Choosing Hi-Fi Cart/Stylus

[Doughboy]

I'm trying to choose a suitable Cartridge & Stylus that will give good
quality results when recording my records onto my PC. I've already got
a good soundcard (Audiophile 24/96).

I've currently got Stanton 500AL's and Shure M44G's. The stylus'
probably need replacing on these anyway, but I find that my recordings
(through the phono input on my amp, so bypassing my rather crappy
Vestax mixer) are somewhat distorted (particularly on the bass) and
the occasional record (mostly R&B tunes) sounds very sibilant.

I'm considering an Ortofon DJ S, which has the advantage of being
directly mounted to the tonearm, rather than via a headshell, which
would eliminate setup errors in attaching the cart to the headshell. I
can get one of these for £50. I can't really afford to spend much more
than this. Would this be a good choice?

Is it correct to say that elliptical stylus' are better in terms of
quality than spherical? Are they that much better that it's worth
considering? If so, are there any such cart/stylus combos that I could
get for about the same price as the DJ S?

Cheers
Doughboy

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <0b5pkv4h84oi8k42764n9vhpa1np3eafup@4ax.com>,
Doughboy <anon@invalid.com> wrote:
>I'm trying to choose a suitable Cartridge & Stylus that will give good
>quality results when recording my records onto my PC. I've already got
>a good soundcard (Audiophile 24/96).
>
>I've currently got Stanton 500AL's and Shure M44G's. The stylus'
>probably need replacing on these anyway, but I find that my recordings
>(through the phono input on my amp, so bypassing my rather crappy
>Vestax mixer) are somewhat distorted (particularly on the bass) and
>the occasional record (mostly R&B tunes) sounds very sibilant.

How much of that is your amp?
What arm are you using?

>I'm considering an Ortofon DJ S, which has the advantage of being
>directly mounted to the tonearm, rather than via a headshell, which
>would eliminate setup errors in attaching the cart to the headshell. I
>can get one of these for £50. I can't really afford to spend much more
>than this. Would this be a good choice?

This is generally a bad idea because it doesn't allow you to adjust
the cartridge properly at all. It's very popular for DJs because
they can swap them out quickly. You really do want to spend some time
and set the cartridge overhang up properly; it makes a big difference in
tracking.

>Is it correct to say that elliptical stylus' are better in terms of
>quality than spherical? Are they that much better that it's worth
>considering? If so, are there any such cart/stylus combos that I could
>get for about the same price as the DJ S?

In general, a fineline will track a worn record much better than an
elliptical, and an elliptical will track much better than a spherical.
But, the cartridge you want is the one that is a good match for your arm.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[P Stamler]

Depending on the arm, you may want to consider a Grado cartridge -- the more
expensive ones are better, but even the low-priced ones are much more
listenable than the competition. Make sure you clean the stylus well (a camel
hair brush and alcohol works fine), and clean the records well too.

Everything Scott says about setup is correct; make sure you do it properly or
have it done properly. And set the stylus pressure toward the top of the
cartridge's recommended range; you'll get better tracking and, surprisingly,
less wear.

Peace,
Paul

[Doughboy]

On 27 Aug 2003 15:26:44 GMT, pstamler@aol.com (P Stamler) wrote:

>Depending on the arm, you may want to consider a Grado cartridge -- the more
>expensive ones are better, but even the low-priced ones are much more
>listenable than the competition. Make sure you clean the stylus well (a camel
>hair brush and alcohol works fine), and clean the records well too.
>
>Everything Scott says about setup is correct; make sure you do it properly or
>have it done properly. And set the stylus pressure toward the top of the
>cartridge's recommended range; you'll get better tracking and, surprisingly,
>less wear.
>
>Peace,
>Paul

Thanks for the tips Paul. As I mentioned in my post to Scott, my decks
are a Gemini PT-1000, and PT-2000, and the latter has a height
adjustable arm. Would the Grado carts be any good with either of
these?

Would method do you recommend to clean the records? I remember reading
that wet cleaning is a bad idea as this leads to sludge in the
grooves.

Doughboy

[Doughboy]

On 27 Aug 2003 10:42:32 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>In article <0b5pkv4h84oi8k42764n9vhpa1np3eafup@4ax.com>,
>Doughboy <anon@invalid.com> wrote:
>>I'm trying to choose a suitable Cartridge & Stylus that will give good
>>quality results when recording my records onto my PC. I've already got
>>a good soundcard (Audiophile 24/96).
>>
>>I've currently got Stanton 500AL's and Shure M44G's. The stylus'
>>probably need replacing on these anyway, but I find that my recordings
>>(through the phono input on my amp, so bypassing my rather crappy
>>Vestax mixer) are somewhat distorted (particularly on the bass) and
>>the occasional record (mostly R&B tunes) sounds very sibilant.
>
>How much of that is your amp?
>What arm are you using?

Hard to say what the amp's contribution is. I could record directly
from my Vestax mixer into my PC, but the mixer seems to be worse than
the amp's phono input (when going mixer-amp-PC).

The arms are whatever Gemini put on their decks. I've got a PT-2000,
which has a height adjustable arm, and a PT-1000, which doesn't.

>>I'm considering an Ortofon DJ S, which has the advantage of being
>>directly mounted to the tonearm, rather than via a headshell, which
>>would eliminate setup errors in attaching the cart to the headshell. I
>>can get one of these for £50. I can't really afford to spend much more
>>than this. Would this be a good choice?
>
>This is generally a bad idea because it doesn't allow you to adjust
>the cartridge properly at all. It's very popular for DJs because
>they can swap them out quickly. You really do want to spend some time
>and set the cartridge overhang up properly; it makes a big difference in
>tracking.

What's this overhang then. Not a term I'm familiar with. I saw a
review that recommended the DJ S, which said that it was the best for
scratching, which suggests it's tracking is ok doesn't it?

Doughboy

[Laurence Payne]

>What's this overhang then. Not a term I'm familiar with.

http://website.lineone.net/~dcr2/pickup.html
If you swing the tone arm to the centre of the record, you'd maybe
expect it to hit dead centre. In fact, optimum tracking is achieved
by pushing it a little froward from this. By an amount referred to as
the overhang.


> I saw a
>review that recommended the DJ S, which said that it was the best for
>scratching, which suggests it's tracking is ok doesn't it?

Nope. It just suggests that the cartridge will put up with
considerable abuse. If you want to do the things DJs do to their
records - back-cueing, scratching - you need a peculiarly robust
cartridge and stylus. This won't necessarily be the best-sounding or
the best at tracking. In fact, it almost certainly won't sound as
good as one designed for normal use.

[James Boyk]

THis has been covered in detail recently. Check Google, Groups, Advanced Search. The system consists of turntable/arm/cartridge/preamp. You shouldn't try to choose any one or two of these in isolation.


James Boyk
Music Lab, California Institute of Technology
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~musiclab

[Scott Dorsey]

Doughboy <anon@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>The arms are whatever Gemini put on their decks. I've got a PT-2000,
>which has a height adjustable arm, and a PT-1000, which doesn't.

I would seriously recommend investing in a good arm. Those Gemini arms
really ring horribly, and that is a lot of your problem. You can play
around with trying to damp down parts with felt and move some mass around
so it doesn't ring so badly.

>>>I'm considering an Ortofon DJ S, which has the advantage of being
>>>directly mounted to the tonearm, rather than via a headshell, which
>>>would eliminate setup errors in attaching the cart to the headshell. I
>>>can get one of these for £50. I can't really afford to spend much more
>>>than this. Would this be a good choice?
>>
>>This is generally a bad idea because it doesn't allow you to adjust
>>the cartridge properly at all. It's very popular for DJs because
>>they can swap them out quickly. You really do want to spend some time
>>and set the cartridge overhang up properly; it makes a big difference in
>>tracking.
>
>What's this overhang then. Not a term I'm familiar with. I saw a
>review that recommended the DJ S, which said that it was the best for
>scratching, which suggests it's tracking is ok doesn't it?

What you want for transcription work is almost totally opposite from what
you want for a DJ turntable.

Take a look at a good introduction to turntable setup; the little booklet
that Old Colony sells is a good one. Also, get a good cartridge alignment
tool and read the instructions that came with it to adjust the various
parameters. You need to make sure the cartridge is in the right place so
that it can track properly, that it is at the right angle with respect to
the record, that it is in the right angle with respect to the groove, and
that the tracking and anti-skate forces are set for best tracking (NOT just
set according to the numbers on the data sheet, but actually set for best
performance on your arm).

You might consider the Grado DJ-100 cartridge... it will work acceptably
well on that sort of arm, without the kind of low frequency problems that
most of the Grados will. But you're going to have to do some serious
tinkering with that arm.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[André Huisman]

"Doughboy" <anon@invalid.com> wrote:

> The arms are whatever Gemini put on their decks. I've got a PT-2000,
> which has a height adjustable arm, and a PT-1000, which doesn't.

Then the overhang is correctly when you use a concorde version. BTW: In this
deck (high mass tone-arm) I would not use an OM-5 cartridge (and the OM
Super 10 is completely out of the question). So your best bet would be the
Night Club E (OM version is headshell mounted and very fairly priced,
Concorde version is quite a bit more expensive).

--
André Huisman
New-Line licht & geluid
huisman@new-line.nl
http://www.new-line.nl
--- pardon my French, I'm Dutch ---

[Doughboy]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:19:35 +0100, Laurence Payne
<l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>>What's this overhang then. Not a term I'm familiar with.
>
>http://website.lineone.net/~dcr2/pickup.html
>If you swing the tone arm to the centre of the record, you'd maybe
>expect it to hit dead centre. In fact, optimum tracking is achieved
>by pushing it a little froward from this. By an amount referred to as
>the overhang.

Thanks for the explanation and link. I've learnt something new :)

>
>> I saw a
>>review that recommended the DJ S, which said that it was the best for
>>scratching, which suggests it's tracking is ok doesn't it?
>
>Nope. It just suggests that the cartridge will put up with
>considerable abuse. If you want to do the things DJs do to their
>records - back-cueing, scratching - you need a peculiarly robust
>cartridge and stylus. This won't necessarily be the best-sounding or
>the best at tracking. In fact, it almost certainly won't sound as
>good as one designed for normal use.

Cheers for clearing up the difference.

Doughboy

[Doughboy]

On 27 Aug 2003 13:55:51 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Doughboy <anon@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>The arms are whatever Gemini put on their decks. I've got a PT-2000,
>>which has a height adjustable arm, and a PT-1000, which doesn't.
>
>I would seriously recommend investing in a good arm. Those Gemini arms
>really ring horribly, and that is a lot of your problem. You can play
>around with trying to damp down parts with felt and move some mass around
>so it doesn't ring so badly.

Is it possible to change the arm on these decks? Certainly the one on
my PT-1000 needs attention, as it seems more wobbly/loose than it
should be, but as you suggest, the PT-2000 arm is rather lightweight
as well.

>>What's this overhang then. Not a term I'm familiar with. I saw a
>>review that recommended the DJ S, which said that it was the best for
>>scratching, which suggests it's tracking is ok doesn't it?
>
>What you want for transcription work is almost totally opposite from what
>you want for a DJ turntable.
>
>Take a look at a good introduction to turntable setup; the little booklet
>that Old Colony sells is a good one. Also, get a good cartridge alignment
>tool and read the instructions that came with it to adjust the various
>parameters. You need to make sure the cartridge is in the right place so
>that it can track properly, that it is at the right angle with respect to
>the record, that it is in the right angle with respect to the groove, and
>that the tracking and anti-skate forces are set for best tracking (NOT just
>set according to the numbers on the data sheet, but actually set for best
>performance on your arm).
>
>You might consider the Grado DJ-100 cartridge... it will work acceptably
>well on that sort of arm, without the kind of low frequency problems that
>most of the Grados will. But you're going to have to do some serious
>tinkering with that arm.
>--scott

Thanks for the advice, I'll get myself the right tools to set up my
carts, and look into the Grado DJ-100.

