Trying to understand the turntable/vinyl world...

[anmpr1]

Some of the LPs I played (Donald Fagen The Nightfly...

I have the Mobile Fidelity half speed mastered release, plus the CD. Both, to my ears (and years), sound more than a little on the dry and sterile side of the fence, if that makes any sense. I'm doing this from memory, but wasn't Fagan's one of the early digital recordings? Mitsubishi's machine is in my mind, but I'd have to look.

I think it could have been solved at the console. Maybe a little bit of almost imperceptible reverb or Aphexing, in order to add some 'depth'. People balk at that, but even Max Wilcox used the artificial stuff in order to add a little more 'naturalness' to some of his recordings, if the venue was on the 'dry' and less reverberant side.

But what do I know? I didn't make billions of dollars in album sales on it.

 

[sergeauckland]

I zeroed right in on the FM part of that, and I still like FM my friend. I have a couple of tuners and an outdoor antenna on a mast and rotor controlled. All that knowing that streaming radio sounds nearly as good as a CD, I continue to like my FM tuner‘s.

These days I rarely use FM except in the car. Commercial stations process their signal to buggery, as bad as the worse CDs for loudness, whilst BBC Radio 3 don't process, or very little, but we're 40 miles from the transmitter, so even with a 6 element antenna, FM is noisier than I'd like. As BBC Radio 3 is streamed at 320kbps AAC, their stream is of better quality than FM, so I listen to that in preference.

DAB here is pretty poor, fine for the kitchen or casual listening, but 128k MP2 at best (not even MP3) is hardly SOTA.

S.

 

[Deleted member 43441]

nice ... long been trying to remove as much "charm" out of my system as possible.

and in doing so ... i also marvel at the results ... so easily repeatable ... a copy of a dragging rock navigating a minefield ... consistently fooling listeners into thinking they were enjoying only digital bits.

I agree, and it can sound very very good. I know everybody uses the wife in the kitchen analogy online as a joke. But I was spinning something recently on my better table, and my wife came into my listening room and just pointed at my turntable after she saw it spinning, she said is that what’s playing? But look on her face set it all, no other words needed.

I don’t have any friends that are into this, so she’s the only one that understands haha.

 

[Deleted member 43441]

These days I rarely use FM except in the car. Commercial stations process their signal to buggery, as bad as the worse CDs for loudness, whilst BBC Radio 3 don't process, or very little, but we're 40 miles from the transmitter, so even with a 6 element antenna, FM is noisier than I'd like. As BBC Radio 3 is streamed at 320kbps AAC, their stream is of better quality than FM, so I listen to that in preference.

DAB here is pretty poor, fine for the kitchen or casual listening, but 128k MP2 at best (not even MP3) is hardly SOTA.

S.

I guess I should pick one technology or the other! I can’t choose, and I tend to go off on the deep end in everything that I do. What’s the phrase… rabbit hole. It’s fun, I believe we all do it for fun, lately I’ve been losing sight of that.

 

[mhardy6647]

I have the Mobile Fidelity half speed mastered release, plus the CD. Both, to my ears (and years), sound more than a little on the dry and sterile side of the fence, if that makes any sense. I'm doing this from memory, but wasn't Fagan's one of the early digital recordings? Mitsubishi's machine is in my mind, but I'd have to look.

I think it could have been solved at the console. Maybe a little bit of almost imperceptible reverb or Aphexing, in order to add some 'depth'. People balk at that, but even Max Wilcox used the artificial stuff in order to add a little more 'naturalness' to some of his recordings, if the venue was on the 'dry' and less reverberant side.

But what do I know? I didn't make billions of dollars in album sales on it.

As does Ry Cooder's Bop 'til You Drop -- and, heck, Dire Straits' Brothers in Arms.
Both, to my ears, on big black vinyl or little polycabonate discs, sound... kinda dry. Good. But kinda dry.

I know them's fightin' words around these parts.

 

[TBone]

Thanks for the comment, and I’ll agree… somewhat. Just like with any other parts of our gear there comes a point of diminishing returns. You can set a budget with vinyl, or you can shoot for the stars. there is a lot of snake oil in turntable land also lol. Esoteric cartridges being one of them, and some tonearms that look like they could possibly control the landing of a lunar mission… because it’s my belief that once you get to a certain point it’s not going to get a whole lot better. The needle and media contact, or more appropriately termed… “the groove noise”, “the noise floor” of vinyl is the limiting factor. Listen if people spend $50,00 ...

generalizations ... not my experience.

I have the Mobile Fidelity half speed mastered release, plus the CD. Both, to my ears (and years), sound more than a little on the dry and sterile side of the fence, if that makes any sense. I'm doing this from memory, but wasn't Fagan's one of the early digital recordings? Mitsubishi's machine is in my mind, but I'd have to look.

recently cued a SDan orig cd with v.good DR values to help evaluate a computer/dac front end ... and yes ... it sounded overly "dry" and "studio flat" ... like every Fagan offering ive heard.

 

[TBone]

As does Ry Cooder's Bop 'til You Drop -- and, heck, Dire Straits' Brothers in Arms.
Both, to my ears, on big black vinyl or little polycabonate discs, sound... kinda dry. Good. But kinda dry.

I know them's fightin' words around these parts.

So many versions of BIA. Iirc orig.rec @16bits. DR values range drastically, ex: a ~DR14 ver. while stellar, better numbers r avail .. knopfler recordings generally always offered good to superb dr values.

 

[TBone]

I guess I should pick one technology or the other! I can’t choose, and I tend to go off on the deep end in everything that I do.

why pick, & jumping into the deep end is part of the hobby.

What’s the phrase… rabbit hole. It’s fun, I believe we all do it for fun, lately I’ve been losing sight of that.

and that's key, i find vinyl much more fun than playing with digital ... but it certainly depends on mood ... all too often all i want to do is lay back, enjoy a recent legal advantage, as i cue jeff.airplane by remote.

 

[Robin L]

The two below were stacked on the changer yesterday, and made a pronounced statement in difference. Symphonies from the early '70s, while the overtures, were released in 1982, when commercial CDs were beginning to make the scene. Well before anyone owned CD players, 'digital' LPs were common, and pushed by the record companies as the 'latest and greatest'. They may have even sold for a premium, I don't remember.

Anyhow, the analog record is much better, sonically. The digital record is 'thin' with pronounced HF boost. Bass regions are less pronounced or 'bloaty' --you could say 'more controlled'-- than on the analog LP, so that part of the mix could be considered better. I don't have a 'remastered' CD copy of the overture release, so I can't say how much sonic imperfection was 'on the tape', and how much was additional LP mastering shenanigans.

Whatever the case, this sort of thing was typical of a lot of 'digital' records. My guess was that the record companies made a marketing decision to go with unnatural sounding releases in order to differentiate them from analog. Certainly some of it could be recording engineers working with machines that were not as sophisticated as what we have now, and who were not used to working with them. But I suspect it was mostly a marketing decision. "Don't make it sound analog. We need a 'sonic firework' in order to boost sales."

We remember that it was a common complaint of early digital releases. In fact, some early CDs were worse than the records, because of CDs intrinsic 'clarity', dynamic range, and lack of analog record player artifacts, the latter which probably masked some recording FR balance problems.

It took a while for 'natural' sounding digital recordings to happen. The introduction of the Soundstream system, and 'boutique' labels such as Telarc, leading the way. The adjustment period was not a happy one. Today, of course, all that has been solved, and there is no excuse for a bad sounding digital recording.


