MM vs MI vs MC

[Helicopter]

I got out my test records, and re-arranged equipment so I could plug my AT-OC9XML into the SL-1200 to Neutrik adapters to Focusrite Scarlett 2i2. When I plugged it in, I realized I should have made an adapter that ties the TT ground into the ground pins of the 2i2 XLR inputs, but I am lucky not to have any hum. I am terrified having a 48V button on he 2i2 that can fry stuff if it gets bumped.

STR-140 is in pristine condition, but all the 'pink noise' sounds more like wind than mathematically modeled pink noise from the computer so I am curious what it really is. I don't think STR-100 has a suitable track for what we're doing, and STR-140 is possibly only good for in-room measurements if you want to add together the whole system from stylus to speakers to room and see what everything is doing in a simple snapshot. Is the Analog Productions Test LP side 1 track 6 (1kHz-20kHz sweep, -20dB lateral) the best sweep (for the software) out of these three records?

 

[JP]

What’s the issue with the sweep tracks on the STR-100?

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

I've had inconsistent frequency response results between the Ortofon and Acoustic Sounds records. The spot frequency sweep on the Acoustic Sounds (side 1, track 6) seems to give results which 'make the most sense'. The pink noise on side 2 gives different results, and the Ortofon gives wildly different results. I don't know what the problem is, but I know my cartridge isn't as whacked out as the Ortofon 'says' it is.

On the bright side, the Ortofon tracking tests indicate that my cartridge can track the 90um band without breaking up (at 1.25 grams).

 

[scott wurcer]

I got out my test records, and re-arranged equipment so I could plug my AT-OC9XML into the SL-1200 to Neutrik adapters to Focusrite Scarlett 2i2. When I plugged it in, I realized I should have made an adapter that ties the TT ground into the ground pins of the 2i2 XLR inputs, but I am lucky not to have any hum. I am terrified having a 48V button on he 2i2 that can fry stuff if it gets bumped.

STR-140 is in pristine condition, but all the 'pink noise' sounds more like wind than mathematically modeled pink noise from the computer so I am curious what it really is. I don't think STR-100 has a suitable track for what we're doing, and STR-140 is possibly only good for in-room measurements if you want to add together the whole system from stylus to speakers to room and see what everything is doing in a simple snapshot. Is the Analog Productions Test LP side 1 track 6 (1kHz-20kHz sweep, -20dB lateral) the best sweep (for the software) out of these three records?

The CBS Labs pink noise tracks are flawed, if you play them at very slow speed there are obvious sweeping tones as part of the "noise".

 

[Helicopter]

What’s the issue with the sweep tracks on the STR-100?

A-1A and A-2A sweep frequency three minute test?

The CBS Labs pink noise tracks are flawed, if you play them at very slow speed there are obvious sweeping tones as part of the "noise".

Seemed obvious at 33RPM to me. It sounds more like whistling wind than pink noise... swish-swish-swish-swish-swish. Also, the sweep speed changes erratically and sounds like someone had their hand on a potentiometer, looked at a stop watch, and did their best.

 

[eliash]

The dip at 10kHz is consistent with this, but that 20 kHz peaking isn't:

Did a quick frequency response analysis on the MP-500 w HFN test record full sweep track on a SME309 arm. Total loading was 47K/120pf @1.5g/23°C. Measured via RME A/D (ADI-2 fs) and tc-electronic Clarity M Stereo loudness analyser (modified phono module in T+A R-Series preamp). To keep the momentary display, I used the peak hold function of the 3rd octave analyser and processed the screen shots for better visibility.

Not too bad, but of course some care has to be taken, interpreting these measurements.
- 1. no accuracy statement is available from HFN,
- 2. the sweep is quite fast, so measurement integration time on each band might not be long enough or equal in each band (as can be seen at 20Hz, static value is higher),
- 3. the peak hold function records additional noise...
- 4. the HF resolution is limited to a few bands,
- 5. there might be stylus/groove resonances present, as mentioned in the dhifi2 manual.
But anyway, looks like the L/C resonance is visible around 16KHz.
Regarding any cantilever resonances, the high 20KHz point on the left chan. might hint something.
We'll see if the resonance moves up with a new cable and some 10-15pF less...

 

[watchnerd]

Did a quick frequency response analysis on the MP-500 w HFN test record full sweep track on an SME309 arm. Total loading was 47K/120pf @1.5g/23°C. Measured via RME A/D (ADI-2 fs) and tc-electronic Clarity M Stereo loudness analyser (modified phono module in T+A R-Series preamp). To keep the momentary display, I used the peak hold function of the 3rd octave analyser and processed the screen shots for better visibility.

