Dear Raul
I have already tried this solution with my audionote MM IQ3 wich is the top MM cartridge at Audionote
Of course when my cartridge was worned and before beginning all this thread I had thought to go on either with HOMC or with a better MM cartridge wich could avoid me this problem of searching the good headamp or the right SUT;
I plug the wire of my tonearm in the jadis and that's all: SIMPLE
Two friends much more experimented than me have also the same jadis equipment ( MODIFIED ) with much better sources ( Goldmund ref + T3F +koetsus or shelter90X) and great loudspeakers and the result is great .
Of course they both use an head amp personnaly made for them by the first ingeneer from JADIS .
Most of the people who choose a Jadis JP80 Choose the MC version because they say it is the only one to choose and they add an head amp or a SUT.
Are they all wrong ?
It seems now there are two solutions in your opinion :
1) I keep my Jadis MC and I choose a MM or a HOMC cartridge
2) Change my preamp
The first one could effectively at least be tried but precisely with wich cartridge.
The second one is unconceivable for me today because it is a too much heavy change for me and because I think I still have a huge progression in front of me even with the jadis .
Of course Raul I really appreciate your effort to drive me in the good direction and I can't contest or approve your opinion as I have no references enough to do it .
|
Dear André: +++++ " Are they all wrong ? " +++++
This is one of my posts about:
+++++ " Dear friends: I'm not against the SUT " per se ", I'm against what the SUT makes to the cartridge signal: heavy degradation.
I like many of you used the SUT for many years till I discovery that the best SUT is NO SUT. I already try severals SUT's and all of them do a severe degradation to the cartridge signal.
Maybe some of you can think that an Audio NOte Kondo or Expressive Technologies SUT's don't have any problem: wrong, all SUT's have the same problems and all of them degraded the cartridge signal.
We have to understand that the low output MC cartridges was not build " thinking " in a low gain phonopreamps ( tube or SS ). The low gain phonopreamps like yours is only for CD, high output MC and MM cartridges ( btw: Music Maker, Sumiko and Audio Technica have great cartridges too ).
Tha's why I can tell you that if you have a low gain phono stage with a low output MC cartridge: you choose the wrong cartridge to go. For any one can enjoy and discover ( really enjoy ) the " magic " quality sound reproduction of a low output MC cartridge any one needs a high-gain phono preamp, with out any PATCH ( external/internal SUT/Autoformer. With out any mis-match between cartridge impedance and SUT that equalized the cartridge signal, always. ) ) no question about.
When you are using a low output MC cartridge with a low gain phono preamp it is like if you want to scale the Everest in a Ferrari Testa Rosa or like you want to swim in the sea dressed with a Tuxedo instead of a swimwear. Sure you can to swim dressed on a Tuxedo but: Imagine that!!! That's what you have on your audio system, it does not matters if your audio systems cost 10K or 500K. " +++++
Are they all wrong?, no, simple: they choose the wrong cartridge to go or the wrong phonopreamp for that cartridge. That's all. Is simple as that.
André there are a misconception and no-know how about and this is the problem why the people take the wrong " road ".
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Andre,
I partially agree with Raul and partially disagree:
- if you are looking for the very best phono performance and,
- if you are willing and able to spend enough money then,
- an SUT is not the way to go.
I have bettered my Bent/c-j setup, but it cost me about $6K to do it. That was for a privately designed and built preamp that is not sold commercially. If it were it would retail for $10K+ and it would be a bargain, since it easily beats commercial units costing a lot more than that. Raul's preamp is also a private design/build. I have not heard it but I expect it also sounds magnificent, better than any SUT. But that's not available to the public either, and it would probably cost more than mine if it were.
These private builds are better than most if not all commercial phono and line stages. Mine has been A/B'd against Lamm, Klyne and other top names, and it beats them all. I expect Raul's would too. The problem is finding a serious designer to work with. (If you were in Mexico or the USA it would be easy, Raul or could introduce you.)
If your budget is limited there are two reasonable approaches:
- use a MM or HOMC, as Raul suggests
- use a LOMC with SUT or head amp
I was very happy with the second approach. Since it cost a lot of time and money to beat it, I think it's viable and so do many other people. The pleasure I got from several LOMC's would never have happened without the Bent's, or something like them. I would regret it if I'd missed that.
Doug |
Dear André: Here are some recomendations for a HO cartridge:
Reson Aciore, Grado Reference, Music Maker III, Clearaudio Virtuoso, Sumiko Blackbird, Goldring 1042. Now, if you can find, second hand, an Audio Technica AT 170 or ( better yet ) 180 OCC ATML you will be on " music heaven ". This AT MM cartridge compete with the very top low output cartridges and outperforms many of them.
This is an extract of a review on the Grado one: " "Without question these are the best phono cartridges out there,REAL BASS,smooth non tipped up highs(like moving coils) the music has meat to it,sounds very real,as if you could step into the music.And despite what others have said it is fast and articulate,plus you don't need a step-up device,(less between you and the music)."
The MM cartridges are like the " lost link " in analog. No body cares about and I think that no body cares about because the no know-how on the MM subject and a comercial bias through the LO MC cartridges.
Almost all professional audio reviewers and cartridge manufacturers are on the " comercial business ", where they obtain more money: LO MC cartridges.
The bias for the LO MC cartridges has nothing to do with a " better quality sound reproduction ", it has to do only with " money " and the no know-how of us the customers. The MM alternative is not only a very good one but in many audio subjects superior to the LO MC one.
Any one that want to tell me that the LO MC cartridges are better than the HO/MM ones has to prove it ( I think it could not ) and I can tell you that I can prove that the HO/MM technology is up to the task and a lot, lot, lot less expensive. This price characteristics is one of the issues why the people don't buy MM cartridges: " is to cheap to be good ". NO KNOW-HOW.
I almost never speaks in this forum about MM cartridges because almost all the people in this forum is out of that game, but this fact does not means that the MM subject is a " low-Fi " option. No, certainly it is not.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear André and Doug: Today, I think that we are talking on the same subject where we agree at all.
Doug the small differences between your opinion and mine is ( I think ) my first hand experiences on HO cartridges: I owned at least 12 differents ones, I own around 14 ones and I heard it ( out of my system ) several ones. Sometime, you have to try it.
André, is up to you. Good luck on your cartridge hunt.
Regards and enjoy the music.
raul. |
Very interesting thread,and responses,btw.Two years ago,while swimming off the Long Island Sound(near Sea Cliff),and in my "water proof tuxedo"(God I love you Raul)I was aware that if I wanted to enhance my phono performance it was going to cost me dearly.My alternatives were to sell my current unit,or have a complete rebuild(from Great Northern Sound).The thought of the "buying and selling" syndrome didn't appeal as much as the assurance of this very expensive rebuild.Glad I did do it,and my low output cartridge loves it.Plenty of gain.I've never been happy with SUT's,and I've had a few.Keep it simple,seems the way to go!!
Doug,could you enlighten me,as to the differences between the ZYX Univ "silver vs copper",as this is of interest to me?Thanks,in advance.
Well I've got to hang up my Tux now.
Best to all! |
Dear friends: Here are some facts about why exist the SUTs for LO cartridges ( at least is my point of view ):
- In the fifthies appear the MC LO cartridges ( As a fact: Ortofon invented in 1948. ). In that time all the phonopreamps were designed for HO cartridges MM/MI/etc. No one was in the design of high gain PP because no body need it.
- Ortofon and latter other MC LO cartridges never ask to the PP designers/builders to manufacture a high gain PP for their MC LO cartridges. What I mean is that never exist a cooperation job between the MC LO builders and the PP manufacturers.
- What was the comercial attitude of almost all MC LO cartridges builders?: to put on sale their MC LO cartridges along with a SUTs ( designed for it self ) for those MC LO cartridges.
- I can remember from Ortofon when they design the MC10, MC 20, Mc 30, Mc 2000, Mc 3000 and MC 5000, cartridges at the same time they offer the respective SUT: T 10, T 20, T 30, T 5000.
- Like Ortofon everybody do the same: Denon, Audiocraft, Fidelity Research, Koetsu, Micro Seiki, Accuphase, Dynavector, Highphonic, Audio Technica, Entre, etc, etc.
- In the mid-time what does the PP designers ( SS or tube ) for the development of a high gain PP?: almost nothing, almost all take the easy " cheap road " ( wrong/worst one ): that the customers buy SUTs along with their PP if they want to handle a LO cartridge. Some of the PP designers/builders incorporate in their " high gain " PP internal SUTs, exactly like today ones.
- No body take the challenge to design a HG PP with out SUTs. There are some exceptions: Curl, Levinson, Pass, Klyne, Classé, D'angostino, etc, etc,
- So we all are suffering the " easy road/ wrong road " that almost all designers/builders take it more than 55 years ago.
- All those comercial attitude never take into account us: the audio customers and never take into account the QUALITY MUSIC/SOUND REPRODUCTION. They don't care about in those times and many of them don't care about today.
Fortunatelly, in the last few years, some PP builders finally take the challenge ( others like me designed our self ones ) and we have some very good HG PP, many of them at very high price.
This change of comercial attitude: Bravo!!!!!!, could tell us that the best about is coming because the developtment of HG PPs are really " starting ", it is not a mature industry.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Hi everybody
Really great to discuss with you all...at least things are clearer now .
Doug and Raul
Thank you for your support...
Sirspeedy
Thanks for humour... always welcome.
Bye
André |
Raul
You are speaking of PP with high gain and no SUT in it is it the case of the JADIS JP 80 MC version?
Who are these other builders and which models are you thinking of ?
Thanks |
While your out swimming in your Tux, be catious of the Man in the Grey Flannel Suit! He usually has a huge grin on his face. |
Doug,could you enlighten me,as to the differences between the ZYX Univ "silver vs copper",as this is of interest to me?Thanks,in advance. SirSpeedy, I've had three UNIverses in my system: copper, silver and gold coils. (Gold is by special order, Mehran doesn't stock them.) The price is the same for all three IIRC. The sonic differences were precisely the opposite of what I expected, precisely the opposite of what electrical conductivity would lead anyone to expect. COPPER Most neutral, least colored, comes closest to achieving live microdynamics, reproduces natural waveforms the best. Probably the most Colibri-like of the three UNIverses (remembering Mikelavigne's comparison). Easily my favorite and Paul's. Requires the most careful attention to VTF and especially VTA/SRA. No gain without the pain. SILVER Slightly warmed/smoothed, almost Koetsu-ish, which means we didn't like it at all. Mehran sells about as many of these as copper and many people love it. Just not our cup of tea, we do not tolerate rolled off transients. Cello and Vetterone also prefer the copper, but if this is the kind of thing you like, you'd like it! GOLD Very warmed/smoothed, more Koetsu-ish than a Koetsu. Personally it made me puke, but gold resists harsh chemical conditions well so it survived the short visit and the trip back to Mehran! Grado fans might enjoy it, or someone with a terribly edgy system that needed taming. We prefer accuracy at the source and fine tuning later if need be, but YMMV as always. It took me forever to puzzle out why superior conductors created inferior results, but it's obvious if you forget electricity and consider the whole picture. Silver is denser than copper and gold is denser still. Extra mass on the cantilever means reduced transient speed and rolled off waveforms. It's like Twl's HIFI mod, mis-applied. Greater inertia on the tonearm increases stability, greater inertia on the cantilever impairs stylus freedom. For me, this A/B/C comparison settled any argument about HO vs. LO MC's. Here were three identical MC cartridges, all of them highly resolving, the only difference being the coil material. The lowest mass coils produced notably more accurate results even though they were inferior from an electrical standpoint. End of argument. If the stylus can't trace the groove right it doesn't matter how well the electrons flow. |
Doug,thanks for the interesting comparison.
"More Koetsu-ish than a Koetsu.It made me puke"-
Now I have to admit that it's a dead heat,in terms of "great post quotes",between Raul's "swimming in a tuxedo"(I really laughed at that one)and now this,which is funny,yet the puking part doesn't tickle me,as much-:).STILL,it's a tied ball game,between the two of you!!