View attachment 184823

Yes, "digital" LPs sold at a premium, with Telarc taking the lead, as they were boutique audiophile goodies with pricier vinyl compound and snazzier packaging. The first Telarcs sold for the same as Sheffield Labs direct to disc. A handful of the early Telarc LPs were standard audio boutique items, with the big bass drum in the Holst suites recording often booming through the walls of these places in the late 1970s. Later, in the early 1980's, the offerings from Columbia [turning into Sony] were usually a buck more, as I recall, and the digital remasterings on Sony of older items moved into the mid-price category recordings that previously were on the odyssey budget label.

I've got both Mozart recordings. I've got the Philips Mozart edition of the Symphonies, so the sequencing was different than the LP, but the recordings are the same. The Overtures recording for EMI is a 1 for 1 duplication of the LP as regards packaging. I also owned these recordings as LPs, back when that was the only way to hear them. This is purely subjective, but the Overtures seem to have an earlier CD mastering in that the levels, on average, are lower than the symphony recording. mf is louder on the Philips CD. Also, compared to the EMI recording, the textures of the Philips recording are "clogged", with textures thicker in the lower registers. I suspect the Philips engineers were attempting to compete with the sound of larger ensembles. The Szell/Cleveland recording [probably a decade older than the Marriner] has much more treble energy. The Bruno Walter/Columbia Symphony Orchestra recording from the late 1950's has the best tonal balance of the three.

I remember collecting "Digital LPs" when they first came out. Primed by the anti-digital bias of the audio publications I was reading, I found all sorts of flaws with early digital efforts on vinyl. However, as of 2022, those recordings on CD sound better than anything I've heard on LP. For some reason, it's just too easy for me to hear LP artifacts now, and I don't like them. I find the EMI overtures the better sounding of the two on my CD rips than the Philips Symphonies, and those differences sound like mastering differences. Obviously, audio memory is not to be trusted. That said, I distinctly remember the Philips LPs of ASMF [mastered and pressed in the Netherlands] as brighter and more open sounding than the CDs, and the Angel/EMI LP [mastered and pressed in the USA] of the overtures as murkier than the CD.

I've also got Marriner/ASMF's EMI re-recording of the Haffner symphony on a CD rip, and it sounds more open, with much better string tone than the Philips recording.

I'm listening via Drop 6XX headphones, Topping E/L 30, just re-set the EQ to Arim's specs.

 

[Deleted member 43441]

why pick, & jumping into the deep end is part of the hobby.


and that's key, i find vinyl much more fun than playing with digital ... but it certainly depends on mood ... all too often all i want to do is lay back, enjoy a recent legal advantage, as i cue jeff.airplane by remote.

Agreed, and choice is a good thing.

 

[TBone]

I remember collecting "Digital LPs" when they first came out. Primed by the anti-digital bias of the audio publications I was reading, I found all sorts of flaws with early digital efforts on vinyl. However, as of 2022, those recordings on CD sound better than anything I've heard on LP.

have a few, one being half speed master of Jonathan Livingston Seagull w/n.diamond, which i archived to 16/44 not that long ago. been decades since I'd heard this lp, which (iirc) utilized 14bit converters. dont have the digital versions to compare, but i certainly found the sound of this lp ... um ... different ...

 

[Frank Dernie]

I do think that mastering makes a difference ... I have different versions of the same album on vinyl and I have preferences.

I know I have written this before but the fact is there is a bigger difference in sound quality between recordings than there is between the various bits of equipment we buy to reproduce them - often much bigger.
Which makes a bit of a mockery of our hobby, in a way.

I have some fabulous sounding LPs and some awful CDs plus often my favourite versions of a piece were recorded in mono in the 1950s and have "historic" SQ.

I would rather listen to music I love with moderate SQ than some "show piece" recordings of music which bores me, so again the music comes before my hifi It is fantastic when the recording and the music are to my taste though!

 

[TBone]

I know I have written this before but the fact is there is a bigger difference in sound quality between recordings than there is between the various bits of equipment we buy to reproduce them - often much bigger.
Which makes a bit of a mockery of our hobby, in a way.

