Great! Downloading... my broadband being what it is, I will report back tomorrow, after burning a CD.

Many thanks.

1) Your recordings have very little treble energy, they all appear to be dull. Left and right channels are inverted.

My LP pressing has very bright treble, with superb definition. Hence the hiss problem?

2) The most dynamic track is n°1, it is also the loudest, bass is good.

3) There is no bass on track n°2, but treble is better defined.

3) Tracks n°5 and 6 appear to be the worst, they are very dull.

This leaves me perplex.

I think I have over equalised them to try to get them all to be the same volume! I'll have another go! This will mean a delay though!!

Peter, do not touch anything but the volume. There were quite large variations in volume anyway between these samples (and at least 1 and 9 actually seem to have clipped on one channel during processing or recording!).

Sample rate varies as well, some are 44.1 kHz while most are 48 kHz. The latter would be better if you know that your sound card actually records up to anywhere near 20 kHz.

I was trying to do some spectral analysis on these and it seems they could be interesting. Unfortunately I can't save any images with this software, I'll see if I can run them through Matlab at the uni some time.

Had another go - recorded the first 90 seconds of each cartridge - done at 44,1kHz to make it even. Left 8 and 9 alone - changed 5 to a different cartridge. Will take a little time to reload!

To my ears, only cartridge 9 sounds acceptable, all the others being dull.

Could you include my extract, as a matter of comparison, and to see what others think?

Have redone them! Didn't re-do 8 or 9 as I had not done anything to these in particular. Also added one more - I have only recorded the first 90 seconds of each as it makes it easier to both load and unload. Happy to put in a sample from you as well if you wish - is that what you mean?

Well yes, I sent you a PM!

My previous conclusion was written after listening to the new files! All dull except for n°9.

I agree - clearly doing something wrong! They sound better straight through the system though yours sounds brighter. Almost as if there is a high filter in. Giving up for the moment!! [:'(]

I suspect the sound hardware of whatever you're using for recording isn't quite up to the task. The internal HW is very seldom used for any serious recording, and it may well have a substandard antialiasing filter that rolls off way before the actual sample rate would require.

Anyway, I listened to them all (the first batch) and if anything, I can say the the differences were surprisingly big. I think 9 sounded the best to me as well, despite the obvious clipping!

It is a PowerMac G5 which was supposed to be fairly useful in its day though it is getting on a bit. I wonder if it is the recording I have - sounds much the same through the record player direct to be honest! 9 is a control....

Have redone 9 and added Chartz recording - not as long but clearly different.

nothing wrong about your apple g5. maybe it's the software... i use final vinyl with i mic usb adapter from griffin to record high quality .aiff-files. you can easely convert it to .mp3 with lame mp3 converter installed in audacity.

http://www.amazon.de/Griffin-1102-IMIC2-iMic2-USB-Audio-Adapter/dp/B000BVV2IC

http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/audio/finalvinyl.html

http://lame.sourceforge.net/

cheers

By the way, I used CD Spin Doctor as well. Perfectly adequate!

I think it is the record! So judge the recordings against each other!

Hello,

Just to make things a little more confused (!) I went to iTunes and listened to the AAC track. It's a bit brighter than the CD version, but it may be down to the compression scheme. Anyway, my favourite  cartridge is n°8 (whatever that is, CD again?), since n°9 is the CD!

I listened to the surface noise too, and the record appears to be very quiet. On my system, even the CD is a bit lacking in bite and dynamics I find, although the saxophone is very nice indeed. 

My original MMC20EN (little used, in good condition) sounds like n°1, dynamic with excellent bass but  lacking in treble.

Definitely n°8.

A quick comment on the new 20CL not always tracking as well as the new EN..

The Beogram 4002 has hard rubber "ribs" giving very marginal support to the vinyl records played (easily measured in reviews). This *may* upset the tracking security of the CL model with the fussier tip. Just my thoughts. Adding a thin felt mat such as the Linn one on top of the existing ribs and ensuring the stylus clears the record when lifting off used to gentle the roughness up a bit and the revised VTA (akin to lowering the arm at the pivot on a conventional tonearm) won't do any harm I think.

Having said the above, I must admit to finding my original but little used 20CL rather "distant" in perspective. Tracking of this sample is still excellent despite its age (I don't use it in a Beogram).

Many thanks for posting your results. It's great that these venerable old decks can still be kept going.

Peter are these recordings still available? I am contemplating sending one of my carts off I would like to hear some comparisons...

DSJR:

The Beogram 4002 has hard rubber "ribs" giving very marginal support to the vinyl records played (easily measured in reviews).

Is this really measurable and how does the contact effect tracking to such extent?

Afraid I have deleted all the files. The SMMC20EN/CL has a pronounced lift compared the the old CL. Sounds more detailed but some might find it a little fatiguing to listen to. All a matter of taste! I prefer the MMC20CL.

Years ago I used to have a Beogram 4002 with the quadraphonic pickup, I think it was a MMC6000.
While this pickup yielded excellent sound quality, it was extremely sensitive to the quality of the record pressing. Some records that sounded totally OK on another system, sounded awful with this pickup. I returned several records to the store for a replacement but when they played them in the store, they sounded fault-free.
So using pickups designed for CD-4 on normal stereo records is not such a good idea. I now have a Beogram 2000 with a SP-10 and can play the same records without surface noise.

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the informative research and post, very interesting.

Just wondering, have you ever tried changing the electrical loading for the cartridge a bit?  Most B&O phono inputs load the cartridge with 160pF and 47K Ohms, and I personally think this is for reasons of tradition . . . it gives a bit more pronounced high-frequency and ultrasonic peak from the cartridge's self-inductance, and was more necessary in the 1950's and 1960's with the cartridges and recordings of the era.

While cartridge technology increased greatly in the 1970s with regards to high-frequency performance, for some reason the preamp loading practices never changed, and IMO this leads to an unnatural accentuation of high frequencies and surface noise.  It may be that the Soundsmith cartridges have a slightly higher inductance, and the 160pF load really amplifies the issue.

My preference with vintage B&O cartridges (I'm currently using a 20CL) and Soundsmith alike is loaded with only the cable capacitance (no loading cap on the preamp) and a 75K or 100K terminating resistor instead of 47K.  I think it makes them all sound much cleaner and smoother (though not necessarily "duller") on the top end.

Hello kirkus,

I doubt that the loadings used by B&O hung on to the 50/60s practices, particularly for the cartridges we are considering here. During the transition from multi-eq loadings to the generally accepted RIAA-standard, turntables/amplifiers had to accommodate a variety of EQ-standards. Many mono-recordings were using curves that differed significantly from RIAA, for instance.

But the Beogram 4000 came at a time when RIAA was well established, and when HiFi had begun moving away from giving users control of different curves. Soundsmith actually "beta-tested" different cartridges among selected customers, having given them different voicings, and the preference stated was for the brighter voicing.
As I theorize in my review, this could be because customers' vinyl had lost some treble, and the brighter voicing reintroduced it, or else because customers wanted a sound that more closely matched what they get from CDs.

A fun listening paradox is involved here. As you state, LPs became capable of reproducing better treble during the 60s/70s - but customers actually turned away from the best treble resolution available: DMM. They judged it harsh and bright, preferring the actually more muddled sound from pre-DMM vinyl reproduction. A conundrum for the conductors and performers, who found that DMM resulted in better treble than was available from any other record or tape method.

The classical music industry embraced DMM, but customers were skeptical, and as one by then couldn't adjust EQ-curves with any timing-specificity you were reduced to coarse treble/bass adjustments to get it to your liking. I have a complete Wagner Ring on Teldec DMM, an absolutely fantastic reproduction on vinyl, and it bombed when it was released.
Ironically, DMM-mastering is now all the vogue again in vinyl, and delivering even better results because of computer control in cutting. 

Why did my Soundsmith SMMC20/CL+ cartridge sound fatiguing when reproducing Linn's Messiah? Well, the vinyl is very well made and has ample treble information. The brighter voicing of the cartridge overemphasized this, most likely.

I'm presently planning my next listening room, where I will have one of these. It gives me complete control of the EQ-curves and loadings, in an analogue signal chain. And everything comes full circle!

http://www.emt-studiotechnik.de/JPA66%20E.htm

Here's Subir Pramanik on his work for B&O. He developed the SP15 cartridge and actually proposed the tangential arm, which Jensen originally was against.

Some of these videos are quite interesting; I actually have the ones with Stanley Lipshitz, Richard Small, and A.N. Thiele.  AES still wants $15 a piece (and no further discount with the E-Library membership) which IMO is a bit steep.

But I'm very much of the opinion that the 1970s were a time where the mechanical and materials improvements in phono cartridges were advancing rapidly, and the preamp stages were still very conservatively designed.  B&O's designs are pretty conventional for the era, using two transistors for the gain with nested active EQ, and then later a third for an output follower.  This bears more than a superficial resemblence to the two-section valve circuits from the Mullard preamp designs (themselves influenced by Sallen & Key?), which were designed to be able to use a single ECC83 (12AX7 in the US).  Higher-end valve designs (i.e. Mac & Marantz) added a third valve as a follower (one section for each channel), just as B&O did in the mid-1970s with their similar transistor designs, as lower-impedance tape outputs became necessary.

The main flaws with these designs IMO is the fact that they still use circuit impedances similar to their valve ancestors, and suffer from increased noise (bipolar transistors having a lower Vn/En characteristic) and RF suceptibility (bipolars rectify incoming RF quite readily).  The RIAA equalisation tends to be more variable as well, as it depends on transistor beta, which is much more variable than a valve's mu.  These variabilities are amplified even more by the low open-loop gain of these circuits, and specifically the input capacitor would have had a handy side-effect of reducing the RF vulnerability of the input transistor.

It wasn't until the late-1970s and early-1980s that the design of RIAA phono preamps received widespread attention for redesign - the aforementioned Stanley Lipschitz wrote a famous AES paper in 1978 addressing many of these issues . . . and the contribution of Peter Baxandall through his responses to this paper was (and is) also greatly influential.  Phono preamps certainly came a very long way in the 1980s, while the development of phono cartridges plateaued.

Anyway, it's certainly an interesting discussion.