’ve been an order of magnitude different than they thought due to a mfg change but they refused to verify it. Could explain some of the odd MM measurements I’ve seen there.

Which site are you talking about? The 'secrets' site? If so, I never heard that. Below is their test protocol:

Benchmarks were obtained by using a Technics SL1200 Mk 6 turntable, which has been modified and rewired by KAB Electroacoustics, as a testbed. The turntable is plugged into a Parasound ZPhono preamp, which has a simple but excellent quality 2-stage phono section. Each cartridge will be measured using test tracks from the CBS Technical Labs (STR 100) test LP and three tone intermodulation tests from the Shure V15 Type 5 Audio Obstacle Course LP (TTR 117). The output, from the phono stage, will be recorded digitally at 24-bit 48 kHz (to minimize groove wear on the test LPs) on a TASCAM HD-P2 digital recorder. Those results were analyzed on my computer using SpectraPLUS audio measurement software via the Lynx TWO B professional sound card.

I personally would not have used the KAB device for formal testing. It is not a precision instrument, and suffers from environmental issues. It cannot be easily defeated for alternate 'before and after' comparisons. And it's a mess to clean up, afterwards.

As we know, different test records have different problems, but if all cartridges are measured the same way, you can have a reasonable idea.

The thing with cartridges is that there are so many variables, and the difference between, say, 1.5%THD at 1KHz and 0.5% may not mean much, in your living room. It's easy to watch a 'scope and point a finger; often difficult to correlate a measurement with what is heard.

Another big problem with all of this is that cartridge measurements are often meaningless because the product becomes meaningless. The Shure, for instance, is no longer available; it was an inexpensive cartridge to begin with, and suffered from QC problems from the Mexican factory. A good one was nice sounding, at its price point. You can sometimes find a few NOS on-line for high prices. I have two, and they are OK, for one hundred dollars. All cartridges have their own 'sonic signature', so you might as well toss a coin.

Shure M97xE Phono Cartridge Review - HomeTheaterHifi.com

If you're looking for a good quality mid-level phono cartridge to enable your dreams of vinyl nirvana (on a budget), then the Shure M97xE is definitely...

hometheaterhifi.com

 

[JP]

Which site are you talking about? The 'secrets' site? If so, I never heard that. Below is their test protocol:

Benchmarks were obtained by using a Technics SL1200 Mk 6 turntable, which has been modified and rewired by KAB Electroacoustics, as a testbed. The turntable is plugged into a Parasound ZPhono preamp, which has a simple but excellent quality 2-stage phono section. Each cartridge will be measured using test tracks from the CBS Technical Labs (STR 100) test LP and three tone intermodulation tests from the Shure V15 Type 5 Audio Obstacle Course LP (TTR 117). The output, from the phono stage, will be recorded digitally at 24-bit 48 kHz (to minimize groove wear on the test LPs) on a TASCAM HD-P2 digital recorder. Those results were analyzed on my computer using SpectraPLUS audio measurement software via the Lynx TWO B professional sound card.

I personally would not have used the KAB device for formal testing. It is not a precision instrument, and suffers from environmental issues. It cannot be easily defeated for alternate 'before and after' comparisons. And it's a mess to clean up, afterwards.

As we know, different test records have different problems, but if all cartridges are measured the same way, you can have a reasonable idea.

The thing with cartridges is that there are so many variables, and the difference between, say, 1.5%THD at 1KHz and 0.5% may not mean much, in your living room. It's easy to watch a 'scope and point a finger; often difficult to correlate a measurement with what is heard.

Another big problem with all of this is that cartridge measurements are often meaningless because the product becomes meaningless. The Shure, for instance, is no longer available; it was an inexpensive cartridge to begin with, and suffered from QC problems from the Mexican factory. A good one was nice sounding, at its price point. You can sometimes find a few NOS on-line for high prices. I have two, and they are OK, for one hundred dollars. All cartridges have their own 'sonic signature', so you might as well toss a coin.

Shure M97xE Phono Cartridge Review - HomeTheaterHifi.com

If you're looking for a good quality mid-level phono cartridge to enable your dreams of vinyl nirvana (on a budget), then the Shure M97xE is definitely...

hometheaterhifi.com

I've a long weekend coordinating a 3-day live streaming event, but will see if I can dig up those posts without too much effort after.

Their protocol leaves a lot of gaps as we don't know:

1. How/if they're compensating for RIAA.
2. What load is the cartridge seeing? We can assume 47k but we've no idea on Cl.
3. What is the health of the test record?
4. What tracks from the test record? The sweep track starts at 40Hz so do we assume they're just using the spots and doing the manual calculation to adjust for RIAA? Why do they not mention this? They do (in a confusing way) for crosstalk.
5. Speaking of crosstalk, STR-100 is broadly known to be one of the poorest records to use to measure crosstalk.

Loved this gem: "As the frequency gets higher, the test tone level declines on the CBS STR 100. More error in the measurement is introduced at higher frequencies which may explain some of this deviation." Also interesting that they use an attempted appeal to authority with a hobbyist that liked to measure cartridges many years ago, and a specific different cartridge that was measured with a different test record.

While I can't even get in the ballpark of their FR measurements on this one, I haven't attempted to duplicate their distortion or tracking tests. Those should be considerably more difficult to screw up so perhaps those have some meaning.

 

[Frank Dernie]

The only place I know which tests cartridges in what I consider to be a consistent manner is here:

Turntables, Arms & Cartridges

www.hifinews.com

I don’t know if the test technique is bullet proof and not all reviews have test data though.

 

[JP]

lowbeats.de appears to do a good job on FR and distortion. At least I can duplicate or get close enough to their measurements.

 

[anmpr1]

I've a long weekend coordinating a 3-day live streaming event, but will see if I can dig up those posts without too much effort after.

I appreciated Rich's work. He always broke it down. For better or worse. Today it is few and far between, and what is there mostly turns on outlier gear. Phono cartridges which most people don't care about. Contrast that with his McIntosh teardowns from the old Audio Critic. But maybe the folks at Hi-Fi Secrets won't let him near the latest and greatest Mac amps, due to ad revenue. Your guess is as good as mine.

I first came across Rich when he was testing electronics for Aczel. I think he also did some reviews for a long-lost mag called Sensible Sound. Maybe I just made that up. I didn't subscribe, but am pretty sure I read some reprints under his byline. SS was advertised as a 'budget' oriented audiophile magazine.

Personally, phono cartridges are interesting, but only because I have a lot of records. I don't get excited over measurements. At least apart from tracking ability, and in my experience almost all phono cartridges will track almost all grooves. Hell, a 1960s ball point pen Denon DL-103 will track most records, and sound good doing it.

My general rule of thumb is that at any price point spread, any comparable cartridge will pretty much do the trick. One can pay a lot more, and get something probably better, but not better within its peers. Just different. The idea that the latest and greatest phono cartridge is going to 'blow your Sox off, revealing stuff you've never thought could be revealed' is a language I frankly don't understand.

 

[cgallery]

Recently posted at another site, I thought it was sort of funny.

 

[Busaboy]

All righty then
I wasn't too hopeful that an there would be a website that had an data base of objective cartridge measurements.
Now I'm even less so.
LOL
Thanks for the replies everyone.

cheers
ken

 

[Avp1]

All righty then
I wasn't too hopeful that an there would be a website that had an data base of objective cartridge measurements.
Now I'm even less so.
LOL
Thanks for the replies everyone.

cheers
ken

Lab quality test LPs like CBS mentioned above were not made for decades. Market demand for measurements is too small for someone to produce custom made test records. Ability to make them of lab quality simply does not exist today.

 

[morillon]

although a little off topic....(but in relation to the previous message and the overall subject that concerns us ;-) )
who here has been able to test analog majik lps ?
do you know which company makes them?

 

[Adi777]

Sorry for the offtopic, but do you know any sites where CD players are tested, or simply where are the results of such tests? Actually, it's very hard to find any objective information about CD players.

 

[Frank Dernie]

All righty then
I wasn't too hopeful that an there would be a website that had an data base of objective cartridge measurements.
Now I'm even less so.
LOL
Thanks for the replies everyone.

cheers
ken

I think the fundamental problem is the huge prevalence of subjective audio reviewing over the last 45 years or so.

Prior to that, even though any measuring equipment was spectaculatrly expensive reviewers who wanted a job had to own some and know how to use it.
Post Jean Hiraga audiophiles have been convinced it is the ear that counts, handy for reviewers like Jean and the subsequent cadre of reviewers many (most?) of whom had little technical aptitude and no test equipment but still were influential.

This means the good test records which were pressed have been out of print for decades and old ones probably worn out - I seem to remember the Bruel and Kjaer records we used at Garrard when I was there were guaranteed to have the frequency response within tolerance for 5 plays, or something like that...

Ironically test equipment is almost negligibly priced these days but the majority of HiFi magazine reading enthusiasts no longer believe in measurements.

In reality the difference in frequency response and distortion between different cartridge makers and models is huge, more like speakers than electronics as one would expect.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Sorry for the offtopic, but do you know any sites where CD players are tested, or simply where are the results of such tests? Actually, it's very hard to find any objective information about CD players.

I can't answer your question but possibly because CD players are out of fashion, possibly because, very much unlike pickup cartridges, the difference between them in FR and distortion is usually very small.
A variation of 1dB is rare in CD players, and tends to usually be in the top audible octave.
5dB difference between cartridges isn't rare and even in the main audible range where most of thge music is it can be >1dB.

 

[Avp1]

Sorry for the offtopic, but do you know any sites where CD players are tested, or simply where are the results of such tests? Actually, it's very hard to find any objective information about CD players.

How about Stereophile? They do technical tests for most gear they have for review, this includes disk players.