The Courteous Vinyl Playback Discussion

[mike70]

I agree that mastering makes a huge difference in sound quality, perhaps more than which cartridge or tonearm you're using.

Tonearm ... one of the great questions I have, personally. A "high end" tonearm is really an audible upgrade?

I don't have any doubts on cartridge / stylus (I checked out), but I won't buy a SME tonearm to see what happens

 

[RickS]

What I meant was that some vinyl is mastered better than others. So having objective measurements of which is actually better I find is the biggest bang for the buck in analog playback.

But if you want to stick with hardware playback only - no problem. For your record puck example, a few years back I did back to back needle drops with and without a puck and compared the spectrograms. If memory serves me correctly, there was basically no difference. I don’t think I still have those captures, but when I get my analog side back up and running, I can redo and post the results.

If your analysis is infrequent, suggest it should be fine to post here. If you intend to do ongoing testing of vinyl recordings, creating a separate thread seems a better way to organize content (as opposed to entangling it within a thread focused more on equipment content).

 

[drewdawg999]

Tonearm ... one of the great questions I have, personally. A "high end" tonearm is really an audible upgrade?

I don't have any doubts on cartridge / stylus (I checked out), but I won't buy a SME tonearm to see what happens

Yeah the best I have is the Tecnoarm, a modified Rega, it was the default choice and plenty arm for me. I think Michell believes the bearings on Rega arms are high quality, then they drilled holes to reduce weight, and replaced counterweight so center of gravity is lower, at record level. These things make some sense, not sure what astronomical spending gets you that would net audible improvements.

I once dreamed of SME, of Ikeda, Moerch, Triplanar, FR, Grace. But don't think I'll soon buy a table that doesn't come with tonearm. If ever I could afford it, the Grand Prix Monaco is on my radar as having the best speed stability on the market. Then I might match that with a Triplanar and then I don't know what for cartridge. But I swear I've reached endgame for my analogue, spending 80 grand on a setup is crazy dreaming and most probably unnecessary as far as sonics go.

 

[EJ3]

good times rolling

to enjoy life is the best hobby, congrats!

Yes!
And in the backyard of my mother's (who is now 91) house that my mother & my deceased (12 years ago) father (who joined WWII when he was 17 as a Merchant Marine & later in the Army in the occupational forces of Europe), where he met my mother in 1955 Salzburg, Austria, designed and (along with friends) built in 1964 & we moved in when I was 8 (1965).
Where I grew up at.

 

[mike70]

Yeah the best I have is the Tecnoarm, a modified Rega, it was the default choice and plenty arm for me. I think Michell believes the bearings on Rega arms are high quality, then they drilled holes to reduce weight, and replaced counterweight so center of gravity is lower, at record level. These things make some sense, not sure what astronomical spending gets you that would net audible improvements.

I once dreamed of SME, of Ikeda, Moerch, Triplanar, FR, Grace. But don't think I'll soon buy a table that doesn't come with tonearm. If ever I could afford it, the Grand Prix Monaco is on my radar as having the best speed stability on the market. Then I might match that with a Triplanar and then I don't know what for cartridge. But I swear I've reached endgame for my analogue, spending 80 grand on a setup is crazy dreaming and most probably unnecessary as far as sonics go.

Well, Origin Live silver or Audiomods Six aren't "so expensive" and supposedly great tonearms.

But ... there will be an audible difference? If I have to bet, I'll say no, or at least a worthless tiny difference.

I never saw a scientific comparative between tonearms, only marketing or subjective opinions like "a veil was removed"

 

[drewdawg999]

Well, Origin Live silver or Audiomods Six aren't "so expensive" and supposedly great tonearms.

But ... there will be an audible difference? If I have to bet, I'll say no, or at least a worthless tiny difference.

I never saw a scientific comparative between tonearms, only marketing or subjective opinions like "a veil was removed"

The Audiomods one looks awesome, probably what I'd get if I needed a tonearm. But all we have to go on these things are subjective reviews and impressions. Many veils must be lifted, lol, in order to reach highest fidelity. What exactly would be measured to zero in on quality of tonearm? Or do cartridge measurements include tonearm interactions, the 2 considered a single system? I suppose things like FR and tracking ability are affected by the arm, as well as detail and resolution.

