I've seen it, Mark, but as we've discussed, which we agree upon, the AT 'house signature' is not especially or usually very desirable.Quote:
Originally Posted by YNWaN
Marco.
Printable View
I've seen it, Mark, but as we've discussed, which we agree upon, the AT 'house signature' is not especially or usually very desirable.Quote:
Originally Posted by YNWaN
Marco.
Yes, I agree, but the 7 uses a construction/magnetic circuit like the Denon and quite unlike the rest of the AT range (including the model above it, the 9); as such, there is a good change that it will not have the same character that other AT cartridges exhibit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Absolutely, and yes I've seen the graphs. This is all about 'sucking it to see', so we'll discover in due course how things work out. As you know, there are so many different variables that apply when testing cartridges, especially somewhat 'off the wall' ones like the Denon, that it's almost impossible to accurately predict an outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by YNWaN
When researching the DL-S1, one thing that came up was that, in the right system (and here I'm referring mainly to the T/T, tonearm and phono stage), it essentially sounded like a higher-class, more 'finessed', DL-103. In that sense, it mirrors the DL-103M, which I've heard sound stunning.
In essence, it's been mooted that the DL-S1 design took the 'bones' of the 103 sound and refined it to its full potential, by addressing issues at both ends of the frequency response that adversely affect the performance of a stock 103: namely a slightly bloated bottom end and rolled-off high-frequencies, whilst retaining its beguiling 'valve-like' midrange and 'boogie factor'. If it turns out that way, I'll be delighted.
Trust me, I've thought long and hard about this, and I'm confident it will work. However, we'll see what happens! :)
Marco.
Perhaps, but I'm letting that one slide past me for the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by YNWaN
Marco.
One thing I've just noticed from the information provided on the graph, is that a Technics SL-1200 MK2 was used for testing purposes.
Now if the DL-S1 was fitted simply to a stock Technics arm, that would explain some of the less than favourable results... Quite simply, that arm was never designed to be used with a cartridge, such as a DL-S1! :doh:
The results would almost certainly be different if the cartridge were used on more suitable tonearm.
Incidentally, changing the subject somewhat, what type of stylus do you use on your Troika - is it the stock one or have you had it re-tipped with something more exotic? :)
Marco.
Btw, I've just noticed your edit on post #23...
That's interesting (and those look nice), as I've been thinking for a while about trying some super-tweeters on my Tannoys, so perhaps this'll just be the excuse I need! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by YNWaN
One thing I've noticed in the past with super-tweeters, and also cartridges with a very extended high-frequency response, is that there is a knock-on effect (benefit) further down the frequency range, from where they operate, which our ears are able to process.
That is why speakers I've heard, fitted with super-tweeters, not only results in them producing more detailed high-frequencies, but bizarrely, also tighter and more articulate bass. The same, in my experience, also applies with cartridges that have an extended HF response, out with of audible range, and is probably what's responsible for their beguiling 'crystalline clarity'/top-end 'sparkle'.
We may not be able to hear any sound waves at 70kHz, but we can 'hear' the knock-on effect on music, of cartridges with 'supertweeter-type performance' at frequencies where our ears are capable of functioning! ;)
Marco.
I wouldn't say the graphs are unfavourable - in fact the frequency response is quite flat - a rising top end is common and often more pronounced than indicated here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
I'm surprised you think the arm would impact so - what do you feel is wrong with the standard arm for a frequency sweep? The mass should be OK.
My Troika has been quite heavily reworked and has a ruby cantilever and nude Geiger II S stylus (basically the same one as on your Ortofon). I also have one with the original aluminium cantilever and a Paratrace stylus.
Ha yes, I always edit my posts - half a dozen times sometimes!
There is a lot of speculation as to how supertweeters work (and as much as to whether they even do work). What is true (in every case I know of) is that supertweeters have output below 20k - ie well in to the audible range. They also alter the dispersion characteristic. I found the positioning of mine to be quite critical and have ended up with them angled slightly down and pointing slightly further out than the main speakers. I also recently changed the crossover cap from a ClarityCap ESA to a Mundorf Supreme (same value) and that has also made a difference for the better.
Gosh Marco, you almost sound like Roy Gregory!Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
It probably wouldn't affect the frequency sweep results, but the resonance characteristics of the stock Technics arm are not favourable for use with anything that could be considered as a 'high-end' cartridge. It's a peaky, shouty, resonant thing in stock form, and so simply not fit to be attached with something as demanding and revealing as a DL-S1.Quote:
Originally Posted by YNWaN
I'm not sure which arm or T/T Jerry tested it with, but I suspect that the results he obtained were most likely attributable to a tonearm and/or phonostage mismatch.
More on this (and super-tweeters) later - gotta pop out for a bit! :cool:
Marco.