New Tonearm [Archive] - The Art of Sound Forum

Ammonite Audio

11-05-2010, 20:24

Somehow, I find that I have bought a Linn Ittok LVII tonearm. I was only looking for a Linn mounting collar, but got carried away! Anyway, I'm actually rather excited about getting the Ittok, since it was the arm that I bought with my LP12 way back in 1983 and I have very fond memories of it. It will be sent to Audio Origami for a rewire and health check before mounting on my Kenwood 'table uisng a Sound Supports armboard. How will it compare to the Jelco SA-750D? Who can tell, but I am going to have some fun finding out!

To be serious, though, the reason for seeking a Linn mounting collar was to find a more satisfactory way of securing the Jelco's arm pillar in its collar, which is a truly horrid bit of design in an otherwise very well engineered piece of kit. It is so easy to set the arm so that the arm pillar is not truly vertical, resulting in potentially significant azimuth errors at different points across the LP. The Jelco's 18mm collar would have needed enlarging somehow to fit a Linn collar, but the result would be pretty foolproof. For any Jelco users out there, do check your pillar alignment using a good quality headshell spirit level, because the potential for error is not insignificant, particularly if you're using a modern stylus profile that's intolerant of azimuth error. Check that the same level is shown across all of the LP surface. You may be surprised at what you find!

DSJR

11-05-2010, 20:37

The Ittok was a revelation when it first appeared and the pillar screw doesn't need to be crushed to death when tightening, as the Ittok used what Ivor called an "engineer's clamp," - two vertical flats on one side to locate and align the pillar and a central "stud" to lock it in place, thereby giving the pillar a stable three-point mounting. For some reason, they seem to have abandoned this, even in the Ekos IIRC.

Johnnie should be well able to fettle the Ittok properly. In absolute terms, the fixed head arm *should* be better as resonances are virtually non-existant in the midrange compared to every detachable "SME" style shell arm ever made which ALL have 200 - 300Hz breakups compared to a fixed head style arm. The main liveliness in the arm pipe is in the treble and this accounts for the slightly brash nature of this arm if partnered incorrectly. Damping in the pipe and careful cartridge choice should eliminate this.

Sorry, I can't help praising the Ittok, as I owned several in the decade since my first from the original batch. I know the Jelco is fantastic value too and one of the best of its type, but with a non Denon cartridge and a rebuild, the Ittok *should* sound clearer (famous last words.....).

Ammonite Audio

11-05-2010, 20:45

Johnnie should be well able to fettle the Ittok properly. In absolute terms, the fixed head arm *should* be better as resonances are virtually non-existant in the midrange compared to every detachable "SME" style shell arm ever made which ALL have 200 - 300Hz breakups compared to a fixed head style arm. The main liveliness in the arm pipe is in the treble and this accounts for the slightly brash nature of this arm if partnered incorrectly. Damping in the pipe and careful cartridge choice should eliminate this.

Thanks for the comments. I'm going to take Johnnie's advice on arm tube damping, which he offers as an option. Plan A is to use the Neglex arm cable from the Jelco, but I may get a new cable from Johnnie too. I have not done any calculations yet, but I hope that the AT33PTG will work with the Ittok.

MartinT

12-05-2010, 06:38

This is interesting, Hugo. I know next to nothing about the Ittok save the countless times I've heard an LP12. Let us know how you get on.

DirectDrive_Gordon

14-05-2010, 22:28

I've heard that the Ittok had "soft" bearings that could be easily damaged - even by fitting pickup cartridge! Is this true?

chris@panteg

14-05-2010, 22:50

Yes if you try and fit when the arm is mounted to the arm board .

Marco

14-05-2010, 23:00

Hi Shuggs,

Thanks for the comments. I'm going to take Johnnie's advice on arm tube damping, which he offers as an option. Plan A is to use the Neglex arm cable from the Jelco, but I may get a new cable from Johnnie too. I have not done any calculations yet, but I hope that the AT33PTG will work with the Ittok.

