watchnerd
Grand Contributor
I don't get how the radial tracking benefit claims would work, either.
Maybe they're referring to the 'pinch effect' that can happen at the end of sides?
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Turntables - help me understand the appeal?
- Thread starter dkinric
- Start date
I don't get how the radial tracking benefit claims would work, either.
Maybe they're referring to the 'pinch effect' that can happen at the end of sides?
At the risk of asking what is probably a very silly question, are turntables and arms actually designed to control vibration and resonance? There is nothing mysterious about vibration and there are mature analytical tools to analyse systems and design for low vibration. I ask because it is not just about adding weight but when I look at turntables and read articles by turntable designers some of them don't appear to understand the subject at all.
Cartridges certainly sound different and based what I have learned reading ASR is that FR is the main reason people can identify differences (assuming levels are matched). People use a lot of "words" to describe how a cartridge sounds but I have learned not to trust my ears but rather measure and then listen using level matched ABX and see if I can tell any differences, and if I can, how they are related to measurements. I have done some measurements on several different cartridges using a test record through my system (Technics SL 1300, ESP P06 phono amp, home made Jensen based SUT) and setting my Oscilloscope on FFT and "peak, hold continuous" and playing the "tone sweep" on the test record. Not sure if this is perfect but I get consistent results.
Attached is my test result (which only applies to my system but since my system is pretty standard it probably has some information that can be extrapolated to other systems) for the popular AT-VM540ML and Denon 103R. On my system at least the Denon has flatter FR response and the AT has a FR "hump" that peaks at 11 KHz. On my system I find this FR "hump" with most of the MM carts I have tested. If I tried to use "words" to describe the sound it would of course depend on which of these 2 cartridges I used as a baseline. On my system at least the Denon would have to be considered "accurate and neutral" and the AT "bright and detailed".
Attachments
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,288
- Likes
- 12,192
Rolled off sound?
Depends what you mean. I switch back and forth between my vinyl and digital rig and the vinyl doesn't sound rolled off. (That phrase typically referring to the high frequencies).
Even the hard-nosed hydrogenaudio "vinyl myths" page explains that "Commonly there is audio content up to 23-24 kHz on many vinyl records."
Many of us here no doubt have hearing that rolls off well below that content (mine rolls off around 14K at this point - 55 years old). So I don't think I'm missing anything. As I understand it there is some sculpting of certain high frequency intensity particularly in the form of "de-essing" - reducing sibilance etc - but that doesn't seem to result in a "rolled off" sound as if it doesn't sound extended and alive in the top end.
Of course there is the bass factor, where deep bass often has to be summed more to the middle, and some cut-offs applied, vs digital. But the end result typically does not sound compromised. When I played some full-range tracks on LP for my brother and father-in-law through my big Thiel speakers they said "you must be using a subwoofer, right?" I told them no and they said they couldn't believe the amount of deep bass on those tracks. I play everything from symphonic to jazz, dance, funk, house, electronica etc and have never felt wanting for deep bass. In fact it seems somethings that the summing of the bass can even give the sonic impression of somewhat punchier bass on vinyl IMO.
Anyway, I'm no expert and many here are much more conversant with the technicalities involved. The point is that, whatever the technical hurdles involved, in terms of how it ends up sounding, I don't have an experience of vinyl being obviously "rolled off" sounding compared to my digital source.
Well if you look at the frequency graph it only drops about 2dB from 10,000Hz to 20,000Hz which I don't think is too bad. There is surprising little musical information above 10,000Hz. I know this because my Pioneer C-90 has a button which engages at roll-off and 10kHz. I have no idea why it is on there or why anyone would want to use it (well I guess it is kind of fun). But the sound does change, but as much I expected it to.
I was unaware of the AT33EV when I bought the DL-103. From the graphs you posted it looks pretty good. I bought the DL-103 because it is considered something of a "classic" and I wanted to see what it sounded like. For a cartridge designed in 1962 I think it is pretty alright. Also the AT cartridge is about $200 more than 103. Probably not a big difference to many people willing to do what it takes to get an MC cartridge to work, but to me it is a fair amount of money. Although it seems like the extra $200 does translate into "more cartridge".
I didn't know Nagaoka made a MI cartridge. What is the frequency response on it like? I don't think that 103 is exceptionally guilty of "sins of omission". There are many designs both cheap and expensive that have a lot more treble roll-off. I find the treble response adequate for my listening. I listen to a lot of metal and stuff so aggressive snares are a thing. I've always found that 103 conveys the sounds of those in an adequate fashion. Though obviously this isn't a scientific observation.
Perhaps you're right. I like my DL-103, but if I could find something better that was also good value (I am sure there are "better" cartridges, but they are way too expensive) I'd probably upgrade. I'd still take the DL-103 over many expensive cartridges with esoteric designs that cost thousands of dollars. The DL-103 was designed by competent engineers to be an effective and economical cartridge for the Japanese broadcasting industry. It's boring, but it works. The design is very old though and the newer AT you mentioned is probably better.
Some very expensive designs get super uneven frequency response which I would probably hate. Though people like Michael Fremer may gush about the "musical" qualities of such cartridges I am fairly certain they would not be to my taste. I dunno. I am probably biased.
All I want is reasonably flat frequency response. That Nagaoka looks cool, but I have concerns about the capacitance of my system. MC cartridges don't really "care" about such things, but MM and MI cartridges do. My C-90 happens to have the appropriate loading options for the 103 and a good SNR (the MM stage is over 90dB and the MC section is in the 80s—which is actually better than some $2000+ devices from McIntosh, et cetera). I actually want to try a DL-301 II, mk. but it is more expensive. It has similar output and internal impedance impedance to the 103. It is actually about the same price as the AT33EV. Same features too: aluminum cantilever, elliptical stylus. When the stylus on my 103 goes I'll start looking into replacements. I actually wouldn't mind a line contact stylus, but the idea of adjusting the azimuth is unappealing.
The MM cartridges I've used probably also have this "hump". I play electric guitar and to me it sounds a little bit like a "wah-wah" pedal has been engaged. A wah pedal is basically a midrange, filter sweep thingy. The cheapish MM cartridges I've heard always tend to have a sort of midrange "honk" to them. That is how I would describe it.
Maybe, but probably not. The electronic arms that Japanese manufacturers made certainly were (they have a complicated and sophisticated arrangement of sensing devices and coils to do this). Those do dampen vibrations and resonance. This Mitchell arm has some foam in it?
Many of them are not. Hell, some of them might even be made to vibrate more. These Reed tonearms are made of wood. The look cool, but I don't think I would want one made of wood. Wenge, Macassar ebony and cocolbo are all very resonant. They are commonly used in the construction of necks for electric guitars and basses. The reason being that they are strong and stiff, but also resonate at frequencies which produce a pleasing sound. It would not be the material I would use for a tonearm, but I am not an engineer.
These tonearms might be designed to mitigate resonance?
I feel like the answer to your question is: "not really, no". The "designers" of tonearms don't feel the need confine themselves by worrying about thing like resonance.
I am not sure they do. Or maybe they do, but they are trying to sell some sort of novel take on the subject. Rega has its skeletonized plinths. I am not wholly convinced that they work. They advertise it as being "light and stiff". I am not an engineer, but aren't those properties conducive towards transmitting vibrations? Isn't that pretty much the opposite of what would you want (with heavy and not un-stiff materials being generally good for not propagating vibrations). From the ad copy it sounds like the thing is designed to vibrate. Apparently though this gets rid of the "energy" that could cause "unwanted resonance" (by vibrating).
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
Just to clarify, I haven't heard the DL-103R, only the original DL-103, so any comments made were particular to my system, but also a different cart.
That being said:
I don't think all the differences we hear show up in FR graphs.
For example, in the SUT listening test thread, most responders seemed to indicate hearing a difference between the cartridge going through the SUT vs not. Yet the frequency sweeps look almost identical.
So there can be other things happening that might show up better in things like square wave tests, impulse response graphs, phase, etc.
The hump on MM systems stems from the resonance circuit which is created by the inductance of the cartridge and the load capacitance. The procucer specifies a recommended load capacitance which results in the most flat and wide FR. If you see a resonance below 20 kHz this usually is a sign that the load capacitance is too high:
- Increasing the load capacitance results in a resonance which peaks higher in level and lower in frequency.
- Decreasing the load capacitance down to the recommended one moves the resonance up in frequency and lowers the peak such that it's no longer a peak.
- Decreasing the load capacitance below the recommended one moves the resonance even higher but also results in a slight loss of the highest audible frequencies. This loss is the reason why one should not use a too low load capacitance.
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
Miller Audio Research tested the MP-500, the graph is pretty benign, no top end peak:
Agree that the original DL-103 is a classic, a good all-rounder, and a great first MC cartridge. It would be on my short list of entry level MC carts I would recommend to almost anyone....if they have an arm that can handle its compliance needs.
But it's also a product of its time and there are physical limits to what conical styli can do (which is why advanced styli were invented), although those limits may be less of a problem in a linear tracking system.
For example, I don't know if groove pinch matters much in a linear tracking system. And I would imagine IGD tends to go away.
What I notice on my system is that simpler stylus shapes tend to have a little less detail (e.g. can I hear the pedals on a piano), less transient snap and shorter decay (I notice this most on plucked acoustic bass and guitars), and flatter imaging. These differences don't tend to show up easily in FR graphs....and making an LP with square waves or impulse responses is practically impossible, so it's pretty damn hard to measure.
Last edited:
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
Some probably don't understand, but it's also a really hard problem to eliminate all resonances everywhere without creating other problems, or restricting options.
Example: the standard SME-type collar used for headshell/cart swapping gives you great flexibility in cartridge choice and headshell weights, which is great for fine-tuning to match catridge compliances, but it introduces a 'break' in the tonearm that can jiggle. On the flip side, a fixed headshell tonearm, will be stiff, but because it has an unchangeable effective mass, has fewer carts it will work well with.
@Frank Dernie did a bunch of research and engineering work on the problems back in the day.
Yes that is the "electrical" part of the "hump" and MC carts with lower inductance will have less of an issue with it. There are also "mechanical" resonance issues both the stylus/cantilever and the interaction with tone arm and everything else. Here is my favorite article on the subject https://sound-au.com/articles/cartridge-loading.html
Getting a "flat" response without measurements is a guessing game and even with measurements you are dependent on a "test record" which are far from perfect but you have to start somewhere or just "go by ear".
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
I'm pretty sure the engineers at SME and Jelco could talk your ear off about what they try to do to deal with resonances, given that a decent chunk of their respective revenues comes from selling tonearms, both retail and OEM.
Last edited:
Indeed.
I'm guessing there are the Totaldac equivalents in every niche, but there's no way any serious manufacturer would not understand the critical nature of that beast...
I think that is incomplete, it is years ago but I don’t remember the L75 having no anti skate
Why is it that old tonearms / turntables didn't have anti-skate features?
(Above is a Lenco L75 tonearm)
Was anti-skating not thought be an issue in the 1950s and 1960s?
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
Light and stiff may have a higher resonant frequency and may dissipate energy more quickly.
Heavy and damped may take more energy to get it moving, but it also can release energy more slowly or have resonances in more audible regions.
If there was a single better way, everyone would do it. It's all a compromise.
Last edited:
The reason for the arm to be pulled in is the offset and stylus friction creates an inward force. The blank disc way of setting it was much proposed back in the day but is completely wrong. The stylus drag of the point of the stylus on a shiny disc is COMPLETELY different from the drag playing a modulated groove, which isn’t constant anyway.
I used to set it using a highly modulated recording using an oscilloscope when I worked for Garrard. A setting using the old way of using a blank disc is miles out. In fact it can only be spot on at one modulation level and diameter because the drag force changes all the time.
Having it wrong creates mistracking in one channel before the other at high modulations. Having none makes this worse and ends up with the force being reacted by the stylus suspension causing an offset in the magnetic circuit, probably reducing linearity.
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
See, the thing is I don't trust that people at Rega have made an effort to figure that out and it correctly. Technics, Sony (and probably a few others) make their plinths out BMC (bulk molding compound—the Sony Biotracer tables are even supposed to be made of a special variety that as low "Q" value or something). Rega can't even make a table that spins at 33.33rpm. Even the models I think are expensive (like P6 which is like $1200 CAD) purportedly have speed problems. There is whole business dedicated to Rega "upgrades" which people buy. I don't what percentage of tables are "off" with respect to speed, but there are a lot of user reports (and solutions of varying levels of "kludge") on issue. Some people even think that Rega makes their tables "fast" on purpose to give them a specific sound.
I feel like the chances of Rega implementing this competently are pretty low. They don't even have official measurements (or do reveal them) on their tables.
I wasn't totally sure about whether the concept was sound. I attempted to look into the vibration reducing mechanisms for scientific instruments. There is some complicated stuff going on. The simplest among them was a (presumably very fancy) rubber mat. Although I feel you can have the fanciest structure for you plinth, but how much of a difference is it going to make when you have a thing that spins at a reasonably high frequency (motor) right next to your platter connected by a rubber band that also can also potentially vibrate? I don't know the answer and every article with respect to turntables seems be dedicated to disparaging the direct drive.
