[neobop]

Hi David,
Vertical tracking angle is 23 degrees just like the 150MLX or the 100E etc.  If the 5V takes a 100 series stylus, then a different cantilever angle doesn't make sense.  I doubt if AT developed a new plug, set at a different angle to wind up at 23.  If it's a new carrier/plug series then it might be, but it doesn't look like it.

Interesting new take on inductance/capacitance.  You're making a case for MC superiority even if it's unintentional.  You know what high inductance does to high frequency resonance and phase non-linearity.  There's usually more than 200pF shunt capacitance at most user's input, often much more.  This will have phase implications  down into the midrange w/high inductance and the reality factor suffers.  I'm not convinced that your amplitude response conclusions are completely accurate.  Have you tried resistance loading in combination with capacitance loading?  What price amplitude response perfection?  Most adults can't hear above 12 - 15KHz and a rising high end isn't as objectionable as poor imaging.  I don't own any Shure carts so I can't comment, but I think your scope might be malfunctioning.

As you know I had an ATN152MLP.  It's the bomb on a 440 body.  I was using 32K load and switched to 47K.  The 152 generator was the same as the 440ML OCC.  I didn't have a 100E or 150MLX body then, but I'm quite sure it would be even better.  What about the low inductance AT15/20, no good with an aluminum cantilever? 

My recommendation all along was to get the body, break it in, then upgrade the stylus.  One can get better results than I previously thought with some high inductance carts, but they're never going to have the transparency, imaging or finesse potential of a low inductance MM or a good MC.
neo

Apparently there is a 5, 7 and 9 in this series in Japan....

But I believe someone posted that the cantilever angle is different on these - after trying a cantilever transfer... so they may not be quite the direct relatives to the AT120/150 that we think they are...

Another minor thing - low inductance is only useful if the effective tip mass is very low... using low inductance with a lower end stylus merely exposes its flaws...

I spent quite a while chasing the low inductance holy grail - but I am coming around to high inductance models  - I think low inductance ultimately only works with exotic tube cantilevers such as V15VMR, EPC100/205 - very low mass.

once the mass starts to rise you either have to raise the capacitance or live with the flaws of a higher mass cantilever (rising high end)

At some stage I should work backwards from the ATN152LP measurements and work out what the "perfect" inductance/capacitance match for it would be.... (I never got around to doing a full set of measurements for the 152...) - I expect it wouid be similar to the ATN150

But my experiments with the SAS strongly indicate that it is better suited to higher inductance bodies.... such as the V15III & V15IV and that it requires a lot of capacitance on a V15V to bring it into line (like 700pf)

So I am not so sure that the AT100 low inductance body is such a bargain....

bye for now

David

[neobop]

A word or three of explanation for those not privy to previous conversations about phase and inductance.

Inductance at the output of a cart will combine with the shunt capacitance present at the phono input.  The frequency where this happens is called the electrical resonance.  It can be calculated if the values are known (see Hagerman site), and theoretically will cause a low pass filter - high frequency roll-off on the signal being amplified.  I say theoretically because in actuality, it doesn't.  It's the mechanical response that is the overwhelming determinate of amplitude response and electrical resonance lowers in frequency, the mechanical high frequency resonance. 
Adding capacitance is sometimes used to augment a drooping mid-treble response.  The high frequency resonance is lowered (w/capacitance) enough for this augmentation, but will also cause an extreme high frequency roll-off. 
http://www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/load_the_magnets_e.html

One can get much better response from a stock M97 if one loads it at 62K.  Capacitance has to stay at 250pF or the treble starts to droop again.  Notice the extreme high frequency roll-off?

With AT carts I think one can accomplish the same thing in reverse (more mellow, not less) by lowering resistance value.  Running my stock 440 at 32K with low capacitance accomplished that end.  On the other hand an Ortofon M20 FL Super has a distant upper mid to treble.  Mfg recommendation was as high as 600 to 700pF shunt capacitance, that's 400pF in addition to cables and preamp.  Leaving capacitance around 200pF, 55K worked just fine without excessively lowering the high freq res. 

