|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
137.110.60.9
I'm hoping for suggestions on my next moving coil cartridge purchase. I was looking for a "budget" LOMC that does not suffer from sounding overly thin/bright or have tizzy/splashy highs on less than perfect recordings. One of my carts, a Denon 103, sounds like a champ on quality recordings, but shows some degree of sizzle (especially on hi-hats and crashes) on several of my albums. The problem is rather exacerbated by my Focal 906 speakers which are rather unforgiving in this respect. I've tried playing with VTA, VTF, alignment, etc, to no avail. Arm loading seems good with the Denon as my lateral resonance frequency measures to be about 9 Hz.
Lately, I have been using an MM cartridge (Empire 108) to good effect, but I've been missing the detail and air that LOMCs like the 103 have. I was looking at possibly nabbing either a Denon 301 mkII or maybe an Ortofon Quintet (Red, maybe Blue if I can stretch my budget) hoping they might fit the bill. Any thoughts? Moving iron is out as my turntable uses a synchronous AC motor. My other limitations are budget (I'd like to stay at or under $300) and compliance: my TT arm works best using carts with a compliance of 10-15 cm/dyne and is definitely not happy over 20 cm/dyne.
Thanks!!
Follow Ups:
Okay at ~$900 it isn't exactly "budget," but I find it to be very smooth yet detailed. No, it isn't as good as my Linn Kandid, but it also isn't nearly $5,000. I found the DV 10x5 also to be an excellent cart for the money, but the DV20x2 is well worth the upgrade. I've used both carts on a Rega arm mounted on an LP12 to good effect.
Enjoy!
Jim
Couldn't sell it fast enough. It was the coldest, most sterile sounding cart I've ever owned.
Opus 33 1/3
I never disliked it like you, not even close, but I will say that getting into a relatively high mass arm (by virtue of using the 10g magnesium AT headshell) it's a different animal ... now sounds a lot to me like my Dyna 20X
side of medium mass.
Opus 33 1/3
I see ... well I'm going with you aren't particularly talented at cart. alignment. ;)
No but serious ...
I used my OC9 ML II as primary cartridge on my Roksan Xerxes w/Artemiz arm. I quite enjoyed it. However on classic rock, like the Who, Bowie, whatever, it was too clear. It had a studio monitor effect, which is really the opposite of what you want to hear unless being paid for it!
On my Pioneer PL-570 I had a Ortofon 2m Red I used for classic rock. But besides that for classical and especially jazz, which in its many forms is 90% what I listen to, pretty damn good if not great.
So I land a Dyna 20X H for peanuts from Waxxy here and put it on the PL-570 ... I never listened to that POS 2m Red again, the Dyna outclassed it so badly the just learning retroactively hurt. Seriously good cart.
So the Dyna was to go on the Xerxes and *then* I landed an absolutely perfect Benz M2 Wood ... Benz is my heaven ... so OC9 retired.
... I get this AT 100 something other MM cart with 10g Magnesium headshell combo. I put it on the PL-570 .. nothing special ... put it on my JVC DD w/AQ PT-6 arm .. nothing special; no surprise that, hate t pt-6.
Then I get curious and mount the OC9 on the heavy headshell and put it on the PL-570.
Wham! ... excellent performance up there with the Dyna (which is not latest 20X btw).
... so in opinion the OC9 is way better than you make it out, and at its best it can sing.
We both had experience with the OC9. I can only speak to the MLII version. It was CAREFULLY aligned with the alignment jig that came with my Scout. Numerous loads were tried (the Phonomena II has multiple options).
At it's best, the OC9 was barely listenable. At it's worst, it was the biggest POS cartridge it's been my misfortune to buy. The Dynavector 20XL stomped it right out of the gate. Ditto the Denon DL-103.
In fact, I'd rather listen to the $39 AT-95E.
Our experiences are different. One is not right and the other wrong. They are experiences.
Opus 33 1/3
.
The Benz Wood's tend get that response. I bought a few. nt/
The customer is then charged what he is likely to stand. ...
Opus,
Do you run the Nag MP150 in your profile now? How does the detail compare to the MCs you've owned?
entry level MC than a relatively inexpensive MM.
Opus 33 1/3
still have a mp500s w/sapphire cant. waiting for a mount. Back in the day, I used an mp11/20. In fact, they were my first boron cartridges. I must have liked em considering how long they resided within my system.
I too owned the OC-9 MLII. It was my introduction to MC.
While I loved it for the MC things it did well (mainly faster transients and bigger dynamic range, IMHO), it DID(still does? haven't heard the latest) suffer from the things you name- cold and sterile sounding.
This became especially true after I had a taste of an Ortofon MC15 Super MK II, and my present ride- A "Sound Smith'd" Kontrpunkt A.
Cheers,
Dman
Analog Junkie
Opus 33 1/3
recently demo'd a Cadenza Bronze and the same model Black, but not yet within my system. I've owned/heard/demo'd my fair share of Orts in the past, but I must say that these two Cadenza carts seem to be much more my cup of tea than prior models. Certainly they are on my short list as my next cart. My only misgiving is that I prefer the more aggressive 100replicant stylus to the Shibata, at the same time I much prefer boron cantilevers. Therefore, I'm kinda stuck in the middle with these two Cadenza's.
Personally, I find the AT33 a little too soft at times, although that certainly is a worthy tonal alternative to bright & brittle.
> > Couldn't sell it fast enough. It was the coldest, most sterile sounding cart I've ever owned. < <
... at one point in time, I'd be in total agreement, but others proved to me that they could make an OC9 sing farrrrrrr better than I ever did.
I've since reserved judgement on that model.
Now, if someone could make a BPS sound less grainy, that I'd like to hear.
Surroundings Phonomena II at the time) and never could get it to sing.
Opus 33 1/3
although I didn't have one long. IIRC, my limited OC9 experiment came right after a long run with a v15mr5. The AT high-frequency response just didn't fit with what I was accustomed to with the Shure ... so I quickly moved on ...
That said, KenJ, who once posted here, sent me some recordings of his OC9, which although somewhat retained the colder/leaner nature of my own experiences, they offered significantly less glare. In fact, they sounded quite good, certainly MUCH better than I anticipated.
I should try an OC9 again, but bad experiences sometimes die hard, so that's unlikely to happen.
LP Gear has an extraordinary deal on Audio Technica AT-OC9MLIIs for around $325. Audio Technica produces pickups of the highest quality; testing of pickups by Brit rag Hi-Fi News, available at http://milleraudioresearch.com/avtech/index.html, always show AT pickups with top measurements: low distortion, flat response, excellent channel balance, etc. That is not true for many even expensive pickups.
For around 200 more you can get into the OC9/III, which supposedly has slightly fuller low-end response; I love mine. The 33-series is supposed to have a mellower overall profile, but uses a straight elliptical stylus, not as quiet on older records as the OC9's ML-derived styli. My 9/III is extraordinarily quiet on used records.
That is a great price! I will definitely check it out. Thanks for pointing that out.
the OC9, no matter which mark, is a cool/lean type cartridge which requires your auxiliary equipment to be of a certain quality, have some degree of setup, plus it's tonal balance requires careful matching. Given what you've described so far, the last thing I'd advice you would be an OC9.
I should also add ... one of the most common mistakes that can cause it's own form of "tizzyness" is incorrect azimuth. I've seen far too many people (including a certain prominent reviewer) not pay "special" attention when re-attaching the removable headshell; twisted back into the arm, without any consideration for re-aligning proper azimuth.
I have been using this MM for a few years now and fed into my Silvaweld phonostage it sounds pretty awesome. It uses the same cantilever and stylus as the OC9/mkII but in my setup at least it doesn't sound the least bit cold or sterile.
It is very dynamic and explicit and the sound varies from record to record...as it should.
I have had relatively expensive Lyras, Dynavectors and Ortofons and i have to say that this relatively inexpensive MM is just as resolving and perhaps even more dynamic. It might not have quite the subtlety of the Lyra Skala or the absolute resolution of the Dyna 17D2-Mk2 but it is darn close and a fraction of the money.
