Sublime Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
With the brutal Winter in Boston, I have been finding ways to battle cabin fever. I cycled through my three cartridges and now have settled on the AirTight Supreme for a while and recently embarked on another round of experimentation in hopes or wringing out more performance from my cartridge.
I investigated three areas with the SME V-12 and AirTight Supreme combination:
1. Dynamic versus Static VTF
2. Azimuth adjustment
3. Cartridge loading
Andre Jennings, the set up guy for Jon Valin, audio reviewer and member here, recently set up someone's SME 30/12 and V-12 and Supreme, the same combination that I have. I sent the owner my Mint protractor for the week to facilitate the set up process. When Andre was finished, he remarked to the owner that he prefers static VTF. I used dynamic VTF, so this got me curious. I noticed that with the three extra weights in the counterweight enclosure, the weight sled was still a bit back from the pivot point. So I moved it as far forward as possible without restricting arm movement. This resulted in a measured 1 gram of VTF. So I added another 1.125g of dynamic force as marked on the VTF dial and listened. The total VTF was now 2.125g. The sound improved slightly, sounding a bit quicker, more open and lively. I don’t know if this is because the counterweight is now closer to the pivot point lowering the arm's inertia resulting in less restricted horizontal arm movement, or if the static VTF is better because the arm is less damped in the vertical axis, but the combination of static and dynamic VTF with the counterweight sled as far forward (close to the pivot) as possible, results in improved sound.
Everyone says that Azimuth is not adjustable on the fixed-headshell SME arms. Perhaps that is the case, BUT, when the arm post locking clamps are loose, you can slightly rotate the arm around its axis - azimuth - and then clamp the arm pillar in a slightly different orientation. I notice this because I adjust VTA/SRA for each LP, and this means that I am often locking and unlocking the arm post clamps to raise and lower the arm. I have learned that the arm post can be locked in slightly different vertical tilt orientations which surely is not good. So perhaps what I am doing is actually setting the post plum as opposed to slightly slanted before. My process involves a tiny bubble level, which I use on the headshell just behind the mounting screws for checking level. I realize that this does not guarantee that the stylus is square or plum in the groove, but it is a good quick reference, and it confirms what I hear when adjusting by ear. I noticed that the bubble level is slightly off, so I now rotate it 90 degrees and measure again, and then I take the average reading. I listened after using the level in this new way and heard an improvement. Well, this shows me that azimuth can matter, because this very tiny adjustment improved imaging solidity or focus, soundstaging, and channel balance/separation.
Finally, I played with cartridge loading. I have been loading the Supreme at 100 ohms on my Pass XP25. Interestingly, I did not notice any real difference when going up to 160, 250, or 320, so I kept it at 100. Recently two audio buddies remarked that they thought my system was very slightly dark sounding. I had not noticed this because I had thought that some other systems I had heard sounded a bit bright or tilted up tonally. Well, for the heck of it, I tried loading my cartridge full open at 47K after reading some of Ralph’s (Atmashpere) Audiogon posts on the topic. Sure enough, the sound became more open, airy, slightly more dynamic and had higher resolution. By comparison, the 100 ohm setting sounded slightly veiled, congested and dark. The bass seemed to have more extension and weight when loaded at 100 ohms, but upon switching back and forth many times, I started to realize that the bass was slightly over damped and added a false weight/body. I am now switching the loading value between 1000 and 500 ohms.
The combination of these three changes have improved my overall sound. It is not dramatic, but it is surely noticeable and repeatable. The sound is definitely better in terms of openness, liveliness and resolution. The tonal balance is also more neutral and less dark than before. Bass articulation is more apparent and there is an increased sense of texture (micro dynamics) throughout the frequency range. The system just sounds more natural/real and has become more enjoyable. And the best thing is that these improvements came at no cost.
I continue to be surprised at just how much there is to learn about optimizing an analog front end.
Here are three photographs showing the proximity of the counterweight to the gimbal pivot and the bubble level on the headshell for azimuth.
I investigated three areas with the SME V-12 and AirTight Supreme combination:
1. Dynamic versus Static VTF
2. Azimuth adjustment
3. Cartridge loading
Andre Jennings, the set up guy for Jon Valin, audio reviewer and member here, recently set up someone's SME 30/12 and V-12 and Supreme, the same combination that I have. I sent the owner my Mint protractor for the week to facilitate the set up process. When Andre was finished, he remarked to the owner that he prefers static VTF. I used dynamic VTF, so this got me curious. I noticed that with the three extra weights in the counterweight enclosure, the weight sled was still a bit back from the pivot point. So I moved it as far forward as possible without restricting arm movement. This resulted in a measured 1 gram of VTF. So I added another 1.125g of dynamic force as marked on the VTF dial and listened. The total VTF was now 2.125g. The sound improved slightly, sounding a bit quicker, more open and lively. I don’t know if this is because the counterweight is now closer to the pivot point lowering the arm's inertia resulting in less restricted horizontal arm movement, or if the static VTF is better because the arm is less damped in the vertical axis, but the combination of static and dynamic VTF with the counterweight sled as far forward (close to the pivot) as possible, results in improved sound.
Everyone says that Azimuth is not adjustable on the fixed-headshell SME arms. Perhaps that is the case, BUT, when the arm post locking clamps are loose, you can slightly rotate the arm around its axis - azimuth - and then clamp the arm pillar in a slightly different orientation. I notice this because I adjust VTA/SRA for each LP, and this means that I am often locking and unlocking the arm post clamps to raise and lower the arm. I have learned that the arm post can be locked in slightly different vertical tilt orientations which surely is not good. So perhaps what I am doing is actually setting the post plum as opposed to slightly slanted before. My process involves a tiny bubble level, which I use on the headshell just behind the mounting screws for checking level. I realize that this does not guarantee that the stylus is square or plum in the groove, but it is a good quick reference, and it confirms what I hear when adjusting by ear. I noticed that the bubble level is slightly off, so I now rotate it 90 degrees and measure again, and then I take the average reading. I listened after using the level in this new way and heard an improvement. Well, this shows me that azimuth can matter, because this very tiny adjustment improved imaging solidity or focus, soundstaging, and channel balance/separation.
Finally, I played with cartridge loading. I have been loading the Supreme at 100 ohms on my Pass XP25. Interestingly, I did not notice any real difference when going up to 160, 250, or 320, so I kept it at 100. Recently two audio buddies remarked that they thought my system was very slightly dark sounding. I had not noticed this because I had thought that some other systems I had heard sounded a bit bright or tilted up tonally. Well, for the heck of it, I tried loading my cartridge full open at 47K after reading some of Ralph’s (Atmashpere) Audiogon posts on the topic. Sure enough, the sound became more open, airy, slightly more dynamic and had higher resolution. By comparison, the 100 ohm setting sounded slightly veiled, congested and dark. The bass seemed to have more extension and weight when loaded at 100 ohms, but upon switching back and forth many times, I started to realize that the bass was slightly over damped and added a false weight/body. I am now switching the loading value between 1000 and 500 ohms.
The combination of these three changes have improved my overall sound. It is not dramatic, but it is surely noticeable and repeatable. The sound is definitely better in terms of openness, liveliness and resolution. The tonal balance is also more neutral and less dark than before. Bass articulation is more apparent and there is an increased sense of texture (micro dynamics) throughout the frequency range. The system just sounds more natural/real and has become more enjoyable. And the best thing is that these improvements came at no cost.
I continue to be surprised at just how much there is to learn about optimizing an analog front end.
Here are three photographs showing the proximity of the counterweight to the gimbal pivot and the bubble level on the headshell for azimuth.
Last edited:
Great read Peter. I have forgotten to mention that my counter-weight is also at the closest to the pivot point it can be, to reduce inertia - there is just half a mm of travel left.
Great to hear about your improvements, Peter. I also particularly like when they cost nothing, such as the ones you suggested for setting up my speakers more correctly and for which I am thankful. I am looking forward to hearing your new, less dark sound. Yet it had been already sublime before, indeed.
Peter, I know you've always been a very careful set up guy. Loading is interesting. I used to load my Atlas at 100 ohm...then began backing off...at 845 now and discovered the same sorts of things you mention. I've also read the more capacitance your phono cable has the more loading that maybe needed...which begins to squash dynamics a touch.
