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
11,962 posts
 
I’m not attacking him only asking for true proof/evidence of that " limit trace " that he spreads every where with out shows the evidence as foundation for.
Just to be clear, yes, Raul, you attack me at every opportunity. This is well known by many others on this forum.


With regards to your need for proof- I recommend that you study the effects of damping on high frequencies. It is clear from your posts that at this time you have not done so.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas
13,108 posts
 
NO, I did not only ask for evidence and not more bla, bla like your bla, bla in your last post.
 Btw, I know for sure the effects of damping in HF and over the FR. This is not the issue and stop to go " around and around " that only saids you are a lier as I posted till shows here that evidence ( like PM or Palmer. ) with no bla, bla.

And please the " victim " role is not for you , forgeret. If you have nothing to show then why posted again: incredible ! !  

R.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas
13,108 posts
 
NO, I did not only ask for evidence and not more bla, bla like your bla, bla in your last post.
 Btw, I know for sure the effects of damping in HF and over the FR. This is not the issue and stop to go " around and around " that only saids you are a lier as I posted till shows here that evidence ( like PM or Palmer. ) with no bla, bla.

And please the " victim " role is not for you , forgeret. If you have nothing to show then why posted again: incredible  ! !  

R.
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,962 posts
 
I’m not attacking him only asking for true proof/evidence of that " limit trace " that he spreads every where with out shows the evidence as foundation for.
The quote above belies this quote:
NO, I did not only ask for evidence and not more bla, bla like your bla, bla in your last post.
And both look antagonistic to anyone familiar with the English language.




Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas
13,108 posts
 
Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla and more bla-bla.  What a shame.

R.
More to discover