Miyajima Labs 1.0 mil Infinity Mono

[groovemaster]

montesquieu,

the idea of replacing an EQ curve with a number is due to the fact that no 20 names of EQ curves fit on one front panel.

All original Curves you find on our list.

The great model for the solution of representing an EQ curve by means of two stepless potentiometers is the SCOTT 121 C mono preamplifier. Great mono high end from 1957, I own it myself.

Also renowned companies like EMT with the JPA 66 or FM Acoustics have recognised this and use the advantages of 2 stepless potentiometers.

The decisive point for us, Pro stepless potentiometers, is mainly due to practical experience and the wishes of record collectors.

We know from listening experience. The documented original equalisation curve does not automatically produce the best sound result. You are so right. Just as you say, too.

This is the hour of stepless equalisation by means of two pots.

I'll explain this using the example of the Monophonic with a record distorted according to RIAA. By the way, it works the same way with the JPA 66.

It's quick and easy:
Set the RIAA curve. 4.5 and 4.5 at the pots.
Listen!!! If the result is still not satisfactory. Turn the left potentiometer plus + or minus - for the low frequency and plus + or minus+ for the high frequency.

Now the value for perfect reproduction has been found.

Quite decisive! The result includes all sound-relevant factors such as.
1. the individual recording. 2. the sound character of your own system. 3. the room acoustics. 4. the very personal individual taste in sound.

This is perfect to the max!

groovemaster

 

[montesquieu]

montesquieu,

the idea of replacing an EQ curve with a number is due to the fact that no 20 names of EQ curves fit on one front panel.

All original Curves you find on our list.

The great model for the solution of representing an EQ curve by means of two stepless potentiometers is the SCOTT 121 C mono preamplifier. Great mono high end from 1957, I own it myself.

Also renowned companies like EMT with the JPA 66 or FM Acoustics have recognised this and use the advantages of 2 stepless potentiometers.

The decisive point for us, Pro stepless potentiometers, is mainly due to practical experience and the wishes of record collectors.

We know from listening experience. The documented original equalisation curve does not automatically produce the best sound result. You are so right. Just as you say, too.

This is the hour of stepless equalisation by means of two pots.

I'll explain this using the example of the Monophonic with a record distorted according to RIAA. By the way, it works the same way with the JPA 66.

It's quick and easy:
Set the RIAA curve. 4.5 and 4.5 at the pots.
Listen!!! If the result is still not satisfactory. Turn the left potentiometer plus + or minus - for the low frequency and plus + or minus+ for the high frequency.

Now the value for perfect reproduction has been found.

Quite decisive! The result includes all sound-relevant factors such as.
1. the individual recording. 2. the sound character of your own system. 3. the room acoustics. 4. the very personal individual taste in sound.

This is perfect to the max!

groovemaster

I agree that we agree on a lot. However I think you don't address my main point. Why mess with an approach that has been globally known and consistently applied for almost a century? Stepless pots are indeed a benefit for tweaking, but it makes no sense to have to refer to a third list, mapping the customary values to your own, when attempting to dial up a specific set of settings. (Which, of course, may then be tweaked by ear - I always do this, but my starting point is generally the official settings).

At the very least you could include two sets of markings - one with your funky new, unique marking system, but also an overlay that shows where the main points are, for directly enabling dialling up of a specific turnover/rolloff setting straight from the adjustment pots. That would only require a small tweak to your silk-screening template for the front panel, and make the product more immediately recognisable as providing the normal rolloff and turnover variable EQ settings that mono afficionados expect.

As it is, the product is confusing to anyone with familiarity with how pre-RIAA EQ was applied and should be recreated.

If you were sensible you would accept my comments as honest feedback from someone who might well be a target customer for this product. However I have often found German manufacturers unwilling to accept even the slightest critical feeback from lesser mortals (otherwise known as end-users) ... 'designers' after all are god-like creatures (I'm sure there's something in Nietzsche or Schopenhauer that says so). In the Anglo-Saxon world the approach tends to be somewhat reversed. Which method tends to be the most successful in business, I guess is to be debated ...

I already had this discussion with Reinhart Thoress, both by email and at Munich Hi-End - his variable EQ approach likewise is non-standard and set by ear, and as a consequence is a massive fail from the point of view of the serious mono user. I had his phono preamp on trial for a bit and found it severely compromised in this respect.

