Why 'magnetic' cartridges?

[dlaloum]

But the laser player needs machine cleaned records, needs declicking, and needs black flat records, which gets us to CD quality these days. So, why bother? Pivoted arms are better in real life.

(Asbestos suit on)
And linear tracking arms still better in real life...

 

[MelodyMaster]

An impressive an remarkable invention that solves something that wasn't a problem to start with: Record "wear". With modern, high-quality equipment, record wear isn't an issue at all.

Erm, but it is when you want to archive rare recordings, and a worn out record is all you have. That's why the library of congress has laser turntables.

 

[MelodyMaster]

Philco manufactured an optical pickup in the early forties: http://www.philcorepairbench.com/phono.htm

I'd like to see the patent for that, since an optical pickup was developed by Brunswick in the mid 1920s. The needle was attached to a mirror which reflected light from a bulb in the head to a phototube in the arm.

 

[catman]

G'day all, has anyone ever heard of any 'piezoelectric' phono cartridge using quartz crystal?

I've been told they existed but I've never heard of any personally. :scratch2: Regards, Felix aka catman.

 

[KentTeffeteller]

Linears are fine for better LP discs. But they aren't suited for all needs. I know of no linear arm for professional needs which involve archival work. I need to be able to change cartridges easily when my records need a different one. I need quick cueing in a second or two when working at home. And not having a noisy air pump I can't get far enough away from the table. I have room at the house I live in most of the week for only one turntable. It must handle 16" transcriptions and all mono and stereo discs under the sun and must meet broadcast standards. And be reliable enough for the job and heavy use. I love the air bearing linear tracking tonearms for my best LP discs sonically. But as my only tonearm, not practical.

 

[dlaloum]

Change cartridges easily .... how about a p-mount
Quick Cueing in a second or two - a Revox B795
No air pump - Revox, Pioneer, Sony quite a few LT's that match the requirement

16" transciption - dang it - now you got me...!

I would have thought the Revox would meet almost all the criteria... needs a 78rpm mod and 16" capabilities though...

 

[KentTeffeteller]

P-mount (tracks only 1-1.5 grams and no specialty stylus options, not suitable for anything but better LP discs only). ReVox (cues quickly but not precisely and no backcueing option needed for this job. And the platter must start from a dead stop in less than one revolution when needed. I like the linears when I can have room for more than one turntable. Much of the week, the SP-15 is what I must use and the ATP-16T transcription tonearm. And several different cartridges. I love the ReVox Linatrack arm best of the linear arms. But must live with pivoted arms to do my job. I knock no one who owns a linear arm, I like them for some things. I admire their engineering and technology. And design.

 

[dlaloum]

Hi Kent

I agree for your purpose a transcription table & arm are required....

But

P-Mount stylus options - You can use the p-mount version of the Stanton 500 (727), 680 (TL1/2/3) or 880 (XSP3002 families, or the Shure M series

Any of the above have a wide range of stylus option...

I believe there was a "DJ" option for the Revox, but do not recall exactly what it did

 

[KentTeffeteller]

These don't work correctly on the P-Mount versions of these cartridges for my needs. 1/2" is required. Some of the 500 and 680 stylus options I use track much more than 1.5 grams. The 880 is really more high zoot audiophile pickup than DJ cartridge. Stanton's 500 and 680/681 line are very versatile lines. And the Shure M 44 is the only really versatile line they make currently (and does not come in P-Mount). I use the Shure M 44 with several different stylus options and the Stanton 680 family for working purposes. However, let us not derail the thread. I do like the ReVox linear arm for my best records. And they sound nice and are well built.

 

[Arkay]

I think the main reason MM and MC cartridges "won out" in the marketplace is simply that they can be made to sound GOOD relatively cheaply and easily. A few of the other types have one or two good examples, but for the most part, it is very difficult to make the other types sound as good or better than the MMs and MCs, for anywhere near the same price and ease.

I agree that modern technology SHOULD enable even better carts to be made; incorporating lightweight and small microelectronic circuits ("chips") right into a cartridge offers many advantages. The real problem is that the demand for cartridges isn't sufficient to justify the costs of developing and producing such an item. IF LPs had never been replaced by digital (CD) formats and were still the mainstream form of music recording and reproduction, then I believe we'd already be using such cartridges.

Erm, but it is when you want to archive rare recordings, and a worn out record is all you have. That's why the library of congress has laser turntables.

Laser turntables are invaluable when a record is broken.Trying to play fragmented disks or shards with a stylus is a lost cause; you can't get the alignment of the stylus in the groove when the shard is in motion, and if you cue it up first, you can't get up to rotational speed fast enough. Some ultra-rare disks may only exist (or may only be available to the museum or collector) in cracked or broken states; such examples can only be read by laser, and then then digitally "stitched" together. A rare situation, but one in which a laser TT is the only solution, and sufficient justification for a museum to have one.

Linears are fine for better LP discs. But they aren't suited for all needs. I know of no linear arm for professional needs which involve archival work. I need to be able to change cartridges easily when my records need a different one. I need quick cueing in a second or two when working at home. And not having a noisy air pump I can't get far enough away from the table. I have room at the house I live in most of the week for only one turntable. It must handle 16" transcriptions and all mono and stereo discs under the sun and must meet broadcast standards. And be reliable enough for the job and heavy use. I love the air bearing linear tracking tonearms for my best LP discs sonically. But as my only tonearm, not practical.

A Pioneer PL-L1 comes close to your requirements. Changing cartridges is a breeze, and it can handle a reasonably decent range of cartridges. Cueing is quick --when it's not run in automatic, the "manual" controls are pretty responsive. The only thing I'm not sure about is the 16" disc requirement; the platter is only 12" or so, so it would leave part of the disc unsupported. The tonearm is 9" long, suggesting a 16" disc MIGHT fit, but it would be close. I can't check mine right now; it's packed and still sitting in my old apartment (I'm moving) while I'm writing this from the new place. I don't currently own any 16" discs, and so haven't tried playing one on this TT. It is quite robust, and doesn't need an air pump.

Still, if I were looking for a TT for such use as you describe, I'd probably get something else --if nothing else, I'd want something with common parts availability, to minimize downtime in the event of any malfunction. Beyond regular discrete components, spare parts for the PL-L1 are basically "unobtanium." Overall, I think you are right in your conclusions, as sad as it is to say so (given the theoretical advantages of LTs).

 

[Pio1980]

One person developed a refurb regimen for the PL-L1000 and it's relatives for archival purposes.