On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:58:47 +0000, Rob
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:46:47 +0000, Rob
wrote:

Keith G wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
http://patchoulian.googlepages.com/audiosamples

Bottom of the page. Can anyone notice a difference between these two
tracks?

OK, as Don says - for comparisons these are far too long. (When I post
whole tracks it's as much for entertainment value as anything else!)
Yes, sorry about that both, and thanks for taking the time to have a
look/listen. I quite like the track, and it only takes 30s to download
my end. But point taken.

But
I downloaded them, got them into SoundForge and trimmed the starts to
the very note. That allows me to tab between the tracks in different
panes and set the cursor anywhere but at the exact same place on each
track and play from that point. Ctrl/Tabbing *without looking* a few
times will soon have me 'blind' (no idea which track is selcted) and I
can then make a fairly impartial comparison. Doing that any number of
times had me selecting them virtually in turn!

IOW, the short answer is - No, I couldn't pick a favourite or 'better'
one!! One of them (forget which now) is slightly higher output than the
other (LC01?) but not by much...

Well, one cartridge is old (10 years) and one is brand new. I thought I
could hear a difference at first, but now I've 'analysed' them I'm not
so sure ;-)

Back-to-back I can't differentiate the tracks (compressed or
uncompressed), and thrashing them through software (I have a very
limited understanding of what's happening though) shows virtually no
difference - a maximum 1dB variation through the entire frequency range.
The recording settings/hardware was unchanged.

This tells me something about the longevity of these cartridges, and
their consistency between samples over a long production run.

It also leaves me a little uneasy about this method of comparison for
listening to music. The difference in sound wassn't night and day, but I
felt that vocals were more open (slightly less 'bite' but more treble),
and instruments were easier to pick out.

(The MP3ing doesn't help...!!)

No I know - 70meg uncompressed tho but.

Anyways - thanks again.

Rob

The difference you describe could be ascribed almost totally to slight
differences in level. You need to be mega careful in getting them both
precisely the same (try for about 0.1dB) before you try and make the
comparison or you will be fooled.

Differences in level that small generally can't be identified in terms
of loudness, but in exactly those qualities you have described.

d


No changes were made except for the cartridge change - I just wanted to
see what 10 years does to this cartridge model.

From a measurement point of view, it seems nothing - the small level
difference is, i think, a manufacturing anomaly and probably within
tolerance. I need to add that my understanding of the measurments I took
is limited - I just took a plot spectrum of the same(ish) sample of the
music, exported the data to excel, and crunched the numbers. The absence
of the time variable had me stumped. Even so I found the correlation
between the two data sets to be pretty remarkable once the level
difference had been accounted for.

From a listening pov, the compressed samples revealed little or no
difference, despite the level problem. Similarly, I can't reliably
distinguish between the uncompressed samples. And, as you say, the
difference I thought existed between the two carts could be level
difference, although the old cartridge (01) is slightly louder.

This leaves a blind test of the two cartridges, with levels set within
0.1dB, to rule out anything in the recording chain. And at this point I
give up! 'i think it sounds better' is going to have to do, to justify
the 150 quid if nothing else :-)

Rob

There are a couple of problems with your carts, though - most probably
some sort of compatibility issue with the arm, leading to multiple
resonances. Compare with a sweep of my OC9 in an SME 3009ii arm.
Excuse the drawn line on the curve - it was there to show the
effective slope of a flat response. It doesn't have the multiple
glitches that your show.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/dskr/atoc9.gif

I also used the HFN test disc.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:58:47 +0000, Rob
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:46:47 +0000, Rob
wrote:

Keith G wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
http://patchoulian.googlepages.com/audiosamples

Bottom of the page. Can anyone notice a difference between these two
tracks?
OK, as Don says - for comparisons these are far too long. (When I post
whole tracks it's as much for entertainment value as anything else!)
Yes, sorry about that both, and thanks for taking the time to have a
look/listen. I quite like the track, and it only takes 30s to download
my end. But point taken.

But
I downloaded them, got them into SoundForge and trimmed the starts to
the very note. That allows me to tab between the tracks in different
panes and set the cursor anywhere but at the exact same place on each
track and play from that point. Ctrl/Tabbing *without looking* a few
times will soon have me 'blind' (no idea which track is selcted) and I
can then make a fairly impartial comparison. Doing that any number of
times had me selecting them virtually in turn!

