MM vs MI vs MC

[Bob from Florida]

I had the same idea myself about unscrewing the paddle. Tried it and found that it exaggerated the bass even more from 40Hz on down. So that idea was a bust. I will try to swap out the cartridge next, unless someone has a better idea.

EDIT. Does the worsening of the problem without the damper mean that it really is a resonance? If so, what could be causing it?

Silly question - did you recheck all the basics? Such as vertical tracking force, etc. The V15 is a high compliance cartridge. Adding the paddle probably increased the effective mass some. I would use caution prior to installing another V15...

 

[melloncolliecat]

Maybe something with the turntable itself? You didn't mention what the arm is mounted in...

 

[Palmer]

I had the same idea myself about unscrewing the paddle. Tried it and found that it exaggerated the bass even more from 40Hz on down. So that idea was a bust. I will try to swap out the cartridge next, unless someone has a better idea.

EDIT. Does the worsening of the problem without the damper mean that it really is a resonance? If so, what could be causing it?

Interesting, I have to think about that one - I suppose there is something going on with resonance in the arm / cartridge relation, if without the silicone damping the low double digit frequency response goes up. The SME 3009 III has a knive(s) vertical bearing, so unless there's something completely bad on those, we can rule that out.

One would have to use test records and get graphs at this point to investigate, at least here is a good source of great experts, I would put this in the respective threads, like:

Introcucing the Phono Cartridge Measurement Library
Phono Cartridge Response Measurement Script

This is, as I am sure you know - better addressed there, not really an issue of MM vs MI vs MC and I would think the people in the other threads are more often there, than here...


Edit: Now that we know it's an Aries 3 - that is an unusual setup with a SME 3009 III arm... I wonder if something is going on with the Aries bearing, that is making it's way into the arm. The silicone damping making a difference could point to that. I bought a Stethoscope way back when I worked on engines, the metal rod type - I still have it and use it, if I want to check bearing noise on Turntables. Might be worth to look into, these are cheap and worth it.

 

[RZangpo2]

Silly question - did you recheck all the basics? Such as vertical tracking force, etc. The V15 is a high compliance cartridge. Adding the paddle probably increased the effective mass some. I would use caution prior to installing another V15...

Oh yes, I checked setup thoroughly.

 

[RZangpo2]

Maybe something with the turntable itself? You didn't mention what the arm is mounted in...

VPI Aries 3, but that hasn’t changed.

 

[RZangpo2]

Interesting, I have to think about that one - I suppose there is something going on with resonance in the arm / cartridge relation, if without the silicone damping the low double digit frequency response goes up. The SME 3009 III has a knive(s) vertical bearing, so unless there's something completely bad on those, we can rule that out.

One would have to use test records and get graphs at this point to investigate, at least here is a good source of great experts, I would put this in the respective threads, like:

Introcucing the Phono Cartridge Measurement Library
Phono Cartridge Response Measurement Script

This is, as I am sure you know - better addressed there, not really an issue of MM vs MI vs MC and I would think the people in the other threads are more often there, than here...

Maybe. Unfortunately I don’t have the facilities to use the test record they prefer. It requires processing that is available for Windows only, as I recall. In 2023 another forum member did the necessary processing for me, but idk if I can count on the same again.

EDIT. The OP of the measurement script thread writes that “I'd like to keep this discussion about the tool rather than specific cartridges.” Maybe not the best place for this either. Likewise the library thread, which seems more about reference than solving problems.

Come to think of it, it was the measurement script that I couldn’t run.

 

[Anton S]

I’m having a problem with a Shure V15V-MR cart that I’m hoping wiser heads than mine can help me solve. It’s mounted on an SME 3009 Type III arm.

In 2023 I measured the frequency response of the cart using two different original VN5MR styli (I have a small stock of NOS examples). Measured response was reasonably flat, as one would expect.

Recently, frequency response has sounded off. I measured again, and found rising response below about 100Hz, reaching more than +10dB at 20Hz! Of course this is audible; records with a lot of bass energy are almost intolerable.

I’ve checked setup. I’ve swapped styli without significant effect. I can think of only two explanations, but before acting on them, thought I would ask your opinions:

Tonearm resonance. The only change I’ve made to tonearm setup since the earlier measurement is that I now use the fluid damper. This results in much lower interchannel crosstalk measurements. Separation is greater, and the noise floor lower.

