Re: [ARSCLIST] Good industrial-strength LP cartridge for spoken-word material/stanton

[Ted Kendall <sound.restoration1@xxxxxxxxxx>]

And the worst thing is that a third-octave equaliser does not produce a 
correct inversion of the recording equalisation.

Recording curves were created, in general, by simple, first-order networks, 
with well-defined frequency and phase responses. It is, in my view, sheer 
folly to rely on a third-octave equaliser to produce the entire playback 
curve. For one thing, most equalisers don't have sufficient boost or cut for 
the extremes of the frequency range; and the phase response of a 
third-octave equaliser bears little resemblance to that of a first-order 
network.

"Why does this matter?"  I hear you ask. For this reason, if no other. 
Archive sound, in general, is full of extraneous noises that someone, 
sometime, will want to remove. Hiss aside, most of these noises have an 
impulsive component; and it is by preserving this impulsive component that 
we give the restoration software the best chance if detecting it, and 
therefore of removing it cleanly. The more easily a disturbance is detected, 
the less hard you have do drive the restoration software to remove it, and 
the less collateral damage there will be.

Ted Kendall








----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan Nelson" <dnelsonone@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Good industrial-strength LP cartridge for 
spoken-word material/stanton


I too use a Stanton 500 with  various stylus.. my next link in the  chain is 
a  flat pre amp which has a  47k 200 pff  network across the input  to match 
the  Stanton loading  requirement followed by a  1/3 octive equalizer to 
custom set recording curves  or lack of for best  overall response.
The best thing about  using an equalizer to set playback curves is that 
older recordings  can get very tubby  in the mid low  with RIAA  equ pre 
amps.
dmw

--- On Mon, 4/20/09, Roderic G Stephens <savecal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Roderic G Stephens <savecal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Good industrial-strength LP cartridge for 
> spoken-word material
> To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Monday, April 20, 2009, 8:57 AM
> Hi Tom,
>
> I've been using the Stanton 500 MK II cartridge for many
> years with changeable styli to transfer all kinds of program
> material with excellent results. So, I
> think that would be an excellent choice in my opinion.
>
> Rod Stephens
>
>
> --- On Sun, 4/19/09, Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: [ARSCLIST] Good industrial-strength LP
> cartridge for spoken-word material
> > To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Date: Sunday, April 19, 2009, 3:07 PM
> > A friend of mine has a really nice collection of
> spoken-word
> > LPs he wants to get into his iPod for easier access.
> > He's got a decent transfer setup, certainly of higher
> > fidelity than most of these recordings. I got him set
> up
> > with Technics SL1200 MK2 turntable. Now we're
> wondering
> > about the best cartridge for the job. I was thinking
> > something like a Shure M44 decendent, mainly because
> > it's low-cost but effective and again will have
> better
> > fidelity than most of these records. We were also
> thinking
> > maybe a Stanton 500 or 720. Given that some of these
> records
> > were really bad pressings (think limit-release stuff,
> very
> > interesting content but very low-grade production and
> > pressing), trackability would be a plus. Most of the
> LPs are
> > in decent, good or excellent condition so the
> cartridge
> > won't confront a tracking minefield in almost all
> cases.
> > The tough cases, I told him we'd sort them out at my
> > studio.
> >
> > So, the goal here is a low-cost but good quality
> cartridge
> > that tracks loyally and isn't finicky and is durable
> > enough to give him a good run for the money.
> Recommendations
> > appreciated.
> >
> > -- Tom Fine