I can almost guarantee it will. I had the pleasure recently of listening to Snapper's AT-33PTG on his Ekos (developed of course from the Ittok) and it sounded superb - there was real synergy.

Of course much depends on whether your Kenwood will 'like' that arm/cartridge combination.... Here's hoping! :)

Marco.

Ammonite Audio

15-05-2010, 16:50

I've heard that the Ittok had "soft" bearings that could be easily damaged - even by fitting pickup cartridge! Is this true?

Ask Johnnie at Audio Origami!

Hi Shuggs,

Thanks for the comments. I'm going to take Johnnie's advice on arm tube damping, which he offers as an option. Plan A is to use the Neglex arm cable from the Jelco, but I may get a new cable from Johnnie too. I have not done any calculations yet, but I hope that the AT33PTG will work with the Ittok.

I can almost guarantee it will. I had the pleasure recently of listening to Snapper's AT-33PTG on his Ekos (developed of course from the Ittok) and it sounded superb - there was real synergy.

Of course much depends on whether your Kenwood will 'like' that arm/cartridge combination.... Here's hoping!

Marco.

Thanks for that! I have a feeling that all will be well between the Linn and the Kenwood. We shall, as ever, find out in due course; and the finding out will be fun.

DSJR

15-05-2010, 18:55

I've heard that the Ittok had "soft" bearings that could be easily damaged - even by fitting pickup cartridge! Is this true?

Bull-poo.....

What WAS affected by over tightening cartridges with the arm in situ was the screwed joints holding the shell to pipe and the pipe to bearing block.. The horizontal race assembluy was held in the pillar with little loc-tighted Allen bolts...

Rare Bird

15-05-2010, 18:58

Bull-poo.....

:lol:

hifi_dave

16-05-2010, 11:11

Rare Bird

16-05-2010, 11:34

Krap even.

There was/is nothing 'soft' about the bearings, it was the idiots of the time doing every bolt up so tight that damage was caused all round. I have seen Ittok pillars deformed because the bolt was tightened using gas pipe as a lever on the Allen key and P-clips regularly cut right through by it's fixing nut.
Broken cartridge bodies were the order of the day and hideously scarred headshells are common. Enough is enough when tightening.

Idiots....:eek:

The proof in that is a Nagaoka MP11 i have in the drawer, someone tightened the cart bolts so tight when it was last fitted the nuts were very pressed into the hard plastic lugs underside, hasnt split the plastic but it's deformed it..madness

DSJR

16-05-2010, 12:23

We knew nothing about mechanical stresses back then and the LP12 needed to be tight to work at all back then. The thing is, there is a difference between tight and over-crushing things.

Dave, if you think that crushed ittok pillars are bad (I never saw terminally damaged ones, although knurdled headshells were commonplace), I reckon the entire first batches of Akito's were irreparably damaged by Linn dealers (yes, even perfect ones like me :eyebrows:) over-tightening everything..

Wind forward to the mid noughties, Linn seemed to have got it sorted - the LP12 had closely toleranced and harder plinth blocks which didn't need the fixing nuts tightend to within a millimetre of their lives, the Ekos and Akito were made of something rather stronger than plasticene and common sense ruled IMO..

Ammonite Audio

31-05-2010, 11:39

I've got the Ittok back from Audio Origami and he's given it a clean bill of health, rewired it and foam filled the arm tube. Over the past week I've been playing around with it on the KD-770D, using the AT33PTG and Ortofon 2M Black. It was not particularly happy with the AT33PTG and checking the cartridge database on Vinyl Engine it's clear that more mass is required. The Ortofon is very happy in the Ittok, though and showed off the pedigree of the arm - deep and taut, tuneful, detailed. In fact a bit like the Jelco but with grip and control!

So, after a consultation with Johnny, I have added some mass to the Ittok in the form of some Doll's House lead flashing wrapped around the armtube at the headshell end, to bring the effective mass to the same ballpark as the Jelco. The AT33PTG is now much happier: where before it sounded dull and insignificant, now it's open and dynamic but with much sharper portrayal of detail than in the Jelco (significantly so). I have a feeling that even more mass might be a good thing, but as it is I have to set the VTF dial to zero and wind the counterweight in, otherwise it's at the end of the stub.

Anyway, I'm happy with the way it's sounding; also very happy that the Linn mounting collar ensures that the arm is held utterly true with the grub screw just nipped up firmly enough to hold it: no more endless faffing around to ensure no azimuth errors across the record. That's the one thing that really irks me with the Jelco, but the Linn collar will hold the Jelco properly, even though its arm pillar is rather smaller in diameter than the Linn's. I'm going to get a spare Linn mounting collar just for the Jelco. The advantage of using SL-1210 armboards is that arm swapping is the proverbial piece of p$ss, so I can flit between Linn, Jelco and Michell as the mood takes me with no hassle whatsoever.

Here it is in action:

http://i47.tinypic.com/vpgkth.jpg

Snoopdog

31-05-2010, 14:48

Krap even.

There was/is nothing 'soft' about the bearings, it was the idiots of the time doing every bolt up so tight that damage was caused all round. I have seen Ittok pillars deformed because the bolt was tightened using gas pipe as a lever on the Allen key and P-clips regularly cut right through by it's fixing nut.
Broken cartridge bodies were the order of the day and hideously scarred headshells are common. Enough is enough when tightening.

Idiots....:eek:

Back in the day, the mantra was "tighten up until you strip the thread.........then back off half a turn:mental:

Marco

31-05-2010, 15:50

Hi Hugo,

I think that, aesthetically, the Ittok suits your Kenwood rather well. I'm glad that it's also hitting the spot, sonically :)

It was not particularly happy with the AT33PTG and checking the cartridge database on Vinyl Engine it's clear that more mass is required.

That's really strange, as the AT33-PTG works like a dream in Snapper's Ekos on his LP12, without the need for any added mass..... :scratch:

Does anyone know if the effective mass of the Ekos is higher than that of the Ittok - in fact, what's the effective mass of each of them?

Marco.

Ammonite Audio

31-05-2010, 17:41

Thanks Marco - I am pleased with how it looks too.

According to Vinyl Engine, the Ittok's effective mass is 13.5g; the Ekos is 11.5g. Either will result in a resonant frequency of 11-12Hz with the AT33PTG, which (as I understand these things) is a tad high. The Jelco's effective mass is 20g, which is a much better match for the AT33PTG. Adding mass to the Ittok to achieve roughly 20g works well; however adding even more made the thing sound very leaden.

I'm going to leave the Ittok in for a week or so, then revisit the Jelco. I think the result will be a draw, though. The Ittok has far, far better edge detail, but the Jelco is a lovely easy-going, roundly musical thing. Which is better most probably depends on the mood!

Rare Bird

31-05-2010, 17:42

Hi Hugo,

Does anyone know if the effective mass of the Ekos is higher than that of the Ittok - in fact, what's the effective mass of each of them?

Marco.

Ittock an higher mass arm 13.5g... 2.0g more (i think)

Ammonite Audio

31-05-2010, 17:59

Just looking again at Vinyl Engine, they state that "AT publishes their dynamic compliance specifications relative to 100Hz . The actual compliance at 10Hz will be higher."

How much higher, I don't know, but presumably this will make the AT33PTG much more tolerant of lower mass arms. Can anyone explain further?

Rare Bird

31-05-2010, 18:25

Ammonite Audio

31-05-2010, 18:46

You need to getting away from the 5Hz region

Dear God! How much mass would you need to even get down to 8Hz, let alone 5Hz? Actually, and according to http://www.resfreq.com/resonancecalculator.html the answer (if we take AT's compliance figure as correct) would be a total arm effective mass + cartridge mass of 101g!

Snoopdog

31-05-2010, 18:48

Hugo,

According to the Ortofon pick up test record I use "Any combination of a tonearm and a cartridge will have a resonance frequency which will typically appear in the subsonic range between 4 and 15Hz. Although a resonance frequency below 20Hz is inaudible in itself, it is very important for other reasons that it does not occur in a range that can influence the reproduction of records. Below 5Hz, all records contain warps and other irregularities. If the tonearm resonance frequency is much lower than 8Hz, the record warps can excite resonance and the audible results can be increased rumble, reduced tracking ability ansd a marked sensitivity to acoustical feedback. Therefore the resonance frequency should be higher than 8Hz (preferably in the 10-12Hz range), but not so high as to appear in the audio spectrum above 20Hz."

I manage 9.5Hz with my Phantom/Orpheus combination.

Rare Bird

31-05-2010, 19:03

Dear God! How much mass would you need to even get down to 8Hz, let alone 5Hz? Actually, and according to http://www.resfreq.com/resonancecalculator.html the answer (if we take AT's compliance figure as correct) would be a total arm effective mass + cartridge mass of 101g!

You need to do your sums again ;)

Ammonite Audio

31-05-2010, 19:43

Andre, the the guidance and calculators at http://www.resfreq.com/resonancecalculator.html and Vinyl Engine do agree on the calculations, although it's a wholly theoretical scenario to contemplate a resonant frequency that low.

The resfreq site does explain the 100Hz dynamic compliance thing, though:

The manufacturers of cartridges do not always state a useful value for C(ompliance). (It should be started at 10 Hz). Figures of C coming from Japan usually are measured at 100 Hz, so they should be multiplied by 1.5-2. Figures of C coming from USA often are static values, so they should be halved. Most figures of C coming from Europe are OK (stated at 10 Hz)

On that basis, the actual 10Hz dynamic compliance of the AT33PTG is 13cu, which means a combined resonant frequency of a whisker under 10Hz in the Ittok without added mass, which is rather similar to Steve's Orpheus/Phantom; and which ought to be OK. My added 6g takes it down to around 8.5Hz, which does seem to result in a more dynamic, tuneful sound, to my ears at least. When my mate Tony comes round next I shall let him hear it with and without the added mass and take note of what he says, since he's usually right with these things!

Rare Bird

31-05-2010, 19:49

Andre, the the guidance and calculators at http://www.resfreq.com/resonancecalculator.html and Vinyl Engine do agree on the calculations, although it's a wholly theoretical scenario to contemplate a resonant frequency that low.

The resfreq site does explain the 100Hz dynamic compliance thing, though:

On that basis, the actual 10Hz dynamic compliance of the AT33PTG is 13cu, which means a combined resonant frequency of a whisker under 10Hz in the Ittok without added mass, which is rather similar to Steve's Orpheus/Phantom; and which ought to be OK. My added 6g takes it down to around 8.5Hz, which does seem to result in a more dynamic, tuneful sound, to my ears at least. When my mate Tony comes round next I shall let him hear it with and without the added mass and take note of what he says, since he's usually right with these things!

Can you give me the cartridge weight & compliance please as i'm not getting that calculation, i'm assuming the arm has a mass of 13.5g !we'll allow 0.5g for the fastners..Tis an area i have zero intrest in but i'm now intrigued.. :lolsign:

Ammonite Audio

31-05-2010, 20:17

Rare Bird

31-05-2010, 20:25

Arm effective mass + cartridge mass = 13.5g + 6.8g = 20.3g total system mass, not including fasteners.
Compliance of the AT33PTG is 10 x 10-6cm/Dyne at 100Hz, which equates to 13 x 10-6cm/Dyne at 10Hz, according to the guidance at the resfreq site.

I must say that until now I have paid scant attention to this subject, and it's most illuminating! I have found out several useful things today.

I get a resonant Frequence of 11Hz allowing 0.5g for fasterning hardware. I don't honestly see why you want to add more mass that is quite satisfactory. Adding a couple gramm to the arm mass will hardly move it enough to notice!

Ammonite Audio

31-05-2010, 20:29

I add a bit more mass because it sounds better, to my ears. Simples!

DSJR

31-05-2010, 20:39

I have an old friend who started the whole Infra-Bass thing in the mid seventies. he preferred to load up an ADC XLM II in a Sansui 717 direct drive, the resulting resonance well below 5Hz. No stability problems with his records and the sound did improve - in his strange system...

10Hz to me is still a touch high, and if adding mass to the well damped AT helps, then go for it IMO. I haven't done this to the Stilton OC9, as the replaced mount seems heavy enough. the Dual's sprung counterweight deals with the rest.

What you DON'T want, is a massive bass rise which overloads the phono stage, any more than a severe top end resonance, whatever the frequency, otherwise it takes off like a Rega Apheta without the added eq to tame it...

DSJR

31-05-2010, 20:53

Not nececelery Andr'e.... Not simples :lol:

Barry

01-06-2010, 01:22

Taking the following figures for the arm and cartridge:

Compliance 10 x 1.75 = 17.5cu (= 17.5 x 10^-6 cm/dyne)

Total mass 13.5g (arm) + 6.8g (cart) + 0.5g (fixings) = 20.8g,

then the resfreq 'calculator' gives 8.63 Hz.

I calculate: 1/(2*pi*sqrt(total mass * compliance)) = 1/(2*pi*sqrt(20.8 * 17.5 x 10^-6)) = 8.34 Hz.

This is low but not too low. It all depends on how well your turntable is isolated from foot falls etc. but in general I would go by Ortofon's advice. In your case however, since you cannot subtract mass, I wouldn't worry.

Regards

Rare Bird

01-06-2010, 01:53

Most people work this out differently & come up with varied calculated results, i've used an on line calculator, a different calculator will more than likley give yet another result.

Hypnotoad

01-06-2010, 02:12

I checked on the cartridge database site and looked at the Denon DL-103's and according to the recommended tonearm mass you would need an old Garrard Auto Changer with some lead weights attached.

That's why I don't take a lot of notice of some of the specs.

Rare Bird

01-06-2010, 02:31

I've had some technically horiffic mis-matches in the past that have sounded wonderful..

Ammonite Audio

01-06-2010, 07:06

Marco

01-06-2010, 07:16

Lol - this discussion has move on somewhat since I last contributed!

I find it strange that the Ekos I heard the AT33-PTG positively sing in has a lower effective mass than the Ittok that Hugo felt he needed to boost, mass-wise, in order for things to sound right..... What's going on there, then? :scratch:

However the bottom line, chaps, regardless of what the figures say, is what sounds right to Hugo. If it sounds better to him, despite the figures not being 'correct', then it *is* better to him - end of.

There is no accounting for these things sometimes, so just trust yer lugs! :)

Marco.

MartinT

01-06-2010, 07:31

I've run my AT33PTG in both a Jelco SA-250ST (low effective mass) and Dynavector DV-507II (very high effective mass) and it's sounded good in both arms, although the DV extracts more from it. I'm not sure from my findings that it is particularly mass sensitive.

Rare Bird

01-06-2010, 07:35

Marco

01-06-2010, 07:43

Good point, Martin. Having heard the 33PTG in your Jelco sound superb, which has an even lower effective mass than either the Ekos or Ittok, I'd have to agree.

But it's really puzzling what's going on... If a cartridge genuinely needs a certain amount of arm mass to sound right, then a specific figure should be repeatable across a wide range of tonearms.

For example, the 103 needs 16.5-17g of headshell mass to sound as it was designed to sound - and this is the case no matter what tonearm it's in - there's no getting away from it whatsoever - so one wonders why the 33PTG appears to be so variable in that respect? :scratch:

Marco.

Ammonite Audio

01-06-2010, 08:35

And to complicate matters further, the AT33PTG works very well in a Jelco SA-750D, with its effective mass of 20g (depending on headshell).

Last night I removed my bit of lead weight from the Ittok and had a listen - that confirmed to me that I do very much prefer it with the added mass.

