"Michael Chare" wrote


It has been suggested to me that umless I am willing to spend £500+ on a
pickup cartridge, I would do better to stick to the moving magnet ones
rather than a moving coil one. Would anyone dispute this?


That someone would suggest that? No, I'm more then happy to take your word
for it - ******** advice like that is freely on hand, usually. If you
advisor is right, then the likes of Denon, Dynavector, Goldring, AT and
Sumiko (to name but a few) must be getting away with it *bigtime* - they all
offer more sub-£500 MC models than ones above that mark!

You (and the ensuing horse**** about tonearms) got me going - I just grabbed
the following off a Technics DD deck with an AT05 (I think it is) fitted to
the deck's own 'S-shaped' tonearm:

Put your headphones on and turn them up the the *threshold of pain* (Martin,
are you reading this?) and see if you can hold out 'til the needle lifts:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Matmos.mp3

(Clips a bit don't it! :-))

Then try this, it's earlier on the same side - see how long into the end,
er, cacophony you can still hear the bell:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Matmos2.mp3

:-)

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 18:21:09 +0100, "Geoff Mackenzie"
wrote:

"Michael Chare" wrote in message
...
There was a company called EEI Australia that made the Elite EEI 500
moving magnetic pickup cartridge (and a moving-coil model)

Does any one know what happened to them?

It has been suggested to me that umless I am willing to spend £500+ on a
pickup cartridge, I would do better to stick to the moving magnet ones
rather than a moving coil one. Would anyone dispute this?


--
Michael Chare
Depends rather a lot on what arm you are using. For example, the SME 3009
and its variants worked well with MM, but were less successful with MC which
is why they fell from grace (sorry!) in the seventies/eighties. Whereas the
SME 4 and 5 were particularly suited to MC. Mass compliance, and all that.
Also depends on the quality of your pre-amp, of course, and what it was
designed for.

GeoffMacK

Mmmm? I have a MC cart (Audio Technica OC9) on a 3009ii and it all
works perfectly, both listening and in measurement.

d

OC9 works very nicely on a 3009 II here too. But not on a series III -
sounded dull.

Rob

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 09:25:00 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 18:21:09 +0100, "Geoff Mackenzie"
wrote:


Depends rather a lot on what arm you are using. For example, the SME
3009 and its variants worked well with MM, but were less successful
with MC which is why they fell from grace (sorry!) in the
seventies/eighties. Whereas the SME 4 and 5 were particularly suited
to MC. Mass compliance, and all that. Also depends on the quality of
your pre-amp, of course, and what it was designed for.

Mmmm? I have a MC cart (Audio Technica OC9) on a 3009ii and it all works
perfectly, both listening and in measurement.

Does the OC9 have a rather higher compliance (and perhaps more sensible
damping) than many MC designs? The root of the problem was that many MC
designs had/have booger-all compliance and no damping. So can be
problematic in an arm like the 3009 which has low mass.

Slainte,

Jim

It is a high compliance cart. The damping test on my HFN test record
shows no serious peaking, so I guess it is about right for the
arm/cart combination.

d

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
Mmmm? I have a MC cart (Audio Technica OC9) on a 3009ii and it all
works perfectly, both listening and in measurement.

Does the OC9 have a rather higher compliance (and perhaps more
sensible damping) than many MC designs? The root of the problem was
that many MC designs had/have booger-all compliance and no damping. So
can be problematic in an arm like the 3009 which has low mass.

The lateral bearing on the 3009 could be damped which helped matters
with a low compliance cart. Think it was originally intended for the
Decca FFSS head shell mounting versions.

Strictyly speaking, the arm damper would reduce the resonance peak rise and
Q. But would not move the resonance down to a more appropriate frequency.

That said, I've happily been using V15 carts with a Technics deck/arm for
decades quite happily, despite the arm nominally having too much effective
mass, etc. But I guess that errs on the other side to using a low
compliance cart with a light arm.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message


As a general rule,
MM carts are far more 'forgiving' of tone arm bearings
and resonance issues than MCs.

Why would this be? More damping?

It is also a general rule
that, Dollar for Dollar, an MM cart can provide a higher
level of performance in the budget end of the market.

Agreed.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:48:34 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
Mmmm? I have a MC cart (Audio Technica OC9) on a 3009ii and it all
works perfectly, both listening and in measurement.

Does the OC9 have a rather higher compliance (and perhaps more
sensible damping) than many MC designs? The root of the problem was
that many MC designs had/have booger-all compliance and no damping. So
can be problematic in an arm like the 3009 which has low mass.

The lateral bearing on the 3009 could be damped which helped matters
with a low compliance cart. Think it was originally intended for the
Decca FFSS head shell mounting versions.

Strictyly speaking, the arm damper would reduce the resonance peak rise and
Q. But would not move the resonance down to a more appropriate frequency.

That said, I've happily been using V15 carts with a Technics deck/arm for
decades quite happily, despite the arm nominally having too much effective
mass, etc. But I guess that errs on the other side to using a low
compliance cart with a light arm.