View attachment 121279View attachment 121280

Not too bad, but of course some care has to be taken, interpreting these measurements.
- 1. no accuracy statement is available from HFN,
- 2. the sweep is quite fast, so measurement integration time on each band might not be long enough or equal in each band (as can be seen at 20Hz, static value is higher),
- 3. the peak hold function records additional noise...
- 4. the HF resolution is limited to a few bands,
- 5. there might be stylus/groove resonances present, as mentioned in the dhifi2 manual.
But anyway, looks like the L/C resonance is visible around 16KHz.
Regarding any cantilever resonances, the high 20KHz point on the left chan. might hint something.
We'll see if the resonance moves up with a new cable and some 10-15pF less...

You should look at the graphs of my MP-500 up thread when I cranked the pF way up.

It's somewhat similar.

I don't know how you know the resonances from the cantilever, specifically, or why that even matters?

 

[Thomas_A]

The MP-500 seems the opposite of that based on the lab tests:

View attachment 100749

Although I can't hear that high. My hearing starts to roll off above 12k.

I think the response can be fixed with some slight alterations of loading.

 

[watchnerd]

I think the response can be fixed with some slight alterations of loading.

I did 3-5 tests (I don't remember) upthread.

This one (0 pF) and 100 pF setting on my amp where the flattest.

Higher starts to produce a resonance peak in the upper treble.

 

[Thomas_A]

I did 3-5 tests (I don't remember) upthread.

This one (0 pF) and 100 pF setting on my amp where the flattest.

Higher starts to produce a resonance peak in the upper treble.

Yes, the lower settings of pF should be close to ideal. Changing resistance to somewhat higher values would lift the 10-20 kHz region.

 

[eliash]

You should look at the graphs of my MP-500 up thread when I cranked the pF way up.

It's somewhat similar.

I don't know how you know the resonances from the cantilever, specifically, or why that even matters?

The cantilever thing is just a suspicion to be watched, since there is some forum discussion going on, how to set elasticity and rigidity of the cantilever optimally for given materials. Too stiff: high resonance frequency but high moving mass - too elastic, low resonance frequency and low moving mass...I remember some figures from the VE forum, stating a typical boron cantilever resonance just above the hearing band. If one looks at the Jico pages, they offer a whole bunch of cantilever options, addressing user preferences, Adamant Namiki even offers real diamond as the ne plus ultra...

 

[watchnerd]

Yes, the lower settings of pF should be close to ideal. Changing resistance to somewhat higher values would lift the 10-20 kHz region.

Or just EQ it.

But we've had this discussion before,

 

[watchnerd]

The cantilever thing is just a suspicion to be watched, since there is some forum discussion going on, how to set elasticity and rigidity of the cantilever optimally for given materials. Too stiff: high resonance frequency but high moving mass - too elastic, low resonance frequency and low moving mass...I remember some figures from the VE forum, stating a typical boron cantilever resonance just above the hearing band. If one looks at the Jico pages, they offer a whole bunch of cantilever options, addressing user preferences, Adamant Namiki even offers real diamond as the ne plus ultra...

I think it's moot as the cantilever is part of the design.

Unless you're retipping an MC and have to make a different choice from the original, but that doesn't apply to stylus-replace-able MI/MM like the MP-500.

 

[JP]

A-1A and A-2A sweep frequency three minute test?

Yes, but note it's CV from 500Hz.

 

[eliash]

I think it's moot as the cantilever is part of the design.

Unless you're retipping an MC and have to make a different choice from the original, but that doesn't apply to stylus-replace-able MI/MM like the MP-500.

I am pretty sure Nagaoka did their best to come up with a reasonable optimisation of inductance, stylus shape and cantilever related resonance tweaking, so probably it would be counterproductive to ask for less inductance in their coils. (Level-wise it would be no problem as the level/inductance relationship is a quadratic one.) But anyway, let´s face it, the Shure V15 era with beryllium/aluminum cantilever and MR stylus is over. From my perspective, replacement styli for that fight the same battle (tried MR on boron in my V15 IV)...and low budget MC carts bring their own additional problems, like Barkhausen effect induced noise from the heavy magnetised iron on which their coils are wound on...(here being positively impressed by the low noise permalloy MI construction of the MP-500, easily audible when lowering the stylus into a mechanical quiet urethane cleaning pad)

Regarding optimised resitive loading, maybe I give it a try and sacrifice one of the (here anyway unused) four programmable additional load capacitors in the phono module for a resistor, which would open the choice between standard 47K and some higher value like around 80K...(...e.g. replace the fixed 47k by 82k and add switchable 110K...)

 

[EJ3]

Even at today's prices the NOS SHURE V15 V BE cantilever & MR stylus can be bought for less than many inferior designs. Once you have a body, the NOS styli can be replaced by NOS styli or others. Over the last 3 years I've managed to acquire 3 of the NOS bodies with NOS styli and 3 extra NOS BE styli (as well as a few JICO's that fit to try out). This on a limited budget of working part time to not at all for months on end. If it is what you are looking for, hunt it down and negotiate. Technics also made some great ones in MM & MC. Some have prices that are higher than I would like but the ones that I am thinking of are quite rare (I wish that I had one but I don't primarily because of the hit my finances would take).