The phase response of a cart depends on two things, high frequency resonance and mechanical damping.  There's a 180 degree phase shift in the response of a cart at high freq res.  On either side of that point phase and amplitude response diverge.  The rate of diversion is determined by mechanical damping. The greater the damping the greater the diversion rate.  Imaging capability is dependent on accurate phase response.
neo 

Edit:  Correction about that last explanation.  At hi freq res there is a 180 phase shift - amplitude and phase are diverged at that point.  Amplitude and phase gradually reunite and the rate they come back together depends on mechanical damping.  The greater the damping, the slower this unity reoccurs.  MMs are typically more heavily damped and phase non-linearity can go down to around 1 - 2K.  A MC with hi freq res at 27K will have phase implications to around 8 - 10K.

Concerning the Shure V15V - Back in the day magazines supported labs and some issued thorough test reports.  It seems to me the V15V didn't need 700pF to achieve pretty flat response although I didn't pay much attention at the time.  Is the SAS stylus that different from the original?   

   

[neobop]

David,
I've reread your last post and it seems like you've been experimenting with capacitance/inductance only, trying to correct amplitude response.  You mentioned the ATN155LC in that context and the V15/SAS as needing 700pF. 

Have you thrown resistance load into the mix?  I'd be interested in any other results or comments.  Many HO cart users are stuck at 47K, although it's easy enough to load down. Any more light you can shed on this subject would be relevant.  My feelings are the less shunt capacitance necessary the better, but resistance loading isn't always possible.  A correlation between capacitance loading and resistance loading results would be enlightening.

Web site still going?  I lost the link when my last PC went down.
neo

[dlaloum]

Hi Neo,

apologies for the silence, I didn't want to answer by typing on a phone.... and have not had time to get to my keyboard..


During my measurements a couple of years back (is it that long ago?) -  I varied all 3 parameters (L, C, R) - the most difficult was Inductance (L) as it required various bodies that match - which was not always possible... With the Shure bodies I have "fat shank" bodies ranging from 500mH to 700mH, and the V15V at 320mH - I used a VN5MR-SAS and VN5xMR-SAS across these...

Initially I thought I would end up with the low inductance bodies as my optimum choice, but after working through it, science led me to the conclusion that for 47kOhm on a V15V body, optimum seemed to be circa 700pf.

I then set this asside for a while, thinking I must have done something wrong - and got on with other things.

With regards to imaging / soundstaging and phase - there are two parameters that are important, the first and most obvious one is seperation - the Shure design is a little more constrained in seperation than the AT VM design - on average the AT system has a 5db lead over the Shure.

The second aspect is phase, and I started to focus on phase...

Once I understood that any resonance generates a phase anomaly, I started to try to understand the physics behind it... The outcome of lots of reading was this:
Almost all naturally occuring phase variances are "Minimum Phase" - and the mathematical/physical nature of a minimum phase relationship between phase and amplitude, is that the two are symmetrical  - that is to say, if you use another minimum phase technique to correct an amplitude deviation, you will also correct the phase deviation.

This is why a proper RIAA network corrects phase as well as amplitude - minimum phase encoding and decoding...

A standard LCR network as used for equalisation in many different circuits is a minimum phase circuit.

It took me quite a bit of googling and reading to investigate the maths behind cantilever resonances - in the end it was scientific papers on cantilever behaviour in electron microscopes that clinched it - cantilever resonance is another minimum phase phenomenon.

Once you have this - the keys are in your hands (/brain) - if you correct the amplitude variation generated by the cantilever resonance, using minimum phase equalisation methods, you will (in theory) correct the associated phase anomalies - approaching it this way -  flat frequency response does in fact equal flat phase response.

It took me a while to get to this last conclusion, and even then I sought further confirmation, and searched for other data online that might confirm or debunk this hypothesis.

As you know testing phase is difficult (HUGE UNDERSTATEMENT) - and in fact would require a custom recorded LP with special test tracks... (which I may commission someday)

The only mechanism I have for looking at phase is square waves, which I do have a couple of test LP's for, but I have not gone down that path yet. My website was leading towards this, but I have not had the spare time and energy to do the many days of work that completing that investigation would require - another future project.