Will the AT33PTG work in the Tecnoarm? There's one way to find out!

YNWaN

01-06-2010, 09:13

I feel suddenly very tempted by a new arm (this hasn't hapened in a very long time) - Spiral Groove 'Centroid'.

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.theaudiobeat.com/ces2010/pics_010910/sprial_groove_tonearm.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.theaudiobeat.com/ces2010/ces2010_hp_spiral_groove.htm&usg=__jmIzvVul8eqKVUQyjDfNJS8NMw4=&h=533&w=800&sz=57&hl=en&start=1&itbs=1&tbnid=1zi4Owp3SnEuBM:&tbnh=95&tbnw=143&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dspiral-groove%2BCentroid%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26gbv%3D2%26t bs%3Disch:1

Barry

01-06-2010, 09:22

Sorry if I'm being dim, but how do you get 17.5cu?

You quote (post # 273):

"Compliance of the AT33PTG is 10 x 10-6cm/Dyne at 100Hz", that's 10cu,

and the 'resfreq' site quotes:

"The manufacturers of cartridges do not always state a useful value for C(ompliance). (It should be started at 10 Hz). Figures of C coming from Japan usually are measured at 100 Hz, so they should be multiplied by 1.5-2. Figures of C coming from USA often are static values, so they should be halved. Most figures of C coming from Europe are OK (stated at 10 Hz)."

I took a middling factor of x1.75 . So 10 x 1.75 = 17.5cu.

As I said, the calculated resonance frequency is not too low to be of concern, and if everything sounds OK to you, then why worry?

Regards

DSJR

01-06-2010, 09:44

I wouldn't say that the AT's are particularly low compliance and the long but lightweight and rigid cantilevers will aid this as well I reckon.

I feel suddenly very tempted by a new arm (this hasn't hapened in a very long time) - Spiral Groove 'Centroid'.

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgur...26tbs%3Disch:1
__________________
YNWOAN (mArk)

Hey Mark, of all the blingy turntables I've seen over the years, the one (with $6K tonearm) looks like it might just do the business. I'm a real scrooge these days, but even I have to acknowledge that a design and finish like that pictured won't come cheap in the tiny quantities it would sell in...

Ammonite Audio

01-06-2010, 10:01

You quote (post # 273):

"Compliance of the AT33PTG is 10 x 10-6cm/Dyne at 100Hz", that's 10cu,

and the 'resfreq' site quotes:

"The manufacturers of cartridges do not always state a useful value for C(ompliance). (It should be started at 10 Hz). Figures of C coming from Japan usually are measured at 100 Hz, so they should be multiplied by 1.5-2. Figures of C coming from USA often are static values, so they should be halved. Most figures of C coming from Europe are OK (stated at 10 Hz)."

I took a middling factor of x1.75 . So 10 x 1.75 = 17.5cu.

As I said, the calculated resonance frequency is not too low to be of concern, and if everything sounds OK to you, then why worry?

Regards

Thanks for that. I was being dim:doh:

pure sound

07-06-2010, 08:57

YNWaN

07-06-2010, 09:35

Yes I think so - to be honest I don't see how a patent could apply to this idea as essentially it's just putting the counterweight as close to the bearing point as possible (it seems one can patent almost anything in the States). It is a good idea though (not the first to do this) and will help minimise inertia issues.

Ammonite Audio

07-06-2010, 19:53

Time to revisit an old tonearm reference? It does look good on the Kenwood:

http://i49.tinypic.com/mv0xzq.jpg

The AT33PTG actually sounds pretty good in the Tecnoarm - rather more lively and brightly lit than in the Jelco or Ittok, but certainly listenable. All harmless fun until I get the new Audio Origami tonearm cable for the Ittok and Jelco!

MartinT

08-06-2010, 06:56

Your TecnoArm looks slightly different from mine: it has an all-black bearing housing whereas yours is silver coloured with black end caps.

Reminds me, I must put it up for sale.

