cart measurement vs quoted spec

All that stuff you are talking about does not even SHOW on the scope!

My point exactly. If the tool doesn't suit the task, stop using it and find one that does.

I have tried EVERY trick, ... Alignment-tweaks are 'peanuts' if you have such discrepancies!

Agreed, and I never suggested any alignment tweaks. I did and still do suggest that the audible distortions, horrible measurements and visible defect combine to indicate that this cartridge is beyond hope. Why not just admit it and move on?

[/quote]... why would I get into all this pain with no reason? [/quote]An excellent and serious question, to which only you can provide the answer.

Hi Dan_ed,
why is it that some of you folk make me feel like having root-channel?

Having insinuations of lacking integrity, lacking general understanding of the basic issues, using inane approaches to problem solving, and the like is not warming ones cockles, now would it?

Like just read your own fine stuff here please:
"Having been through a few such discussions with him I know it is just not worth the effort. :-)"

So far I always tried my very best to answer queries, and if some of the opposed party finds it not to their liking, they just put the "phono down"? Hm...

Putting an agenda like this is leaning pretty far out of the bus! It takes courage, for me it does!
I also don't want to come over like some fool, I am simply looking for civilised discourse, --- though I am known to get a bit enthusiastic at times, it is NEVER meant to be unkind --- and all say, AMEN :-)

Greetings,
Axel
PS: Ever heard of EST? Erhard Seminars Training? Well it might help to get a handle on some interactions, as long as I'm not called an EST-hole :-)

Doug,

if a manufacturer would only share that easily your trash it and dump it approach.
10 thou out of centre, since you seem to refer here to optical inspection, is not to my current knowledge a reject criteria in THAT industry.

Now if it helps, I worked over 30 years in the electronics industry and most of that time in Semiconductor Manufacturing, so I do have some idea about quality issues, if you please. And in the spirit we like to get to the bottom of things...

Axel

Axel,

My attempt to help was more to do with your questions that you asked about your measurements and your results. Many of the questions I asked were because the translation of your posts were unclear to me. There are a number of things that still puzzle me that may be the cause of some of your measurement results. I'm not saying they are flawed but the results are puzzling nonetheless.

Thanks for the response on who did the measurements and what happened. Knowing that the measurements will not be redone any time soon or that another cartridge cannot be checked using the same measurement technique, it may not be helpful to continue discussions on the technical aspects of what may be contributing to the results you asked about in the original posting. This is simply because you are not currently able to double check anything or test any new procedures. I mistakenly thought that you wanted to run more tests and find out if the procedure was solid and you were confident with your results. Hopefully when you have a chance to try this again, you can post about it.

I do know what cartridge you are speaking of. If I had one, I'd be able to help you out by checking it out specifically. But I'm not sure those results would be helpful to you since it would be a physically different cartridge.

To answer your question to me about one of my suggestions. The reason for the Y-connector usage suggestion is because this test eliminates the cartridge inter-channel interaction completely. By doing so, the procedure will only be feeding the same signal into the phono inputs along with any subsequent amplification so you will know the contribution of error/offset of the electronics.

I know you said your consultant is away so you can probably answer this later if you choose to. How did you guys get differential measurements from the XLR output with a ground referenced scope? (did you use differential probes? 2 pairs of single ended scope probes (4 probes) in differential mode?)

I wish you much success in searching for what you are asking. I hope you can find the answers you seek.
Dre

Thanks Dre,

I will follow up on the Y-connector suggestion, some time next week the earliest.

We used:
2 pairs of single ended scope probes (4 probe/clamps) in differential mode.
The scope was quite recently calibrated I might mention also.

I have posted a bit earlier today my assumption that the cross-talk's lowish level, PLUS the 6dB variance L/R could explain an increased 'smearing' problem at higher accelerations / output.

Would this assumption (all things considered equal for the moment) make some sense in your experience?

I actually think it could be a clue to the massed instrument high level distortion / smearing.

I further assume the 2dB channel imbalance is not nice, but the lesser of the related issues.
It would mostly pull images more to the higher output side, AND produce some image 'fluffing' i.e. the opposite of a 'carved-out-ness'?

Lastly, could you give some indication if this 0.15ohm DCR diff. between the L/R coils is unusual, or is this of no import within your range of testing carried out?

I'm much obliged for your constructive engagement and it might just serve more than only my curiosity.

Many thanks,
Axel