IOW, the short answer is - No, I couldn't pick a favourite or 'better'
one!! One of them (forget which now) is slightly higher output than the
other (LC01?) but not by much...

Well, one cartridge is old (10 years) and one is brand new. I thought I
could hear a difference at first, but now I've 'analysed' them I'm not
so sure ;-)

Back-to-back I can't differentiate the tracks (compressed or
uncompressed), and thrashing them through software (I have a very
limited understanding of what's happening though) shows virtually no
difference - a maximum 1dB variation through the entire frequency range.
The recording settings/hardware was unchanged.

This tells me something about the longevity of these cartridges, and
their consistency between samples over a long production run.

It also leaves me a little uneasy about this method of comparison for
listening to music. The difference in sound wassn't night and day, but I
felt that vocals were more open (slightly less 'bite' but more treble),
and instruments were easier to pick out.

(The MP3ing doesn't help...!!)

No I know - 70meg uncompressed tho but.

Anyways - thanks again.

Rob
The difference you describe could be ascribed almost totally to slight
differences in level. You need to be mega careful in getting them both
precisely the same (try for about 0.1dB) before you try and make the
comparison or you will be fooled.

Differences in level that small generally can't be identified in terms
of loudness, but in exactly those qualities you have described.

d

No changes were made except for the cartridge change - I just wanted to
see what 10 years does to this cartridge model.

From a measurement point of view, it seems nothing - the small level
difference is, i think, a manufacturing anomaly and probably within
tolerance. I need to add that my understanding of the measurments I took
is limited - I just took a plot spectrum of the same(ish) sample of the
music, exported the data to excel, and crunched the numbers. The absence
of the time variable had me stumped. Even so I found the correlation
between the two data sets to be pretty remarkable once the level
difference had been accounted for.

From a listening pov, the compressed samples revealed little or no
difference, despite the level problem. Similarly, I can't reliably
distinguish between the uncompressed samples. And, as you say, the
difference I thought existed between the two carts could be level
difference, although the old cartridge (01) is slightly louder.

This leaves a blind test of the two cartridges, with levels set within
0.1dB, to rule out anything in the recording chain. And at this point I
give up! 'i think it sounds better' is going to have to do, to justify
the 150 quid if nothing else :-)

Rob

There are a couple of problems with your carts, though - most probably
some sort of compatibility issue with the arm, leading to multiple
resonances. Compare with a sweep of my OC9 in an SME 3009ii arm.
Excuse the drawn line on the curve - it was there to show the
effective slope of a flat response. It doesn't have the multiple
glitches that your show.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/dskr/atoc9.gif

I also used the HFN test disc.

d


That link is returning 'error 404 not found'. I checked the resonance
test on the HFN record - 9Hz IIRC - which the notes say is about right,
but doesn't preclude resonance elsewhere. It's just a standard Project
arm as fitted to a RPM9:

http://www.project-audio.com/main.ph...nearms&lang=en

BTW - that graph was done a while ago, but the setup is basically the same.

I'll take another look at the weekend - it's not as if I don't have a
shortage of TTs/arms ;-)

Thanks for the feedback.

Rob

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message

http://patchoulian.googlepages.com/audiosamples

Bottom of the page. Can anyone notice a difference
between these two tracks?

After trimming to 1 mSec and level-matching to 0.02 dB, I can reliably
detect a difference. LC1 sounds hissy and spitty.



Interesting, thanks. LC1 is actually the new cartridge!

Rob

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:19:39 +0000, Rob
wrote:



That link is returning 'error 404 not found'. I checked the resonance
test on the HFN record - 9Hz IIRC - which the notes say is about right,
but doesn't preclude resonance elsewhere. It's just a standard Project
arm as fitted to a RPM9:

http://www.project-audio.com/main.ph...nearms&lang=en

BTW - that graph was done a while ago, but the setup is basically the same.

I'll take another look at the weekend - it's not as if I don't have a
shortage of TTs/arms ;-)

Thanks for the feedback.

Rob

Sorry try

http://81.174.169.10/odds/dspkr/atoc9.gif

It is the odd resonances all the way up I am thinking of.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Rob wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:58:47 +0000, Rob
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:46:47 +0000, Rob
wrote:

Keith G wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
http://patchoulian.googlepages.com/audiosamples

Bottom of the page. Can anyone notice a difference between these
two tracks?
OK, as Don says - for comparisons these are far too long. (When I
post whole tracks it's as much for entertainment value as anything
else!)
Yes, sorry about that both, and thanks for taking the time to have
a look/listen. I quite like the track, and it only takes 30s to
download my end. But point taken.

