MM vs MI vs MC

[EB1000]

Nice MM vs MC vs MI illustrations I found

 

[eliash]

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

Found a comfortable simulation tool to play around with a RLC lowpass without programming it by oneself:
OKAWA Electric Design (3rd circuit)
Calculating the exemplary Nagaoka MP-500 w 800mH, 120pf and 47K results in roll-off without peaking

This leads to the conclusion that the previously seen peaking in frequency response (post #446) probably comes from the boron cantilever...
...and yes, good advice, going up in load resistance (82K) gives some additional peaking above10KHz...but don´t forget, it is on top of the measured response

So the essence is twofold,
- first you can find an answer to what happens if you change a MM-cart's load parameters,
- second is the overall response, or the sound might not change to the better automatically...

 

[Helicopter]

I am really impressed with the Wandering Puffin. I finally have it running properly and I have just been listening all day since Amazon delivered a new power supply today. The noise reduction is just awesome. After I do the SPDIF mod, I am not sure how I will get the digital audio to a PC for rips. Maybe buy an SHD studio...

Current mess above.

 

[USER]

Hi. I recently purchased the Jico SAS/S stylus for my Shure V15 V-MR cartridge. I am hoping to contribute some wav files so that we can have its frequency response available in order to be able to compare the sapphire stylus to the other Jico ones as well as the original Shure stylus. I made these recordings using the CBS Test Record. Left channel only. I am not able to set-up Python properly to run the scripts that spit out the FR/Distortion graphs so I am hoping someone can help me out. (@Helicopter or @JPJ perhaps?) Attached are some wav files. I am not sure if I removed RIAA correctly so I am including 2 files, one with and one without (I think, when I ran the script on Audacity nothing seemed to happen). I hope this can be helpful to everyone on this thread.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ANGG4f1hCB7KiICTPIrkxY4EACVCQXpp?usp=sharing

Here is the relevant info, assuming everything was done properly:

CBS Test Record STR-100
Clearaudio Concept Turntable
-- Satisfy Carbon Tonearm
-- 1m Tonearm Cable Length
-- 260 pF/m Capacitance
Shure V15 V-MR Cartridge
-- Jico SAS Sapphire Stylus (SAS/S)
Cambridge Audio Alva Duo
-- MM Setting: 47k Ohms Impedance | 100 pF Input Capacitance
-- 90 dB SINAD
-- Rumble Filter
-- RIAA
MiniDSP SHD
-- 106 dB SINAD ADC
AUDACITY
-- 16-bit | 44.1
-- Remove RIAA?

There seems to be a itty bitty pop around the 40 second mark. I don't know if that makes a big difference. I recorded the FR tests a few times and it remains (but I can open my second record). If I need to rerun it, let me know.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ANGG4f1hCB7KiICTPIrkxY4EACVCQXpp?usp=sharing

 

[JP]

 

[USER]

View attachment 124488

Thank you so much! Was hoping for better, but c'est la vie. At least I can make an EQ setting for this stylus. Hope folks find this helpful.

 

[EJ3]

Thank you so much! Was hoping for better, but c'est la vie. At least I can make an EQ setting for this stylus. Hope folks find this helpful.

I was wondering if a capacitance change could tame the frequency rise (or at least mitigate it some)?

 

[USER]

I was wondering if a capacitance change could tame the frequency rise (or at least mitigate it some)?

I was wondering the same as my tonearm seems to have a high-ish capacitance (?). I also have a Manley Chinook that allows me to go under and over 100 pF, but I read the following in the Shure V15 V-MR manual:

"Recommended Load: 47k ohm in parallel with 250 pF (includes tone arm wiring. connecting cables. and preamplifier input) Capacitive loading from 100 pF to 400 pF will cause negligible change from the recommended 250 pF loading."

Assuming the stylus doesn't change the load requirement, I don't know just how much I could tame it without going too crazy. I do have options with that other phono stage (roughly 0-350 pF) but I am wondering if simply using EQ nullifies the need of endless tweaking.

 

[AnalogSteph]

Assuming the stylus doesn't change the load requirement, I don't know just how much I could tame it without going too crazy. I do have options with that other phono stage (roughly 0-350 pF) but I am wondering if simply using EQ nullifies the need of endless tweaking.

It would straighten out the frequency response no doubt. Not sure about any nonlinear (saturation related) effects.

 

[eliash]

Thank you so much! Was hoping for better, but c'est la vie. At least I can make an EQ setting for this stylus. Hope folks find this helpful.

As an addendum, I was curious whether this resonance is rather of electrical or mechanical nature. Calculating the electrical resonance (app. 500mH, 380pF total load incl. tonearm) results this:

My V15 IV cart has around 500mH inductuctance, if I remember correct, type V had a little more, but anyway, the electrical resonance in this case is +3dB@10KHz and around 0dB at the peak in the frequency plot above. So I guess it is either the test record, some stylus/groove or cantilever resonance...as observed before with the boron Jicos...wonder how a simple old Jico Al-cantilever behaves in this setup...from my perspective this may speak for buying a new cart as a package, where stylus cut, cantilever and coil tuning are factory optimised...


A late remark regarding stylus cut, there is this freq. response comparison on the very interesting Namiki-Adamant pages, which shows the influence of the stylus tip:

This might be also one reason, why Nagaoka selected a less complicated line-contact cut, like the Shibata III in its MP-500 product, instead of the "better" MR cut, because the high frequency loss in the 10-20KHz region (plus the high inductance coil impact) is compensated by the cantilever resonance, resulting in a rather flat freq. response....

 

[BDWoody]

I am really impressed with the Wandering Puffin. I finally have it running properly and I have just been listening all day since Amazon delivered a new power supply today. The noise reduction is just awesome. After I do the SPDIF mod, I am not sure how I will get the digital audio to a PC for rips. Maybe buy an SHD studio...

View attachment 123723

Current mess above.

Glad you were able to get it going! It is an impressive little box isn't it?

Have you had a chance to play around with it more?

 

[USER]

I spent this day figuring out how to create these graphs on Windows with the extremely generous support of @JPJ. There are some inconsistencies translating these things to Windows from Mac OS, so I figured I would point out some lessons learned here for anyone interested in this.

1. The Nyquist Prompt RIAA filter will not work on the current version of Audacity for Windows (3.00). Simply, in the latest version there is no option for the use of legacy syntax. I was able to download a legacy version of Audacity (2.44) and the filter worked like a charm. (I had used the RIAA inverse filter that comes with Audacity, but it is different than the one proposed here. With the Audacity filter I got 10 dB peaking while the Nyquist filter gives me 7 dB.)

2. There are some naming convention differences between Macs and PCs that complicate the running of the code. I was able to circumvent this issue by being creative with my names. I called HOME simply 'C:/' and _FILE a name closer to the full path name (e.g. '/Users/Franspambot/Folder/filename.wav'. Essentially the script finds the file when it starts and does it's thing before losing the file location toward the end of its run. By naming the file itself the full path, it will find it at the end.

Hope this helps!

 

[JP]

As good a thread as any I suppose...

Here are a couple shots of a Technics vapor-deposited boron pipe cantilever. This one is on an EPC-305MCMK2.

 

[eliash]

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.

To sum up the Nagaoka MP-500 discussion I did a frequency response analysis with a good old dhfi-2 record. Mounted on a SME Model 309 arm with 1.5g at 21°C and a total 110pF//47K load. Relative level adjustment is equal for both channels. Values are broadband VU-meter evaluated with 500ms meter response time (96/24 pre-recorded, Wavelab5), so peaks and noise are averaged.

Hz / L dB / R dB
20K / 3 / 1.3
19K / 4.2 / -0.7
18K / 2.5 / -2
17K / 1.1 / -1.8
16K / 0.1 / -3.3
15K / -0.9 / -2.8
14K / -1 / -2.1
13K / -0.9 / -1.8
12K / -1.3 / -2.3
11K / -1.2 / -1.6
10K / -1 / -1.4
9K / -1.7 / -1.3
8K / -1.9 / -0.9
7K / -1.5 / -1
6K / -1.3 / -1.7
5K / -1.2 / -1.1
4K / -1.7 / -0.9
3K / -0.5 / -0.2
2K / 0.1 / 0.3
1K / -0.1 / 0.5
500 / -0.5 / 0.2
250 / -0.4 / 0.3
125 / 0.5 / 1
80 / 0.3 / 1
60 / 0.1 / 1
40 / 0.6 / 1.8
30 / -0.3 / 1.4
20 / 1.2 / 0.8

Interesting is the strong HF-peaking at 19KHz on the left channel as well as the notch on the right channel at 16KHz. In the bass area there are some level deviations between L and R. The mid to high frequency area tends to be slightly recessed. But all of this is surely a bit vague due to the age and precision of the test record...eventually a slightly higher capacitive (as recommended) or higher resistive load may flatten the frequency response a bit...after all it´s personal sound preference. Despite the mid/high recessive area, the MP-500 sounds equally bright to me in comparison with (presumably) equally mastered digital material...

 

[DSJR]

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.

Very late reply, but when my V15VMR was working (Dual 701 so similar basic arm characteristics as the venerable 1229), I used 1.5g (with damper) and 1g (without). Adding 2/10g to the playing weight increased bass perception a little which I'm not sure should be there with vinyl frankly as so much is removed and mono'd when the lacquer is cut. I think total capacitance on my system is quite low as stupidly, I replaced the Dual's exit cables which despite looking crap, actually offer slightly higher capacitance for said V15V...

V15V's (both body versions and especially the later XMR I gather which I believe lost the laminated pole pieces) have a falling hf response of around 5dB from 1 - 20kHz with low capacitance and flat to 10kHz with subsequent 5dB drop from there to 20kHz if my 'Choice tests are anything to go by. Loved it and shame the cantilever was damaged - still got it and wondered if a local trusted UK re-builder (ESCo) could splice the cantilever back together...

P.S. The XMR and VST-V sounded fuller in tone and offered a popular balance. I think it was the laid back highs (Shures never sounded 'soft' or dull as such). The brand was so out of fashion over here in the 90's, it was an effort to sell them I remember. To any newbies reading this, don't ever judge Shure purely by M44's, M55E's (shudder) and most M75 models

 

[JP]

V15V's (both body versions and especially the later XMR I gather which I believe lost the laminated pole pieces) have a falling hf response of around 5dB from 1 - 20kHz with low capacitance and flat to 10kHz with subsequent 5dB drop from there to 20kHz if my 'Choice tests are anything to go by.

? #356

 

[EJ3]

Very late reply, but when my V15VMR was working (Dual 701 so similar basic arm characteristics as the venerable 1229), I used 1.5g (with damper) and 1g (without). Adding 2/10g to the playing weight increased bass perception a little which I'm not sure should be there with vinyl frankly as so much is removed and mono'd when the lacquer is cut. I think total capacitance on my system is quite low as stupidly, I replaced the Dual's exit cables which despite looking crap, actually offer slightly higher capacitance for said V15V...

V15V's (both body versions and especially the later XMR I gather which I believe lost the laminated pole pieces) have a falling hf response of around 5dB from 1 - 20kHz with low capacitance and flat to 10kHz with subsequent 5dB drop from there to 20kHz if my 'Choice tests are anything to go by. Loved it and shame the cantilever was damaged - still got it and wondered if a local trusted UK re-builder (ESCo) could splice the cantilever back together...

P.S. The XMR and VST-V sounded fuller in tone and offered a popular balance. I think it was the laid back highs (Shures never sounded 'soft' or dull as such). The brand was so out of fashion over here in the 90's, it was an effort to sell them I remember. To any newbies reading this, don't ever judge Shure purely by M44's, M55E's (shudder) and most M75 models

DSJR is correct about the XMR's pole pieces and I also believe that all the later SHURE cartridges did not have the laminated pole pieces:

A few Historical Notes: Once the V15-V was introduced, the IV design was reused for the M97. In 1973, the V15 Type III debuts with a uniformly flat, unaccented, uncolored frequency response. This was accomplished by reducing the stylus mass by 25% and by employing a new laminated pole piece design.

Q: What innovations is Shure known for?

A: The III with its trackability and flat response was the big thing. The IV was my favorite, just because of the fact that there was the oil shortage and record companies were cutting back on quality and the LP’s would warp. We came up with the dynamic stabilizer which solved the problem of tracking a warped record. It cleaned your record; it stabilized the cartridge and it removed the static. So, it was a huge leap in performance.

Historical Note: In 1978, Shure introduced the V15 Type IV. It featured a viscous-damped Dynamic Stabilizer that overcame most record warps. The Stabilizer brush also cleaned the record and reduced any static charge. A hyper-elliptical, nude mounted stylus tip improved the tip-to-groove contact area.

Q: Was Shure the first to use a rolled Beryllium cantilever?

A: The V15V Micro Ridge was unique to Shure. Also, Type V introduced an ultra-thin-wall rolled beryllium stylus shank. It made the cartridge shank incredibly light and rigid. I think we were the first to use rolled beryllium. It was like a foil that we rolled into a tube.

Historical Notes: In 1982,the V15 Type V featured a MASAR polished stylus tip to reduce friction. The ultra-thin beryllium stylus shank dramatically improved trackability. A Duo-Point alignment gauge was used during installation to minimize lateral tracking angle error.

In 1983, the V15 Type V-MR featured a Micro-Ridge stylus shape that emulated the shape of a cutting stylus. This greatly improved trackability in the high frequency range.

In 1997, the V15VxMR was introduced with improvements in the stylus design and pole piece design to provide a warmer and more musical sound quality.

Q: What killed the Type V?

A: OHSA ruled that beryllium dust was a health hazard. Even though the Type V used rolled beryllium and dust was not created, OSHA was not convinced. The possibility of beryllium dust, the health concerns for Shure employees shaping the beryllium, the OSHA standards for air filtration all helped to kill the V15 by the end of 2005. To install just the filtering equipment needed meant a long payback period; since vinyl sales were falling, it just didn’t make financial sense. The safety of the employees was a most important factor to Mrs. Rose L. Shure

If you want to judge a SHURE cart these are the ones that you should be thinking about (there are others, of course, these are just ones that I am familiar with [you'll see the ones that I have settled on that I found worked in my budget at the time I purchased them in the last paragraph):

T4P Mount (Commonly known as P-Mount as developed by Technics)
Ultra 300 Micro-Ridge (.0015x.003 in.) VTF: 1.2 to 1.7
Ultra 400 Micro-Ridge (.0015x.003 in.) VTF: 1.2 to 1.7
V15LT Hyperelliptical (0.2 x 0.15 mils) VTF: 1 1/4
V15V-P Hyperelliptical (0.2 x 0.15 mils) VTF: 1 1/4
Micro-Ridge (.0015x.003 in.) VTF: 1 to 1 & 1/4
VST III-P Hyperelliptical (0.2 x 0.15 mils) VTF: 1 3/N4one b
For T4P make sure that your cartridge meets the weight and dimension restrictions. Some P-mount cartridges may physically fit but their weight may be out of range of the VTF weight adjustment on your TT(particularly if it is a Technics TT such as my SL-M3): CHECK FIRST!