Best! |
Dear Doug: Maybe I miss something.
+++++ " For me, this A/B/C comparison settled any argument about HO vs. LO MC's. " +++++
What do you mean with that statement? in reference to what?. Please explain about.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Raul,
I'm not saying any HOMC will be worse than any LOMC. That would be silly, comparing apples and oranges. But given the same manufacturer and model, the HO version will tend to be less accurate and less dynamic than the LO version. That's all.
Now if I could just learn to puke while swimming in a tuxedo... |
Doug: "Extra mass on the cantilever means reduced transient speed and rolled off waveforms." That seems like a reasonable explanation. I see where the ZYX Web site cites both silver and copper with the same coil wire diameter (.035mm) and same weight (5.0gm). If both cartridges weigh the same and have the same wire diameter, maybe its not extra mass on the silver's cantilever that accounts for the sonic differences. Maybe its fewer windings of the heavier metal. (??) Could a different number of windings between silver and copper yield different signals? |
Now that is not a pretty picture at bedtime! |
it should be still worse if Doug had puked in Raul's ferrari while scaling the Everest.. |
I had a conversation,two weeks ago,with a major arm mfgr.He claimed that the best conductor was silver,and that "anything using gold" was inferior.He stated that gold was only useful for keeping oxidation at bey!We were talking arm cabling,here,but there must be some parallels.As for copper,I don't know.To me,from my personal experience,whatever sounds good in a given set-up,is "best".Whatever the make-up!
Also,about a year ago AJ Van denHul was interviewed,in Hi-Fi Plus magazine.He had his own take on the gold/silver/copper issue.Quite interesting stuff,actually.Worth seeking out.
BTW-DOUG,how come you can get away with a Koetsu "knock",and last fall,I almost had my balls cut off for alluding to an antiskate issue?I'm sure there are alot more Koetsu lovers out there.So my advice to all Koetsu fans is---"Let's get Doug"!!I want to see no less than a dozen posts!!! -:)
Hmm!It must be nice to be one of the "chosen few"!! -:) |
I see where the ZYX Web site cites both silver and copper with the same coil wire diameter (.035mm) and same weight (5.0gm)
If both cartridges weigh the same and have the same wire diameter, maybe its not extra mass on the silver's cantilever that accounts for the sonic differences. You're reading too much into that 5.0g weight specification. First, it's only nominal. I've weighed six ZYX's to the closest 0.01g and they were all different. The variations were larger than could be accounted for by any differences between the coils. Second, a specification to the nearest .1g is too imprecise to capture any coil variations. You'd have to go out several more decimal places to measure that. Third, even if you did that, variations in other components would swamp coil variations. The coils are so tiny compared to the rest of the cartridge that the only way to know anything useful about their mass/weight would be to measure or calculate it directly. Coil weight cannot be deduced from overall cartridge weight, no matter how accurately that is measured. Maybe its fewer windings of the heavier metal. (??) ).
Could a different number of windings between silver and copper yield different signals? Given identical magnets, more windings = higher output. Since the output of each cartridge is the same, the number of windings should be the same. Good questions, but I think my hypothesis is still valid. |
Dear Doug: +++++ " Probably the most Colibri-like " +++++
Do you mean that this one has " spark " over the others ?
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Doug: +++++ " Probably the most Colibri-like " +++++
Do you mean that this one has " spark " over the others ? Dear Raul, If I understand what you mean by "spark", I'd say yes. The silver and (especially) the gold UNIverses lack a bit of necessary "spark". They are a bit too polite (only a little for the silver). They sound "pleasant" but they don't quite sound "alive". Some people enjoy a bit of artificial smoothing but it reminds me I'm listening to a stereo and not to live music. The copper UNIverse does not do this. It is the most honest and therefore the most lifelike of the three, just the right amount of "spark" compared to live. I remember Mikelavigne especially liked that about his Colibri - and between the three UNIverses the copper does this best. Regards, Doug |
Hi Tenmus.
