In my system, cartridge loading can have a significant influence on the quality of bass reproduction.
Absolutely. I have a hard time pinning down the sound of particular parts that make a vinyl chain because every one of them makes such a profound change in the overall sound. But cartridge loading is one of those that’s easy to hear the impact when you have a means to change that in real time.
Usually not, though. MM are higher frequency resonance systems changed by capacitance where MC are high frequency resonance systems changed by resistance (ignore capacitance).Some MM resistive loaded (47K-ohm) type cartridges like GRADO are different and MI (moving IRON) and not sensitive to capacitance.
MM loaded with CAPACITIVE changes,
MC loaded with RESISTIVE changes.
Best, Galen
Yes, I need to get the printed 3D are from VPI for my JM memorial tone arm on my VPI classic II table. Supposed to be really good for the bucks spent.
Best, Galen
As I increase resistive loading from 100 ohms to 250 ohms, for example, bass gets tighter, faster sounding. Going even higher in value, can reduce perceived bass depth.
I think you’re hearing the increased lower treble region (sometimes called the presence region) make the bass sound tighter and crisper. The upper harmonics is where the attributes you mention reside. The true lower bass remains a nebulous fat, lumpy, strange glob. Just listen to a sub by itself at 30 Hz or below. It’s ugly sounding.
Look at the curves, and yes the capacitive loading goes down to about 1K-2K. Low enough to change the perceived crispness of bass.
Best, Galen
Correct. And that’s what matters to my auditory system.
Yes, the ~2 dB rise with 250 pF in treble is tolerable. I hate muddy bass too…the ACORA SRC5.2D’s really fixed muddy bass, WOW.
Best, Galen
pF? I’ve been talking about resistive loading a MC cartridge.
Ohms? MC are loaded with 500 or more to K-ohms. What cartridge are you using? 250 will usually suck the life out of a low output MC cartridge.
Best, Galen
It’s like we’re speaking different languages.
As I understand the basics here, the traditional rule of thumb is that loading should be at least 10X the cartridge’s internal impedance which is fixed by the coil windings. My cart’s impedance is 4.2ohms. So anything above say, 42 should be fine. I don’t understand your point at all.
My ears tell me that a higher load on my low output MC cart sounds better. I’ve not gone up to 250, but going from 75 to 100 made a positive difference.
I move different amplifiers in and out of my system just for a fun change of system personality.
I usually change loading to match the characteristics of the amp.
My range is typically 160, 250 or sometimes 320 ohms.
Play around with loading. You can’t hurt anything by doing so.
You’re just having fun rubbing the act the wrong way. You know exactly the point, 10X is a rule of thumb for MC loading and running the resistance up to improve the presence region will make the overall presentation THEORETICALLY a lot brighter.
My Benz Ruby-Z is 38-ohms so you run it around 400 to be flat, above that gets that calculated resonance hump, below you roll it off. The MC charts above show exactly that. Basically, in theory, you allow the cantilever to move much less impeded with higher resistive loading, adding to the brightness. If you adjust the loading to change the bass region, that’s a good bit of loading change to hear, and happens way lower in loading than we might think. Why? The paper work ignores reality of the actual system’s mechanical self.
Now I’ll rub the cat the wrong way, go here; https://www.stereophile.com/content/dispelling-myth-about-phono-cartridge-loading
Since the cartridge system is, of course, mechanical and the MC resistive loading has a limited effect since the cantilever can’t move at too high a frequency and is damped by that mechanical reality. Eventually higher resistive loading doesn’t make that change the paper work suggests. Around the 10X value, where we aren’t pushing the mechanical limits of the system, we do hear changes. Going higher in resistance will brighten it, but only to a point where the mechanicals resist the electricals to audibly go much farther.
But even with this mechanical reality, there is argument that what we hear isn’t frequency RESPONSE but changes in distortion. The MC’s output is also impacted with higher loading but is a non audible linear change to the frequency response. Thus, the argument on this MC cartridge, a Denon 103D, changes the distortion products going higher. This, based on the measurements.
The end argument (we know that’s what it will be!) is; I find results like this exciting—it’s fun to be freed up from convention. If one accepts this result, then it’s time to rethink the whole subject of MC cartridge loading. Does an optimal value of the load resistance exist at all? Moncrieff says no—that there is no lower limit: The lower the load resistance, the better.
Ron is right though, there is no harm in changing it but even the unconventional methodology to MEASURE what really happens with MC loading suggest lower resistive loading is most linear and produces the least distortions. The cantilever just can’t keep up with the paper work on resonance what’s left then that we hear?
So here is a different language all together on MC loading and what happens. I have not seen proper measurements made over paper calculations, and the mechanical impacts are HUGE as frequency rises (F=MA stuff) so the paper work kind of gets tossed real quick. But, we seem to stick to the assumptions that the paper work we are indoctrinated to is right. Is it? Is our cantilever assemebly infinitley light and acts electrical only? I think not. We know not.
Best, Galen
Anything above 42 ohms won’t be as linear. Higher than spec resistance enhances the classic MC high frequency hump. For what we like to hear agreed, another situation.
Best, Galen
Not to continue beating this poor horse, but I was responding to this. I still don’t understand anything in this particular post. But you’re the expert, not me.
Ron, please. Don’t be padentic. The post was my misreading your post and assuming you had a MM, not MC it is that simple. I think you do understand. You’re smarter than that.
And yes, going too low on MC resistance will roll off the treble. But you’re model is a VERY low internal impedance, so 250 ohm isn’t as bad as say my Ruby Z @ ~40 ohm internal impedance.
I still stand that the mechanical properties of ANY cartride, MC or MM, will intervene prior to the paper calculations of the circuit. Going lower resistance on a MC has a more pronounced change than going higher for that reason. Lower R manages the mechanical properties better where higher doesn’t.
Best, Galen
MC cartridges are loaded with 500ohms or more. 250 ohms will usually suck the life out of a low output cartridge.
Those statements were the most confusing to me. But I’m always open to learn.
But I don’t respond well to cute or condescending remarks. I’m moving on, Galen.
I think you understand. You have a VERY, VERY low FOUR POINT TWO impedance MC. My experience turned that into 42 ohms. Most average MC impedance is 100 ohms. My Ruby Z has ~40 ohms so a 250 resistance load would dull it down a good bit. That’s also why I asked what cartridge you are using. The changes to the “bass” are really the lower presence region and not really the bass. The ears reference is pushed up into the higher frequencies more. The effect going higher will drop of dramatically as the mechanical nature of all cartridges overrides the pure math calculations. Those are just illutrative more than factual.
And, as the article shows, if we MEASURE (superimpose the electrical and physical together) the impacts of loading we see a different answer than just assuming the circuit is an electrical calculation. The mass of the system intervenes in short order. This is true for MC or MM.
As far as being an expert, not at all on this subject or any subject really. I look at what there is to learn, not what I know. So much more to look forward to that way. What I know relative to other people is meaningless. What we don’t know usually swamps our retained smarts on any subject. Looking backwards to people for comparative knowledge just keeps you from learning more. Look forward, always.
And yes, I make mistakes so say it. Don’t allow me to hide behind being an expert…and that’s exactly what I meant when I said you know I goofed on the cartridge style you are using and specification. Sorry if you didn’t understand my permission to call it out. I don’t do snarky. I say it like it is. I complimented that you are smarter than that to point it out. Sorry.
Galen
You are truly one of my favorite people on this forum. We got a bit crossed up over nothing. Let’s leave this here and move on.
Ron