Phono Cartridge Response Measurement Script

[JP]

or maybe it will not change?

Focus on this.

 

[Balle Clorin]

Hi Fi News Record Side B track 7, sweep 20Hz-20kHz
Ortofon Concorde 20 (first version), different effective mass, other parameters the same.
I can't show the difference between measurements in REV.
How do I do it?

Concorde_20_przeciwwaga_Technics.wav

drive.google.com

Concorde_20_przeciwwaga_Ortofon.wav

drive.google.com

I do not have PC with me.You should get REW it is free.
1 when in REW,select from Menu File, Importe, import as wav file, Then you should smooth the plot by Graph smoothing . 1/12 or 1/24.
Then you go to the Tab All SPL (or possibly Overlay ), point to one of the top corners the is a setting or options symbol, that brings up a submenu, where one is Trace Arithmetic, click that, then you can select 2of the curves and what to do, do a Magnitude |A|/|B| that subtracts the two chosen curves. Click Execute or Generate or something, Then you have your difference curve

After all that work you will see that there is really no difference, or very very little

But this REW trick can be used for many other plots, like the effect of capacitance on MM, effect of SUT, vinyl vs CD….

 

[Quando]

Focus on this.

You can hear with your naked ear that a given cartridge plays differently on the X arm and differently on the Y arm.
I want to measure this difference.
It could be that they play the same and it just seems to me that they play differently

 

[Balle Clorin]

tracking difference?

Arms do sound different, I vividly remember demo done with two Different arms on same TT with same cartridge where swithed in 0.2 seconds back and forth.
With eyes closed and random order I could identify each arm. The sibilants and tszch sounds in lip sounds and cymbals where different, also the space around the instruments were different. The frequency response / warm/bright etc was not affected.

 

[morillon]

tracking difference?

Arms do sound different, I vividly remember demo done with two Different arms on same TT with same cartridge where swithed in 0.2 seconds back and forth.
With eyes closed and random order I could identify each arm. The sibilants and tszch sounds in lip sounds and cymbals where different, also the space around the instruments were different. The frequency response / warm/bright etc was not affected.

vaderetro satanas....
but the internal copper and silver wiring biases can be observed in subjective observation...
I know I know..I'm going to flagellate myself...
;-)

 

[Balle Clorin]

Yo limit derailing the thread WE can continue this discussion here.
Post in thread 'Fun with vinyl measurements'
https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...un-with-vinyl-measurements.20278/post-2104499

 

[USER]

It is known that the same cartridge on one tonearm, or turntable, plays one way, and on another turntable and tonearm, plays differen

It is hard for me to disconnect this from the "every turntable sounds different" idea that has been floating around forever, which in a practical sense is more wrong than right. I guess this is so because for me the small differences from cartridge-tonearm incompatibility or improper set-up should be called user error. Ignoring these things, improper set-up and cartridge-tonearm incompatibility (which in reality are hard to ignore as people generally do not have the tools to properly set-up a turntable), differences in sound output is BY FAR more impacted by capacitance, at least for MM cartridges. Indeed MC cartridges are known for their consistency even amongst audiophiles. Let's also not forget that by and large the frequency response of cartridges, including cheap ones is largely within plus-minus 3 dB!! It's still crazy to me that people refuse to be impressed by this old tech.

Edit: this is all assuming there are no issues with the tonearm and that it is of decent quality as things like bearing issues, resonant materials, effective length, etc. will obviously have an affect. Though we must also differentiate between things like tracking issues, distortion and FR, the last one being the topic here.

Have you looked at our collection of cartridge measurements and especially those with multiple measurements from different members? Or even the opening proof of concept? One of the things I have learned from the project is that there is a remarkable consistency in the cartridges made by the better manufacturers (and more so a remarkable consistency across time; they can really hold up). As has been mentioned, I have posted numerous experiments testing smaller variables such as damping and tonearm effective mass and see differences only in the highest and lowest ends of the frequency response, which are not going to have as much of an impact as say the important frequencies near the mid-band, which really color sound. At the end of the day all of that files under user error anyways. And this is assuming that the issue is not the test record, which can vary above 10kHz. Two of the biggest culprits that I have found in terms of differences are improper overhang adjustment and improper diamond placement by the manufacturer (which only a few of us can investigate unfortunately). There are examples of overhang differences somewhere in this thread. More often than not there are FAR better explanations for differences than the turntable/tonearm. More, I have measured numerous cartridges on different turntables myself. I have even found near exact matches between different cartridges from the same manufacturer!

I encourage you to explore the library. You can find different experiments there too.

Introducing the Phono Cartridge Measurement Library

Skip to the index. After years of development we are finally launching our phono cartridge measurement library. These measurements were created using the brilliant cartridge response python script written by @scott wurcer and @JP. Information about its origins can be found in the following...

audiosciencereview.com

I also begin to explore some set-up phenomena here

Introducing the Phono Cartridge Measurement Library

Skip to the index. After years of development we are finally launching our phono cartridge measurement library. These measurements were created using the brilliant cartridge response python script written by @scott wurcer and @JP. Information about its origins can be found in the following...

www.audiosciencereview.com

There you will see my best example of the difference brought by tonearm-cartridge incompatibility. Again, only the ends of the FR are impacted. (Though of course as mentioned in the worse cases we have to worry about the tonearm behaving improperly.) You can also see that brands such as Audio-Technica have clear "house sounds." Again, I find this super impressive and I think the all turntables sound different argument really does a disservice to the medium.

I guess what I am trying to say is that we should avoid "it is known" statements unless evidence is provided, especially when a lot of evidence countering it has already been provided.

Edit:

Analyzing the behavior of the cartridge itself, in isolation, or even deliberately making the measurement result independent of the turntable, is useless.

More than this it is not possible in the context of our frequency response measurements. Those measurements, like every kind of measurement, are those of the system, which in our case includes the test record, turntable/tonearm, capacitance, resistance, the phono preamp and RIAA, DAC --and also at times user error.

 

[Holmz]

I am interested in the behavior of a given cartridge with a turntable. If I increase or decrease the effective mass, or use a damping system, or do not use a damping system, change the tonearm, or change the entire turntable, what effect will this have on the frequency response of the turntable cartridge.
It is known that the same cartridge on one tonearm, or turntable, plays one way, and on another turntable and tonearm, plays differently.
Analyzing the behavior of the cartridge itself, in isolation, or even deliberately making the measurement result independent of the turntable, is useless.

Might have a bit more output in the <50-100 Hz range. Probably worth trying if you listen to an organ music or some other stuff with frequencies around the 20-30 Hz range.
There is probably not a lot in it, and many people use subs and/or DSP, so going for the highest mass arm would likely be mostly a thing for analogue purists. (IMO)

 

[JP]

You can hear with your naked ear that a given cartridge plays differently on the X arm and differently on the Y arm.
I want to measure this difference.
It could be that they play the same and it just seems to me that they play differently

Should I bother asking what controls you used in that comparison?

 

[Quando]

Should I bother asking what controls you used in that comparison?

Reading and understanding 54 pages of this topic is beyond my capabilities.
Please tell me which signal from the CA--TSR-1007 test disc I should use to check the frequency response of my phono cartridge. I don't need those nice graphs that generate the script, I'll check it in the sound editor, I don't need to measure crosstalk etc. Only the frequency response.
Thank you

 

[dlaloum]

This is what I want to measure: if I shift the resonance peak from a frequency of 10 Hz to 7 Hz, because I increase the effective mass of the arm by about 15 grams, or shift the peak from 7 Hz to 10 Hz, because I decrease or reduce the effective mass (different arms), how will the frequency response of the turntable cartridge change, or maybe it will not change?

The frequency response of the cartridge will not change...

But depending on other resonant triggers, you may find that at 7Hz arm res, if it is triggered, then it may cause mistracking - mistracking is not a change in frequency response... but the result of a measurement will be altered due to increase in various distortions cause by the mistracking..... hence my calling the FR measurement a potentiall "mess" - it won't be meaningful in terms of the cartridges capabilities ...

Having said that, a arm Fres of 7Hz can be OK... and it may depend on your other environmental considerations.

Footfall and low environmental frequencies tend to be around 3Hz... (and both the arm resF and environmental are a fairly broad bell curve... so a few hz on either side as well) - if you have the TT standing on a suspended wooden floor - things can then be nasty as it tends to exacerbate it... this can be worked around

In a previous home with suspended wooden floor, I placed the audio rack on a 60x60cm concrete paver, with the paver sitting on 5 large sorbothene pucks, and then more sorbothene between paver and rack... The mass and springing (which were determined experimentally, by measuring environmental feedback via the needle sitting on the stationary platter...) ended up being damped massively and the turntable was very effectively isolated from it - this made arm res of 7Hz quite viable!
Prior to that, the environmental feedback from the floor was triggering the arm resonance, and I had to keep arm res up around 12Hz (or use arm damping) - and yes 12Hz can be too close to 20Hz for comfort....