 

[groovemaster]

I agree that we agree on a lot. However I think you don't address my main point. Why mess with an approach that has been globally known and consistently applied for almost a century? Stepless pots are indeed a benefit for tweaking, but it makes no sense to have to refer to a third list, mapping the customary values to your own, when attempting to dial up a specific set of settings. (Which, of course, may then be tweaked by ear - I always do this, but my starting point is generally the official settings).

montesquieu,
I can fully endorse your assessments.

The two-number setting arose from the desire of mono-collectors for a greatly simplified method. In practice, it looks like this:
Example:
Ludwig van Beethoven. Concerto for Violin and Orchestra. D major op. 61. Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra. Soloist Wolfgang Schneiderhan.
Label : Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft
This record is from October 1953.

The correct equalisation is CCIR. The international designation for CCIR is: 350N -10 .
Monophonic List: 2.0/6.5 Official setting!

Set 2.0 / 6.5. Done.
This is authentically correct and correctly equalised. So much for collectors who want it 100 % authentically correct. Always reproducible.

Whether this sounds optimal or perhaps could be better?????

I wanted to know. It works better.

First I turned the left, then the right knob until I got the best result. Clearly more orchestral body and noticeably more presence of the solo violinist. The knobs were set at 4.5/6.5. I wrote this down on a sticker and stuck it on the back of the record. My personal, optimal sound reproduction, especially for this record. Reproducible at any time. Reproducibility is immensely important to me.

See the EQ list: CCIR on the sixth position 2.0 / 6.5



groovemaster

 

[montesquieu]

I'm sorry I simply don't get the logic of this. Why not have a scale that enables you to set it to 350 and -10 on the dial (the global standard, as I say, for nearly a century) then tweak as necessary. Why have to refer out to a translation table for your numbering system?

 

[Solypsa]

I am guessing the designer felt simpler visuals were better and @montesquieu would prefer exact numerical representation...

 

[montesquieu]

I am guessing the designer felt simpler visuals were better and @montesquieu would prefer exact numerical representation...

It's more than that.

Over a decade ago, with a previous equalisation component - an Esoteric Re-Equalizer, which sits in the tape loop and applies re-equalisation to a signal after RIAA conversion - I got a booklet containing multiple pages containing literally hundreds of labels and settings, with labels changing their settings over time. Since the 1920s equalisation has been expressed in two numbers - turnover frequency and rolloff. Every serious device out there for handling these equalisations have been calibrated in these units.

The only devices I have seen where this hasn't been the case is where something strange is going on - for example with the Thoress phono preamp, where what is provided is not a proper variable equalisation system, but a set of tone controls: the listener is encouraged fiddle with the settings till it sounds subjectively right. This provides no actual way to precisely match - or even to approximate - the inverse of the actual EQ curve applied in the mastering and cutting process, which is the whole point of a variable EQ phono preamp.

And here under discussion today, we have a manufacturer which has decided to ignore all this history, and provide a scale never used by anyone else, that needs a translation table in the middle before it can be used by people seeking to dial up specific equalisations, as the user of a variable equalisation preamp expects to do. (That's why we mono nuts buy one - I've owned four in total of different designs).

People can draw their own conclusions as to why the manufacturer is clinging so hard to such an unorthodox choice, but I'm certainly convinced the whole approach is fundamentally mistaken. As for the claim that there is somehow 'demand' for moving away from the conventional system where two variables, documented widely for hundreds of scenarios, can be straightforwardly dialled in - I simply don't believe this assertion.

 

[Solypsa]

So the question as I understand it is:

Is there a specific correlation between the chosen scale ( 1-10 ) and the exact designation in hz ( turnover ) and db ( hf ). Right?

 

[groovemaster]

solypsa,

You've got it in a nutshell.
Yes !!!! The numbers correlate exactly with the values of -bass boost- and -Roll off-. That is important!!.

We decided on the number code because our customers are all music collectors and don't want to deal with corner frequencies and time constants.

Music collectors say, we are not sound engineers!

They separate their records by the international Curve name like Decca, Columbia, RCA, BBC, AES, RIAA, Teldec and so on.

