|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
118.148.0.84
In Reply to: RE: V15-III Stylus Recomendations posted by Ross on October 16, 2014 at 13:17:04
In principle a NOS stylus would be better than an equivalent after-market product since any patented features would necessarily not be part of the after-market version. However, in practice I would avoid NOS styli of that vintage - Shure (in the Knowledge Base) themselves acknowledge that the styli have a finite life in storage and due to hardening of rubber materials for damping etc you may have a product that doesn't meet specifications.
A (model specific) JICO SAS (I use one for my M97) is the way to go for two reasons - a vastly superior stylus to any Shure model which didn't otherwise have a MR profile (same design as SAS) and of course "fresh" new materials!
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Follow Ups:
I've noticed no deterioration in Shure elastomer suspension (US manufactured) in numerous NOS 75/91/95/97-era4/V15-3 stylii - probably averaging 30++ yo - but storage conditions in the US maybe cause that problem/cantilever corrosion.
It's the Jap stuff which seems unreliable in terms of elastomer longevity..
The HE is certainly the best bet, as the Mexican MR V15/3 was poorly made; but unless you can source NOS stylii then it's surely time to leave-alone such 'antiques'.
In any event; I'm surprised how little comment there is here about some deficiences of JICO:
See 'zevaudio' link - (Cartridge Comparison List: Shure V15V)
where there are shown treble problems that can only be attended-to with massive capacitance-loading - another site showed a Stanton stylus FR trace with similar highly-elevated EHF response...so as you have commented re: the Stanton 980/981 (I've a new LZS that seemed 'OK' into 100ohms via a quick check) perhaps you could report on the 97 SAS (if you haven't already done: I'm an 'irregular' reader these days..).
I'm familiar with the zevaudio web page you mention...
Although the LZS is classed as a low impedance cartridge, the inductance is sufficiently "high" at 1mH that the electrical bandwidth is very limited with a 100 ohm load. The cutoff occurs at 15.9 kHz. This is possibly intentional given that the mechanical resonance for the MM cartridge is probably in the mid to high 20's (kHz) with a high Q. Normal MCs designed to work into 100 ohms have an inductance that is of the order of 10s of uH (i.e. 3 orders of magnitude smaller) so the electrical bandwidth is of the order of 1+ MHz. Bumping up the load to 2k for example gives a bandwidth of 318kHz with the LZS which flattens out the passband, but of course allows the mechanical resonance to be passed through untamed. This is of little consequence since the resonance is at ultrasonic frequencies and shouldn't cause problems with good ancilliary equipment. With LO MC, the frequency response is unaffected by an increase in load unless one is using a transformer in which case the impedance needs to be matched accordingly.
As for FR of the SAS, it is not as flat above 10kHz as the stock stylus. With a 47k, 200pF load, I get a ruler flat response from 10 to 20kHz with the stock stylus (combined with the pseudo pink noise-like response from 1 to 10kHz). The SAS has a hump at 14.5kHz with the same load. Subjectively many people prefer the "brighter" response from the SAS. Personally it doesn't bother me as I digitally equalise my recordings...but I prefer the SAS because of the superior tracing ability of the SAS profile and the superior alignment to the stock stylus! Shure have acquired Stanton's disease and can't seem to align the cantilever so that the stylus is perpendicular anymore....
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: