advertisement


Linn K5 & K9 confusion

Aluminium basic material for Cantilever ( Stiffer and lighter the better ) High End Cartridges use Boron or Sapphire or Diamond
Young modulus, or the modulus of elasticity in tension or compression (i.e., negative tension), is a mechanical property that measures the tensile or compressive stiffness of a solid material when the force is applied lengthwise.

Silly Putty (increasing pressure: length increases quickly, meaning tiny
Aluminum (increasing pressure: length increases slowly, meaning high
Higher Young's modulus corresponds to greater (lengthwise) stiffness.

E Young's Modulus
Boron 656
Diamond 1,050
Aluminum 68
Sapphire 470
Ruby 372
Zirconia 200
 
The Captain said:
@Craig Does my daft example of a cart set at 45* though ( it never would be, but helps explain my thinking), & if so, one channel being 'read' by the stylus 'fractionally sooner' than the other.. hold any water at all?

Im trying to consider you see, the basics of what is trying to be mitigated against, when setting up a cartridge.

So to help Im trying to exaggerate a wrongly aligned cartridge, & consider the stylus position within the groove, & then think what this might equate to.. in audible terms.
Click to expand...
Yes, I do think that your example holds water, only the angles of deviation from the cutter path would be very shallow indeed. This way of looking at things also speaks to how each different stylus shape in the 'craigworm' drawing had contact indicator arrows either side that deviated more or less from being at right angles to the mean direction of groove travel. The most exaggerated of these being the conical (round) profile with one contact face always appearing to be ahead of the other when deviating from a perfectly straight groove path (i.e. deviation from a none signal silent groove). Ideally, contact should always be L --> O <-- R (when looked at from above) no matter which direction the groove deviates from purely curvilinear. If anything, by having overhang too far forward or rearward (for a fixed offset) might see a superior groove tracer perform slightly less good in this respect, however, we are really splitting the atom here as there are so many factors at play.
 
@daytona600 hi there thanks for this info: boron seems hugely less elastic, I wonder if these are prone to snapping at all if so stiff? And I wonder if cold is a factor to consider: in my mainroom it's 5*C C all day, lower overnight.
 
Craig B said:
Yes, I do think that your example holds water, only the angles of deviation from the cutter path would be very shallow indeed. This way of looking at things also speaks to how each different stylus shape in the 'craigworm' drawing had contact indicator arrows either side that deviated more or less from being at right angles to the mean direction of groove travel. The most exaggerated of these being the conical (round) profile with one contact face always appearing to be ahead of the other when deviating from a perfectly straight groove path (i.e. deviation from a none signal silent groove). Ideally, contact should always be L --> O <-- R (when looked at from above) no matter which direction the groove deviates from purely curvilinear. If anything, by having overhang too far forward or rearward (for a fixed offset) might see a superior groove tracer perform slightly less good in this respect, however, we are really splitting the atom here as there are so many factors at play.
Click to expand...

Thanks I'll need to dissect this info too.. I've alot to keep me busy on this thread over xmas: I'm determined to go through & try understanding most of your replies.

In the meantime, just switching tangents: I'm not sure Im getting on with the ATMLcart, the bass quality is less than before which I miss. So as my other obvious option is the very costly £250 boron ML Jico (ie back to the Shelter cart).. one idea catches my eye. A dynavector10x5 mark 2 in classifieds. Shibata 3, with 150 hrs. But it's a high output MC though (& says 2.8mV, with 150 ohm resistor). I know I got on fine with a denon dl110 which is (1.6mV, 47k ohms load resistor). I wonder if this is a better option.

But is it "a bit wrong" for my 774 with regard to mass though? I think a 774 is a low-mass arm, & itself not an entirely 'perfect' match for my Lp12 afaik, so a cart needs careful choosing. The ATML did tick this 'compatability' box I believe. But this matching of mass, is yet another facet that eludes my understanding. The dyna is 7.5gms, the denon 4.8gms. I think it's this weight figure that's relevant here. Load resistance.. is way over my head!

Sorry to go down a new tangent, but your thoughts on this new idea would be much appreciated. Thanks, Capt.
 
@Craig B nevermind, my dynavector10x5 idea seems null due to the old 774 underside mount aspect.

