Would Like To Hear From Strain Gauge Owners

I agree with all of you. For the record, Raul has given me very helpful advice on these forums, I simply got caught up in the passion of it all, and perhaps allowed my own dogma to colour my previous post... Consider this a retraction(?) and thank you again Raul for your advice on the Shure 97! I may remount it this weekend and try again ! Enjoy the weekend guys, I have to work:-( Harv.

"I came away loving the Voice & finding the Strain Gauge more analytical like CD."

Also Flying Red indicates the strain gauge design does transient response better than most others.

Transient response is one area where CD has a clear advantage in that there is no mass and inertia involved in the playback as there is with vinyl. Also, the strain gauge advertises extremely low mass as well, so this makes sense.

Is it possible that as mass becomes less of an issue with a cartridge/stylus, more like with digital, that the sound starts to approach that "analytical" sound associated with excellent transient reponse that many vinyl lovers do not like with CDs?

Most musical instruments including the human voice have excellent transient response, so this is an area that is important to good playback as well I believe.

Wouldn't be ironic if the state of the art in vinyl playback was really not that much different than the same with digital?

Raul,

I don't know about the speed of the table that Chris builds, but mine sends a signal that is accurate to around one part per billion, and the idler wheel tracks within its theoretical limits, but that isn't the point. The point is that there is a lot going on in a turntable, wires, tonearms, cartridges, preamps, etc. We can talk about RIAA till the cows come home, but that isn't what definitively makes the music anymore than the speed. It is a culmination of things, and those things differ a little bit with each design. Nonetheless, guys design things that sound great, even if they choose different paths to do it. There are workarounds for some obstacles, and there are also unforeseen pitfalls, yet to be pursued. Also, there are quantities that cannot be measured. Still, pleasing results are often delivered. If that were not so, anything that perfectly hits your implementation of RIAA would sound exactly the same as the next product that met that same criteria. I'm not saying that the RIAA topic is a moot one, but the overall picture is what counts at the end of the day. Chis and I can build speed accurate turntables, but the real mettle is to be found in the overall implementation of our work, not just in a single parameter of it. The same goes for Peter's Strain Gauge cartridge. It sounds good simply because it sounds good. He made sure of that by carefully voicing it every step of the way. You may find a $35 moving magnet out there someplace which meets the RIAA sniff test to your satisfaction, but do you really want one? I think not. The reason I don't think so is because of the other aspects, and those are the same attributes that puts such a product on the market for such a cheap price. There are few free rides, but there are even fewer 100% perfect products. I will go so far as to say there are none in existence. If there were, we'd be done here, right? Everyone would have a perfect system, and the only discussion on Audiogon would be the passion of music. Maybe one day.

"and the only discussion on Audiogon would be the passion of music" (Mosin)

Wouldn't that be nice? Nothing wrong with obsessing about technical perfection, as long as we don't forget that it should not be at the expense of how it all relates to the things that really matter in the music. Which takes me back to the comment I made earlier, wich may have come across as overly critical of Raul's stance on this subject: Why no references to music?

I am always a bit perplexed when I hear (read) very strong opinions on the merits, or lack thereof, of this or that product, or the merits of a particular design approach that is not accompanied by at least SOME references to MUSIC. Without SOME comment along the lines of:

"Yes, I appreciate what this design tries to accomplish, but because of inaccuracies in it's RIAA eq, every time that I play a Joni Mitchell record, her voice sounds too full in her lower range. I have heard Joni Mitchell live many times, and that is not what I remember...", or:

"That's not the sound of an oboe in that register", or:

"The Strat has never sounded so thin on every other system that I have heard this recording on", or:

"Why does the bass player sound like he can't keep up with the drummer? Never sounded like that before", or:

Hello, I have been reading the thread on the Straingage cartridge with Rauls and other audiophile responses. Now generally I do agree with Rauls insistance of a flat freq response of equipment. That is also just about the only thing I agree with him.

It was Raul and more that a few others that had a tit-tat with me regarding freq. response and levels. These can be viewed in my threads, in the Analog forums.

In the thread "An Audiophile Goal" I was saying that two of the main parameters of reproducing music in your room is frequency response and amplitude. Well, it is also happens to be a goal in electronics as Raul states. And I agree with him! Yet as others have said it doesn't matter and I too agree with them! So, how can that be?

Now if I had told Raul and others that my subwoofer system I use is - 10db at 20 hz, which it is, and that it starts to drop off at 42hz, you would wonder if Bob is talking out of both sides of my mouth? And certainly who would buy a complicated (needs two stereo amps, and a sophisticated EQ system along with its attendendant cables etc). Indeed, who would buy Peters Soundgage cartridge, with a VERY similar problem of falling freq response?