Ammonite Audio

08-06-2010, 10:21

Mine is the latest TecnoarmA - is yours the earlier version?

Out of all my tonearms, the TecnoarmA is the one that I shall probably sell on. I don't need it and in truth it is bettered by the Ittok and Jelco.

MartinT

08-06-2010, 10:48

Yes, the 'A' version. Mine is also surplus to requirements, but not a bad arm.

Ammonite Audio

23-06-2010, 16:31

Having now got over Ted's untimely demise (luckily the other dog Olive is quite literally thriving without him - see pic below when she was a puppy), I found the time to put the Jelco SA-750D on in place of the Audio Origami'd Ittok LVII. Cartridge is the same AT33PTG; arm cable is the Audio Origami one that I have been using with the Ittok for some weeks.

Going back to the Jelco is a bit of a shock. It has a fuller, perhaps more melodic presentation and is certainly listenable; however it loses out on detail against the Ittok (by several country miles). It sounds a bit rubbery, if that makes sense! It is musical, though and without swapping arms over all the time, I know that I could live happily with the Jelco, particularly for its lovely deep bass. Yet having experienced the Ittok, I do find the Jelco's sound to be excessively cuddly, so in due course methinks the Ittok will be going back on the Kenwood!

The Audio Origami arm cable does seem to do the business at a reasonable price of £110. The Jelco Neglex cable has a tonearm 5-pin connector that gets stuck fast in the pillar, which is odd and really annoying - the Cardas plug that Johnny uses just grips the pins securely. Maybe I should send the AO cable up to Marco for him to try against his Neglex.

Anyway - I'm back to DSOTM (and inevitably to my quest for the ultimate vinyl pressing of it, since the EMI 30 year anniversary LP is not really that wonderful).

http://i45.tinypic.com/14y6bmf.jpg

Marco

23-06-2010, 16:54

Hi Hugo,

Nice pic of the doggies. I'm glad you're getting over what happened to Ted - it'll be a slow and gradual process, though.

Going back to the Jelco is a bit of a shock. It has a fuller, perhaps more melodic presentation and is certainly listenable; however it loses out on detail against the Ittok (by several country miles). It sounds a bit rubbery, if that makes sense! It is musical, though and without swapping arms over all the time, I know that I could live happily with the Jelco, particularly for its lovely deep bass. Yet having experienced the Ittok, I do find the Jelco's sound to be excessively cuddly, so in due course methinks the Ittok will be going back on the Kenwood!

Nice one - you've obviously had a good listen now to both arms and have come to a pretty informed conclusion.

I'll say it again, though, it's all about synergy. Quite obviously in your system, and to your ears, the Ittok has on balance the more preferable sonic attributes - and that's all that matters.

I get where you're coming from regarding the Jelco's presentation, as it is without doubt a very musical sounding arm, devoid of any obvious sonic 'nasties', but in my system it sounds far from "excessively cuddly", nor indeed did it in an entirely different system I heard it in last night, when I was comparing my modded Techie against a quite superb Kenwood L-07D, fitted with a Linn Troika, and an amazing, truly battleship build, Nakamichi TX-1000 fitted with an SME 312S and £2k ZYX Airy 3.

More on that later in Strokes of Genius (I'm currently compiling a write-up of my thoughts), but suffice to say that the dynamic and peppy presentation of the Jelco, full of vim and vigour (in Dave's system), with either the stock 103 or SPU, made the SME/ZYX combo sound rather 'sober' and overly-polite, almost to the point of boring in comparison, which is of course somewhat at odds with your description of the Jelco....... Like I said, amigo, it's all down to synergy! :cool:

The Audio Origami arm cable does seem to do the business at a reasonable price of £110. The Jelco Neglex cable has a tonearm 5-pin connector that gets stuck fast in the pillar, which is odd and really annoying - the Cardas plug that Johnny uses just grips the pins securely. Maybe I should send the AO cable up to Marco for him to try against his Neglex.

That would be interesting, and thanks for the offer, so feel free to do that when it suits :)

Marco.

pure sound

23-06-2010, 17:24

The ZYX's are very 'modern' sounding cartridges. I'm afraid I don't 'get' them at all.

Ammonite Audio

23-06-2010, 18:50

I get where you're coming from regarding the Jelco's presentation, as it is without doubt a very musical sounding arm, devoid of any obvious sonic 'nasties', but in my system it sounds far from "excessively cuddly", nor indeed did it in an entirely different system I heard it in last night, when I was comparing my modded Techie against a quite superb Kenwood L-07D, fitted with a Linn Troika, and an amazing, truly battleship build, Nakamichi TX-1000 fitted with an SME 312S and £2k ZYX Airy 3.

Please don't get me wrong here - the Jelco does have a lovely character and the Ittok a rather different one. I do love both and have the luxury of swapping between them, but I do slightly prefer the clarity of the Ittok. Once the wealth of fine detail that the Ittok brings out has been experienced, it's difficult to go back to the Jelco, even if the Jelco has other fine attributes.

DSJR

23-06-2010, 18:59

Hugo, the AO cable is the very fine (and cheap) Van Damme Pro-Patch mic cable. I have one of Johnnie's leads and have made an exit lead for the Dual using this wire and some inexpensive Neutric Rean phono's.

The Ittok is a lively tonearm well suited to 80's cartridges with a gently falling treble (the Karma and Troika did just this in their first lives). The ONE thing with all detachable shell tonearms is a major resonance at 250 to 300Hz (lower vocal region). Depending on the cartridge, headshell (very important with some cartridges) and mounting arrangement, this can be all but nullified in an audible sense.

I liked the XYX's I heard. Very Decca-like in a positive sense I thought, but now at high prices IMO.

Marco

23-06-2010, 19:02

No problem, Hugo.

I do love both and have the luxury of swapping between them...

....And therein lays the bottom line. I admire your willingness to swap between them, as to be honest, I couldn't be arsed :)

Marco.

Ammonite Audio

23-06-2010, 19:07

..................And therein lays the bottom line. I admire your willingness to swap between them, as to be honest, I couldn't be arsed :)

Marco.

Indeed! The Jelco is an absolute c*nt of a thing to set up properly because of its p$ss poor collar design, so swapping is not exactly a quick affair. My mate Tony says I should get a new Jelco collar made up, stealing the sensible features of the Ittok's collar - that would be a sensible thing to do methinks.

MartinT

23-06-2010, 21:11

Anyway - I'm back to DSOTM (and inevitably to my quest for the ultimate vinyl pressing of it, since the EMI 30 year anniversary LP is not really that wonderful).

As an aside, and not to hijack your thread, it's also interesting to compare the SACD of DSOTM with the downloadable DVD-A, the latter being the otherwise unobtainable Alan Parsons original quadraphonic mix. Since my Ayre player downmixes both discs to stereo, they are directly comparable and quite different in their presentation and emphases. Briefly, the DVD-A is lighter, airier and brings different parts of the performance to the fore; the SACD is extended, structural and frankly better than any vinyl version I've heard (I have the Mobile Fidelity and original pressings). Fascinating, and you can never have too much DSOTM :)

Ammonite Audio

23-06-2010, 21:23

As an aside, and not to hijack your thread, it's also interesting to compare the SACD of DSOTM with the downloadable DVD-A, the latter being the otherwise unobtainable Alan Parsons original quadraphonic mix. Since my Ayre player downmixes both discs to stereo, they are directly comparable and quite different in their presentation and emphases. Briefly, the DVD-A is lighter, airier and brings different parts of the performance to the fore; the SACD is extended, structural and frankly better than any vinyl version I've heard (I have the Mobile Fidelity and original pressings). Fascinating, and you can never have too much DSOTM :)

As it happens, I have a copy of the SACD coming tomorrow. I hope that the CD layer will be better than the very average CD version that I have already. Where would I download the DVD-A version from?