But
I downloaded them, got them into SoundForge and trimmed the starts
to the very note. That allows me to tab between the tracks in
different panes and set the cursor anywhere but at the exact same
place on each track and play from that point. Ctrl/Tabbing
*without looking* a few times will soon have me 'blind' (no idea
which track is selcted) and I can then make a fairly impartial
comparison. Doing that any number of times had me selecting them
virtually in turn!

IOW, the short answer is - No, I couldn't pick a favourite or
'better' one!! One of them (forget which now) is slightly higher
output than the other (LC01?) but not by much...

Well, one cartridge is old (10 years) and one is brand new. I
thought I could hear a difference at first, but now I've 'analysed'
them I'm not so sure ;-)

Back-to-back I can't differentiate the tracks (compressed or
uncompressed), and thrashing them through software (I have a very
limited understanding of what's happening though) shows virtually
no difference - a maximum 1dB variation through the entire
frequency range. The recording settings/hardware was unchanged.

This tells me something about the longevity of these cartridges,
and their consistency between samples over a long production run.

It also leaves me a little uneasy about this method of comparison
for listening to music. The difference in sound wassn't night and
day, but I felt that vocals were more open (slightly less 'bite'
but more treble), and instruments were easier to pick out.

(The MP3ing doesn't help...!!)
No I know - 70meg uncompressed tho but.

Anyways - thanks again.

Rob
The difference you describe could be ascribed almost totally to slight
differences in level. You need to be mega careful in getting them both
precisely the same (try for about 0.1dB) before you try and make the
comparison or you will be fooled.

Differences in level that small generally can't be identified in terms
of loudness, but in exactly those qualities you have described.

d

No changes were made except for the cartridge change - I just wanted
to see what 10 years does to this cartridge model.

From a measurement point of view, it seems nothing - the small level
difference is, i think, a manufacturing anomaly and probably within
tolerance. I need to add that my understanding of the measurments I
took is limited - I just took a plot spectrum of the same(ish) sample
of the music, exported the data to excel, and crunched the numbers.
The absence of the time variable had me stumped. Even so I found the
correlation between the two data sets to be pretty remarkable once
the level difference had been accounted for.

From a listening pov, the compressed samples revealed little or no
difference, despite the level problem. Similarly, I can't reliably
distinguish between the uncompressed samples. And, as you say, the
difference I thought existed between the two carts could be level
difference, although the old cartridge (01) is slightly louder.

This leaves a blind test of the two cartridges, with levels set
within 0.1dB, to rule out anything in the recording chain. And at
this point I give up! 'i think it sounds better' is going to have to
do, to justify the 150 quid if nothing else :-)

Rob

There are a couple of problems with your carts, though - most probably
some sort of compatibility issue with the arm, leading to multiple
resonances. Compare with a sweep of my OC9 in an SME 3009ii arm.
Excuse the drawn line on the curve - it was there to show the
effective slope of a flat response. It doesn't have the multiple
glitches that your show.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/dskr/atoc9.gif

I also used the HFN test disc.

d


That link is returning 'error 404 not found'. I checked the resonance
test on the HFN record - 9Hz IIRC - which the notes say is about right,
but doesn't preclude resonance elsewhere. It's just a standard Project
arm as fitted to a RPM9:

http://www.project-audio.com/main.ph...nearms&lang=en

BTW - that graph was done a while ago, but the setup is basically the same.

I'll take another look at the weekend - it's not as if I don't have a
shortage of TTs/arms ;-)

Thanks for the feedback.

Rob


This is looking rather strange. The graphs at the link (top of page)
illustrate similar cartridges on two (very) different turntables and
arms. It's explained in the text - perhaps it's not clear? The point I
was trying to make was the similarity between the two setups. The spikes
at 300/3000 are, I would have thought, on the record. Misuse of the
software is another pretty likely explanation of strange results btw.

Anyhow, I've posted a couple of 20-20,000 sweeps at the foot of the page.

http://patchoulian.googlepages.com/audiosamples

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:19:39 +0000, Rob
wrote:


That link is returning 'error 404 not found'. I checked the resonance
test on the HFN record - 9Hz IIRC - which the notes say is about right,
but doesn't preclude resonance elsewhere. It's just a standard Project
arm as fitted to a RPM9:

http://www.project-audio.com/main.ph...nearms&lang=en

BTW - that graph was done a while ago, but the setup is basically the same.

