LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  November 2012

ARSCLIST November 2012

Subject:

Re: Interesting details on new Beatles LP reissues

From:

Carl Pultz <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 17 Nov 2012 08:45:40 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (75 lines)

That is a very important point - the arm has to suit the cartridge, or the
cartridge has to suit the arm. Moving coil cartridges are low compliance and
will not work right in a low-mass tonearm. OTOH, arms designed to mate with
moving coils are not likely to be right with high-compliance stylus
assemblies such as  Shures, Stantons, the very popular Audio Technicas, or
some Ortofons. It's a question of both the resonant frequency of the
combination and the rigidity/internal resonances of the tonearm and plinth.
A low-compliance cartridge can send a lot of energy into the tonearm, which
many can't dissipate without causing major sonic problems. And a
high-compliance, 1 gram AT can't properly drag around a relatively high-mass
arm and still work right.

Of high relevance to this list is the characteristics of the 78 styluses
made to work with Shure or Stanton cartridges. Do they retain the medium- or
high-compliance suspension, or are they damped or stiffened? We really need
someone who is expert in this application to give us an guide, along the
lines of the digital standards for archiving. Otherwise, it's a lot of guess
work. Makers of TT/tonearms are generally of little help, defaulting to a
supposed middle-ground universalism that is inadequate for serious work.

Thinking back to the days of type approval for broadcast equipment, wouldn't
it be great to have similar published standards for various discs? Assuming
growing demand for transcription work in the coming years, maybe that would
encourage a manufacturer to make such things, correctly integrated
TT/Tonearm/cartridge systems for LP and shellac, given an estimate-able
market size. The affordable offerings I've seen out there look like
approximations.

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of BPT
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 2:17 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Interesting details on new Beatles LP reissues

On 11/14/2012 3:33 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
> I do agree with Fremer about the Stanton 681EEE cartridge that Magee
> uses for playback on the lathe. EMI can't spring for something better?
> That's a POS. At least get something accurate like a Denon DL-110,
> which retails for almost the same as what the Stanton used to (it's
> not made anymore -- good riddance!). If they want something
> "industrial strength" or "broadcast grade" to go on the SME tonearm,
> get a Denon DL-103 or the reissue Ortofon broadcast cartridge.

I have to disagree on this point about the Stanton 681EEE, particularly
with the "S" stylus. 

The real issue with the 681EEE is the high-compliance that requires an
extremely low-mass tonearm to function as intended.  About the only
tonearm that works properly with it is the old SME series III
plastic-fantastic with the TiN tonearm tube.  The original SME design
isn't going to work well with the EEE because it is a much higher mass
design.  Load the EEE in a 1970s/1980s era direct drive turntable, and
you'll get extremely poor results because those tonearms are anything
*but* low-mass designs. 

With the EEE in the series III SME, you get nothing short of a miracle. 
The combination tracks nearly anything you can throw at it, and it
sounds rather nice to my ears.  I've been using this very setup in a
restored c.1961 Empire DB-208 since the early 1980s.  I've upset a lot
of audiophile-types that spent far more money on their turntables with
my relatively-inexpensive setup.  The phono preamp I use is the old
Lampton design made from a pair of Signetics NE5534AN chips, fed by a
heavily-filtered +/-15V supply.  The results are impressive, especially
with the old Mo-Fi UHQR discs. 

Are there better cartridges than the old 681?  Probably.  Set any of
them up with the proper tonearm mass and capacitive/resistive loading,
and you're way ahead of the game.  Very few consumers back in the 70s
bothered to do this.  Even today, I'm surprised at how few of the
remaining hi-fi bugs out there know anything about proper turntable setup. 

Ben Torre
(yeah, I'm still around)

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager