Steve,
Excellent news.
On the Glanz, I would recommend the G5 integrated as the best I've heard and the G7 and/or MFG 71L or E as the alternative options. You can see the bulk of comments and issues regarding these in the above posts of this thread.
Not withstanding clear set up challenges for the former two integrated cartridges, REALLY, REALLY GREAT cartridges - particulary the former.
Happy listening and hunting |
Hi All,
Those looking to optimise their vinyl replay can currently get hold of an Audio Technica AT666 EX pneumatic stabilizer. There's one currently going on eBay:http://cgi.ebay.com/Audio-Technica-AT666-EX-disc-stabilizer-pump-etc-/200516997374?pt=Turntable_Parts_Accessories&hash=item2eafbe90fe.
|
Hi All,
Just spent an enforced length of time re-aquainting myself with my Glanz's. I can only reaffirm my claim that the G5 is a very superior cartridge and I would desperately urge anyone who has the opportunity to grab it. I am aware that they rarely appear but I truly believe they are worth any efforts to get hold of.
I write this partially stunned by the music presently playing in the background.
As always... |
Apologies,
However, following off-line correspondence, I hasten to clarify that the Glanz is NOT of the quality of my Technics EPC 100Mk4. There again, nothing I have heard is.
What it is is a better performer than most well respected cartridges 'and' a (in my case) still unresolved challenge for perfect set up.
These points hopefully now clarified: I highly recommend it and its undoubted potential. |
"Its undoubted potential" alludes to the fact that the Glanz might indeed outperform the Technics if the (still sought) ideal set up is achieved.
Any medium mass arm that places the stylus tip precisely 50mm from the collar of the arm wand where the cartridge meets arm will provide that potential! |
Hi All,
They say the lucky man often benefits where the clever man can't. In this light, I must confess to a certain ignorance being shored up by complete luck.
Those who follow (and there appears to be many of you) this thread will know that I was amazed at the performance of the Glanz G5 in my Audio Craft AC-3300 LB tonearm. I noted that just setting its VTA and VTF seemed sufficient without concerns about overhang and effective length. Many will note the dispute that this suggestion created! Nevertheless, my own slightly refined hearing and that of a former friend (whose hearing was unsurpassed to my knowledge) kept telling me that I was approaching perfection with the performance of this intergrated moving magnet. I had even recently told others that the ideal position would place the tip of the stylus 50mm from the tonearm collar and suggested they experiment and seek such a tonearm. This is where my ignorance and luck come in!
On finally digging out the Users Manual for the AC-3300 last night, I was amazed to read that it has reference to the integrated Ortofon SPU cartridge and even suggests its ideal damping for such a cartridge. Then I noticed that the ideal position for stylus to tonearm edge for my Audio Craft was given as "50-51mm". This is exactly the position achieved by the Glanz and seems to support my suggestion that protractors and the like should not be your only means of assessing ideal set up of a cartridge: your own ears and experience being more important than generalised calculus.
This means that my faith (albeit challenged and uncertain at times) in what I am hearing with the Glanz G5 now makes complete sense. It also means that I can extend my recommendation with a little more surety.
The Glanz G5 cartridge in a tonearm such as the Audio Craft AC-3300 LB is simply stunning. It can keep company with the Technics EPC 100Mk4 and that says more than I can.
Very highly recommended |
In light of the above,
I intend to turn my attention to my Glanz G7 to see where fine tuning and perseverance can take me with this proclaimed 'top of the line' Glanz.
My auditions of it so far have not been as focused as those of the G5 and I have always simply exchanged cartridges in the same set up. Not ideal and to be addressed!
I will comment on my findings around the G7 when (and 'if') I am certain and have something useful to say.
As always |
Hi All,
I simply cannot optimize my G7 with my selection of tonearms. This is not to say that it cannot be optimized in other settings and I will wait until I do find just such a setting.
On the plus side of my latest meander, I have not discovered that the G7 line contact stylus adds something to the G5 cartridge (the stylus in the range are interchangeable). I have now settled for the G5 with G7 stylus as my ultimate Glanz.
Happy hunting to those who try.
As always... |
Nandric,
I would just note that there are over 11,000 others following this thread - some of whom I discuss matters with off site. You could think of it as my sharing experiences around a cartridge that (although possibly a better performer than anything you have heard)
few if any of you have yet experienced.
