Why is HFW so biased against vintage cartridges?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobHolt

Hi Marco,


* Tracking distortion refers to mid and low frequency tracking ability and is determined largely by cantilever hinge compliance, VTF and damping. Tracing distortion is determined largely by the tip profile - the precise fit of the scanning edge of the tip to the HF waves pressed into the groove wall.

---

Hi Rob,

Yes or in other words: Tracking refers to the ability of the cartridge to keep the stylus in unbroken contact with the wall of the record groove.

Tracing refers to how accurately a stylus in full contact with the groove wall is able to follow the grooves path. As you say the tracing ability of a cart is a function of the stylus profile.

As the wall curvature begins to exceed the radius of a conical stylus the stylus can no longer follow the groove path and a HF loss occurs also known as scanning loss.

There's also another one called Pinch loss / effect, there's a difference between the cutting head and stylus cross sections as the record is cut the groove can narrow at certain points and this narrowing causes the stylus to be pinched or squeezed upwards adding further distortion to the signal.

You're ALL right as far as I'm aware and although I'm doing this with old cast-offs with still good styli (just), I can well imagine why so many far eastern audio people have a collection of cartridges to use...

I honestly thought the M3D was going to be a right dog, yet the Finetone N21 stylus has almost a modern looking cantilever, although the shank mounted diamond welded on the end takes it back to the Sonotone 9TAHC and Acos GP91 era... The thing is, some of the supposedly crappy 1970's pressings I have sounded much better with this cartridge than they did with the OC9 (which with wear may be tracing the bottom of the groove on some of these records) or even the NOS MC30 Super I was recently given. I put this down to the conical tip playing the top of the groove, rather than the flattened(?) bottom.

I do have to say that modern carts like the AT33PTG, Denon 304 (possibly) and OC0ML would suit me and my current system best overall, but I can see some brighter and more "forward" balanced systems working best with a properly armed 103 or a re-built Troika or summat.

As to HFW, they're all children there from what I can see (even David Price, who always writes like 42 going on 20 IMO). When I was twenty, everything over five years old was ancient cr@p and the Radford and Quad valve amps I bought in 1976 were ancient antiquities - the Radford was "only" nine years old at this point, having been bought in 1967, the Quad set was bought new in 1962, so was an ancient fourteen years old. yet people on PFM regard twenty five year old Naim amps as "modern," when their basic ss designs pre-date the Radford and come from the 1950's Quad era..........

I gave up with the mags a long time ago. HFW is the most readable of its type, but their sometimes misguided appreciations of stuff I once sold new put me off again.......

Historians can never quite "get" what life was like hundreds of years ago and audio memory transfers this to decades..

Hi Rob,

Quote:

---

For me they are a very mixed bag with some superb qualities but also some nasties which almost always comes down to the use of conical or basic elliptical styli.
Focusing on the 103 for a moment, it sounds solid, rich and for the most part very coherent in a way that escapes many modern designs. But you cannot escape the basic laws of physics and a conical stylus of the type used does suffer high tracing distortion at high frequencies. Note I said 'tracing' and not 'tracking' as they are quite *different.

---

None of that can be disputed, but what's important is how the issues you've outlined manifest themselves in the context of a particular system, taking into consideration the presentational priorities (and musical tastes) of the listener. How a DL-103 or M3D is partnered and set-up also has a huge bearing on how significant those issues are likely to be. Depending on all that, it will vary according to listeners from very important to virtually of no importance.

I'm firmly in the latter camp because, although I know exactly what you mean, I have gone to great effort (not to mention not inconsiderable expense) to ensure that both the 103 and M3D have been provided with the optimum environment in which to perform to their maximum potential - in the case of the 103, as intended by the manufacturer when it was originally introduced. This is crucial to truly be able to hear what this cartridge can do. Therefore, in my case, the negative effects you mention have been minimised to the status of virtual irrelevance.

Quite simply, the 103 cannot be assessed accurately in a modern turntable or tonearm, and without a properly matched transformer or head amplifier. In that respect, as far as the 103 is concerned, the people who are in a position to enjoy it at its best like I can, through having all the correct ancillaries in place, are few and far between, although there are some on this forum. You can’t fit a square peg into a round hole, which is akin to fitting a 103 onto the likes of a Rega.

How many people do you reckon have gone to the effort and expense that I have to get things right? The 103 may be a cheap cartridge to buy, but it's far from cheap to get it to work properly! ;)

With respect, Rob, I don't even think that you could say that you've heard a 103 at its absolute best. And then of course, there are 103s and there are 103s... There is a huge difference in the sonic presentation between a bog standard 103 and a 103Pro or SA. Have you ever done the comparison?

Of course, you're quite right, none of that will address the issues of the stylus tip, as you've outlined, but again it goes back to what your priorities are and also choosing your compromises. There is no such thing as the 'perfect' cartridge. I value tone and timbre, 'groove and flow', rhythmic, funky-sounding bass, and a beautiful 'valve-like' midrange, much more than forensic detail retrieval, absolute (clinical) clarity, or treble definition - the former are all renowned traits of the 103, and the M3D shares its magic in those areas.

I find 95% of modern cartridges a cold and dispassionate listen, as they major on information retrieval at the expense of tonal colour and richness of harmonic detail, both of which, IMO, make music sound like music and not a poor man's processed facsimile of such. It's rather like comparing valve to solid-state amplifiers in that respect. And sorry, Griffo, but a Lyra Dorian or Argo takes my fillings out (I've owned both)!

Don't get me wrong though, I don't like a warm, cuddly sound either (none of my gear sounds like that) - I just like music to sound 'natural' and unforced, and with proper 'foundation'.

Quote:

---

I'm incredibly sensitive to this to the point where I wont even use elliptical styli - it has to be a VDH, FG, MR or similar profile so I react quite negatively to the sound of a 103, and about 60% of other cartridges on the market.

---

That's absolutely fine - you know what floats your boat and how to get it. That's half the battle! :)

Quote:

---

People certainly shouldn't slag-off these old designs though because, as I say, in many areas they teach modern designs a trick or two.

---

That's precisely my issue with what seems to be the stance at HFW. David Price and I regularly exchange emails, and sometimes phone calls, on what we're both up to regarding modifying our SL-1210s, so I have no problem with the magazine as such, or David - but I do take issue with the apparent dichotomy between Adam on one hand extolling the virtues of 1950s technology Garrards or Lencos (and also valve amps from a similar era or earlier) and on the other, slagging off cartridges of the same or a similar vintage!

Where's the parity??

I'm not talking about some old tat fit for the bin that can't compete sonically in today's marketplace (although I'm sure he would argue differently, and largely I suspect from a position of relative ignorance) - both the 103 and M3D are very capable designs when used in the right set-up, just as a 301 or a Lenco is.

I said this the last time when I pulled Noel Keywood up for his ridiculous remarks about the 103 to a reader's letter, but it seems to me that unless 'Ortofon', 'Goldring' or 'Audio Technica' are emblazoned on the front of a cartridge, HFW don't want to know. They must realise that there's a whole big cartridge world out there outside of designs from those manufacturers to fit a multitude of different people's requirements, but rarely is anything else ever recommended.

What's your view on this, Rob?

Marco.

P.S Could either you or Dave inform Adam on pfm that this discussion is taking place here. I would him to join and offer his input - ta! :cool:

I've had the "Marco" effect again!!!

I dug out Alan Parsons' "Pyramid" LP out. I haven't played this for decades as I bought the CD when it first came out (can't afford to get the AP remastered editions). On the OC9, B&O 20CL and ADC 26 with mint tips, I was getting unbelieveable distortion (I suspect crunged up tips due to Permastat or similar used in the seventies). Switching to the M3D/N21 made this record very playable, although it still wasn't that good - I'm not blaming anything but the record this time. No dullness at side end either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

Quite simply, the 103 cannot be assessed accurately in a modern turntable or tonearm, and without a properly matched transformer or head amplifier. In that respect, as far as the 103 is concerned, the people who are in a position to enjoy it at its best like I can, through having all the correct ancillaries in place, are few and far between, although there are some on this forum. You can’t fit a square peg into a round hole, which is akin to fitting a 103 onto the likes of a Rega.

........

With respect, Rob, I don't even think that you could say that you've heard a 103 at its absolute best. And then of course, there are 103s and there are 103s... There is a huge difference in the sonic presentation between a bog standard 103 and a 103Pro or SA. Have you ever done the comparison?

........

What's your view on this, Rob?

---

My view is that the best aspects of the 103 are further enhanced by use in an appropriate arm. All that is good about it and others gets better - but the negative remains because this is completely outside of the influence of the arm. A Rega RB series arm is not appropriate.
SME IV & V works well with some mass loading.

High frequency tracing is determined by the tip. If that tip cannot accurately trace high frequencies (and a conical cannot) without producing considerable distortion, it doesn't matter what arm the cartridge is attached to.

What matters is how much this distortion bothers you, particularly when assessed alongside the positives.
For me, the see-saw tips too far in the wrong direction and I therefore prefer a good modern Dynavector, AT or Lyra.
I suspect some of the HFW folk have a similar view, in which case they should say so clearly and not just dismiss vintage cartridges without pointing out the good things.

I have never heard a M3D but would like to try one. I've yet to hear anything with a conical tip that I could live with as my main cartridge, including a raft of other Shure, Stanton, Pickering, Ortofon and Satin (remember those?) plus a good few with very basic ellipticals. Grados for example all produce lots of tracing distortion.

I've just had a look at the pfm thread, and, err, what's all the fuss about? :scratch:

He doesn't like the M3D or 103... so what? Does that mean he needs to come here and account for himself or summat? :confused:

Jeez, lighten up!....

No, not at all. You do have a habit of missing the point sometimes, Mike! And I'm perfectly 'lightened up', thanks.

Try re-reading the last part of my reply to Rob - *that* is the issue I have and what this thread is all about.

It's something which bothers me every time I read some of the stuff in the magazine, and Adam's comments on pfm have compounded it. I buy the magazine every month so I'm entitled to my opinion. Therefore, if I've got something to say, I'll say it, and I will use the fortunate position I'm in here for that purpose.

My 'summoning' of Adam is merely to obtain the rationale on his way of thinking so I can better understand where he's coming from. No harm in that surely, is there? :cool:

Rob,

I'll come back to you again later - too many things going on now :)

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

You do have a habit of missing the point sometimes, Mike! And I'm perfectly 'lightened up', thanks.

---

No!... I have habit of noticing when you 'go off on one' if someone says anything remotely negative about a piece of equipment you happen to own! :lol:

When I say 'lighten up' I mean 'so what, you enjoy what you own, that should be all that matters'!...

So, lighten up! ;)

Wrong again, I'm afraid. I'm merely highlighting obvious inconsistencies written by some of the staff of HFW, as I've done before quite legitimately.

You need to learn to differentiate between "going off on one" and making a valid observation, albeit robustly expressed ;)

That's just my style.

More later!

Marco.

OK. ;)

I'll keep my gob shut....