[neobop]

I didn't set-up the 12E.  I figured it didn't have the right tip for the original mono pressing.  Instead, I put the AT15/20SS back on and didn't strap the output.  With the Japanese reissue the SQ was better with the SS in stereo, than with the 102.   I used Y adaptors and combined the channels before the phono inputs.  The SQ got worse.  Then I ditched the Y and listened for awhile in stereo.  Into side 2, I turned off the amp and inserted the Y between pre and amp while the record was playing.  This was an improvement. 

About strapping - I'm thinking you might get better results with a high inductance/resistance cart (if it's high output).  You can see from the Ortofon numbers that the 2M series has a fair amount of inductance and cutting this in half leaves you with a "reasonable" amount for the voicing of the cart.  If you start with a low inductance cart, cutting that in half might be hard to get a balanced EQ. 
Using crappy Y connectors connected together isn't a good idea as an addition to your tonearm cable.  Next up is the 12E, a high inductance model that I already have strapped, so no Y.  I have that phony Precept stylus on there that looks like a .3 or .4 elliptical. 

Interesting thing about the AT33 Mono.  Separation between vertical and horizontal output is listed as 30dB.
http://eu.audio-technica.com/en/products/cartridges/product.asp?catID=8&subID=57&prodID=4072

The AT Mono 3 doesn't have that spec.  It's a HOMC with a .6 mil spherical. 
http://eu.audio-technica.com/en/products/cartridges/product.asp?catID=8&subID=57&prodID=4501

Grado carts have the coils in a hum-bucking configuration.  This might be the reason their mono carts have the same inductance as the stereo ones?
neo

[neobop]

Tip size - According to Ortofon you could benefit from an advanced profile tip even on older microgroove records.  I'll have to check this out first before I mess with the 12E.  This is a history of the microgroove record, first introduced in 1948. 
http://ortofon.com/hifi/products/mono-series

I'll see if I can get similar results with the older Kenny Durham LP, as with using the 102.  I'll try to find another older mono pressing in my collection.  Most are modern reissues.  This really is confusing, especially comparing carts with decidedly different sound.
neo

[Halcro]

This really is confusing, especially comparing carts with decidedly different sound.

Whilst I admire your endeavours Neo.....I agree with you that there are just too many variables in this exercise....
Apart from the records themselves which may be originals or re-issues cut with stereo heads.....who knows 
There is the objective issue (in my case)...of trying to compare my true mono AT33MONO cartridge with an FR-66s arm on my Raven AC-2


against a DIFFERENT LOMC stereo cartridge on the same arm and table using the mono button.....
Perhaps the stereo LOMC cartridge is a better cartridge than the mono one regardless....
Or do I compare the AT-33MONO with one of 30 MM  stereo cartridges on different arms on a different turntable...


All I can really venture at this stage...is that for the majority of my 60 mono records.....there is a greater sense of realism and enjoyment for me, with the true mono cartridge....

[dlaloum]

Halcro, now you are just showing off.....

Maybe I should drop you a line when I'm in Sydney.... but I would have to visit with bib and towel....

[Halcro]

Halcro, now you are just showing off.....

Maybe I should drop you a line when I'm in Sydney.... but I would have to visit with bib and towel....

Ha Ha......you got me David....   
Any time you're in Sydney...you're welcome to drop by....

[neobop]

Whilst I admire your endeavours Neo.....I agree with you that there are just too many variables in this exercise....
Apart from the records themselves which may be originals or re-issues cut with stereo heads.....who knows 
There is the objective issue (in my case)...of trying to compare my true mono AT33MONO cartridge with an FR-66s arm on my Raven AC-2

against a DIFFERENT LOMC stereo cartridge on the same arm and table using the mono button.....
Perhaps the stereo LOMC cartridge is a better cartridge than the mono one regardless....
Or do I compare the AT-33MONO with one of 30 MM  stereo cartridges on different arms on a different turntable...

All I can really venture at this stage...is that for the majority of my 60 mono records.....there is a greater sense of realism and enjoyment for me, with the true mono cartridge....

Quoting without the distractions. 
Not ruling out anything at this point our issues are 1), true mono groove vs. a stereo groove, and 2), a true mono cart vs. channel summing.

I didn't see the post or opinion but it seems that J. Carr agrees with Ortofon about using advanced tips.  Issues here - early pressings vary widely (pun intended) in groove width, and narrow tips could scrape bottom and/or have less intimate contact with the groove wall?   
Ortofon claims that mono grooves are V shaped only wider.  Other presumably knowledgeable sources say early mono grooves have steeper side walls and combined with wider groove width, insure less than optimal tracing using more advanced tips.

I suspect there's some truth in both points of view.  Even though the microgroove was introduced in '48, I doubt if it adopted by many record companies until the '50s.  If your old record specifies RIAA curve, then it was pressed after 1956 (I believe).   Which brings up another point about EQ of vintage records and playback variations.   

True mono carts -  Think about it.  How can a cart with vertical compliance have no vertical output?  Carts work by cantilever movements exciting the generator, so if there is vertical motion.....  Modern mono carts with vertical compliance use design schemes to cancel out most vertical information.  The AT33 Mono has 30dB of vertical rejection at 1KHz.   I imagine a cart tracking at 2.5 - 4g  with no vertical compliance, wouldn't be kind to your mono reissue.

I didn't play with the mono stuff at all last night.   To be continued.
neo

[S Clark]

Last night I was listening to Gliere's The Red Poppy on a 1958 Westminster Lab label (W-Lab 7001).  These are some of the higher quality mono classical recordings, as they were very aware of keeping the spacing wide between the grooves and limit the info per side to avoid the inner section of the lp. The key being that in 1958 they were already shooting for audiophile pressings.  For me, a mono cartridge takes better advantage of the increased dynamics.

[neobop]

Yesterday evening I was typing a technical query for J. Carr on the agon forum, when the answer dawned on me.  That was a bit of luck as that thread has become nasty (for me) and technical matters are best avoided there.  It might be better not to elaborate, it's just a convenient way to ask a technical question.

What is a "true" mono cart?  It's one with no output for vertical cantilever movements.  This is accomplished by either having no vertical cantilever movement (no vertical compliance), or somehow having no output for vertical cantilever movements.  This is not the same as blending the channels as in a mono switch.  A mono switch will blend vertical output equally between the two channels, not eliminate it.  Some people have speculated that strapping a stereo cart will cancel vertical output, but this doesn't make sense.  Why would connecting the channels together selectively cancel vertical output? 
Perhaps you get 6dB of common noise rejection like a balanced connection over single ended, but there's no mechanism for cancelling vertical.

This is from the AT33 Mono link a few posts back:
"The AT33Mono is made specifically for use on mono systems. It has a horizontal coil, and so in principle only generates electricity horizontally.

 The AT33Mono produces sound to a very high quality because it does not easily pick up unnecessary strain components from distorted or scratched records, producing audio that you couldn't possibly get from a stereo cartridge.

 The AT33Mono also has appropriate compliance in the vertical direction, so will not cause damage to stereo records. Enjoy those well-known classic mono records of yesteryear with the AT33Mono."


There was the answer all along.  The 102 is a similar type cart with vertical compliance so you can play modern records, but no vertical output.

My query had to do with exactly how this is accomplished.  It shouldn't matter if the coil is horizontal, if the cantilever is moving vertically there should be a corresponding output from the coil.  I believe the answer to this is mechanical.  The cantilever isn't connected directly to coil(s), there's a yoke and by orienting the mechanical design the vertical movements can be virtually eliminated.

If you have a new or pristine modern mono record (Beatles), using a stereo cart and mono switch isn't really different than playing a stereo record the normal way.  A vintage pressing, especially a worn copy, is better served with a "true" mono cart.
neo

[neobop]

Searching for AT12S specs I goggled a gaggle of CD4    More pay dirt!!

Popular Mechanics 4/75
This starts on page 67 - scroll up to the sexy pic of the AT15 or 20


http://books.google.com/books?id=9OEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=AT12S+cartridge+specs&source=bl&ots=n2cJWnXL5W&sig=J7Ip_M8rib3mYWums8eJm6RCRWk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pPuCVPytDYa8yQS79YCYBA&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=AT12S%20cartridge%20specs&f=false

neo

 

[Grbluen]

You win the contest for longest hyperlink! Thanks.