It is often a delicate balancing act with turntables/cartridges!

 

[Thomas_A]

Reading and understanding 54 pages of this topic is beyond my capabilities.
Please tell me which signal from the CA--TSR-1007 test disc I should use to check the frequency response of my phono cartridge. I don't need those nice graphs that generate the script, I'll check it in the sound editor, I don't need to measure crosstalk etc. Only the frequency response.
Thank you

You would record the sweep, compensate for the cut characteristics, and import into REW, do the adjustment needed to show correct frequency response.

 

[Quando]

You would record the sweep, compensate for the cut characteristics, and import into REW, do the adjustment needed to show correct frequency response.

Which signal should I record and what should it do?

 

[Thomas_A]

Track 1 and 2. You need to apply a biquad filter as well but I cannot help you with this. Parks audio RIAA have those functions to enable or disable. Otherwise needs to be applied in sofware.

 

[Quando]

Track 1 and 2. You need to apply a biquad filter as well but I cannot help you with this. Parks audio RIAA have those functions to enable or disable. Otherwise needs to be applied in sofware.

The method of measuring the frequency response of a phonograph cartridge posted on this forum is the most mysterious, convoluted and incomprehensible method.
The thread has over 55 pages, completely incomprehensible to me.

Please provide clear, simple instructions, step by step, on what to do.

I have a Clearaudio CA-TSR-1007 disc

 

[Thomas_A]

The method of measuring the frequency response of a phonograph cartridge posted on this forum is the most mysterious, convoluted and incomprehensible method.
The thread has over 55 pages, completely incomprehensible to me.

Please provide clear, simple instructions, step by step, on what to do.

I have a Clearaudio CA-TSR-1007

There is no easy way due to the cutting used if you don’t use the script. See also

Fun with vinyl measurements

Have always found the phone app W&F ’measurements’ to be quite poor.

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Quando]

There is no easy way due to the cutting used if you don’t use the script. See also

There is no easy way due to the cutting used if you don’t use the script. See also

Fun with vinyl measurements

Have always found the phone app W&F ’measurements’ to be quite poor.

www.audiosciencereview.com

Unless it is written in a clear, simple and readable way, it is not worth wasting time.

 

[DSJR]

Might be an idea to venture on the worldaudiohistory site to the UK HiFi Choice mag scans from the late 70's and early 80s (the A5 test books). The late Paul Messenger writes may introductions here concerning how turntable/arm 'systems DO sound different and in the case of many simple 'solid plinth' designs, even the beautifully made and substantial Trio/Kenwood L07D, can have dire quality of playback sound if badly sited relative to the speakers and room corners. I doubt this comes out on a simple response/separation test, but reviewer Martin Colloms and his assistants did extensive isolation tests on the turntables they tested and the results were telling, hence the rise and rise of suspended belt driven models back then, which traded absolute speed stability for better isolation... Sadly, as the 80s wore on, using a master recording as reference was abandoned to purely subjective opinions, the increasing 'guru confidence' of the author taking over bit by bit and of course, 'digital' was subjectively derided by so-called 'experts' despite the evidence telling otherwise back then (a horny subject not for this post) as they had to sell magazines to people not then ready for this technology...

Here's a link to a 1984 turntable report, the consumer introduction being well worth a read. The site also has the vintage cartridge review books too and details at the beginning showing how tests were done, the discs used and loadings etc, as many older designs of pickup tilted their hf response alarmingly with capacitance loading while others seemed more immune.

Loading…

www.worldradiohistory.com

https://www.worldradiohistory.com/UK/Hi-Fi-Choice/1983-1989/Hi-Fi%20Choice%20Iss.%20038%20Cartridges%20&%20Accessories%201984.pdf

The NAD deck with later arm-tube assembly was tested pn page 74-75 here, but little comment was made about the adjustable counterweight damping. Interesting in forty years how an OM10 cartridge if made now, would cost more than the complete turntable back then (2M Red is I believe, a Super OM10 in drag and the Concorde Music Red has the new stylus descendent it seems, without physically checking)

Apologies for being such an old fart here, but my UK based lot took all this for granted forty five years ago, where I suspect many of you came into this long after vinyl all but died as a format in the 90s and I suspect the entire 'turntables-affecting-sound-quality' mantra passed many audio enthusiasts by in the US by, as now it's regarded as sales spiel by Linn products, brainwashing the likes of me nearly fifty years back. I do remember, however, having people with then ten year old Technics and similar direct drives (the more solid top-line models) for stylus and cartridge updates in the mid 80s and being pleasantly surprised how they responded to later and better pickups (the fashion was to push Rega instead at the time over here, but those of us with some experience back then, didn't feel that way if said direct drives were properly sited away from corners and the speakers themselves and not set up in a 'HiFi Shrine' between the speakers as 'enthusiasts' tend to do).

