Counted Out Way to Soon!

Headshell wiring hands down Just kidding. I suppose improvement in cartridges? I own a Rega P3 with the RB300 arm and Exact MM cartridge. It sounds great I guess but no doubt there are some killer TTs out there that would smoke it. I'm not much into vinyl but must admit that I lust over some of these really cool TTs that are works of art more than anything, appealing to that inherent Rolex watch, SLR camera, handgun siren's call in all us guys. The Acustic Raven TTs are especially alluring.

The understanding of resonance and how to manage it.

It's a cowcatcher answer picking up anything on the tracks.

Hi Myles,

Which of the current modestly priced cartridges do you consider giant killers (compared with a decade or so ago)?

Thanks,
Jay

kach22i said:

The understanding of resonance and how to manage it.

It's a cowcatcher answer picking up anything on the tracks.

Click to expand...

Yes indeed! Choice of materials, particularly. Koetsu has been at it for years using 2 basic motor structures and two cantilever choices and many different bodies, each body having a different flavor due to the specific hardness on the Mohs Scale. Same goes for platters, plinths and armwands. Throw in the use of constrained layer damping too. I like the sound of older idlers and direct drives but the SOTA tables of today are just so darned quiet that dynamic range in LPs have widened even more.

I'd rank improved speed stability second thanks to better asynchronous motors and microprocessor speed control for DC motors.

Third would be the continuing refinement of carts.

Last but not least, the again lowering of the noisefloor of phonostages.

MylesBAstor said:

I like. Care to elaborate?

Click to expand...

One cowcatcher statement deserves another so here I go.

I do not thnk that I am alone in my turntable experiments. I think the big guys tinker even more than I do. You saw glass platters, you saw acrylic platters, you see brass and aluminum platters.......and why?

RESONANCE!!!!

Each of these materials has a different sonic signature and resonance. In my experience the sound matches the look and feel of the material, which is not odd at all if you think about it.

Most of my experiments were not of the platter, that was just a material example. The comments which folow are based on sticking things under my turntable, preamp and speakers, and having the results be similar no matter the application.

Glass: clean clear sound but can exhibit glare.

Wood: warm grainy sound, less grainy the denser the wood

Steel: hard and cold but a very strong powerful sound

Aluminum: light weight but solid, hard to beat

Acrylic: clean and clear but sort of light, not quite the zip speed of glass.

Corian: sort of a matte sound, muted but not slow

Cork: open but full of voids, sort of spongy without spring

Marble/Granite: hard and sharp with glare but supportive of heavy bass given enough mass

Composite Grinding Disks: solid, strong absorbs a little energy like concrete (good stuff)

Sand: sucks energy up and can sound dead

Brass/Bronze: love the stuff, few flaws if any........bright, brassy, strong but not too hard

Hard Rubber: adds some bounce to the rythum

Sorbothane: adds too much bounce, rubbery bass

Carbon Fibre: like glass without the glare but like Corian a bit muted in the extreem highs

I've left some materials out, such as air support but if I recall it was a light sound, soft without a real punch (wobbly too). The list goes on an on, but the point is you have to use something to make your turntable system out of, and like a mustical instrument it is a mechcanical machine in constant resonance with its environment. Brace it or dampen it too much and it sounds dead. Let it vibrate too much and it sings on it's own adding unwanted cross rythum and confusion. Like the strings on a guitar the turntable system (including foundation support) should be tuned and in good tone with the music it is playing.

That's my theory, and I'm sticking with it.

MylesBAstor said:

resonance........... out of phase reflections

Click to expand...

We are easing out of layman's terms and into some engineering terms. Therefore I have to ask if there is a term/phrase called "phase resonance" or "resonance phase", and if so what does it really mean? Is there a golden number TT designers shoot for like the "Q" of a loudspeaker?

If there is a formula or mathical expression for this, would time or period be part of the equation (equality of two expressions)?

One of things which opened my mind up on the topic of resonance was a loudspeaker review in Stereophile about 12 years ago on one of the Sonus Faber's. They proclaimed in the article via the manufacturer that their cabinets are/were designed to resonate in a musical tone. Therfore any "knock test" similar to knocking on a turtable plinth was irrelevant as they did not believe in dead/dampened speaker enclosures. I'm sort of waiting for a TT manufacturer to make the same claim, it's the direction I'm leaning towards on my DIY dream table.

MylesBAstor said:

cutoff to avoid motor noise (I think it's around 5 Hz) and an optimal cartridge/arm resonance point of 8-12 Hz.

Click to expand...

Is there something like an electronic stethascope which measures this sort of thing?

How do they figure these things? After the fact, or before milling in the shop?

What do you think has been the biggest improvement in the design of analog playback equipment in the last 30 years?

Click to expand...

i am going to twist your question around a little bit and start with the answer to a different question....

