I have just acquired an old Glanz G5 moving magnet cartridge. However, I cannot find out any details about this or the Glanz range or, even the company and its history.
Can anyone out there assist me in starting to piece together a full picture?
Any experiences with this or other Glanz's; web links; set up information etc would be warmly received. Surely someone knows something!
Dear chakster, Thanks for all your efforts to inform your co-members about MM carts in general and Glanz in particular. But I want to first explain difference with Astatic kind. Both Glanz and Astatic ordered their samples with specific requirements. Astatic ordered output of 4.2 mV and Shibata styli
My friend, you're a bit wrong: Astatic MF-2500 (claimed by the Mexican to be the best of Astatic) has 3mV Ouput and Line Contact Stylus on aluminum cantilever, just look the the manual.
while Glanz output is 3.5 mV and either line contact or elliptical styli.
You're right about Glanz output, but you're wrong about styli, because Glanz 61 has Special PH stylus, look at the manual. Both Glanz and Astatic have some cheap models with Nude and Bonded Elliptical and even with Conical styli too. You're right that Shibata profile available only with Astatic. But Glanz has PH stylus on top model.
The difference between PH Stylus and LineContact stylus is here.
Specification for ALL Glanz (except 61) is on page-1 and page-2
When we look at your pictures of Glanz 61, 31 and 71 we can clearly see the aluminum tube behind the cantilever.
Yes, Glanz 61 has aluminum collar (joint pipe) around the Boron Rod cantilever, just like the most expensive Nagaoka MP-500 btw. I have better cartridges than Glanz 61, but they are from different manufacturers and much more expensive.
Even with a joint pipe hebing the Boron Rod cantilever the Glanz 61 is clearly the best model made by Mitachi. This is all i'm trying to say (and explaining why).
To put this otherwise there is no such thing as ''pure boron'' or other ''exotic cantilever'' because the aluminum tube behind them is part of the moving parts.
Well, not on all vintage MM, my Grace LEVEL II and F14 does not have a joint pipe behing the Boron cantilevers. They are all have pure Boron, Ruby, Sapphire, Beryllium, Ceramic cantilevers (depends on the model).
To my knowledge retip of one MM cart is done by cutting the existent cantilever and gluing the new cantilever IN or OVER the restant of the old cantilever. That is why I never retiped any MM cart.
I don't retip MM cartridges, i don't buy refurbished MM cartridges, only originals and always looking for NOS genuine styli for them.
Dear chakster, Thanks for all your efforts to inform your co-members about MM carts in general and Glanz in particular. But I want to first explain difference with Astatic kind. Both Glanz and Astatic ordered their samples with specific requirements. Astatic ordered output of 4.2 mV and Shibata styli while Glanz output is 3.5 mV and either line contact or elliptical styli. I am not sure how damping is constructed by MM carts. I do know how those with ''tension wire'' are constructed. When we look at your pictures of Glanz 61, 31 and 71 we can clearly see the aluminum tube behind the cantilever. This is usual by MC carts and is called ''joint pipe'' IN which the cantilever is glued and ON which the coils are fastened. The same ''pipe'' is connected with the generator with tension wire. To put this otherwise there is no such thing as ''pure boron'' or other ''exotic cantilever'' because the aluminum tube behind them is part of the moving parts. To my knowledge retip of one MM cart is done by cutting the existent cantilever and gluing the new cantilever IN or OVER the restant of the old cantilever. That is why I never retiped any MM cart. By MC kinds also damping can be easy changed by loosening the tension wire , removing the the moving part and installing the ''rubber ring'' on the generator behind the coils.
The largest high-end distributor in Italy (Giancarlo Bonetti) teamed up with Japanese Mitachi Corporation in the 80’s to release a dedicated custom made phono cartridge called Azzurra Esoter. In 1983 Italian yacht Azzurra from Sardinia won Louis Vuitton Cup held in Newport, Rhode Island, United States. The City of Newport is located approximately 119 km south of Boston. Azzurra, skippered by Mauro Pelaschier (Yacht Club Costa Smeralda), came 3rd in that competition. The original Azzurra team was very popular in Italy at that time, they got even their own phono cartridge which is a nice souvenir!
For audiophiles there are much better cartridges from the same Japanese manufacturer (Mitachi Corporation). Here is my ex Glanz MFG-31L with nude LineContact stylus on Aluminum cantilever.
And the ultimate Glanz MFG-61 with special "PH" type stylus on the most expensive Boron cantilever. I’m not surpriced that Glanz/Mitachi engineers preferred BORON for their top of the line model of Moving Flux cartridge. That was the pinnacle of MF design reached in the early 80’s as you can read in the manual. Few more pictures of the Glanz 61 in my system about 3-4 years ago on different arms/turntables: on Reed 3p / SP10mkII and on upgraded SL1210mkII
I’M GONNA TELL YOU THE SHOCKING NEWS:
GLANZ = MITACHI
Glanz is a family brand owned by Mitachi Cotrporation.