SHURE Non T4P mounts:
Ultra 500 Micro-Ridge (.0015x.003 in.) VTF: 1.2 to 1.7 or 1 to 1.25 (depending on stylus suspension)
V15V Series 78rpm Elliptical (.0005x.0025 in.) VTF: 3/4 to 1 & 1/4
V15V-B Hyperelliptical (0.2 x 0.15 mils) VTF: 1 to 1 & 1/4
Micro-Ridge (.0015x.003 in.) VTF: 1 to 1 & 1/4
V15V-G Spherical (0.6 mils) VTF: 1 to 1 & 1/4
Micro-Ridge (.0015x.003 in.) VTF: 1 to 1 & 1/4
V15V-MR Micro-Ridge (.0015x.003 in.) VTF: 1 to 1 & 1/4
V15V-xMR (I have no specs but there is a slight db dip in the frequency response on the high end that gives it the "fuller tone that some like)
VST III Hyperelliptical (0.2 x 0.15 mils) VTF: 1 1/4 to 1 3/4
VST V Micro-Ridge (.0015x.003 in.) VTF: 1.2 to 1.7
Micro-Ridge (.0015x.003 in.) VTF: 1 to 1 & 1/4
The VST V has the same there slight db dip in the frequency response on the high end as the V15-xMR)

I typically run the V15 IV or the V15V-MR on my DUAL 1229 and either the ULTRA 300, the V15LT or the V15V-P (micro-Ridge) on my Technics SL-M3. I would very much like to get my hands on a V15V Series 78 Elliptical to run on my DUAL TT for my 78's. But on the rare occasion that I have come across one, the price has been outside of my budget.

 

[eliash]

DSJR is correct about the XMR's pole pieces and I also believe that all the later SHURE cartridges did not have the laminated pole pieces:

A few Historical Notes: Once the V15-V was introduced, the IV design was reused for the M97. In 1973, the V15 Type III debuts with a uniformly flat, unaccented, uncolored frequency response. This was accomplished by reducing the stylus mass by 25% and by employing a new laminated pole piece design.

Q: What innovations is Shure known for?

A: The III with its trackability and flat response was the big thing. The IV was my favorite, just because of the fact that there was the oil shortage and record companies were cutting back on quality and the LP’s would warp. We came up with the dynamic stabilizer which solved the problem of tracking a warped record. It cleaned your record; it stabilized the cartridge and it removed the static. So, it was a huge leap in performance.

Historical Note: In 1978, Shure introduced the V15 Type IV. It featured a viscous-damped Dynamic Stabilizer that overcame most record warps. The Stabilizer brush also cleaned the record and reduced any static charge. A hyper-elliptical, nude mounted stylus tip improved the tip-to-groove contact area.

Q: Was Shure the first to use a rolled Beryllium cantilever?

A: The V15V Micro Ridge was unique to Shure. Also, Type V introduced an ultra-thin-wall rolled beryllium stylus shank. It made the cartridge shank incredibly light and rigid. I think we were the first to use rolled beryllium. It was like a foil that we rolled into a tube.

Historical Notes: In 1982,the V15 Type V featured a MASAR polished stylus tip to reduce friction. The ultra-thin beryllium stylus shank dramatically improved trackability. A Duo-Point alignment gauge was used during installation to minimize lateral tracking angle error.

In 1983, the V15 Type V-MR featured a Micro-Ridge stylus shape that emulated the shape of a cutting stylus. This greatly improved trackability in the high frequency range.

In 1997, the V15VxMR was introduced with improvements in the stylus design and pole piece design to provide a warmer and more musical sound quality.

Q: What killed the Type V?

A: OHSA ruled that beryllium dust was a health hazard. Even though the Type V used rolled beryllium and dust was not created, OSHA was not convinced. The possibility of beryllium dust, the health concerns for Shure employees shaping the beryllium, the OSHA standards for air filtration all helped to kill the V15 by the end of 2005. To install just the filtering equipment needed meant a long payback period; since vinyl sales were falling, it just didn’t make financial sense. The safety of the employees was a most important factor to Mrs. Rose L. Shure

If you want to judge a SHURE cart these are the ones that you should be thinking about (there are others, of course, these are just ones that I am familiar with [you'll see the ones that I have settled on that I found worked in my budget at the time I purchased them in the last paragraph):

T4P Mount (Commonly known as P-Mount as developed by Technics)
Ultra 300 Micro-Ridge (.0015x.003 in.) VTF: 1.2 to 1.7
Ultra 400 Micro-Ridge (.0015x.003 in.) VTF: 1.2 to 1.7
V15LT Hyperelliptical (0.2 x 0.15 mils) VTF: 1 1/4
V15V-P Hyperelliptical (0.2 x 0.15 mils) VTF: 1 1/4
Micro-Ridge (.0015x.003 in.) VTF: 1 to 1 & 1/4
VST III-P Hyperelliptical (0.2 x 0.15 mils) VTF: 1 3/N4one b
For T4P make sure that your cartridge meets the weight and dimension restrictions. Some P-mount cartridges may physically fit but their weight may be out of range of the VTF weight adjustment on your TT(particularly if it is a Technics TT such as my SL-M3): CHECK FIRST!