Doughboy

[P Stamler]

>As I mentioned in my post to Scott, my decks
>are a Gemini PT-1000, and PT-2000, and the latter has a height
>adjustable arm. Would the Grado carts be any good with either of
>these?

Should be, but he's also right about the arms needing to have their ringing
damped. I've found that making a small doughnut from Mortite (a rope-caulk,
sold at hardware stores) at the halfway point on the arm, and another one at
the 1/3 point (the one closer to the pivot) can be surprisingly useful. Squish
the Mortite so that it's a flat band, about 1/4" wide. Really bad arms are also
helped by a third band, right near the pivot.

>Would method do you recommend to clean the records? I remember reading
>that wet cleaning is a bad idea as this leads to sludge in the
>grooves.

A record-cleaning machine is best, one that sucks the gunge out of the grooves
with a vacuum setup. On records that are only a little dirty, I find that a
Discwasher can work okay. Not great, but okay. Wet it with their own liquid, or
with distilled water.

Peace,
Paul

[James Boyk]

P Stamler wrote:
> Should be, but he's also right about the arms needing to have their ringing
> damped. I've found that ...a small doughnut from Mortite ...can be surprisingly useful....


Sure, but this ENORMOUSLY increases the effective mass of the arm, and thus LOWERS the resonant point of arm/cartridge assembly. In most cases, this is a very bad thing. (I'm speaking from a lot of experience dealing with this issue in a variety of setting
s.) The right solution is to get a good arm of appropriate mass for the cartridge.

James Boyk

[Doughboy]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 10:22:48 -0700, James Boyk <boyk@caltech.edu>
wrote:

>P Stamler wrote:
>> Should be, but he's also right about the arms needing to have their ringing
>> damped. I've found that ...a small doughnut from Mortite ...can be surprisingly useful....
>
>
>Sure, but this ENORMOUSLY increases the effective mass of the arm, and thus LOWERS the resonant point of arm/cartridge assembly. In most cases, this is a very bad thing. (I'm speaking from a lot of experience dealing with this issue in a variety of settin
gs.) The right solution is to get a good arm of appropriate mass for the cartridge.
>
>James Boyk

So would replacing the arm on my PT-2000 with a SL1200 arm a) be
possible and b) be a good choice (bearing in mind that I want to
continue to use this turntable for DJ work as well as transcription).

If so, what cartridge would be the best match for the SL1200 arm out
of:

Ortofon OM-5
Ortofon OM Super 10
Ortofon Nightclub E
Grado DJ-100

Doughboy

[Doughboy]

On 28 Aug 2003 17:17:02 GMT, pstamler@aol.com (P Stamler) wrote:

>>As I mentioned in my post to Scott, my decks
>>are a Gemini PT-1000, and PT-2000, and the latter has a height
>>adjustable arm. Would the Grado carts be any good with either of
>>these?
>
>Should be, but he's also right about the arms needing to have their ringing
>damped. I've found that making a small doughnut from Mortite (a rope-caulk,
>sold at hardware stores) at the halfway point on the arm, and another one at
>the 1/3 point (the one closer to the pivot) can be surprisingly useful. Squish
>the Mortite so that it's a flat band, about 1/4" wide. Really bad arms are also
>helped by a third band, right near the pivot.

Interesting idea. I'll probably give the Ortofon DJ E cart a go first,
and then try your damping tips to see what difference it makes.
Although I'm also considering getting a better arm (if possible).

>>Would method do you recommend to clean the records? I remember reading
>>that wet cleaning is a bad idea as this leads to sludge in the
>>grooves.
>
>A record-cleaning machine is best, one that sucks the gunge out of the grooves
>with a vacuum setup. On records that are only a little dirty, I find that a
>Discwasher can work okay. Not great, but okay. Wet it with their own liquid, or
>with distilled water.

Thanks for the tips. Most of my records are just in need of a little
sprucing up, but I do have some that were caught up in a fire and need
more thorough cleaning. Luckily, they weren't burnt or warped, but
they got soaked by the firemen and the grooves are clogged with ash!

Doughboy

[James Boyk]

Doughboy wrote:
> So would replacing the arm on my PT-2000 with a SL1200 arm a) be
> possible and b) be a good choice (bearing in mind that I want to
> continue to use this turntable for DJ work as well as transcription).

> If so, what cartridge would be the best match for the SL1200 arm out
> of:
>
> Ortofon OM-5
> Ortofon OM Super 10
> Ortofon Nightclub E
> Grado DJ-100


I don't know the answers to these questions. I should think no one knows the ans abt arm replacement except someone who's done it; and as for arm/cartridge matching, you need to know: "effective mass" of arm, mass of cartridge, "dynamic complian" of cartri
dge (NOT static compliance, and not the usual "compliance" figure wh is given, wh is indeed static). You can get this info from the mfrs. Get that data & we can calculate the vertical resonant freq.

jb

[P Stamler]

>Sure, but this ENORMOUSLY increases the effective mass of the arm, and thus
>LOWERS the resonant point of arm/cartridge assembly. In most cases, this is a
>very bad thing. (I'm speaking from a lot of experience dealing with this
>issue in a variety of settings.)

Does it increase the effective mass of the arm? Of course. In practice, I
haven't found that to be a problem most of the time, especially with the sort
of inexpensive arms that need de-ringing. Probably their relatively-high
bearing friction damps down the resonance. I don't apply this treatment to
decent arms, but cheap ones, in my experience, usually benefit from it.
(Provided they're not being used with ultra-high-compliance cartridges like a
Shure V15.)

Peace,
Paul

[Doughboy]

Just thought of another copule of questions re: transcription.

Would I get better results by:

a) using just the slipmat (as per DJ'ing)

b) using just the turntables rubber mat

c) using both

or would it be unlikely to make much difference?

Also what would be the best setting for the tone-arm height
adjustment. For DJ'ing/scratching, I understand it is best to have it
set high (something to do with increasing the weight at the headshell
end), but of course this may not be useful when transcribing.

Doughboy

[Scott Dorsey]

Doughboy <anon@invalid.com> wrote:
>Just thought of another copule of questions re: transcription.
>
>Would I get better results by:
>
>a) using just the slipmat (as per DJ'ing)
>
>b) using just the turntables rubber mat
>
>c) using both
>
>or would it be unlikely to make much difference?

Put the record on. Tap the platter. Which one rings more? The one
that rings less is the one you want.

>Also what would be the best setting for the tone-arm height
>adjustment. For DJ'ing/scratching, I understand it is best to have it
>set high (something to do with increasing the weight at the headshell
>end), but of course this may not be useful when transcribing.

That depends on the arm, cartridge, stylus, and the actual record. The
vertical tracking angle should be about fifteen degrees, but if you are
using a microline stylus, it will be critical enough that you will have
to adjust it for every record. With an elliptical you can afford to be
a little sloppy and you can just set the height for best separation on
a test record.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[James Boyk]

Re tracking angle: Only the angle built into the cartridge allows having a stylus rake angle of 90 degrees; and [a little-realized fact] the distortion increase from incorrect rake angle is worse than that from having a somewhat incorrect tracking angle. T
herefore, if one wants 15-deg. tracking angle, one needs to buy a cartridge with that angle built in. Otherwise, if you alter the arm settings to get the 'right' tracking angle, you will screw up the rake angle.


James Boyk

[Doughboy]

On 29 Aug 2003 18:04:05 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Doughboy <anon@invalid.com> wrote:
>>Just thought of another copule of questions re: transcription.
>>
>>Would I get better results by:
>>
>>a) using just the slipmat (as per DJ'ing)
>>
>>b) using just the turntables rubber mat
>>
>>c) using both
>>
>>or would it be unlikely to make much difference?
>
>Put the record on. Tap the platter. Which one rings more? The one
>that rings less is the one you want.

OK, seems simple enough.

>>Also what would be the best setting for the tone-arm height
>>adjustment. For DJ'ing/scratching, I understand it is best to have it
>>set high (something to do with increasing the weight at the headshell
>>end), but of course this may not be useful when transcribing.
>
>That depends on the arm, cartridge, stylus, and the actual record. The
>vertical tracking angle should be about fifteen degrees, but if you are
>using a microline stylus, it will be critical enough that you will have
>to adjust it for every record. With an elliptical you can afford to be
>a little sloppy and you can just set the height for best separation on
>a test record.

Thanks for the explanation. I'll look into how to measure the angle.

Doughboy

[Doughboy]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 10:23:52 +0200, "André Huisman"
<see_post_for_m@il.ok> wrote:

>"Doughboy" <anon@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> The arms are whatever Gemini put on their decks. I've got a PT-2000,
>> which has a height adjustable arm, and a PT-1000, which doesn't.
>
>Then the overhang is correctly when you use a concorde version. BTW: In this
>deck (high mass tone-arm) I would not use an OM-5 cartridge (and the OM
>Super 10 is completely out of the question). So your best bet would be the
>Night Club E (OM version is headshell mounted and very fairly priced,
>Concorde version is quite a bit more expensive).

Having looked at the spec sheets for the Nightclub E and the DJ E
(http://www.ortofon.dk/html/body_disco_coil_technical_data.html?varenr=0130021
&
http://www.ortofon.dk/html/body_disco_coil_technical_data.html?varenr=0130051 ),
the only differences I can see between them are:

1) channel balance at 1khz: Nightclub E - 1.5db", DJ E - 2db

2) Compliance, dynamic, lateral: Nightclub E - 7 µm/mN, DJ E - 9 µm/mN

3) Nightclub E has a yellow neon tip whereas DJ E has a blue tip


I have no idea what 1) means or whether a high or low value is good,
so I'd be grateful if you could explain whether the DJ E's higher
value is going to noticably affect the sound quality.

As for 2), I understand that the DJ E's higher figure "comes from a
stiffer cantilever which directly benefits the styli's ability to stay
in the groove at that split second that record changes directions"
(Dave Rosenbloom)

3) Irrelevant to me

As the DJ E is cheaper and would be better for scratching, is there
any good reason why I shouldn't get this rather than the Nightclub E?
I know I said that I'd probably get seperate carts for scratching and
transcription, but this seems to offer the best of both worlds for the
lowest price.

Doughboy

[James Boyk]

Isn't a spherical stylus good for these purposes? Accurate reading of the groove doesn't seem to be the point. And a spherical eliminates the problem of tracking angle.

James Boyk

[James Boyk]

James Boyk wrote: > ...a spherical eliminates the problem of tracking angle.


What I meant of course was that it can be adjusted for proper tracking angle without screwing up the rake angle, since a spherical has no vertical axis.


James Boyk

[Keith G]

"James Boyk" <boyk@caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:biqvr9$4ja$1@naig.caltech.edu...
> James Boyk wrote: > ...a spherical eliminates the problem of tracking
angle.
>
>
> What I meant of course was that it can be adjusted for proper tracking
angle without screwing up the rake angle, since a spherical has no vertical
axis.


Oh yes it does.....

[Arny Krueger]

"James Boyk" <boyk@caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:biqvr9$4ja$1@naig.caltech.edu
> James Boyk wrote: > ...a spherical eliminates the problem of tracking
> angle.
>
>
> What I meant of course was that it can be adjusted for proper
> tracking angle without screwing up the rake angle, since a spherical
> has no vertical axis.