[neobop]

Interesting article even with no test report, good comments on listening.  Seems the B&O was the standout.  Too bad no Shure or JVC in the survey. 

One thing I found peculiar is they said no apprecable difference loading at 47K or 100K.  These are 4-ch carts, but still.
The AT12S was the nice sounding bargain.  Wonder how it would sound with an SS stylus.

neo

[Grbluen]

Neo, I'd assumed you'd already investigated the 12S. The 12S is low inductance but in a plastic body correct? I can tell you that the 12S is highly thought of on epay.

[dlaloum]

I've used the AT12S, and like it, just not as much as the AT20ss..

Was it Nandric on Agon who mentioned that he had had his broken AT150ANV retipped by SS, and that the result was superior to the original AT150ANV!?

That would imply that you could outperform the ATN150MLx by having an old (perhaps worn out) ATN120 stylus retipped at SS, and mounting it on a relevant body (AT150/155 or for lower mass 100/120/130/140/440 etc...)

Similarly any of the round plug AT's could be sent off for the same treatment...

If the metal bodied ones are more your thing, us an AT13/14/15/20 body, if plastic AT10/11/12 (and ATS13/14)

There is wide scope for exploration of bodies compined with retipper options.

Although not as economical as some of the finds that were around 3 or 4 years ago, in the current market the retipper pricing on an old but high quality body seems to me to be very good value

[neobop]

No I never had a 12S.  That's 250mH ?  It seems that virtually all ATs improve greatly with an exotic stylus and the 12S is said to be pretty nice with a bonded shibata, so maybe there's potential there.  Round plug exotic styli are hard to come by anymore.  The 15/20 series should fit.  You might have to modify the carrier.  I wonder if a nuded round plug stylus has compromised fitment.  You'd think it would have the potential to rotate except for the magnet assembly holding it in place. 

I don't remember Nandric's post about the 150ANV SS improvement.  I do remember his not liking it at first and changing his mind.  The 150ANV comes stock with a sapphire/ML, so take it with a grain of salt.  Some people's favorite cart is the one they're trying to sell.  I noticed he was touting/selling Kisiki, then Magic Diamond more recently.  Maybe he buys two and sells the one he likes less.  I invited him to join us here, but he hasn't shown up.  Maybe it's for the best.

David,
On Asylum and now Agon, I read the Shure V15V/SAS needs 27K/700pF ?  What's up with that, you have to lower the HFR to the lower treble?   What test record are you using? 
I remember your saying the higher inductance models are better suited for SAS (V15IV).  700pF seems excessive.  What about HF extension, still decent with boron? 
neo



 

[dlaloum]

Yes that's right - first time I tested the V15V-SAS I was very disappointed, a huge rise in the high end, extending right down into the midrange...

When I analysed the response by deducting the electrical influences, the result was however very close to what I was seeing from the Shure 1000E-SAS (500mH non laminated core) - so the mechanical response of the system was the same.

I then did an extensive series of measurements at 4 different resistive loads for each of 5 or 6 different capacitive loads, and started running figures through my cartridge model....

Like any cartridge loading, it is always a balancing act, you can accept a little more high end rise, in exchange for a flatter midrange and lower high end, or a flatter high end, in exchange for a slight midrange trough....
But either alternative was using a lowered R loading and a hugely increased C loading.

To put it really simply - the SAS resonant frequency is too low and the resonance damping within the suspension too limited, for it to run effectively in a 320mH low inductance body.
So you have to adjust the loading to provide a similar effect to running it in a higher inductance body - which is basically what that load does.

At 27k/700pf the V15V-SAS sounds like a V15V - neutral, detailed, yet relaxed, without loosing dynamics.

I admit to not being happy myself with such extreme C loading in particular ... I am not too fussed about the R loading - it does lower the V a little but not too much.

When I compare the response of the V15V-SAS with that I achieved with either the V15RS-SAS or the 1000E-SAS, it becomes clear that with a 500mH body (the V15RS is 405mH) the optimal loading is likely to be in a "standard" shure range (ie: 47k and 250pf to 400pf).

It just so happens that the V15-III & IV are both 500mH bodies (same generator) - both are laminated cores, so we minimise the eddy current losses.... I think these are the perfect bodies for SAS.

Other cartridges that would suit the SAS well would be the Grace F8 (580mH) but Jico doesn't make a stylus for it (why?), Azden YM-P20/50 - also no SAS...
Pioneer PC330 - 416mH - this is a body I have, and there is a SAS available - but its inductance is a little low, so it would require a relatively high but not extreme capacitance - maybe 400pf - on the other hand I do not know whether it has a laminated core - very few details around on this family....

The JVC Z1 has potential - it has a laminated core, inductance at 400mH is perhaps too low again - heading towards the same problem as the V15V-SAS...

So catch 22 - there are a number of good laminated core bodies available that might suit the SAS - but most of them are too low inductance to be ideal with the SAS (if neutrality is one objective) - at "standard" loadings.

I have not gotten around to biting the bullet and ordering a 4th SAS stylus to test my theory and fit one to one of my V15III or IV bodies...

In theory - the high capacitance should not be an issue as the phase effects of the mechanical rise, should be counteracted by the phase effect of the capacitance - resulting therefore in neutral or close to neutral phase - but I still feel uncomfortable with such a high capacitance.
Extreme configurations usually have a habit of having extreme problems that might not be immediately obvious, but can bite you in the butt....
I have no audible or measurable reason at this stage for this wariness... but I do want to compare the V15V-SAS to a V15IV-SAS with both loaded correctly to achieve a flat/neutral response.

My preferred test record is a Denon frequency sweep test record with tracks extending to 50kHz - it is recorded FLAT - no RIAA, and has a seperate test track up to 500Hz and another one for 500Hz to 50kHz

I have also run tests using the CBS labs test records (Spot, sweep and pink noise) and the results have been consistent.
I also use the HiFi news test record pink noise track, but it is not reliable above 15khz and is definitely the odd man out in this bunch - the F/R plots are clearly different above 15kHz,
None of the test records claim to be more accurate than +/-1db - and there is that level of variation (and perhaps a touch more) between the different test records, and sometimes between the different test methods within the same (CBS) family of records.

So when it comes down to final fine tuning the ear must rule for the final +/-1.5db variance... and I therefore do not fuss too much in terms of measurement /precision about getting too precise about R or C loading (mind you at the lower end 20pf is a big change at 100pf, but when you are at 600pf, the same difference requires more like 100pf... and a 20pf difference is neither here nor there)

Anyway, this aspect of vinyl is on my backburner at the moment... but I do intend to come back to it...

bye for now

David

[orientalexpress]

Hi
over the weekend i pick up a realistic V15 RS but it need a new stylus which one do u recommend?
Thanks


lap

[neobop]

"To put it really simply - the SAS resonant frequency is too low and the resonance damping within the suspension too limited, for
it to run effectively in a 320mH low inductance body.  So you have to adjust the loading to provide a similar effect to running it in a
higher inductance body - which is basically what that load does."

That's disappointing to say the least.  I thought the SAS is boron/MR.  Some kind of 2-piece heavy cantilever?  Where is typical HFR,
16K ?

"In theory - the high capacitance should not be an issue as the phase effects of the mechanical rise, should be counteracted by the
phase effect of the capacitance - resulting therefore in neutral or close to neutral phase - but I still feel uncomfortable with such a high
capacitance."

Seems to me just the opposite.  Phase shift occurs at HFR and damping extends it in both directions.  High capacitance will lower HFR
and make phase shift extend even lower.  As far as phase is concerned the SAS is no better than other cantilevers with similar HFR.
Improvement probably comes from resolution/detail afforded by the cantilever and microridge.   

Which brings up the matter with the X-1, 4-ch cart.  I think inductance is even lower than Z-1.   Maybe it's a situation of different
response and the SAS compliments instead bumping up in the wrong places.  You have a stock stylus which probably has a higher
resonant frequency.  They say these sound good with a cheap replacement so it shouldn't be a problem. 
neo



 

[triodezxr]

I have been trying to get hold of you neobob lost touch since you picked up you things at my house and I moved.