SHURE Non T4P mounts:
Ultra 500 Micro-Ridge (.0015x.003 in.) VTF: 1.2 to 1.7 or 1 to 1.25 (depending on stylus suspension)
V15V Series 78rpm Elliptical (.0005x.0025 in.) VTF: 3/4 to 1 & 1/4
V15V-B Hyperelliptical (0.2 x 0.15 mils) VTF: 1 to 1 & 1/4
Micro-Ridge (.0015x.003 in.) VTF: 1 to 1 & 1/4
V15V-G Spherical (0.6 mils) VTF: 1 to 1 & 1/4
Micro-Ridge (.0015x.003 in.) VTF: 1 to 1 & 1/4
V15V-MR Micro-Ridge (.0015x.003 in.) VTF: 1 to 1 & 1/4
V15V-xMR (I have no specs but there is a slight db dip in the frequency response on the high end that gives it the "fuller tone that some like)
VST III Hyperelliptical (0.2 x 0.15 mils) VTF: 1 1/4 to 1 3/4
VST V Micro-Ridge (.0015x.003 in.) VTF: 1.2 to 1.7
Micro-Ridge (.0015x.003 in.) VTF: 1 to 1 & 1/4
The VST V has the same there slight db dip in the frequency response on the high end as the V15-xMR)

I typically run the V15 IV or the V15V-MR on my DUAL 1229 and either the ULTRA 300, the V15LT or the V15V-P (micro-Ridge) on my Technics SL-M3. I would very much like to get my hands on a V15V Series 78 Elliptical to run on my DUAL TT for my 78's. But on the rare occasion that I have come across one, the price has been outside of my budget.

It could be presumption, but the best cart I have experienced regarding sound clarity and HF-details was/is still my Shure V15 IV with original Al/Be cantilever and MR-stylus at some 300pF load lastly mounted on a straight Thorens TP-50 arm. All attempts (Jico boron/SAS replacement stylus - btw., its brush seems just as a gimmick; Benz Micro ACE-SH = MC w. MR on boron - high build quality but noisy greetings from Barkhausen effect; Nagaoka MP-500 as analysed above and the impression of increased HF surface noise, compared to previously used MR-styli) to attain a similar playback performance were close but subjectively couldn´t reach it...nevertheless it´s "complaining" on a high level...for daily use it now reduces to a questions of operating costs to me, where Jico and Nagaoka seem to lead (in the above comparison)...

 

[Thomas_A]

I was wondering the same as my tonearm seems to have a high-ish capacitance (?). I also have a Manley Chinook that allows me to go under and over 100 pF, but I read the following in the Shure V15 V-MR manual:

"Recommended Load: 47k ohm in parallel with 250 pF (includes tone arm wiring. connecting cables. and preamplifier input) Capacitive loading from 100 pF to 400 pF will cause negligible change from the recommended 250 pF loading."

Assuming the stylus doesn't change the load requirement, I don't know just how much I could tame it without going too crazy. I do have options with that other phono stage (roughly 0-350 pF) but I am wondering if simply using EQ nullifies the need of endless tweaking.

Difficult for this stylus but you could lower the resistance somewhat. The SAS boron stylus fair better than the others, but also peaks around 13-14 kHz.

 

[Thomas_A]

Thank you so much! Was hoping for better, but c'est la vie. At least I can make an EQ setting for this stylus. Hope folks find this helpful.

Here is the zirkonium vs the boron on a V15Vx body. The zirkonium peaks around 10-11 kHz.