DS Audio DS 003 Optical Phono Cartridge Review | My Favorite Optical Cartridge...
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 июл 2024
- Tom Martin reviews the DS Audio 003 Cartridge and Phonostage System. He talks its competitive price point, the nature of optical cartridges, and why the 003 is his current favorite cartridge.
DS 003 Cartridge Price: $2500 USD
DS 003 Phonostage Price: $3500 USD
00:00-02:38 Overview of DS Audio 003 System
02:38-11:09 Why Do You Want an Optical Cartridge?
11:09-19:47 Sound Quality
Newsletter: www.theabsolutesound.com/news...
Facebook: / theabsolutesound
Substack: www.theabsolutesound.substack...
About Tom Martin:
Tom is a long-time audiophile. He began his reviewing career after acquiring the The Absolute Sound magazine in 1997 and then hi-fi+ magazine in 2002. He has worked closely with Harry Pearson and Robert Harley at TAS and with Roy Gregory and Alan Sircom at hi-fi+. Since Tom and his teams expanded the TAS and Plus platforms in the digital domain, he has served as Chief Content Officer.
What Is The Absolute Sound?
The Absolute Sound magazine has been a leading publication in high-end audio since 1972. Since the early 2000s, The Absolute Sound has expanded to include web, newsletter, digital magazine, social media, RUclips and Substack platforms. The Absolute Sound platforms have a global audience of over 500,000 audiophiles.
#hifi #audiophile #theabsolutesound 
Развлечения
For $5000 I would like to see some measurements showing improvements in S/N ratio,Sinad,freq response,dynamic range etc....compared
to the conventional mm/mc types...this can be easily done and shown.
appreciate the way you logically deduce your way through audio technical developments and their impact in these type of reviews
Great explanation and very well-detailed. I'm a digital boy but wouldn't mind going back to those round black things again one day.
Tom, your presentations are a treat.
Interesting discussion and I don't see hoow anyone can get more balanced. As someone who sees this as out of my current price point, I still find it interesting and enjoyed the extra information about digital vs analog.
The more I learn about hifi, the more I want 2 or 3 systems. Somethings just do other things better and I enjoy many things about music.
I have three systems everyday at home and have four sets/brands of speakers hooked up to them. NONE were expensive.
Different music gets played on these different systems, as no one solution is perfect for every format, recording and music genre.
19:05 you hit it right on the head with that explanation, 100%!😊
Tom, with this review, you've provided another opportunity for us all to gain further insights and considerations into this very interesting hobby. I particularly appreciated your clarity and complete transparency in explaining both what you do and don't fully understand about the unique perceptions we have with vinyl playback and how the DS system performs in connection with those perceptions. I also found very interesting your thoughts about digital playback (which I also enjoy very much) and how the DS system sounds somewhat akin to hi-res digital playback. Your rationale for the DS system for those of us who have optimized our two-channel systems for digital playback was really thoughtful. Great review. Thank you!
Very good perception & open amalogy . To disagree is naive as to what was noted , the only way knowing is to eventually try .
Thank you sir.
Interesting and informative discussion of analog compared to digital. Thank you.
Glad it was helpful!
Great video. I appreciated the breakdown of the technology and the distinctions versus traditional MC/MM and digital formats.
Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for watching.
It’s wild to that turntable technology keeps innovating…fantastic!
The price on that cart tech is quite high, but innovations are usually not cheap.
Love that these innovations keep occurring. 😊
it is not moving forward. This system is about 100 years old and comes from cinema. It was canceled in the 50s because it was considered to have a poor sound quality.
@@snakeoilaudio adorably wrong. Wishing you the absolute best in your sad endeavor to push your negative agenda.
@@snakeoilaudio Well, no. The problem with the 1970s application of optical tech was the bulbs would burn up in the cartrige. Modern LEDs make this problem moot. Comparing this tech to optical sound on a film strip is completely inappropriate.
"high" compared to what, a high end DAC? A Koetsu or Micro-Seiki MC cartridge? A Manley Steelhead (one solution fits all) phono preamp is $12,000, cartridge not uncluded. The MoFi phono preamp is $6000 without a cartridge.
@@thomosburn8740 good question.
As compared to the sub-$1000 carts I use on my turntables and MM/MC preamps. Cost is relative. 😉
Very well balanced post, Tom, as regards comparisons between vinyl and CD. In my experience, the better both digital and vinyl replay get, the more they converge in sound quality. Digital becomes more "analogue" and analogue becomes more "digitial".
Thank you
You're welcome, thanks for watching.
I was interested in knowing if the stylus is what picks up the audio off the record. If so, the only difference is the medium of relaying the audio signal to the electronics.
Using led light instead of a magnetic signal might a significant improvement, or it might be heavily dependent on the quality and accuracy of the stylus (just like moving magnet type. Or have I made some wrong assumptions?
I'm glad you make the (necessary) distinction between "distortion" and "ugly distortion." Music -- especially music recorded with electronic microphones and mixed/mastered/reproduced with electronic equipment -- IS "distortion," whether it's the sound of a solo violin or an electric guitar. Vibrations are distortions and the sound we like is the distortion we like. You mention hearing increased clarity and resolve with this optical cartridge ("my sense is that some layer of subtle noise or distortion has been removed"), but since it still uses a stylus tracking a groove, is there an audible effect on LP surface noise -- rumble, swooshing, ticks and pops caused by dust or static?
I don’t think the DS is materially different in terms of surface noise. The difference in sensing (it is an amplitude sensor) and the resulting EQ difference might have an effect, but I think this might make it less surface noise sensitive. I’m being logical, not citing measurements.
how often do you have to change the stylus (what shape ?) and what is the cost ? What is the tracking force of "this thing" ? A comparison to the VM760SCL or to the Orthofphone 2M 250 LVB both for about 1.000 Euro
Other than a handful of vinyl, I'm pretty much digital. However, nostalgia kicks in with my turntable along with owning vinyl that isn't available in a digital format. I also miss the fun of physical record stores with a variety of music and people talking about music. While more than I would care to spend on turntable components, this was an interesting piece on current technology being used on an analog format. Something to consider if the price drops a bit more.
Philco made the first optical pickup in 1941 with their beam of light phono pickup, which made 78 rpm records have a much better fidelity more noise free sound.
When playing records, I think we all find dust on and around the stylus. I wonder how dust on the optical filters will play out over time, in terms of accuracy or non-linearity. Also consider how windows in our homes accumulate a haze over time if we don't clean them regularly; I can't help but think that would also accumulate on the filters over time. Great video, thank you!
Isn't the cart (box) sealed? This sounds like a non-problem. In these photos it looks like the seam is on the top, and that the mfg tolerances are tight.
So, the LED light source has a life. How long will it last? Is it replaceable?
I was waiting for these in the 70s.
Excellent video
Glad you liked it. Thanks for watching!
I listened carefully to your explanations.
As I understand it, the resulting movement of the mechanical scanning is transformed into usable electrical currents by the contactless opto-mechanical system and converted into music signals for further processing in a type of converter. The mass to be moved in the scanning system is relatively smaller than in conventional MM or MC systems.
What these systems and the DS Audio DS 003 Optical Phono Cartridge have in common, however, is that in all three cases they are cantilever systems, i.e. a cantilever that is clamped in or beared at a certain point.
As I understand it, the resulting movement of the system is not at the theoretically most favorable point, i.e. at the end where the scanning takes place, but further back near the bearing.
The geometry is therefore not optimal if the movement is scanned far away from the pickup and closer to the bearing.The ratio of the deflection of the pickup tip to the scanned deflection so is always less than 1:1 and therefore unfavorable. Result: Lower current and loss of accuracy of the smallest deflections. In addition, the bearing, exerts resistance in the form of friction during deflection, which has a very critical or unfavorable influence on the freedom of movement of the boom and on the inertia behavior. Cause: Part of the originally transmitted mechanical scanning energy flows into overcoming the friction of the bearing. End result: In order to move the braked needle, relatively coarse deflections are necessary, whereas high-frequency fine and very fine groove track profiles, if they can somehow overcome the unfavorably increased inertia, are reproduced firstly with slowed dynamics and secondly with suboptimal smeared information and parasites. If the system were not equipped with a support, these problems would not arise. I assume that these mechanical front-end problems, i.e. unfavorable scanning situation on the one hand, and the reduced and blurred response behavior due to friction, are more difficult to compensate for electronically and are more relevant than hysteresis problems.
There have been tonearms without mechanical bearings for almost 30 years, e.g. from WELL TEMPERED LAB. These are stored in an oil bath.This oil damping very effectively reduces the occurrence and spread of resonances during the entire operation, whether from the environment, the sound system, the turntable or the arm, and guarantees extremely stable scanning, even from such sensitive and highly effective pickups as the DECCA LONDON REFERENCE, with a very fast system, that does not require a bearing, but is pre-tensioned at one end and where at the other end of the relativly long moving iron arm, without friction, through the almost unrestrained, very fast movements, and in the original ratio the stylus tip influences twice the magnetic field, i.e. the horizontal and vertical, and this with a,comprehensible, outstanding dynamics and fine detail and accuracy.
Even if the optical contactless reading of the scanning movements certainly represents an interesting solution for MM and MC systems, it does not avoid relevant scanning problems that are associated with the conventional cantilever on a bearing.
What happens when cartridges get better than the original lathe record that the records pressed from?
regarding magnetic hysteresis: this is a property of the core material used in a transformer or inductor. I've never seen the details of the construction of a MM or MC cartridge, but it seems likely that they wouldn't use a core material. Instead, it seems likely that they are just simple coils of wire, which do not exhibit hysteresis. In contrast, the transformers that match the low impedance speaker to a high output impedance tube amp do indeed have core material and exhibit hysteresis.
Good review. 👍👍👍👍
In your review you, keep going on about accuracy. If you weren't at the recording session or at any of the mastering sessions, how do you know what accurate is?
In my opinion, it's like saying this product is the best on the market, unless you've heard every single product on the market in that particular category, you have no idea what the best is.
Keep the reviews coming. I love watching them.
Good question. I’ll try to do something to address this in more detail. For now, the idea of accuracy for The Absolute Sound is that the sound of the product should be aligned with the large scale features of live music performed in a real space. This involves a judgement of whether the ‘character’ of the product is consonant with what you can hear live, rather than an item by item error measurement vs the recording inputs (which, as you say, we can’t know). Often, the deviations of reproduced music from what would convey a sense of virtual reality are pretty large. When that deviation exists, we have chosen to call it an ‘inaccuracy’. And we do our judging by developing a good sense of what real music sounds like, in part by attending concerts (e.g. I go to about 40 concerts per year to inform my understanding). This method isn’t perfect, but it is based on a relevant (meaningful) reference. One could choose a different reference or one could just go with whether another person likes it. These, we think, are fraught with difficulties, but reasonable people could disagree. I hope that helps.
Accuracy is an absence of non-linearty on playback. No compression, distortion, haze, thickening or slowing of the signal. The mechanical bits get out of the way. Of course, the music you're listening to is only as clear as the mastering or the source recording. But that's what he's talking about when discussing accuracy: it's merely neutral to the source fed to it.
I've always understood accuracy to mean the sound that comes out of the speakers is as close to the source media (album, cd, tape, audio file, MD...) as possible, with the goal being minimizing/eliminating audio inaccuracies in the electronic system between the two.
@@ericcrippen8634 You can define it in various ways, as with any word. However, we (Harry Pearson, our founder) set forth a definition 50 years ago that we believe gives us a useful and meaningful reference for judging equipment used for music reproduction. We call that reference the absolute sound (music performed in a real space). Our reviewers continue to find that reference to be useful. Logically, we would suggest that other definitions of accuracy tend to be subsidiary to the idea of the absolute sound. That is, if we say we want “accuracy” and then we say, by that we mean, in part, “we want an amplifier with very low harmonic distortion at rated power”, what we are really saying is “we think an amp with low thd at rated power would sound more like the absolute sound”. One definition focuses on means, the other on ends. Both can be useful; I am simply explaining how we use the term in our reviews and why we think that usage is most useful to consumers. There is much more that can be said on this topic, of course, but I hope the short version is helpful at least for some insight into what we mean.
@@ericcrippen8634 You got it right! And these optical cartridges are as transparent to source as the laws of physics will allow.
Cool
Impressive review, I thoroughly enjoyed it 👌, but you seem to insist magic isn't a part of analog vinyl......OK I'll just call it Alchemy then 😊, I see no other explanation for the amazing sound......
Yeah, alchemy seems about right. Thanks for the idea.
Toshiba made something like this in the end 1960's. Was complicated, needed an extra unit and had a lack in higher frequencies and was abandoned.
What turntable is that ?
My boss in a TV repair shop in the 1970s mentioned an optical record player but didn't elaborate.
In all the years I was either involved in the hi-fi industry or simply a follower of the latest trends, I have never seen any mention of the accuracy of the ‘decoding’ of the RIAA equalisation applied to vinyl in pre-amplifiers. I have a suspicion that together with the linearity or otherwise of a cartridge which will itself affect the accuracy of adherence to the RIAA curve, which is subsequently affected by the linearity or otherwise of the pre-amplifier, these factors will greatly affect the difference that is heard.
I believe you are thinking of a de-emphasis curve that is not the exact inverse of the RIAA pre-emphasis curve? If so, there may be several reasons, but a primary one could be that since the RIAA curve is well specified, the deviations in cartridge frequency response (due to inherent errors and loading factors) swamp RIAA errors in magnitude. However, any RIAA de-emphasis errors could be part of what we hear in phono pre to phono pre comparisons. There has also been extensive discussion of using different de-emphasis curves for different LPs because the original master may not have used the RIAA curve. Several phono pre makers offer multiple curves.
Also, we have to remember that we may not listen to vinyl to get a perfect reproduction. Vinyl has always been a compromise, a good one, but still a compromise. And we _do_ want the colour that the format brings. That is one part of why there are so many different cartridges and technologies in them, another one is of course price, but if we pretend that isn’t an issue, every listener will still have their own preference. If I want the most physically accurate reproduction, digital is the way to go. Even red-book CDs are near perfect in most cases as the information carrier. A very high-end or specialised set of equipment is needed in order to get those extra percents beyond its capabilities.
But, as I began, it may not be what we are after. I love the tea ceremony analogy: Just as drinking the tea is only a small part of the experience, listening to the music off a vinyl record is only part of the experience. Choosing the record, taking it out of its sleeve, placing it on the turntable, and so on is a tactile experience, the listening that follows will be inferior in several technical aspects to a well produced digital equivalent, but it doesn’t matter. If you have carefully selected your transcription device to serve you your music in a way _you_ enjoy it, you could have spent $150 on a second hand system or a million on a bespoke hand crafted system, and still derive the same enjoyment. It is not only the sound you get, it’s the whole experience.
Sorry is there any chance we could get a clear side on view of this. I realise most of us are in this for the pursuit of sumptuous sound but I must admit I shoot my vids direct on iPhone 4k 120 fps and it’s not to bad I generally get some. Good results but still I adore the Clear Audio Moving Magnet and it will take something amazing to convince me to complex my signal chain but I’m intrigued and indeed I can certainly see a lot of potential in the tech not to mention if it can reduce wear in some precious pressings then we it’s time to call the colonel because it’s winner winner…
I have a Dynavector 10X-5, a Clearaudio Wood Ebony, a Sumiko Blue Point, an AT400ML, a Goldring G1012, a Grado Reference and an Ortofon 2M black (which like the DS Audio 003 has a shibata stylus profile) all in my collection of old gear. After hearing the DS Audio recently I really don't want to continue with moving magnet, iron or coil systems anymore.
@@thomosburn8740 WOW what a statement yes my pockets are not deep enough to have an array of styli on hand however I keep a dedicate stereo and mono for simplicity but this is most intresting the question is when is it a record and when is a large uncompact disc
@@josefbuckland My cart collection: I'm old-ish at 60, and I never really throw anything away so I have a wide variety of cartridges - there was no large cash outlay to make it happen. Your comment "large uncompact disc" suggests you think this playback system sounds digital somehow - but it doesn't at all. It sounds clean a la cd playback, and the frequency response is true to source a la cd playback, but this optical system DOES NOT sound digital or mechanical in the slightest. It's as fluid as the best vinyl or tape playback you can imagine.
@@thomosburn8740
Well, you peaked my interest I will keep my eye open to this new form of technology. Great stuff. Thanks for opening my eyes.
One important difference between conventional and optical cartridges you didn't cover in the technical summary is the difference between cantilever velocity vs displacement operating principle of the transducers. This has huge effects in the actual way the records are read and in the function of the dedicated phono stage. I speculate that if you ever find out that different vinyl records, cut differently, also 'react' differently to this optical cartridge (resulting to changes of different quality or magnitude compared to conventional cartridges) this will be the reason.
It is an interesting point. I'll have to think about how to translate this into a listening analysis.
@@thomasmartin2219 the part blowing my mind with this system is that (the usual) RIAA curve (applied within a conventional phono preamp) doesn't work here, it's too extreme.
But it still tracks with a stylus wearing out your LPs on every play........am I missing something? ...
is this different from "laser disc"?
yes, no laser. Its playing an lp with a unique cartridge that's using leds. He shows this a few minutes in. Also special pre amp stage.
Valves, IC's, whoever makes the kit, it has a sound. The CD comparison will put off many Audiophiles. What do they know? Listen to the music not the equipment..
Where are comparative measurements to other carts?
If that's all you're looking for you will be underwhelmed or even disappointed with the numbers, as frequency response can be equally accurate among MM, MC and optical systems when compared head-to-head - but they STILL won't sound alike. This is something you have to hear, because it's about speed, definition and texture.
Not all cd players sound alike, but hi-res digital and a $40 cd player measure essentially the same at a macro level: Ruler flat response, 90+db channel separation, no wow/flutter, super low noise floor. If "measurements" told the whole story, NO ONE would cross-shop digital-to-analog converters would they?
Is the output from the cartridge analogue or digital ? it could be either way I'm assuming analogue, what is the voltage output of the phono stage standard line level?
I can't see why it should sound digital, only if you're playing a record that has been recorded from a digital source, an old analogue recording shouldn't sound digital.
Output is analog. Standard line level, RIAA corrected.
@@thomasmartin2219 The DS Audio equaliser does not use RIAA equalization.
I should add that "sounding somewhat akin to digital" isn't the same as saying "identical to digital". And "sounding somewhat more like digital" isn't a one dimensional observation, as I tried to explain. For example, digital, especially in Red Book CD (44.1k/16bit) form often seems to have a characteristic high frequency distortion (or "grunge"). This element of digital sound is NOT shared with the DS 003. But, in the threadbare war of words about digital vs. analog, commentators often fail to mention that there are many ways in which digital has massively lower distortion than analog: harmonic distortion, noise, frequency linearity, crosstalk, hysteresis. It is in some of these areas (likely excepting crosstalk and noise) that the DS 003 sound can be explained by an analogy to some elements of "digital". Which is to say the DS 003 sounds more linear, with lower distortion and less hysteresis than standard analog via an MC or MM cartridge.
I thought the original question was about the signal path in the context of a stereo system. I wanted to be clear that you can feed the output of the DS 003 cartridge + DS 003 equalizer (their words) or phono stage (also their words) into a standard analog line level input with no further processing. To complete the answer to part 2 of the original question, which I missed, the output level from the DS equalizer is 500 mV. People familiar with MC and MM cartridges are likely accustomed to having to address the RIAA pre-emphasis with a de-emphasis in a subsequent stage, and also accustomed to requiring added amplification, and the DS cart + box combo does not require anything further: it does the equivalent tasks we're used to with cartridges and phono stages of reading the record and serving up a line level signal requiring no further EQ. @@madmeister407
@@thomasmartin2219 Not quite RIAA, because that's too much . . . but it has a ruler flat frequency response playback when fed a test tone record.
ALL ANALOG, very fluid and super clear in its presentation. Other carts are both velocity- and amplitude-sensitive, this one is only amplitude sensitive.
Just a thought. I noticed that many audio reviewers and commentators on RUclips are quite mature in years. How can they accurately review music and audio systems when they lose the ability to hear certain frequencies and sounds? Of course, reviewing technical specifications is no problem but when you lose the ability to hear below or above certain frequencies how can you review sonic capabilities of equipment?
Because music is not about frequency range.
@@davidspendlove5900 Care to elaborate?
@@mikeross4081Music is more about timing , imagine going to see a band play live , do you think about frequency response or do you think about how well the band play together.If the timing is wrong then the music will become disjointed and loose and just sound a bit of a mess really.Same applies to hi fi equipment and unfortunately there are alot of brands that do not get the fundamentals right.Low distortion and accurate tone are desirable although some prefer the sound to be coloured. Being able to hear a wide frequency response is of course desirable but it is trumped by timing and other nuances.
@@davidspendlove5900 Thanks for explaining. I wish that I could agree with you but I think your reasoning is flawed. Music is about frequencies. If you cant hear certain frequencies then you can't hear all the music. Simple really. It is what it is.
I heard these DS Audio systems a couple months ago at the Atlanta Hifi Buys. They were hooked up to Vandersteen (or Rockport Cygnus) speakers with DeAgnostino gear.
Completely stunning. It was confusing at first hearing vinyl playback so clearly, it took a few records to sink in what was happening. And I was using my own records (looking for the familiar whoosh and rumble) and the noise WASN'T THERE. I do think your comments that the sound is closer to digital is slightly misleading as cds sound mechanical and the DS Audio cart sounds fluid. But that thick murk and goop you get with some vinyl playback is simply absent with the optical system. You didn't mention one more benefit - a MM cart has an output of 5 or so millivolts, and the DS Audio does SEVENTY. So: goodbye step up transformers, preamps, etc.
My digital analogy was obviously imperfect! I tried to say “akin to digital in some respects” but that wasn’t sufficiently clear. Your experience is nicely explained and parallels mine. To be clear, the DS cartridges do need another box to work, it just isn’t a conventional phono preamp or transformer. And the different role of the DS box may convey advantages, as you suggest.
@@thomasmartin2219 I only see big advantages, unless you're married to some high dollar phono preamp, which would be utterly silly. A truer to source, very low distortion and ultra-linear playback of vinyl solution is only 5 decades overdue.
Out of curiosity, did you use headphones when listening ?
@@juslitor No, I had a dedicated quiet listening room to myself with speakers I am extremely familiar with (Vandersteen 7). Also they were my records.
Whilst the new technology is interesting, I would think that many of us don't have acute enough hearing to be able to appreciate the difference in sound quality.
well, if you can fork out 5k for a preamp and a pickup, you definitely have acute enough hearing.
Might as well just stick to my cd player, it sounds great and far less expensive, thank you
If you're happy with the mastering on each and every cd you own, then you're correct. This is for someone who loves the original mastering on their vintage vinyl played back with spectacular accuracy. BUT your answer also begs the question: why would you watch a phono cartridge review in the first place?
I'm an orchestral musician and an audiophile, and the thing I wish to posit is that no large scale live performance or small scale 'amplified' performance sounds even remotely as detailed as a recording invoked by a producers hand. The presence of audiophilic qualities, while entertaining, illuminating, and revealing, are not themselves audible components in live sound. That's not a bad thing, its just a difference, because the detail 'is' there and intended to be heard. My truth is that I'm always disappointed by live classical concert sound! They aren't even more dynamic, a trait that is often claimed for them. The propagation of sound in an actual hall (the dozens that I've played in orchestrally, and hundreds that I've experienced as an audience member), after suffering all the interference of the room and the people come to it, just doesn't allow for any detail, soundstage (left to right or front to back), articulation, space/air, dynamism, or extended bass.