This is one of the reason why the very best Moving Flux cartridge was made ONLY under the Glanz name, because they own Galnz and they own Moving Flux patent.
The best MF cartridge was made in Japan by Japanese engineers for Japan, and distributed overseas too.
Astatic (US/Canada) is just like Azzurra (Italy) did absolutely nothing, except the sales of the japanese cartridges in different cosmetic design such as different color and different logo on it. They did not engineered those carts, they got them from Mitachi (Japan). And the manufacturer just made them slightly different (Shibata instead of LineContact on the same cheap alumimum cantilevers for example). Astatic is not better than Glanz. That’s it, face it.
As promised in another thread @harold-not-the-barrel@lewm @halcro @travbrow ... i will make my revision on Glanz/Astatic/Jamo/Azzurra manufactured in Japan by Mitachi Corporation. Now with exclussive pictures of my MFG-61 (i hope you will check all of them below, click on the links).
3 years ago i’ve sold all my Glanz cartridges to keep just one.
This is not a typical vintage MM/MI or MC, the patent for unique Moving Flux technology belog to Mr Tsugikuma Minamizono (Japan). Mitachi Corporation made some very nice MF cartridges in the 70s/80s for US/Canadian brand Astatic, for Danish Jamo and for Italian Azzurra.
But ONLY for domestic Japanese brand, technical engineers of Mitachi Corporation designed the ultimate Moving Flux model in 1982. The Glanz MFG-61 is stand alone cartridge!
From the original manual: "MFG-61, as the most prestige model among Glanz MF cartridges, employs BORON cantilever in order to achieve maximum efficiency at the electro-magnetic mechanism, where characterized most advanced feature of MF cartridge, when the energy is converted from mechanical vibration system to electric vibration system. BORON is considered as an ideal material of cantilever in its character that transmits sound to fast as 7 times than Aluminum, due to its large young rate and small specific gravity. With use of Boron cantilever, the signal picked up from disc to specially designed PH stylus tip is faithfully transfered to the conversion system, and hi-fidelity sound reproduced."
The rest of the MF cartridges made by Mitachi Corporation for other brands does not have such cantilever and diamond. This fact makes the Glanz MFG-61 highly collectible and much better sounding.
1) From the printed Glanz MF-61 manual:
-Output Voltage: 3.5 mV -Output Channel Balance: 1.0 or less -Inductance: 120 -Tracking force 1.5 (+/- 0.25) -Stylus tip: SPECIAL DESIGN "PH" TIP -Cantilever: BORON
I’m wondering why the frequency response specified as 20-20000 only, in fact this cartridge has extended frequency response that easily compete with my ex Technics 205c mk4 with 5-100000 range specified in the manual. So i think the frequency response measurement on paper is pretty concervative at Mitachi. I have the same spects for my Garrott P77.
Some other Mitachi cartridges that does not come even close to the sound of this rare MFG-61 is Glanz MFG-31L, Astatic MF-200, Glanz MFG-71L, Astatic MF-100 and Azzurra Esoter. In the next posts i will add more pictures, so anyone could compare cantilevers of them all.
In my opinion US/Canada Astatic loose the contest, because their MF-2500 has Aluminum cantilever and LineContact stylus. As we can see the rest of the models does not have even Nude Diamonds, they are all bonded on Astatic cartridges. Being an old brand the Astatic has never designed MF cartridges, they bought them from Mitachi to sell under Astatic brand, the US patent for MF cartridges belong to Mitachi. Even the paper printed in Japan.
2) From the printed Astatic MF-2500 manual:
-Output Voltage: 3 mV -Output Channel Balance: 1.0 or less -Inductance: 120 -Tracking force 1.25 (+/- 0.25) -Stylus tip: Solid Diamond LineContact -Weight 5g
Astatic really did nothing about the design of the generator or stylus/cantilever, what they did is their own distribution/sales in US and Canada. BTW Astatic own MM cartridges are crap, and probably low price even for MF carts they got from Mitachi was much more important for them than to ask for some exotic cantilevers.
While the Glanz was a Japanese brand and goes deeper to utilize superior (and much more expensive) cantilever and stylus for their top of the line model made by Mitachi. Technology came from Japan and domestic brand received them faster.
The manufacturer clearly said the Glanz MFG-61 is most prestige model among Moving Flux cartridges . The date on in the Bruel & Kjaer individual test is 1982.07.04
Who is Glanz you ask? Nowadays the Glanz is back in business with High-End tonearms. Glanz tonearms are manufactured by Hamada Electric in Shizuoka, Japan and exported by Sibatech Inc.
