Headshell heaven with a 1981-vintage DL-103U

[Barry]

Here are some facts: http://theartofsound.net/forum/showt...manent-Magnets.

As far as I'm concerned a magnetic field is a magnetic field, how it is created should not make any difference.

[Marco]

In my experience it does, though. Perhaps you're not looking at it in the right way? I don't know. That's when applying some lateral thinking can often be beneficial.

It's simply too much a coincidence that I love all sorts of kit which features the use of Alnico magnets, especially when Ortofon's top SPU (as it was when I bought it) sounded distinctly inferior to me than my vintage one does, whilst the former sported rare-earth magnets and (on paper) a much superior stylus, and so technically, should've trounced the 'golden oldie'.

Also look at Grant's vintage Telefunken speakers, which sound stunning, and also use Alnicos....Too many 'convenient coincidences', Barry.

'Facts' only exist as such until new information arrives that requires them to be revised and updated...And as we know, measurements only ever tell part of the story, so it could be simply that, in this instance, 'facts' haven't yet caught up with the results of people's valid experiences, which call into question certain aspects of the true validity of said 'facts', in relation to how Alnico magnets 'behave' in an audio sense [in audio applications]

If you do some research on the Internet, you'll find many other enthusiasts who consider Alnicos 'special', which are revered for their unique sound (when applied to hi-fi), in the way many other items are revered that seem to be better than most of what is used in audio equipment today.

Anyway, I guess that we'll simply have to agree to disagree on this one. I'll ask Anthony if he can come up with a plausible technical explanation as to why he also considers Alnico magnets sonically superior to others

Marco.

[Marco]

Here's a thing... What if, when I compare my 1981 DL-103 against a 2014 version, and consider the former as being significantly sonically superior? I'm not just talking here about subtle differences.

That *shouldn't* be the case, but it could happen. The question is, if it does, what do you think would be the likely mechanism for causing that sonic superiority? It's not going to be a slightly thinner outer shell, or something minor like that, that's for sure.

And let's not forget the 'facts' state that, on paper, both cartridges are identical...

Marco.

[guyb]

Nice!

This would look the business on my DP-2000 TT and AT-1005 arm and no doubt sound great pumped through my HA-500

Guy

[PaulStewart]

Here are some facts: http://theartofsound.net/forum/showt...manent-Magnets.

As far as I'm concerned a magnetic field is a magnetic field, how it is created should not make any difference.

Have to disagree Barry, back in the late seventies, we did a lot of research of rare earth magnets, as did other manufacturers, as of course smaller and lighter had advantages. Sony used Samarium Cobalt for the original Walkman headphones, tiny by comparison to what was around, highly efficient and dynamic and very light. At JVC we used it in the MC1 and 2 cartridges and, notably in the Zero5 ribbon tweeter,which is were my research was aimed. Versions of that fairy amazing tweeter made with alnico, were larger snd heavier, but did not saturate as much as the smaller SC version. Alnico seems to handle magnetic saturation better, in my experience than smaller and lighter rare earth equivalents.

I think this is why alnico gives a better sound quality/performance than rare earths, it's not just about saturation, but also how that saturation is handled. Like much in audio recording and reproduction, it's down to how energy is controlled. Having said that, some rare earths do perform as well as alnico in this respect, but are too expensive to use in speakers. I will be very interested in Marco's evaluation of the vintage vs. new 103

[Marco]

I think this is why alnico gives a better sound quality/performance than rare earths, it's not just about saturation, but also how that saturation is handled.

Interesting, Paul. There could be something in that. As you know, I'm not a technical person, but I *know* what I can fundamentally hear, and usually have pretty reliable senses when it comes to identifying the subtleties in audio reproduction.

Sometimes, for those of an engineering/scientific bent (and I don't include you in this), there is a tendency for thinking too much in terms of 'black and white', such as with, no disrespect to Barry, his assertion that 'a magnetic field is a magnetic field'. Sometimes in audio, one has to look beyond the 'obvious', to that which is less obvious, in order to find the true answers

Yes, I shall certainly keep you posted, in due course, as to my findings when I assess both cartridges.

Marco.

[kcc123]

Here's a thing... What if, when I compare my 1981 DL-103 against a 2014 version, and consider the former as being significantly sonically superior? I'm not just talking here about subtle differences.

That *shouldn't* be the case, but it could happen. The question is, if it does, what do you think would be the likely mechanism for causing that sonic superiority? It's not going to be a slightly thinner outer shell, or something minor like that, that's for sure.

And let's not forget the 'facts' state that, on paper, both cartridges are identical...

I also have a 1979 Denon 103 to compare against the newer ones and in my case
, my old one sounds better.

[Marco]

That's interesting, King, and bodes well for my own forthcoming comparisons

In support of Alnicos sounding different (and more sonically desirable), this guy Rajiv is in tune with my views: http://www.hifivision.com/av-lounge/...different.html

To my ear, field-coils, Alnico, and neodymium magnets are all noticeably better than ceramic magnets - for lack of a better word, they have a "fresher", more vivid, more colorful sound. The field coils sound a bit quieter, more understated, while the Alnicos have a more vivid, more colorful sound. Neo sounds partway to the duller sound of ceramic, while having a fair amount of Alnico's vividness.

Yup, and it's that "vividness" (I'd call it 'dynamic alacrity') and colour [but not coloration, which is different - I'd call it 'life'], which I love with Alnicos. I'd also add into the equation traits such as 'power and authority', especially in the low-bass registers, all of which are lacking, to some degree, to my ears, with other types of magnets.

Also, if guitar pick-ups, using different magnet materials, can sound notably different, as outlined here: https://www.watfordvalves.com/products.asp?ID=4&man=49

...then surely the same must apply in high-end audio applications, if not necessarily to the same 'colourfully described' degree!

Marco.

[petrat]

Interesting thread! In the past I recall, on three separate occasions, thinking 'wow, that sounds really very, very good' when listening to a speaker or cartridge for the first time, only to later read up and find there was an alnico magnet involved.

More recently, I just bought a nice old 'alnico' SPU GE on this forum. TBH, I was expecting it to be a bit lush compared to the modern ones, and probably a bit dull and rounded due to it being well used and worn. However, I was pleasantly surprised by its lovely dynamics and sheer 'life'. So impressed, in fact, that I've just bought another today, this time the GTE.

[Marco]

Hi Peter,

Interesting thread! In the past I recall, on three separate occasions, thinking 'wow, that sounds really very, very good' when listening to a speaker or cartridge for the first time, only to later read up and find there was an alnico magnet involved.

Ditto (with bells on). What you've just written also reflects my personal experience.

More recently, I just bought a nice old 'alnico' SPU GE on this forum. TBH, I was expecting it to be a bit lush compared to the modern ones, and probably a bit dull and rounded due to it being well used and worn. However, I was pleasantly surprised by its lovely dynamics and sheer 'life'. So impressed, in fact, that I've just bought another today, this time the GTE.

Lol! I found the exact same thing when I moved from using a brand new SPU Royal GM MKII, as good as it was, to a 1956 vintage SPU-G/T. Dull or a bit lush the latter is not! In fact, I remember Barry commenting that he was rather shocked at how dynamic it sounded when he heard mine for the first time

It never ceases to amaze me how so much old gear is automatically labelled by folk as being 'dull and lush', out of sheer ignorance, when often the very opposite is true! IME, some of the best vintage gear, when they got it right, is still very hard to beat today. The key is to judge it in the right context! Unfortunately, not many people can be arsed putting in the required effort, and so form opinions based on flawed evaluation conditions.

I think the responses here show that there is definitely something in the notion of Alnicos having a rather desirable and 'special' sound. The question is, technically, why is that so?

Marco.