2. analog
  3. 153132-541

Cartridge loading

Presently I am using a ZU/Denon DL103 mc cartridge with ZU Audio's highest tolerances.  I had this cartridge mounted on my VPI Prime and after going through all the various loading combinations, I settled on 200 ohms.  I was always satisfied with my choice of setting.  I no longer have the Prime and now use the Technics SL1200G turntable.  After having the same cartridge mounted and aligned by the dealer, I inserted it into my system and enjoyed the sound immensely, never touching the 200 ohm setting.

Yesterday I was listening to vinyl most of the day and for some reason I found the sound to be better than ever, mostly in the treble area.  The highs had shimmer when needed and I had played the same records many times before on the Prime and they never sounded as good as they did yesterday.  Just for the heck of it, I checked the cartridge loading and found it was now set at 1000 ohms.  As I said, when I put the Technics into the system, I never bothered changing the loading which was at 200 ohms as it was the same cartridge, just a different turntable.

I believe I know what happened, when I last used the tone controls on my McIntosh preamp, (you have to shuffle through a menu) I must have inadvertently put the cartridge loading at 1000 ohms.  It truly sounds fantastic, better than I ever thought possible.  The Bass is still very deep and taut, midrange is the same but the treble, oh my, so much better.  Now the million dollar question is why should it now sound better at 1000 ohms, when it sounded great before at 200 ohms?  Can the tonearm on the Technics have an effect on cartridge loading?  I always thought it was all dependent on the preamp, amp and speakers.  What am I missing here?  I am very curious to know.  The specs for my cartridge say greater than 50 ohms for loading.

Thanks
128x128stereo5
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,971 posts
 
But what I meant is the mechanical damping of the stylus, not electrical damping of the LC tank.
Yes. If you pass a squarewave through an inductor, the more inductance there is the more it will ring; If you then place a resistance in parallel with the inductor this will cause it to ring less. When the resistance is the right value, the resulting output signal will be the closest you can get to a square wave. This resistance value is the 'critical damping' value for the inductor.

But LOMC cartridges really don't ring at audio frequencies. Now we can conclude from this that the damping of the coil is irrelevant except for the tank circuit, and the latter is of no importance unless the phono preamp has troubles with RFI at its input. But damping of the mechanism (cantilever and suspension) is a different matter, and its pretty safe to conclude that if it is damped, high frequencies will be attenuated. There are plenty of examples of this.


But I'm not sure how important this is. If the cartridge is properly set up in the arm and the arm is able to track the cartridge correctly, **and** if the phono preamp is unresponsive to RFI and is also inherently stable, then IME the stock 47K load has yielded the best results. I do think its an interesting topic though and think it bears more research.
Post removed 
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas
13,112 posts
 
Dear @atmasphere  :  """  pretty safe to conclude that if it is damped, high frequencies will be attenuated.... """

I own, owned and listened to several tonearms that uses damping like the MAX 282, Audiocraft, Triplanar, SME V, Townshend, etc, etc.

I listened to all them with and with out the damping mechanism and differences are not small.

Maybe you already listened the Triplanar with/with out: what differences did you found out?

"""  then IME the stock 47K load has yielded the best results. I do think its an interesting topic though and think it bears more research. """

I agree that needs more resarch from your part and disagree with the rest of your statement.

R.




atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,971 posts
 
I listened to all them with and with out the damping mechanism and differences are not small.
Damping mechanism?? If you are talking about the damping trough on the arm, you have missed the point of the conversation between @bydlo and myself entirely.

bydlo
142 posts
 
But damping of the mechanism (cantilever and suspension) is a different matter, and its pretty safe to conclude that if it is damped, high frequencies will be attenuated.
Ok, so if by tracking problems at HF you mean attenuated HF then I agree. But this behavior applies to any damping, also purely mechanical, not only to electromagnetic. The simplest damping is a force proportional to velocity of the cantilever movement. For periodic movements this means proportional to the frequency, so the damping force is increasing with the frequency of the played groove. Electromagnetic damping is just an example of this type of force. And this is what anyone who has ever played with loading hears - lower R = less HF, more pronounced LF. The question is so what if at the end you can reach a natural balance? If you cannot, sth is wrong or substandard.

But I’m not sure how important this is. If the cartridge is properly set up in the arm and the arm is able to track the cartridge correctly, **and** if the phono preamp is unresponsive to RFI and is also inherently stable, then IME the stock 47K load has yielded the best results. I do think its an interesting topic though and think it bears more research.
Again, I think this the last sentence is more of a personal preference than any rule. I do not see anything bad in designing a cart in a such a way that it relies on a certain load resistance to help mechanically damping the cantilever.
More to discover