I finished setting up my Triplainer-Shelter 90X a few weeks ago. The first thing I played was Swan Lake. The arm shook so badly that I ceased playing the table The next day a call to Tri Plainer resulted in the suggestion that I back the damping screw all the way out of the damping trough.When that didn't work I just stopped playing records, until today. Of course, nothing changed over the last few weeks and the same thing happened.
A light bulb went on and, Audiogon forums to the rescue. Lo and behold I found your forum posting of the same problem I experienced. The replies were enlightening.
I have only one question that might have been answered, maybe I missed it. If increasing the mass of the arm was accomplished by putting the heaviest weight, the only one with the chamfer, all the way up to the pivot point of the arm I assume that the chamfer was pointing to the rear of the arm. Would you please confirm this.
I am posting this reply to your forum topic as well as emailing you a copy, as it has been awhile since there's been activity on that site. I am anxious to hear how good this set up sounds.
I was unable to access your system on Audiogon, maybe I just didn't look in the right place. If you have a system description on Audiogon, please point me in the right direction. Regards, Ken Kftool |
Kftool,
The normal setup for a TriPlanar has the chamfer pointing toward the arm bearings, not away.
Assuming proper setup, there is no reason for a TP/Shelter to "shake badly", on any record. If the problem is as bad as you describe, changing counterweights and counterweight positions is not the solution. The effects of those adjustments are fairly subtle.
Tenmus' problem was only resolved with a replacement arm. I'd suggest contacting your dealer or Tri Mai. If I had to guess, I'd guess the bearings might be misadjusted. But that is not a user adjustment.
|
Dougdeacon,
Thank you for the reply, it never occurred to me that there may be a problem with a new arm, but everyone makes mistakes.
The Sota Mellennium table I'm using was a display unit I purchased at the 2005 CES and was set up with a Tri Plainer VII arm . When I later decided to also purchase a Tri Plainer VII, Sota sent the armboard drilled for , and used at the CES show. When I mounted the arm, I automatically figured the board to be drellid properly. After I posted the shaking problem on Audiogon, I thought I'd check the pivot to tt center dimension. The armboard was drilled to 235.5 mm rather than 233 mm as is specified by Tri Plainer. Upon calling Sota I was told to return the armboard so they could check the hole positions and replace the armboard if necessary. I'll have it back in about a week and check the arm again.
Another thread suggested I increase the mass of the arm by sliding the chamferred weight all the way forward, and then use the lightest counterweight to balance the cartridge out to the desired tracking force. I will perform both steps and if the problem persists, I will return it for a bearing check, as you suggested. regards Ken |
Ken,
Sota has had compatibility issues with the TriPlanar on some lower model tables with wood plinths and recessed armboards, but there should be no issues on a Millenium, other than the goof you already discovered of course. Geoff Husband of TNT-Audio used a Millenium for his review of the TriPlanar without any problems.
A spindle-to-pivot dimension of 235.5mm would put a Shelter at the very end of the slots, assuming you could align it at all. Perhaps that made things unstable enough to cause your vibration. Let's hope a properly drilled armboard will resolve the issue.
Best of luck,
Doug |
The .5 error could be attributed to using a different arm than the one the armboard was drilled for. It seems that Tri does not use any fixture when tightening down the mount. This does lead to vaariations from arm to arm. This is why Thom Mackris had me send him my Triplanar so that he could drill the Galibier armboard properly for the arm that will be used. I'm sure this is something Thom has learned from experience.
Best of luck!
Dan |
Dan,
I think it was a 2.0mm error, but your points are well taken.
|
Dougdeacon,
The Tri Plainer WAS at the end of the slots. At that point,realizing we could do no more, we decided to see what the performance would be. We played with the tracking force, vta, and cartridge loading until we had it zeroed in, or at least, thought we did.
Since It had been years since I had vinyl in my system, the sonics overshadowed my desire to get it perfect. Not until I noticed the shaking, did I think a serious problem existed.
Based on your replies, I will tell Sota to send an undrilled armboard, as I have no problem whatsoever in drilling it properly.
Thanks guys, Ken |
Thanks, Doug, I new I should have checked my math before turning in my test paper!
Good luck with the armboard, Ken
Dan |