So getting back to the topic at hand:

The fundamental principle in audio is usually the same as with medecine "first do no harm" - so we like to avoid anything that alters either phase or amplitude frequency response (ie anything that affects linearity) - hence high shunt capacitance and high inductance are as a general rule to be avoided.

BUT - here we have an extremely non-linear aspect of reproduction - the cantilever...

An ideal cantilever, needs to have its native resonance at least 1 octave above the end of the audible audio zone.... if we assume that to be 20kHz - then the resonance needs to be at 40kHz or higher.

The only cantilever I own that achieves this is the Dynavector Karat 23RS - with the 2.3mm long ruby cantilever.

None of the AT cantilevers achieve it, nor does the SAS, or my Boron cantilever Empire MC1 etc... etc...

IF the cantilever achieves this goal - then a very low inductance can be used (such as MC) - and capacitance becomes relatively a non issue...

For MM/MI designs a lower inductance works well, combined with a low capacitance (eg: Technics EPC100 / EPC205)

BUT - the more imperfect the cantilever (ie the lower the resonance frequency) the more it affects the audible frequencies... and the more inductance and capacitance is required to then correct it.

If the cantilever resonance is well within the audible zone (such as 16kHz) then correcting it requires a high inductance body with mid-capacitance or a lower inductance body with much higher capacitance. In these cases what is achievable is flat F/R to 16kHz followed by a steep drop off - prime example is the Shure M97xE.

So coming back to my SAS / Shure measurements - it actually is not as bad as I thought if I need to combine a 320mH body with a 700pf capacitance - given that the cantilever involved has its peak resonance at 28kHz, and therefore impacts on the audible zone from 14kHz upwards. - The end result is an exemplary flat F/R.

Going into speculation mode - the Ortofon orthophase article that got several of us started on investigating phase, was part of a series of tests that Ortofon did, which led them to conclude that "Golden Eared" listeners preferred a slightly rising top end, even though this implied a phase variance. All Ortofon cartridges since that time (early 80's) have therefore used this as their ideal template...

It seems to me that AT may have reached the same conclusion, as their designs seem to reflect the same top end rise - and it became pretty much the standard in audiophilia....

On the other side of the fence -  recording/mastering engineers aimed for flat frequency response so they could properly compare their end product (test pressings) to the master tapes.... and their preferred cartridges were Shure V15 and Stanton 881 families... (at least in the US) - it is interesting to consider that at the same time that audiphiles were preferring rising top ends recording engineers were preferring flat...

Which brings us back to the objective "lets reproduce the master tape" approach to a recording, vs the subjective "I like it better like this".

There is one aspect of all this that I have not yet got a handle on - and that is impedance...

Low inductance goes hand in hand with low impedance -and this may have an audible impact - however the impact of the low impedance (which is a reduced impact) - needs to be considered in balance with the concomittant reduced signal level (output V) - the non-linearities although lesser are also imposed on a lesser signal level, and may in fact be the same or greater for that relative signal level. (I hope I am making sense)

My intuition tells me that all else being equal - a lower impedance would be better - but lower impedance designs usually also reduce both inductance and signal levels... so all is NOT equal.

I also do not have any sort of a handle on what the impact of impedance would be on the audible signal.

Further note: - Yes I did and do vary R as well as C in my tuning experiments... and my optimum is seldom 47kohm

The combination of LCR can be used to flatten the high end, but it is also often used to fill in the midrange trough - another cantilever behaviour.... the midrange trough seems to be caused (my hypothesis) - by cantilever flexing - loss of energy, which is converted to harmonic distortion. - this phenomenon is unfortunately NOT a minimum phase one, as here we are converting from signal to harmonics  - and  boosting the signal using LCR methods results in flat amplitude response but NOT flat phase response.

This type of boost in the midrange approach is often used with lower and low-mid range cartridges with aluminium cantilevers (Shure M97xE...) - and is almost guaranteed (in my mind) - to result in some phase issues in the critical high midrange area where the most audible zone is for imaging/phase.

This area of performance is one where hollow tube cantilevers have an edge over solid rods.... (and shorter an edge over longer!)


So for a high quality MM/MI - a solid rod exotic cantilever will in almost all cases require a balancing of capacitance and inductance to achieve flat phase and frequency at the high end - and if the cantilever is of high enough quality, the midrange trough should be minimised (and may be correctable using digital linear phase methods... but that is a different topic). My conclusion with the SAS is that 320mH requires 700pf and vice versa 650mH requires circa 250pf (along with R tuning)

Another note: the AT20ss I have is picture perfect right on spec at 150pf and 47k

on the topic of the web site - I have not touched it in a couple of years.... when I start another round of tests and such I will update it accordingly!

bye for now

David
https://sites.google.com/site/zevaudio/

[neobop]

Fascinating!!

Do you still have the Ortofon paper?  If so maybe you should reread it when you get a chance.  It could be that a secondary cantilever resonance causes a phase anomaly, but if I remember correctly none showed up on the MM tests.  Those were 5 unnamed MMs from 1982 or thereabouts.  Surely some had aluminum cantilevers.

The MC, an MC200 (I believe) had spectacular imaging when left undamped, but the naturally rising high end, 10 dB @ 20KHz, rendered it unlistenable.  Damping the cantilever compromised the imaging, but for listenability they took it down to about a 2 dB rise at 20KHz.  It then had phase non-linearity down to just below 10KHz.  The rising high end wasn't to please audiophiles, it was a compromise to preserve imaging/phase as much as possible.  High frequency res was 27KHz and there were no phase problems within the audio band when undamped.

The contention was that all carts have a naturally rising high end and damping is required not just to tame the high end, but also to control the cantilever.

To be honest it's been a long time since I read it.  I'll have to dig it out and read it again.
neo
 

[dlaloum]

The Ortofon Ortophase article was a series of tests done using several MC200's with the cantilevers variably damped...

And they demonstrated that phase anomalies occurred wherever there was a resonance!

One thing that we have to be careful of is that a rising top end will in many cases enhance the perception of imaging, as many of the cues are in that frequency range - a true test to seperate phase from amplitude would be to compare a rising top end (10db @20kHz) with the same response when corrected using a high end digital linear phase filter.... that would leave the phase intact but drop the amplitude down.... If the listeners still prefer the "imaging" of the rising top end version, then it is a perception issue linked to amplitude...

Psycho-acoustics is terribly sneaky!

bye for now

David

[neobop]

I had to download the article again.  I lost it when the last PC died.  My email was malfunctioning, what a PIA.  Anyway:

Although it didn't show up on the graphs, it seems you're right about secondary resonances and electrical resonance causing or contributing to phase shift.

Because there were no obvious glitches in MM phase vs amplitude response, I think electrical resonance' contribution to phase anomaly is additive.  That could be the case for secondary resonances as well, otherwise there should be a spike.  Perhaps the resolution of the graphs wasn't sufficient to draw that conclusion, but I think it was good enough to see an obvious secondary anomaly.  What's your take on this?

The case of the MC200 is almost exactly as I described.  180o shift at HF resonance (all carts including MM).  Undamped amplitude + 7 dB @ 20K.  The other samples +3.8, +1.9, and -0.3 dB respectively.  Conclusions were just like I said, based on phase integrity not amplitude response.
neo
 

[dlaloum]

What I find interesting in the article, is that they state the outline of the facts (phase and amplitude), state the outcome of the golden ear listening tests.... then state their conclusions.

I read the same facts and the same listening tests, and I am not convinced by the conclusion.

The most heavily damped MC200 in that test, has its frequency-amplitude deviation in the high midrange (10kHz) zone - where it would be most obvious!

The undamped example has no phase variation to speak of until up around 25kHz - so what the golden ears are hearing is all amplitude variation...
Was the improved soundstage due to phase correctness in this sample - or was it due to exagerating the amplitude of those frequencies that most influence imaging/staging?

The only way to tell would have been to EQ the undamped sample back to flat using linear phase methods - something which would have been technically almost impossible at the time.

The influence of damping, EQ and resonance are all minimum phase, they are all additive - and they are all symmetrical with regards to amplitude - which means if you correct the amplitude using a minimum phase method you will as a side effect also correct phase....
At least this is my impression from reading as much as I could find on the maths behind these phenomena..... it is also coincidentally very convenient!

In the third cart tested - the damping has controlled the resonance sufficiently to expose the slight midrange trough that one would expect from standard cantilever behaviour.

The last one - with the heavy damping - seems to have something else going on altogether. Not only is the resonance damped, but there is a also a boosting effect around 10Khz which also fills out the midrange trough (and ups its amplitude a bit too much) - hard to tell what is going on - and there is insufficient information provided for more analysis - my suspicion is that the damping method has introduced additional resonances lower down that are boosting the amplitude - although the lack of phase change seems to indicate that this is not the case..... something suspect about the 4th example.

bye for now

David








P.S. also interesting to note that Ortofon were pushing the MC has lower effective mass mythology.... at a time when Technics had the EPC100/205 on the market and had clearly debunked it!

[Grbluen]

Thanks David!

[neobop]

David,
Thanks for posting the paper.

So you think amplitude was responsible for the great imaging?  I don't, although like you say we can't be 100% sure.  Maybe it was a combination of the two, but I think phase is mostly the reason.  Does an overly bright record or cartridge image better? 

Moving mass - wasn't the EPC 100/205 the exception rather than the rule?  In the '80s it was generally thought that MCs were usually faster.  Do you think Ortofon was being deceptive?  They must have been aware of Shure, AT, Stanton etc.  I wonder what those 5 MM were. 

Well, I think it's obvious there's no 180o phase shift at electrical resonance, as stated by that inmate at the asylum.  Without the use of minimum phase filters, phase integrity is important IMO.   I suspect that any additional filters, EQ, will degrade the sound, provided you have top flight source components.
neo

[dlaloum]

I have been thinking of running some experiments in the digital domain - using high quality digital filters (Ozone software) - but the easy to use version I have is linear phase - and it would cost me another $900 to purchase the pro version of the current software that allows the same capability with minimum phase as an option.... it also provides a heap of other mastering tools, that I don't need..... 

Someone (or several someones!) were pushing the MC is lower mass barrow at the time....

Technics EPC's were one example, but the Shure V15V was also up there, and a number of others - pretty much all the ones that had hollow tube exotic cantilevers - which were all the rage at the top end in the 80's.

The change came about when the exotic magnets became available - which is when Stanton/Pickering switched from the 681 to the 881 - that combined with the exotic hollow cantilevers made very very low mass MM's possible.

Ortofon then as now made its big bucks on the higher margin MC's, so I do wonder....

I have spreadsheet models that show (plot) the electrical resonance phase shift - all based on the physics behind it! - The type and degree of the resonance also determines the level of phase shift....

I really do wish I had an easy way to measure phase response in a cartridge.....

[neobop]

Did you ever get ahold of the AES paper that corresponds to the article?  They attached an accelerometer to the headshell?  I guess that would give a time reference vs the output.  Maybe with the right software you could duplicate those tests and even take it further.  Ever measure the high frequency resonance of your Dynavector 23? 
It's interesting to note that a cart like Lyra Kelos, Atlas has response to 50K, yet high frequency resonance appears to be just under 30K. From the amplitude plot (see Atlas thread), phase plot should look similar to MC200 plot 2, except Atlas has some kind of asymmetrical damping scheme.   

Some of the old magazine test reports included square wave photos.  Even if you're in the camp that says square waves are not really appropriate for phono carts (not saying you are), the carts would be on equal footing and the results should give an indication of relative transient response.  I think this is one area where brightness might give an impression of speed.  The V15V doesn't seem exceptionally fast to me, but it doesn't seem slow either.  Some high inductance carts like the 681 sound slow to me - maybe that's mostly amplitude response.  Never owned a 681, my first Stanton was a 981 and an 881 before I accidently killed it.
neo

[neobop]

A Great Deal on Agon -

Here's a Pickering XSV 3000/NOS D5000   This Pickering is the same as the Stanton 881.   Despite the description, the D5000 fits the 881 and 981.  This stylus is unobtainium and worth more than the asking price.  I'm using a Pickering D3001E on my 981.   

https://app.audiogon.com/listings/cartridges-pickering-xsv-3000-with-nos-d5000-stylus-2013-11-24-analog-92322-cedarpines-pk-ca

neo

[dlaloum]

Hi Neo,

I never properly answered your last posting....

Did you ever get ahold of the AES paper that corresponds to the article?  They attached an accelerometer to the headshell?  I guess that would give a time reference vs the output.  Maybe with the right software you could duplicate those tests and even take it further.  Ever measure the high frequency resonance of your Dynavector 23? 

Nope never managed to get hold of that paper - would need to join the AES to get hold of it...

I do have a Denon test record with sweep tracks up to 50kHz - when run at 45rpm that extends the range to 68kHz - which is not too shabby!

Yes I have measured the DV23 and it is flat as a ruler within the audio range - I measure a peak out around 50khz with a gentle rise to it starting circa 20kHz - maybe even 19kHz but the whole plot to around 40kHz is very very flat - I have not seen any other cartridge with a F/R even close to as flat as this.

It's interesting to note that a cart like Lyra Kelos, Atlas has response to 50K, yet high frequency resonance appears to be just under 30K. From the amplitude plot (see Atlas thread), phase plot should look similar to MC200 plot 2, except Atlas has some kind of asymmetrical damping scheme.   

A frequency response without +/- db parameters is non meaningful.... all it is saying is that there is measurable signal at that frequency.... a measurable signal 60db down is of no useful purpose!

It is standard practice to consider the frequency response of a piece of audio gear within +/- 3db (ie up to 6 db variation) and really good gear boasts within +/- 1db or less (as did some of the best cartridges of the golden era)

Some of the old magazine test reports included square wave photos.  Even if you're in the camp that says square waves are not really appropriate for phono carts (not saying you are), the carts would be on equal footing and the results should give an indication of relative transient response.  I think this is one area where brightness might give an impression of speed.  The V15V doesn't seem exceptionally fast to me, but it doesn't seem slow either.  Some high inductance carts like the 681 sound slow to me - maybe that's mostly amplitude response.  Never owned a 681, my first Stanton was a 981 and an 881 before I accidently killed it.

I think square wave plots can be usefull - but they won't give a quantifiable measurable value - rather from experience with square wave plots, you can quickly see whether the frequency response is extended or rolled off, and whether phase is linear or not...

The more rolled off the high frequencies, the more "jagged" the edges of the square wave, phase variance shows up as "lop sidedness" of the square wave....

I did a series of experimental plots of digitally generated square waves which I then filtered in various ways to vary frequency and phase seperately so I could see the effect -it is posted on my ZevAudio website....

I think the better a setup is (hesitant to single out the cartridge!) - the more descriptions like "fast" become irrelevant.

I used to run Quad electrostatic speakers - speakers don't come any "faster" than that - but they do not sound "fast".

The Gallo Ref 3.1's I now have have their own special tweeter design, which by all objective criteria is very "fast" (ie: it does not delay the signal, nor does it have a slow rise time etc...) - again it does not sound "fast".

I think frequently when I have heard speakers / setups described as "fast" - I described them as overly bright with a harsh edge....
I remember Magnat and Pioneer metal dome tweeter speakers of the mid 80's sounding like this....
And I remember also the lovely Boston Audio A400/150/100/70 series with their soft dome tweeters.... which gave the Quads a decent run for their money... they sounded very neutral, they dind't sound "fast" they sounded "right". (Yes the Quads were my reference at the time, and still today by memory.... although due to WAF issues they are no longer with me.)

Similarly with cartridges - the V15V, the DV Karat, and any of the other cartridges with very low effective mass styli (below 0.3mg) are all "fast" - and most of them don't sound it.

You may have noticed that I tend to avoid as a general practice the attempt to describe an aural experience verbally/textually - It is fraught with issues!!
The assumption that everyone uses the same terms to describe the same aural experience is in most cases false, and that is without getting into the deep quicksand of psycho acoustics, and how various sounds are perceived. (let alone memory....)

So mostly I duck the subjective discussions and stick to the measurable and plottable.... although I am sometimes game to go hunting after the measure of something I hear.... (if I have the necessary tools or if the necessary tools are sufficiently economical to do so as a hobby...)

Once I get my real vinyl setup back up and operational (when I am back in my renovated home and not camping out at rented premises nearby) - I need to redo my top cartridge comparisons....
And see whether the theoretical matches my own subjective preferences....

I keep thinking of the Sony XL-MC10 / MC104P - High output MC, which is measurably flawed with a resonance of several db at aorund 6kHz - but it has a beautiful bell like clarity to it, which on simple arrangements of violin, recorder, flute and such sounds just magical - but it simply does not cut the mustard on more complex large orchestra material.... Mahler, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, etc...

I sometimes have a similar problem with my current speakers.... an issue Quad ESL63's and 989's never had.  The ability to coherently reproduce very complex recordings like the symphonies really does seperate the best gear from the merely good gear (regardless of price!)

bye for now

David

[neobop]

A Great Deal on Agon -

Here's a Pickering XSV 3000/NOS D5000   This Pickering is the same as the Stanton 881.   Despite the description, the D5000 fits the 881 and 981.  This stylus is unobtainium and worth more than the asking price.  I'm using a Pickering D3001E on my 981.   

https://app.audiogon.com/listings/cartridges-pickering-xsv-3000-with-nos-d5000-stylus-2013-11-24-analog-92322-cedarpines-pk-ca

neo

I see this listing is still current.  I want to correct my info.

The XSV-3000 is a lower inductance cart than the 881.  It's 290mH, 700 ohm (impedance).  The 881 is 450mH, 900 ohm.

This makes the 3000 even more attractive IMO.  These carts have short aluminum cantilevers.  Short is the operative word here.  Response is listed (VE) to 50K.  The D5000 is a nude stereohedron stylus.
neo

[neobop]

David,
Here's a link to Atlas test report PDF:
http://www.fastaudio.com/workspace/uploads/downloads/stp_04_12_sd_atlas.pdf

Amplitude response is up around 6dB @ 20KHz. 

To me, fast means transient response.  I was trying to get at the correlation between tip mass and transient response.  I'm not sure of the correlation, if any, between different electrical characteristics and transients.

I know what you mean about your Quads.  I used to have Acoustat panels with direct drive amps.  Maybe fast isn't a description that draws attention, but lack of good transient response or slow, is.
neo

[dlaloum]

Hi Neo,
 
my German is not up to it, but the f/r plot is clear.

Res F = 20khz, makes ETM circa 0.54mg.... not so great!

OM30 has ETM at 0.3mg...

This is unlikely to be a particularly "fast" cartridge in the objective sense....

Perception of its sound will be largely driven by the amplitude rise....

The Atlas design focuses on everything except tip mass, and control of extraneous vibration is key to great results, but so is tip mass......

[neobop]

[quote ]
http://www.fastaudio.com/workspace/uploads/downloads/stp_04_12_sd_atlas.pdf
[/quote]

I was trying to figure out why a cart like Atlas would have a hi freq res at 20KHz.  Look at page 2 of the test report.  There's a close-up of the stylus sitting on a big plate mounted to the bottom of the cantilever.  Maybe that has something to do with it?

I was actually thinking of Kleos and ran across the link to the test report.  I thought Kleos HFR was close to 30KHz w/o the platform (which also seems a little low), but I remembered it wrong.



This is from the same Atlas thread.  I'm not sure but I thought Kleos is w/o the plate.  This seems like a deliberate trade off - extension/tip mass for stylus/cantilever rigidity.  I think both of these have boron cantilevers. 

David, maybe you're right about a rising high end giving the illusion of imaging specificity.  Phase linearity would be horrible, except the rising high end would compensate somewhat.  Maybe the Lyra asymmetrical double damping scheme helps also.

BTW, I was on another forum on a Stanton/Pickering thread.  It turns out, those top carts have an eff tip mass of .2mg.
neo 

[dlaloum]

My 7500 stylus has its res f at 26kHz which calculates out to 0.32mg - quite a bit more than the claimed 0.2mg... but still an excellent figure.

The 7500 is also more sensitive to loading than one would think with a low inductance designs of this kind!

