How much more has your TT got to give . . .

Well I could upgrade to an Ortofon Cadenza Black or a 2 and a half grand Benz micro LP S Cartridge, then I would need a Roksan M Series Reference Phono stage. I don’t really know if I want to spend the money. I can’t take it with me though.

Extending the point of the thread a little more . . . it did not cost anything to extract the extra SQ, just a little sideways thinking and time . . .

CJSF

Hi CJSF

Intresting subject. I would say it's about what sound you my be looking for. I've seen you refer to pipe and slippers sound.

I have tried a 2M red first one was faulty got a replacement this one also is not aligned perfectly. Anyway got an Ortofon OM20 and it produces the sound I want. How much more can my TT give I'm sure alot more but quite happy with what it's giving now I can hear detail I have not heard before on some tracks so upgrading to an OM 30 or 40 would improve things.

After around 20 hrs play I will adjust the weight but belive adjusting it to 1.8g I will get a better sound even though they suggest 1.75g. For me to get an old school sound you need an old school cartridge. When I want a modern sound I play cd's

Hope I haven't strayed from your subject.

KR

Gtncj.

Not at all, old school sound, old school cartridge?? maybe . . . I would accept the Sumiko cartridge I have now gives that smooth round sound some would call old school? . . . Pipe and slippers to me is relaxed, laid back, I've just been listening to some 'very old (early 50's)' Slim Whitman, defiantly pipe and slipper, modern replay on Spotify.

The tracking weight thing is personal, I have found on my system, the recommended weight is usually a tad high, for instance the M2 Blue, is recommended to track at 2.2gs, I had mine at 1.9gs. 2.2 produced a richer sound but less air and sound stage. My Sumiko, the same 2gs recommended, I'm tracking at 1.8gs, more open sound, these lower figures are estimated by the way, reading off the markings on the tracking force dial, I do start with the correct measured figure. The amount I move the dial at a time is so tiny, it won’t register on my Mitchel balance.

As I say its personal, I'm considered a tweaker, a bit of a nutcase, I suppose am, . . . but when I've paid lots of 'hard earned' for my system, it has to work at 100% . . . 95% is just no good enough.

Coming from the old school of the 80's, my obsession with getting it right is not well received it would appear? To dial in tracking weight was normal in those days, requires a deft touch.

It has to be agreed, two schools of thought, plug and play or tweak, the modern way is 'plug and play, that will do' . . . ?

I pass on my ideas, who follows them??????? CJSF

Hi CJSF

You are right. (but when I've paid lots of 'hard earned' for my system, it has to work at 100% . . . 95% is just no good enough.)

Just like you I like a relaxed and laid back sound. A sound you can just listern to music comfortably and chill and enjoy musically.

I read your post and learn from them so I don't think your a nutcase, But I would say it's a passion for your HIFI and your music selection you like to listern to and enjoy.

KR

Gtncj.

CJSF wrote:

. . . it did not cost anything to extract the extra SQ, just a little sideways thinking and time . . .

I thought you bought a new bearing and a new machined alloy sub-platter and a new acrylic top platter and a new cartridge and a new belt and a set of little segment things for the cavities in the original sub-platter and a new counterweight... etc.

Surely they must have all cost you some money?

Yes, the 'modern' way is to just leave the thing set to zero and enjoy watching the arm fly around all over the place.

Well that's one way to save on stylus wear!

  . . . ?

chebby wrote:

CJSF wrote:

. . . it did not cost anything to extract the extra SQ, just a little sideways thinking and time . . .

I thought you bought a new bearing and a new machined alloy sub-platter and a new acrylic top platter and a new cartridge and a new belt and a set of little segment things for the cavities in the original sub-platter and a new counterweight... etc.

Surely they must have all cost you some money?

I'm referring to the present Chebby . . . you are talking about yesterday’s news . . . As you may have noticed, I reached the 'physical changing bits' last year . . . I sat back and enjoyed, turned my attention to computer listening which I enjoy a lot. But in-between I have been fiddling and tweaking the analog to my hearts content, that tad extra is always worth the effort IMHO . . .

Its fun and frustrating, items go in and out of adjustment, bring it back plus a bit sometimes, as I have found with the home made wooden cones, its called progress in my book   

My pleasure of hifi covers the whole spectrum of music, equipment and relaxing with my Hazel at the Horlicks hour, by the way, Horlicks has been added to with a couple of 'Thorntons chocolates' each session recently, nearly all gone now, special box for Hazel on the 14th . . .

CJSF 

CJSF wrote:

  . . . ?

Well. Suggesting that it's no longer normal for people to 'dial in' a correct tracking force (unlike 'those days') is a bit patronising.

Once familiarised with a turntable, it's as easy as it ever was. (Especially if scales are used to check the accuracy.)

I used to use these...

(And still have them in my little box of old turntable/cartridge accessories.)

It was never 'normal' - for most people using a turntable - (even in the 1980s) to know a blind thing about how to set one up properly. I used to set them up for family and friends and colleagues. More often than not people threw their instructions away with the box and applied 'tracking force' with Blu-tack and a 1p coin!

And forget any understanding of cartridge alignment or even what the bias/anti-skate did. Most people didn't bother. (Even in the 'good old days'.)

I even set up the Dual CS505 in a local classical record shop once. It was sounding horrible through a perfectly good NAD receiver and some AR38s. I offered to have a look and found that the transit locking screws had not been released and re-tightened. Needless to say, the arm needed balancing as well. It sounded great once the suspension was working and the correct tracking force applied.

The biggest reason CD players of that era sounded so great (to most people), was because of the lamentable state of set-up of most turntables people had ever heard up until then.  Anything would have sounded better!

So I don't buy into your 'Golden Eras' or 'Good Old Days' where everyone was a proper 'audiophile' (equipped with protractors and scales and spirit levels). In my experience most people back then didn't have a clue and jumped at CD players precisely because they sounded 'good' without any effort.

That started late in 1982. Almost 30 years ago. In the old days. 'Fit and forget' was as applicable then as it is now.

chebby wrote:

CJSF wrote:

  . . . ?

Well. Suggesting that it's no longer normal for people to 'dial in' a correct tracking force (unlike 'those days') is a bit patronising.

Once familiarised with a turntable, it's as easy as it ever was. (Especially if scales are used to check the accuracy.)

I used to use these...

(And still have them in my little box of old turntable/cartridge accessories.)

It was never 'normal' - for most people using a turntable - (even in the 1980s) to know a blind thing about how to set one up properly. I used to set them up for family and friends and colleagues. More often than not people threw their instructions away with the box and applied 'tracking force' with Blu-tack and a 1p coin!

And forget any understanding of cartridge alignment or even what the bias/anti-skate did. Most people didn't bother. (Even in the 'good old days'.)

I even set up the Dual CS505 in a local classical record shop once. It was sounding horrible through a perfectly good NAD receiver and some AR38s. I offered to have a look and found that the transit locking screws had not been released and re-tightened. Needless to say, the arm needed balancing as well. It sounded great once the suspension was working and the correct tracking force applied.

The biggest reason CD players of that era sounded so great (to most people), was because of the lamentable state of set-up of most turntables people had ever heard up until then.  Anything would have sounded better!

So I don't buy into your 'Golden Eras' or 'Good Old Days' where everyone was a proper 'audiophile' (equipped with protractors and scales and spirit levels). In my experience most people back then didn't have a clue and jumped at CD players precisely because they sounded 'good' without any effort.

That started late in 1982. Almost 30 years ago. In the old days. 'Fit and forget' was as applicable then as it is now.

Ah well Chebby . . . I obviousy moved in diferent circles to you . . . ?  Although it is true, I set a few systems up for friends in the good old days.

The stylus ballance is essential as a starting point 'recomended down force', but its very rare thats where I end up. I use the Michell unipivit ballance with a spirit level to indicat correct ballance, indicates the minutest change . . . but ones ears are still the best instruments for the job, IMHO

It dont matter realy . . . provided the end result is the way you like it . . .

CJSF

The Ovaltineys . . . ?

Of course Chebby . . . you are so much younger than me . . . night, night, sleep tight

CJSF

  I suggest a truce.