I'll take another look at the weekend - it's not as if I don't have a
shortage of TTs/arms ;-)

Thanks for the feedback.

Rob

Sorry try

http://81.174.169.10/odds/dspkr/atoc9.gif

It is the odd resonances all the way up I am thinking of.

d

Yes, see what you mean. Investigation afoot.

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 00:37:15 +0000, Rob
wrote:




This is looking rather strange. The graphs at the link (top of page)
illustrate similar cartridges on two (very) different turntables and
arms. It's explained in the text - perhaps it's not clear? The point I
was trying to make was the similarity between the two setups. The spikes
at 300/3000 are, I would have thought, on the record. Misuse of the
software is another pretty likely explanation of strange results btw.

Anyhow, I've posted a couple of 20-20,000 sweeps at the foot of the page.

http://patchoulian.googlepages.com/audiosamples

I've downloaded both of those sweeps, and they do indeed contain those
odd resonance, plus a pretty big one at about 30Hz. I would have
thought this was almost certainly a cartridge/arm incompatibility.

I can't see any sign of misoperation of the software.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 00:37:15 +0000, Rob
wrote:


This is looking rather strange. The graphs at the link (top of page)
illustrate similar cartridges on two (very) different turntables and
arms. It's explained in the text - perhaps it's not clear? The point I
was trying to make was the similarity between the two setups. The spikes
at 300/3000 are, I would have thought, on the record. Misuse of the
software is another pretty likely explanation of strange results btw.

Anyhow, I've posted a couple of 20-20,000 sweeps at the foot of the page.

http://patchoulian.googlepages.com/audiosamples

I've downloaded both of those sweeps, and they do indeed contain those
odd resonance, plus a pretty big one at about 30Hz. I would have
thought this was almost certainly a cartridge/arm incompatibility.

I can't see any sign of misoperation of the software.

d


I've tried it with the old cartridge on a Rega TT. The trace looks
virtually identical to me until 16kHz (when things start looking very
different), and little like your experience. The Rega looks more linear
at higher frequencies. I think this rules out arm/cart incompatibility?
Samples at the foot of the page:

http://patchoulian.googlepages.com/audiosamples

I can't see anything odd ('spikey'?!) at 30Hz, and the software
(Audacity) doesn't export numbers below 86Hz.

Perhaps this cartridge is incompatible with a very large range of arms?
It shows the same pattern on a Rega, Japanese clone, and the Project.

My guess is the record. But that guess comes from interpreting the
results the software churns out.

Rob

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:

Compare with a sweep of my OC9 in an SME 3009ii arm. Excuse the drawn
line on the curve - it was there to show the effective slope of a flat
response. It doesn't have the multiple glitches that your show.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/dskr/atoc9.gif

I also used the HFN test disc.

Which track(s) of which disc? The one HFN advertise at present?

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:36:30 +0000, Rob
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 00:37:15 +0000, Rob
wrote:


This is looking rather strange. The graphs at the link (top of page)
illustrate similar cartridges on two (very) different turntables and
arms. It's explained in the text - perhaps it's not clear? The point I
was trying to make was the similarity between the two setups. The spikes
at 300/3000 are, I would have thought, on the record. Misuse of the
software is another pretty likely explanation of strange results btw.

Anyhow, I've posted a couple of 20-20,000 sweeps at the foot of the page.

http://patchoulian.googlepages.com/audiosamples

I've downloaded both of those sweeps, and they do indeed contain those
odd resonance, plus a pretty big one at about 30Hz. I would have
thought this was almost certainly a cartridge/arm incompatibility.

I can't see any sign of misoperation of the software.

d


I've tried it with the old cartridge on a Rega TT. The trace looks
virtually identical to me until 16kHz (when things start looking very
different), and little like your experience. The Rega looks more linear
at higher frequencies. I think this rules out arm/cart incompatibility?
Samples at the foot of the page:

http://patchoulian.googlepages.com/audiosamples

I can't see anything odd ('spikey'?!) at 30Hz, and the software
(Audacity) doesn't export numbers below 86Hz.

Perhaps this cartridge is incompatible with a very large range of arms?
It shows the same pattern on a Rega, Japanese clone, and the Project.

My guess is the record. But that guess comes from interpreting the
results the software churns out.

Rob

Puzzling - I suppose that may be a faulty record, since it appears to
show the same problems at the same frequencies whatever you do.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com