Choosing Hi-Fi Cart/Stylus

Discussion in 'rec.audio.pro' started by Doughboy, Aug 27, 2003.

  1. Doughboy

    Doughboy Guest

    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
  2. Doughboy

    Doughboy Guest

    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
  3. James Boyk

    James Boyk Guest

    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
  4. James Boyk

    James Boyk Guest

    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
  5. Keith G

    Keith G Guest

    "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.....
  6. Arny Krueger

    Arny Krueger Guest

    "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.
  7. James Boyk

    James Boyk Guest

    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
  8. 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.
  9. James Boyk

    James Boyk Guest

    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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Keith G

    Keith G Guest

    "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? :)
  13. 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
  14. Keith G

    Keith G Guest

    "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!)
  15. Doughboy

    Doughboy Guest

    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
  16. Ben Bradley

    Ben Bradley Guest

    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
  17. James Boyk

    James Boyk Guest

    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
  18. 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.
  19. 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?
  20. Doughboy

    Doughboy Guest

    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

Share This Page