Totally, a complete mockery in audiophile terms ... the promise of high dynamic range digital reproduction, once a priority and a given, has largely been traded in for > loudness & convenience.

Drives me silly when i see new releases avail on both vinyl and cd, and its the CD thats gets the compression beyond musicality treatment ...

 

[MattHooper]

If you have the patience, you can rip the LP into a digital file - and then you have the best of both worlds.

Or the worst of both worlds, depending on your point of view

Playing vinyl, like reading a real book, gives me a chance to finally unplug from the digital world and interfacing with yet more screens.

As my local turntable guru put it "Once you are digitizing your LP signal, you've given up."

There is something to be said about the charm of vinyl, let’s not lose sight of the fact that it’s an inferior media. As someone that spins 90% vinyl as opposed to using a DAC, CD or streaming, that’s my own reality check. But again I go in knowing this, I also smile every time after I listen to a well mastered vinyl LP, because the thought of dragging a diamond through a minefield, and getting the sound that I do… simply amazes me every single time.

It's certainly an inferior medium in terms of technical capabilities in best-use-cases. But for me it's a bit like the scenario with digital audio compression schemes. On paper some lossy compression schemes are throwing away "lots of information" and the intuition is they should sound obviously worse than full res counterparts. And yet many struggle to hear the difference.

It's sort of similar with vinyl, where the kludgy process and technical limitations look awful "on paper" and yet the sonic result can be very impressive.

I'm not saying it's exactly the same with vinyl vs digital - there are often going to be surface noise cues you are hearing vinyl. But beyond that, I just don't regularly experience, at least subjectively, the obvious superiority of digital. I'm using a Benchmark DAC 2L in to my Benchmark LA4 preamp and when I'm playing decent digital sources the sense of clarity and detail can be gobsmacking - like I can hear in to the molecules of the recording studio, the quietest most distant sounds easily discernible, slightest whiff of reverbs revealed everywhere. And yet when I spin many records I'm having the same experience...just being astounded at all the same things! And sometimes 'more.' I was listening to a Bill Bruford album streamed via my server/DAC, and then put on the same album, an excellent pressing, on LP. To my ears the drums just sounded more "there" on the LP, the snap of the drums jumped out of the mix a bit more, sounded more vivid and dense, the kick drum same thing, the cymbals same. It just reminded me more of "hearing real drums." I often find this to be the case on LPs. I love drummer oriented music, so I'm a fan of RoboHands, Yussef Kamaal and it's the same thing. I've streamed their albums and enjoyed them, but I bought the albums not just to have a physical copy, but for the sound. The drums just sound a bit "more convincing, more like the drums are there" to me. A preference perhaps, but it works for me. Whatever the technical limitations, I never feel like I'm automatically taking some hit in sound quality when I choose a record over my digital source. (With the exception that, generally speaking, there will more often be some noise, though I'm only aware of it if at all between tracks not during most content).

 

[TBone]

Matt did you check/measure the dynamic range of that drum track? my 1st guess is the lp offers greater measurable dynamic range content as compared to the compressed by default stream. That alone would help explain your perception of greater instrumental impact.

 

[MattHooper]

Matt did you check/measure the dynamic range of that drum track? my 1st guess is the lp offers greater measurable dynamic range content as compared to the compressed by default stream. That alone would help explain your perception of greater instrumental impact.

No. I suppose there could be differences in dynamics.

Though my impression in this instance is similar to the general case I find, where it's not necessarily dynamics but more tonal/textural. A sense of vividness and density to the tone of the drums. Constant at different volumes etc.

 

[RayKay]

I have a strong feeling (ie: off the cuff I have no substantive objective support) - that optimal trackability is achieved with very low compliance setups.... the classic golden age Shure (and some of its competitors).

But to achieve that, you need a very good arm, very low mass, with very low friction - the needle has to be free to move - hence minimal resistance from the suspension (and as a result negligible damping) - but still has to drag the arm across the record - hence very very low arm resistance and mass - for it to track properly damping of low frequency resonance is required, and as there is almost no damping at the needle suspension level (due to the choice of very high compliance - minimal motion resistance!), the arm motion damping has to be provided by the arm - various forms of fluid or grease based damping were successful, also magnetic... (and the shure damping brush!)- and absolutely no stiction.

All of which is to say, achieving high tracking ability is possible - but it requires a system wide design approach, it is not about the cartridge or stylus, but the entire needle to arm system working together.

I am not convinced that the same levels of extreme trackability are possible with low compliance, typically MC setups - there are compromises at the core of these that make things difficult:

• The MC principle requires that the needle/cantilever be physically connected to coils and in turn to the cables - this is difficult to achieve with total freedom of movement (and a common cause of MC failure, is breakages in the coils or their connections)
• With mid to low compliance designs (think tracking forces of 1.6g to 2.5g) - the cantilever motion is substantially damped... the rubber is "harder" - there are likely to be greater losses and distortions imposed by the suspension itself, and higher tracking forces are required to keep the needle/cantilever moving properly. (this has the advantage that damping in the cantilever suspension is providing required damping for the entire neede to arm system... and arm level damping is less critical as a result)
• With both the above constraints together, the needle is constrained in it's motion - hence reduced tracking ability

Having said all that.... I have several MC cartridges that I enjoy listening to ( Benz MC1, Sony MC10, Dynavector Karat), but all things considered, I tend strongly towards the high compliance MM/MI school of thought - for which needles have been getting harder to obtain as time goes by.

I, too, opine that the optimum recipe for record playback is high compliance, low mass, judicious damping at the arm pivot, and the importance of synergy of the complete record playback system rather than the advanced strength of an individual component. To achieve that end for myself I assembled a combination of commercially available audio equipment plus modification of same and construction of my own components.

My first venture into the mega high compliance and low VTF world was the purchase of an ADC XLM which was very high compliance and spec’d at 0.6g VTF, +/- 0g. It worked well in a Decca low mass viscous damped unipivot arm that I had at the time but the ‘system’ was very sensitive to the slightest disturbance from floor-born vibrations and the stylus actually jumped the groove on a cymbal crash at a certain spot on one LP, no matter what I did in the way of adjustments. Long story short, the playback system I eventually put together that addressed these issues with great success was a mostly stock Thorens TD-125, a Rabco SL8E linear tracking arm to which I retrofit a very low mass viscous damped unipivot arm of my own design, and perched the turntable atop a DIY seismic platform that was tuned to around 1Hz in both vertical and lateral movement (sort of a poor man’s version of a Minus K platform).

The platform was spring loaded in the vertical direction via linear ball bushings (think MacPherson strut suspension) and in the horizontal direction by sandwiching a slab of foam rubber in the base of the pedestal. The horizontal motion was small enough that, combined with the length of the pedestal, there was no objectionable pitch or roll to disturb the arm. There was no ‘stiction’ at all in the horizontal direction and whatever minute bearing ‘stiction’ there might have been in the vertical direction was filtered out by the stock spring suspension of the TD-125. The suppression of floor-born vibration by the seismic platform was so effective that I could jump on the floor in front of the turntable with hardly any audible disturbance.

I designed and built the arm as a very low mass, low friction viscous damped unipivot. The unipivot / linear tracker combination sailed through the previously mentioned cymbal crash without a whimper. IMO the cymbal crash likely caused a transient increase in stylus drag which resolved into a skating force transient that excited the mass/compliance resonance in a way that added enough side force to derail the stylus. My next cartridge after the XLM was a B&O MMC-6000 with beryllium cantilever and nude line contact stylus.

IME I would add that optimal tracking also requires that the arm geometry not impose added side force from skating effects. At the risk of starting a flame war, I suggest that this requirement is best satisfied by active servo linear tracking designs. I say ‘active servo linear’ because passive linear arms invariably add side force to the cantilever from the stiction/friction of multiple rolling bearings. When playing an off-center record, a head-on view of the stylus on a passive linear arm often shows visible cantilever deflection caused by the stiction/friction of the bearings and track surface. Even a small cantilever deflection causes angular tracking error, which is self-defeating for a ‘linear tracking’ arm.

The carriage mechanics on my arm has since been upgraded with an improved cueing system and a photoelectric servo control that drives the carriage motor in a continuous variable speed mode that follows the groove pitch smoothly, and no longer exhibits any of the on-off “crabbing” that the stock SL8E is/was infamous for.

My generalized observation is that the golden age of super-tracking ended with the advent of the CD, when most manufacturers of high compliance cartridges and arms designed for them closed shop. After 45 years of my unipivot linear tracker as my main arm, I am currently designing a new version which will reluctantly be higher mass, in order to be more compatible with the established trend of cartridge manufacturers towards medium and low compliance suspensions - IMO a trend that went in the wrong direction.

 

[TBone]

... IMO a trend that went in the wrong direction.

awesome post, thx 4 sharing.

 

[dlaloum]

I, too, opine that the optimum recipe for record playback is high compliance, low mass, judicious damping at the arm pivot, and the importance of synergy of the complete record playback system rather than the advanced strength of an individual component. To achieve that end for myself I assembled a combination of commercially available audio equipment plus modification of same and construction of my own components.

My first venture into the mega high compliance and low VTF world was the purchase of an ADC XLM which was very high compliance and spec’d at 0.6g VTF, +/- 0g. It worked well in a Decca low mass viscous damped unipivot arm that I had at the time but the ‘system’ was very sensitive to the slightest disturbance from floor-born vibrations and the stylus actually jumped the groove on a cymbal crash at a certain spot on one LP, no matter what I did in the way of adjustments. Long story short, the playback system I eventually put together that addressed these issues with great success was a mostly stock Thorens TD-125, a Rabco SL8E linear tracking arm to which I retrofit a very low mass viscous damped unipivot arm of my own design, and perched the turntable atop a DIY seismic platform that was tuned to around 1Hz in both vertical and lateral movement (sort of a poor man’s version of a Minus K platform).

View attachment 184946

View attachment 184948

View attachment 184949

The platform was spring loaded in the vertical direction via linear ball bushings (think MacPherson strut suspension) and in the horizontal direction by sandwiching a slab of foam rubber in the base of the pedestal. The horizontal motion was small enough that, combined with the length of the pedestal, there was no objectionable pitch or roll to disturb the arm. There was no ‘stiction’ at all in the horizontal direction and whatever minute bearing ‘stiction’ there might have been in the vertical direction was filtered out by the stock spring suspension of the TD-125. The suppression of floor-born vibration by the seismic platform was so effective that I could jump on the floor in front of the turntable with hardly any audible disturbance.

I designed and built the arm as a very low mass, low friction viscous damped unipivot. The unipivot / linear tracker combination sailed through the previously mentioned cymbal crash without a whimper. IMO the cymbal crash likely caused a transient increase in stylus drag which resolved into a skating force transient that excited the mass/compliance resonance in a way that added enough side force to derail the stylus. My next cartridge after the XLM was a B&O MMC-6000 with beryllium cantilever and nude line contact stylus.

View attachment 184950

View attachment 184951

View attachment 184952

IME I would add that optimal tracking also requires that the arm geometry not impose added side force from skating effects. At the risk of starting a flame war, I suggest that this requirement is best satisfied by active servo linear tracking designs. I say ‘active servo linear’ because passive linear arms invariably add side force to the cantilever from the stiction/friction of multiple rolling bearings. When playing an off-center record, a head-on view of the stylus on a passive linear arm often shows visible cantilever deflection caused by the stiction/friction of the bearings and track surface. Even a small cantilever deflection causes angular tracking error, which is self-defeating for a ‘linear tracking’ arm.

