|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
173.79.100.102
Any suggestions for a cartridge like this to go on a Grace 707? Thanks.
Follow Ups:
Not meeting all of the requirements posted, IE: low output, MC, but let me ask if you've tried the Grace cartridges designed along side the arm. I'm currently running a NOS Grace-F8L'10 on my Grace G707 and loving the synergy. Admittedly, it takes a bit more patience to find and they're not cheap, but relatively speaking it's a real bargain.Martin
Edits: 03/10/17
I bet it is a good match but I am prefer MC over MM and my MC preamp is much better than my MM pre.
My vote goes to a Denon DL304...meets all the requirements of high compliance, neutrality, low tip mass resulting in much listening pleasure!
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Hi Anthony,
What would you estimate the compliance of your DL-304 to be. Both of my DL-S1 cartridges seem to have medium compliance of about 17 x 10 -6 cm/dyne at resonance. Actually, I think 17 x 10 -6 cm/dyne compliance would be perfect for a 7-gram tonearm although the DL-304 is not cheap at $650 and it's rated output is pretty low at just 0.18-mV.
What tonearm are you using and what arm/cartridge resonance frequency did you measure?
Thanks,
John Elison
Hi John
I have a pair of SL1200s and the LF resonance of the DL304 is ~7Hz. I will take it on faith that the arm mass as 12g (I confess I have never bothered to verify the ACTUAL effective mass). The DL304 is mounted in an original Technics headshell (m=7.5g) and the DL304 is ~7g. I estimate the compliance to be ~23*10-6 cm/dyne.
Yes that price is quite high, but was not too different to what I paid 2Juki a couple of years ago and still represents a cost saving relative to an S1 if they were still in production.
Apart from the wire, I'm not sure that the S1 is that different to the 304. The tip mass is likely identical (0.07mm square shank Special Elliptical, not the rectangular shank that several websites quote) and the frequency response of the 304 is even quoted to be slightly wider suggesting that the tip resonance is at least similar.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Hi Anthony,
> I will take it on faith that the arm mass as 12g
Me, too! I read that somewhere and I've been taking it on faith. Of course, that number includes the Technics headshell. Therefore, when adding 1-gram for mounting bolts, I calculate the arm/cartridge resonance frequency to be approximately 7.4-Hz if your cartridge's compliance is 23*10 -6 cm/dyne.
.
> Yes that price is quite high, but was not too different to what I paid 2Juki a couple of
> years ago and still represents a cost saving relative to an S1 if they were still in production.
The price is not too high for me but TubeDriver mentioned he didn't want to spend a lot of money because the cartridge was for a backup turntable.
Additionally, you're probably right about the similarities between the DL-304 and the DL-S1. I'm sure the DL-304 is nearly as good as the DL-S1 and possibly better in some areas. I bought my two DL-S1 cartridges some time ago when they were selling for $509 through Comet Supply. I think I paid $535 each with shipping and handling.
Best regards,
john Elison
Hi John
Thanks for posting up the formula! I confess I got lazy and just quickly scanned the graph on the HFNRR test disc sheet.... Cheat sheet!
While we're on the subject of effective mass specs...Have you seen JoshT's q on the SL1301 arm? They quote 22g including cartridge mass of 6g. Headshell is 9.5g. I thought at a glance that it was really 12g, but checked the instruction manual for the 1301 and also the EPA-100 out of curiousity and that quoted 22g as well. Is the effective arm mass really about 16g? I've never seen it specified the way Technics have done in this case. Also really surprised to see the strange geometery with the offset at 21.5degrees. They look to have applied Lofgren B to a very narrow envelope so they end up with ~3 deg error at 146mm! Crazy stuff...
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Hi Anthony,
> They quote 22g including cartridge mass of 6g. Headshell is 9.5g.
That's interesting and very commendable on Technics part. They also state the VTF of 1.75-grams. This represents a very precise way of presenting effective mass because effective mass actually varies slightly depending on the position of the tonearm counterweight. Therefore, knowing cartridge weight and VTF pins down the position of the counterweight precisely.
The effective mass of the tonearm without the 6-gram cartridge might be slightly greater than 16-grams since the center-of-mass of the cartridge is probably not concentrated at the stylus but is slightly behind the stylus. For example, suppose the center-of-mass of the cartridge were 7-mm behind the stylus. The cartridge's effective mass would be calculated as follows:
Cartridge Effective Mass = 6*223 2 / 230 2 = 5.64-grams
Now, if you removed the cartridge without changing the position of the counterweight, the tonearm effective mass would be 22 - 5.64 = 16.36-grams. However, we normally don't go into this kind of detail so we simply approximate tonearm effective mass as 22 - 6 = 16-grams.
With respect to tonearm geometry, the Technics SL-1301 reminds me of the geometry of the early SME III. Compare the two graphs below:
.
.
Hi John
Thanks for the information! It's interesting how one gets a sense of the quality of engineer involved in designing a product based on how the specifications are presented - particularly when comparing to other similar products. I'm always suspicious of products (in the audio field especially) where the technology or specifications are concealed. For example Power Conditioners or cables where they claim no active components, but then try and cloak the details in some mystical explanation!
I thought your curiousity would be piqued by the tonearm geometry for the 1301 when I first plotted it out. This MUST have been a conscious design choice by the designers and not a mistake...surely!
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
The new Audio Technica AT-ART9 and AT-OC9/III are both rated at 18 x 10 -6 cm/dyne at 100-Hz. This translates to about 27 x 10 -6 cm/dyne at 10-Hz.
The AT-ART7 is rated at 10 x 10 -6 cm/dyne at 100-Hz, but both of the ones I bought have at least 27 x 10 -6 cm/dyne at their resonance frequency, which is in-between 6-Hz and 7-Hz in my SME V tonearm.
These are the highest compliance LOMC cartridges that I know of.
Best regards,
John Elison
I notice that some Japanese sellers list very different numbers for static vs. dynamic compliance of the Art 7: typically 35 c.u static, 10 c.u. dynamic. Frankly, I've forgotten which is the one we want to know (and why?).
I wonder if the ART 7 would be a good match for my SME III without additional headshell weights?
Jeremy
Dynamic compliance is the parameter you need to be concerned with for tonearm matching.My ART7 would be a perfect match for your SME III because it has much higher dynamic compliance than 10 x 10 -6 cm/dyne. I believe both of my ART7 cartridges have ART9 suspensions with dynamic compliance of 18 x 10 -6 cm/dyne at 100-Hz. It's possible that Audio Technica changed the suspension of the ART7 to match the ART9 and forgot to change its published specifications. Therefore, if you buy an ART7, you might get the same high-compliance version that I have, which would be an excellent match for your SME III.
Of course, the ART9 and the new OC9/III are both specified to be high-compliance cartridges with dynamic compliance of 18 x 10 -6 cm/dyne at 100-Hz. Therefore, either one of these are certain to be a perfect match for your SME III.
Good luck,
John Elison
Edits: 03/04/17
n
Thanks John and Opus. I should have added that this will be for a backup/secondary table so looking to keep the costs down.The Audio-Technica AT-F3/III is available for less than $200. The Grace 707 has 7g effective mass and the AT-F3 weighs about 5g so I think that puts me in a resonant freq around 12Hz? This should work even it is close to the upper value cutoff?
The AT-F2 is also available for about the same price, not sure if that will be better or worse than the AT-F3III?
Edits: 02/27/17
The AT-F3/III is not high-compliance. The Denon DL-301/II that I owned was high compliance.
Ordered! If I like it enough, I might step up to the 304 but that cart costs more than the TT (Thorens 160 Super and Grace 707).
I think you'll like it. I played mine on a Thorens TD-126 Mk III for about three years before upgrading my entire vinyl front-end to my current Sota Millennia with SME V.
I enjoyed my DL-301/II .
I am enjoying it! It is very different sounding from my 103. The 301/II has more fine detail, does high frequency sounds better and probably sounds more "Hifi". It is a bit lean sounding but has very few hours on it and it is already improving. My well worn Zu 103 sounds more dynamic, bigger, but it overlooks some detail and has less finesse.I do have an issue with the 301/II alignment. I am unable to get perfect overhang, I believe the custome mounting board hole for the Grace 707 is about 2mm too far away. So even with the 301at the very end of the arm, I could not get the overhang I wanted for several different alignment types. I got it as close as possible and then aligned on two null points as good as I could. VTF is 1.45g and the arm tube is essentially parallel. Even with the sub optimum alignment, distirtion appears low.
