Digital1955
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2022
- Messages
- 61
- Likes
- 49
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
MM vs MI vs MC
- Thread starter watchnerd
- Start date
Tom C
Major Contributor
Thx
cbs fs SUX in the bass
they all kind of crumble above 10k
2K to 10K sags…could that be the system (cart or phono stage)?
cbs fs SUX in the bass
they all kind of crumble above 10k
2K to 10K sags…could that be the system (cart or phono stage)?
Classic MC response.
Perhaps because the Rega measures like that?
That will depend heavily on your C & R loading...
Hmmmthe CBS PN looks suspect... the HFN PN and CBS sweeep both look good through the midrange - but the sub 1kHz difference is a concern - the HFN 200Hz boost is I think a flaw in the HFN pink noise track - abd I am not sure who is off in the high end - is the HFN PN too excessive over 12KHz, or is the CBS sweep too restrained? and how can we tell! - I don't trust that CBS PN response... it looks like it has multiple issues.
JP
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2019
- Messages
- 968
- Likes
- 1,602
Two more.
I should have a Stanton 681EEE coming up next week. If you want a Shure stylus comparison (about 5 or 6) let me know.
As with all my graphs, the dip at 5kHz and bumps between 14-18kHz are the test record. Smooth out and lower the latter by about 1 dB.
I should have a Stanton 681EEE coming up next week. If you want a Shure stylus comparison (about 5 or 6) let me know.
As with all my graphs, the dip at 5kHz and bumps between 14-18kHz are the test record. Smooth out and lower the latter by about 1 dB.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2019
- Messages
- 968
- Likes
- 1,602
Digital1955
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2022
- Messages
- 61
- Likes
- 49
As was mentioned, running the record at a different speed should expose defects in the pressing. I had been experimenting with that prior, but I have to deal with using a phono preamp that applies RIAA. Now I have swept my phono preamp directly with a test signal (from a signal generator) and created an exact filter curve to remove the RIAA (both in correcting the wav file and/or correcting the graphs), but I haven't gone back to running at difference speeds since then.
I suppose we are all trying to figure out a good standard (?) way to measure the actual frequency response of a cartridge + stylus. Running the record at different speeds does provide the option of deriving a correction curve we could all apply to a record like the CBS STR 100 sweep. Certainly that ripple at ~5Khz is showing up in all our plots, so there is some consistency in that pressing.
I had another idea that I played around with but not in a formal enough way to post plots yet. I took a CD and an album that I was fairly certain were made from the same master. Obviously I can't be 100% certain. I took a 5 minute track and averaged the frequency response from the CD version, using every sample and an FFT size that yields better than 1Hz of resolution. I then did a vinyl rip and analyzed the vinyl rip in the same manner. Then I made a new plot from the delta of the two plots. Although this puts a lot of other variables into the equation, my theory was the long averaging would help better derive the response difference. I tried this with a MoFi 33 RPM pressing and the corresponding CD version they released. It did yield something that resembled my plots with test records. Maybe this is pointless. Maybe there would be some value in using this method just to add another data point to deriving a correction curve back to something like the STR 100, something it seems most of us have in our hands.
Or we could...just listen to some music. I don't know.
JP
Major Contributor
I took the feedback from an SX-74 head and compared that plot to the first playback of the lacquer with a cartridge known to be flat according to a sweep track on a TRS-1007. That record is locked away and that track only used to verify that cart/styli, which is locked away to verify other sweep tracks.
Newman
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2017
- Messages
- 3,530
- Likes
- 4,371
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/mm-vs-mi-vs-mc.18636/post-1123067
I think the primary issue is the test signal type.
Last edited:
JP
Major Contributor
Start reading around here https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/cartridge-dynamic-behaviour.320026/post-5713672
MM vs MI vs MC
My question, I suppose, is; “I see all sorts of flowery words about cartridges, but how do I choose one?” One of the most important things is making sure the cart is compatible with your tone arm. All the other things you mention won't matter much if your tone arm mass is not compatible with...
I think the primary issue is the test signal type.
Newman
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2017
- Messages
- 3,530
- Likes
- 4,371
@JP don’t appreciate cryptic comments like that, just say what you mean please.
I’m not saying PN is superior or has no problems of its own, I am saying that cartridge FR varies with simple vs complex test signals. And that is a real problem for music reproduction. A very real measure of how good a cartridge is would be how good it is at not changing FR with signal complexity.