I haven't heard the sound of the OC9 (whatever incarnation) but I would guess an already analytical phonostage would not be the best match. Since most posting on this thread seem to have SS phonostages, I could kind of understand why they might reach the conclusions they have.
have very limited experience with the 150 ...
but the 140, I've long recommended this cartridge to others (and set it up for 'em). It tonal nature leans towards the bright side, no matter which phono-stage is involved. It may not have the sweetest highs (it doesn't) but it offers relatively wide bandwidth, and retains reasonably good control during difficult modulations. It does require careful setup, but still, I think it offers great value.
To me, the AT house sound (-AT33) is very similar to Lyra. And I should also point out, as you've already alluded, AT does offer consistent build quality/stylus alignment. (at least the ones I've dealt with).
Tire hits the road so to speak, consistent build quality I consider very important w/carts, even at the budget level. If you physically NEED to offset any cart, in any major way, because it's "askew" right from the factory, in order to attain a certain "measured" performance, you're still dealing with a compromise setup, any way you cut it.
tb1
System matching is definitely critical, and as such, I am leaning towards the Quintet Red. But 3 bills for an OC9 is a very nice price. Maybe for my next table...
I'm *somewhat* careful about checking azimuth. I have the Hi-Fi news lp which allows me to check it. I admit I am a bit lazy in not checking it via multimeter methods, though. At some point, I want to get a Fozgometer to make that part of setting up that much easier.
the greater the requirement for correct azimuth.
Stylus shape has absolutely no effect on the impact of azimuth. It has an impact on SRA, but not azimuth. Of course, this assumes we are talking about the kind of azimuth you would adjust using a Fozgometer.
A conical stylus is just as sensitive to the Fozgometer setting as the most aggressive stylus shape you can find because the Fozgometer adjusts the azimuth of the cartridge's electrical generator to the groove. It doesn't measure stylus azimuth. The only way to adjust stylus azimuth would be to use a powerful microscope so you could see the position of the stylus in the groove looking directly at the front of the stylus. Most of us choose electrical azimuth over physical azimuth in order to minimize and equalize crosstalk, which is what the Fozgometer does.
Thanks for that post. I own a Grace Ruby that was re-tipped by SoundSmith with their OCL stylus (their most expensive option, at $350). (Ruby originally was elliptical.) I have not been happy with the results. When I reported that fact to Peter Ledermann by phone, I was told that azimuth was very critical to the sound quality obtainable with that tip. I was and still am a little incredulous about this explanation. But your distinction between electrical adjustment of azimuth and azimuth as it pertains to the way the stylus sits in the groove is perhaps relevant. What bothers me is that I don't hear the problem as being more in one channel vs the other, as one might expect if azimuth is to blame. The sound is equally distorted and a bit irritating in both channels. And as to "physical" azimuth, I use this cartridge in a Dynavector DV505 with DV headshell that does not permit azimuth adjustment. Thus it also stands to reason that the top of the cartridge body is parallel to the LP surface, which means that unless the new OCL tip is mounted askew, there should be no problem with physical azimuth of the tip.
I should add that after Peter admonished me to check azimuth, he also did kindly invite me to return the Ruby for his inspection. I have not done that yet. I did inspect the tip with a microscope. Apart from a gob of glue under the new tip, which may or may not be normal, I see no problem.
perhaps of interest ...
> > What bothers me is that I don't hear the problem as being more in one channel vs the other, as one might expect if azimuth is to blame. < <
The Gyger SGII and OrtofonRep100 are very dependent on azimuth. But they are very aggressive stylus. I use a test record w/mono for setup and record the results to digital for more clinical comparison, when needed.
My stylus is mounted with fine precision, as typical of every top Benz (& Orts) I've owned. So I'm not looking for obvious distortion in any channel. What I do hear is still very telling, in that the soundstage opens up dimensionally. You may also discover greater bandwidth (easier to hear w/a freq.sweep test rec), but to my ears, that's more an SRA issue.