The carriage mechanics on my arm has since been upgraded with an improved cueing system and a photoelectric servo control that drives the carriage motor in a continuous variable speed mode that follows the groove pitch smoothly, and no longer exhibits any of the on-off “crabbing” that the stock SL8E is/was infamous for.

My generalized observation is that the golden age of super-tracking ended with the advent of the CD, when most manufacturers of high compliance cartridges and arms designed for them closed shop. After 45 years of my unipivot linear tracker as my main arm, I am currently designing a new version which will reluctantly be higher mass, in order to be more compatible with the established trend of cartridge manufacturers towards medium and low compliance suspensions - IMO a trend that went in the wrong direction.

Fabulous! - Great post - thank you!

My Revox is a servo linear tracker too... but I have found that running it with a p-mount adapter raised it's very low effective mass up into a range where more styli are available...

However - as you point out, the market has moved - and 1.25g tracking force styli are now becoming rarer.... (let alone things like the ADC's)

 

[analogSurviver]

Eliminating alignment hassles:​

The P-mount T4P cartridge​

Perhaps I am not as particular as you are.

My Technics SL-M3 Automatic Quartz Lock, Direct Drive, Linear tracking turntable with top of the line Titanium Nitride tonearm (Technics invented P-mount & it was designed based on the Stevenson alignment), 4 pivots gimbal suspension, strobe light, speed adjustment, etc.

I use a variety of cartridges with NOS styli (Technics P34, SHURE V15LT, SHURE 300 & 400 ULTRA and also with some JICO styli).

Many P-mounts (not all meet the T4P spec) are available at:

From LP Gear's website:

At LP Gear, we have assembled the best P-MOUNT cartridges available in the world some of which are only available here.

Specifically designed to be user-friendly, the P-MOUNT or T4P cartridge makes changing and setting-up a phono cartridge very simple, easy and fast.

It takes only two steps: (1) plug and (2) screw. That's it.

Now why is P-MOUNT desirable? Most users simply want to play and listen to records. To them a turntable is simply a means to an end. The half-inch mount turntable requires several steps to install the cartridge and several other steps to balance and align the cartridge. Balancing and aligning a cartridge are required for optimal tracking, groove retrieval and sound quality. The P-MOUNT design simplifies cartridge installation and eliminates the need for cartridge alignment.

Please note: P-MOUNT cartridges are designed to be installed in P-MOUNT tonearms. They can also be used with a half-inch tonearm head shell by using a half-inch adapter. A P-MOUNT cartridge with a half-inch adapter supplied along with it is called a universal cartridge. Hence, a Universal cartridge is both P-mountable and half-inch mountable.

The P-Mount system has one BIG fly in the ointment - azimuth ( adjustment - or lack of thereof ).

The only officially available ( kind of ) provision for azimuth adjustment is offered in Technics SH-90S adapter that adapts T4P P-Mount cartridge to IEC/SME socket for tonearms with removable headshell. It does have sufficient "free play" in order to accommodate the usual azimuth error of better cartridges - around one degree either way, hidden and unofficial as a part of the overhang adjustment.

Otherwise, a large number of samples of both T4P tonearms ( integrally mounted on turntables) and T4P cartridges and T4P styli is required to get the azimuth exactly right. That number of samples is unfortunately in 2 digits, with the first digit usually different than one ... - certainly doable, but usually not available to average user.

T4P would work in a perfect world - which simply does not exist. Cartridges AND tonearms with zero tolerance would be required; even at the highest price point, this is still not the case.

Audio Technica and Grado ( with removable stylus) cartridges can be adjusted/tweaked for perfect azimuth - with most of the other T4P carts, the user is at the mercy of the (un)lucky combination of the set of azimuth errors present in all real world cartridges and tonearms.