I'll call it a day on this thread. Many thanks, learnt a ton so a useful thread-theft by me.

Now the OP can have their k5/9 thread back!
 
The Captain said:
@Craig B nevermind, my dynavector10x5 idea seems null due to the old 774 underside mount aspect.

I'll call it a day on this thread. Many thanks, learnt a ton so a useful thread-theft by me.

Now the OP can have their k5/9 thread back!
Click to expand...
Yesterday was a bit of a write off for me, else I would have responded earlier.

I doubt you would have enjoyed having 10x5 sticking its big red alloy tongue out at you all the time anyway. 10x4 and earlier had sensible mounting brackets for what used to be a sensibly priced 'budget' HOMC (we used to sell 10x2 for $125), but, of course, fitting a big threaded plate is going to give the impression of 'high end' even if the same polymer frame/stem/flange as 10x4 is simply inserted into the back. I haven't seen a tonearm/headshell yet where this plate doesn't end up sticking way out at the front. Imagine most all of it protruding from the 774 headshell block (likely why I can't find a pic of this obscenity to post here).


10x5mk2_dimension.gif
 
@Craig B good points there indeed- it might well look weird, & the main caveat being were I able to mount it, the cost of retipping or replacing in 3 years would be shocking. Rather like find a cheap merc, but the realisation of running costs rules it out. That pic you added there does suggest there might be enough room for bolts passing up, but seller said 'no chance' so can't take the risk. Bonded tongue bit to the body too so couldn't separate first either.

Had a better session last night with the ATML I must say, the things revealed in the treble -are- very impressive & I'd miss this aspect if I now went back to the 201. I just hope my wooden lower regions (sounds like a saucy pun) aspect might get elieviated once 20 hrs+ put on. I have woken up like a student at 2 am, twice on a cold sofa at the weekend, with the needle going d.. dud.. d..dud.. end of a side. Maybe the suspension needs 'breaking in'.
 
@Craig B a final question if I may before I sign this off, & attempt a broader thread on cartridge & tonearm numnums (be warned!).

Switching from the naim 470pf to the 100pf for the new ATML, as you advised gets me to the manufacturer's recommended figure (more or less/ I'm just a bit over at 225pf, 100 cap + 125 arm). Now I did notice a change doing this, it seemed the treble dialed down a bit, &/or everything else.. was dialed up a bit. Is that basically correct?

Now, in doing so though, I think I've introduced this bloomy wooden bass aspect. Or excacerbated it to a level that's quite intrusive. Is there any reason why I couldn't either pop in a 280pf cap, or even put the original 470pf back?

I guess there are no rules here, just mfr guidelines, & my room characteristics do tend to amplify the bass a fair bit ( mostly a useful facet, as I have no want for any more bass from my epos ES14 speakers- in fact I bung up one port).

Thanks, Capt
 
Hi Dyna, nice pic. Sorry but I can't make sense of your post.

Its just too shorthand- I've not enough knowledge to decipher what the point is you are aiming for.

I think mi means 'moving iron' which means moving magnet.. but that's all I can glean.
 
Iron means iron except when it doesn´t. MI is not the same as MM. The capacitance adjustment problem / solution is not applicable in the case of moving irons but it is with MMs.
This is like being a member of a sect or Masons. I once read an article about transformers for MCs and it kept saying iron instead of something simple like "tranny". I understood nowt until a couple of days later when the penny dropped. - still didn´t understand it. And don´t lets start on about the use of anagrams in DIY electronics, types of circuits etc. Ignorance is bliss.
 
If your Phono stage has fixed Loading MI moving iron

Grado I decided to measure how it responds to loading.
So I ran it up with 10/22/46/82/100 K ohm resistive loads at each of 60/296/422/535pf capacitive load.
Then I charted the results.....

Here is the plot for 60pf capacitance (please ignore the dotted lines)
As can be seen, the differences in loading are absolutely minimal - unlike most MM/MI cartridges, where huge differences in F/R can be seen/heard as one varies the loading.
I have not bothered posting the plots at other capacitances as they are effectively (within 0.2db more or less) identical!

It confirms Grado's statements that the cartridges are not affected by cable capacitance.



medium
 
The Captain said:
@Craig B a final question if I may before I sign this off, & attempt a broader thread on cartridge & tonearm numnums (be warned!).

Switching from the naim 470pf to the 100pf for the new ATML, as you advised gets me to the manufacturer's recommended figure (more or less/ I'm just a bit over at 225pf, 100 cap + 125 arm). Now I did notice a change doing this, it seemed the treble dialed down a bit, &/or everything else.. was dialed up a bit. Is that basically correct?

Now, in doing so though, I think I've introduced this bloomy wooden bass aspect. Or excacerbated it to a level that's quite intrusive. Is there any reason why I couldn't either pop in a 280pf cap, or even put the original 470pf back?

I guess there are no rules here, just mfr guidelines, & my room characteristics do tend to amplify the bass a fair bit ( mostly a useful facet, as I have no want for any more bass from my epos ES14 speakers- in fact I bung up one port).

Thanks, Capt
Click to expand...
Reducing the capacitance has the effect of pushing the HF resonant peak up in frequency where it won't be dominating the sound so much, so, yes, the subjective results can be just how you describe.

This peak also reduces in amplitude as peak frequency rises; not always a good thing as there is generally a bit of a presence region dip left behind (remember, the cartridge coils act as low pass filters with HF rolloff being a primary characteristic, which both impedance and capacitance counter). IOW, the HF peak that results from the interaction between coil inductance, and the load presented by impedance and capacitance is what gives HF extension to what would be a very rolled off response. Both capacitive and resistive loading control where this peak occurs (capacitance) and how high in amplitude it goes (impedance).

One way to experiment here, without risking too much soldering at the same 'N' card through holes, would be to leave the 100pF caps in and try adding additional caps across the +ve and -ve at the plugs. With your BNC sockets this could be facilitated by connecting across the +ve and -ve solder tags where the wiring connects within. You may even find that you can bend the leads of the caps round such that they don't have to be soldered in for testing (i.e. more like spring clips through the tag holes).
 
Last edited:
@Craig B Hi there. This is another post that'll take me days to decipher. You see within a few words yet again Im lost, as here I am immediately not understanding what a "resonant frequency" is (Ive heard this mentioned by FatMarley with regard to my speakers.. but I have no understanding of the term). So tbh I can't therefore understand anything of the post. Shifting this unknown thing 'up' or 'down' is like presenting a completely arbitrary word to me in arabic, & telling me soemthing happens if it changes. The word, & the changing nature of it, remains completely unknown, meaningless.

All I can do, is to simplify things hugely, as my understanding is extremely limited. This is why Ive resorted to:

"treble seems dialed down/ lower frequencies seems dialed up" (by -lowering- that poly cap).

Ok, can you just tell me. Is this "...." is consistant with you? If it's the -opposite- of what you expect, then I'm in a huge heap of confusion (& tbh I just don't think I can cope anymore trying to figure out what is being said).

Thanks, Capt
 
daytona600 said:
If your Phono stage has fixed Loading MI moving iron

Grado I decided to measure how it responds to loading.
So I ran it up with 10/22/46/82/100 K ohm resistive loads at each of 60/296/422/535pf capacitive load.
Then I charted the results.....

Here is the plot for 60pf capacitance (please ignore the dotted lines)
As can be seen, the differences in loading are absolutely minimal - unlike most MM/MI cartridges, where huge differences in F/R can be seen/heard as one varies the loading.
I have not bothered posting the plots at other capacitances as they are effectively (within 0.2db more or less) identical!

It confirms Grado's statements that the cartridges are not affected by cable capacitance.



medium
Click to expand...

Hi dyna, I'm sorry but you lost me with this MI moving iron thing, it added even more confusion, as these two letters have so far not even been mentioned. I can't cope with understand why you used these letters.... let alone trying to then understand anything of this post above.

Apologies. But I have stated many times how little I understand, so graphs with frequency lines on is like an alien language. I think the post by Chris, confirmed that these letters can be ambiguous/ the meaning a minefield, even for themselves.... so for myself.... it is hopeless expecting me to understand. Even the word "Moving" I have not a jot of understanding of. Magnet yes, I can think of electromagnetic properties, coils of tiny wire, some form of generation of electricity. But when nothing is physically moving, this word alone is lost on me.
 