One other thing, and I'm not certain you've heard this before ... but I know with my particular stylus, incorrect azimuth and increased stylus drag are directly related. You can actually see the strobe shift, very slight decrease in speed, but obvious none the same.
> > Thus it also stands to reason that the top of the cartridge body is parallel to the LP surface, which means that unless the new OCL tip is mounted askew, there should be no problem with physical azimuth of the tip. < <
Is it mounted askew?
You need to determine this first, before moving forward. Otherwise ...
Thanks for taking the time to compose that response. I do appreciate it. However, I think your points may be moot. In your first paragraph responding to one of my sentences that you quoted, you are talking about correct "electrical azimuth". My definition of correct electrical azimuth is the condition where you have physically altered azimuth such that any misalignment of the signal generating system with respect to the LP surface/groove (and the visible exterior of the cartridge body) is corrected. In theory, this leads to equal crosstalk or at least lowest practical crosstalk. Very often or at least sometimes, achieving correct electrical azimuth will result in the stylus tip being slightly askew in the way it contacts the groove walls, which might make for incorrect "physical azimuth" for a given cartridge sample.
My understanding of the message I got from Peter Ledermann and others is that the SS OCL stylus needs to have correct physical azimuth. That is, the relationship of the contact points between groove and either side of the stylus needs to be symmetrical. It seems to me that this is not always compatible with correct electrical azimuth. Further, I said that the re-tipped Ruby was riding in a Dynavector DV505 headshell. This headshell fits the tonearm in only one way, such that the bottom surface of the headshell is plane parallel to the LP surface. This won't always give correct electrical azimuth, but it pretty much guarantees that you start out with near correct physical azimuth, unless the stylus/cantilever was cockeyed wrt the cartridge body, from the get-go. That would be an issue with the re-tipping, not that I claim such an issue exists.
I certainly don't disagree that correct electrical azimuth is to be desired, and I did not mean to say that.
> > My definition of correct electrical azimuth is the condition where you have physically altered azimuth such that any misalignment of the signal generating system with respect to the LP surface/groove (and the visible exterior of the cartridge body) is corrected. In theory, this leads to equal crosstalk or at least lowest practical crosstalk. Very often or at least sometimes, achieving correct electrical azimuth will result in the stylus tip being slightly askew in the way it contacts the groove walls, which might make for incorrect "physical azimuth" for a given cartridge sample. < <
Yes, my point exactly (although perhaps not well stated in my earlier post)
Restated: given the degree of cut with any particular stylus shape (some more aggressive than others), if physical azimuth is off, or needs to be physically offset in order to achieve "best-case" electrical azimuth, you're still dealing with a compromise setup. And given that compromise; I'd still opt for physical azimuth, because to my ears, this will have an even greater effect on sound quality.
But my opinion is based ONLY on my experiences with certain stylus types. I've never used this particular stylus.
> > My understanding of the message I got from Peter Ledermann and others is that the SS OCL stylus needs to have correct physical azimuth. That is, the relationship of the contact points between groove and either side of the stylus needs to be symmetrical. It seems to me that this is not always compatible with correct electrical azimuth. < <
It isn't compatible, hence the problem. And perhaps Peter considers this stylus less forgiving of physical azimuth errors/offset?
Lew, another possibility maybe that the stylus is mounted well, but that the the cut of the stylus is askew. Also, the problem you're hearing may be related to another issue. I still think this needs to be determined before you can move forward, no matter which tonearm. If it were me, I'd send it back for examination pronto.
tb1
Dopogue is lives nearby and owns a Grace F9E that he set up in a VPI tonearm on a Lenco. (My possibly defective re-tipped Ruby is riding on a Dynavector in a Lenco, too, as it happens.) Yesterday, I took my stylus assembly over to Dave's house, and we simply swapped my stylus assembly for that of his F9E, without changing anything. Dave had aligned his F9E using a Fozgometer, and the set-up checks out perfect for "electrical azimuth". Dave and I together heard the same qualities of distortion from my Ruby re-tip that I heard in my own system, as compared to the F9E, in this case. Dave could hear the problems even better than I, because he is of course more used to the sound of his own system. He felt as I do that the distortion does not seem to be due to any phenomena that we associate with azimuth error, although I certainly cannot rule out that this is azimuth error of the "physical" type, as we discussed.
Anyway, I have been re-energized to send this back to Peter.
I once had Chris Feickert (aka Dr. Feickert) and his software designer over at my place when they were just rolling out their Adjust + software for cartridge alignment.
I had just (about 2 months before) installed my AT150MLX on my Yamaha GT-2000 using a Clearaudio alignment protractor. They wanted to demo the software for me and see what I thought of it and its user friendliness. So we set about checking all kinds of parameters and, well, there was nothing to improve! I had the alignment absolutely nailed; VTA, overhang, including azimuth, which i had done by setting the cartridge on a thin mirror and magnifying glass without a record. So I had aligned it for the stylus and body (very good alignment of these two by AT). It seems that this resulted also in good electrical alignment. What this tells me is that AT has extremely good build quality so that all these things lined up well.
I haven't had to touch my alignment since...it is bang on and I didn't really need Adjust + ...at least for the AT cartridge...with another more hand made one it might be very useful.
We have a local (v.big city, so take "local" figuratively) store that sells much analog, including Feickert, and his setup software. I went in to demo a particular tonearm. It happened to be setup on a Feickert tt. The demo lasted all of 3 minutes, bc I couldn't judge anything on what I was hearing. I'm not saying it sounded bad, it didn't, but it didn't come close to meeting my expectations.
Was it the arm, the turntable, the room, or the setup, I don't know, but as a demo, it failed to impress me on any level. And considering the reputation for Feickert gear and setup, it was doubly disappointing.
Well, not long ago, I was sent a flac digital copy of a complete Feickert TT. This was a home based setup, by EAR! Still not expecting much, I was instantly surprised, perhaps one of the best rips I've ever heard of this particular recording (although it should be noted that he used a superbly mastered "audiophile" LP). Not only did it display amazing depth, background instruments had much more impact. It sounded NOTHING like the store demo.
So impressed, this demo (like some others before) sent my own turntable back to the workbench for upgrade/re-setup.
Personally, I consider turntable setup a black art. If you simply go by the standard aligned numbers, graphs, fozzers, and rely on only those factors to attaining "superior" sound quality, well, good luck. When I setup my turntable, the real test is ALWAYS ear based. If everything measures perfectly, but it still sounds compromised to my ears ... something still is wrong, something needs to change.
Consider the Alan Wright's "Guru" method, obviously (and purposely) incorrect based on standard(s) alignment methodology. Most people would skwak at such blasphemy, purposely setting something wrong to achieve a preferred sound?
Yet, I know some who swear by this method, and never look back. Personally, I don't use any of the standard alignment methods, having developed a methodology that suites my rig specifically. I tried the Guru method, I certainly didn't hear anything "wrong". In fact, it sounded as good as ever. I even sent out a demo LP-CDR using the Guru method (but w/~half the offset) and had comments come back such as (I paraphrase) "sounds great, you obviously have it aligned perfectly".
Defined set points/numbers, graphs and "standard" practices, still need to impress at the listening stage. Otherwise ...
tb1
My current Gieger FGII (much like Orts.Rep100) is easily the most sensitive cart I've had concerning proper azimuth.
J.Carr ...
"If the stylus has straight-sided walls, this may very well be the case. However, modern high-quality Japanese line-contact styli like Namiki's MicroLine (microridge) or Ogura's PA have a gentle radius on the sides, so that even if you get the azimuth slightly wrong, you won't recut the LP groove."
tb1
However, unless you use a microscope to set stylus azimuth, you'll never know for certain whether it's set correctly.
On the other hand, most of don't care about stylus azimuth. Instead, we want to minimize crosstalk and maximize stereo separation, which is the purpose of a Fozgometer.
The reason we don't care about stylus azimuth is because the edge of the stylus that contacts the groove is curved to allows the stylus to be tilted in either direction a few degrees. It normally requires less than two degrees to adjust for electrical azimuth.
