The sound of the vinyl side of my system is lagging badly in comparison to the improvements resulting from my digital upgrades. Any obvious candidates for change- Michell Tecnodec turntable/Hadcock 228 vintage arm/Benz Glider cartridge/EAR834p phono stage? Thanks for suggestions.
Vinyl - any obvious weak links?
- Thread starter brab
- Start date
Thanks for the quick reply! I think the vinyl rig is set up well. My one suspicion is that the cartridge is getting on, but no obvious signs or sounds of wear.
Digital is primarily CD- Cambridge CXC transport into Audiolab Mdac. Midrange so that's why I'm surprised the vinyl side doesn't sound better.
Digital is primarily CD- Cambridge CXC transport into Audiolab Mdac. Midrange so that's why I'm surprised the vinyl side doesn't sound better.
Muddled, and less dynamic in comparison.
Take your point re arm cartridge compatibility, but I did think that the Benz was an improvement over the OM40 I ran before it, but that was a while ago and my overall system is considerably more revealing than when I made the cartridge change. Perhaps going back to MM is worth a try.
Mike Reed
pfm Member
You are unlikely to hear sounds of wear, just a dulling of dynamics. Unless your Glider is approaching the 1000 hours mark, I doubt this would be the cause. Obviously, cleanliness of the stylus and precise set-up/alignment etc. could also affect this, so worth checking if you haven't already. VTF, VTA (arm a bit low at the back ?) and the other usuals like overhang etc. worth looking at maybe.
pocketkitchen
Registered User
What Tony said. Find a suitable cartridge. It may be better than the Ortofon but it won't be nearly at its best. Or, change the arm for something that suits the cartridge.
I think that Tony may have it. Also have a check of your phono stage settings just to make sure that it's what the cart expects. The individual components are all good, if you aren't getting great results then it's probably a compatibility issue.
As an experiment that will cost nothing, try incresing the mass of your tomearm by wrapping a length of solder wire or other non-ferrous metal along its length. Or even add a small weight to the headshell. 2g of Blutak, say. Then rebalance the arm, obviously, and give it a try. If it improves, there's your answer. You need a heavier arm or more compliant cartridge.
As an experiment that will cost nothing, try incresing the mass of your tomearm by wrapping a length of solder wire or other non-ferrous metal along its length. Or even add a small weight to the headshell. 2g of Blutak, say. Then rebalance the arm, obviously, and give it a try. If it improves, there's your answer. You need a heavier arm or more compliant cartridge.
uncl_nigel
pfm Member
My experience of the EAR 834p Deluxe (which I keep as a spare these days) is that it is good on MC and quite a bit better on MM (I suspect that it contains moderate quality step up transformers). Personally I never could get on with the (in my view) flimsy nature of the Hadcock.
Thanks all for the suggestions. In following them up i did find a flimsy ground at the phono stage so perhaps that will help. Prompted by your replies I think first looking at the cartridge is the way to go. It really isn't a good match for the arm and it's getting up in hours. A tonearm change would be fun but it's expensive and requires an SME mount which limits options. I will start by looking at an MM cartridge. I tried one of the AT150s a while back and it was a bad mismatch with the EAR resulting in unbearably screechy highs. Ideally I'd like something in the range of 2-3 mv output. The EAR (which is MM only) has an unusually high gain of 53db which makes a typical high output MM require too much preamp attenuation. Anyway, thanks again for the very helpful replies. I'm off to the Toronto Audio show in a couple of days so perhaps I'll get some ideas.
You have nothing to be concerned about. Of course you can get better vinyl gear, but it is worth it to you?
IME, LP playback is intrinsically inferior to digital. I speak as the owner of an SME 20/3A and number of other high end tables.
The only time I have preferred the sound of an LP over CD is when the CD remastering was botched by the re-issue engineer, or when the tapes from which the CD was made had deteriorated.
P.S:- I am not trying to start a flame war.
IME, LP playback is intrinsically inferior to digital. I speak as the owner of an SME 20/3A and number of other high end tables.
The only time I have preferred the sound of an LP over CD is when the CD remastering was botched by the re-issue engineer, or when the tapes from which the CD was made had deteriorated.
P.S:- I am not trying to start a flame war.
Rockmeister
pfm Member
Hope you find something at the show. The 228 does need very careful set up and best suits MM cartridges IME.
Arkless Electronics
Trade: Amp design and repairs.
I'd maybe keep the TT but ditch the rest. Rega RB330 arm, good low output MC cart and new phono stage that can handle the cart.
^this.
I'd expect your vinyl to lag. My Rpi streaming lossless smokes the LP12/Aro/Armageddon it replaced, and for a small fraction of the price.
I'm not trying to start a flame war either. It's just what I hear. I used to hate digital back in the day but the medium got better and better and now I much prefer it.
Indeed I had a 228 years ago - looked like it was made in someone's shed (it probably was). Sounded OK as well...after two weeks setting it up.
cjyosemite
pfm Member
Do you play the same music on vinyl & digital? If not it may be your taste in music now favours what you have on digital. Having returned to vinyl about a years ago after 25 years absence I took a decision to buy different types of music on vinyl, although I have a few pieces on both & in those cases generally prefer the vinyl. The cost of my vinyl kit is no more expensive than my digital so no mismatch there but invariably enjoy both. I find the music has much more influence on my level of enjoyment than the kit.
Mike Reed
pfm Member
Didn't know there were three Glider outputs. If your stage is mm only, it can't be the 0.4 mV one; nor, probably, the 0,8 mV one. It must, then, be the 2.5 V high output one, which I'd've thought was well within the parameters of the E.A.R. stage, neither taxing it nor overloading it.
