Sound quality advantages of MM cartridges

[Avon]

@davidsrsb I assume by “ringing like a bell” you mean at around 10Hz (the resonance frequency of the arm / cartridge)? That’s certainly by far the strongest signal that comes from mine, the reason why RIAA gain has to fall off below about 20Hz or so.

There are two issues here. The arm / cartridge resonance needs to be about 10Hz, but we also need to extend the frequency response up to 20kHz or so. I guess this is where the compromise lies, as perhaps these two somehow conflict with each other? But do they conflict or not?

 

[davidsrsb]

No, I see a ring at about 10 KHz, presumably mechanical from my elliptical Ortofon Silver and cantilever

 

[Cartvintner62]

Unless you have studied them under a good microscope yourself I’d really not take that for granted. I now have a fair collection of V15/III styli, and whilst I know nothing of their history, all have signs of wear. Quite significant signs in the case of a pair of VN35E. My VN35HE is in better shape, but they certainly do wear out! As one would expect of styli that have to be 40+ years old. They may well last longer than say an SPU tracking at 4g, but they are far from immortal, sadly.

My original R-15E stylus for the ADC 10E MKIV tracks at 0.7 grams. The stylus is still acceptably sharp after 55 years of play. I now use a boron/MR retip. It tracks at 1.0 grams. But the light tracking of 0.7 grams drastically reduces tip wear.

 

[Avon]

No, I see a ring at about 10 KHz, presumably mechanical from my elliptical Ortofon Silver and cantilever

I'd assume that would be a capacitance issue with your MM phono stage? I don't see any 10kHz ringing with mine.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Context needs to be understood too. The knowledge and skillset hasn’t gone away, modern cartridges are very good and compliance specs etc are given. The thing that has gone away is any requirement to track ultrasonic carrier information for quadrophonic vinyl, so the engineering compromises of ultra low mass and ultra high compliance to fit that specific requirement have been relaxed. I suspect we have ended up at the optimum for standard vinyl replay.

The V15 series weren't aimed at ultrasonic subcarriers for 4-channel. The aim was ourstanding tracking ability for the audio and low wear, distortionn, etc. IIRC Shure produced a different cartridge for 4-channel.

Alas, I now rarely see any new carts tested for the above in a way that compares. So hard to tell when anything else comes close. A problem being that higher tip mass, etc, can deform the groove on first playing. As a result using such carts you can't compare with the actual intended moduation because it may be altered at first playing. Vinyl is easier to deform than diamond. 8-}

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

That’s interesting Jim, but it implies that “optical” (noncontact) cartridges are in a higher class than mechanical ones. I happen to believe it’s the interaction among groove, stylus, cartridge, arm and turntable that gives gramophones their special magic. We also have the cutting lathe doing a similar thing. I don’t personally believe that “photocopying” the groove would offer any advantage. Others will disagree and that’s fine by me.

BTW 'photocopying' records (laser scanning, etc) has been used for special purposes when a disc is rare and precious! In the end I think even the Finial player was made to work... but I doubt many were sold. 8-]

You are entitied to have what you prefer. But I tend to prefer a system that 'transcribes' the source info acurately - and then be able to alter that if I wish in a controlled way that suits me. Not have the same 'curtains' applied to all. So I go with Shure, etc, who regarded *fidelity* to the goove pattern as key. If the LP is crap, then it is crap. If it needs a tweak, then I prefer to do that in way I can change from one LP to another as I think best.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

I'd assume that would be a capacitance issue with your MM phono stage? I don't see any 10kHz ringing with mine.

Actually there are two quite different HF resonance problems. One is electrical when the (complex) impedances of the cart and the amp+cable interact at HF. The other is a resonance of the cantileaver in the stylus assuembly. Then, of course, there is the LF resonance of the 'spring' of the cantilever and the arm + cart 'effective mass'.

More generally, high compliance and low tip mass mean lower levels of mechanical vibration being injected into the arm when excited by the music in the groove. i.e. low tip mass and high compliance reduce the levels of arm colourations.

However you slice and dice all these effects and more, the reality is that the old Shure types of design do well. And modern carts often don't do as well. But in practice people may well prefer some aspects of the changes made by some carts/arms/amps.

 

[Tony L]

Alas, I now rarely see any new carts tested for the above in a way that compares. So hard to tell when anything else comes close. A problem being that higher tip mass, etc, can deform the groove on first playing

I suspect that is largely marketing copy, which in fairness Shure were very good at. There is certainly a fair bit of research highlighting the pros and cons of different tip profiles, groove contact area etc, but chasing ever lower tip-mass went out at the end of the quadrophonic era, as did the whole high-compliance/low-mass thing. Technology evolves over time and the mid-70s is now seen as a blip/outlier in vinyl replay. I’m not arguing high-tip-mass is good, but the extremes of high and low are on opposing sides of the bell-curve, the overwhelming majority of respected cartridges lie in the centre ground. This is where fitness for purpose led designers.