If you believe your cartridge has been manufactured properly, all you really need to do is set the cartridge body level with the vinyl surface for zero-degree azimuth and the stylus should be perfectly perpendicular in the groove. That is a very simple process. You really don't even need a mirror. Simply shine a flashlight at the front of the cartridge when it's playing a record and observe its reflection on the vinyl surface. However, this method has no influence on crosstalk and stereo separation.
Best regards,
John Elison
"However, unless you use a microscope to set stylus azimuth, you'll never know for certain whether it's set correctly."Well, certainly true if you don't trust your ears, however setting azimuth by ear using a test record is something I'm very comfortable doing, furthermore, it provides me the exact SONIC result I covet. It's long been sonically obvious that a wider more dimensional soundstage is equivalent to attaining less crosstalk, greater separation.
Personally, I put more stock into physical azimuth, if you've ever dealt with a FGII or Ort100 stylus, you'd understand that requirement.
"The reason we don't care about stylus azimuth is because the edge of the stylus that contacts the groove is curved to allows the stylus to be tilted in either direction a few degrees. It normally requires less than two degrees to adjust for electrical azimuth.:"
Many different shapes/curves exist, as John Carr stated, some are more line orientated than others. The FGII isn't nearly as curved as the microline, just one example.
"If you believe your cartridge has been manufactured properly, all you really need to do is set the cartridge body level with the vinyl surface for zero-degree azimuth and the stylus should be perfectly perpendicular in the groove. That is a very simple process. You really don't even need a mirror. Simply shine a flashlight at the front of the cartridge when it's playing a record and observe its reflection on the vinyl surface. However, this method has no influence on crosstalk and stereo separation."
Well ... thanks John ... but I wasn't asking for your advice. In fact, your "simple" method above represents my starting point, I'll still need to continue using a far more comprehensive methodology to achieve the results I'm already attaining.
tb1
Edits: 03/27/15
It has a lesser diamond. The II in theory is not as warm but, should be more accurate. I had an OC(/MLII and it was "thin" or sterile compared to what I have now, Ortofon Rondo Blue. However, with a lot of playing around, it improved a lot, the loading must be perfect and you have to fool with alignment as well. It will give you detail without seeming real bright.
Why not get the Denon re-tipped at Sound Smith? That certainly is within your budget, and would easily stand by the fact that you may get better SQ that spending your budget on a new cart!
For $250 (which upgrades you with a ruby cantilever and nude contact line stylus, or Level Two, as I like to call it), you COULD get even better performance, tracking and SQ that your cart is capable of right now...
I'm not a shill for the company, just a VERY satisfied customer who has had this mod done twice so far; each time with great results!
Check 'em out...
Dman
Analog Junkie
I will definitely check that out. Until Mel mentioned it, I hadn't given that a thought as I would have assumed that most of the basic character of the cartridge would remain the same.
The Audio Technica AT33EV is somewhat of departure from the Audio Technica house sound. The one I own seems to do all the things right that the DL-103R does with additional refinement and detail. It is kind of a warm sounding Audio Technica with smooth highs. You might like it.
The AT33EV looks very nice, but unfortunately out of my budget for now. Interestingly, looking for info about the AT33EV is where I found a comparison to the Denon 301 mkII, noting a similar warm character.
I owned a DL-301II when I had my Thorens TD-126. The DL-301II I owned sounded almost identical to my AT-OC9, but the AT-OC9 might have sounded just a tad better. I liked both of those cartridges, but they weren't warm sounding like the AT33EV. Of course, my favorite cartridge today is the Denon DL-S1, which I think is a very neutral and transparent cartridge.
Nice pics. Thanks for the info, that's just the sort of input I am looking for. BTW, how much did the electrical tape wrap on the tonearm improve the sonics of your Thorens?
I'm not sure the tape did a whole lot. I thought at the time it might have tightened bass and improved clarity a bit, but it certainly wasn't dramatic. The SME III tonearm was pretty good on its own. The tape certainly didn't hurt anything, though.
If you like the sound of the Denon, you will probably also like the sound of a Shelter 501 II which plays like a sophisticated Denon. Another option is to have Soundsmith retip a Denon.