 

[Bob from Florida]

The Audiomods one looks awesome, probably what I'd get if I needed a tonearm. But all we have to go on these things are subjective reviews and impressions. Many veils must be lifted, lol, in order to reach highest fidelity. What exactly would be measured to zero in on quality of tonearm? Or do cartridge measurements include tonearm interactions, the 2 considered a single system? I suppose things like FR and tracking ability are affected by the arm, as well as detail and resolution.

Effective mass for compliance matching with cartridges is one thing to be considered with tonearms. Adjustability is another - range of cartridge weights, anti-skate, azimuth, and VTA. Detachable head-shells may be desired or not. Bearing quality can make a difference. The arm should move easily and smoothly. Finally, cost is important. Like most things, better performance past a certain point requires exponentially more money.

 

[drewdawg999]

Effective mass for compliance matching with cartridges is one thing to be considered with tonearms. Adjustability is another - range of cartridge weights, anti-skate, azimuth, and VTA. Detachable head-shells may be desired or not. Bearing quality can make a difference. The arm should move easily and smoothly. Finally, cost is important. Like most things, better performance past a certain point requires exponentially more money.

So it seems most considerations with tonearms are related to proper setup of the cartridge. All that adjustability is to ensure the cartridge is performing optimally, for best sound quality. It would be sexier to see measurements that show how the arm directly affects sound quality. This would involve I think FR and tracking ability, using different arms but same table and cartridge, seeing if there's any difference in comparison. Seems like a difficult thing to do though, would most likely involve digital capture of needle drops, then analyzing the files.

 

[dlaloum]

And you're talking about US market ... I don't need to tell you that in other countries, the Shure was only a dream

Ahh no, I'm talking about the Australian market
I believe Shures were readily available in the UK as well - don't know the situation outside the "anglosphere"

 

[dlaloum]

So it seems most considerations with tonearms are related to proper setup of the cartridge. All that adjustability is to ensure the cartridge is performing optimally, for best sound quality. It would be sexier to see measurements that show how the arm directly affects sound quality. This would involve I think FR and tracking ability, using different arms but same table and cartridge, seeing if there's any difference in comparison. Seems like a difficult thing to do though, would most likely involve digital capture of needle drops, then analyzing the files.

Ahh you should stop thinking about FR being related to the arm...

The arm issues mostly relate to tracking and resonances - the arm mass to cartridge compliance matching, will drive the low frequency resonance of the system - which should be somewhere in the 8Hz to 11Hz range to work best - below that, it will start to be impacted by things like footfall, the normal environmental subsonics that we don't generally notice - above that and it will start to be impacted by the actual bottom end of the recording....
This resonance is also damped by the stylus suspension (which is a proprietary rubber compound...) and the amount of damping will also influence things in addition to the compliance of the suspension.

Damping can also be added using various arm based fluid, magnetic, electro-magnetic, (or even some proprietary rubber damping compound based setups), it can also be added by a cartridge mounted brush as Shure did. (note that the Stanton/Pickering brushes provide little measurable damping, unlike the Shure design, which had a damping grease in the hinge).
A damped tonearm, can widen the resonant frequencies within which a cartridge can be used - but will also improve the tracking of a cartridge that is within the ideal range!

Basically damping of the arm/cartridge resonance, keeps the cartridge more stable, reducing the influence on the needle of movement of the cartridge/arm system, and therefore allowing the needle to track the groove more effectively.

So all of this messing about with parameters, all comes down to optimising the tracking ability of the cartridge....

Other aspects that influence tracking ability - obviously correct geometric alignment of the cartridge - this will also involve the geometry of the entire arm/record system - with pivoted arms, the longer the arm, the closer it gets to ideal geometry - ideal geometry is of course only possible with linear tracking arms (and they add their own kinks to the whole equation)
Most typical arms are 9" designs - the "standard" arm length - but there are many variations (look at the Dynavector arms, which have a heavy main arm, with a tiny subsidiary arm holding the cartridge.... it is also magnetically damped from memory (always wanted to try one of those! - never did.)

For a nerd (like me) - there is an endless fascination in the optimisation of all these parameters, and the multiple possible "good" setups that can be achieved with differing permutations and combinations.

There are lengthy threads on these topics on the VinylEngine website... along with some useful tools to help (calculators and such)

 

[dlaloum]

Tonearm ... one of the great questions I have, personally. A "high end" tonearm is really an audible upgrade?

I don't have any doubts on cartridge / stylus (I checked out), but I won't buy a SME tonearm to see what happens

Yes a high end tonearm can be an audible upgrade.

But as long as the arm reaches a base minimum performance level - then the major benefits to be gained are in the cartridge/stylus along with the correct loading at the phono stage...

So yeah - you can upgrade the arm and the change may well be audible (depending on what the issue is that you are trying to resolve!).

Inner groove distortion can often be resolved (or the situation improved) with a better tracking cartridge, or with a longer arm, or with a linear tracking arm. All of these "solutions" are audible.
Best results (in this inherently imperfect system) are achievable using a combination of cartridge, stylus, arm, etc...

 

[EJ3]

Effective mass for compliance matching with cartridges is one thing to be considered with tonearms. Adjustability is another - range of cartridge weights, anti-skate, azimuth, and VTA. Detachable head-shells may be desired or not. Bearing quality can make a difference. The arm should move easily and smoothly. Finally, cost is important. Like most things, better performance past a certain point requires exponentially more money.

Yep, the closer you get to perfection, the more logarithmic the scale of money needed for increment of improvement becomes. The last 3% is a financial rocket lift off blast of money.

 

[drewdawg999]

Ahh you should stop thinking about FR being related to the arm...

The arm issues mostly relate to tracking and resonances - the arm mass to cartridge compliance matching, will drive the low frequency resonance of the system - which should be somewhere in the 8Hz to 11Hz range to work best - below that, it will start to be impacted by things like footfall, the normal environmental subsonics that we don't generally notice - above that and it will start to be impacted by the actual bottom end of the recording....
This resonance is also damped by the stylus suspension (which is a proprietary rubber compound...) and the amount of damping will also influence things in addition to the compliance of the suspension.

Damping can also be added using various arm based fluid, magnetic, electro-magnetic, (or even some proprietary rubber damping compound based setups), it can also be added by a cartridge mounted brush as Shure did. (note that the Stanton/Pickering brushes provide little measurable damping, unlike the Shure design, which had a damping grease in the hinge).
A damped tonearm, can widen the resonant frequencies within which a cartridge can be used - but will also improve the tracking of a cartridge that is within the ideal range!

Basically damping of the arm/cartridge resonance, keeps the cartridge more stable, reducing the influence on the needle of movement of the cartridge/arm system, and therefore allowing the needle to track the groove more effectively.

So all of this messing about with parameters, all comes down to optimising the tracking ability of the cartridge....

Other aspects that influence tracking ability - obviously correct geometric alignment of the cartridge - this will also involve the geometry of the entire arm/record system - with pivoted arms, the longer the arm, the closer it gets to ideal geometry - ideal geometry is of course only possible with linear tracking arms (and they add their own kinks to the whole equation)
Most typical arms are 9" designs - the "standard" arm length - but there are many variations (look at the Dynavector arms, which have a heavy main arm, with a tiny subsidiary arm holding the cartridge.... it is also magnetically damped from memory (always wanted to try one of those! - never did.)

For a nerd (like me) - there is an endless fascination in the optimisation of all these parameters, and the multiple possible "good" setups that can be achieved with differing permutations and combinations.

There are lengthy threads on these topics on the VinylEngine website... along with some useful tools to help (calculators and such)

Okay I see, thanks for clarifying some things for me. So it looks like tracking ability is paramount here. And that figure (under best circumstances) is rather average for my beloved Koetsu Black anyways, and that cart measures terribly as well. Yet it somehow does the job for me. Sometimes my vinyl sounds so good that I wonder how in the world I got it to sound that way, against all odds. I did check Vinyl Engine and the calculators, but there's some confusion about Japanese compliance units, and how to convert it for use in the calculator. Some say you need a heavy arm to go with a low compliance cart such as Koetsu, but then they're not really that low compliance if units are converted properly. I don't know, ear test says good, so that's most important for me.

I wonder if a different cart might be a better match, like an AT33PTG/II. Had my eye on that one, it's kind of classic at this point, but I think it's more neutral than my Koetsu. I don't think I want neutral, I want lush and exciting. But wonder's all I got since I'm kinda broke, and won't be spending anymore until Christmas time. Regardless, I am currently enamored with the analogue side of things, completely happy with it, and won't be changing things for a while. But I will have that AT cart someday, just as a sidegrade when the Koetsu dies, and to see what a good tracker is actually like.