I’m not saying PN is superior or has no problems of its own, I am saying that cartridge FR varies with simple vs complex test signals. And that is a real problem for music reproduction. A very real measure of how good a cartridge is would be how good it is at not changing FR with signal complexity.
Geek away !! (audiophile gazing at dual oscilloscopes - who needs music, I can see it's perfec!)As was mentioned, running the record at a different speed should expose defects in the pressing. I had been experimenting with that prior, but I have to deal with using a phono preamp that applies RIAA. Now I have swept my phono preamp directly with a test signal (from a signal generator) and created an exact filter curve to remove the RIAA (both in correcting the wav file and/or correcting the graphs), but I haven't gone back to running at difference speeds since then.
I suppose we are all trying to figure out a good standard (?) way to measure the actual frequency response of a cartridge + stylus. Running the record at different speeds does provide the option of deriving a correction curve we could all apply to a record like the CBS STR 100 sweep. Certainly that ripple at ~5Khz is showing up in all our plots, so there is some consistency in that pressing.
I had another idea that I played around with but not in a formal enough way to post plots yet. I took a CD and an album that I was fairly certain were made from the same master. Obviously I can't be 100% certain. I took a 5 minute track and averaged the frequency response from the CD version, using every sample and an FFT size that yields better than 1Hz of resolution. I then did a vinyl rip and analyzed the vinyl rip in the same manner. Then I made a new plot from the delta of the two plots. Although this puts a lot of other variables into the equation, my theory was the long averaging would help better derive the response difference. I tried this with a MoFi 33 RPM pressing and the corresponding CD version they released. It did yield something that resembled my plots with test records. Maybe this is pointless. Maybe there would be some value in using this method just to add another data point to deriving a correction curve back to something like the STR 100, something it seems most of us have in our hands.
Or we could...just listen to some music. I don't know.
I do like the idea of using theoretically identical recordings averages and baselined to the same CD, as a calibration standard - that could then be applied back to a test record.
The obvious issue will be the high frequency extremes - which are not so important for music, but can be very telling in analysing cartridge/stylus/cantilever behaviour!
The mythology around the mass of coils, being a justification for LO, really is only true with the very best ultra low mass cantilever... boron or beryllium tubes... 90% + of the moving mass in a cartridge is always going to be the cantilever... a couple of % will be the needl, and the magnets or coils will acount for only a single digit % .... the lowest measured effective mass cartridges were Technics MM's.... which sort of puts the lie to the LO MC excuse!MM vs MI vs MC
My question, I suppose, is; “I see all sorts of flowery words about cartridges, but how do I choose one?” One of the most important things is making sure the cart is compatible with your tone arm. All the other things you mention won't matter much if your tone arm mass is not compatible with...
As an aside, there were some experiments with LOMM designs - I have one of the resulting Stanton cartridges - and it is a very fine cartridge - but the lowest moving mass Technics cartridges - were high-ish output (lower output than many of the more mass market cartridges, but not in the low output category by any means)
Hmmm not sure we are talking about the same thing?
Ultra low mass, means it can follow the walls of the groove more accurately due to reduced inertia... reduced mass also shifts the native resonance of a cantilever system - at the resonance point, you get increased distortion, and a boost in output levels (same with electrical resonance ... which is one of the reasons cartridge loading works with MM's... but the electrical resonance doesn't affect tracking - so no equivalent boost in distortion).
Without the resonance boost on the cantilever - there is nothing to cause the rising high end - such as we commonly see with many MC's...
With MM's less so, as the capacitance of the MM loading tends to roll off the high end - which balances out the rise.
Complexity of the signal is a different thing - should not have a response on FR at all - but if your tools are sufficiently sensitive, - may have an effect on drag, and therefore on Wow & Flutter.... (depending on the engineering of your TT/Platter)
To see (and hear) the effect of ULM in a current design... ie: one still being manufactured, which has ULM, and as a result a very very high resonance point (above 30Khz is needed), which allows for a flat frequency response under 20kHz - look to the dynavector Karat... (or Ruby) - the Dynavector cartridges with the ultra short cantilevers - under 3mm (some models under 2mm).
With most of the mass being in the cantilever (because... physics) - the simplest way of reducing it, is to shorten the cantilever... then you don't need the fancy manufacturing technologies required for making hollow tubes.
DV KARAT 17D3 | MC Phono Cartridge | Dynavector International Site
www.dynavector.com
Similar threads
- Sticky