Disabling the damper would be a chore. I don’t see how it could be having this effect, but it is a variable.

Cartridge body. Could the cartridge itself have gone bad in the past couple of years? I have one or two other V15V cartridge bodies, and could try swapping them out.

Believe it or not, I’ve never done this. Swapping V15V styli is trivially easy, so I’ve only done that. On the SME arm, alignment is effected by moving the arm assembly back and forth using a rack and pinion system, so I haven’t had to touch the cartridge installation for that reason either. This isn’t the best time for me to start fooling around with this, but I will if I have to.

Is there something I’ve overlooked? If any of you can think of a better explanation, please tell me so. Thanks.

There may be a clue to your issue somewhere in this article --> SME 3009 Series III Tonearm
Best of luck tracking it down.

 

[Palmer]

There may be a clue to your issue somewhere in this article --> SME 3009 Series III Tonearm
Best of luck tracking it down.

With all due respect - I have to disagree with the Stereophile article, the only thing somewhat correct in it is the question of the density of the silicone fluid in the trough.
I have the old Well Tempered arm and it is my favourite out of 6 different arms I have available, granted I moved to a 60.000 fluid in the cup vs. the (supposedly) 100k it came with. The SME 3009 has issues for sure, if one is pedantic - but the damping is not one of them, the opposite. Of course that is my experience, and thanks for posting it.

Cheers

 

[Palmer]

Maybe. Unfortunately I don’t have the facilities to use the test record they prefer. It requires processing that is available for Windows only, as I recall. In 2023 another forum member did the necessary processing for me, but idk if I can count on the same again.

EDIT. The OP of the measurement script thread writes that “I'd like to keep this discussion about the tool rather than specific cartridges.” Maybe not the best place for this either. Likewise the library thread, which seems more about reference than solving problems.

Come to think of it, it was the measurement script that I couldn’t run.

I hear you, I have the TrueRTA on one of my laptops - I haven't had the time to get to try the REW much less the script, but ended up at least buying most of the test records mentioned in the threads. I would assume you have had a way to get some graph response on your problem? Again - I would not rule out some bearing noise creeping into your SME through the base. Certainly would not be high frequency, if that is somehow the source. If you don't have a grooveless record, I would try the old antiskate test, should tell you if there's an input to the cartridge without modulation through the groove...

 

[RZangpo2]

Interesting, I have to think about that one - I suppose there is something going on with resonance in the arm / cartridge relation, if without the silicone damping the low double digit frequency response goes up. The SME 3009 III has a knive(s) vertical bearing, so unless there's something completely bad on those, we can rule that out.

One would have to use test records and get graphs at this point to investigate, at least here is a good source of great experts, I would put this in the respective threads, like:

Introcucing the Phono Cartridge Measurement Library
Phono Cartridge Response Measurement Script

This is, as I am sure you know - better addressed there, not really an issue of MM vs MI vs MC and I would think the people in the other threads are more often there, than here...


Edit: Now that we know it's an Aries 3 - that is an unusual setup with a SME 3009 III arm... I wonder if something is going on with the Aries bearing, that is making it's way into the arm. The silicone damping making a difference could point to that. I bought a Stethoscope way back when I worked on engines, the metal rod type - I still have it and use it, if I want to check bearing noise on Turntables. Might be worth to look into, these are cheap and worth it.

Thanks for the edit. Back in 2023 when the cart measured flat, the Aries 3 had its original bearing. Same bearing when the problem developed. I’ve since upgraded the original hardened steel bearing with a ceramic one, but this lowered the noise floor; it didn’t increase it, which one would expect if it was introducing a resonance of some kind.

I don’t have a stethoscope handy, but I have measured bearing noise using the silent track on the Analogue Productions test LP. Bearing noise is both measurably and audibly lower with the ceramic bearing.

 

[Palmer]

Thanks for the edit. Back in 2023 when the cart measured flat, the Aries 3 had its original bearing. Same bearing when the problem developed. I’ve since upgraded the original hardened steel bearing with a ceramic one, but this lowered the noise floor; it didn’t increase it, which one would expect if it was introducing a resonance of some kind.