 

[Helicopter]

In order to keep this thread more focused, I made a new thread for my AT-OC9XML MC cartridge.

 

[eliash]

I have a question for you all: I have a now well-used Shure V15 V-MR cartridge and respective micro-ridge stylus. If I send it in to have the stylus "retipped," would it be the same as before or would the end result be closer to buying Jico stylus. I am simply wondering if it is worth it or if I am better trying to see if a dead stock stylus comes up for sale.

Never heard of anybody who had kept the original Al/Be cantilever, but even if the cantilever could be kept, there is also this original suspension rubber which probably has to be exchanged, otherwise you will end up with a "low rider"...
From my perspective, the SAS stylus tip itself is OK...Potential problems arise when it comes with another cantilever material and eventually with a different length and different suspension...in my V15 IV the Jico SAS/boron replacement stylus produced significantly higher frequency response deviations than the original MR-stylus...LF tracking is OK, but not as good as even the old MR...from my current perspective, I haven´t found a final conclusion, whether my old Shure V15 IV cart with replacement stylus is better or worse than a new MP-500 (but tend to like the MP-500 with <=120pF total cap. loading, will keep it for some time)...key issue seems to be to move any resonances as far out of the hearing band as possible. They sound somehow "cheap" to my ears, because they reduce perceived clarity of sound, which I regard as even worse than some less HF level (e.g. -1.5dB@10KHz)...electrical resonances can be shifted with less cap. loading, but mechanical ones from replacement styli, (also mentionend somewhere at the beginning of this thread) have to be accepted...

One late remark, regarding the somewhat lost focus of this thread, my 2 cents are that MC (e.g. Benz Micro ACE-SH) vs. MM/MI (e.g. Nagaoka MP-500) is very difficult to decide for me, currently set to MM/MI by the price/availablility of a new MC (Benz)...

 

[Thomas_A]

Never heard of anybody who had kept the original Al/Be cantilever, but even if the cantilever could be kept, there is also this original suspension rubber which probably has to be exchanged, otherwise you will end up with a "low rider"...
From my perspective, the SAS stylus tip itself is OK...Potential problems arise when it comes with another cantilever material and eventually with a different length and different suspension...in my V15 IV the Jico SAS/boron replacement stylus produced significantly higher frequency response deviations than the original MR-stylus...LF tracking is OK, but not as good as even the old MR...from my current perspective, I haven´t found a final conclusion, whether my old Shure V15 IV cart with replacement stylus is better or worse than a new MP-500 (but tend to like the MP-500 with <=120pF total cap. loading, will keep it for some time)...key issue seems to be to move any resonances as far out of the hearing band as possible. They sound somehow "cheap" to my ears, because they reduce perceived clarity of sound, which I regard as even worse than some less HF level (e.g. -1.5dB@10KHz)...electrical resonances can be shifted with less cap. loading, but mechanical ones from replacement styli, (also mentionend somewhere at the beginning of this thread) have to be accepted...

One late remark, regarding the somewhat lost focus of this thread, my 2 cents are that MC (e.g. Benz Micro ACE-SH) vs. MM/MI (e.g. Nagaoka MP-500) is very difficult to decide for me, currently set to MM/MI by the price/availablility of a new MC (Benz)...

I would say that the SAS/boron gave significantly better results on my V15Vx body compared to the Be/MR stylus. The distortion was lower, channel balance better (best one gave 0.3 dB) and channel separation (close to the -40 dB mark and rather even). Tracks everything. Microscopic inspection revealed a better symmetry of both cantilever and diamond. The down-side is the 3dB peaking around 13 kHz but again it sounds more neutral than the original V15VxMR that is a bit dark.

 

[EJ3]

I would say that the SAS/boron gave significantly better results on my V15Vx body compared to the Be/MR stylus. The distortion was lower, channel balance better (best one gave 0.3 dB) and channel separation (close to the -40 dB mark and rather even). Tracks everything. Microscopic inspection revealed a better symmetry of both cantilever and diamond. The down-side is the 3dB peaking around 13 kHz but again it sounds more neutral than the original V15VxMR that is a bit dark.

This is also to anyone running the V15-MR series (I am running both the normal (on my DUAL 1229) cartridges and the P-Mount cartridges (Ultra 300 or 400 on my Technics SL-M3 [linier tracking]: What are your tracking weights & anti skate settings (the same with the original Al/Be cantilever & JICO styli or different?). Same question about the capacitance. Also some of the JICO's are of crystal structure cantilevers, what about those? There are many options with these cartridges.