Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Matching Your Cartridge to Your Tonearm

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Dre_J View Post
    John, Based on some of your comments here:http://www.audionirvana.org/forum/th...?p=783#post783 and your equipment, the Quintet Black is worth a look/listen for you. It seems to be able to address one of the issues you mentioned wanting to address in your comments. At around $1000, it will leave you some funds to look at adding an external phonostage if desired.
    Hi Andre and thanks! I had a 2M Black on my former Nottingham and really liked it....much more than I do the DV20x2L, so as both you and Mark suggested the Quintet Black could be a good alternative. My dealer sells both Oracle and Ortofon....might see if he already has a Paris/Quintet Black up and running.
    Dynavector DV20x2L MC cartridge - Genesis G7.1f speakers - Marantz Reference PM-KI-Pearl Int. Amp. - Oracle Audio Paris MkV turntable - Various Morrow & Valab/King cables

    Comment


    • #17
      I suspect folks with analog experience know, or at least have heard, about considering cartridge resonance and its relation to tonearm effective mass as part of gauging cartridge-tonearm matching. There are some nice calculators on Vinyl Engine to help with this. (eg, here and here) Formulas want compliance measured at 10Hz.

      Sometimes the manufacturer will tell you the frequency from which their compliance number (cu = compliance units, cm/dyne) is derived and sometimes they will not. I've heard that most Japanese (Eastern) manufacturers use 100Hz.

      What factor do you typically use for converting cu measured at 100Hz to cu measured at 10Hz? I understand there is no default conversion formula and I've heard a conversion factor anywhere from 1.5x to 2.2x. Do you look at the low and the high and see where the resonant frequency falls in the range derived from those?



      Comment


      • #18
        Hi Andre! These are the specs for the phono section of my PM-KI-Pearl. Will it be okay with the Quintet Black


        Click image for larger version

Name:	Marantz Pearl Phono specs.png
Views:	313
Size:	40.2 KB
ID:	4662
        Dynavector DV20x2L MC cartridge - Genesis G7.1f speakers - Marantz Reference PM-KI-Pearl Int. Amp. - Oracle Audio Paris MkV turntable - Various Morrow & Valab/King cables

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by tima View Post
          I suspect folks with analog experience know, or at least have heard, about considering cartridge resonance and its relation to tonearm effective mass as part of gauging cartridge-tonearm matching. There are some nice calculators on Vinyl Engine to help with this. (eg, here and here) Formulas want compliance measured at 10Hz.

          Sometimes the manufacturer will tell you the frequency from which their compliance number (cu = compliance units, cm/dyne) is derived and sometimes they will not. I've heard that most Japanese (Eastern) manufacturers use 100Hz.

          What factor do you typically use for converting cu measured at 100Hz to cu measured at 10Hz? I understand there is no default conversion formula and I've heard a conversion factor anywhere from 1.5x to 2.2x. Do you look at the low and the high and see where the resonant frequency falls in the range derived from those?


          At some time I measured resonance in the Eminent Technology II and the Graham II with a few cartridges using a test record and got results that differed more than 50% of the theoretical results obtained using the known formulas implemented at the vinyl engine site. As far as I know the source of error is mainly on the values we are given by manufacturers compliance - is it static, dynamic, at 10, 100 or !000Hz? This subject was debated at audiocircle, and some posters presented thumb rules, such as:

          "P.S. - my "rules of thumb" for compliance conversion (as imperfect as they are..) are:
          to convert Static compliance to dynamic compliance @10Hz - halve the value
          To convert dynamic @100 to dynamic @10 - multiply by 1.75 "


          (from the post of member dlaloum)
          CARTRIDGE COMPLIANCE AND TONEARMS, AN OPEN DISCUSSION......
          My opinions rely on listening mainly to acoustical, non amplified music. I do not care about electronic music or listening to rock at stadium levels, but I enjoy Mahler and Shostakovitch.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Johnny Vinyl View Post
            Hi Andre! These are the specs for the phono section of my PM-KI-Pearl. Will it be okay with the Quintet Black
            Johnny-I'm not Andre, but I will take a stab at this. According to the specs you posted, your phono section is capable of working with a phono cartridge rated for 270uV which is .27mV. The Ortofon Quintet Black is rated for an output of 300mV or .3mV which means it should be just dandy according to the specs. Now, the S/N ratio is specified at .5mV and you will be running a.3mV cartridge so your S/N ratio won't be as high as the published specs.
            Micro Seiki SX-8000 table with flywheel, SME 3012R arm, SME 312S arm, Lyra Etna SL and Dynavector XV-1S cartridges, ARC Ref 3 phono stage, Otari MX-55 tape deck, Ampex 350 repros, Roon Nucleus Plus server, PS Audio DSJ DAC, ARC Ref 6 pre, ARC Ref 75 amp, JBL 4345 speakers, and Def Tech Ref subs.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by microstrip View Post

              At some time I measured resonance in the Eminent Technology II and the Graham II with a few cartridges using a test record and got results that differed more than 50% of the theoretical results obtained using the known formulas implemented at the vinyl engine site. As far as I know the source of error is mainly on the values we are given by manufacturers compliance - is it static, dynamic, at 10, 100 or !000Hz? This subject was debated at audiocircle, and some posters presented thumb rules, such as:

              "P.S. - my "rules of thumb" for compliance conversion (as imperfect as they are..) are:
              to convert Static compliance to dynamic compliance @10Hz - halve the value
              To convert dynamic @100 to dynamic @10 - multiply by 1.75 "


              (from the post of member dlaloum)
              Thanks. I read that same thread last night. It's not the first time hearing the suggestion of a 1.75 factor. The discussion about mass was somewhat tortured. Thankfully most 'arm manufacturers list effective mass. I user .75g for cartridge bolts.

              As you suggest, cartridge manufacturers are all over the map and there doesn't seem to be any push from the analog realm for them to adopt a standard way of stating a compliance number. I looked at the Ortonfon Black asked about in this thread and it is stated as "Compliance, dynamic, lateral - 22 µm/mN". Okay, how helpful is that? I'm not knowledgeable enough to translate from micrometers per milleNewtons to centimeters per dyne but an on-line calculator tells me it is 2.2*10^(+9). How that converts to some cu * 10^6 is beyond me. Maybe the Ortofon cu is useful but not obviously so.

              Maybe a firm letter to the IAABS (International Analog Audio Bureau of Standards) is needed.

              I also wish I had a better handle on damping - or at least some guidelines. My 'arm has fluid troughs both for horizontal and vertical damping but have not tried using either yet.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Johnny Vinyl View Post
                Hi Andre! These are the specs for the phono section of my PM-KI-Pearl. Will it be okay with the Quintet Black


                [ATTACH=CONFIG]n4662[/ATTACH]
                Originally posted by mep View Post

                Johnny-I'm not Andre, but I will take a stab at this. According to the specs you posted, your phono section is capable of working with a phono cartridge rated for 270uV which is .27mV. The Ortofon Quintet Black is rated for an output of 300mV or .3mV which means it should be just dandy according to the specs. Now, the S/N ratio is specified at .5mV and you will be running a.3mV cartridge so your S/N ratio won't be as high as the published specs.
                John,

                Mark's got it. The quicker answer is that the Quintet Black has the same output as your 20X2L: which is 0.3mV @ 5cm/sec.

                The perceived output should be comparable although the Quintet Black will sound more commanding in the lower midrange/bass and smoother on the highs.

                I was going to run through a gain calculation but it's not needed if you have enough working gain with your current cartridge.

                Dre
                **************************************************
                Every day is a good day to play analog.
                - 12" 33-1/3 RPM or 45 RPM vinyl
                - 10.5" 15ips or 30ips tape
                **************************************************
                Every day is a good day for live music.
                **************************************************

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by tima View Post

                  Thanks. I read that same thread last night. It's not the first time hearing the suggestion of a 1.75 factor. The discussion about mass was somewhat tortured. Thankfully most 'arm manufacturers list effective mass. I user .75g for cartridge bolts.

                  As you suggest, cartridge manufacturers are all over the map and there doesn't seem to be any push from the analog realm for them to adopt a standard way of stating a compliance number. I looked at the Ortonfon Black asked about in this thread and it is stated as "Compliance, dynamic, lateral - 22 µm/mN". Okay, how helpful is that? I'm not knowledgeable enough to translate from micrometers per milleNewtons to centimeters per dyne but an on-line calculator tells me it is 2.2*10^(+9). How that converts to some cu * 10^6 is beyond me. Maybe the Ortofon cu is useful but not obviously so.

                  Maybe a firm letter to the IAABS (International Analog Audio Bureau of Standards) is needed.

                  I also wish I had a better handle on damping - or at least some guidelines. My 'arm has fluid troughs both for horizontal and vertical damping but have not tried using either yet. Not unlike the issue with loading down the cartridge too much.
                  I've never been a huge fan of damping. Tells me there's another issue. Tried it the most with the ET arm and it never improved the sound; in fact, it killed it no matter how I played with paddle.

                  I know Graham/VPI and a few others used to use damping. Do the new Graham arms also employ damping?
                  Myles B. Astor, PhD, Administrator
                  Senior Editor, Positive-Feedback.com
                  ________________________________________

                  -Magico S5 Mk.2 speakers with SPod feet
                  -Goldmund Telos 280 stereo amp
                  -Goldmund Mimesis 37S Nextgen preamplifier
                  -Doshi EVO phonostage
                  -VPI Vanquish direct-drive turntable
                  -VPI 12-inch 3D Fat Boy dual pivot tonearm, VPI 12-inch 3D Fat Boy gimballed and SAT LM-12 arm
                  -Lyra Atlas SL Lambda, Fuuga, vdh Colibri Master Signature, MutechHayabusa, MOFI Master Tracker, Sumiko Songbird cartridges
                  -Technics RS1506 with Flux Magnetic heads, Doshi V3.0 tape stage (balanced)
                  -Assorted cables including Transparent XL Gen. 5, Skogrand, Viero, Kubala-Sosna, Audience Au24SX, Genesis Advanced Technologies and Ensemble Power Cords
                  -Accessories including Stillpoint Aperture panels, Cathedral Sound panels, Furutech NCF Nano AC receptacles; Silver Circle Tchaik 6 PLC, Symposium ISIS and SRA Craz racks, Audiodharma Cable Cooker, Symposium Ultra and assorted SRA platforms.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by MylesBAstor View Post

                    I've never been a huge fan of damping. Tells me there's another issue. Tried it the most with the ET arm and it never improved the sound; in fact, it killed it no matter how I played with paddle.

                    I know Graham/VPI and a few others used to use damping. Do the new Graham arms also employ damping?
                    Damping (when necessary) isn't bad. Depends on the arm, cartridge, turntable, and setup.

                    I know it's a broad (and vague)response. That was on purpose so my text would be short.

                    Dre
                    **************************************************
                    Every day is a good day to play analog.
                    - 12" 33-1/3 RPM or 45 RPM vinyl
                    - 10.5" 15ips or 30ips tape
                    **************************************************
                    Every day is a good day for live music.
                    **************************************************

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Dre_J View Post

                      Damping (when necessary) isn't bad. Depends on the arm, cartridge, turntable, and setup.

                      I know it's a broad (and vague)response. That was on purpose so my text would be short.

                      Dre
                      No problem here with focused and specific. 🙂 Happy to learn more.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X