Hi @The Captain,

Yes, I agree that the sound should be as you described by having lowered that poly cap, ref your "treble seems dialled down/ lower frequencies seems dialed up".

A suggestion:

Should you wish to experiment with 'seasoning to taste' further, you could try increasing total capacitance by adding another 100pF cap in parallel with the exiting one. As a means of trying this out without actually soldering all in, these second caps can simply be placed across +ve and -ve at the BNC socket tabs. This will put them in parallel with the existing on board caps and in so doing be additive.

Looking at the totals:
  • Original - 470pF cap + 125pF arm = 595pF total
  • Currently - 100pF cap + 125pF arm = 225pF total
  • Suggestion - 100pF + 100pF cap + 125pF arm = 325pF total
Should this suggestion still not float your boat, then decided which way the total value should go from there, e.g. 'up' (more perceived treble cf. bass) or 'down' (less perceived treble cf. bass).
 
@Craig B Ok this post is the most understandable yet. I almost got through actually understanding it all! I was going yes.. yes.. yes got that.. YES.. Could I actually get it all??... no. Last bloomin few words & my brain actually started aching with strain trying to figure out what "cf" could possibly mean.

Anyway, Ive just been trying for another hour online, & even an ortofon page of ridiculous complication of graphs & god knows what re "compliance".. is beyond me, meaningless. And then nirvana pages of simplistic car analogies (I can just about comprehend the suspension analogy, in it's basic form).. but then this wretched "resonant frequency" pair of words crops up. So I google this. And Im at yet another page of complicated graphs & lord knows what. These two words steadfastly remaining meaningless to me. What on gods earth are these two words? It is actually infuriating me now.

I also find it unfathomable, how seemingly everyone else, just has all this "degree-level-science-stuff" understood, as if it's as simple as the knobs on a cooker to decipher.

Will I ever be able to understand the basics of what my main interest actually is? I honestly don't think so.
 
It appears as though I inadvertently used the short form for 'carried forward', i.e. 'c.f.', instead of one that meant 'compared to' or 'compared with'. As in, 'more treble compared to bass' or 'more bass than treble', that sort of thing. I promise to keep the acronyms/abbreviations to an absolute minimum going forward.

Anyway, on to 'resonant frequency'. Let's break it down. First 'resonant', the dictionary on my Mac here has this down as an adjective meaning 1. (of sound) deep, clear and or continuing to sound or reverberate. 'Resonance' has a better definition here, as a noun we have 3) the condition in which an electric circuit or device produces the largest possible response to an applied oscillating signal. 'Frequency' shouldn't be so much effort by comparison, as we are considering an affect upon higher frequency sounds that is the result of an electric circuit being made to resonate. Not the actual audio signal resonating mind, but the falling upper end of the response curve being countered (which we would prefer not to be a curve at all, but flat). Specifically, a resonance at a specific frequency (and level) is the outcome of our combination of our phono inputs capacitance and impedance when applied as electrical load against cartridge coil inductance. That last bit 'coil inductance' being what causes the sound to roll off to nothing above the mid-range should we not counter this inductance with some frequency specific resonance to fluff it back up to roughly where it should be, i.e. preferably on a more or less level playing field with the bass and midrange.
 
@Craig B Ok great now I can understand the prior post. (But almost not a word of this one above! Resonant frequency remains an unknown term).

Ok now I'm in a position (way back) trying to figure the pf cap thing out now I know that my perception tallies with what you'd expect. Good, I can surely progress from here.

So. I know altering this pf cap effectively --might-- act then, like a treble knob on a preamp. A loose analogy but I xan only cope with this level of simplicity. Might. It's not certain.

Does this cap --also-- change the nature of anything --other-- than the treble? IE does it both 'lower' the treble AND (possibly) at the same token 'up' the bass? Maybe in equal measure?

You see I'm struggling with a boomy boxy bass, as said. Now, I don't know if I've excacerbated this by changing the pf cap down from 470 to 100, or, it was just there before (& I'm just perceiving it more bc there's a little less treble).

Thanks ( I bet you're a father of some experience, being so patient with such an idiot as me). Capt
 
My 470pf naim caps got destroyed removing them you see.. or I'd pop em back in to listen again to the lower bass properties. Delicate caps these, polystyrene.. makes sense why so easily ruined.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top