There are 22 names for vinyl alone. Another 23 for shellac. That makes over 40 different equalisation curves, expressed as a curve name.

No front panel can be as large as this to represent this smorgasbord of names around a potentiometer.

I don't have to emphasise, that a list of curve names on the front panel is a design disaster.

By the way.
Soon I show you the bass boost and roll-off value corrresponding to our Curve code.
This list is added to every Monophonic.

groovemaster

 

[montesquieu]

They separate their records by the international Curve name like Decca, Columbia, RCA, BBC, AES, RIAA, Teldec and so on.

Utter nonsense.

 

[groovemaster]

So the question as I understand it is:

Is there a specific correlation between the chosen scale ( 1-10 ) and the exact designation in hz ( turnover ) and db ( hf ). Right?

Solypsa,
as we say, many roads lead to Rome. You are right, on this list you can see the correlation between the chosen scale (1-10) and the exact designation in Hz for (turn over/bass boost) and (Roll off) - dB at 10 KHz. So the user can choose his own prefered way. Curve name or classical Equalizing.



best
groovemaster

 

[groovemaster]

.... it is so direct and holographic, with a reach out and touch it presentation. big, bold, and sassy. but nothing rounded or thick with this one. not any sort of sense of adding heft but missing detail. this one has all the detail and nuance, ease and delicacy too. and tone, tone, tone. you feel enveloped by musical presence.

View attachment 67707

mike,
What you describe here about the Infinity Mono is completely in line with the experience of one of our mono friends. The almost holographic image, without blurring transients. He has now switched to the Infinity.

groovemaster

 

[montesquieu]

Well curiosity could be contained no longer .. I finally ordered up a Miyajima Infinity 0.7. It joins a MySonicLab Eminent Solo mono and Otono Edison Replica 4.0 - from the days before Noriyuki Miyajima established his own brand and nowadays known as the Miyajima Kotetu 78 - as the third mono cartridge in my current stabl, alongside a number of stereo cartridges including Miyajima Madake, MSL Hyper Eminent and Allnic Rose.

As some here are aware I have well over a decade of being seriously into mono - this includes ownership over time of quite a stack of Miyajimas (Kotetu, Spirit, Premium, Premium BE and Zero 0.7 and 1.0). That’s alongside assorted vintage mono cartridges (GE, Fairchild, Tannoy, Goldring, Sonovox) at various times, as well as modern mono Ortofons, Lyras, ATs, Denons etc … so you could say the Infinity has come to the right place to be put through its paces. Handily, as discussed previously before we got into a discussion about the wisdom of replacing a 70-year old system of expressing EQ in terms of rolloff and tunover with a completley new way of recording it, my Allnic H7000V phono stage has variable EQ for pre-RIAA 78s and LPs. (Expressed as rolloff and turnover of course).

First impression made by the Inifinity is its sheer bulk … it looks like a bit of a beast … though this thought kind of diminished as I worked to get it set up. The extra size is mainly in width as well as overhang in front of the stylus tip … less so in other dimensions ... it’s about the same height as a Zero I think, and similar distance at the back, so fits on a normal headshell, normal position of the bolts puts stylus in the normal location. On a 14g MSL headshell, cartridge + hardware, overall weight is 31g - about the same as an Ortofon SPU - and tracks beautifully at 3.5g. So for all its bulk, it’s far easier to accommodate than it might at first appear. Perfect on the 12in Glanz and I didn’t even need to adjust the height from what I was using for the MSL. The Infinity required the usual care in setup of all single coil mono cartridges, otherwise hum can be an issue, but I fairly quickly got that resolved (got a lot of experience with that now).

With hum completely removed, soundwise the Infinity is very impressive … it’s a bit more critical on loading than the MSL and sounds bang on at the official 100 ohms (MSL is happier at 250 or 500) . I’ve been on holiday this week and had a full day of jazz yesterday, followed by an evening of classical, all mono. Both cartridges put a huge smile on my face and there was quite a bit of relief as well that the Miyajima performed as expected. (It would have been a bit deflating if it was notably less competent than the MSL which was a genuine concern given how good it is). Instead what I heard from it was a performance that was very lively, dynamic, detailed, spacious (wide and deep - it’s astonishing how well-reproduced mono can completely fill the space between the speakers), and layered back to front. With such a wide space, the mind resolves instruments across width too and it can be almost impossible to believe that it is actually mono that’s playing - a couple of times I had to do a double take, especially with the dramatic wall of sound emanating from Ellington’s orchestra, or Furtwangler’s Beethoven’s 9th.

