Hi All,
Please! I truly do NOT want to sensationalize anything here, and I'm asking the sort of feed back that I'm now getting, so as to see if there is some reason to believe that the measurements do not tell the correct story.
Dre_j
my Electronic Engineering Consultant whos Scope and measuring expertise was used, has just this afternoon hopped on his plain to the Munich Hi-End, so your scope related info will have to wait a couple of days, if that's OK.
+++ What output of your audio system are you using to feed your scope? +++
We used the XLR output of the ML326S, I stated that before, as well as having used the build-in 326S phono-modules.
+++ there is the possibility of additive and induced error... +++
That was my first question when seeing the results. Switching L vs R gave the exact reversed results, as I stated before as well.
+++ - The area of resonance could also be possibly due to the tonearm resonance (or somewhere else in the system which is why it would be good to test another cartridge) on that note, does adding damping to your arm change your measurements? +++
Very well, I did try the SME V silicon-trough arm-damping and it had NO! influence at all. I did not mention this so far, since we are now getting into the detail of a two page report that came about during the measuring session. (Very labour intensive job, me doing the setting variations, the Consultant doing the scope work right next to me and writing his report.
+++ If this is a modern o-scope, are you using the cursors to take amplitude values ... +++
Using amplitude values, calibrated to scope's screen grid, no digital read-out.
+++ - Are the gains settings for the phono-stage set to the same level? +++
Yes, and right now I have lots more trust in the ML R/L correct gain (check J.A.'s report on that pre if it helps).
http://www.stereophile.com/solidpreamps/106ml/index3.html
Having exactly reversed results after channel switching confirmed this also.
+++ - Is the cartridge loading the same on both channels? +++
Again, as I said before. First used with ML 47k input impedance, second run with SUT using 13ohm Tantalum Shinkoh 1/2watt 2% (actually better then spec). Also L/R reverse gave exactly reversed results. (I wish that cart be a balanced as that XF-1 trannie)
+++ Depending on how you are gathering the numbers, there could be an entire spectrum of cumulative amplitude which is not exclusive to the frequency intended to be measured and this can also effect your results. +++
Now, why would that only affect one channel?!
+++ There are a number of variables that can stack up and add errors to the measured results. Some other thoughts are the crosstalk introduced by the system itself- this can be checked by sending the output of one cartridge channel into the both input (L&R) of the phono-stage by using a Y-connector. +++
That we did not do, also since the left-to-right out-of-phase-track LISTENING result confirmed the poor results. Next question then is how much that Y connector is going to add to the issue...
+++ I hope this all makes sense +++
It absolutely makes sense, even though some items are inclusive of each other, but better double check, right?
Hi Dougdeacon
just give this here guy at least the time of day, man :-)
+++ It would not occur to me to tackle this common problem by o'scoping a cartridge to check channel balance and/or crosstalk. These distortions are vastly more likely to be caused by resonance behaviors, distortions in the amplification stages and/or speaker problems than by crosstalk or channel imbalance in a cartridge.
99% chance this was a wasted effort, IMO. +++
I have tried EVERY trick, down to machining off 20 thou from mounting screws so as to get more zenith. Please, don't think me being some measuring freak. I'm more the other way inclined i.e. don't trust measurements only and rather use my ears.
This must be more seen as a last resort and as I said: "trying to get to the bottom of it."
Alignment-tweaks are 'peanuts' if you have such discrepancies!
All that stuff you are talking about does not even SHOW on the scope! With the exception of a 6:00 to 6:03 turn of the cart to compensate for its 10 thou cantilever off-set.
Just tell us how you are going to find -12dB to -18dB less cross-talk! or -2dB less channel imbalance! your suggested way. That's like moving the deck-chairs on a listing boat!
Also, why would I get into all this pain with no reason? Just to give you guys some entertainment?
I'm plenty more rational then that, and can think of better ways to pass my time i.e. listening to music :-)
Thanks in any case for all the valuable feedback and detailed questioning.
Greetings,
Axel
PS: Anyone have an idea what a ~ 0.1ohm difference in coil DCR L/R could produce in terms of that issue?!
Please! I truly do NOT want to sensationalize anything here, and I'm asking the sort of feed back that I'm now getting, so as to see if there is some reason to believe that the measurements do not tell the correct story.
Dre_j
my Electronic Engineering Consultant whos Scope and measuring expertise was used, has just this afternoon hopped on his plain to the Munich Hi-End, so your scope related info will have to wait a couple of days, if that's OK.
+++ What output of your audio system are you using to feed your scope? +++
We used the XLR output of the ML326S, I stated that before, as well as having used the build-in 326S phono-modules.
+++ there is the possibility of additive and induced error... +++
That was my first question when seeing the results. Switching L vs R gave the exact reversed results, as I stated before as well.
+++ - The area of resonance could also be possibly due to the tonearm resonance (or somewhere else in the system which is why it would be good to test another cartridge) on that note, does adding damping to your arm change your measurements? +++
Very well, I did try the SME V silicon-trough arm-damping and it had NO! influence at all. I did not mention this so far, since we are now getting into the detail of a two page report that came about during the measuring session. (Very labour intensive job, me doing the setting variations, the Consultant doing the scope work right next to me and writing his report.
+++ If this is a modern o-scope, are you using the cursors to take amplitude values ... +++
Using amplitude values, calibrated to scope's screen grid, no digital read-out.
+++ - Are the gains settings for the phono-stage set to the same level? +++
Yes, and right now I have lots more trust in the ML R/L correct gain (check J.A.'s report on that pre if it helps).
http://www.stereophile.com/solidpreamps/106ml/index3.html
Having exactly reversed results after channel switching confirmed this also.
+++ - Is the cartridge loading the same on both channels? +++
Again, as I said before. First used with ML 47k input impedance, second run with SUT using 13ohm Tantalum Shinkoh 1/2watt 2% (actually better then spec). Also L/R reverse gave exactly reversed results. (I wish that cart be a balanced as that XF-1 trannie)
+++ Depending on how you are gathering the numbers, there could be an entire spectrum of cumulative amplitude which is not exclusive to the frequency intended to be measured and this can also effect your results. +++
Now, why would that only affect one channel?!
+++ There are a number of variables that can stack up and add errors to the measured results. Some other thoughts are the crosstalk introduced by the system itself- this can be checked by sending the output of one cartridge channel into the both input (L&R) of the phono-stage by using a Y-connector. +++
That we did not do, also since the left-to-right out-of-phase-track LISTENING result confirmed the poor results. Next question then is how much that Y connector is going to add to the issue...
+++ I hope this all makes sense +++
It absolutely makes sense, even though some items are inclusive of each other, but better double check, right?
Hi Dougdeacon
just give this here guy at least the time of day, man :-)
+++ It would not occur to me to tackle this common problem by o'scoping a cartridge to check channel balance and/or crosstalk. These distortions are vastly more likely to be caused by resonance behaviors, distortions in the amplification stages and/or speaker problems than by crosstalk or channel imbalance in a cartridge.
99% chance this was a wasted effort, IMO. +++
I have tried EVERY trick, down to machining off 20 thou from mounting screws so as to get more zenith. Please, don't think me being some measuring freak. I'm more the other way inclined i.e. don't trust measurements only and rather use my ears.
This must be more seen as a last resort and as I said: "trying to get to the bottom of it."
Alignment-tweaks are 'peanuts' if you have such discrepancies!
All that stuff you are talking about does not even SHOW on the scope! With the exception of a 6:00 to 6:03 turn of the cart to compensate for its 10 thou cantilever off-set.
Just tell us how you are going to find -12dB to -18dB less cross-talk! or -2dB less channel imbalance! your suggested way. That's like moving the deck-chairs on a listing boat!
Also, why would I get into all this pain with no reason? Just to give you guys some entertainment?
I'm plenty more rational then that, and can think of better ways to pass my time i.e. listening to music :-)
Thanks in any case for all the valuable feedback and detailed questioning.
Greetings,
Axel
PS: Anyone have an idea what a ~ 0.1ohm difference in coil DCR L/R could produce in terms of that issue?!