The vertical axis is a property of the cartridge, not the just the stylus,
so every cartridge has one.

[James Boyk]

Keith G wrote:

>> "James Boyk" <boyk@caltech.edu> wrote: ...since a spherical has no vertical axis.


> Oh yes it does.....


Sorry; it doesn't. An elliptical, or line-contact, stylus--or any other non-spherical stylus---has a correct orientation w/ respect to the groove; namely the orientation where the "line", the vert. axis, IS vertical. A sphere doesn't care.

The cartridge still has a *tracking angle* which matters, but the whole point I'm making is that these are two different things; and that using a spherical stylus, by eliminating one constraint, allows you to optimize the other one.

The "cost" of doing this is that the sphere doesn't read the groove so accurately as a more extreme stylus shape; but in the context of DJ use, this surely does not matter.


James Boyk
http://www.performancerecordings.com

[William Sommerwerck]

It doesn't eliminate it, it merely reduces it. Tracking distortion is a
geometric effect that occurs with any stylus shape.

> Isn't a spherical stylus good for these purposes?
> Accurate reading of the groove doesn't seem to be
> the point. And a spherical eliminates the problem of
> tracking angle.

[James Boyk]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

> It doesn't eliminate it, it merely reduces it. Tracking distortion is a
> geometric effect that occurs with any stylus shape.
>
>
>>Isn't a spherical stylus good for these purposes?
>>Accurate reading of the groove doesn't seem to be
>>the point. And a spherical eliminates the problem of
>>tracking angle.


I stated that spherical stylus eliminates the problem of tracking angle. It *does* eliminate it. With a spherical stylus, you can get any tracking angle you want-----because the incorrect rake angle this may force you to use doesn't make things worse, beca
use the stylus is spherical. It's true that there's a cost to this: the sphere doesn't read the groove so accurately as an elliptical or line stylus. But it's also true that my statement was correct as stated!


James Boyk

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 13:01:14 -0700, James Boyk <boyk@caltech.edu>
wrote:

>James Boyk wrote: > ...a spherical eliminates the problem of tracking angle.
>
>What I meant of course was that it can be adjusted for proper tracking angle without
>screwing up the rake angle, since a spherical has no vertical axis.

What? Of course it has a vertical axis, it's just not so critical
about VTA as a 'line contact' stylus.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 14:53:05 -0700, James Boyk <boyk@caltech.edu>
wrote:

>William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>> It doesn't eliminate it, it merely reduces it. Tracking distortion is a
>> geometric effect that occurs with any stylus shape.
>>
>>>Isn't a spherical stylus good for these purposes?
>>>Accurate reading of the groove doesn't seem to be
>>>the point. And a spherical eliminates the problem of
>>>tracking angle.
>
>I stated that spherical stylus eliminates the problem of tracking angle.
>It *does* eliminate it. With a spherical stylus, you can get any tracking
>angle you want-----because the incorrect rake angle this may force you
>to use doesn't make things worse, because the stylus is spherical. It's
>true that there's a cost to this: the sphere doesn't read the groove so
>accurately as an elliptical or line stylus. But it's also true that my
>statement was correct as stated!

This is rubbish. A 'spherical' stylus is of course not spherical at
all, but conical, and most certainly *does* have a vertical axis.
While it is *less* sensitive to VTA (or 'rake' angle) than an
elliptical or particularly a line-contact stylus, it's certainly not
immune to it. The only difference is that it's not sensitive to
tracking error, since there is no vertical *plane*, as there is in a
speherical or line-contact stylus.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Keith G]

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3f51d952.279980941@news.fsnet.co.uk...
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 14:53:05 -0700, James Boyk <boyk@caltech.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >William Sommerwerck wrote:
> >
> >> It doesn't eliminate it, it merely reduces it. Tracking distortion is a
> >> geometric effect that occurs with any stylus shape.
> >>
> >>>Isn't a spherical stylus good for these purposes?
> >>>Accurate reading of the groove doesn't seem to be
> >>>the point. And a spherical eliminates the problem of
> >>>tracking angle.
> >
> >I stated that spherical stylus eliminates the problem of tracking angle.
> >It *does* eliminate it. With a spherical stylus, you can get any tracking
> >angle you want-----because the incorrect rake angle this may force you
> >to use doesn't make things worse, because the stylus is spherical. It's
> >true that there's a cost to this: the sphere doesn't read the groove so
> >accurately as an elliptical or line stylus. But it's also true that my
> >statement was correct as stated!
>
> This is rubbish. A 'spherical' stylus is of course not spherical at
> all, but conical, and most certainly *does* have a vertical axis.
> While it is *less* sensitive to VTA (or 'rake' angle) than an
> elliptical or particularly a line-contact stylus, it's certainly not
> immune to it. The only difference is that it's not sensitive to
> tracking error, since there is no vertical *plane*, as there is in a
> speherical or line-contact stylus.


Correct in every respect. The whole point of a 'spherical' stylus, in the
real world, is that it is more forgiving in matters of setup at some cost in
terms of 'detail'. (Also goes some way to eliminating phase shift
minutiae? - Buggered if I know....)

Capable of a very satisfying 'vinyl' sound in a (typically) inexpensive
deck, nevertheless.....