I believe you want a fullrange system to 20hz. And actually believe that a rise of +6 to +8db at 20hz with a nice slow tapering to flat at 80-100hz. And yet my speakers are 10db down at twenty hertz! And not only are they down 6db from flat at 20hz, but they are 6 to 8db down from my goal of +6 to +8db at 20 hz! For a total of 16 to 18db down of my goal of +6-8db at 20hz.

Therefore 20hz is about 4 times less loud as the other freq being played back and my goal. But the problem is, I love the way the speakers sound! Tight bass, dynamic, great imaging everything you want in a sub, except for that pesky freq response.

And its the same for the Straingage, I have not heard one but if what everyone says that its a great listening experience due to its sonics, who am I to disagree?

And just like the Straingage, because of its failure to meet the freq response target, my subs are in the same boat, "bad" freq response.

See we are both on the same path.

So am I telling a fib when I say I have +6db at 20hz, when my speakers are not capable of that? NO, I use eq to bring it back up. My sub system consists of 32 eight inch drivers in a stereo pair of sealed dipole boxes. Being a sealed box I have to deal with the inherent rolloff from the sealed box. A classic case and well acknowledged. I use a Marchand Bassis (a type of a Linkwitz transform). This equalizes the falling freq response and can actually add boost so I can not only get to flat at 20 hz, but I can achieve my preferred +6 or +8db IN ROOM.

What does this have to do with the Straingage and Raul? Raul your insistance on flat freq response in equipment is a good one. But the only freq response we are worried about IS THE IN ROOM RESPONSE! See I still designed my sub system with a falling freq response just as Peter did the Straingage. Why, because he and I believe we have built great sounding equipment. All of the usual attributes that audiophiles love are there in spades. Except the freq response.

I knew I could eq the "poor"/falling freq response with EQ. Now someone who happens to like the sound of the Straingage cartridge can do the same thing. Peter is not adding the eq up front, but if you can eq it before it reaches YOUR EARS that is ALL WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT!

Or do what many audiophiles do, go for great sounding equipment and ignore the lower freq response if it is not a critical issue to you.

I think that with my Marchand crossover and Marchand Bassis I have enough gain to do this with the Straingage, without clipping, and as long as I get back to my in room "flat freq response" I am golden (I hate that saying). I could potentially love the sonics of the Straingage, but my first concern would be, for me, do I have enough gain in my eq to get back to flat, plus some. If the answer to that (like my subs) is YES, then who cares what the freq response is of a piece of equipment.

I must say though that most equipment sounds best with a flat freq response, at least in the fact that if it were true, that my speakesr gave me +6db at 20hz then I could do away with the eq. Just as if Peter obtained flat respose with his cartridge could you do away with eq down the line. The same as Raul could do away with his phono eq if he chose to do the eq'ing somewhere else in the chain to obtain a flat response in room, as that is the only one that mattters. Or for that matter not even worry about freq response, most people seem not to care here.

And how you cooose or if you choose to get there is up to you.

Also on the subject then is how flat is flat? Raul says the Hagerman trumpet is not even close to his "Worlds Best Phonolinepreamp" in freq response flatness, I say who cares! All you have to do is get a nice smooth in room response, how you get there is your problem. Also how close you get is entirely up to you, but it has very little to do with the minute differences Raul talks about.

Because in the end we are looking for an in room response within +- 3db. With what is probably a practical/obtainable (for most audiophiles) one or two peaks /nulls up to 6db. Which is not terribly detrimental and perhaps becomes your house sound if you can tune it to an agreeable (to yourself) freq..

With that in mind. It is just that much easier to obtain a smooth response in room if you are not dealing with equipment abberations to begin with. But a known "problem like Peters (ok, I'll do it later), Rauls (nice phono preamp dude) and yes even mine RIAA EQ and speaker EQ is.... EQ SOMEWHERE.

Have a wonderful sounding Straingage or a pair of great sounding handmade subs that aren't flat? Eq em, Raul does this to all of his phono cartridges. And all speakers are Eq'ed somwhere (yea, I know electroststs and single drivers aren't)

You see, Rauls problem as a designer is that he has a goal and isnt sure why! Does he even know why he wants a flat response?

Do peaks obscure music and nulls remove music. Does a broad freq peak darken or brighten the music, hint, it probably depends on where the broad peak is.

Does a 20db 80hz peak produce one note bass? Does that then said 20db peak then limit the max volume you can play you sytem at? Does it explain why you have to turn your sytems volume levels up and down for different albums?

Does a falling freq response below 35hz negate the need for a subsonic filter?

All we are going for is a nice freq response. AND ALONG WITH THAT we need good sounding, quiet equipment that is revealing and is able to also play in room at a level that is appropriate for recorded music, we are all set.

And if Peter can just figure out how to have his cartridge extend out to 20hz. Everyone could do away with their phono preamp RIAA Eq. Then if he can have it roll off at 20hz I can do away with my subsonic filter!



Bob