Shelter and Triplanar matching ?


HELLO

I have problems to match a shelter 901 with a tri planar VII.

Lot of records ( above all piano LP ) are playing tremulous and I can see the tonearm CLEARLY SHAKING on the record while playing it as if it could be a problem of resonance between the cartridge and the tonearm .

I have seen here and there that the Shelter was a LOW COMPLIANCE cartridge (I don't know the exact value).Its weight is 9,5 g.

I have choosed the maxi VTF : 2 g.


I am afraid that the TP is too light for the shelter.Its effective mass is 11 g,
Is it enough for the Shelter 901 ?

I am surprised because the Shelter 901 / Tri Planar seemed to be a combination used buy some audiophiles...without modification .

Could someone give me some help...

Thank you

Tenmus
tenmus
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 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.
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.
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!
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