Fantastic Service by Mehran Farahmand of Sora Sound
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
Whether rigid or not, any shim placed between a cartridge and tonearm is audible. In my experience, shims tend to degrade sound quality more often than they improve it. I’m skeptical that 3D-printed plastic, even when marketed as rigid, can match the acoustic performance of modern materials like titanium, carbon fiber, steel, or magnesium used in tonearms and cartridges.
I believe the more accurate claim would be: inserting ANY material between the cartridge and tonearm will change the mechanical impedance between the cartridge and its support (the tonearm). It is not possible for any cartridge designer to anticipate the mechanical impedance between their own cartridge and the customer's headshell since they have no control over the material and design of the headshell used. A change in mechanical impedance can be audible (for better or worse).
To your point, @mtemur, adding any additional body to an assembly reduces overall rigidity, even if that inserted body is diamond. In other words, the fewer material joins in an assembly, the better - all other things being equal - when aiming for high rigidity. As a result, adding a shim is the wrong way to go.
HOWEVER, not all design elements weigh equally on our listening experience. I am convinced - as are my clients - that introducing our corrective shims to hit optimal playback angles results in far better performance than not having a corrective shim at all.
When a client has less than 1 degree SRA/VTA error, I offer them the prospect that they could get by without a corrective shim and instead hit their targeted corrective angles using the WallyReference single blades. Some take me up on the offer, but most cartridges need much more correction than this.
J.R., this discontinuity affecting rigidity is even significant in an armwand like mine, 5" total length, a flat, light paddle maybe 2" thick, weighing just a few tens of grams, in a low pressure air bearing linear tracking setup?
Because the change from solid shims to this floaty or sprung Houdini, is absolutely superior.
What I *can't* compare is my armwand without shims or Houdini, since I've dropped from 12mm high ResoPoints on the platter supporting my LPs to my new 6mm combined Acoustic Revive RT50 silicate mat/Teac Washi paper sub mat combination.
Well, one problem is solved but perhaps another is created by offering so many body joins, only screw-tight pivot at the cartridge and an assembly that isn't terribly rigid on torsional stress. Is it a net benefit? Probably so, yes. Ideal? No.
Such a clever system, overhang, azimuth and sra are quick adjustable. And changing the cartridge is even quicker. I never had any problems.second avantage you create higher mass tonarm zyx love that.
I don't doubt it sounds superior to have the compliant material in there. What I am asserting is that such a case is a direct result of ameliorating a problem that is stemming elsewhere in the system and you are getting a NET benefit but that it isn't actually a fix for the real problem. It is treating the symptom of the problem.
Now, if you LIKE large, ethereal soundstages at the expense of tighter imaging, additional inner detail, transient impact and bass authority, then you will want to keep doing just what you are doing. However, this is not likely to be an accurate representation of what is in the groove. What is happening is the supporting mechanism (tonearm & cartridge body) is slopping about in the micron and submicron range in sympathy with the groove content with respect to the cantilever pivot point (which is THE primary locus in the entire turntable system). This is mechanical distortion *defined* and CAN give you the ethereal, open sensation but there is quite a cost of omission that isn't easy to notice...until you get it back.
I think you'd be generally horrified, lol, by my tonearm. It's effectively a DIY/enthusiast design made flesh to sell a few hundred in its decade-long commercial existence, that is predicated on an excellent idea and *pretty* good real world application, but nowhere near as cutting edge or absolutely accurate as the high end arms we've seen over the last few years.
I'm unsure whether the flexy Houdini is almost synergistic with the floaty Terminator arm.
Or what the Houdini is conjuring up (pun intended) is another level of subjective over an already subjective outcome.
Put it this way, Marc Gomez of SAT would look at my Terminator, and look for the nearest bottle of spirits to drown his misery in, or window to jump out of.
Once you find happiness in your system, often a good action to take is to tune out the rest of the world - including me! - lest you begin to chew on "the opportunities" for improving your performance which have the undisputed effect of ratcheting up our dissatisfaction level!
Haha, well you can reveal that "can't live without, maybe can't live with" idea you've dangled my way.
One thing about stuff that "can't/shouldn't work" but does.
I've received the biggest flack from audiophiles over the Arya Audio Airblades. Including from friends who are ADAMANT that they're surplus to requirements or even worse, impossible to be an advance.
Yet here I am, two years into their install, finding them totally indispensable.
Am I at fault? My ears? My Zu spkrs? The Airblades?
Or those criticising?
Last edited:
Hmmm... I see both Ortofon and Audio Technica provide plenty of parameters for their cartridges including Vertical Tracking Angle (A-T) and Tracking Angle (Ortofon). These were specific numbers and not a range.
There are few industry-wide standards or ranges of acceptability for most audio components and there is a lot of competition for different approaches at different levels of quality.
I am all in favor of higher quality of implementation in the cartridge 'industry'. I also speculate that the precision required to get certain parameters more 'correct' -- such as the alignment of the stylus on the cantilever (mitgating zenith error) -- drives up cost. It may not be possible to achieve a level of precision for a cartridge to fall within J.R.'s range of acceptability.
Are these published? I admire J.R.'s continuation of the work of Wally Malewicz, his research into cartridge-groove interaction, and his support of the vinyl hobby. I hope he continues with the success of his business. He is the only person I know about who actively talks about doing this work in detail. Happily there are competitor tool makers, eg. AnalogMajik and Dieter Brakemeier among others. J.R. I consider an expert, but not the sole authority on how to get good sound from a cartridge.
As long as there is sufficient 'audiophile nervosa' among buyers of expensive five-figure cartridges, the cartridge analysis business will do well.
I haven't come to a conclusion and can't quite put my finger on it, but there is something that bothers me about the example set by your scenario. Someone buys a cartridge then sends it to Wally Tools for their analysis at additional cost. J.R. does his thing and returns a report on the cartridge. If the cartridge fails to meet his guidelines, the buyer returns (or attempts to return) the cartridge to the dealer or distributor with J.R.'s report on 'defects' (whatever you want to call it).
I suspect Meheran's desire for total customer satisfaction in the form that it took is rare -- and we applaud him and ZYX for modifying your cartridge. Without a retest by Wally Tools you don't know if the cartridge meets better tolerances.
But in general: What is the dealer or distributor to make of this? The cartridge is now used. It might be easier for the dealer/distributor to say "I can give you a partial refund. I cannot resell this cartridge as new." The manufacturer might say "we cannot modify this cartridge in the way you want." If the practice of getting an expert's opinion after sale becomes prevalent, what will happen? Will we see cartridges sold with a no refund policy? Would you have the option to buy a warranty contract? Would the dealer/distributor say "if you want to send this cartridge for measurement to that guy in California, I'd rather not sell it to you because my manufacturer will not cover the cost of modifying it to different specifications" ? Or "we do not recognize the authority of the third-party." Or "there are no published specifications for stylus alignment or SRA (for example) and therefore the cartridge is fine as it is." Maybe if you're fortunate the dealer/distributor will replace the cartridge with another similar cartridge and say "this is final."
Of course in an ideal world cartridge manufacturer's would be driven to create cartridges with a precision commensurate with their price. Is that happening? Greater precision likely drives up cost and may drive down sales. Maybe cartridge manufacturing is an imperfect business. I don't know. What do others think?
Buy a machine built cartridge like an Audio Technica and most of that variability will disappear.
I wonder @Ron Resnick how will you react if the buyer of the cartridge you’re selling sends the cartridge to @J.R. Boisclair for evaluation and it turns out it’s still out of spec?
-Will you refund full?
-If you do will you resend it back to ZYX for realignment for the second time?
-Or will you return the cartridge and ask a full refund this time?
-Or alternatively will you just say to the buyer that you’re not a dealer and you take no responsibility and offer no refund?
I’m not drawing conclusions here I just wonder what will be your road map.
-Will you refund full?
-If you do will you resend it back to ZYX for realignment for the second time?
-Or will you return the cartridge and ask a full refund this time?
-Or alternatively will you just say to the buyer that you’re not a dealer and you take no responsibility and offer no refund?
Another question that came to mind: If a cartridge has been in storage for years and has known defects but is later realigned and fixed by the manufacturer, can it still be considered new?
I’m not drawing conclusions here I just wonder what will be your road map.
Last edited:
I think I read in Ron's system thread that he agreed to buy his Opus only if it was made within acceptable tolerances based on an inspection by J. R. Despite measuring well, Ron still uses a big brass shim interface with his arm's headshell. Is it realistic for us to send expensive cartridge out for inspection after we buy them and then ask for returns or repairs if they do not meet some standard? This sounds like a real hassle. If I were interested in this ZYX cartridge that Ron is now selling, after reading this thread, I might be tempted to ask Ron to send it to J. R. for inspection and approval prior to my purchase.
With the promotion of J. R.'s inspection service, and the public acknowledgment of Mehran's superior service, is Ron trying to suggest that this is how we hobbyists should approach future purchases of expensive cartridges? Or is this simply a fortunate outcome for Ron that he wants to share by telling us of this service and customer support? I am all for industry establishing higher standards and for tighter manufacturing tolerances, but in this cottage industry, sample to sample variation of hand built cartridges seems normal. A good set up guy or hobbyist with a good adjustable arm should be able to make these cartridges sound good, despite their lack of sample to sample consistency.
My Austrian friend told me a story once of an audiophile friend of his going into a dealership in Vienna to buy a new Lyra cartridge. He asked the dealer to install four cartridges, two samples each of two different models. He listened to all four and really liked one of them. He told the dealer he made his decision and pointed to the cartridge. The dealer reached behind his counter to get a new sample. The customer said, "No, I do not want a new cartridge. I want that specific sample you played because it sounds the best. Please take it off the arm and put it in a box for me."
Gentlemen, if you watch my videos and read my articles you will see HOW we can know what the seven alignment targets should be. I am very clear about it when I’m not sure, as evidenced by the latest video I just issued on SRA. I am not afraid to say “I don’t know” but if there is any company or individual who have done more research into the question of cartridge optimization, I don’t know of them. If they exist, I’d love to talk with them and share.
Further, if you watch the recording of the panel I was on in Munich earlier this year you will see Leif Johansson of Ortofon agree with the claims I laid out.
The process of playing records is to use a *mechanical transcription system*. This is a very important point! As long as we know what the shape of the tool was that used to cut the groove and in what four angles the mastering engineers are attempting to use that tool, then – net of lacquer spring back - we KNOW what our alignment targets should be.
. I have been pretty clear about how the rationale for drawing our conclusions has been developed . I’m interested in convincing the industry that there is great benefit in respecting how records are cut and how lacquer responds to being cut when cartridges are designed and built. (YES, I KNOW about the variability at the time of cutting. Please watch the videos to see my response to that.)
Specifications (particularly for VTA), articulated by cartridge manufactures, are frequently not evidenced in the actual product. One out of eight cartridges don’t even meet manufacturer specifications. By “manufacturer” I refer both to the cartridge manufacturer and their stylus/cantilever vendor. I have never suggested the return of a cartridge due to SRA being “wrong“. Ron misspoke when he referred to his cartridge and the SRA being out of whack. though the SRA was pretty bad, it was the VTA that offered us the claim that it was unacceptable. Even though there *are* IEC standards for SRA (actually, two of them and they contradict each other even though they were issued in the same year!) I don’t use SRA as the basis for a claim against a manufacturer because the the evidence behind SRA standards AND SIGNIFICANCE isn’t strong. It certainly is strong for VTA.
Again, if you watch my videos and read the blog articles more will become clear. The cartridge industry has been ignoring the recommendation of engineers and scientists to get VTA lower since at least 1963. You can look up the studies for yourself. You can watch the video from Munich to hear my hypothesis about why they are ignoring it.
SRA has never been scientifically studied. We are doing the first scientific study on zenith error right now. Multiple VTA studies have been published. Studies on skating force are a mixed bag of quality.
In our hobby where there are so much smoke and mirrors and opinions are a dime a dozen, I am completely uninterested in participating in this cacophony. If WAM Engineering can’t prove our claims, then say so. If you think my research team and I have done a bad job of proving any claim ,lay out your evidence and we will reconsider our position.
Further, if you watch the recording of the panel I was on in Munich earlier this year you will see Leif Johansson of Ortofon agree with the claims I laid out.
The process of playing records is to use a *mechanical transcription system*. This is a very important point! As long as we know what the shape of the tool was that used to cut the groove and in what four angles the mastering engineers are attempting to use that tool, then – net of lacquer spring back - we KNOW what our alignment targets should be.
. I have been pretty clear about how the rationale for drawing our conclusions has been developed . I’m interested in convincing the industry that there is great benefit in respecting how records are cut and how lacquer responds to being cut when cartridges are designed and built. (YES, I KNOW about the variability at the time of cutting. Please watch the videos to see my response to that.)
Specifications (particularly for VTA), articulated by cartridge manufactures, are frequently not evidenced in the actual product. One out of eight cartridges don’t even meet manufacturer specifications. By “manufacturer” I refer both to the cartridge manufacturer and their stylus/cantilever vendor. I have never suggested the return of a cartridge due to SRA being “wrong“. Ron misspoke when he referred to his cartridge and the SRA being out of whack. though the SRA was pretty bad, it was the VTA that offered us the claim that it was unacceptable. Even though there *are* IEC standards for SRA (actually, two of them and they contradict each other even though they were issued in the same year!) I don’t use SRA as the basis for a claim against a manufacturer because the the evidence behind SRA standards AND SIGNIFICANCE isn’t strong. It certainly is strong for VTA.
Again, if you watch my videos and read the blog articles more will become clear. The cartridge industry has been ignoring the recommendation of engineers and scientists to get VTA lower since at least 1963. You can look up the studies for yourself. You can watch the video from Munich to hear my hypothesis about why they are ignoring it.
SRA has never been scientifically studied. We are doing the first scientific study on zenith error right now. Multiple VTA studies have been published. Studies on skating force are a mixed bag of quality.
In our hobby where there are so much smoke and mirrors and opinions are a dime a dozen, I am completely uninterested in participating in this cacophony. If WAM Engineering can’t prove our claims, then say so. If you think my research team and I have done a bad job of proving any claim ,lay out your evidence and we will reconsider our position.
Last edited:
I always used to tell people in the used market to buy vdh stradivarius only ones they have heard.
I am fine with the suggestion if it actually results in superior sonics, and I just don't mean in comparing at one's place before or after shim. I actually mean if the people where you hear the best analog are using it compared to those who aren't. If the shim resulted in such great improvements Ron's analog should theoretically sound amazing, will wait for more videos.
Similar threads