I got it from the ebay vender you suggested, it arrived fast in perfect new in box condition. I'll probably get a second one just to try on my main TT, I am slightly bored with the 103 (which I still do enjoy a lot) after having used various versions for 15+ years. I think that while the 103 sounds great and really is a LOT of cart for the money, you do give up some detail and subtleties.
Edits: 03/10/17 03/10/17
Did you use the rear mounting slots in the DL-301/II cartridge? You can increase overhang quite a bit by using the mounting slots instead of the mounting holes. That's what I did with my DL-S1 in order to get Lofgren's "A" alignment in my SL-1200 tonearm.
I redid the alignment using the slots. Thanks again for the tip. No issues getting perfect overhang now! I switched from Stevenson to Baerwald just for the hell of it. I did not really notice any really objectionable distortion before with the sub optimum alignment but the newer alignment with correct overhang is CLEARLY better. Crystal clear! Damn this stuff is fun!
Edits: 03/10/17
I think I prefer the 301 over the 103. I have been using a 103 of one form or the other for decades. The 301 just has a lot more texture and nuance while the 103 editorializes things (it leaves in the most critical stuff and overlooks the nuance to some degree which is not all that bad). I still really like the 103 but am enjoying the change.
I also really like operating the 160, it is more fun to use then my Well Tempered. The WT feels extremely inert, the arm feels dead and damped and it is almost boring to use. The 160 feels like operating a vintage car, you get a sense that you are operating a mechanical device with switches, springs, motor etc. In contrast, the WT is like almost like a silent, dead, black hole of a device. The sound of the 160/Grace 707/301 is really surprisingly good although in an absolute sense the WT is better.
I ordered another 301 for the WT, it should be interesting to see how the WT Reference arm handles the high compliance 301/II.
All this talk about 100Hz cu and arm eff mass, got me thinking about the old days.
I used to set up tables in the '80s. Most and the Japan mfg said the S shaped arm was for structural rigidity. The bayoneted connector between the shell and arm is a weak point. It adds some mass to the arm, but I wonder how much a 1200 arm would lose if straight, a gram or two??
Some of us converted many AT MM 100Hz cu to 10Hz and found the conversion to be a sliding scale. Low cu carts, AT95 is 6.5cu (100) and is 15cu @10.
\AT-440/120 150MLX etc are 10cu = 18cu @10Hz. 1.6 to 1.8g VTF.
But the AT140 is 16cu @100Hz, but max VTF is 1.6 so cu should be similar.
Denon makes a nice inexpensive LOMC
I had a DL160 and I would guess it would be impossible to beat for what I paid; also has a 304 - nice cart and sounded amazing with a SS ruby line contact. Worth every penny.
BIRD LIVES
Doh! I am an idiot, it did not occur to me that those slots were functional. I just assumed you were stuck with just the two holes and the slots were cosmetic or milled to adjust mass. LOL! Thanks for the suggestion, I am going to try that out right now.
Doh! Smacks forehead!
Not sure why this cartridge did not spring to mind in the first place? Thanks!
a less costly recommendation.
Opus 33 1/3
Hi Henry,
The AT33EV is a medium compliance cartridge with a resonance frequency above 8-Hz in my 12-gram Technics SL-1200 tonearm. If my AT-ART7 actually had compliance of 10 x 10 -6 cm/dyne at 100-Hz, it would also be a medium compliance cartridge. However, Audio Technica either made a mistake on both of my AT-ART7 cartridges or else they've changed the suspension to match the AT-ART9 without changing their published specification.
One of the reasons I bought the ART7 instead of the ART9 is because I didn't want a high-compliance cartridge. It actually pisses me off and I'm not happy at all about it being high-compliance. The only good thing is that it seems to work well in my SME V, but I certainly did not want an arm/cartridge resonance frequency in the neighborhood of 6-Hz.
Did you finally buy an AT33EV? I think you'll like it.
Best regards,
John Elison
Opus 33 1/3
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: