Budget Cartridges:
Ortofon
520 Mk II
This
is the cartridge that set it all off. I have owned a Dual 505-4 with
the Ortofon 510 MKII since about 1991. I had not used the turntable
for a  while
and cranked it up to transfer some vinyl to CD. The sound was distorted,
the stylus was pretty old so I ordered a new 520 stylus (upgrading from
the original 510). Well it turned out that the 510 stylus was filthy
when I looked at it with my handy pocket 30X magnifier. So that was
the source of the distortion, and sure enough, with a quick clean all
was sounding as it should. But as I still had a 520 stylus coming I
decided to do an A/B listening test to see if I could hear the improvement
in the new stylus (the 510 is an elliptical stylus, the 520 is a nude
mounted elliptical). I used the 520 stylus to play albums for about
a week to break the new stylus in, then recorded the same track using
the 510 and the 520 styli on the same Ortofon body. The tracks were
then aligned so that I could create a CD where the first 30 seconds
was the 510 stylus, the next the 520 etc. This gave a CD where you could
tell that a change had happened (if you watched the track numbers on
the CD player). I burnt the CD and listened to it the next day, making
note of the differences in sound I heard. Tracks I used were:
- Sade
- Hang on to Your Love
- Cowboy
Junkies - Sweet Jane
- Cowboy
Junkies - I Don't Get It
- Fasch
- Concerto In D For Trumpet 2 Oboes Strings & Continuo - Palliard
Chamber Orchestra
- The
Stranglers - Ice Queen
I
concluded that the difference between the 510 and the 520 styli was
not discernible when compared in the manner described. I was also not
able to tell the difference by listening to a track then swapping the
stylus. I currently use the 520 stylus and keep the old 510 in reserve.
The listening notes on this page are based on a similar method of comparison.
Identical tracks were recorded with the different cartridges and turntables.
The tracks were aligned and split to give at least 10 seconds of each
cartridge before changing to a different cartridge. This was burnt onto
a CD, with each section as a seperate track. That way it was possible
to write listening notes for each track and then work out which was
which later. When switching between the other two cartridges using the
A/B method described above I described the 510 / 520 as:
- dynamic
- the music seemed to have a good variation between soft and loud
- clear
but a bit bright
- 'fast'
- the better high frequency response made cymbals, vocals and bass
seem to keep together better in time
Goldring
1006
 The
Goldring 1006 (shown on the Hadcock 228 to the right) is the bottom
end of the 1000 series cartridges. It has an elliptical diamond stylus
profile but is also upgradeable by upgrading the stylus. They are well
regarded cartridges and relatively cheaper here in the UK (£70),
so I decided to splurge and try one out.
Initially
I found it to be little different to the Ortofon. Even when doing an
A/B listening test between the two, I found it difficult to differentiate
as they are very close. However, they are not the same, although I suspect
that we are entering the realms where differentiating between decent
equipment gets harder as the quality goes up. Interestingly, the Goldring
is less susceptible to clicks and pops than the other cartridges mentioned
here (based on counting the detected click and pops in the same track
recorded with each of the cartridges) although this is not really noticeable
in real life, all of these cartridges are fine and do not really accentuate
surface noise if set up properly.
When
switching between the other two cartridges using the A/B method described
above I described the 1006 as:
- smooth
- clear
- but
with the possibility of sibilance and a sort of gritty sound to high
frequencies
- seemed
to be the least susceptible to picking up clicks and pops
Shure
M 91 ED
 In
1975 this Shure was just one step down from the legendary V15 III. It
had the wrong stylus on it when I got it but played OK and seemed in
good nick, so I decided to see how it would perform with a new stylus
(£16 elliptical from www.mantra-audio.co.uk). This is not an original
Shure stylus, but I am satisfied with the quality. At some point I may
invest in an original Shure replacement, but I am not entirely convinced
that this would offer that much of an improvement.
Initial
listening revealed a very smooth sound that helped reduce any spittiness
or rough treble. I was surprised at the quality of the sound for such
an old cartridge, I found it very enjoyable to listen to. When I was
first setting up the turntable I discounted this cartridge due to its
age and duller sound. Most of the photos of the turntable on the site
show it with the Goldring 1006, which was what I felt was the better
cartridge at the time.
I
returned the M91 to permanent duty on the Dual turntable downstairs
after using the Goldring for a couple of months. Why? Because it is
a cartridge that offers a very enjoyable rendition of records it plays.
I had begun to notice a preference for this over the other two cartridges
I had been using. It is less likely to produce the spitty harsh sound
on recordings such as Joe Jackson's Body & Soul (a notoriously
'hot' early digital recording). I had made several CD-Rs from LP for
the car and was finding them very bright and spitty there as well, so
I knew it was not just the Mordaunt Short speakers I use in the study.
I also think that it tracks better than the other two cartridges (it
seems to cope with the antiskate tracks on the HFNRR test record better)
and so produces less distortion. It does have a slightly lower level
of treble in comparison to the Goldring and the Ortofon, but this was
only noticeable when doing an A/B comparison, and in practice this seems
to be an advantage. It is supposed to be a good cartridge for rock music,
I have found it very good for jazz, imparting a warm and undemanding
sound. Piano sounds slightly more forward than the Ortofon, where hihats
etc are quieter and 'smoother'. This is the cartridge that sounds least
like it is striving to be a CD player.
When
switching between the other two cartridges using the A/B method described
above I described the M91 as:
- smooth
- slightly
duller sounding
- very
pleasant vocal and piano performance
Shure
M97xE
 Although
I was happy with the old M91 I decided that it would be worth seeing
if there was any advantage to trying a newer cartridge from the same
stable. The V15 VxMR was well regarded, but at £300 here, not
in the running. I had had good recommendations for the Shure M97 (the
current one step down from the V15). After a lot of deliberation I have
finally succumbed to a mild form of upgraditis and bought a Shure M97xE.
I managed to import it for about half the UK list (£54 including
the cost of import duty, as opposed to £100 UK list).
The first side I played was very odd, it was the FM soundtrack and either
there is a lot of gain riding in the mastering or the cartridge was
behaving strangely with dynamics. It almost sounded like poorly tracking
dbx companding. Three hours later this had settled. The cartridge behaved
itself pretty well for a week or so, but was distorting very badly in
the left channel. Checking it out on the HiFi News & Record Review
Test LP showed that both channels were not tracking well, an indication
that the tracking force was too low ( I had thought it was about 1.25g).
I increased it a bit, and it seems to be playing OK at around 1.5 grammes
and it is certainly tracking better. Since then it has been pretty consistent,
and I am happy to keep it permanently on the Thorens. I have the M91
on the Dual downstairs, but I have toyed with the idea of importing
another M97 for it.
I
was hoping for a slightly brighter sound in comparison to the old M91,
but retaining the Shure tracking and general assurance in the high frequencies.
When I first listened to the cartridge I was convinced it sounded brighter,
but when comparing it to a recording of the M91 it showed that this
was not quite true. There is a more extended treble, but it is not really
noticeably brighter than the M91. The major difference that I think
I am getting is in the changes in dynamics, the M97 has a very different
way of playing a record. The M91 from 1975 or so sounded a bit 'stoned',
very pleasant and not at all grating or unpleasant. The M97 is still
not grating, definitely not unpleasant, but does not have the layer
of foam rubber between you and the recording (not that the M91 was that
bad).
Comparing
the M97 to the M91 I concluded that it was:
- detailed
and able to portray more complexity in the recording
- smoother
and more extended in the frequency extremes
- good
portrayal of dynamics and the start of notes and percussion
- maybe
a little muddy in the bass
Future
plans:
I
still like the idea of swapping and changing cartridges. The fact that
it is so difficult is the only thing that puts me off the smooth clear
sound of the Hadcock unipivot. I have upgraded the Unipoise arm wand
with a new stainless steel arm tube and a new GH228/242 headshell. The
stainless steel arm has more mass than the aluminium and has lowered
the arm/cartridge resonance to 9Hz, still acceptable. I have made a
number of improvements to the set-up of the arm so it is difficult to
work out what upgrade was responsible. I am pretty sure that the increased
rigidity of the new arm has helped. I am getting a lot less sibilance
and the cartridge seems to track better with more 'easy' sounding transients.
|