My experiments have not been extensive, but they have shown quite a variance with changing R load at 50pf, and this becomes more exagerated with increasing C load - at 300pf a 30ohm load really drops the high end out massively, whereas with a 1k or 10k R load there is no substantive difference between 50pf and 300pf.... it really does prefer a 1k to 10k load... below that a midrange droop kicks in, although the rising top end is then restrained. The rise to the 26kHz resonance begins at 9kHz with 20kHz being about +4db on the 9kHz level, there is a gentle and very linear drop off from 1kHz to 9kHz of around 1db so the cartridge registers +3db/-1db 20-20k - which really is quite exemplary....

Same stylus in the 3000 high inductance body, requires 300pf and 51k to achieve a similar midrange profile to circa 10kHz (-1.5db - 0.5 db worse, but that is within margins of error for the measurement method, so not significant). It then rises to +3db @ 20kHz for a very very similar overall profile.

I have not done extensive listening comparisons - it is difficult to compare apples with apples here as my 3000 body is p-mount XSP3003 and the 7500 is the standard 1/2" item - so there are other issues related to arm matching and associated resonances that make it an apples and oranges comparison. If I get a XSV body I may run the comparisons for my own satisfaction as I can then use the same headshell and really compare nothing but the change from low inductance to high inductance with the identical stylus...

bye for now

David

[neobop]

My 7500 stylus has its res f at 26kHz which calculates out to 0.32mg - quite a bit more than the claimed 0.2mg... but still an excellent figure.

The 7500 is also more sensitive to loading than one would think with a low inductance designs of this kind!

My experiments have not been extensive, but they have shown quite a variance with changing R load at 50pf, and this becomes more exagerated with increasing C load - at 300pf a 30ohm load really drops the high end out massively, whereas with a 1k or 10k R load there is no substantive difference between 50pf and 300pf.... it really does prefer a 1k to 10k load... below that a midrange droop kicks in, although the rising top end is then restrained. The rise to the 26kHz resonance begins at 9kHz with 20kHz being about +4db on the 9kHz level, there is a gentle and very linear drop off from 1kHz to 9kHz of around 1db so the cartridge registers +3db/-1db 20-20k - which really is quite exemplary....

Same stylus in the 3000 high inductance body, requires 300pf and 51k to achieve a similar midrange profile to circa 10kHz (-1.5db - 0.5 db worse, but that is within margins of error for the measurement method, so not significant). It then rises to +3db @ 20kHz for a very very similar overall profile.

I have not done extensive listening comparisons - it is difficult to compare apples with apples here as my 3000 body is p-mount XSP3003 and the 7500 is the standard 1/2" item - so there are other issues related to arm matching and associated resonances that make it an apples and oranges comparison. If I get a XSV body I may run the comparisons for my own satisfaction as I can then use the same headshell and really compare nothing but the change from low inductance to high inductance with the identical stylus...

bye for now

David

Not sure where the claim of .2mg came from.  I was thinking it was probably from an old test report on one of the quad carts, but who knows?
I have noticed differences in cantilever lengths which would make a difference.  The D3001E which I'm using (on 980LZ) seems to have a shorter cantilever.  I think the 3001 was from an earlier series.  The Jico D98 replacement is gigantic in comparison - at least 1mm longer and considerably stouter.  The 3001 is a nude .2 x .7 and the Jico is a bonded shibata.  Jico usually gets the cantilever length right, AFAIK.
Maybe some of the older Pickerings like the 4500Q have shorter cantilevers?

You said your experiments haven't been extensive, but you previously said that square waves looked better at 220 ohm load (@ 50pF?).  I think it was overshoot in particular.  This is interesting to say the least.

People refer to these carts as low inductance, < 1mH.  Depends on how you look at it.  The inductance is extremely high for .3mV out.  No MC with .3mV will come close to 1mH.  I think that's the reason for your results with differing capacitance.  I'll have to see if I can get a higher value load on it.  I've been running it at 270 ohms and it sounds a little dead.  My AHT stage didn't seem to get along with it - trouble getting DC offset to stabilize.  Maybe it has a ground strap I could cut.  Thanks for the amplitude response info.  I'll have to dig it out and get a 1K load on there.
neo