Initial feel suggests that Infinity is a bit more vivid/colourful (not coloured) compared to the MSL, at least with really well recorded material, and this sense is increasing as it plays in - I have about 12 hours on it now. Very natural. In short, lives up to its reputation and is a significant step up from the Zero.

As currently stands, the MSL remains a bit more assured in the bass and definitely a bit more ‘modern’ in feel - this has its advantages with some material - especially later material. Both are in the same price bracket and there's really not a huge amount in it in performance terms but it would appear that the Infinity has a little more depth and clarity with some recordings, which I suspect is at least in part the consequence of having only one coil, giving that tiny bit more coherence. This is vs what is probably a little more natural refinement in the MSL which is quite different in its design approach, having two coils (both reproducing only in the horizontal plane) rather than the Miyajima's single coil, and overall far more resembling the MSL stereo cartridges than the Infinity resembles the Miyajima stereo ones.

I had previously rated the MSL ahead of my 1.0 and 0.7 Zeros, and indeed sold both Zeros after getting the MSL - the Zeros are superb cartridges, so this was a already very high bar. The MSL has a 1.0mil tip and remains notably better than the Inifinity 0.7 on older material - the beauty of the MSL is that despite having the wider tip profile for playing U-shaped early Microgroove, it also seems very much at home on later mono and mono reissues with V-shaped grooves, cut on a stereo lathe. The MSL is a fabulous all-rounder and I would recommend it wholeheartedly for anyone who wants to buy just one mono cartridge.

I bought the 0.7 Miyajima instead of the 1.0 because the MSL had the wide groove recordings already covered, and there’s no doubt that while the Infinity does play the early material very well, it is a lot less flexible than the MSL in being even-handed across both older and newer mono. I suspect that with the Miyajima, you probably really do need both tip profiles to be 100% happy. Also I’m back to being paranoid about making sure I’m keeping stereo recordings well away from the Infinity - the MSL has vertically compliant suspension so you don’t need to worry about trashing vinyl if you absent-mindedly use it to play a stereo record. All the Miyajima mono cartridges have no vertical compliance at all can damage stereo records on a single accidental play. But this is just the regular stuff of mono cartridge ownership.

I’m still questioning to myself whether I really need this cartridge, with the MSL being such a solid all-rounder. But I have to say that overall, at least on on reissues and later mono, the Infinity 0.7 seems to have an edge, and that’s with only 12 hours on it. The Infinity was got from Hugo at Ammonite Audio in the UK.

(My earlier write-up on the MSL Eminent Solo mono is here)

 

[audioblazer]

Don’t mind if I digress from the main topic here ie Inifnity .. Why Longdog Psu for your Thorens . Have you compared it to Hanze hifi , sound carrier or Classic TT PSU ?

By the way, the Infinity 0.7mil sounded intoxicating . I love the Zero so much that I upgraded it to Infinity & I doubt my Zero has even done 100hrs . Infinity is miles ahead of Zero

 

[montesquieu]

Don’t mind if I digress from the main topic here ie Inifnity .. Why Longdog Psu for your Thorens . Have you compared it to Hanze hifi , sound carrier or Classic TT PSU ?

By the way, the Infinity 0.7mil sounded intoxicating . I love the Zero so much that I upgraded it to Infinity & I doubt my Zero has even done 100hrs . Infinity is miles ahead of Zero

I know the designer of the Longdog PSU, Nick Gorham, and have had various bits of his kit over the years. An interesting individual to say the least.

In mine, the PSU's second iteration, it has several main features:

1) It's regenerating - it uses a quartz reference generator to reconstitute the waveform into a beautifully-formed sine wave. This I think is where the main benefit comes from - it really quietened down the deck, lowering the noise floor significantly.
2) It has speed control (varies frequency by +/- 3hz in addition to 33/45 switching) - this is rock solid, and means the eddy brake can be set once and left alone thereafter. I check with a battery/hand held strobe every now and again and it basically never drifts.
3) It outputs a steady 218v (though this can be varied on request before delivery) perfect for the Thorens 220v motor which can be unhappy with UK mains of 240v +/- 10% - my mains consistently runs at 251v. Good for motor longevity/operating temperature as well as quietness. High mains voltages on idlers are associated with increased motor vibration noise, though in my experience this is more of an issue on the Garrard 301/401 than on the TD124).