However you slice and dice all these effects and more, the reality is that the old Shure types of design do well.

Though only in ultra-low mass arms of their era and with scrupulously clean vinyl. If you have a cartridge such as a V15/III you really need a fixed-shell 3009 Improved (which is where mine lives), a Series III, Infinity Black Widow, AT1120, Hadcock etc. I know one frequently sees them in absurdly inappropriate arms, even 3012s etc, but the cone-flap at the slightest warp would be intolerable. Flub! The vinyl needs to be spotless too as they can’t plough dust away. No issue for me as I have a pro-grade wet vac cleaner, but it is another reason this wasn’t the winning technology. All avenues were explored over the decades and the conclusion was what we’d now describe as medium-mass/medium-compliance won. Something like a AT MM in a Rega arm represents the top of the bell-curve to my eyes. The consensus view of what an arm and cartridge looks like after 76 years of stereo record replay development.

Don’t get me wrong, I quite like the V15/III, but I fully understand why it is an outlier, just as is the Denon DL-103 (another cartridge I really like). Both lie at opposite extremes of the bell-curve, yet both are capable of great results in their own context.

 

[bigfish786]

Getting older, the ability of replacing the stylus only without the need of replacing the whole cartridge (avoiding montage, alignment, etc.) it's a great advantage.
This also applies to MMs with non-replaceable styluses, such as Rega and Clearaudio.

Most Clearaudio mm carts, like virtuoso etc can have the stylus replaced quite easily. I have done so with an AT95SH. Just needs a bit of plastic trimming off and it’s an instant upgrade/replacement.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

I suspect that is largely marketing copy, which in fairness Shure were very good at.

Though only in ultra-low mass arms of their era and with scrupulously clean vinyl. If you have a cartridge such as a V15/III you really need a fixed-shell 3009 Improved (which is where mine lives), a Series III, Infinity Black Widow, AT1120, Hadcock etc. I know one frequently sees them in absurdly inappropriate arms, even 3012s etc, but the cone-flap at the slightest warp would be intolerable. Flub! The vinyl needs to be spotless too as they can’t plough dust away. No issue for me as I have a pro-grade wet vac cleaner

I use then quite happily in the arm that came with my Technics DD. You can see some ULF wobbles on some captures but they don't intermod noticably with the music. Only had a rare occasional disk where it was bad enough to be audible and a pest. (Curiously more on some 'modern' LPs - example being a 'Kind of Blue' re-issue that claimed to be wonderful but has a warp that other cart/arms probably couldn't stay in the groove it was sooo bad!

Agree the LP needs to be clean. But here again, high tip mass means hitting grit is more likely to then mark the walls as it drives in the grit! So I've just gone on using ye-olde Parastat, Preener, etc, sold by Watts of ancien days. If they can't remove it, then it will have marked the walls anyway (talking 2nd hand LPs here).

 

[Tony L]

I use then quite happily in the arm that came with my Technics DD. You can see some ULF wobbles on some captures but they don't intermod noticably with the music.

IIRC you use ESL63s and a 34. I think the ESLs have some kind of HPF to protect the panels from excursion, plus the Quad 34 has an aggressive inbuilt rumble-filter (audible IMHO, far more bass punch with it reduced/disabled). This may be impacting your view a little. A V15 on something like an LP12/Ittok and through a wide-open phono stage as fitted to most high end kit can produce vast amounts of cone-flap on typical ported speakers such as BC1s, Epos 14s etc etc. It is just maths, plus I’ve seen it first hand. Arm mass and cartridge compliance need to be considered. I’ve no issues with the V15/III here with the fixed shell 3009 Improved as the effective mass of that arm is just 6.5g! It suits the 30cu of the V15/III.

PS My suspicion is the suspension of these ancient cartridges hardens significantly with age, so I very much doubt any surviving VN35 stylus is anything like its original spec. I’m pretty certain mine are no longer 30cu. FWIW I don’t think the Jico is 30cu either, I suspect they have tweaked it for a wider range of arms.

 

[davidsrsb]

You can see some ULF wobbles on some captures but they don't intermod noticably with the music

In the electronica and dance music worlds, mastered for digital in the first place, I wonder if the younger cutting engineers are so careful to make deep bass mono and reduce its level