(Wrong 'place' for this sort of thing? :-)

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:22:52 +0100, "Keith G" <keith_g@dsl.pipex.com>
wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3f51d952.279980941@news.fsnet.co.uk...
>> On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 14:53:05 -0700, James Boyk <boyk@caltech.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> >
>> >> It doesn't eliminate it, it merely reduces it. Tracking distortion is a
>> >> geometric effect that occurs with any stylus shape.
>> >>
>> >>>Isn't a spherical stylus good for these purposes?
>> >>>Accurate reading of the groove doesn't seem to be
>> >>>the point. And a spherical eliminates the problem of
>> >>>tracking angle.
>> >
>> >I stated that spherical stylus eliminates the problem of tracking angle.
>> >It *does* eliminate it. With a spherical stylus, you can get any tracking
>> >angle you want-----because the incorrect rake angle this may force you
>> >to use doesn't make things worse, because the stylus is spherical. It's
>> >true that there's a cost to this: the sphere doesn't read the groove so
>> >accurately as an elliptical or line stylus. But it's also true that my
>> >statement was correct as stated!
>>
>> This is rubbish. A 'spherical' stylus is of course not spherical at
>> all, but conical, and most certainly *does* have a vertical axis.
>> While it is *less* sensitive to VTA (or 'rake' angle) than an
>> elliptical or particularly a line-contact stylus, it's certainly not
>> immune to it. The only difference is that it's not sensitive to
>> tracking error, since there is no vertical *plane*, as there is in a
>> speherical or line-contact stylus.
>
>Correct in every respect. The whole point of a 'spherical' stylus, in the
>real world, is that it is more forgiving in matters of setup at some cost in
>terms of 'detail'. (Also goes some way to eliminating phase shift
>minutiae? - Buggered if I know....)
>
>Capable of a very satisfying 'vinyl' sound in a (typically) inexpensive
>deck, nevertheless.....
>
>(Wrong 'place' for this sort of thing? :-)

And of course my last 'spherical' should read 'elliptical'. :-(
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Keith G]

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3f521fd6.298032968@news.fsnet.co.uk...
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:22:52 +0100, "Keith G" <keith_g@dsl.pipex.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:3f51d952.279980941@news.fsnet.co.uk...
> >> On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 14:53:05 -0700, James Boyk <boyk@caltech.edu>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >William Sommerwerck wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> It doesn't eliminate it, it merely reduces it. Tracking distortion
is a
> >> >> geometric effect that occurs with any stylus shape.
> >> >>
> >> >>>Isn't a spherical stylus good for these purposes?
> >> >>>Accurate reading of the groove doesn't seem to be
> >> >>>the point. And a spherical eliminates the problem of
> >> >>>tracking angle.
> >> >
> >> >I stated that spherical stylus eliminates the problem of tracking
angle.
> >> >It *does* eliminate it. With a spherical stylus, you can get any
tracking
> >> >angle you want-----because the incorrect rake angle this may force you
> >> >to use doesn't make things worse, because the stylus is spherical.
It's
> >> >true that there's a cost to this: the sphere doesn't read the groove
so
> >> >accurately as an elliptical or line stylus. But it's also true that my
> >> >statement was correct as stated!
> >>
> >> This is rubbish. A 'spherical' stylus is of course not spherical at
> >> all, but conical, and most certainly *does* have a vertical axis.
> >> While it is *less* sensitive to VTA (or 'rake' angle) than an
> >> elliptical or particularly a line-contact stylus, it's certainly not
> >> immune to it. The only difference is that it's not sensitive to
> >> tracking error, since there is no vertical *plane*, as there is in a
> >> speherical or line-contact stylus.
> >
> >Correct in every respect. The whole point of a 'spherical' stylus, in the
> >real world, is that it is more forgiving in matters of setup at some cost
in
> >terms of 'detail'. (Also goes some way to eliminating phase shift
> >minutiae? - Buggered if I know....)
> >
> >Capable of a very satisfying 'vinyl' sound in a (typically) inexpensive
> >deck, nevertheless.....
> >
> >(Wrong 'place' for this sort of thing? :-)
>
> And of course my last 'spherical' should read 'elliptical'. :-(



OK, not quite 'every respect' then, but I knew where you were going......
;-)

(Didn't even 'see it' myself!)

[Doughboy]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:22:52 +0100, "Keith G" <keith_g@dsl.pipex.com>
wrote:

>Correct in every respect. The whole point of a 'spherical' stylus, in the
>real world, is that it is more forgiving in matters of setup at some cost in
>terms of 'detail'. (Also goes some way to eliminating phase shift
>minutiae? - Buggered if I know....)

Having read the above statement, I'm now confused whether I should go
for the Ortofon OM DJ E, with it's better freq. response (20-20.000 Hz
± 2 dB), but potential difficulties inherent with it's elliptical
stylus, or the Ortofon OM DJ S, which has a worse freq. response
(20-18.000 Hz + 3 / - 2 dB) but, being a spherical stylus, avoids the
problems referred to.

If you could consider my earlier post (30/8 14:23), about the
differences between the Nightclub and DJ models, when replying, it
will help me to actually get round to purchasing a cart, rather than
asking endless questions here :)

Doughboy

[Ben Bradley]

In rec.audio.pro, Doughboy <anon@invalid.com> wrote:

> ...

>If you could consider my earlier post (30/8 14:23), about the
>differences between the Nightclub and DJ models, when replying, it
>will help me to actually get round to purchasing a cart, rather than
>asking endless questions here :)

You mean this message?

>Having looked at the spec sheets for the Nightclub E and the DJ E
>(http://www.ortofon.dk/html/body_disco_coil_technical_data.html?varenr=0130021
>&
>http://www.ortofon.dk/html/body_disco_coil_technical_data.html?varenr=0130051 ),
>the only differences I can see between them are:
>
>1) channel balance at 1khz: Nightclub E - 1.5db", DJ E - 2db
>
>2) Compliance, dynamic, lateral: Nightclub E - 7 µm/mN, DJ E - 9 µm/mN
>
>3) Nightclub E has a yellow neon tip whereas DJ E has a blue tip
>
>I have no idea what 1) means or whether a high or low value is good,
>so I'd be grateful if you could explain whether the DJ E's higher
>value is going to noticably affect the sound quality.

The channel balance figure just means that one channel might be as
much as 1.5dB louder (or 2dB louder for the other model) than the
other channel when they play back a signal recorded at the same level
on both channels. All this means to me is that the 1.5dB one is made
to a closer tolerance. It would be easy for a preamp to have a balance
trim control so you could tweak it to compensate for any such
difference, but AFAIK they don't. Whether one channel being up to 1.5
or 2 dB louder is significant to you is up to you to decide (but for
either cartridge I think I'd add a balance trimpot to the preamp and
tweak it with a test record).

From the first post, I presume you have two turntables? You could
easily hear/check out the differences between the cartridges by buying
one of each. :)


>Doughboy

[James Boyk]

I can't believe this discussion going on & on AND ON about things that surely don't matter! This cartridge is going to be used for ultra-UNcritical stuff, right? THe main property it needs is surely ability to take abuse. Frequency response difference betw
een 18k and 20k surely does not matter, right? And yet the discussion is going into audiophile detail. Well, find, if that's what all y'all enjoy.

Or have I missed the boat? Is a "DJ" application somehow very critical of sound quality?

Or am I just too hungry for the Labor-Day BBQ I'll be eating at Dr. Hoagly Woagly's Tyler Texas BBQ (in LA) in two hours?


James Boyk

[William Sommerwerck]

Why do you want a DJ pickup? Do you intend to back-cue? If not, you have a much
wider variety of pickups to choose from.

[William Sommerwerck]

James is "spewing" a bit, but he's basically correct.

Too many people want to know the "right" product to buy, when they have little
or no understanding the differences among various products, and probably
wouldn't hear them at all.

Sometimes the best thing to do is to buy what you like, and learn from your
mistakes.

James Boyk wrote...

> I can't believe this discussion going on & on AND ON
> about things that surely don't matter! This cartridge is
> going to be used for ultra-UNcritical stuff, right?

[Doughboy]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 23:30:27 GMT, ben_nospam_bradley@mindspring.com
(Ben Bradley) wrote:

>In rec.audio.pro, Doughboy <anon@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> ...
>
>>If you could consider my earlier post (30/8 14:23), about the
>>differences between the Nightclub and DJ models, when replying, it
>>will help me to actually get round to purchasing a cart, rather than
>>asking endless questions here :)
>
> You mean this message?

That's the one.

> The channel balance figure just means that one channel might be as
>much as 1.5dB louder (or 2dB louder for the other model) than the
>other channel when they play back a signal recorded at the same level
>on both channels. All this means to me is that the 1.5dB one is made
>to a closer tolerance. It would be easy for a preamp to have a balance
>trim control so you could tweak it to compensate for any such
>difference, but AFAIK they don't. Whether one channel being up to 1.5
>or 2 dB louder is significant to you is up to you to decide (but for
>either cartridge I think I'd add a balance trimpot to the preamp and
>tweak it with a test record).

Thanks for the explanation. To be honest, a 1.5db difference between
channels might be noticeable to me, but I doubt the extra .5db
difference (of the DJ E) would be.

> From the first post, I presume you have two turntables? You could
>easily hear/check out the differences between the cartridges by buying
>one of each. :)

Thanks very much. Do you want to send me the money via Paypal :)

Doughboy
Doughboy

[Doughboy]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 17:49:12 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
<williams@nwlink.com> wrote:

>James is "spewing" a bit, but he's basically correct.
>
>Too many people want to know the "right" product to buy, when they have little
>or no understanding the differences among various products, and probably
>wouldn't hear them at all.
>
>Sometimes the best thing to do is to buy what you like, and learn from your
>mistakes.

I have learnt from my mistakes. I've learnt that I always buy crap,
and that I should get some good advice before spending my meagre
amount of spare cash :)

I don't want to buy a Grado DJ-100, which is probably going to cost a
fair bit more than a Ortofon DJ E, if my deck (and tonearm) are not
good enough for my transcriptions to sound noticeably better. I also
don't want to buy an elliptical stylus, if it's going to be so fiddly
to setup properly that the earlier mentioned pitfalls detriment my
recordings to the point where I would have been better off with (a
cheaper) spherical stylus.

If forced to make a decision at the moment, I'd probably buy the OM DJ
S and see what effect that has on my recordings. It's the cheapest of
the carts I'm considering, but still seems to have good specs, and if
it's not good enough for recording with, it's still a decent DJ cart.

I certainly hear quite a substantial difference between running my
turntable through my Vestax DJ mixer (supposedly good quality), and
direct into my amp, but I may consider building a dedicated phono
pre-amp if I feel it's necessary.

Doughboy
Doughboy

[Doughboy]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 17:03:10 -0700, James Boyk <boyk@caltech.edu>
wrote:

>I can't believe this discussion going on & on AND ON about things that surely don't matter! This cartridge is going to be used for ultra-UNcritical stuff, right? THe main property it needs is surely ability to take abuse. Frequency response difference bet
ween 18k and 20k surely does not matter, right? And yet the discussion is going into audiophile detail. Well, find, if that's what all y'all enjoy.

I started this discussion by stating that I was looking for a
cartridge for transcription work. And you've made several posts
yourself on the subject of 'angles', so you can hardly complain that
this thread has gone off on an 'audiophile' tangent.

>Or have I missed the boat? Is a "DJ" application somehow very critical of sound quality?

Yes, by hours. No.

>Or am I just too hungry for the Labor-Day BBQ I'll be eating at Dr. Hoagly Woagly's Tyler Texas BBQ (in LA) in two hours?

Probably. Blood sugar level and all that. Hope you enjoy, I've got the
flu so it's chicken soup for me :(

Doughboy
Doughboy

[Doughboy]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 17:46:12 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
<williams@nwlink.com> wrote:

>Why do you want a DJ pickup? Do you intend to back-cue? If not, you have a much
>wider variety of pickups to choose from.

I never said I wanted a DJ pickup, but André Huisman said that the
Ortofon OM-5 and OM Super 10 would be unsuitable for my deck (due to
it's high mass tone arm) and that my best bet would be the Nightclub
E. Then I looked at the specs for the Nightclub E and the DJ E, and it
seemed that the DJ E was actually better, and cheaper, than the
Nightclub E.

Now, having read (and not understanding much of) the discussions about
angles, I'm wondering whether, with my deck and fairly crap arm, I'd
get better results with a spherical stylus, or whether I'd be able to
setup an elliptical correctly to benefit from it's improved
performance, whilst avoiding it's potential pitfalls.

Scott Dorsey suggested the Grado DJ-100, which is somewhat harder for
me to find (although perhaps my local hi-fi store will be able to get
them). This is also elliptical, so the above comments apply to this
cart as well. From Grado's website, I see it has a freq. response of
10-50 and a channel separation of 30. (Don't blame me for the poor
presentation, that's what their website says). These figures are
obviously better than the OM DJ E, which has a quoted freq. response
of 20-20000hz +-2db, and channel separation at 1khz of 23db, but
whether this cart will perform with my deck noticeably better, or even
as well, as a cheap OM DJ E or DJ S, I don't know.

Doughboy
Doughboy

[Doughboy]

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 03:46:21 GMT, Doughboy <anon@invalid.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 17:03:10 -0700, James Boyk <boyk@caltech.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>I can't believe this discussion going on & on AND ON about things that surely don't matter! This cartridge is going to be used for ultra-UNcritical stuff, right? THe main property it needs is surely ability to take abuse. Frequency response difference be
tween 18k and 20k surely does not matter, right? And yet the discussion is going into audiophile detail. Well, find, if that's what all y'all enjoy.
>
>I started this discussion by stating that I was looking for a
>cartridge for transcription work. And you've made several posts
>yourself on the subject of 'angles', so you can hardly complain that
>this thread has gone off on an 'audiophile' tangent.
>
>>Or have I missed the boat? Is a "DJ" application somehow very critical of sound quality?
>
>Yes, by hours. No.
>
>>Or am I just too hungry for the Labor-Day BBQ I'll be eating at Dr. Hoagly Woagly's Tyler Texas BBQ (in LA) in two hours?
>
>Probably. Blood sugar level and all that. Hope you enjoy, I've got the
>flu so it's chicken soup for me :(
>
>Doughboy
>Doughboy

And no you're not seeing double. I just cocked up my auto signature
thingy :)
Doughboy

[P Stamler]

>Scott Dorsey suggested the Grado DJ-100, which is somewhat harder for
>me to find (although perhaps my local hi-fi store will be able to get
>them). This is also elliptical, so the above comments apply to this
>cart as well. From Grado's website, I see it has a freq. response of
>10-50 and a channel separation of 30. (Don't blame me for the poor
>presentation, that's what their website says). These figures are
>obviously better than the OM DJ E, which has a quoted freq. response
>of 20-20000hz +-2db, and channel separation at 1khz of 23db, but
>whether this cart will perform with my deck noticeably better, or even
>as well, as a cheap OM DJ E or DJ S, I don't know.

My suspicion is that the Grado cartridges, all of them, will track the discs
much better than the OM series will. In the end, that's a gross difference
while the other stuff is comparatively subtle. Grados are also considerably
less sensitive to loading than most moving-magnet cartridges.

Peace,
Paul

[Doughboy]

On 01 Sep 2003 17:02:49 GMT, pstamler@aol.com (P Stamler) wrote:

>>Scott Dorsey suggested the Grado DJ-100, which is somewhat harder for
>>me to find (although perhaps my local hi-fi store will be able to get
>>them). This is also elliptical, so the above comments apply to this
>>cart as well. From Grado's website, I see it has a freq. response of
>>10-50 and a channel separation of 30. (Don't blame me for the poor
>>presentation, that's what their website says). These figures are
>>obviously better than the OM DJ E, which has a quoted freq. response
>>of 20-20000hz +-2db, and channel separation at 1khz of 23db, but
>>whether this cart will perform with my deck noticeably better, or even
>>as well, as a cheap OM DJ E or DJ S, I don't know.
>
>My suspicion is that the Grado cartridges, all of them, will track the discs
>much better than the OM series will. In the end, that's a gross difference
>while the other stuff is comparatively subtle. Grados are also considerably
>less sensitive to loading than most moving-magnet cartridges.
>
>Peace,
>Paul

Thanks for the advice. All I need to do now is find somewhere (in the
UK) that sells the Grado's (particularly the DJ-100 which is the only
one that's been recommended so far). I can't even find anywhere that
sells the OM DJ E, and the one stockist I've found that sells the OM 5
(the aforementioned local hi-fi store) wants £35 for it, which seems a
bit much when I can get the OM DJ S for £30-35.

Doughboy


Doughboy

[Arny Krueger]

"P Stamler" <pstamler@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030901130249.19898.00000377@mb-m28.aol.com

>> Scott Dorsey suggested the Grado DJ-100, which is somewhat harder for
>> me to find (although perhaps my local hi-fi store will be able to get
>> them). This is also elliptical, so the above comments apply to this
>> cart as well. From Grado's website, I see it has a freq. response of
>> 10-50 and a channel separation of 30. (Don't blame me for the poor
>> presentation, that's what their website says). These figures are
>> obviously better than the OM DJ E, which has a quoted freq. response
>> of 20-20000hz +-2db, and channel separation at 1khz of 23db, but
>> whether this cart will perform with my deck noticeably better, or
>> even as well, as a cheap OM DJ E or DJ S, I don't know.
>
> My suspicion is that the Grado cartridges, all of them, will track
> the discs much better than the OM series will. In the end, that's a
> gross difference while the other stuff is comparatively subtle.
> Grados are also considerably less sensitive to loading than most
> moving-magnet cartridges.

Concur. IMO the two cartridge lines to follow in the 21st century are Shure
and Grado. Grado and Shure both track well, but Shures are better-damped and
more tolerant of higher-mass and poorly-damped tone arms. Grados are far
more tolerant of variations in capacitive loading, but if you tweak a Shure
in with loading caps, it's the flattest thing around in the audible range.
You pays your money...