Your puzzling interest here does of course make you 11,001. Although I cannot pretend to fathom any further interest on your behalf, I am glad that you had the time and energy to make your interesting contribution.
As always... |
In my 02-18-12 posting, it should of course have read:
"I have 'now' discovered that the G7 line contact stylus adds something to the G5 cartridge..."
Apologies |
Hi All,
Thanks to a recent contribution, I thought it timely to reiterate a founding aim of this thread/diary.
To wit, I still hope other Glanz owners (most specifically those owning or having owned the G5, G7 or MFG71E/L) will chip in with contributions. I know that we are apparently very few (or possibly only one) among the Audiogon readership but perspectives or information that add to the related knowledge here would still be warmly welcomed.
Until such time, I hope my meanderings and reflections will not prove too painful for those who remain or become interested.
As always... |
Hi Raul,
I'm impressed by your close reading and support for sharing evolving impressions among the interested. I know you also share my experience of changing perspective with the ongoing exploration of other cartridges and bits of hifi. I think this is part of what is reflected within this thread and hope (should there be another long break between my posts) that this will not prove a problem for other interested readers.
I'll definitely contact you off site in spring/summer regarding our recent Essential discussions.
All the best in the meantime |
Sorry Raul,
Forgot to mention that I genuinely did not see anything wrong with Nandric's inquiry. He was obviously interested enough to both read and comment on my reflections and so (happy as I am with your support) I don't think there is really any problem here. And as you say, we are all of course free to share our experiences and/or to choose to ignore those of others.
As always... |
Hi All,
You might recall my noting that: "I have 'now' discovered that the G7 line contact stylus adds something to the G5 cartridge..."
This was because I was not satisfied with the performance of my G7 - having given it around 20 hours of testing. Hence, its M-7 stylus has been playing on my G5 for the past few months. It must have passed the 100 hours mark by now.
Well, I decided to try the G7 with its now run-in M-7 stylus reinstored on Sunday. WOW: there seems to be real grounds for a major reassessment!! However, what is apparent after only a few hours of playing this is that the G7 is an immense beast with dynamic, tonal and detail retrieval abilities that can both surprise and delight.
My task is now to assess it in light of the performance of my Technics 100 Mk4 and Glanz G5. I will feedback once any certainties are secured. This could form a review of the top of the range Glanz.
Obviously, my apologies to any reader who might take offence from what I share here.
As always... |
Hi All,
I have been discussing all things hifi with an Asian friend who knows more about the Audiocraft line than any else that I know. This led to a major finding of some significance.
Some will recall that I had a rather heated response to the suggestion that I was enjoying distortions on my Glanz (incidentally, I wonder if the mechanical properties and task that they are asked to do does not mean that 'all' cartridges show some distortion). This was because I do play Cello and often use my own play to test aspects of my analogue.
Anyway, the long and short of the matter is that I have recently found that the overhang for the AC3300 tonearm that I use is 13mm. I had concerns because it did not match the standardised 15mm overhang used in my Fiekert professional protractor. On using Audiocrafts own template (slightly more tricky to set up), I found that the overhang of my favoured medium mass wand was exact.
This explains why I have constantly found near perfection in listening to the G5 and G7 cartridges on that arm. I am currently listening to the G7 as my favoured cartridge and will report more after I have assessed and confirmed every aspect.
If any one else manages to get hold of a G series Glanz, I hope you use their provided template in the first place and find the pleasure that I seek to spread through this thread and my complete admiration.
As alway... |
Hi Nandric,
Apologies if I missed the humour although I did sense that some of your comments were very much tongue in cheek. I also wholly accept your point that these cartridges are dependent on any buyer having or obtaining tonearms that accept universal headshells. It is/was not my intention to exclude anyone from my debate. Hoever, for those who have such armwands or might consider obtaining one, I still hope that some of the information that arises (and that will continue to rise in the future!) on this thread will prove useful.
As always... |
Hi Nandric,
And thanks for your company in my loneliness.
As always... |
Hi Nadric,
Apolgies, I meant to say that there is a G3 cartridge available at the noted source - unfortunately, he might not be an economically attractive option though! If you already have the Astatic 300 and do nevertheless get this, you could do your own comparison and let us know your experience regarded the strangely repeated claims concerning the Astatic/Glanz. I sold my MF100 in preferring the G5 'and' G7. Others might disagree but it would be interesting to hear an informed opinion here.
As always... |
Hi Lewm,
And thanks for your sensible post. I have sold most of my MC's in recent years. The most memorable of these was the Allaerts MC2 Gold, Dynavector XV1s and the Lyra Parnassus. I also enjoy the Denon 103D on its traditional Grace 660p tonearm. That combination was apparently the original one that found fame while being used by the Japanese broadcasting corporation and is great fun.
I wholly agree with you about a possible reason for the apparent lack of online responses. However, I have been discussing and advising on the Glanz for some time now and the figures for those still interested continues to rise to around 13,000 viewers of this thread. I was being ironic about the loneliness issue but do nevertheless understand the apparent concern of Nandric who is obviously communicating from a position of ignorance here.
I do think they are great cartridges but continue to assess their qualities in light of my ongoing exposure to other cartridges and, of course, trusted opinions. I have continued to search for opinions and experience but I suspect that this is frustrated by the fact that the Japanese only seem to have sold their Glanz's to Europe and Asia (as far as I can find out), with the G3 and G5 models seeming to have only been sold in Japan. It took me a very long time to find my G7 and if I come across another or a G5 I will definitely let you know. |
Raul,
I have documented comment from yourself that you have NEVER heard a Glanz, but that you decided not to listen to any of their "G" range because of some prejudice you have about integrated cartridges. Has this position changed recently? If it has I would love to know the persons from whom you bought and to whom you sold it/them - as well as the experience you had and with which Glanz!
The links you reposted are clearly answered and developed on within the course of this thread but that might demand a closer reading. For example, I thought you were aware that I have fully assessed the Astatic/Glanz relationship and can confirm that the performance differences are as marked as the noted construction similarities. All of this is set out in this thread.
Of course, if prejudice is allowed to govern your experience, you can reject anything you like. I would like to think that you would not spread such blind prejudice and ignorance but we are obviously very different people.
As always... |
Hi Nandric,
I think we can appreciate your confusion in two statements:
1. "Raul and Dgob have, uh, the same 'teste'. The 'mystery' solved by Nandric?" and
2. "My intention was to state that Glanz 5 is the same as the Astatic FM 200"
Whatever the validity of the former view, I hope the above response to Raul answers your latter.
As always... |
Hi Nadric,
About other models, I have a limited knowledge and the continuation of this thread is largely based on my desire to learn more - an ambition that I still hope more enthusiasts would display. However, the G5 and G7 might be linked up in line with the Astatic 100 and 200. Yet the comparison does not hold up on close physical or sonic examination.
I do know that there is a G5 cartridge going in Hong Kong (Tommy Cheung) at present and that might be more similar to the noted Astatics than are the better in the "G" series. I would therefore start with the G3 and see if you can find the other two - moist likely on the Asian market and or through Rinkya.
The performance characteristics are notable and stepped with top end frequency abilities (fopr example) being above 30k, 40k and 50k for the G3, G5 and G7 respectively. I am still bogged down in life and rarely in testing the G7 and I will report when I have any certainties to share.
As always... |
Hi Halcro,
Sad to hear the bad news regarding your quest. I am certain there is a way around this however. If you have a friend (or A'gon associate) in America, I am certain that you could arrange for them to receive and pass it on to you!
Good luck
As always... |
Hi Lewm,
I can partially appreciate the tendency for others to assume relationships without recognising differences. It is a method by which one can order and make sense of the world. Unfortunately, that sort of approach leads to its own problems and I am certain that Nandric is too intelligent to allow it to entomb his experiences in perpetuity.
As always... |
Hi Nandric,
"Well this thread become 'something totaly different':
it is now about who knows better. Nobody invited Vetterone to demonstrate his knowledge so he obviuously invited him self."
I think (from my perspective) I have invited Vetterone to contribute. Indeed, that has been an underlying purpose of this thread and I only hope some more people with actual experience of the Glanz [particularly of the relevant and superior G series] will be encouraged to break cover and come forward. I continue to learn about these gems and benifit from that knowledge.
As always... |
Hi Vetterone,
I must start by apologising for the slight delay in responding but that was caused by personal demands that kept me occupied yesterday.