Slainte,

Jim

Just for interest, I chopped an old record in half and took a picture.
It shows just how very little of the stylus actually gets involved in
reading the groove. You need a sharp eye and lots of magnification to
see a wear spot.

Oh, and that cartridge is really very clean. Grubbiness magnifies much
more than wanted stuff.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/stylus.jpg

d

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message


As a general rule,
MM carts are far more 'forgiving' of tone arm bearings
and resonance issues than MCs.

Why would this be? More damping?

**Damping and arm (bearing, headshell, etc) rigidity. SME bearings (kife
edge) are spectacularly unsuited for use with MC carts. Later SME arms
addressed the problems (only partially successfully) by using a damping
trough. It was a kludge. Arms like the fabulous Rega RB300 showed how a
relatively low priced arm could be built to deal with MC carts.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 06:34:40 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message


As a general rule,
MM carts are far more 'forgiving' of tone arm bearings
and resonance issues than MCs.

Why would this be? More damping?

**Damping and arm (bearing, headshell, etc) rigidity. SME bearings (kife
edge) are spectacularly unsuited for use with MC carts. Later SME arms
addressed the problems (only partially successfully) by using a damping
trough. It was a kludge. Arms like the fabulous Rega RB300 showed how a
relatively low priced arm could be built to deal with MC carts.

The damping should all be associated with the spring - which is the
stylus cantilever suspension. There should be no expectation of extra
damping associated with the arm bearing, which is ideally as free to
move as possible. Indeed damping of the arm bearing impedes arm
movement that is needed to prevent low frequency high-amplitude stylus
excursions.

In other words, what is being damped is the spring - mass system of
the cantilever and effective arm mass. The right thing to damp is the
spring involved in that resonant system. Ie, the damping must be in
the cartridge.

d

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 06:34:40 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message


As a general rule,
MM carts are far more 'forgiving' of tone arm bearings
and resonance issues than MCs.

Why would this be? More damping?

**Damping and arm (bearing, headshell, etc) rigidity. SME bearings (kife
edge) are spectacularly unsuited for use with MC carts. Later SME arms
addressed the problems (only partially successfully) by using a damping
trough. It was a kludge. Arms like the fabulous Rega RB300 showed how a
relatively low priced arm could be built to deal with MC carts.

The damping should all be associated with the spring - which is the
stylus cantilever suspension. There should be no expectation of extra
damping associated with the arm bearing, which is ideally as free to
move as possible. Indeed damping of the arm bearing impedes arm
movement that is needed to prevent low frequency high-amplitude stylus
excursions.

In other words, what is being damped is the spring - mass system of
the cantilever and effective arm mass. The right thing to damp is the
spring involved in that resonant system. Ie, the damping must be in
the cartridge.

**Unfortunately when theory meets reality, things don't always go to plan.
In my long experience (30+ years) running dozens of different MC and MM
carts with dozens of arms (including most SME models), I have found that arm
damping is critical to decent performance with MC carts. SME arms (knife
edge bearing types) are amongst the worst choices for MC carts. This arm is
one of the best choices, IME:

http://www.dynavector.com/products/t.../e_507mk2.html

Note the clever use of eddy current damping for the horizontal bearings. It
works extremely well with every MC cart I have ever thrown at it. It would
not be my first choice for an MM cart.

[Disclaimer] I have no connection with Dynavector. I do not sell them
(though I once did).


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

In article , Trevor Wilson
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...


The damping should all be associated with the spring - which is the
stylus cantilever suspension. There should be no expectation of extra
damping associated with the arm bearing, which is ideally as free to
move as possible. Indeed damping of the arm bearing impedes arm
movement that is needed to prevent low frequency high-amplitude stylus
excursions.

In other words, what is being damped is the spring - mass system of
the cantilever and effective arm mass. The right thing to damp is the
spring involved in that resonant system. Ie, the damping must be in
the cartridge.

**Unfortunately when theory meets reality, things don't always go to
plan. In my long experience (30+ years) running dozens of different MC
and MM carts with dozens of arms (including most SME models), I have
found that arm damping is critical to decent performance with MC carts.
SME arms (knife edge bearing types) are amongst the worst choices for
MC carts. This arm is one of the best choices, IME:

http://www.dynavector.com/products/t.../e_507mk2.html

Even more unfortunately, a lack of damping in the stylus cantilever may
tend to produce a marked HF resonance. Damping of the arm won't fix that as
the arm isn't really involved.

One of the points that people nowdays seem to overlook is the work Shure
and others put into having optimal cantilever damping for HF reasons.
People seem aware of the high compliance and, to a lesser extent, low tip
mass, but damping rarely seems to be considered.

The presumption seems to be that when you see an HF resonance with a MM it
must be purely 'electronic' in nature. This isn't really the case. When
experimenting with electronic loading you may simply be trying to trade off
two quite different HF LP resonances - one electronic and the other
mechanical - to get an overall optimum. But so far as I know, this has
largely been ignored in recent decades. Preumably because of the
(incorrect) assumption that MC designs are immune.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html