Not all rival TT PSUs out there have all of these capabilities in the one box.

The Longdog PSU is one of the most effective and audible upgrades I've made across all the improvements I've tried on the TD124. It was actually quite a surprising moment when I first plugged it in.

 

[audioblazer]

I know the designer of the Longdog PSU, Nick Gorham, and have had various bits of his kit over the years. An interesting individual to say the least.

In mine, the PSU's second iteration, it has several main features:

1) It's regenerating - it uses a quartz reference generator to reconstitute the waveform into a beautifully-formed sine wave. This I think is where the main benefit comes from - it really quietened down the deck, lowering the noise floor significantly.
2) It has speed control (varies frequency by +/- 3hz in addition to 33/45 switching) - this is rock solid, and means the eddy brake can be set once and left alone thereafter. I check with a battery/hand held strobe every now and again and it basically never drifts.
3) It outputs a steady 218v (though this can be varied on request before delivery) perfect for the Thorens 220v motor which can be unhappy with UK mains of 240v +/- 10% - my mains consistently runs at 251v. Good for motor longevity/operating temperature as well as quietness. High mains voltages on idlers are associated with increased motor vibration noise, though in my experience this is more of an issue on the Garrard 301/401 than on the TD124).

Not all rival TT PSUs out there have all of these capabilities in the one box.

The Longdog PSU is one of the most effective and audible upgrades I've made across all the improvements I've tried on the TD124. It was actually quite a surprising moment when I first plugged it in.

TQ . In other words , i couldnt varies the voltage of LD PSU.
Setting up my Garrard 301 after being dormant for 10 years . Ortofon SPU Century arriving in 1 -2 days time . So much hype abt SME 3012R . Bought 1 to pair with Miyajima Infinity but just realized it wouldn’t fit the SME headshell

 

[montesquieu]

TQ . In other words , i couldnt varies the voltage of LD PSU.
Setting up my Garrard 301 after being dormant for 10 years . Ortofon SPU Century arriving in 1 -2 days time . So much hype abt SME 3012R . Bought 1 to pair with Miyajima Infinity but just realized it wouldn’t fit the SME headshell

I previously had a PSU from Martin Bastin on a 401 - I can't remember if it was regenerating or non-regenerating, but it was able to vary both voltage and frequency. I found it really hard to balance individually the effects of varying voltage and frequency independently.

Having owned both, I definitely prefer the fixed voltage approach. By far the most important element here in any case is the wave form regeneration/clock driven frequency delivery.

 

[groovemaster]

TQ . In other words , i couldnt varies the voltage of LD PSU.
Setting up my Garrard 301 after being dormant for 10 years . Ortofon SPU Century arriving in 1 -2 days time . So much hype abt SME 3012R . Bought 1 to pair with Miyajima Infinity but just realized it wouldn’t fit the SME headshell

I see the Thomas Schick Tonearm with his fantastic Graphite Headshell. I like this very much with several cartridges which need proper mass.

groovemaster

 

[audioblazer]

I see the Thomas Schick Tonearm with his fantastic Graphite Headshell. I like this very much with several cartridges which need proper mass.

groovemaster

Any recommendation of catridges ?

 

[montesquieu]

I see the Thomas Schick Tonearm with his fantastic Graphite Headshell. I like this very much with several cartridges which need proper mass.

groovemaster

Been contemplating getting one of these for a while to check it out. Past experience with graphite has not been great (a bit harsh sounding) but it seems these headshells are somehow oil treated to smooth this out.

 

[Solypsa]

Been contemplating getting one of these for a while to check it out. Past experience with graphite has not been great (a bit harsh sounding) but it seems these headshells are somehow oil treated to smooth this out.

I believe the Schick headshells are also available in wood and some sort of metal impregnated phenolic as well. ( at least Schick made them all in the past...)