- Joined
- Oct 11, 2018
- Messages
- 3,741
- Likes
- 6,455
This is a spin off from the Schiitt turntable thread, which I didn't want to pollute with more off topic stuff. We were discussing the use and abuse of the Shure/Stanton brushes as they relate to controlling arm-cartridge resonance. Since I have a new M97xE and a NOS Pickering XV-15 1200e (equivalent to the Stanton 681eee) I thought I'd compare them. Shure uses a viscous damped brush as part of the stylus assembly (first seen on the V15 IV, I believe), while Stanton uses a simpler hinged brush affixed to the stylus assembly. The Stanton/Pickering invention was earlier than the Shure, and advertised as a 'Dustmatic' brush. Shure was advertised as a way to control arm-cartridge resonance, which Shure claimed ought to be at 10Hz, or higher.
To demonstrate their new cartridge, Shure came out with the TT-117 test record. I obtained one by purchasing a first gen V-15 MR cartridge. As I recall, there was a coupon you could send in, and Shure would send you the record for free, or maybe a few dollars. I don't recall details. It's a simple 'look, see, and hear' test. You play the bands and watch the cartridge as it tracks the levels, listening for test tone changes. Nothing fancy like measuring anything on a scope.
I used the Garrard Z-100 arm, because it highlights problems. The arm is underdamped and consists of numerous articulating pivots. A good arm to test with.
With the Shure damped brush it was difficult to observe any arm movement, and difficult to observe resonance at all. The arm was very controlled. I did not test the Shure without the brush. I should do that. The Pickering exhibited marked resonance between 7-8 Hz, with arm oscillation and some warbling of the tones. The brush made no difference at all. If anything, it might have made things a bit worse.
Conclusions: IMO the Moving Iron Pickering 'sounds' better than the Moving Magnet Shure, strictly from a sonic standpoint. I can't really say why. Maybe I just like the fact that it's an almost 50 year old cartridge, and I'm reliving my past. However that is, in the Z-100 arm the Shure is definitely a better cartridge to use. In any case, both are history. Below are some pics. For anyone interested, the Garrard is still as cluncky and Micky Mouse as it was 50 years ago. But it runs as new. I love it for all that.
.
To demonstrate their new cartridge, Shure came out with the TT-117 test record. I obtained one by purchasing a first gen V-15 MR cartridge. As I recall, there was a coupon you could send in, and Shure would send you the record for free, or maybe a few dollars. I don't recall details. It's a simple 'look, see, and hear' test. You play the bands and watch the cartridge as it tracks the levels, listening for test tone changes. Nothing fancy like measuring anything on a scope.
I used the Garrard Z-100 arm, because it highlights problems. The arm is underdamped and consists of numerous articulating pivots. A good arm to test with.
With the Shure damped brush it was difficult to observe any arm movement, and difficult to observe resonance at all. The arm was very controlled. I did not test the Shure without the brush. I should do that. The Pickering exhibited marked resonance between 7-8 Hz, with arm oscillation and some warbling of the tones. The brush made no difference at all. If anything, it might have made things a bit worse.
Conclusions: IMO the Moving Iron Pickering 'sounds' better than the Moving Magnet Shure, strictly from a sonic standpoint. I can't really say why. Maybe I just like the fact that it's an almost 50 year old cartridge, and I'm reliving my past. However that is, in the Z-100 arm the Shure is definitely a better cartridge to use. In any case, both are history. Below are some pics. For anyone interested, the Garrard is still as cluncky and Micky Mouse as it was 50 years ago. But it runs as new. I love it for all that.