Taming sibilance: Ortofon OM10/Dual 1019

And invoking physics without the actual measurements is cargo cult?
Have all the measurements I need
The 1019's arm theoretically can handle carts ranging from between 5 to 12 grams, compliance not addressed, it was 1965 after all
The OM 10 is at the very bottom of that range at 5 grams, with it's little weight left in place, as well as being an elliptical and a fairly high compliance design
It is not an ideal match for that tonearm
If it was, the OP wouldn't be here with this problem
This is all assuming everything else is correct, set up bearings and all
The OM series of carts sound decent but are sort of the one size fits all of the cartridge world, including low mass arms, but the world since low mass existed in wide spread use, not the mid 1960s
Not a good match for a 1019
Don't understand why the reluctance to try another more appropriate cart and wanting to argue something into working that's clearly not working
But once again this all assuming everything else is correct
Mainly set up
 
Last edited:
I´m a bit sceptical about the published recommendations on capacistance for the OM:s. Both due to actual measurements I´ve read on loading of them, and my own experience. But I wouldn´t swear by it.
The higher you go capacitance wise the more you lose frequency wise
His complaint is sibilance which is a tracking or geometry issue
 
Don't understand why the reluctance to try another more appropriate cart and wanting to argue something into working that's clearly not working
My reluctance is more along the lines of wanting to rule everything out but the cartridge, because cartridges cost money. Once we're sure it's the cartridge I'm all in favor of changing it.

What you're saying about the poor match between the OM10 and the 1019 makes sense, and I remember disliking this cartridge on another turntable with a medium mass tonearm in the past.

I'm here for everyone's ideas on where to go--at this point, what would be most useful to me is if other 1019 owners showed up and reported on cartridges that are known to play without sibilance on this specific tonearm, since I can't run the compliance and mass numbers on Vinyl Engine like I do for my Thorens.
 
No. At least if we are talking MM:s, higher capacistance lowers the resonance frequency of the cartridge into audible frequencys, thus creating a high frequecy bump. It´s not about filters, but resonances.
One pretty good basic text on it: http://www.hagtech.com/loading.html
 
No. At least if we are talking MM:s, higher capacistance lowers the resonance frequency of the cartridge into audible frequencys, thus creating a high frequecy bump. It´s not about filters, but resonances.
One pretty good basic text on it: http://www.hagtech.com/loading.html
Sibilance is a tracking problem or a problem with the record
It's just that simple
I don't want or feel like arguing with you about a non-issue to this question
 
I'm here for everyone's ideas on where to go--at this point, what would be most useful to me is if other 1019 owners showed up and reported on cartridges that are known to play without sibilance on this specific tonearm, since I can't run the compliance and mass numbers on Vinyl Engine like I do for my Thorens.

That was my point too. I know I´ve never had any problems with an om-5e, or even my om-40 on any of the 1019 I´ve worked on, which was what I tried to tell you. In fact they sounded pretty darn good with both of them. The 1019 arm is much better and lighter than it looks.

Although the om-10 has a higher compliance than the om40, the 40 is a much better tracker overall, which I think could make up for the diff in compliance. I´d first look into the adjustments of your tonearm bearings, but there are many other cartridges better suited for your arm than the om-10. Even oldfangled conicals.
 
That was my point too. I know I´ve never had any problems with an om-5e, or even my om-40 on any of the 1019 I´ve worked on, which was what I tried to tell you. In fact they sounded pretty darn good with both of them. The 1019 arm is much better and lighter than it looks.

Although the om-10 has a higher compliance than the om40, the 40 is a much better tracker overall, which I think could make up for the diff in compliance. I´d first look into the adjustments of your tonearm bearings, but there are many other cartridges better suited for your arm than the om-10. Even oldfangled conicals.
I think I have a 5e stylus in a drawer from when I was trying to get an OM cartridge to work on my old Sony. I'll try sliding it in. The compliance numbers on Ortofon's site look the same as for the stylus 10, though. As for the stylus 40, it may be better, but it's a lot of money to lay out for a cartridge body I've never had good luck with.
 
I´m really not trying to sell in an om-40 to you, only telling even it does work in your arm, if the arm and setup are OK.
 
I think I have a 5e stylus in a drawer from when I was trying to get an OM cartridge to work on my old Sony. I'll try sliding it in. The compliance numbers on Ortofon's site look the same as for the stylus 10, though. As for the stylus 40, it may be better, but it's a lot of money to lay out for a cartridge body I've never had good luck with.
I think you've answered your own question several times now
 
I think you've answered your own question several times now
I get it. It's the wrong cartridge. I posted here to make sure I wasn't missing something obvious and to seek the advice of other people with the same tonearm before I went out and spent more money. I appreciate the help.
 
My reluctance is more along the lines of wanting to rule everything out but the cartridge, because cartridges cost money. Once we're sure it's the cartridge I'm all in favor of changing it.

What you're saying about the poor match between the OM10 and the 1019 makes sense, and I remember disliking this cartridge on another turntable with a medium mass tonearm in the past.

I'm here for everyone's ideas on where to go--at this point, what would be most useful to me is if other 1019 owners showed up and reported on cartridges that are known to play without sibilance on this specific tonearm, since I can't run the compliance and mass numbers on Vinyl Engine like I do for my Thorens.
The OM is a fine MM cartridge and the stylus is everything on the OM. A -10 is entry level. A -20 is much better, especially on low mass arms, a -30 even more better. All can play without sibilance.

Maybe the sibilance is due to sticky arm bearing/gimbal and not the alignment?
 
I have two Dual 1019's. These are the cartridges I hear no sibilance from: Shure M91 ED, Audio Technica AT 450, Audio Technica 440 Mla, Grado Green 1, Denon DL 103, I hear some sibilance on inner grooves with a Shure M97Xe until I turn it slightly in from the recommended alignment (clockwise maybe 1- 2 degrees).

My reluctance is more along the lines of wanting to rule everything out but the cartridge, because cartridges cost money. Once we're sure it's the cartridge I'm all in favor of changing it.

What you're saying about the poor match between the OM10 and the 1019 makes sense, and I remember disliking this cartridge on another turntable with a medium mass tonearm in the past.

I'm here for everyone's ideas on where to go--at this point, what would be most useful to me is if other 1019 owners showed up and reported on cartridges that are known to play without sibilance on this specific tonearm, since I can't run the compliance and mass numbers on Vinyl Engine like I do for my Thorens.
 
Denon DL-110 is mounted now. Sibilance is vastly reduced. A slight hint on really hot S sounds, but barely there. I didn't do the most thorough alignment job but it's close. Will tinker more tomorrow.
 
For my Dual 1019, I switch between Stanton L747S (w/D74S), AT-140ML (w/ATN-152LP) and Pickering TL-4 (w/DTL-3S). These sound great!! On my Dual 1009, I use OMP (w/Stylus 30) and Pickering TL-2 (w/DTL-2S)...these sound great on that TT. When I finish restoring my Dual 1229Qs, I will be using the AT-140ML (w/ATN-152LP) on those TTs. Also, I used the OMP (w/Stylus 30) on my Dual 1019--that sounds great as well--just prefer the AT and Stanton/Pickering soundstage better. [No sibilance issues noted on Dual 1019 or 1009.]
 
At one time I had a Dual 1009, it came to me with a Shure M3D cartridge (1958 stereo design) with a .7 conical needle. That cartridge sang beautifully on that machine.
 
Coming from mainly CDs, I turfed my OM-10 after a few plays on the 1019 and upgraded to an OM-40.

The difference was night and day. It does however make bad records sound REALLY bad :)
 
One last update: I remounted the DL-110 with the optional weight that comes with that cartridge. All of the sibiliance is gone now. It appears that the Dual arm is indeed lighter than what the Denon cartridge prefers.
 
Back
Top Bottom