MM vs MI vs MC

[JP]

Style 2 is the one I've given the most focus for usability and as the default is the one I prefer. I find the 2dB/tick a bit too course and style 3 a bit too zoomed-in so I prefer 1dB/tick with style 2. I played with the visuals a lot and ended up with the different line weights as it was easier to distinguish crosstalk from distortion and gave that area a less cluttered look.

 

[USER]

Going live. I will be working on this for the next few hours so do let me know if anything should be changed. I will go with style 2--and style 3 because I can't help myself and because it will be useful for the first few posts. I'll be keeping an index with all your measurements.

 

[Thomas_A]

Going live. I will be working on this for the next few hours so do let me know if anything should be changed. I will go with style 2--and style 3 because I can't help myself and because it will be useful for the first few posts. I'll be keeping an index with all your measurements.

No problem to follow that pattern. However, y-scale is not fixed. It should be for comparison?

Did you normalise L and R level for these plots?

 

[USER]

No problem to follow that pattern. Did you normalise L and R level for these plots?

If you mean "file0norm" I didn't as I preferred to make the FR curves more easily comparable to each other rather than seeing channel matching. As I going to be posting a lot more working class cartridges (lol), I didn't want to bog things down.

I noticed that normalizing also alters the crosstalk measurements, but I'm not sure if its better.

But I am always open to change my methods.

@JP, any thoughts?

 

[JP]

File0norm should be 1. If it’s set to 0 both channels will be normalized independently (1kHz to 0dB). This will obfuscate any channel imbalance that cartridge has which I think is important to show.

 

[Thomas_A]

If you mean "file0norm" I didn't as I preferred to make the FR curves more easily comparable to each other rather than seeing channel matching. As I going to be posting a lot more working class cartridges (lol), I didn't want to bog things down.

I noticed that normalizing also alters the crosstalk measurements, but I'm not sure if its better.

But I am always open to change my methods.

@JP, any thoughts?

For one thing, if L/R curves are normalised at 1 kHz, matching across the spectrum is revealed. Channel balance is missed though, which do vary within cartridges of the same model and between stylii. I think it should be shown.

 

[USER]

File0norm should be 1. If it’s set to 0 both channels will be normalized independently (1kHz to 0dB). This will obfuscate any channel imbalance that cartridge has which I think is important to show.

Now you tell me...

I'll update my posts tonight and go forward with using film0norm

 

[USER]

Actually, this is working out. I selected these cartridges to sort of tell the story of measurements, with each having different quirks and sort of building off the others.

 

[dougi]

@USER, here are some redone plots in your desired format for that example you wanted for the VM540ML comparison (discussed in the Script thread).

 

[USER]

@USER, here are some redone plots in your desired format for that example you wanted for the VM540ML comparison (discussed in the Script thread).

View attachment 296653

View attachment 296654

There may be a couple of small issues.

The first graph says stereo, can you run the script with separate left and right tracks?
The second has an issue with the crosstalk showing up in the wrong location. Make sure all silence is cut out before and after the sweep. The script needs only the sweep.

 

[JP]

IIRC the sweep tracks on that record are stereo rather than an L track and an R track. The test files will need to be adjust to be what the script expects.

 

[Balle Clorin]

OK, I am intrigued by the old Shures, and feel stupid that I sold a Shure and Stanton with my Thorens TD 125II,

Which Shure should I get and put a new Jico stylus on? V15 III, IV V or Vx? is M97xE any good?
My record collection is mainly 1970s and 1980s until CD took over from 92. I bought some new current Vinyl too
Tonearm is SME V with Wally’s Fulcrum added for Azimuth adjustment .
My ears are 62 and I do not notice much above 12k, but still I enjoy to have something that is technically correct.

 

[dlaloum]

OK, I am intrigued by the old Shures, and feel stupid that I sold a Shure and Stanton with my Thorens TD 125II,

Which Shure should I get and put a new Jico stylus on? V15 III, IV V or Vx? is M97xE any good?
My record collection is mainly 1970s and 1980s until CD took over from 92. I bought some new current Vinyl too
Tonearm is SME V with Wally’s Fulcrum added for Azimuth adjustment .
My ears are 62 and I do not notice much above 12k, but still I enjoy to have something that is technically correct.

IMO - the optimum for the SAS styli is going to be a V15IV - this stylus will work better with a relatively high capacitance AND inductance

The V15IV is quite similar to the M97 family (which came under many many names and numbers!) - but has a laminated core to reduce eddy current effects...

I don't have one, I have a number of M97 bodies, and some V15V's - the above is my conclusion from measuring the SAS in both M97 and V15V... (both of which work well)

 

[Balle Clorin]

IMO - the optimum for the SAS styli is going to be a V15IV - this stylus will work better with a relatively high capacitance AND inductance

The V15IV is quite similar to the M97 family (which came under many many names and numbers!) - but has a laminated core to reduce eddy current effects...

I don't have one, I have a number of M97 bodies, and some V15V's - the above is my conclusion from measuring the SAS in both M97 and V15V... (both of which work well)

Is this mounting kit required for A Shure V15 type IV , or will a washer and nut be good enough?

 

[dlaloum]

Is this mounting kit required for A Shure V15 type IV , or will a washer and nut be good enough?

View attachment 298408
View attachment 298411

Don't know, never had one to mess about with!

But it is from the period where Shure was doing a lot of very serious engineering and research... as opposed to a decade later, when things were far more marketing oriented and the engineering/research core was being degraded....

If you have the full kit, I would use it as described/documented!

 

[Balle Clorin]

For the most part great luck, yes. I think there are a few regular sellers that are doing some very detailed cleaning to make ones with more miles look unused.

In contract I've an AT33PTGII that has a frequency-dependent tracking issue that AT Japan performed inadequate tests on and the reseller refuses to accept that it's broken because AT Japan says it's fine.

How does A frequency dependent tracking test look like? Or The frequency sweep of the troubled one ? I only got 300 or 315 Hz tracking tests so I am curious

 

[JP]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/owb2k9o462jdyn7/20230411-T001-AT33PTGII.wav?dl=0

 

[Balle Clorin]

Sounds like a frequency sweep to me, which test record?

 

[JP]

You can’t hear the distortion?

 

[USER]

You can’t hear the distortion?

I hear something a little odd at around 1:06, is that it? Or perhaps something resonant near the beginning of the right channel sweep.

If I listen to it one more time my wife will kill me so...

Not sure I see it, unless it's the jumbled up area around 15kHz, which I doubt I would hear.