New Custom PhonoCartridges

[Mister Pig]

I certainly appreciate the conversation going on here. Many thanks on all of your perspectives.

A few comments from my perspective and experience:

I used the new sapphire cantilever in the Astrion design (correctly identified as a new offering from Namiki Jewel) instead of a Boron cantilever because corporate legal was seriously concerned about the toxicity of Boron and potential product liability. Today, there are a number of products with Boron cantilevers and just as we technically argued with the legals back then, there have been no issues with the material. Boron, indeed, is very toxic when machined, the dust of the machining process can be inhaled and is quite dangerous. But solid pieces, even as small as little cantilever rods do not present a rational hazard. Technically, the stiffness of the two materials, Boron and Sapphire, are substantially similar. Stiffness for translation of the motion from the driven diamond tip to the pivot in the cartridge without some bending inducing loss of motion or phase effects in the motional translation are indistinguishable. And at least at that time, the price differential was negligible as well. Industrial sapphire is a very mature technology and well down its price curve. If a design accommodated replaceable styli, then it would be interesting to make the same design available with both cantilever materials and let users try and select one or the other if they could discern an acoustic difference or preference.

Market volume and pricing is a very different trade space today than it was back in the early 80s. While I was at ADC, we manufactured ~ 11,000 phonograph cartridges PER DAY. And we were the third largest behind Shure and Audio Technica. The total industry output at the peak was ~ 40,000/day. I never figured out where they were all going. Eventually assumed they were being shoveled off the back of ships to feed north sea whales. Today, there really isn't the volume to support the investment in capital equipment and tooling like there was then. Those companies which has survived to today from that era are undoubtedly surviving on old tooling designs. Or, like Ortofon, are trying to transition to next gen manufacturing approaches similar to 3D printing. Without question, any design I would do today would have to account for low tooling investment in the traditional sense. This argues for the more custom, hand-built and therefore more expensive end of the market. And of course, that reduces the volume further pushing the ROI equation ever further into higher pricing regimes. It will take some real creativity to keep pricing in that $250-500 range while minimizing tooling investment. Ahhh, the age old questions of market price elasticity! The more things change, the more the fundamentals stay the same.

Thanks guys, the conversation is indeed most stimulating. I hesitate to say how my thoughts on doing this are progressing but I will say that the effort continues in both design and market analysis.

One question that is often bandied around here, and it would be interesting to get an insiders perspective on.

Are the high performance cartridges from the 70/80/90 eras on par with the higher end offerings of today? Has technology and performance been lost? Are the current offerings prices overly inflated for what performance we get today? Have materials and diamonds climbed that stratospherically high to warrant current prices? If so...why? Or are the current levels of cartridge manufacturing a high water mark? You take on it could be very enlightening to members here.

Regards
Mister Pig

 

[totem]

Are the current offerings prices overly inflated for what performance we get today? Have materials and diamonds climbed that stratospherically high to warrant current prices?

Lets see who opens this door.

 

[ripblade]

Needlestein's post above hints at another path that might be worth pursuing....buying an off the shelf design and upgrading it, essentially putting your stamp of approval on the final iteration. Several makers have done this successfully in the past, including Zu Audio's rebodied Denon DL-103, The Cartridge Man's recoiled Grados, Clearaudio's rebodied AT-95e. Garrot brothers also did well this way until their untimely end.

At least it gets you past most of the tooling costs, even if it is only a beginning. Once a reputation is established, sales on bespoke designs are bound to be more successful. At some point the manufacturing of common components could be handed off to an entity capable of producing higher volumes at a reasonable price point, leaving you to do the final assembly and voicing of the premium offerings. If I'm not mistaken, many design houses already work on this principle.

Since ADC is no longer around, you'd have to start with some other design that may be less than your ideals, and this would probably be the most objectionable part of the strategy. Or you could comb the bottom of the ocean for those old cartridges that were dumped years ago....