I don’t have a stethoscope handy, but I have measured bearing noise using the silent track on the Analogue Productions test LP. Bearing noise is both measurably and audibly lower with the ceramic bearing.

Well, that would rule the bearing out, though I have to say "audibly" is when one really, really has a bearing problem
I am running out of possible problems, sans the cartridge. I have never had a Shure V15V-MR, so my only other approach would be to try another cartridge to see if
the problem goes away, which would make it the Shure's issue after all. I really don't see the SME 3009 III being the culprit, but other folks might have ideas that I can't.
Having the damping making a difference, especially without any damping, would suggest a cantilever suspension issue, methinks.

 

[mackat]

I’m having a problem with a Shure V15V-MR cart that I’m hoping wiser heads than mine can help me solve. It’s mounted on an SME 3009 Type III arm.

In 2023 I measured the frequency response of the cart using two different original VN5MR styli (I have a small stock of NOS examples). Measured response was reasonably flat, as one would expect.

Recently, frequency response has sounded off. I measured again, and found rising response below about 100Hz, reaching more than +10dB at 20Hz! Of course this is audible; records with a lot of bass energy are almost intolerable.

I’ve checked setup. I’ve swapped styli without significant effect. I can think of only two explanations, but before acting on them, thought I would ask your opinions:

Tonearm resonance. The only change I’ve made to tonearm setup since the earlier measurement is that I now use the fluid damper. This results in much lower interchannel crosstalk measurements. Separation is greater, and the noise floor lower.

Disabling the damper would be a chore. I don’t see how it could be having this effect, but it is a variable.

Cartridge body. Could the cartridge itself have gone bad in the past couple of years? I have one or two other V15V cartridge bodies, and could try swapping them out.

Believe it or not, I’ve never done this. Swapping V15V styli is trivially easy, so I’ve only done that. On the SME arm, alignment is effected by moving the arm assembly back and forth using a rack and pinion system, so I haven’t had to touch the cartridge installation for that reason either. This isn’t the best time for me to start fooling around with this, but I will if I have to.

Is there something I’ve overlooked? If any of you can think of a better explanation, please tell me so. Thanks.

Would you mind posting the measurements?

 

[RZangpo2]

Sorry to absent myself from a discussion I started. I was aware of a need to better analyze the data, but couldn’t get to it until today.

This wasn’t the first time - nor is it likely to be the last - that I drove myself crazy trying to isolate and fix a problem that turned out to be a measurement error. My apologies for wasting your time.

Low frequency sweep, 19Hz - 1002Hz:

High frequency sweep, 1001Hz - 20192Hz:

Not sure what's causing the anomaly above 16kHz, but I can't hear that high anyway lol. I'd also be happier without the 2dB LF rise, but one can't have everything.

A member of another forum said that the low frequency sweep on the AP test record itself has a bass hump. I never heard that before. I’ve asked for details. With more information, maybe I could back it out of the data.

Thanks to everyone who responded.

 

[RZangpo2]

P.S. Here is the HF sweep up to 16kHz:

Here is a spectrum analysis of bearing noise, using a recording of the silent groove on the AP test record. First the stock bearing:

And now the ceramic bearing:

The two spectra look similar, but note the dB scale to the left. The entire curve is 6dB lower with the ceramic bearing. The lower noise floor is audible.

 

[Thomas_A]

Sorry to absent myself from a discussion I started. I was aware of a need to better analyze the data, but couldn’t get to it until today.

This wasn’t the first time - nor is it likely to be the last - that I drove myself crazy trying to isolate and fix a problem that turned out to be a measurement error. My apologies for wasting your time.

Low frequency sweep, 19Hz - 1002Hz:

High frequency sweep, 1001Hz - 20192Hz:

Not sure what's causing the anomaly above 16kHz, but I can't hear that high anyway lol. I'd also be happier without the 2dB LF rise, but one can't have everything.

A member of another forum said that the low frequency sweep on the AP test record itself has a bass hump. I never heard that before. I’ve asked for details. With more information, maybe I could back it out of the data.

Thanks to everyone who responded.

Record the 1 kHz to 10 Hz sweep on side 2 track 5 and look at the track pattern in Audacity.