[neobop]

Welcome Triodezxr,
Welcome to the monkey house in the zoological garden of audible delights.

Don't try to adjust the controls on your monitor, it's not a malfunction.  You've entered the twilight zone, or I have.

Hope you stick around.  PM sent.
neo

[dlaloum]

That's disappointing to say the least.  I thought the SAS is boron/MR.  Some kind of 2-piece heavy cantilever?  Where is typical HFR,
16K ?

It is Boron/MR (or ML) - with an extended support pipe and the pivot point moved forward within the pipe, allowing for a shorter real "cantilever" - I need to have another look at the diagrams of the SAS...
There are a couple of resonances, with the first very well damped and controlled at 13 to 14kHz - it is only perceivable if you know where it is and can inspect the measurments looking specifically for it, otherwise it is lost within normal variations - however it is consistent across various measurement records and multiple tests. On some SAS specimens it is more visible than on others.

I do not know what is the cause of this resonance but suspect that it is the tension wire - and variation is due to individual production variations between samples.

The next resonance is at 28kHz - and this is relatively undamped - the rise to that resonance is the main thing that needs to be controlled to provide a neutral response... it goes up to over +10db.

The original V15VMR stylus depending on model/variation went from 32kHz to 35kHz (possibly even higher on the Ultra500... ) the tip mass did vary with the very best VST or Ultra versions having lower tip mass - due to thinner cantilever tube walls - the higher spec ones might have been hand picked?

The impact of raising that HF resonance is substantial - the boost on the SAS fades out around 14khz (actually a bit further, around 11kHz - probably due to damping) , where the VN5MR fades out naturally at 16 to 18kHz and with damping influence perhaps down as low as 14 to 15kHz.

How audible is that difference? well, anything below 15kHz is going to be quite audible - and the VN5MR moves the resonance amplitude boost out to above 15khz, then further controlls it with loading (and cartridge inductance) to result in a spec of +/- 1db to 20kHz

"In theory - the high capacitance should not be an issue as the phase effects of the mechanical rise, should be counteracted by the
phase effect of the capacitance - resulting therefore in neutral or close to neutral phase - but I still feel uncomfortable with such a high
capacitance."

Seems to me just the opposite.  Phase shift occurs at HFR and damping extends it in both directions.  High capacitance will lower HFR
and make phase shift extend even lower.  As far as phase is concerned the SAS is no better than other cantilevers with similar HFR.
Improvement probably comes from resolution/detail afforded by the cantilever and microridge.   

The High capacitance affects phase in the opposite direction to that generated by HFR, it is sort of like having two treble controls, and turning one up while turning the other down - net effect is Zero (assuming they are calibrated to match each other).

You can model the HFR resonance as an electrical resonance - it has exactly the same behaviour in terms of signal effect both in the amplitude and phase domains.
You can therefore also reverse that effect by building a filter network that has the exact opposite effect - that would be the standard Inductance/Capacitance/Resistance network set up by cartridge with R and C load.

But for the very same reasons that we like to avoid treble / bass controls, ie that there are other distortions added by each stage of processing, is I think applicable here. Yes it returns phase to near neutral, along with amplitude/frequency... but has it in the process boosted other distortions and effectively resulted in a step backwards? - Not sure!

Which brings up the matter with the X-1, 4-ch cart.  I think inductance is even lower than Z-1.   Maybe it's a situation of different
response and the SAS compliments instead bumping up in the wrong places.  You have a stock stylus which probably has a higher
resonant frequency.  They say these sound good with a cheap replacement so it shouldn't be a problem. 
neo

I started looking for the X1 back when I was focused on low inductance bodies.... at the time I had not understood the relationship of phase to cartridge loading and inductance...

But the X1/X2 may also have other benefits, although not obvious in its appearance, it is a magnesium body, most likely potted as well, and in the case of the X2, it specifically states that it has internal anti-resonant treatment.

I think it likely that its performance should be almost identical to the V15V (same or very similar design and inductance) - but the X1/X2 may perform closer to the legendary Ultra500 due to the mounting and shell construction.

Still I am wary of the combination of SAS/and JVC given my experience with the Shure

bye for now

David

David