For me, the selling point would be not wearing out rare or unique records while listening to them.
People buying ultra expensive equipment have 2 problems often, when trying to resell at some future date.
1.They need to find someone to buy their item.
2. They need to find someone who doesn't think it is unsane to buy such expensive items in the first place.
DS Audio has a chance of being the best thing since sliced bread to advanced audiophiles, if they can keep their prices within the financial range of many audiophiles. Would love to hear one. But that's another thing now. No high end audio stores for hundreds of miles in each direction.
The dealer network issue is real, and a problem if you aren’t willing to drive a fairly long distance in some cases. We wish it were different. Problems 1 and 2 can be addressed by dealer trade-ins and Audiogon.
They also think they hear something thats not there
There is the wishful thinking factor that can infiltrate one's perception. But it can go the opposite way too. Someone borrowing equipment to try from their dealer, and their mind being biased toward not hearing improvements that are really there; since they really don't feel like parting with the money. That's why it's smart to only upgrade if the difference is big enough that you know its not just psychological or your imagination. Of course with experienced listeners that know what they are doing and knowing what to listen for; mistakes like that are not likely to happen.
Live music is "free of distortion", isn't it? (One could suggest that even the movement of the air
at the location of the performance might affect the sound.)
So why would anyone Want the distortion affecting the playback of media, either analog or digital?
The more "analytical" the equipment used, the closer to the truth it gets.
Some people do seem to Prefer certain forms of distortion. I don't.
I have to accept it when I play any recording, but that doesn't make me Like it.
And my sensitivity to detail is considerably less than that of a typical reviewer.
I guess I would probably like the DS 003, but I will never be able to afford it.
A lot of live players add distortion via their pedals and such.
The key is not distorting more than intended, as strange as that sounds intellectually.
DS Audio do not use a Phono stage, they use an equaliser which does not use the conventional RIAA equalisation. The red and green ground wires used for a conventional cartride now carry the voltage for the LED's in a DS audio cartridge, while the blue and white positive carry the signal from the cartridge (no ground wires) The DS equaliser works in a totally different way from a Phono stage and yet it is still a 100% mechanical analogue transducer. However at a price point of £5,999 UK a DS Audio 003 and equaliser has a lower spec cantilever and stylus than an equally priced conventional MC Phono cartridge with an RIAA Phono stage of your choice. There are also clearance issues when a DS Audio cartridge is used with a tapered tonearm e.g. SME and the likes.
Yes. Perhaps I should have explained this, but I thought the analogy of a box (phono stage) that must go between the cartridge and the preamp was easier to understand and I couldn't think of a reason that explaining the difference was essential to understanding the result. Which isn't to say that it plays no part.
@@thomasmartin2219 I think it does need explaining as there are people out there that would buy a £2,999 stand alone (without equalizer) DS Audio cartridge to save money, and expect it to work on their conventional Phono stage only to be totally dissapointed.
Yeah, I'm sensitive to this point which is important. I will say, if they watched this review they would have to ignore me saying "Conventional phono stages or transformers WON'T WORK with an optical cartridge." @@madmeister407
@@madmeister407 The fact that a dedicated 'phono stage' is required was clearly mentioned in the video. Maybe you missed it. Btw the dedicated box performs RIAA eq too. It couldn't be otherwise since the records are RIAA encoded. Also btw the main reason a dedicated equaliser is required is because voltage generation is cantilever displacement based rather than cantilever velocity based, resulting in very different variation of the generated signal.
@@razisn btw, if you read the DS Audio explanation of equalization they clearly state their equalization curve is not RIAA based, yes they use equalization but it's not the Recording Industry Association of America, it's actually a more simple solution. Btw the educated among us know the difference between MM, MC and optical cartridges but there are a few that don't and btw if it's not explained in detail people get the wrong idea. Btw I know how the signal is generated in an optical cartridge and btw I know why you need a dedicated equalizer and cannot use a standard RIAA Phono stage or have you not understood my comment.
Just buy the ELP.
a 2500 cart that sounds like a 10 buck per month tidal stream ;)
You only revealed how little you know about high end LP playback, as streamed media from any source does not yield this kind of playback (mostly down to dodgy digital masters). Even the best Tidal playback lacks that fat phantom center floating in front of or behind your speakers that vinyl delivers to the listener all the time.
Sounds like it's taking the soul out vinyl.
No, just retrieving what's cut into the groove without overlaying a mechanical haze or noise to it (since electromechanical interference only affects coils, magnets etc but NOT this optical device).
Here is a track from DSOTM, played thru the DS Audio system, encoded (reduced) for RUclips:
ruclips.net/video/kz58mCITZPg/видео.html
I thought this was a good informative review with very balanced and knowledgeable of how various system components will add their own effective EQ curve (or tone control adjustments). But you lost my respect with the Red Book grunge comments and human hearing beyond 20k - human hearing simply doesn't have the hardware for frequencies above 20k. It's a myth propagated by audio-phools trying to justify needing recordings and gear beyond 20k. Digital audio even at red book is beyond the resolution of human hearing, there is no digital grunge just bad master recordings and a little known thing that the vinyl cutting engineers were at liberty to make any EQ adjustment they wanted. This is why many vinyl pressings might have a different sound to their digital counterparts which were transferred without any EQ. It seems digital audio theory is beyond you or you would not have made such comments.
I have this amazing thing that costs just 2500. It is not expensive, there slightly different things like this that cost 10000000000000000000. And there are other desirable things for 1000000 …. so don’t think about it too much just compare the numbers to your income and give me moneyzzzz. And all the improvement claims are ridiculous and unmeasurable to keep discussion and science out.
If it doesn't remove pops and clicks it's USELESS.... 😔
Laser reading was not 'unworkable'. I believe you can still buy the ELP laser turntable, for example. It has significant problems but engineering (rather than fundamental physics) problems are rarely unworkable given will and funds. Its further development was just killed by digital. That technology was not for cottage industries (like the current vinyl industry) to develop further. It required large industry and funds behind it which disappeared with the advent of digital.
It is unworkable, largely because there is no way for laser turntables to discriminate between dust and program information. Basically for best performance the ELP would need to play records in a clean room environment.
If there is room in the marketplace for the number of > $100,000 turntables on the market today, there's more than enough money to improve the ELP... if it could actually provide good sound.
@@VideoArchiveGuy I respectfully disagree. Do you think that these problems are unworkable in the age of AI? Current TT industry is basically a cottage industry with limited R&D funds and extremely high margins. Nothing like the old big-tech Sony, Philips, GE, Toshiba and the like. Selling 100K TTs to a few rich people has absolutely nothing to do with the investment required to invent ,introduce and mass market really novel tech. This would be an Apple sized undertaking and of course no big tech is interested in this. Digital killed this at the moment it may had attracted the required investments.
@@razisn Yes, but other companies do.
Technics would not have invested what they did to bring back their turntables if there was a better alternative - their nameplate alone would have sold untold numbers of the "new technology" tables.
@@VideoArchiveGuy Technics just invested on new machine tools and molds to produce mostly the same thing. You just don't realize the size of the endeavour when novel high tech is involved and the massive potential market required for ROI. Even real advancement in direct drive cannot be made due to lack of investment interest. The same goes for pro tape recorders or vinyl cutting equipment. As long as something cannot be invented, produced and marketed by cottage sized industry it is not coming in the analogue sound reproduction space.
@@razisn That's simply not true - look at the amount of R&D they put into the SL-1000 that later went into the SL-1200GR2. Entirely different motors and drive electronics.
Hysterectomy???
Moist
Bla bla bla, audio rec comp
Total BS!
🥏
so much effort for just wanting to enjoy analogue!
a $200 Fluance turntable with it's stock cartridge can entertain you if money is a problem. You have to pay a little more to get jaw-dropping sound quality.