Anyway, in responding I should note that there exists too little information on the Glanz and most particularly on the "G" series. This includes the absence of the User Manual, Specifications sheet and test data that often accompany cartridges. That fact played a large part in my starting this thread. Hence, the little I know is still in need of kind contributions such as yours.
As far as I am aware, all the G and MFG series of Glanz and the Astatic MF series are - as you note - moving flux (MF). Of course that does not apply to the MG series of Glanz. Indeed, the literature from France positions 'those Glanz that it covers' as at the cutting edge of design by displaying a [then] new mf technology: "Les cellules GLANZ sont fabriquees au Japon par la societe MITACHI Corporation. Ces cellules sont dites a flux variable (Moving flux) nouveau procede dont le pricipe est le suivant..."
I should note that this technical commonality should not be seen to make the cartridges the same. As you note, THEY ARE CLEARLY NOT. It would be the equivalent of classing a Rolls Royce as the same as a Morris Minor because both share a combustion engine!! Equally, there appears to be no original literature treating of the G3 and G5 models. And so I can only discuss the differences that I have observed.
All of the G series [G1, G3, G5 and, ultimately, the G7] share the same fixing method and their styli are interchangeable and bear their common number: meaning they are the M1, M3, M5 and M7 styli, respectively. The G7 and top of each of their cartridge range [G7, MFG-71L, MFG-51L, MFG-31L and MG-70L] all use line contact stylus. All others use elliptical styli. This is an obvious difference concerning their performances.
Furthermore, even a cursory glance at the top Glanz G7, G5 and the Astatic MF-100 shows obvious differences. There is, for example, a conspicuous difference in materials used for the cantilever and its housing. But it is with regards to performance that you are correct to note the most important distinctions.
The Astatic is a very good cartridge but I do not feel that it is in the same domain as these Glanz. Coil windings, materials used, coupling mechanisms and output are distinct across them. And the G7 is, as you note, rated at a whopping 4.2mv. For testing purposes this means that you have to elevate the gain/volume control in order to place the other two on an equal footing when it comes to sheer scale and definition. The Glanz are simply better at retrieving detail than the Astatic and the G7 is better than the G5 on this aspect: once correctly set up and run-in!
Regarding the differences within the Glanz G series, the power and detail superiority of the G7 over the G5 is therefore not only down to their distinct output powers nor is it down to their distinct styli. This is easily tested by the noted volume alterations and by interchanging the styli and testing on both cartridges.
Incidentally, the G7 comes as close to repeating the accuracy that I detect with my Technics P100c MK4 as any cartridge I have heard. The most notable difference between the two is the Glanz's transient speed and dynamic impact. If you need a platform from which to best explore this distinction, there is no finer place than Solti's Mahler 8 (Decca). Due to the physical laws affecting the volume of sound on such a large and sonically complex work, this box set is one of the most difficult to replicate within a listening room. The G7 comes as close as anything I have ever heard. There are nevertheless delicacies with the Technics (on a Morch DP6) that I have also not heard replicated anywhere else. Conclusion? Both great cartridges but different.
I hope my slight knowledge proves useful and that further contributions are forthcoming.
As always
|
Hi Raul,
If you want to look at the available Glanz literature (some of which you have cited), you will see that there is direct performance differences and that (according to the company's literature and the available performance data) the G7 is superior to their non-integrated MF-line: including the MF-71L or E. However, as you found, the latter are far more easy to obtain. Incidentally, this is the first time to my knowledge that you have shared the information that you have ever heard [let alone owned and then sold on to a member of your own family] any Glanz.
Despite what might appear otherwise, I do respect your opinion on many matters. However, ignorance cannot be a ground to accept your views here. It seems that personal experience cannot overcome your prejudices and that is your right.
Nevertheless, I cannot fathom why you would wish to go against just about every positive and educational comment you have ever made about learning and being open to actual experience when determining cartridges!? Indeed, the MM/MI thread is littered with your references to that effect and presents itself as an attempt to do precisely that with a form of cartridge that had suffered unjust 'prejudice' [here meaning, 'judgements made before or without adequate information/experience']. Maybe the difference here is that you tend to stand as arbiter of those favoured cartridges!? Other than that I could only fathom your response as being directed at me rather than the cartridges.
I hope that is not the case as it would be a pity to let anything so churlish get in the way of good musical experiences.
As always... |
Hi Vetterone,
I would just like to say a huge thanks for bringing additional knowledge to bear on this thread. It is a little late here now but I will attempt to respond properly when I log back on in the morning.
Kind regards
As always... |
Sorry Nandric,
I have never heard it. However, if it is the MFG-61'L', it should be a good buy. I think that if you can get it at a reasonable price, it will be useful just to explore for yourself. Obviously, I do rate the Glanz that I have tried and other fora are positive about other Glanz.
Good luck either way
As always... |
Hi Nandric,
Just to add that I have not stated that these Glanz are "the best": I still lean towards the Technics when giving out such meaningless accolades. In this sense I suppose my reflections have helped me mature to the point where I now appreciate the view of Siniy123 and Jcarr who have both suggested to me that "there is NO perfect cartridge". They all make compromises due to natural mechanical limitations and the nature of the tasks that they are being asked to perform.
However, as I hope has emerged through this thread, I do think that they are "great" cartridges that have largely been overlooked. This fact and my own fascination with their unexpected performance has driven this thread. That is why I baulk at the blind dismissal and its potential to deter others from trying them out (should the opportunity arise). That's all.
As always... |
Hi All,
Just one more point on the 420STR revamp: it needs careful set up as very small changes (say in VTF and VTA) have a larger than normal affect on its performance. Within a couple of millimetres of parallel it can move from a super rich, midrange vibrant performer to a lean, critical and super analytical one.
Hope this helps.
As always... |
Hi All,
It might be helpful if I address a couple of myths that are circulating on this thread. The first bewildering piece of misinformation is that integrated cartridges lose something to their so called "stand-alone" brethren. Rubbish!
Both Glanz and Nagoaka, foir example, would seem to disagree with that statement. Notably, with both the G series of the former and MP series of the latter, there is clear and explicit statement by its actual makers that their integrated headshell versions are sonically superior. But amateur hifi enthusiasts beg to differ even where they have never heard or tested these!?
The other baffling piece of puerile drivel involves that same reference to stand-alone cartridges. I take it that this is referring to cartridges using the normal ½ inch universal headshell mount. It need hardly be seen as rocket science to appreciate that those headshells deprive such cartridges of being anything like stand alone. Some of these enthusiasts also suggest that the importance of finding the right/best headshell for any cartridge is paramount. However, the same people have again denied the manufacturers of these golden age gems the credit of having tested and selected a mounting which optimises their cartridges!? My own personal testing and experience finds accord with the manufacturers and bafflement with the blind critics.
A consequent myth that follows on the soiled coat tails of the headshell one is that all integrated cartridges suffer similar problems and assumedly performance characteristics: whether they are Nagaka, Glanz or Ortofon, for example. I wont even bother unpicking the problems with that form of prejudiced nonsense. The thoughtful readers will draw their own conclusions.
As always
|
Hi All,
It might be helpful if I address a couple of myths that are circulating on this thread. The first bewildering piece of misinformation is that integrated cartridges lose something to their so called "stand-alone" brethren. Rubbish!
Both Glanz and Nagoaka, foir example, would seem to disagree with that statement. Notably, with both the G series of the former and MP series of the latter, there is clear and explicit statement by its actual makers that their integrated headshell versions are sonically superior. But amateur hifi enthusiasts beg to differ even where they have never heard or tested these!?
The other baffling piece of puerile drivel involves that same reference to stand-alone cartridges. I take it that this is referring to cartridges using the normal ½ inch universal headshell mount. It need hardly be seen as rocket science to appreciate that those headshells deprive such cartridges of being anything like stand alone.
Some of these enthusiasts also suggest that the importance of finding the right/best headshell for any cartridge is paramount. However, the same people have again denied the manufacturers of these golden age gems the credit of having tested and selected a mounting which optimises their cartridges!? My own personal testing and experience finds accord with the manufacturers and bafflement with the blind critics.
A consequent myth that follows on the soiled coat tails of the headshell one is that all integrated cartridges suffer similar problems and assumedly performance characteristics: whether they are Nagaka, Glanz or Ortofon, for example. I wont even bother unpicking the problems with that form of prejudiced nonsense. The thoughtful readers will draw their own conclusions.
As always
|
Hi All,
Apologies for the repeated post: although I am clearly not alone in that respect. |
Hi All,
So two screws connecting disparate materials and then requiring randomly standardised lengths of connecting wires (to transmit the stabilised signal that runs through that connection) is the best way of optimising your cartridge?
Interesting. But other than that, I see nothing that moves away from the points I have raised above. |
BTW,
For those interested, you can check the price differentials for the additional headshell and fixture type cartridge and the integrated type. I mention this in case anyone should feel that a description such as 'plug-and-play' would some how infer cheapness or some form of inferiority. To wit, I'd also refer to the manufacturer's own statements already referenced in this thread.
As always... |
Apologies,
That should of course have read: "the price differentials for the additional headshell and fixture type cartridge and the integrated type cartridges that I have mentioned." |
Hi Nandric,
"You also dismissed Ortofon SPU and EMT with a very strange 'foundation' : for some silly Japanese?"
I am not wholly surprised. Cartridge/people? An easy digression!
As always... |
Raul,
Everyone is free to read and judge your comments and make their own decisions: hopefully in the light of a few facts:
1. You have simply NEVER heard the cartridges about which you have repeatedly announced a keen dislike!? [That underpins your desperate scratching around to find things/a logic that - "apparently" - support your hatred.]
2. You have now contradicted every tenet on which you argued the case for antique MM/MI cartridges and you have done so in a manner that would have been more fitting of the received wisdom that often stated that MC's were more modern and therefore better?
Is this mere dishonesty? Or is it an ego related failing? I am not certain. It does make we wonder about your constant exclamations that "I have said all I have on Glanz" (assumedly here meaning, 'nothing').
No, your willingness to spit out negative comments about a cartridge that you feel no shame in admitting that you have never heard seems to suggest more hidden motives and recalls the recently mentioned bard. As the infamous Iago concludes his part in the drama that he has helped to unfold:
"Iago: 'Demand me nothing. What you know, you know. From this time forth I never will speak word."
And yet, as though some monarch-like ghost wondering the battlements of his demise, here you stand providing what seems to me to be the same blind criticism.
I'm only saying
As always... |
Hi Nandric,
I'm not really sure that I follow your last post but that seems fine!?
As always... |
Sorry Nadric,
It's early here and so I just spotted the linguistic link (shine, glanz).
I would hope that the repeating on the MM/MI thread might bring more Glanz users forward. I'd still like the forms of discussion around set up tips, tonearm matching preferences, vtf, sra etc. I'd also love to think that some former or current users of the Glanz G series would have anecdotal and personal reflections that might help situate these gems in experiiental time and space.
As always... |
Hi All,
Does anyone know of or have anything useful to say about the following? http://www.sibatech.co.jp/glanz/index.html.
I am just concidering their potential performance and how might match with the G series so I would appreciate any information here also.
As always... |
Hi All,
Fleib posted the following on the MM/MI thread:
"Using a removable headshell you're much more likely to have vibrations remain in the headshell as they hit the headshell coupling. I have some arms with removable headshells, and I think this is true. IMO it's better to avoid additional resonance, retain greater arm rigidity, and allow the arm to dissipate mechanical energy."
This seems to make sense to me and might explain (in part) the biggest comparitive difference in the performance of the integrated cartridges that I have recently explored. This would still be the case even 'if' all other design factors were the same. That would also suggest the grounds behind Nagaoka and Glanz views of their own benchmark cartridges!
As always... |
The above obviously relates to additional couplings and mechanical response - although not really treating of the issues surrounding coupling disparate build materials. The universal headshell and fixing screws are of course, as has already been pointed out, a useful way to tune in our prefered distortions.
As always... |
Hi Vetterone,
That sounds fascinating about the MFG-61. I had made the assumption that you note which probably points back to the lack of available information. Along these lines, I'd be interested in seeing any Glanz cartridge literature that you possess if you could let me know anything I can do to assist here, please let me know.
Hopefully, Nandric grabs the availalbe model and lets us all know about his experience.
As always... |
Hi All,
Regarding the differences and similarities between the Glanz and Astatic range, I thought the following detail with the various patents that underpin these might prove enlightening:
"4072823 1978 Minamizono 'Mitachi Onkyo Seisakusho (brand name ""GLANZ"")' 'Pickup cartridge called as' 'Moving Flux'(see also 4011417). Unique construction having merit of MM/IM/MC. 'Also see Design patent D266504(1982) assigned to The Astatic Corporation (cartridge model MF200)'. Also '4123067 about unique stylus pivot suspension (embodied in model G-7 cartridge)'."
This might explain the preferences some have for the Astatic MF-200. However, it does suggest a uniqueness to the Glanz G-7 that might explain its distinct sound from the Astatic and Glanz cartridges that I have heard. It does suggest specific differences in and between both Glanz and Astatic cartridges.
The G7 continues to fascinate me but others (say the MFG-61o) might still supersede it in my ultimate estimations. Speaking of the latter, which was only recently brought to my attention by Vetterone, Grammophone April 1985, does note the new range of Glanz and the supremacy of the MFG-61o among that MFG range:
"In their 'moving flux'; range is the new MFG-310 (L4195) having a stylus lock fitment, glass-fibre body and line-contact diamond stylus. There is also a top model, the MFG-6Io (89) with a hollow boron cantilever, and a budget moving-magnet cartridge, the Glanz MG-70 at £1495."
Again, this seems to suggest the real variety of construction detail that affects Glanz. I hope Nandric decides to get hold of the 61o and lets us all know his perception of its strengths and weaknesses. I also continue to hope that more contributions and information are forthcoming.
As always... |
Hi Nandric,
I'm wondering if Glanz (as with other manufacturers of the time) might have released several ranges. That would mean that the normal (Line contact or elliptical) options in their already discussed MFG range could exist along side the MFG-31o and MFG-61o etc? Maybe Vetterone can chip in here with more hard data or information.
If your 61o comes with the associated literature, maybe you could share your knowledge with us when you have it. I look forward to hearing about your pending arrival and your impressions.
Good luck
As always... |
Incidentally,
The price quoted for the MG-70 (£1.5k) is around the price I paid for my own Glanz, which were in immaculate condition. It's not cheap for moving magnets but it's still better than a MC of anywhere near their performance levels (not that I have any experience with any such MC cartridge at present!).
That reassurance just about keeps me from dispair!
As always... |
Hi All,
Well I just completed the revamp of my Morch DP6 Precision red point (with the kind help from Hans Moerch) and have now played it in its platonic partnership with my Axelised Technics EPC P100C MkIV.
In setting up, I spent a good time ensuring alignment. This resulted in my discarding the Morch 18mm template and adopting the Feikert (Baerwald) protractor for pivot-spindle mounting distance; overhang; effective length; angular offset and linear offset. It then involved ensuring absolute accuracy in azimuth setting of the cartridge by adjustments of the Morch using its hexagonal screw adjuster: this seems important as the P-mount Technics needs to account for its mounting adaptor and potential idiosyncracies. My adaptor follows Raul's recommendation and has had the original pins removed so that the silver lugs on my Morch connect directly to the pins on the Technics. VTF was set at 1.255g and VRA parallel to around 1 degree positive: for all intents and purpose, that's parallel. A spot of SC-2 high technology stylus cleaning fluid on a stylus brush followed by a quick clean of the cartridge tip. Then use the Entos carbon record brush and I was set to go.
I played records with the Essential in mute for ten hours and then turned it on and sat back. Wow, wow and WOW!!! I do not believe analogue reproduced sound can get any better than this. Every detail, every nuance, ever emotion laid bare right before my eyes-hears. The length of strengths are so extensive that I do not believe I could do them justice in anything less than a four page eulogy and I am not inclined (even 'if' capable) to give such an extended and largely personal account. Suffice it to say, I could find NO weakness in the performance of this Morch/Technics combination and would hope other combinations enable everyone to share the shear exhilaration and pleasure that they now afford me. Magnifincent.
The question is: how does that leave my Glanz G7/Audio Craft AC3300 LB combination? The answer is that this combination gives the same presentation except with a smidgen less refinement. Please do not get this wrong. I still find this combination wholly convincing but the two combinations seeem to display different aesthetic objectives and aims of their design teams. Think same music in two acoustically very distinct venues and you're nearly there. I am finished in my search for a life-long MM/MI/MF collection and the Glanz and Technics are my point of arrival.
Now my search turns to their equivalents for my final MC selections. Fun times ahead.
As always... |
Hi Nandric,
Hopefully, your Glanz wont let down the performance standards set by your other new acquisitions.
I look forward to hearing.
As always... |