Thanks for the comments, guys. You have all heard my system and know how much I value learning more about the hobby and trying to get the most out of the equipment I already own. Once one is fairly confident that he has achieved that much, and with a clear understanding of what he thinks the system's weaknesses are, is he that much better prepared to make a good evaluation about the next potential upgrade. I really enjoy sharing my system with friends and appreciate any comments or advice that others can give that may help improve things further.
Though the system still lacks the bass extension and scale that I have heard on a few bigger systems, it does most other things pretty well and it is particularly suited for the types of smaller scale music that I so enjoy. I continue to marvel at how much information is in those tiny grooves. Vinyl really is an extremely high resolution format.
I have added a third photograph in my post above which shows my small bubble level resting on the SME headshell.
Though the system still lacks the bass extension and scale that I have heard on a few bigger systems, it does most other things pretty well and it is particularly suited for the types of smaller scale music that I so enjoy. I continue to marvel at how much information is in those tiny grooves. Vinyl really is an extremely high resolution format.
I have added a third photograph in my post above which shows my small bubble level resting on the SME headshell.
Peter, have you considered adding a Subwoofer? With stand mount monitors, I have found that in almost all circumstances, a good sub will add that missing bass extension. I use a REL in my system and it really helps the mains with a task that they were not designed to accomplish.
Unfortunately, Bass is one of the biggest things that most speaker manufacturer's seem to dismiss, unless they are asking good money for their floor standers. IME, IF you are missing that last octave or more, you are not getting the information from a great deal of LP's and therefore what so many musicians are trying to portray, never mind the loss in SQ. Frankly, i am beginning to think it to be inexcusable for any speaker manufacturer to sell a speaker that cannot drop down to at least 30Hz clean...I don't care what the price is that they are asking for their wares. The more expensive, the bigger the offender! Now whether your room can support bass is another story, BUT for ....sake at least give the consumer the ability!!! OK, rant over...
Thanks DaveyF. I once owned two JL Audio F110 subs. I tried to integrate them and then hired a professional to do the same. After many hours of trying, we both agreed that in my room, the subs did add a bit of extension, but they detracted from the overall clarity and resolution of the system, so we abandoned the idea and I sold the subs. It might have been an issue with the shape of my room. I have heard good things about REL subs, though.
My speakers, with room gain, have useful bass energy into the mid 30s in my smallish room. And it is extremely clean. When I write that my "system still lacks the bass extension and scale that I have heard on a few bigger systems", I don't mean that I am unhappy with my sound. I just mean that my system can't do what I have heard from the Magico Q7, the Magico M Project, and the Wilson XLF on very large scale symphonic music. I'm not too worried about that as I can not afford those speaker systems nor can my room support that extension.
I would like to audition a pair of Magico Q3s though one day. I don't agree with your assessment of speaker manufacturers. Getting good clean bass to 30 Hz is difficult and I can understand speaker designers making choices about overall resolution versus extension. I am also biased towards sealed enclosures.
My speakers, with room gain, have useful bass energy into the mid 30s in my smallish room. And it is extremely clean. When I write that my "system still lacks the bass extension and scale that I have heard on a few bigger systems", I don't mean that I am unhappy with my sound. I just mean that my system can't do what I have heard from the Magico Q7, the Magico M Project, and the Wilson XLF on very large scale symphonic music. I'm not too worried about that as I can not afford those speaker systems nor can my room support that extension.
I would like to audition a pair of Magico Q3s though one day. I don't agree with your assessment of speaker manufacturers. Getting good clean bass to 30 Hz is difficult and I can understand speaker designers making choices about overall resolution versus extension. I am also biased towards sealed enclosures.
Davey, since this thread is about Peter's system, I will refrain from answering your self-proclaimed rant, thus distracting from the topic. In any case, if you look at my signature, I have found a solution for my system that I find close to ideal; just like in your case it features a REL subwoofer. I may want to bring my REL subwoofer over to Peter's house someday, Peter knows about my offer. It can't hurt trying. The REL that integrates so well with my system (Peter said he never had heard such good integration of sub with monitors) may work better in his system as well. Perhaps the fact that it fires to the floor rather than forward like the JL Audio subs will make a meaningful difference under his room conditions. I know that the REL can play very well also in smaller rooms like Peter's because I previously had my system in just such rooms.
Last edited:
I do agree that the likelihood of a REL matching up with Peter's Magico Mini 2's is pretty good. I think the REL's are superb at matching up with quick monitors. I moved my REL today due to adding a new amp stand ( another Zoethecus...these are so good, such a shame that they went out of biz) into the place where the REL was previously ( couldn't place the amp anywhere else in my small room) and within about an hour, I had re-dialed the sub back into the system so that once again it was seamless.
I think it would be VERY worthwhile for Peter to try a REL in his room, I suspect he will be amazed.
OTOH, it is very true that small rooms, like mine and Peter's ( which I'm pretty sure is actually considerably larger than mine) will NOT portray the sense of scale that a large floor stander like the Q7 or Alex XLF can bring to the party. A shame,as this is a pretty big part of the portrayal of symphonic music ( IF you want to believe that you are at the "live" event). However, I do think that the generally greater intimacy of the smaller room and the ability of the smaller monitor to portray this important aspect, is almost enough to make up for the lack of scale. Almost.
I think it would be VERY worthwhile for Peter to try a REL in his room, I suspect he will be amazed.
OTOH, it is very true that small rooms, like mine and Peter's ( which I'm pretty sure is actually considerably larger than mine) will NOT portray the sense of scale that a large floor stander like the Q7 or Alex XLF can bring to the party. A shame,as this is a pretty big part of the portrayal of symphonic music ( IF you want to believe that you are at the "live" event). However, I do think that the generally greater intimacy of the smaller room and the ability of the smaller monitor to portray this important aspect, is almost enough to make up for the lack of scale. Almost.
Your experience about ease of seamless integration matches mine.
I also think this may be the case.
Sure, on the other hand a minimonitor/sub combination is usually better than large speakers at portraying a correct, realistic size of small-scale music or sources. There may be notable exceptions where large speakers excel in this area too, but it is a common weakness for such speakers, also in large rooms where they play best, and set-up in the room is much more critical and must be perfect in order to achieve correct small scale, next to the aspect where large speakers are usually good at, large scale. Personally, I have less of a hard time suspending my disbelief when I hear a full orchestra at the size of an ensemble of 20, rather than when I hear a violin or a guitar at 2 or 3 times their size, or a solo soprano with a mouth the size of an alligator. As usual for minimonitor-based systems, Peter's system excels at small scale portrayal.
This is the way to set up a system, integrated into a living room and not some purpose-built austere surroundings. I am impressed also with your support for the turntable as my SME 20/3A will have nothing like that when it is delivered this week. I am using a light, sturdy support stand and hoping for the best. Congratulations and try a little Diana Krall, especially her earlier work, which should fit into your listening patterns. Candy for the ears. Happy listening.
Thank you Cascais. I'm rather proud of the wooden rack that I designed and built. It is significantly more rigid than the Zoethecus rack I used to own. That one could easily sway side to side when pushed gently. My DIY rack is very heavy, very solid, and I can not get it to move in any direction. I suppose the 400 lbs of metal on the top shelf helps in that regard. I don't know how it performs relative to audiophile grade racks, but it does provide an extremely sturdy support. Each of my components is individually isolated either on Townshend Seismic Sinks or the ballasted Vibraplane, as you can see from the photographs.
I very much enjoy Diana Krall's "Love Scenes", though, sadly, I only have it on a CD which I can not play on my analog only system. I had one of her early records reissued on LP, but the mastering or pressing was so bad, that I can not play it. She is a good artist. I do play much of that kind of music on my system. Lately I've been enjoying Melody Gardot, Shirley Horn, Carla White, and of course, Ella.
Congratulations on your new SME 20/3A. Which cartridge and phono cable will you be using?
The new Ser. 5 arm will be equipped with Van den Hul phono cable and I'll continue to use the Lyra Skala from the Oracle which has been out of commission during the long wait (four months) for the SME. I had to rely on my EMM Labs XDS1-V2 CD player, and therefore quite a battle is shaping up between digital and analogue which I expect the latter to win even if the SME 20/3A costs about half as much as the EMM Labs CD player. Lots of new vinyl available in Portugal so lots of fun. I will supply photos of the new TT on its scrounged and very modest stand compared with yours. My dealer is Lisbon has arranged to have their set-up expert from Porto unpack and set up the SME so I will just stay out of the way and take some photos.
This week I listened again to Peter's system. The changes that he describes on the previous page 7 (post #62) indeed result in a less dark tonal balance, and his system managed to impress me once more, after hearing the system last time with the Van der Hul Colibri cartridge had been a great and unexpected disappointment. I am aware that there are many incarnations of that cartridge (silver, gold, platinum and what not), and perhaps something was wrong with this particular unit, but the cartridge did not at all live up to its great reputation. It sounded opaque and veiled, as if someone had pulled curtains over the system, and I did not hear much of the famed resolution either. Fortunately, Peter received the expensive cartridge as a gift, so there was no money wasted. Or perhaps it would be worthwhile trying the cartridge again with the new load settings?
Now we were back to the Airtight cartridge, together with the improvements that Peter described, and all was good again. In fact, while not all recordings played were of equal quality, some of the sounds were spectacular. Here a few highlights:
1. RR Berlioz Symphony Fantastique. The recording had a vast spaciousness that I had not yet heard from Peter's system, and brass sounded very realistic, very 'brassy' that is. The bells on side 3 sounded incredible too. I am not as partial to the string sound on that recording though.
2. Bach, music for Viola D’Gamba and harpsichord. The timbres of the two instruments were to die for, with immense resolution. There seemed to be a perfect balance between woodenness and 'stringiness' of the string instrument, and the richness of overtones of the harpsichord was wonderful. The sense of acoustic space around the intruments was amazing. Peter and I were marveling at Bach's genius of spinning a melody into an almost unending continuum in so many varied and unexpected ways, and Peter correctly pointed out that you hear something similar in Bach's famous cello suites. Certainly one of the many reasons why JS Bach is rightly considered one of the very greatest composers of all time.
3. Sonny Rollins, Way Out West. Again I was reminded, like so many times on Peter's system, of the superiority of analog when it comes to saxophone sound, and in fact saxophone had never sounded so good. The mix of rounded tone and airiness ('breathiness') of the instrument's sound was intoxicating. The percussion also clearly revealed the progress that Peter has made with the latest adjustments to his system. Cymbals never had sounded so metallic, yet retained nice weight as well. The resolution of sounds produced by brushes on the percussion was impressive.
All in all, Peter's system once more produced some of the best sounds that I have heard from any system. Congratulations, Peter!
Now we were back to the Airtight cartridge, together with the improvements that Peter described, and all was good again. In fact, while not all recordings played were of equal quality, some of the sounds were spectacular. Here a few highlights:
1. RR Berlioz Symphony Fantastique. The recording had a vast spaciousness that I had not yet heard from Peter's system, and brass sounded very realistic, very 'brassy' that is. The bells on side 3 sounded incredible too. I am not as partial to the string sound on that recording though.
2. Bach, music for Viola D’Gamba and harpsichord. The timbres of the two instruments were to die for, with immense resolution. There seemed to be a perfect balance between woodenness and 'stringiness' of the string instrument, and the richness of overtones of the harpsichord was wonderful. The sense of acoustic space around the intruments was amazing. Peter and I were marveling at Bach's genius of spinning a melody into an almost unending continuum in so many varied and unexpected ways, and Peter correctly pointed out that you hear something similar in Bach's famous cello suites. Certainly one of the many reasons why JS Bach is rightly considered one of the very greatest composers of all time.
3. Sonny Rollins, Way Out West. Again I was reminded, like so many times on Peter's system, of the superiority of analog when it comes to saxophone sound, and in fact saxophone had never sounded so good. The mix of rounded tone and airiness ('breathiness') of the instrument's sound was intoxicating. The percussion also clearly revealed the progress that Peter has made with the latest adjustments to his system. Cymbals never had sounded so metallic, yet retained nice weight as well. The resolution of sounds produced by brushes on the percussion was impressive.
All in all, Peter's system once more produced some of the best sounds that I have heard from any system. Congratulations, Peter!
Thank you your kind comments, Al. As always, it was a pleasure to share some listening time with you. Interestingly, when you heard the Berlioz, I had just bought this NM copy on Ebay and not yet had a chance to clean it. I was simply trying to confirm its condition before I left feedback for the seller. It did sound good, but I had a chance to clean it a few days later, using my overly elaborate and time consuming Loricraft and AIVS four fluid cleaning routine. It is now quieter and their is an audible increase in resolution and micro dynamics. It is a superb recording and I think one of fellow member Ack's first purchases and one responsible for his interest in high end audio. It also led him to research and discover Keith Johnson and Spectral electronics.
I will next remount the MSL Signature Gold cartridge and experiment with the new static/dynamic VTF settings and cartridge loading. I don't know why we did not enjoy the Colibri. I did not dislike it as much as you, but it does deserve to be revisited at some point.
Yes, I continue to marvel at JS Bach's genius, and often listen to three or four of his Cello Suites in one sitting.
I will next remount the MSL Signature Gold cartridge and experiment with the new static/dynamic VTF settings and cartridge loading. I don't know why we did not enjoy the Colibri. I did not dislike it as much as you, but it does deserve to be revisited at some point.
Yes, I continue to marvel at JS Bach's genius, and often listen to three or four of his Cello Suites in one sitting.
Yesterday I heard in Peter's system a recording of Mozart string quintets that I had not liked before; I had found it lacking detail. Yet now that he changed some settings in his vinyl playback, and also re-adjusted the VTA for this recording, the reproduction is completely transformed. The violin sound may have been the most resolved one that I have ever heard from any system, and the reproduction just sparkled with realism.
Peter's system proved to be a perfect vehicle for conveying the tender clarity of that performance. Micro-dynamics were excellent, enhancing the portrayal of articulation and expression of the prominent violin playing. The cello had perfect body of tone and mid-bass weight; it was very much what I might expect in a live situation sitting relatively close to the instrument, but with its playing in the gentle supporting role that is heard on the recording, rather than demonstrating equal weight to the violins as in other quartet/quintet performances.
Peter, the analog wizard. He appears to be onto something with constantly tweaking his vinyl set-up and adjusting the VTA for each recording.
Peter's system proved to be a perfect vehicle for conveying the tender clarity of that performance. Micro-dynamics were excellent, enhancing the portrayal of articulation and expression of the prominent violin playing. The cello had perfect body of tone and mid-bass weight; it was very much what I might expect in a live situation sitting relatively close to the instrument, but with its playing in the gentle supporting role that is heard on the recording, rather than demonstrating equal weight to the violins as in other quartet/quintet performances.
Peter, the analog wizard. He appears to be onto something with constantly tweaking his vinyl set-up and adjusting the VTA for each recording.
Subs at PeterA's
Re subs, Peter's room has a substantial room resonance at 40 Hz. Though I don't know for sure, I had the impression that it was fundamentally related to the wonderful old - and relatively untouchable - construction of the homes in his area. They date back for centuries.
I've voiced two other systems in these classic homes not too far from his home - they also had a resonance in that general area. Related? I think probably, but not certain.
We could get the JLs to sound pretty good, but they didn't make the grade as an enhancement of the musical involvement. So he sold them.
Re subs, Peter's room has a substantial room resonance at 40 Hz. Though I don't know for sure, I had the impression that it was fundamentally related to the wonderful old - and relatively untouchable - construction of the homes in his area. They date back for centuries.
I've voiced two other systems in these classic homes not too far from his home - they also had a resonance in that general area. Related? I think probably, but not certain.
We could get the JLs to sound pretty good, but they didn't make the grade as an enhancement of the musical involvement. So he sold them.
Wonderful setup!
Good thing is it's often easier to fix in those cases.
Both his room dimensions coincide with approx that frequency.
Good thing is it's often easier to fix in those cases.
Wonderful setup!
Both his room dimensions coincide with approx that frequency.
Good thing is it's often easier to fix in those cases.
Thanks for the comments Calle-jr. You can see how substantial the room resonance is at 40 Hz. It seems slightly larger relative to the rest of the response in digital recording than in analog.
Here is a measurement of my room/system's frequency response taken at the listening seat while playing pink noise through from an LP. Both channels are summed. The different colors correspond to different cartridge loading settings.
And this is the same taken while playing pink noise through a digital file. This shows the left and right channels separately.
Similar threads