I had the same problem myself with a Denon 103 and Sumiko Bluepoint but solved my problem when I went with a Dynavector 10x Gold L LOMC perfect to my ears. Never looked back.
> > I was looking for a "budget" LOMC that does not suffer from sounding overly thin/bright or have tizzy/splashy highs on less than perfect recordings. < <
Well, less than perfect recordings, especially compressed, SHOULD sound less then perfect, especially @the freq. extremes. If you want a rounder less extended, softer type sound, generally speaking, less aggressive stylus type cartridges tend to offer less extension, but unfortunately, they exhibit the same characteristics with much better recorded material.
Of the Quintet's series, the Red is perhaps your best choice given your requirements. However, I consider the AT33 to have an even sweater/softer, more forgiving higher frequency, without roll-off.
tb1
I agree. I suppose with the Denon 103 & in my system, the problems seem worse than they should be. I imagine in a reference level system with the same source material, the problems would still be there, but likely not so pronounced? So maybe roll-off in an absolute sense is not something I would want, but roll-off compared to what I am hearing, yes, I think that would be better.
The Denon has a conical stylus but has good extension. I assume based on what you mentioned that the 301 mkII with an elliptical stylus would presumably make the problems worse? Which would also make the Quintet Red better for me in this regard than the Blue. I was thinking that the more aggressive stylus would give greater accuracy and less tizzyness.
Thanks for your input!
> > I was thinking that the more aggressive stylus would give greater accuracy and less tizzyness. < <
They certainly can provide potential greater accuracy, however accuracy and tizzyness often go hand-in-hand if the tizzyness is inherited within the recording, or inherited within the equipment itself (turntable and/or tonearm).
Be careful not to chase ghosts (and waste much money in the process, that could have been allocated to other devices), because in my estimation, the cartridge is too often blamed for things it can't "fix".
As for conical type stylus sounding tizzy, I've always found that during lower modulation passages, they tend to sound more rolled-off and forgiving, but that character changes 180 tizzy type degrees - during very difficult passages & peaks.
tb1
Well put and thanks for the clarification! I think with the MM working well on my arm, I *think* I've traced it to the cartridge. That said, I see what you are saying: if the MM does not have sufficient resolution, it may hide the problem in the source or arm (or elsewhere!) that a better cart may expose.
> > I think with the MM working well on my arm, I *think* I've traced it to the cartridge. That said, I see what you are saying: if the MM does not have sufficient resolution, it may hide the problem in the source or arm (or elsewhere!) that a better cart may expose. < <
Actually, if the MM (or any cart for that matter) has sufficient resolution, it could potential expose the inherited tizzyness of both the LP, and/or it's mount ... to an even greater degree.
first, please gp to the trouble to enter your system in 'inmate systems' and keep it updated periodically when you make a change. that way, one can look at your system and be more able to guide you.
i will put in a vote for the ortofon quintet series as i like ortos as a real value. i read a review in an english mag that complimented the blue quite a bit and i would fo that way myself if i wasn't already well stocked with carts, mounted and unmounted.
the DL103 has a spherical stylus that may just cause the problems you mention in the highs. i always try to stay with a fine line (micro ridge) or elliptical stylus if i can (and do). i coveted the DL103D which had the elliptical but never had a chance at the right price when they were availablle.
...regards...tr
Well, from the specs and reviews, the 301 mkII is based on the 103D, so maybe its not too late! Thanks for the reply.
That is the first i had that. The whole appearance of the 301 seems different to me. Did you get your info from Denon literature or another non-denon person? I know that the sonus was directly from the XLM and looked entirely different.
Things aren't always as they seem.
I
...regards...tr
Sorry, I was not being accurate. I meant to say "the 301 mkII 'looks like its' based on" rather than "is based on..." Pure conjecture on my part based on specs, although I believe there is a review somewhere online that draws the same conclusion.
it's still a nice cartridge. and the price is right, especially at the price below:
but the REAL bargain is here" https://www.newaudiounited.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=63_65&product_id=824
if you can swing the extra bucks.
...regards...tr
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: