Stanton 780 CD-4 Cartridge with Stanton 4DQ Quadrahedral Stylus - Opinions?

[Doug G.]

If you are getting consistently good sound without distortion using your Technics, I would just leave the cables alone. They actually may already be of low capacitance.

It's good that you are able to experience CD-4 in all its glory! I wish all my LPs could somehow be magically transformed into CD-4.

Doug

 

[Quad Linda]

Congratulations on hitting the CD-4 Jackpot with your Pickering/Technics/Marantz combo.

To my knowledge, all Technics turntables made during and after the Quad era HAVE low capacitance cables.

Back to moving coil, some MC cartridges are high output and require no additional pre-pre amp, transformer or preamp with a built-in MC amp. The low output ones will need to have an extended high end, as does the step-up device, as Doug mentioned. MC isn't for everybody, but the additional outlay will yield some fantastic results.

Most cartridges, including your Stanton and Pickering are magnetic, aka MM or moving magnet.

 

[Doug G.]

Yes, what Linda said. Some moving coil cartridges are high output.

And there's really nothing magical about them (well, except some audiophiles claim their sound is magical ). They are magnetic cartridges too with the coils and magnets basically reversed from where they are in moving magnet cartridges. The coils are attached to the cantilever and the magnets are stationary inside the cartridge body.

Doug

 

[Quad Linda]

The bulk of the weight being removed from the cantilever is what makes MC cartridges sound magical.

The four things that brought my listening into a whole new level are:
1- Separate components, ie preamp, tuner and power amp(s)
2- Moving coil phono cartridges
3- Advanced resolution (SACD/DVD-A/Blu-Ray)
4- dbx noise reduction

IMHO, 1, 2 & 3 are musts for GREAT sound reproduction. Without them, good fidelity is possible. If you've never heard these technologies, you have no idea what you're missing.

Yes, what Linda said. Some moving coil cartridges are high output.

And there's really nothing magical about them (well, except some audiophiles claim their sound is magical ). They are magnetic cartridges too with the coils and magnets basically reversed from where they are in moving magnet cartridges. The coils are attached to the cantilever and the magnets are stationary inside the cartridge body.

Doug

 

[The Quadfather]

Ah, ok. Yes, when I move the output cables from L to R then the distortion moves to the R side. So, that's back to sounding like I am experiencing a turntable/cartridge issue. Out of curiosity I tried an experiment and got interesting results. I have a second turntable that I use for playing stereo records. It is an inexpensive linear tracking Technics SL DL 5. It's one of the inexpensive models with the tonearm in the lid. It has a Pickering cartridge, but I can't see any model number listed on the cartridge. On the stylus it is labeled 1 DTL. It has a set tracking force of 1.25 grams. So, by NO means is this a setup that would be approved for CD-4 playback. I don't know the specs on the cartridge, but I'd be shocked if they were anywhere near 40KHz. But I thought I'd hook this turntable up to my Marantz CD400 and just see what happened.
So, I have connected the linear tracking Technics to the Marantz with a normal audio cable. I don't have a low capacitance cable to use as a connection between the TT and demodulator. I DO have low capacitance cables running from the Marantz to the receiver.
With this setup, using an inexpensive linear tracking turntable with a cartridge not approved for CD-4, it sounds pretty damn fantastic. Perfect separation. No distortion. I'm listening to Doobie Brothers What Were Once Vices right now and it sounds great.
So, I guess this cinches it that the issue with my Technics SL 1200 is very likely the cartridge. But what are your thoughts about my inexpensive linear tracking Technics properly playing back CD-4?

Yep, I believe you have effectively eliminated the demodulator as the problem. I suspect that the pickering cart probably has a linear contact stylus. The stylus type is more important than the cartridge itself. It has been a long held belief that linear trackers are the best for CD-4 anyway. However, I never found one of which that I liked the build quality. Most of them are cheaply made. And I hate the tonearm in the lid crap. I think Toshiba made a real nice one, but it's hard to find. My Marantz does a good job with CD-4. Now that you know that the problem is with the cart or turntable, you have something to work with. It is possible for the bearings in the tonearm could be stiff, causing poor tracking on the inner groove wall, but the problem is more than likely the cart. The Technics SL 1200 turntable should be fine for CD-4. But if you can get good CD-4 with the linear tracker and the pickering cart, especially with the low tracking weight you are using, why not use that for CD-4 and use the SL 1200 for stereo? Oh and Doobie Bros make excellent demo albums because of the strong use of isolated instruments. and the jumpy tunes.

 

[dr8track]

OK, so I have FINALLY retired the Stanton cartridge and per the Quadfather and others recommendations, replaced it with the Audio Technics AT440MLa, Holy Cow! What an amazing difference and it was incredibly easy to get set up and adjusted for quad. I just cracked open a sealed CD-4 copy of America Hearts and am listening to it now. Sounds fantastic! If anyone is looking for a quad cart and has had any reservations about the Audio Technica, I am another who will vouch for just how well it works on CD-4. And it only took me since 1974 to finally admit that Stanton was never going to work. Oh well, better late than never. :banana:

 

[Quad Linda]

A phono cartridge upgrade is the cheapest way to improve the performance of any analog system. Audio-Technica is a great, solid option for CD-4 and performs just as well for stereo.

 

[scifi]

Some information about CD-4 cartridges.

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=333363

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/24/2063601/electronics/WW-Apr78-p71-75.pdf

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/24/2063601/electronics/WW-June76-p42-46.pdf

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/24/2063601/electronics/WW-July76-p65-68.pdf

 

[dr8track]

I'm slowly learning more about CD-4 as I play more and more albums. I made a discovery this weekend that disturbed me. Using my new Audio Technica AT440MLa cartridge I noticed an odd phenomena. When I listened to the channels individually I noticed that the R Front was super clear and crisp. The L Front, however, had a very muffled sound to it. The discrete separation was there, but it was just very muffled sounding. On the rear it was just the opposite. The R Rear was muffled and the L Rear was crisp. So, it occurred to me that even though I had set up the separation using a test record, that maybe it was not dialed in quite right. So, with only the L Front channel turned up I carefully adjusted the R Front/back separation until that front speaker was clear. When I turned the R Left up is was still clear as well. I did the same on the L Rear side. I started with only the muffled rear channel turned up, very slightly adjusted the separation until it became clear and crisp and then turned up the Front R channel, which was still clear. Probably a CD-4 veteran would have recognized the possible cause of this muffled audio, but I had no idea until it dawned on me to try fine tuning the front/back separation. Now it sounds fantastic on all four channels!
I am really loving CD-4 and SQ. After all these years I'm realizing there was never anything wrong with the decoding methods or the technology. The real problem was sub-standard decoders that could not reproduce what the records were capable of. It is really amazing that you can get this kind of discrete separation from a record groove. I'm having a ton of fun.

 

[Doug G.]

You have discovered "tweaking" a CD-4 system. Sometimes it is a bit difficult to get the separation controls exactly at the right setting, with a set up record, listening to the back channels since the sound doesn't completely disappear from them but, instead, can be set to a minimum. Hearing that minimum point can be a learned skill.

I like my SH-400 for sdjusting because it has a meter to see minimum output too.

I agree that it IS tons of fun, though.

Doug

 

[dr8track]

You have discovered "tweaking" a CD-4 system. Sometimes it is a bit difficult to get the separation controls exactly at the right setting, with a set up record, listening to the back channels since the sound doesn't completely disappear from them but, instead, can be set to a minimum. Hearing that minimum point can be a learned skill.

I like my SH-400 for sdjusting because it has a meter to see minimum output too.

I agree that it IS tons of fun, though.

Doug

Yes, a meter would certainly be helpful vs having to rely solely on your ears. I use the Marantz CD 400, which I found along with a Lafayette SQ-W decoder at a thrift store a few years back. $8 each. Probably one of the best quad bargains I've ever encountered. I was just checking out an image of the SH-400. Very high tech looking. Lots more adjustments than the Marantz. And it's nice to have the controls for carrier level and separation adjustment on the front of the unit. Why they felt a need to put those controls on the rear of the Marantz I'll never know. On the built in CD-4 decoder on my Pioneer QX-949 (which never worked well), the carrier level adjustment is on the BOTTOM of the receiver! How handy. You just have to lift up the 60 pound receiver, make your adjustment and you're good to go.

 

[Q8]

I would like an SH-400 but I never see them for sale. Anywhere. Not even ebay

 

[quadsearcher]

I installed an AT440MLa too, last weekend. It's all true, what a revelation. It just works.:banana:
I think the problem with the format was not the decoders, we are all using old ones. Maybe there were some poor models.
I'm pretty sure it was just the problem I had, a cart that was not cheap, lights the radar, and plays some records OK. Plus being stubborn to admit it was the cart after all. I would imagine there were many people who bought a decoder and some records but refused to buy a new cart if the radar was lit.

 

[dr8track]

I installed an AT440MLa too, last weekend. It's all true, what a revelation. It just works.:banana:
I think the problem with the format was not the decoders, we are all using old ones. Maybe there were some poor models.
I'm pretty sure it was just the problem I had, a cart that was not cheap, lights the radar, and plays some records OK. Plus being stubborn to admit it was the cart after all. I would imagine there were many people who bought a decoder and some records but refused to buy a new cart if the radar was lit.

You are so right on about the issues with cartridges that were sold with the specs that could supposedly reproduce CD-4, but then couldn't. I meant to mention that in my post as well. I do think it was a combination of the two, inferior cartridges that could not reproduce CD-4 combined with some substandard decoders as well. And like you, I stubbornly stuck with trying to figure out why my Stanton wouldn't work for almost 40 years!!!!! Hopefully you didn't wait as long as I did to finally admit you needed a better cart.

 

[dr8track]

I would like an SH-400 but I never see them for sale. Anywhere. Not even ebay

Agreed. I had never even seen a picture of one until I looked it up to see what it was.

 

[Quad Linda]

In all my years of selling phono cartridges, I came to realize that many phono cartridges are mumbo-jumbo. Sure, every cartridge plays, yet quality and sound vary widely. I' was given many cartridges from manufacturers. Others, I've taken home and evaluated.

Many audiophile cartridges are simply hype. They sound OK, but don't always outperform other lesser priced options. Audio=Technica was THE CD-4 company back in the day. They make a great cartridge for a very reasonable price. In the late '70's, I discovered Ortofon. Their cutting heads have etched the grooves of many records we all own. Although a bit pricier, they outperform most everything I've heard. The moving coil models provide a realism and openness that need to be heard to be believed. Yes, you'll need a step-up device for most MC cartridges. Like AT, many Ortofon models will work for CD-4. Whether for 2ch or CD-4, stick with AT or Ortofon, and you won't go wrong. The phono cartridge is the most cost-effective upgrade one can make to any analog system.

 

[Doug G.]

I was lucky when I got my SH-400 via eBay about seven years ago. I think it just happened to be right before the start of what seemed like a renewed interest in CD-4 and I only paid forty-some dollars for it. At that time, there were many demodulators on eBay and then they kind of dried up. I think I got my SE-405 for even less than the SH-400.

Wow! An SQ-W and CD-400 for 8 bucks apiece? Terrific! The Marantz is a fine demodulator. It is really the same as a JVC.

One thing to remember is that radar lighting is just the beginning. Almost any cartridge, regular stereo included, will have enough output at 30kHz to light the radar. Response up to at least 45kHz and acceptable separation at those frequencies is what makes a real CD-4 cartridge work.

Tracking issues with cartridges, records, and set up are far more likely to require more attention to get it right than any demodulator actually being sub-par, assuming the demodulator is in spec., of course.

And any CD-4 cartridge Audio Technica ever released has been excellent, even the inexpensive 12 series.

Oh yeah and on the issue of inconvenient control locations, they are on the bottom of my SE-405 too but it only weighs about 10 pounds instead of 60 so it's easy to flip over on its side. My Heathkit -29 amps and receivers have input level adjustments which are peachy for matching them for equal sound output from different sources at the same volume control setting but, guess what? They are on the bottom and those weigh a considerable amount too and are in a cabinet. So, I forego matching the inputs.

Doug