"what caused the huge performance improvements in vinyl playback in the last 10-15 years?"

my opinion is that when quite a few talented technical enthusiasts got involved with a re-kindled vinyl movement and realized just how much information was hidden in those grooves; it set off a frenzy of investigation into all aspects of design of the whole vinyl playback chain. it was the potential of performance of the media which made it happen.

once you had all the attention on solving the challenges of the vinyl playback system; coupled with 40 years better technology, it just happened and continues happening today.

again, the biggest issue is the information in those grooves. there is just so much to work with! ....and here is where digital fanboys really do not get it......vinyl is not thru improving...we are still finding more information in those grooves. whereas digital is just numbers and there will never be more than there is between the gaps.

now, back to your question; of all the improvements what has been the biggest?

i'd have to say reducing the noise floor of turntables; when comparing modestly priced tt's of today with expensive tt's of the past, it's the noise floor reduction where the biggest gains have been made. again; the realization that lowering the noise floor reveals much more music gave designers a reference to shoot at. and mostly they hit it.

I'd like to change not the question, but the timeframe. Myles is showing his youth (I'm not being critical) and me my age, but couldn't we just shift the cutoff point back a few years?? The LP was introduced (and failed) by RCA in 1931. Then (successfully) by Columbia in 1948. So in round numbers, it goes back let's say 60+ years. So I'd like to extend Myles' timeframe back another few years. Which means I won't be using the appearance of digital as a marker for when record playback took its quantum leap. All the improvements mentioned by everyone else are certainly valid, but as Mike just said, and I totally agree:

the biggest issue is the information in those grooves. there is just so much to work with! ..........vinyl is not thru improving...we are still finding more information in those grooves.

Click to expand...

and of course, still getting more of that information OUT of the grooves. And for me, the biggest improvement in extracting the information from the record groove was not quieter turntables (though important) but was literally "where the rubber meets the road" -- the stylus. The following little history, cribbed from mostly Wikipedia (so I could get the dates correct) highlights one very important event, one very important technological development, and one very important unexpected consequence, that led to the development of the modern stylus.
1. The event: In 1972, the Shibata stylus was developed because the best elliptical styli simply couldn't extract the 50KHz frequency information coded into the grooves of Quadraphonic recordings and containing the rear channel information)
2. The technology: Shibata styli were a bitch to make. Imagine grinding a grain-oriented diamond that small into such a complex shape!! But a funny thing happened on the way to the nuthouse: lasers! As you will read, just about the time it was clear the Quadradisk was doomed (think SACD?) and ellipticals still ruled the stylus world, it was dicovered that laser technology could be used to shape diamonds and other hard substances without actually touching them! The quality and variety of what generally came to be called the 'line contact stylus' exploded.
3. The unexpected consequence: A Shibata-equipped cartridge, it was soon discovered, played 2-channel recordings better than ellipticals; and laser shaping techniques brought the cost way down and led to better shapes than the Shibata (though some would debate that.) But something unexpected was discovered (as you will read below) a consequence of the line-contact stylus shape, that gave old records a new lease on life, and continues to do so today. . . . If you don't know what that was, you are about to find out.
4. And one more thing: The line contact stylus allowed for heavier tracking forces but with less record wear -- essential for the development of the moving coil cartridge. So my vote is for the line contact stylus -- without it, we might still be stuck in the 70's. Enjoy.

The next development in stylus form came about with the development of CD-4 quadraphonic sound modulation process, which requires up to 50 kHz frequency response, with cartridges like Technics EPC-100CMK4 capable of playback on frequencies up to 100 kHz. This requires a stylus with a narrow side radius, such as 5 µm (or 0.2 mil). A narrow-profile elliptical stylus is able to read the higher frequencies (greater than 20 kHz), but at an increased wear, since the contact surface is narrower. For overcoming this problem, the Shibata stylus was invented around 1972 in Japan by Norio Shibata of JVC, fitted as standard on quadraphonic cartridges, and marketed as an extra on some high-end cartridges.
The Shibata-designed stylus offers a greater contact surface with the groove, which in turn means less pressure over the vinyl surface and thus less wear. A positive side effect is that the greater contact surface also means the stylus will read sections of the vinyl which were not touched (or "worn") by the common spherical stylus. In a demonstration by JVC, records "worn" after 500 plays at a relatively high 4.5 gm tracking force, with a spherical stylus, played "as new" with the Shibata profile.

Other advanced stylus shapes appeared following the same goal of increasing contact surface, improving on the Shibata. Chronologically: "Hughes" Shibata variant (1975), "Ogura" (1978) , Van den Hul (1982). These styli are marketed as "Hyperelliptical" (Shure), "Alliptic", "Fine Line" (Ortofon), "Line contact" (Audio technica), "Polyhedron", "LAC", and "Stereohedron" (Stanton).

A keel-shaped diamond stylus appeared as a byproduct of the invention of the CED Videodisc. This, together with laser-diamond-cutting technologies, made possible "ridge" shaped styli such as the Namiki (1985) design , and Fritz Gyger(1989) design. These styli are marketed as "MicroLine" (Audio Technica), "Micro-Ridge" (Shure), "Replicant" (Ortofon).

It is important to point out that most of those stylus profiles are still being manufactured and sold, together with the more common spherical and elliptical profiles, despite the CD4 quadraphonic system being a marketing flop.

MylesBAstor said:

Despite the many naysayers back in 1980, turntables have continued to have a strong customer base in the high-end industry--even beyond; actually it's CD sales that appear ready to go the way of the dinosaur with the advent of digital music downloading (and who nowadays wants to pay $15 for a CDs with two songs worth listening to?).

In the 30 years since the release of digital recordings, the sound and resolution of analog turntables, arm and cartridges continue to improve. I'd venture a bet that the performance of many of todays more modestly priced cartridges would outstip SOTA cartridge made 10 or 15 years ago.

So here's my question to all of you out there in WBF turntable forum. What do you think has been the biggest improvement in the design of analog playback equipment in the last 30 years?

Click to expand...

I have to wonder at what happened to the turntable which used a laser to read the grooves? This would be a usefully wear free approach, admittedly removing all the technical fun but still.

Also, what material other than vinyl could be used for lp's? Something more durable, less prone to wear and damage from careless handling etc.

MylesBAstor said:

Despite the many naysayers back in 1980, turntables have continued to have a strong customer base in the high-end industry--even beyond; actually it's CD sales that appear ready to go the way of the dinosaur with the advent of digital music downloading (and who nowadays wants to pay $15 for a CDs with two songs worth listening to?).

In the 30 years since the release of digital recordings, the sound and resolution of analog turntables, arm and cartridges continue to improve. I'd venture a bet that the performance of many of todays more modestly priced cartridges would outstip SOTA cartridge made 10 or 15 years ago.

So here's my question to all of you out there in WBF turntable forum. What do you think has been the biggest improvement in the design of analog playback equipment in the last 30 years?

Click to expand...

Dear Myles: What can I say on TT? IMHO no significant improvement: we have vintage TT like Micro Seiki, Denon, EMT, Technics, Kenwood, Onkyo, Yamaha that not only compete with any today TT but some of them even beat it.

What can I say on tonearms? IMHO no significant improvement: Technics, SAEC, Audiocraft, Satin, Micro Seiki, Grace, Dynavector or Audio Technica had designs that at least are at the same today tonearm level quality performance.


+++++ " I'd venture a bet that the performance of many of todays more modestly priced cartridges...... " +++++, yes is a " venture " from your part that statement, maybe you need an up-date on the subject.


Cartridges? IMHO there are at least 10 different vintage cartridges ( MM/MI ) that IMHO outperform the quality performance on any today single LOMC cartridge or MM/MI one. Here you can se four of them: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr_memb.pl?0&1&listrevs&zzRauliruegas

and I can add: AKG P-100LE, Sonus Dimension 5, Technics EPC 205MK4, Grado The Tribute, Audio technica ATML 1800-OCC or Micro Acoustics MA830 or Signet TK10 ML3 and counting.


So IMHO the analog rig: TT/tonearm/cartridge, had/has no improvement yet.

I think that there are other audio areas where we can say were a real improvement: cables ( any kind ), cable connectors, speakers, LP cleaning machines/devices, room treatment, electronics: both SS and tube, parts for electronic design/build audio items, cartridge/tonearm protractors, any kind of damping audio links items.

In the other side a huge improvement was/is in the audiophile know-how/knowledge that permit a lot better overall/whole audio system set-up.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Specifically for TT systems, in no particular order:

1. The Shibata stylus (leading to much more in-depth research into optimum stylus profiles).
2. Discwasher cleaning products (no more grinding the grunge into the music) and the systems they inspired.
3. Air-bearing tonearms and the resulting attention paid to proper tracking angles in all planes.
4. Thorens and other manufacturers who lent focus to isolation and suspension systems.
5. High-quality discs and recordings that pushed the medium to new highs in the 80's and 90's and continues to keep the flame alive today.
6. Reasonably-priced moving-coil cartridges with exceptional sound quality; again a product direction that forced improvements in the MM lines as well.
7. Shure and their "nail in the groove" adverts that focused attention on tracking quality. Never cared all that much for even their top of the line cartridges, but I got tired of trying out wicked expensive carts that sounded fantastic but couldn't track a micron of warp...
8. The CD. Gasp! Yes, because it not only highlighted a number of issues (and benefits) of analog, but drove analog designers to new heights to compete.
9. Feedback control for motors, ending the speed variation issues that plagued so many for so many reasons.
10. The short-lived quad marketing because it significantly improved the top end of carts and playback systems.

Some chosen because they themselves were game-changers; others because they enabled further development and/or highlighted issues to be dealt with.

FWIWFM - Don