Sumiko ‚Black Pearl‘, Alternatives?

[lini]

Subjectively, the Black Pearl was seriously dull, but if that old fashioned sound really appeals (the basic body goes back to the 1970s I believe), the elliptical Pearl is very cheap compared to the once similar priced competition which has shot up since 2008. The Pearl has the classic 'beefy' tones, but the tip offers a little more clarity I found in first hand comparisons at the time.

Which version did you try? Because older impressions might not apply to the current Black Pearl anymore - as the older Black Pearl used to sport an 0.5 mil conical (just like the old Coral 555-SX), while the current version sports an 0.7 mil conical. And the Pearl also doesn't sport the same needle anymore. I.e., originally and for the longest time that used to be an 0.2 x 0.8 mil elliptical (just like on the old Coral 555-E), but now it's just the usual medium-sharp (0.3 x 0.7 mil) elliptical - so also nothing speacial anymore.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[Eric Natural]

I've run a Sumiko Pearl which was class D @Stereophile for a minute. It was the only affordable(at the time) replacement for the damaged Grado Signature that I had on the Revolver. From 2018 until recently replacing it with the AT95SH. Maybe the Sumiko was one of the reasons I play records so seldom any more . . . dunno
- the Sumiko sounded great - this new one sounds better. Same table, arm, wires, room.
Best of Luck

 

[USER]

Please take a look at the many pickup library measurements on this board. Would you be able to separate the bad from the best, especially in regard to needle shape?

Yes. This information has been well-known since the 1970s. Please don't muddy up your thread with FUD. You are completely in the wrong here. I strongly recommend that you carefully review the first 5 posts of the library thread so that you learn more about the measurements, how to read them, and their limitations. The results are of the easiest part of the record to play, the outer groove. All hell breaks loose after that. They are not indicative of overall performance. For that the best gauge is the stylus shape. The short of it is that the higher quality the shape the more consistent it will be across the record in the terms mentioned above.

Conicals, unless needed for specific records, are not good for any kind of serious listening. The Denon served a specific purpose a LONG TIME AGO. Those days are long gone. It's a cartridge from 1962!! The medium was at its peak from 1975-1985. I advise you not to confuse marketing with legend. But I personally don't care if you don't care. Do what you want. Just don't post bad information please.

 

[Balle Clorin]

For last but not the least, the DENON DL103 has a spherical tip for a reason, mathematically proven reasons, the success is measurably confirmed

Take a look at post #3 , a mathematical consequence of stylus shape. Spherical has no chance of compete in accuracy with other shapes . Google tracing distortion and see old Audio articles in Worldradiohistory.

where is the math you talk about, And measurements proving Spherical superiority?
They do not exist… the only factor is in favour of spherical is lifetime compared to elliptical, and being less affected by misalignment.

I have both conical, elliptical, and microline . Both measurements I can do and listening clearly place conical/spherical in the bottom.

If you want to be resistant to correct information that is up to you,

 

[DSJR]

Which version did you try? Because older impressions might not apply to the current Black Pearl anymore - as the older Black Pearl used to sport an 0.5 mil conical (just like the old Coral 555-SX), while the current version sports an 0.7 mil conical. And the Pearl also doesn't sport the same needle anymore. I.e., originally and for the longest time that used to be an 0.2 x 0.8 mil elliptical (just like on the old Coral 555-E), but now it's just the usual medium-sharp (0.3 x 0.7 mil) elliptical - so also nothing speacial anymore.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

Not the latest ones I admit. The Pearl was basically the same as the Rega R100 and A&R E77 I remember (and I suspect the Supex SM100E and maybe the Grace F9E which may have different compliance), the differences more sample variation I remember (I still have a good R100 and it's very nice indeed until one plays a CD...).

I have to add with apologies, that digital was the best thing ever to happen to vinyl reproduction.

Another range with a top-down balance is Grado, the hf peak becoming less as you go up the range (I know the Prestige range well, but again, I'm two generations or so out, but no reason to think they've changed that much).

 

[Heinrich]

Yes. This information has been well-known since the 1970s. Please don't muddy up your thread with FUD.

Sure, to "FUD" isn't my intent clearly. Since the idea of a special shape of stylus as being superior is so generally spread, what is the evidence? I've seen in this thread a graphic that is, as my intuition tells me, more a maker's take on their own product. I'm very reluctant to accept it as a real directive.

I'm quite aware of the difficulties involved, example given the optimization of tracking angle with different setups of a pivoted tonearm. Please in case throw all the stuff at me. I'm robust and of an understanding type. Not the least, today we are in the most confortable situation to digitize measurements, of our own, giving real numbers!

I once asked if the distortion figures of the measurements in the library are real. I've been told, yes. So what did I miss, when giving up on optimizing in chosing prohibitively(!!) more expensive stylus shapes?

How to proceed?

 

[USER]

I'm quite aware of the difficulties involved, example given the optimization of tracking angle with different setups of a pivoted tonearm. Please in case throw all the stuff at me. I'm robust and of an understanding type. Not the least, today we are in the most confortable situation to digitize measurements, of our own, giving real numbers!

Well, seeing as I am not going to get you to read the first page of the library thread and I don't feel like talking to a wall I'll just say look at this for starters if you are ever up for it:

AES Journal Forum » Tracing Distortion on Vinyl LPs

The AES Forum is where our members get to interact with each other in between conferences and section meetings.

secure.aes.org

 

[Heinrich]

Well, seeing as I am not going to get you to read the first page of the library thread and I don't feel like talking to a wall I'll just say look at this for starters if you are ever up for it:

AES Journal Forum » Tracing Distortion on Vinyl LPs

The AES Forum is where our members get to interact with each other in between conferences and section meetings.

secure.aes.org

I've read the "first page of the library thread". I'm going to read the "Tracing Distortion on Vinyl LPs" article. You don't speak to a dead stone white wall. The wall is going to answer ;-)

 

[Heinrich]

AES Journal Forum » Tracing Distortion on Vinyl LPs

The AES Forum is where our members get to interact with each other in between conferences and section meetings.

secure.aes.org

Thanks again for providing the link to this interesting article. It describes the mechanism of "tracking error" quite intuively. Now I know why my attempt to mathematize the problem got a bit bothersome lately; is has to, it is like that.

Also it shows that even at best circumstances the max amplitude on LP is limited twofold at 50 mu-meter, or 50cm/s whatever comes first. Another question I had is answered; need at least 20dB headroom referenced to x mVolt for standard 5cm/s. It relaxes the demand for trackability a bit as some quite humble 65 mu-meter may be just enough (DJ stuff, 12inch singles clearly excluded).

What the article also mentions, in a sidenote though, is the presence of other distortion mechanisms. These are not discussed, especially the elasticity of the record grooves. I'm eager to learn what the resonance of the stylus versus the PVC is. We often see a peak in the 20kHz range, exaggerating the amplitude by 3 to 6dB. Would we talk about tracking error in case of such a resonance? Even if it was just the cantilever to resonate, that would be a different whooping problem.

Anyway, the article closes with an interesting notion: why don't we dismiss the LP alltogether (some do)? The tracking error doesn't seem to be as objectional as the numbers suggest. Self modulation, phase modulation?! Data could be provided, but is for the time being still missing, and won't come any time soon.

It was clear from the very start, tracking error is real from a technical perspective. It could be mitigated by using a progressively smaller tip size down to 2 mu-meters. But there are, as I said, other factors involved. We do not know, actually, which overweighs, or compensates, which. That is not "FUD", as you put it. We really do not know.

Finally, already tl;dr

All data in the library of cartridge measurements shows extreme (!!) distortion up to 10% H2, 3% H3 at 10kHz, regardless of the stylus shape. Differences, if presented, between inner and outer grooves are minimal. Could you comment on that, did I miss something?

 

[Balle Clorin]

10 % is not extreme distortion when vinyl is concerned, in fact 10% (-20db) is considered to be a good result.. at the higher frequency.take a look at the Hifinews cartridge reviews,

Distortion will vary depending on test record and level if course

Pro-Ject Pick it MC9 Lab Report

Although not specifically mentioned in Pro-Ject's literature, the MC9's cryogenically annealed mechanism, pole pieces and boron rod cantilever all look like examples manufactured by the Excel Corporation of Japan, and illustrated by the Hana Umami Blue in particular [Umami Red - HFN Dec '20]...

www.hifinews.com

 

[Heinrich]

10 % is not extreme distortion when vinyl is concerned, in fact 10% (-20db) is considered to be a good result.. at the higher frequency.

That is what I was told recently. So, if there's that much of distortion of whatever origin, regardless of the stylus shape--why bother with the topic of true conical versus any other form of elliptical?

 

[USER]

That is what I was told recently. So, if there's that much of distortion of whatever origin, regardless of the stylus shape--why bother with the topic of true conical versus any other form of elliptical?

Not sure if it is a language barrier but you don't seem to be taking in what is being said here so I'm afraid I am not going to continue past this. You seem to be simplifying things way too much and are focusing on minutia so much that you lost the forest for the trees. This is not an insult. And I hope you follow the threads here and that they are helpful. But this makes it hard to discuss this with you, especially as you are starting from extreme positions and are searching for answers to your personal questions, which no one working on this really had. (Much of the tests done regarding stylus shape took ellipticals as a starting point because no one was thinking that sphericals were representative of what counted as good playback at the time.) For starters you don't seem to know about cartridge compliance and cartridge-tonearm matching based on your first few posts so much of this thread proceeded with the fact that it doesn't really matter what you go with. Now there is debate as to how much this all matters when things are close but again you are presenting an extreme case with super low compliance cartridges and a super low mass tonearm (the electronic servo tonearm can only do so much). (As a general rule I would not use a cartridge that requires more than 1.8g of tracking force with your turntable, and that is pushing it in my book. I own 3 Denon turntables, btw, and have posted about this.) As much as you say you understand the paper I posted you seem to get very basic things like this super wrong or don't seem to even care about them. This makes it hard to engage with you.

I'll just say -- as has been explained at the start of the thread -- distortion is only one part of this. Sphericals create problems in other realms too. Sound reproduction is complex. Cartridges have a lot going for them with things such as the cantilevers also mattering. In the late 1970s effective tip mass (and tracking) was a central engineering problem and there was a nuclear arms race to reduce it for state of the art performance. Your turntable is from that time. Sphericals were not a part of this discussion for obvious reasons. I recommend you re-read the first page of the library and re-read the responses here as you don't seem to understand test records, the measurements and what they mean. As has been said, and I'll say one last time, pretty much everything suffers as the cartridge moves toward the inner groove. Sphericals perform the worst. So that poor distortion of the medium can get worse, especially with worn records or cartridges. The fun with test record and fun with vinyl measurements have a lot of good info as well as tests conducted by members. Please look for them yourself. If you read the first page of the library thread carefully you would have seen links to JPs distortion measurements across the record as well as some frequency response measurements from sweeps in the middle of the record. (You would also know that I try to include them in my suite of measurements.)

Here are a couple of quick links that popped into my head. I really can't spend more time thinking about sphericals. (lol.)

Around The Bend

Not loving my AT740MLx

Got my Nagaoka MP-300 running today after some hours figuring out why one channel was humming. One channel’s ground side is connected to the cartridge body. My only other metal body carts either have an insulating layer on top or in the case of the 740ML the cart body is isolated from the...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I also recommend you search for JPs blind tests and also that you listen to tracks at the end of the record. Most vinyl enthusiasts stop paying attention by then. If you ever try a good cartridge (and I don't mean expensive) try out some tests yourself by recording those final tracks. Try analyzing the tracks with a spectrogram program. But really just listen.

Anyways, enjoy your listening. I do not doubt for a second that you can't get enjoyment out of whatever set-up you choose to go with and that, barring a crosley-type turntable or something broken, it doesn't sound decent enough. As I always say I am invested because of my archival and preservation needs so I am looking for as much fidelity to the recording as can be had (and to show that you don't need too much money for this.) My values are my own and I don't like to suffocate people with them. This is all antiquated technology in the end. All I hope for is that you don't get ripped off.

 

[DSJR]

Back when I had a higher end vinyl player with a 'Vital' elliptical stylus, I remember when Sgt Pepper came along on CD and I directly compared the UK vinyl and CD (the deck speed and vinyl cut matched the CD very well). At the beginning of both sides, the 'tonal balance' matched pretty well but at side-end (I specifically remember 'Being For The Benefit Of Mr Kite), the vinyl had gone right off. Maybe this was a bad vinyl cut (bought in the late 70s and not an original), but the 'Vital' stylus is a true elliptical and even this dulled down as the side continued. Conicals like even the 'sharp' DL103, roll off quite badly at side end but you'd only hear that if a decent digital or master-analogue source was there to compare.

 

[Heinrich]

Not sure if it is a language barrier but you don't seem to be taking in what is being said here so I'm afraid ....

No language barrier here. And in regard to technology, or math respectively I'm pretty proficient. Also, and not the least, your input is quite appreciated, and I work with it. Shall I confirm that I'm not trying to provoke?

The problem of tracking error is, well, understood. It is accepted as real. I'm open to challenge my previous decision to stick to a standard (sic!) conical. It isn't expensive to do so either, as long as I would not opt for the most elaborated tip shapes.

Again, thanks for the links provided. The AES article, as I exemplified, spared me tons of time doing the math myself!

The latter link to "Around The Bend" is about the 'pinch'. The AES article conveys, that 'pinch' isn't that much of an issue. But admittedly 'pinch' is a quite illustrative concept.

The other link, on not loving cartridge ABC is of even more impact. A test record (?) Tacet is played with different needles, and the Audio Technica cartridges have even the same coils, which is the best. That post is marvelous

Now to my preliminary results. I have difficulties to hear 'around' the defects of the record. Btw, same with the Norah Jones ABX test. Seems I'm no longer trained to accept disturbances that big. Caveat emptor: my hearing goes up to, say, 13kHz, and I got my inner ears washed recently, literally.

That said, for the time being I cannot make out a substancial difference between a conical and an unexpensive elliptical, the micro line may make a difference.

Question again, why is the distortion in the library measurements that high, regardless of the stylus shape? Why doesn't it worsen that much towards the inner grooves in that examples that show inner grooves?

peace

 

[Balle Clorin]

uestion again, why is the distortion in the library measurements that high, regardless of the stylus shape? Why doesn't it worsen that much towards the inner grooves in that examples that show inner grooves?

Maybe because few of the tested cartridges are conicals.. ?
take a look at Thorens Tp257 conical that I posted it is conical and does a decent job at the outer groove. But I will not ruin my test records by running it at the inner .. grooves -10db is this conical is 30% distortion. If you are horrified by vinyl distortion you should be even more horrified by conical performance …

 

[USER]

Question again, why is the distortion in the library measurements that high, regardless of the stylus shape? Why doesn't it worsen that much towards the inner grooves in that examples that show inner grooves?

As with all of this it is complicated. For starters we are dealing with the limitations of the test records, which are decades and decades and decades and decades old. (They were made well before that golden age I brought up so they are not representative of the best they could have been.) These records limit everything and we are beholden to them. More, we can only work with the sweep recordings for our library thread, which, generally, were made with frequency response in mind and not distortion. As is clear from the thread some test records are more limited than others when it comes to the distortion measurements. Again, this is all covered in the first page of the library thread...

Some have searched for test records with a good 1kHz test signal with which to ascertain distortion and rely on those instead. Given all your questions my advise is that you buy some test records and conduct your own experiments.

Another part of this is that, at least with most of my cartridges, the styli are in either new or like new condition. Wear matters tremendously. And again, sphericals drop in quality fastest with wear. This is perhaps the reason most people who don't even understand the medium don't bother with sphericals. It's almost intuitive really. That's why we ask for that information.

These are two things that popped into my head. I'm sure there are many other reasons. You have to treat everything cartridge related as part of a system and you need to think about all the variables that relate to the different parts.

My biggest regret is selling my Denon DL-103R before I could conduct my current suite of measurements including middle of the record FR sweeps. If I ever stumble into one I would make recordings for a blind test against the $15 Audio-Technica cartridge (and microlinear cartridges as well). But I refuse to spend more than $80 because it is not a good cartridge so I am beholden to someone letting me borrow one. I really do think pulling the covers off from that cartridge is one of the best things we can do here.

Anyways, I mean it this time and this is my last post on this topic.

 

[Heinrich]

As with all of this it is complicated. ... Again, this is all covered in the first page of the library thread...

Take my word, I read that first page and didn't find it.

My biggest regret is selling my Denon DL-103R before I could conduct my current suite of measurements ... I really do think pulling the covers off from that cartridge is one of the best things we can do here.

O/k, you are coming from there? No bad feelings, I'm not a fanboy.

Anyways, I mean it this time and this is my last post on this topic.

Your choice, and you're right, the topic is covered in some other threads. I've got my answers--black pearl and alternatives, already. Thnak you.

 

[userPaul]

As with all of this it is complicated. For starters we are dealing with the limitations of the test records, which are decades and decades and decades and decades old. (They were made well before that golden age I brought up so they are not representative of the best they could have been.) These records limit everything and we are beholden to them. More, we can only work with the sweep recordings for our library thread, which, generally, were made with frequency response in mind and not distortion. As is clear from the thread some test records are more limited than others when it comes to the distortion measurements. Again, this is all covered in the first page of the library thread...

Some people have started to think about turning audio into digital audio. because finding similar storage media is rare.

 

[Heinrich]

Famous last words? I've got a good headphone, and of course equalizer APO.

@USER provided this link: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/not-loving-my-at740mlx.58031/post-2126391

Alas, there are defects on the Tacet test record, right? But I filtered them out, to some degree, by setting a highpass at 9kHz. It opened the perspective on the actual high frequency parts.

 

[JP]

Defects? Seems you’re completely missing the point of what that test is, and what it demonstrates.