Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by bever70, Jan 27, 2019.
SCHAAAWEEET!! Nice looking set up!!!!!!!!!!
Great info on the cart thanks! I did a lot of googling yesterday evening but couldn't found found any difference between the E and the EO version...but as you said, it is a high compliance cart and I also found the 400pf number. There seems to be a small,thin, square 'thing' at the back of the cart, I don't know if that is what you are referring to? I'll take a photo tomorrow (allready getting dark here).
The auto lift off (no return with mine) : very easy to adjust, there is a small retained screw sitting on the inside of the armbase. Turn clockwise to lift off earlier, counterclockwise te lift off later. Easy as pie . It only took a very small turn and works perfect now.
Yep, the thin wafer thing is the "Cap 210". Consider yourself very lucky because those are rare!
If you want some suggestions for lower/mid-compliance carts for the JVC let me know.
I certainly will, thanks !
Another thing I noted, this cart is rather long, and on top of that the connections are a combination of pins and soldered on 'tips', so when I moved the cart to the proper overhang in the headshell (48mm according to the manual), I had to bend the tips of those connections a little bit because they would have touched otherwise. But I don't think I will have that problem using another cart and changing out these old headshell cables to newer ones.
Yep, it's got a very long body which is strange. 48mm is right - be careful with aftermarket headshells as many don't have long enough slots for JVC alignment. The Yamamoto headshell I bought a couple months ago does have long enough slots. Some of the Jelco headshells may work also, though I would watch the weight since the original HS is very light. Stick with HSs that are 10g or less ideally.
Ok, I tried weighing the arm. I removed the counterweight assembly at the back and the stylus. Then I weighed the arm, resting it on my digital scale at the point where the stylus would normally sit. It measured 20.5gr, with the cartridge at 5gr included. So that would leave me with a total mass of about 15gr if I'm correct. Which is in the vicinity of the 14gr stated in the manual...
Would this be a more or less correct way of measuring the mass of a tonearm? Or am I missing something?
I think measuring the true effective mass is a little more complicated than that.
Here is an old VE thread on it. We are dealing with physics here.
Measuring Tonearm Effective Mass- Vinyl Engine
Honestly I wouldn't obsess over the exact EM of the tonearm. You can probably guess the ballpark based on the discussions we've had before and a test record + resonant frequency analysis will tell you whether any cart you have is a good match.
Yeah, well I allready thought that would be too easy .
Just got my test record in the mail today. If I have the time I will try it out in the next few days...
Got out the test record this morning and the arm got very wobbly around 8Hz. So I guess the manual was right that this arm can also do high(er) compliance carts. Tracking ability was rather good as well, passed the 80 microns test.
Also tested the Thorens TD160 with Tp16 arm and ortofon mc3-turbo which showed arm resonance around 12Hz.
Side by side comparison of the 2 setups just shows that the mc3-turbo on the Thorens is more lively and sparkly sounding compared to the F 15 EO on the jvc. I guess I'm a micro-line lover and the next cart on the Jvc will have to be one of these...
Interesting results. Did you record the tones from the tonearm resonance test? If you did, view those files in Audacity or ARTA and look at the frequency response. You'll see a large peak right where the resonant frequency is.
Also, be careful with some of the resonance and tracking tests. I probably should've mentioned this but if your arm and cart starts vibrating like mad don't leave it like that for too long. It's probably not a risk with all carts but there are some reports of damaging cartridges from leaving them to vibrate on aggressive test records too long. Probably only a risk with very expensive, fragile, hand built cartridges but you should know this.
It sounds like you prefer the sound of the MC-3 to the F15E0...not surprising.
Now you tell me ! I guess each tone is about 4 secs long. Didn't record them because I can't see the added bonus of viewing it in Audacity as opposed to seeing the actual resonance on the record/arm ?
I might look at some AT ml carts next, any advice on these to match with the arm ?
Can't remember if it was the 440 or 540 that I heard at my dealer and it sounded pretty good to me.
If you do wind up recording the tones I'd be interested to see the results.
If you mean AT MLs in the MM range, there are two right now. The 540/740 and the VM95ML.
The 540/740 is the higher compliance option. With the 740 you get a prettier gold metal body rather than the plastic one on the 540. Performance wise, there is no measurable advantage from what I've seen. Both of these are basically the same as the older 440 series except measurements and anecdotes show they are less bright up top than the old 440 series. I still haven't tried the 540/740 yet but I've been through several of the older 440 styli.
The VM95ML is part of the updated 95 series. This is your mid compliance option. Stereo separation isn't as good as the 500 series because there is no metal plate between the coils on these carts. Still, they should sound good. While I haven't heard the VM95ML yet, I did recently buy a VM95C, because I'm selling my Yamaha and needed a started cartridge for the buyer. This VM95C sounds way better than it has a right to for a $35 cart, so I would suspect very good performance out of the higher models in the line.
If you want something outside the box and different than what you already have, I'd recommend a Stanton 680/681/Pickering XV-15. This is a classic cartridge and while it's out of production you can still find NOS and lightly used examples on eBay and the like. Then you can get an aftermarket stylus for it - quite a few options available - I use the Pickering-style Shibata from Jico. I use this cartridge the most right now out of all my cartridges. It's that good.
But the vm95ml has the same compliance specs as the 540/740, so also best avoided I would think.
I would prefer a cart available today and don't want to bother with aftermarket stylus etc.
So if you have any other suggestions ... apart from having a micro line stylus (or shibata) I would also like to be in the upper region of channel separation specs.
The VM95 compliance is different. The problem is AT started listing their compliance specs at 100hz. Compare the static compliance of both the VM95ML and the 540ML. They are different. Usually dynamic compliance at 10hz (the number we care about) is about half of the static compliance number. IIRC the VM95ML is 20 @ static and the 540ML is 40 @ static. That would point to very different compliance specs between the two cartridges. Historically the 95 series has always been mid-compliance compared to the mainline AT series also.
However, if high channel separation spec is important the VM95 series won't do it for you.
You want high channel separation, look at the Stanton/Pickering carts I mentioned. With an advanced stylus on those you'll be in the 30-35dB range for channel separation. Not many cartridges can match that aside from some very expensive LOMCs and Soundsmith's pricier offerings. I know this isn't as easy as buying a complete cart brand new but good luck matching that on anything new under $1K.
The Sumiko Evo III has good separation specs. Mine re-tipped and new cantilever is 34 db.
Blue Point Special EVO III (High)
Agreed. The 636, 838, 929 are all great tables by Sansui, but I would say not to avoid buying a nice one due to the headshell. They are too hard to find to pass for a reason like that. Just sayin'.
It's good to see the Sansui 929, 838, (should add 636 which is near identical to 838 but no quartz lock) getting some good talk. They are well-made and reliable...needing just a little cleaning and adjusting to get back to great playing after decades of sitting.
Seeing more and more mention of broken Denons...they were always iffy but getting worse with age, in my opinion.
And I'll say it again: If you have never tried a high end Kenwood ie KP 990 or KP 9010, you need to check them out. They are not only built like tanks, sound amazing...but are also some of the best-looking TTs I have ever seen. Fine machines that have often been overlooked due to not being sold in the US...but are available to have shipped from Japan if you want one.
@watchguy I have a concrete floor and my Thorens sounds amazing, even jumping next to it, LOL. I don't even need a wall shelf.
You were quoting me when you said this --- you're telling the wrong guy I already own both the KP-1100 and KP -9010 (same TT virtually different model years). In fact there are pics of my new one in this thread and recommendations of those and the 990.
Cheers, so I agree 100%!
You'd have to be a fairly large person to make it skip while jumping on a concrete floor....
One floor of my home also has concrete, so I suppose the solution is to pour concrete on the upper two floors. Problem solved...but until then, when the cat walked past the Thorens 145 or 160 the stylus jumped like an orange skinned guy when his attorney's home gets raided by the FBI.
LOL let me know how that project works out!
Anything is possible I guess....
Big difference between Eu and Us, we have a tradition of having concrete everywhere in our houses ! Don't have concrete? Don't have a wall shelf? Don't buy a Thorens ;-)!
I sold hi-fi in the 70's and early 80's. I sold those very tables and they were two of my favorites. I actually still own my Kenwood KD 500 (it's a 550 without a tonearm). It is my main turntable.
The PL 71 is, for me, the epitome of the big wood grained DD turntable to come out back then. I loved 'em. I probably would have ended up with one except the 500 came out and wowed me. I was all over the "arm sold separately" thing. Ended up with the ADC LMF II, which I still love.
I'm sort of with you on the look of the Technics. The look is sort of retro, but it's really a modernized version. I really like my AT LP120 for what it does, though. But it's not my main TT. I do like the "industrial" look of em.
Separate names with a comma.