 

[OldADC]

Are the high performance cartridges from the 70/80/90 eras on par with the higher end offerings of today? Has technology and performance been lost? Are the current offerings prices overly inflated for what performance we get today? Have materials and diamonds climbed that stratospherically high to warrant current prices? If so...why? Or are the current levels of cartridge manufacturing a high water mark?

Regards
Mister Pig

I think this is a crucial question and I appreciate your participation in this conversation. I do not see anything terribly revolutionary or more than incrementally advanced from cartridge design of the early 80s. Introduction of the first CD by Sony at the '81 Consumer Electronics Show (held then in Chicago at McCormick place) was the turning point for the industry and advancement of the art. The thing was 8 bit and surely sucked but it was equally clear to all of us that it would progress quickly and so it did. Companies were unwilling to invest in furthering the phono/tone-arm/TT and disc technologies. Vinyl peaked (in my opinion) with the direct-to-disc offerings of Sheffield Labs. The benefits of analog audio have been held onto by a hardcore group of folks such as you guys and myself who believe there is still an audible difference and benefit to analog recording and playback. The Astrion, designed in '81 used a sapphire cantilever. Boron was available. So cantilever materials today are the same as they were 34 years ago. Diamond shapes have evolved to now be similar to the shapes that were produced in the mid-70s for 4 channel (Quad) playback. That system had the L/R channels as we know them now but put the other two channels as a modulation to a carrier frequency of 40kHz that was co-recorded on each of the channels. Alternatively stated, the left channel had its normal information and also had a 40kHz modulated carrier with the L rear channel info. Same for the right channel and the R rear. Styli had to be able to read the 40kHz carrier on the inner most groove and therefore had very small scanning radii to be able to do that. The "modern" evolution to smaller scanning radii is actually a reversion to quad days and I have concerns about wear on the vinyl groove due to increased pressures when such small radii provide no benefit to reading signals with a max ~20kHz content. Quad really ate up records for those who aren't familiar with it. Fundamentally, wear and degradation is why quad died.

Which brings us to the pricing points of today. Two days ago, I had the opportunity to carefully look at a ClearAudio Gold Standard MC cartridge with a boron cantilever, and an "advanced" diamond. Recommended tracking force for this cartridge, according to the manufacturer is 2.8 grams. (The potential for really accelerated groove wear with this thing is frightening, at least to me!!!) They claim to use pure gold wire in the coils and they gold plate everything that they can. Is there any justification for a $15,000 price tag on this beast? That is not for me to say. Surely all high end companies are functionally small companies and must have pretty high margins to make a decent living for the owners/employees. Most of the pricing you see is not for materials but for talent. Its like buying power hitters, quarterbacks, or high priced lawyers. You are paying for the time and talent of the principals. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion since I value my time and education and intellectual content and particularized knowledge and experience in this field. Still, $15k for a cartridge?? The mind boggles!!

 

[OldADC]

Or you could comb the bottom of the ocean for those old cartridges that were dumped years ago....

Whale droppings would indeed be a new and supremely exotic material!! I would, however, need to concoct some "this is better than anything you've ever seen or heard" story to go along with it....

 

[ripblade]

Whale droppings would indeed be a new and supremely exotic material!! I would, however, need to concoct some "this is better than anything you've ever seen or heard" story to go along with it....

If I'm not mistaken, a gland in the whale's anus is highly sought after in the perfume industry, being the single most expensive component in the concoctions that use it. So, you'd be half way there already....

 

[JP]

While some cantilever materials are the same, such as boron, there are processes that are no longer available. The best of the best both subjectively (neutral) and objectively used boron pipe cantilevers with effective tip masses down to 0.055mg. Today 0.3mg is touted as 'ultra light'.

 

[OldADC]

While some cantilever materials are the same, such as boron, there are processes that are no longer available. The best of the best both subjectively (neutral) and objectively used boron pipe cantilevers with effective tip masses down to 0.055mg. Today 0.3mg is touted as 'ultra light'.

Interesting JP, can you remember which cartridge or manufacturer used boron tubes?

 

[OldADC]

If I'm not mistaken, a gland in the whale's anus is highly sought after in the perfume industry, being the single most expensive component in the concoctions that use it. So, you'd be half way there already....

Making whaling still a profitable enterprise for the Japanese?? Does Greenpeace know about this? Would expect a boycott of perfumes from both Greenpeace and PETA!!

I learn something new in life every single day.

 

[Mister Pig]

I think this is a crucial question and I appreciate your participation in this conversation. I do not see anything terribly revolutionary or more than incrementally advanced from cartridge design of the early 80s. Introduction of the first CD by Sony at the '81 Consumer Electronics Show (held then in Chicago at McCormick place) was the turning point for the industry and advancement of the art. The thing was 8 bit and surely sucked but it was equally clear to all of us that it would progress quickly and so it did. Companies were unwilling to invest in furthering the phono/tone-arm/TT and disc technologies. Vinyl peaked (in my opinion) with the direct-to-disc offerings of Sheffield Labs. The benefits of analog audio have been held onto by a hardcore group of folks such as you guys and myself who believe there is still an audible difference and benefit to analog recording and playback. The Astrion, designed in '81 used a sapphire cantilever. Boron was available. So cantilever materials today are the same as they were 34 years ago. Diamond shapes have evolved to now be similar to the shapes that were produced in the mid-70s for 4 channel (Quad) playback. That system had the L/R channels as we know them now but put the other two channels as a modulation to a carrier frequency of 40kHz that was co-recorded on each of the channels. Alternatively stated, the left channel had its normal information and also had a 40kHz modulated carrier with the L rear channel info. Same for the right channel and the R rear. Styli had to be able to read the 40kHz carrier on the inner most groove and therefore had very small scanning radii to be able to do that. The "modern" evolution to smaller scanning radii is actually a reversion to quad days and I have concerns about wear on the vinyl groove due to increased pressures when such small radii provide no benefit to reading signals with a max ~20kHz content. Quad really ate up records for those who aren't familiar with it. Fundamentally, wear and degradation is why quad died.

Which brings us to the pricing points of today. Two days ago, I had the opportunity to carefully look at a ClearAudio Gold Standard MC cartridge with a boron cantilever, and an "advanced" diamond. Recommended tracking force for this cartridge, according to the manufacturer is 2.8 grams. (The potential for really accelerated groove wear with this thing is frightening, at least to me!!!) They claim to use pure gold wire in the coils and they gold plate everything that they can. Is there any justification for a $15,000 price tag on this beast? That is not for me to say. Surely all high end companies are functionally small companies and must have pretty high margins to make a decent living for the owners/employees. Most of the pricing you see is not for materials but for talent. Its like buying power hitters, quarterbacks, or high priced lawyers. You are paying for the time and talent of the principals. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion since I value my time and education and intellectual content and particularized knowledge and experience in this field. Still, $15k for a cartridge?? The mind boggles!!

Thanks for the response, it certainly is food for thought. It will be fascinating to see what your pricing structure will be if you do decide to bring a product line to the market place. And how you handle the issues of producing the parts needed in batch quantities.

Some producers like Soundsmith get a pretty decent penny for their offerings, and yet I got the impression that Peter Lederman tried to keep his offerings as affordable as possible. I may certainly be wrong, but that is the impression I get.

So how you address these issues is really going to be interesting, I feel very fortunate to be able to observe the possible genesis of a company. And I wish you the best of luck, and want to see you succeed!!!

Regards
Mister Pig

 

[JP]

The lightest I know of is the Technics 100CMK4 (0.055mg), followed by the 100CMK3 (0.098mg), 205CMK4 (0.109mg), 310MC2 (0.139mg), and 205CMK3 (0.149mg). The 305MCMK2 should be lighter than the 310MC2 as it was their top-end MC cart, but I don't have the spec for that one. The AT ML170/OCC and ML180/OCC were also boron tube. I believe the Denon DL1000 may have been boron tube, as its effective tip mass was 0.077mg. The V15VMR was beryllium foil tube at 0.170mg, compared to the V15IVHE at 0.290mg.

 

[lini]

Eric: Could it be you're confusing boron with beryllium above? Because afaik boron is a lot less toxic...

And iirc the carrier for CD4 was 30 kHz, not 40 kHz.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[lini]

Piggy: I think today's cart/needle price tags simply reflect record playback having become a niche and enthusiast market for one thing - and then also a certain loss of buying power. Quite comparable to nice mechanical watches - for example, I paid 500 DM for my Sinn, when I bought it in 1987, while it would be 1800 Euro now...

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[Mister Pig]

The lightest I know of is the Technics 100CMK4 (0.055mg), followed by the 100CMK3 (0.098mg), 205CMK4 (0.109mg), 310MC2 (0.139mg), and 205CMK3 (0.149mg). The 305MCMK2 should be lighter than the 310MC2 as it was their top-end MC cart, but I don't have the spec for that one. The AT ML170/OCC and ML180/OCC were also boron tube. I believe the Denon DL1000 may have been boron tube, as its effective tip mass was 0.077mg. The V15VMR was beryllium foil tube at 0.170mg, compared to the V15IVHE at 0.290mg.

Out of curiosity, could these cantilevers be retipped? Or are they too fragile to withstand the process? What did the factory do in the hey day for owners? Exchange when a cartridge is worn out? I know what you went through with trying to find suspension/damper work done with yours, is the diamond replacement process going to be easier or harder?

Regards
Mister Pig

 

[OldADC]

Eric: Could it be you're confusing boron with beryllium above? Because afaik boron is a lot less toxic...

And iirc the carrier for CD4 was 30 kHz, not 40 kHz.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

Manfred, right you are on the boron and beryllium. It was indeed beryllium that was available concurrent with the advent of synthetic sapphire. My bad!!

I, however, will hang with my recollection of the carrier freq for quad. Time for a bit more research although all the discussion concerning scanning radius and wear based on lower contact area as the scan radius goes down and increased recommended VTF holds.

 

[OldADC]

Eric: Could it be you're confusing boron with beryllium above? Because afaik boron is a lot less toxic...

And iirc the carrier for CD4 was 30 kHz, not 40 kHz.

And the info found rather quickly on Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatible_Discrete_4) for the CD-4 aka Quadradisc format agrees with the 30kHz carrier. Age and memory are incompatible concepts!! Thanks for your corrections.

 

[Mister Pig]

I think this is a crucial question and I appreciate your participation in this conversation. I do not see anything terribly revolutionary or more than incrementally advanced from cartridge design of the early 80s. Introduction of the first CD by Sony at the '81 Consumer Electronics Show (held then in Chicago at McCormick place) was the turning point for the industry and advancement of the art. The thing was 8 bit and surely sucked but it was equally clear to all of us that it would progress quickly and so it did. Companies were unwilling to invest in furthering the phono/tone-arm/TT and disc technologies. Vinyl peaked (in my opinion) with the direct-to-disc offerings of Sheffield Labs. The benefits of analog audio have been held onto by a hardcore group of folks such as you guys and myself who believe there is still an audible difference and benefit to analog recording and playback. The Astrion, designed in '81 used a sapphire cantilever. Boron was available. So cantilever materials today are the same as they were 34 years ago. Diamond shapes have evolved to now be similar to the shapes that were produced in the mid-70s for 4 channel (Quad) playback. That system had the L/R channels as we know them now but put the other two channels as a modulation to a carrier frequency of 40kHz that was co-recorded on each of the channels. Alternatively stated, the left channel had its normal information and also had a 40kHz modulated carrier with the L rear channel info. Same for the right channel and the R rear. Styli had to be able to read the 40kHz carrier on the inner most groove and therefore had very small scanning radii to be able to do that. The "modern" evolution to smaller scanning radii is actually a reversion to quad days and I have concerns about wear on the vinyl groove due to increased pressures when such small radii provide no benefit to reading signals with a max ~20kHz content. Quad really ate up records for those who aren't familiar with it. Fundamentally, wear and degradation is why quad died.

Which brings us to the pricing points of today. Two days ago, I had the opportunity to carefully look at a ClearAudio Gold Standard MC cartridge with a boron cantilever, and an "advanced" diamond. Recommended tracking force for this cartridge, according to the manufacturer is 2.8 grams. (The potential for really accelerated groove wear with this thing is frightening, at least to me!!!) They claim to use pure gold wire in the coils and they gold plate everything that they can. Is there any justification for a $15,000 price tag on this beast? That is not for me to say. Surely all high end companies are functionally small companies and must have pretty high margins to make a decent living for the owners/employees. Most of the pricing you see is not for materials but for talent. Its like buying power hitters, quarterbacks, or high priced lawyers. You are paying for the time and talent of the principals. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion since I value my time and education and intellectual content and particularized knowledge and experience in this field. Still, $15k for a cartridge?? The mind boggles!!

One more question please. what was done in the arena of moving coil production then between the 80's and today to deal with the rising frequency response of the higher registers of MC cartridges? many a cartridge from that time period were known to have issues in this area, but current production cartridges seem to have mitigated this.

Or is this an anomaly or a misconception? In my small collection of cartridges I have a Denon 103M that is sublime in terms of presentation, if you pair it up with an appropriate SUT and phono stage. It is remarkable what it can do, and is a product of the 80's MC world that is supposed to be inherently flawed. Are these generalizations wrong as a whole about older generation MC cartridge designs?

Regards
Mister Pig

 

[JP]

Alive and well.

 

[lini]

Eric: You're welcome - and no worries. My memory also isn't what it once used to be anymore. Gladly enough we've nowadays got the wibbly wobbly web as memory extension.

Anyway, boron should have been available, too, as at least Technics already offered carts/needles with boron cantilevers at that time. But beryllium was more widely used. I'd regard both as similarly well suited for cantilevers - whereas corundum/sapphire/ruby always seemed a tad less attractive to me due to having about twice the density.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[OldADC]

One more question please. what was done in the arena of moving coil production then between the 80's and today to deal with the rising frequency response of the higher registers of MC cartridges? many a cartridge from that time period were known to have issues in this area, but current production cartridges seem to have mitigated this.

Or is this an anomaly or a misconception? In my small collection of cartridges I have a Denon 103M that is sublime in terms of presentation, if you pair it up with an appropriate SUT and phono stage. It is remarkable what it can do, and is a product of the 80's MC world that is supposed to be inherently flawed. Are these generalizations wrong as a whole about older generation MC cartridge designs?

There have been vast improvements in the available high energy magnets. In the early 80s, cartridges generally used AlNiCo with a max energy product of ~7-8 MGaOe (million Gauss-Oersted). When I left the audio business (see discussion about 8-bit Sony CD at CES), I went to work in the very high end of motor design for military servo control and inertial guidance systems. I was the Project Engineer for the drive motors for the inertial guidance platform for the Trident III Mk VI Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM). There, we used SmCo magnets with energy products of 18-25 MGaOe. I was involved in the first design of a motor in the US that used the then new NdFeB magnets which were 40 MGaOe. Today's NdFeB is commonly available at 50 MGaOe. This has significantly influenced magnetic circuit design in all fields.

What I believe you have seen is a change in the balance of number of turns on a coil vs. the magnetic flux linking those coils. As the energy product of the magnets goes up, the number of turns to produce a similar output goes linearly down. It's my understanding that some of today's MC designs are down to as few as 24 turns per coil. Pretty amazing.

I also suspect, without having dis-assembled a number of very expensive cartridges, that folks have figured out some better ways to tame the tie-wire. You can manage the amplitude of that resonance but you can't make the phase rotation that necessarily happens with a resonance, well-damped or not, go away. So overhot can be tamed but the spatial confusion of fast, high-end transients will remain.