 

[Thomas_A]

One example of measurable tone arm differences.

Billie Jean dance

many others have quite a steep filter in the bass Good point. Just looked at my waxwing settings. Derumble filter is on which sets

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Frank Dernie]

Usual frequency response measurement might not tell the whole story. I.e., as a frequency response test record isn't meant to be a worst conditions torture test, I'd expect frequency response test records to contain the test signal in "easily digestable" form, so preferably rather closer to the outer limit of the LP playback area than to the inner limit and also in a comparatively low level (like for example at -20 dB or maybe even cut at a constant, comparatively moderate modulation velocity, which hence would require progressively less amplitude with rising frequency). And hence the benefits of a ridge-type line contact tip compared to a standard elliptical might not show up at all, if such a test record is used.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini


edit: Actual reply added. Had clicked the wrong button before... *sigh*

This is the case, test records to test linearity and performance near upper and lower modulation limits are limited or non-existant afaik.
We used to have B&K test records in R&D but not sure they are still made, and if they are how worn the stampers are.
There are serious limits in our ability to measure much about record player performance and these are the two main ones.
It probably does matter how well a cartridge copes with high modulation and how linear its magnetic circuit is, particularly since on a warped record the tranducing section spends lots of the time away from its central position.

A friend of mine who designs magnetic circuits told me one of the cartridge makers did not want to make their transducer more linear because it may change their traditional sound signature (probably correct) but AFAIK nobody has measured these things not least because of the limitation on test records.

 

[JP]

Inner groove distortion can often be resolved (or the situation improved) with a better tracking cartridge, or with a longer arm, or with a linear tracking arm. All of these "solutions" are audible.

With the mechanism of IGD being one of the stylus minor radius physically fitting the groove modulation, how in the world is reducing tracking error going to solve that?

 

[mike70]

I have the AT 33 ptg2 and I find it veeeery neutral, I mean, a little "dark" sound subjectively. I don't made a digitalization to check it out (lazy!), but the difference is very clear subjectively with my AT's MM (vm95 and vm540 with metallic body)

All that cartridges are microline and the 33 MC have a boron cantilever ... they sound fantastic really. I never had that kind of SQ with vinyl before (with the "classic" elliptical cartridges or even the Ortofon blue)

 

[Bland_username42069]

For arms , the only new ones I can see that would seem to address specific problems in playback over other types are the dynavector for tracking warped records and Thales for trying to combine parallel and stardard arms.

I’m sure there are others

Warp is always my issue as I normally by poorly pressed records from hot countries so it’s unavoidable

 

[sergeauckland]

This is the case, test records to test linearity and performance near upper and lower modulation limits are limited or non-existant afaik.
We used to have B&K test records in R&D but not sure they are still made, and if they are how worn the stampers are.
There are serious limits in our ability to measure much about record player performance and these are the two main ones.
It probably does matter how well a cartridge copes with high modulation and how linear its magnetic circuit is, particularly since on a warped record the tranducing section spends lots of the time away from its central position.

A friend of mine who designs magnetic circuits told me one of the cartridge makers did not want to make their transducer more linear because it may change their traditional sound signature (probably correct) but AFAIK nobody has measured these things not least because of the limitation on test records.

I wonder (I have lots of time to wonder!) whether in the same way as rumble can be measured using a bridge rather than a test record, whether cartridge performance couldn't be measured using a 2D vibrating platform that simulates a record. It shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to make a small platform that vibrates horizontally and vertically with any arbitrary accuracy and controlled by software. I can't however see there would be a large market for these things, but then Kippel at some €100,000 for a full system manages to stay in business.

That would avoid all the issues with inaccurate or worn out test records.

S.

 

[Soniclife]

I wonder (I have lots of time to wonder!) whether in the same way as rumble can be measured using a bridge rather than a test record, whether cartridge performance couldn't be measured using a 2D vibrating platform that simulates a record. It shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to make a small platform that vibrates horizontally and vertically with any arbitrary accuracy and controlled by software. I can't however see there would be a large market for these things, but then Kippel at some €100,000 for a full system manages to stay in business.

That would avoid all the issues with inaccurate or worn out test records.

S.

Would that be accurate without the 3rd dimension adding drag to the stylus, that's got to change the geometry of the coils and magnets.