Apologies for the digression/rant above and back to current topic regarding tonearm lf resonances, NAD used to provide a test disc for their rather capable inexpensive turntable with adjustable damping on their suspended counterweight (my Dual 701 has vertical counterweight decoupling optimised for the V15 III, but it's not adjustable and does nothing laterally). One could judge the lf resonance of the arm/cartridge and adjust the damping to suit. No idea if any of these records are floating about, but if similar can be found, they'd help with the questions above I'm sure. Sadly, I don't have one

 

[narud]

The method of measuring the frequency response of a phonograph cartridge posted on this forum is the most mysterious, convoluted and incomprehensible method.
The thread has over 55 pages, completely incomprehensible to me.

Please provide clear, simple instructions, step by step, on what to do.

I have a Clearaudio CA-TSR-1007 disc

i followed user's step by step for windows in post 6 of this thread. i initially had some trouble getting it going due to installation issues, but that had nothing to do with the instructions. after getting it installed, it took a couple tries to get it to work properly due to user error, but again, no fault of the instructions here. i and others have posted questions in trying to get it working, and jp and others have been very helpful in providing answers. give it a shot!

 

[Quando]

Might be an idea to venture on the worldaudiohistory site to the UK HiFi Choice mag scans from the late 70's and early 80s (the A5 test books). The late Paul Messenger writes may introductions here concerning how turntable/arm 'systems DO sound different and in the case of many simple 'solid plinth' designs, even the beautifully made and substantial Trio/Kenwood L07D, can have dire quality of playback sound if badly sited relative to the speakers and room corners. I doubt this comes out on a simple response/separation test, but reviewer Martin Colloms and his assistants did extensive isolation tests on the turntables they tested and the results were telling, hence the rise and rise of suspended belt driven models back then, which traded absolute speed stability for better isolation... Sadly, as the 80s wore on, using a master recording as reference was abandoned to purely subjective opinions, the increasing 'guru confidence' of the author taking over bit by bit and of course, 'digital' was subjectively derided by so-called 'experts' despite the evidence telling otherwise back then (a horny subject not for this post) as they had to sell magazines to people not then ready for this technology...

Here's a link to a 1984 turntable report, the consumer introduction being well worth a read. The site also has the vintage cartridge review books too and details at the beginning showing how tests were done, the discs used and loadings etc, as many older designs of pickup tilted their hf response alarmingly with capacitance loading while others seemed more immune.

Loading…

www.worldradiohistory.com

https://www.worldradiohistory.com/UK/Hi-Fi-Choice/1983-1989/Hi-Fi%20Choice%20Iss.%20038%20Cartridges%20&%20Accessories%201984.pdf

The NAD deck with later arm-tube assembly was tested pn page 74-75 here, but little comment was made about the adjustable counterweight damping. Interesting in forty years how an OM10 cartridge if made now, would cost more than the complete turntable back then (2M Red is I believe, a Super OM10 in drag and the Concorde Music Red has the new stylus descendent it seems, without physically checking)

Apologies for being such an old fart here, but my UK based lot took all this for granted forty five years ago, where I suspect many of you came into this long after vinyl all but died as a format in the 90s and I suspect the entire 'turntables-affecting-sound-quality' mantra passed many audio enthusiasts by in the US by, as now it's regarded as sales spiel by Linn products, brainwashing the likes of me nearly fifty years back. I do remember, however, having people with then ten year old Technics and similar direct drives (the more solid top-line models) for stylus and cartridge updates in the mid 80s and being pleasantly surprised how they responded to later and better pickups (the fashion was to push Rega instead at the time over here, but those of us with some experience back then, didn't feel that way if said direct drives were properly sited away from corners and the speakers themselves and not set up in a 'HiFi Shrine' between the speakers as 'enthusiasts' tend to do).

Apologies for the digression/rant above and back to current topic regarding tonearm lf resonances, NAD used to provide a test disc for their rather capable inexpensive turntable with adjustable damping on their suspended counterweight (my Dual 701 has vertical counterweight decoupling optimised for the V15 III, but it's not adjustable and does nothing laterally). One could judge the lf resonance of the arm/cartridge and adjust the damping to suit. No idea if any of these records are floating about, but if similar can be found, they'd help with the questions above I'm sure. Sadly, I don't have one

Great!!!