Why do records sound so much better than digital?

[Sal1950]

Actually 4-8 khz is what will sound bright. Above that you usually do get airiness. I've always thought one reason MC cartridges sounded more transparent subjectively had to do with most of them having a resonance in the upper treble. One that just happened to un-EQ the slight droop that tape had which was the source of most LPs. I also remember more than once reviews of Shure cartridges (which usually had pretty flat response) described them as having tape-like highs. Well if accurate that is exactly how it should have sounded.

Did you ever use any of the TOTL Stantons, 681EEE or later the 881S ?
With the ultra light weight arm on my HK linear tracker I preferred the high compliance, light weight Stanton's in my system..
They would track perfectly at 1g and sounded wonderful to me. I appreciated the individual testing spec sheet or chart that came with each.
Unless it was BS, it showed individual attention to each one sold.
I tried a Shure V15 at one time, don't remember the exact generation, but ended up returning it to my very nice dealer for a 881S.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Did you ever use any of the TOTL Stantons, 681EEE or later the 881S ?
With the ultra light weight arm on my HK linear tracker I preferred the high compliance, light weight Stanton's in my system..
They would track perfectly at 1g and sounded wonderful to me. I appreciated the individual testing spec sheet or chart that came with each.
Unless it was BS, it showed individual attention to each one sold.
I tried a Shure V15 at one time, don't remember the exact generation, but ended up returning it to my very nice dealer for a 881S.

No, never used any Stantons.

 

[Sal1950]

No, never used any Stantons.

Too bad, they were really excellent cartridges.
Of course they need to be matched to a low mass arm and appropriate C/R loading.
The Shure's like a more medium mass arm and most MC's are low compliance and like high mass arm.
I haven't really fooled with vinyl for close to 25 years now and forgotten a lot of the tweak details except
for the time I put in around 2008 when I did a complete tune-up on the TT, etc; before ripping my entire
LP collection to digital files using Audacity.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Too bad, they were really excellent cartridges.
Of course they need to be matched to a low mass arm and appropriate C/R loading.
The Shure's like a more medium mass arm and most MC's are low compliance and like high mass arm.
I haven't really fooled with vinyl for close to 25 years now and forgotten a lot of the tweak details except
for the time I put in around 2008 when I did a complete tune-up on the TT, etc; before ripping my entire
LP collection to digital files using Audacity.

I think that likely was why I never looked into Stantons you list because they didn't fit the kind of arms I had on my TT. I mostly had MCs which would be another reason.

 

[dlaloum]

Paying big money for cartridges seems wasteful as there are so many high quality ones for a couple hundred ... Ortofon Blue that is included with a Fluance 85 for $500 is probably the best deal in LPs for objectivists.

Subjectively, I enjoy my vintage b&o with an SMMC 3 from Soundsmith. It's a little duller and more laidback than the Blue.

the SMMC3 is far more likely to be Neutral (ie: have a flat F/R) than the Ortofon 2MBlue...

But if the budget is available, an objectivist needs to aim for a low effective mass cantilever with a line contact needle to try to achieve neutrality and clean tracking / low distortion at high frequencies - the SMMC2 is the entry point for that level of performance...

I've been wanting to try out that B&O/Soundsmith family for years...

 

[dlaloum]

Too bad, they were really excellent cartridges.
Of course they need to be matched to a low mass arm and appropriate C/R loading.
The Shure's like a more medium mass arm and most MC's are low compliance and like high mass arm.
I haven't really fooled with vinyl for close to 25 years now and forgotten a lot of the tweak details except
for the time I put in around 2008 when I did a complete tune-up on the TT, etc; before ripping my entire
LP collection to digital files using Audacity.

The Shures with the damping brush were happy on mid mass arms - but with brush up or down, they did best on very low mass arms

tracking force 1g !!! - not really viable unless you have a very low mass arm, and possibly some damping in the mix as well

 

[dlaloum]

Did you ever use any of the TOTL Stantons, 681EEE or later the 881S ?
With the ultra light weight arm on my HK linear tracker I preferred the high compliance, light weight Stanton's in my system..
They would track perfectly at 1g and sounded wonderful to me. I appreciated the individual testing spec sheet or chart that came with each.
Unless it was BS, it showed individual attention to each one sold.
I tried a Shure V15 at one time, don't remember the exact generation, but ended up returning it to my very nice dealer for a 881S.

The best of the Stanton Stereohedron styli/cartridges are superb - they had a proprietary hardening treatment for the aluminium cantilevers, which allowed them to use thinner aluminium resulting in substantially lower mass.

These are the only aluminium cantilever designs I have measured that really do give high end performance... Still not as good ultimately (in measured performance) as the Shure Beryllium tube cantilevers.... but superior to quite a few solid boron cantilevers I have measured.

I should give my 881 more "air time"...

P.S. unlike the Shure Brushes, where there was some damping provided by a proprietary grease in the hinges, the Stanton brushes were not design to provide damping - there is a very marginal effect from the flexing of the rather long brush hairs... but not worth worrying about. The Shure brushes also had an anti-static/grounding effect.... (partly dependent on how the arm was wired, and the materials used! - as it assumed a grounded metal arm, with contact made to the metal cartridge body) - the Stanton brush .... well lots of people simply removed it.

a 681eee was my main cartridge from around 85 to 87 or perhaps a bit later...

 

[Sal1950]

tracking force 1g !!! - not really viable unless you have a very low mass arm, and possibly some damping in the mix as well

They don't really get much lower in mass than the Rabco design arm on my ST8. Only about 6" long with no headshell to speak of.
The arm could be unplugged at the rear for quick cartridge changes while keeping that connectors weight on the back of the arm.
As an experiment I even took off the tracking weight setting slide and set the force with the balancing weight at the rear but no real
difference was noted, the "Stereohedron" (Shibata) stylus tracked faultlessly at 1g.
A lot of kool engineering design when into that table. IMO.

The best of the Stanton Stereohedron styli/cartridges are superb - they had a proprietary hardening treatment for the aluminium cantilevers, which allowed them to use thinner aluminium resulting in substantially lower mass.

These are the only aluminium cantilever designs I have measured that really do give high end performance... Still not as good ultimately (in measured performance) as the Shure Beryllium tube cantilevers.... but superior to quite a few solid boron cantilevers I have measured.

I should give my 881 more "air time"...

P.S. unlike the Shure Brushes, where there was some damping provided by a proprietary grease in the hinges, the Stanton brushes were not design to provide damping - there is a very marginal effect from the flexing of the rather long brush hairs... but not worth worrying about. The Shure brushes also had an anti-static/grounding effect.... (partly dependent on how the arm was wired, and the materials used! - as it assumed a grounded metal arm, with contact made to the metal cartridge body) - the Stanton brush .... well lots of people simply removed it.

a 681eee was my main cartridge from around 85 to 87 or perhaps a bit later...

I always took the brush off my Stantons, I didn't agree with the idea on either theirs or the Shures.
IMHO The brushes can "play" the record with the hairs vibrating in the grooves and transferring
that sound directly into the cartridge shell.
In the second picture you can see my spare arm with a expensive Dynavector Rudy MC cartridge mounted and to it's right a Supex 900 Super MC. I didn't think either sounded any better than the Stanton 881S and both required near 2g tracking force so they mostly stayed to the side.

 

[dlaloum]

They don't really get much lower in mass than the Rabco design arm on my ST8. Only about 6" long with no headshell to speak of.
The arm could be unplugged at the rear for quick cartridge changes while keeping that connectors weight on the back of the arm.
As an experiment I even took off the tracking weight setting slide and set the force with the balancing weight at the rear but no real
difference was noted, the "Stereohedron" (Shibata) stylus tracked faultlessly at 1g.
A lot of kool engineering design when into that table. IMO.



I always took the brush off my Stantons, I didn't agree with the idea on either theirs or the Shures.
IMHO The brushes can "play" the record with the hairs vibrating in the grooves and transferring
that sound directly into the cartridge shell.
In the second picture you can see my spare arm with a expensive Dynavector Rudy MC cartridge mounted and to it's right a Supex 900 Super MC. I didn't think either sounded any better than the Stanton 881S and both required near 2g tracking force so they mostly stayed to the side.

View attachment 264203
View attachment 264204

Lovely table.... and yes that is a low mass setup well suited to the Shure V15V or Stanton 881...

And not so well suited to the Dynavector Ruby .... (I have one of those Dynavectors myself!)

I use the Ruby on a JVC Ql-Y5f, whereas the Shures and Stantons go on my Revox Linatrack B795... 2" long stub of an arm, with effective mass of 4g... it is too low mass for many cartridges... so I run a p-mount adaptor, and the T4P versions of various cartridges... (I have the T4P version of the Shure V15V, of the AT150's, but sadly, never found a T4P version for the stantons. (with the adaptor, and the adjusted counterweight, it raises the mass of the arm to around 7g.... and makes it easy to switch cartridges in and out.... otherwise fitting a cartridge to the Revox is.... complicated....)

I did most of my cartridge measurements on the JVC table, standard headshells, standard S/J shaped arm... much easier to chop and change things in and out.... but the Revox is the better TT. (IMO)

In the late 80's as MC's were becoming "the thing" - a salesman recommended that en Empire MC1 would be suitable on my Revox.... - it tracks at circa 2g, and it never sounded right... it was some years later that I started to understand compliance, arm mass and proper matching.... that cartridge/TT combination pushed me away from vinyl.... the Stanton that precended it sounded better.

The Dynavector is a legendary cartridge... and on the right arm/TT truly fantastic... but not these arms! (I don't have any experience with the Supex)

 

[Sal1950]

The Dynavector is a legendary cartridge... and on the right arm/TT truly fantastic... but not these arms! (I don't have any experience with the Supex)

If nothing else the Dynavector Rudy looks really cool with it's gold colored body and that ruby cantilever sparkleing. LOL
Yes it was a good one even mis-matched to the light tonearm. I never warmed to the Supex, it got rave reviews back in the day
but just sounded bright though lifeless at the same time. MEH..
In any case I sold the whole kit to a trucker that drove up to Chicago to pick it all up in 2008 and I'm glad to be rid of all vinyl's headhaches.

 

[DSJR]

Did you ever use any of the TOTL Stantons, 681EEE or later the 881S ?
With the ultra light weight arm on my HK linear tracker I preferred the high compliance, light weight Stanton's in my system..
They would track perfectly at 1g and sounded wonderful to me. I appreciated the individual testing spec sheet or chart that came with each.
Unless it was BS, it showed individual attention to each one sold.
I tried a Shure V15 at one time, don't remember the exact generation, but ended up returning it to my very nice dealer for a 881S.

When I started as Saturday boy at a high end store in 1974, many staff had gone from the V15 III either to a 681EEE (I still have one) or a Transcriptors Fluid Arm and ADC XLM, which was incredibly highly compliant but which worked well in the Transcritpors arm. As for the V16 III, the red housed VN35HE stylus transformed it i recall and I rue not buiong one at the time. The 881S was great too but apparently, the later ones went off a bit (this was in the days of the Linn deck 'system' ruling all over here, so the self apppointed gurus at the time were perhaps skewed a little bit - a slightly 'restrained' sounding cartridge could be made to sound ripe and bland in this particular turntable in early 80's trim).

 

[Blumlein 88]

If nothing else the Dynavector Rudy looks really cool with it's gold colored body and that ruby cantilever sparkleing. LOL
Yes it was a good one even mis-matched to the light tonearm. I never warmed to the Supex, it got rave reviews back in the day
but just sounded bright though lifeless at the same time. MEH..
In any case I sold the whole kit to a trucker that drove up to Chicago to pick it all up in 2008 and I'm glad to be rid of all vinyl's headhaches.

Me too. Got out of vinyl long time ago. Reminds me of my Dad doing a big tune up on a fellows model T. Didn't know he knew all that crazy stuff on how to tweak one, and mostly a useless skill. One he had not been able to use for at least 40 years. I have this experience of tweaking and getting the most out of TT's. Especially adjusting complex linear tracking arms of certain types. Don't need it now, and haven't used most of it for a decade at least. Good riddance.

 

[DSJR]

the SMMC3 is far more likely to be Neutral (ie: have a flat F/R) than the Ortofon 2MBlue...

But if the budget is available, an objectivist needs to aim for a low effective mass cantilever with a line contact needle to try to achieve neutrality and clean tracking / low distortion at high frequencies - the SMMC2 is the entry point for that level of performance...

I've been wanting to try out that B&O/Soundsmith family for years...

The I have here the B&O 20EN and CL models. Both of these (so that brings the E and S versions iun by default) are incredibly temperature sensitive, the sound at this time of year here very dull (measured that way as well). Apparently B&O suggested 72 degrees F as optimum. I recall the replacement MMC 5 - 1 models weren't so different in this one aspect either and used with the half inch mount adaptor, they had a 'distant' kind of sound which was 'nice' but hardly dramatic. The Soundsmith re-imaginings of these have solid chunky external bodies which may well get round this.

 

[DSJR]

That Rabco deck brings back memories - was it the silver ST 7 we had? I can't remember the cartridge we demo'd ours with though - it could have been a Stanton 681EEE.

P.S. My EEE prefers 1.25g and so did many others (I went through our stock to find a 1g tracking one originally). Today, it sounds a little 'polite' I think. i discovered this stylus on it's own so found a 680AL body to put it in. I doubt the 'calibration' would be hugely out though. That awful brush thing 'played' the record too, so 'we' used to remove them.

 

[Mart68]

I also had a 681EEE, gave it away last year. Never used the brush on it.

Also glad to be away from the whole vinyl thing although have kept my records and a mint Technics SL1200 just in case I ever get the urge again. Maybe after receiving a hard knock to the head or something.

 

[Goldenyears]

vinyl always

 

[Sal1950]

 

[don'ttrustauthority]

the SMMC3 is far more likely to be Neutral (ie: have a flat F/R) than the Ortofon 2MBlue...

But if the budget is available, an objectivist needs to aim for a low effective mass cantilever with a line contact needle to try to achieve neutrality and clean tracking / low distortion at high frequencies - the SMMC2 is the entry point for that level of performance...

I've been wanting to try out that B&O/Soundsmith family for years.

My perception is that the blue is more forward and bright, I simply assumed it was more accurate given the mainstream Ortofon consumer set ... my bad.

I have wanted to get that too, but the price is very high. I would rather get a Denon 103 and/or a Nagaoka 150 or 110 for my Fluance ... I bought that with the detachable headshell design specifically so I could swap out cartridges though ... probably getting one good one makes more sense.

 

[Sal1950]

My perception is that the blue is more forward and bright, I simply assumed it was more accurate given the mainstream Ortofon consumer set ... my bad.

I have wanted to get that too, but the price is very high. I would rather get a Denon 103 and/or a Nagaoka 150 or 110 for my Fluance ... I bought that with the detachable headshell design specifically so I could swap out cartridges though ... probably getting one good one makes more sense.

Why don't you get the one that most accurately reproduces what's in the grooves and be done with it?

 

[dlaloum]

Why don't you get the one that most accurately reproduces what's in the grooves and be done with it?

LOL - that's the point isn't it.... but how do you find that precious one that most accurately reproduces what's in the grooves?! (and within a limited budget)

Actual measurements show that most vinyl setups are severely flawed when it comes to achieving this!!

Some of the fixes are relatively simple, some are more complex - but must buyers, going in, think of it as a big black CD..... and then get sucked into the snake oil sales departments comparing the "sound" of different setups.... rather than actually looking at what can be done to reproduce what is in the groove authentically.

Yes every cartrideg, turntable, arm and phono stage that get randomly combined, sound different.... which can also be achieved by taking a graphic equaliser and randomly adjusting the knobs on it ..... oooh lookit that it sounds different.... salesman then sells "different" as "superior"....

sigh

Reading the groove optimally requires a very low effective mass stylus (mostly cantilever!), preferably with a high quality line contact needle on the end of it.

Then you need the right amplification to raise the signal to line level, along with RIAA EQ, and you need some EQ to achieve the flat/neutral frequency response which is the ideal.... this last can be achieved via loading with MM's or digitally. - but is almost always ignored.