fini Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 ...or is it a crap-shoot? I'm talking here about vinyl, which is where I am having the most trouble getting things "right." Seems the CD thing is more forgiving, sounding acceptable (good, really) with most equipment combinations. Of course, I haven't swapped-out a lot of parts on the vinyl end (I will be trying a new cartridge, an Ortofon X5-MC that jnorv has kindly traded me for a broken Infinity Black Widow), and I don't have another arm to try on the Kenwood KD-500 (I don't think it's the arm's fault, anyway). What I am hearing is a "distortion" or "muddling" of the sound at higher volumes, or during denser, more complex passages. Almost like a veil is over the performance. Most certainly, it does not sound better than CDs, which is immensely disappointing. Of course, it could be the Mac 1900's phono stage. I will screw around with other amplification combos to at least see if the effect is different. I doubt if the table or the arm (SME 3009 series II improved, which I spent 4 hours readjusting) are at fault, but I guess one never knows. I've been scratching my head so hard, I'm starting to bleed... So, is there a scientific method I should apply? A likely culprit? I feel like I'm running uphill in sand... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kev313 Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 I think the secret with these types of things is to enjoy thr frustration...errr...I mean process! The other option is to go with well known or well tested combinations from the outset in order to reduce the number of variables that you are currently looking at. With respect to "scientific method," I would say, "Go slowly and change one thing at a time." I know that is pretty obvious, but sometimes the temptation to change 3 or 4 things at the same time is hard to resist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted June 20, 2005 Author Share Posted June 20, 2005 Mark, Thank you. The table is a Kenwood KD-500, the arm an SME 3009 series II improved, the cartridge is a Shure V15 type IV, fitted with a type III replacement stylus (as per Shure's recomendation). The more I think about it, the more I feel the problem is with the cartridge. It'll be interesting to hear how the Ortofon sounds in the system. I am crossing my fingers and knocking on wood (ouch!). jnorv has emailed me some info on the mass of SME arms. I'm a little confused about which exact model I have. I need to do a little research to find the difference between the "3009 series II improved", and the "3009/S2 series II improved." Why do they name them like that? Could they be any more confusing? I wish the Brits would get it together and start naming their equipment after fruits, or birds, or something... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted June 20, 2005 Author Share Posted June 20, 2005 Specs for the Ortofon X5-MC: OUTPUT 5cm/S:2mV FREQ RANGE:20Hz - 40kHz RESP. 20Hz-25kHz:+3 -1.5 dB TRACKING 315Hz:>60uM LATERAL COMPLIANCE:13 uM/mN STYLUS TYPE:FG70 5/70 uM STYLUS REPLACEMENT:None STYLUS TIP MASS:0.75 mG TRACKING FORCE: 1.8-2.2 Gr LOAD IMPEDANCE: >47kOhm, 200-400pF CARTRIDGE WEIGHT: 4.1 Gram Specs for the SME 3009 Improved, SME 3009 S2 Improved: 3009 Imp: fixed headshell. 3009 S2 Imp: detachable headshell. Aluminum arm tube, effective mass 9,5g (3009 Imp) or 12,5g (3009 S2 Imp). Nylon knife-edge bearings. One-piece disc-shaped counterweight, threaded. VTF set using outrigger, one weight. VTF range: 0 -1.5g. Lateral balance is set by adjusting the position of the outrigger relative to the main counterweight. Antiskating adjustment by thread and weight, short axle with 6 notches. Null points : 66 and 121mm. Mounting distance (bedplate centre to turntable centre) : 215,4mm. From looking around a bit online, it seems the difference between these two arms is the removable headshell (which is the one I have, the 3009 S2 Imp). So, I assume the mass of the arm and headshell is 12.5 g. Now to find that chart... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boom3 Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 IRT your more general question, 'synergy' is not predictable, except within gross limits, like a very low per amp and very inefficient speakers. There are just too many variables, especially with electromechanical components like phono carts and tone arms. In performing these experiments, the essential thing is to change only one component at a time, and, in the absence of instrumented measurement, keep a log of your impressions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted June 20, 2005 Author Share Posted June 20, 2005 Using the formula found here: http://www.theanalogdept.com/cartridge___arm_matching.htm plugging in the numbers from above using the Ortofon (and assuming 0.5 grams for fasteners), I come up with a resonant frequency of 10.66 Hz. Not bad! I will see if I can come up with numbers for the existing Shure cart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 The first example on the page you linked to contains the info for your cartridge: "Now let's think about matching a Shure V15VxMR to the above pictured TP16 Mk 1 tonearm. effective mass rating: 16.5 grams cartridge weight: 6.6 grams fastener weight: .5 grams compliance: 25 (16.5 + 6.6 + .5) * 25 = 590 sqrt 590 = 24.2899 159 / 24.2899 = 6.5459 hz calculated" Your arm has lower mas - 9.5 grams I think: =159/(sqrt((9.5+6.6+.5)*25)) or 7.8 Hz Not good news! Not necessarily a disaster - but could well explain muddy bass.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted June 20, 2005 Author Share Posted June 20, 2005 I just worked out the resonant frequency using the Shure, and it's around 6.59. I think I have found a reasonably obvious culprit! The specs I found say the mass of the Shure is 6.4 g., with a compliance of 30. I should be receiving the Ortofon today or tomorrow (thanks, Jim!). I'll report back... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Is your shure not the one in the example? Are you sure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted June 20, 2005 Author Share Posted June 20, 2005 Max, I think the arm I have has an effective mass of 12.5 g., but I certainly could be wrong. I am basing that on info I found here: http://www.analogue-classics.com/html/sme_3009___3012.html I interpreted the "S2" designation as "removable headshell." Why on Earth would they use "S2" and "Series II" in describing these things? Seems about as muddled as the sound I'm hearing! Here's my arm, in all it's glory: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted June 20, 2005 Author Share Posted June 20, 2005 ---------------- On 6/20/2005 10:11:56 AM maxg wrote: Is your shure not the one in the example? Are you sure? ---------------- Max, The cartridge in the example is different. Mine is a Type IV, with a type III stylus. I don't think Shure publishes compliance figures for their styli, but I found info at AA that gave the compliance as 30. The mass of both the types IV and III are the same (6.4 g.). Here's another link re: Shure carts: http://www.adelcom.net/ShureCart1.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Keep in mind that if the distortion is in one channel more than the other, anti-skate is probably th culprit. You've got the HiFi news test record, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Fini, Nice pic of the arm - but I need to see the other end to know which one you have. Does the headshell look removable or not? Frankly - I think we have a good candidate for the problem - install the new cart ASAP and lets see how it plays.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted June 20, 2005 Author Share Posted June 20, 2005 Ben, Yes, I've got that test record. Still sealed . I will pop it open when I get the new cartridge installed. Max, Most definitely yes, removable headshell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 ---------------- On 6/20/2005 10:37:18 AM ben. wrote: Keep in mind that if the distortion is in one channel more than the other, anti-skate is probably th culprit. You've got the HiFi news test record, right? ---------------- Fini, is your anti-skate setting in the right position? According to this page from an SME manual, the loop should be at the other end, to match up with a 1.5 gm. tracking weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted June 20, 2005 Author Share Posted June 20, 2005 Larry, You are absolutely correct. A problem I was having with the arm lift (missing the rubber insert) necessitated lowering the anti-skate, as the lift was too "slippery" and allowed the anti-skate weight to pull the arm back to the rest when cueing the arm. Yesterday I went to good old Home Depot and bought a rubber o-ring, which I fashioned into a replacement insert, glued down. It works well, now I will readjust the anti-skate and see how that sounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted June 22, 2005 Author Share Posted June 22, 2005 I am pretty confident to report... Problem solved! Thanks to the Ortofon X5-MC cartridge jnorv sent me (thank you Jim!), I believe my vinyl problems are history (knock on wood ). Gone is the nasty hum when I touch the finger lift (the Shure must have been damaged?). Gone is the muddled bass, the overloaded complex passages! In fact, it seems pretty bright. This weekend I'll spin the HiFi test LP and dial it in precisely. For now, it sounds darn good. The X5-MC seems to be a great match for the SME. Thanks everyone who helped here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.