Mitachi Acoustics for whom Mr. Hamada developed various analog products was founded in 1951 under the brand name Glanz and closed in 2003. In 1980 Hamada-San established Hamada Electric and secured the Glanz brand license from the Mitachi family in 2008. To quote from the advertising literature: "Beyond time Glanz’s legend has been revived. Many long-established audio manufacturers have vanished since analog audio entered its glacial epoch with the advent of digital. Against this tide Glanz issued products such as tone arms and phono cartridges favored by audiophiles to survive with its ingenious technology. The birth of an ultimate tone arm—the Glanz—proves the real advantage of analog audio and talks of its regeneration."
P.S. Special thanks to Elli who emailed me the original printed manual for Astatic MF-2500 and Glanz MFG-61 that i have compiled with my own pictures of the cartridge/cantilever and my ZYX LIVE-18 headshell.
I took some nice pictures of my Glanz MFG-31L and MFG-71L before they went to happy customers. I decided to keep Glanz 61 as this is clearly the best Glanz i have owned (beats everything else).
When i put micro lens on my iphone i’m happy with this kind of pictures i can take, never expected this effect (no filters) under the sun (from my window). It’s like a Space Odyssey of the Glanz.
BTW Axel did a great job repaired suspension on NOS Glanz 71L. When i tried the original the suspension was dead (but the diamond was NOS), after Axel's treatment it's like new again.
@nandric If would be nice if you can email me the copy of glanz 61 manual. I own Glanz 61 cartridge (one of my favorite), but without manual. If your copy of the manual still available please sent to chakster45 on gmail
@nandric no, the Glanz M series carts are not MC as it's clearly stated MF = "moving flux", not moving coil design. Those M series are not listed in dadabase or elsewhere, unfortunately. But the stylus replacement for G-7 cart. is M-7
specs for G-7 below:
■ Price \ 42,800 yen ■ power generation method MF type ■ output voltage 3mV (5cm / sec 1kHz) ■ needle pressure 1.5g ± 0.25g ■ Play frequency band 10-50,000Hz ■ Channel separation 25dB / 1kHz ■ Channel balance ■ compliance 12 × 10-6cm / dyne ■ DC resistance ■ load resistance ■ Impedance 2kΩ / 1kHz ■ needle tip line contact needle ■ own weight 19g ■ exchange needle M-7 (\ 20,000) ■ Release 1977 ■ discontinued 1984-85 circa ■ Remarks price those of 1977
One Glanz MFG-31L (line contact) is on ebay now, i can let it go since i have mysterious 61 model to keep for myself. I hope it’s ok to post it here for those who searchin’ for trully amazing Glanz cartridges and couldn’t find them (it’s not that easy, i know).
Dear Harold, There is this old Aristotelian 'methodology' about the 'essence of things'. Well your 'neverending story' seems to be the 'essence' of our hobby. Your 'digit' assumption however is ,alas, false. This 'lesser' number 61 seems to be better than my own higher number 71.
Fascinating is the search for the mysterious MF...and MM/MI cart(s). This may very well be a neverending story/thread, after all... Still, logically the highest digit confirms the finest, so the 71 must be that ?
Dear Vetterone, How can I forget you while continually dreaming about your plinth for my SP-10? BTW refering to whatever user manual is not much of a proof for anything. My own, included by my 31L seems to be the most recent. (In)there as the top line are mentioned 71,51 and 31 while no sign of this misterious 61 can be found. If Dover has not informed me to have 'got' one I would still think that this 61 is a product of your rich imagination. But now that must believe that this 61 exist I decided to sell my Glanz collection. Out of frustration of course.
Dear Vetterone, Many thanks for your very informative review of those vintage GLANZ flagships. Maybe the MFG-XXXLX series were imported exclusively to this North European Frontier, kinda opposite to the Japanese market (grin). I should have had bought it when it was available for a very short time, young and foolish was I !
The MFG-61 with its special tiny stylus tip and boron cantilever may very well be the finest of the GLANZ MF carts.
Harold, I wish I knew the answer to your question about the MFG-610LX vs the MF-61. Since I have zero knowledge of the 610LX, I can't help. I can tell you the MFG-61's owner manual calls the stylus a "specially designs PH stylus". The owner's manual also states "MFG-61, as the most prestige Glanz MF cartridge". Not sure if it is a Line Contact or not but the 61's stylus is the smallest stylus I have owned. I do have a USB microscope and it looks like a LC but smaller than any other I have seen. The 61 also has a boron cantilever.
Dear Harold, The nomenclature of the most carts is inscrutable. Think of AT, AKG, Empire, etc.. I have the user manual included by my Glanz 31 l with the 'whole' series imported by Glanz then from Mitachi company in Japan. There are specs of 8 carts with 71,51 and 31 as the 'top line'. But your 610 LX and 310 LX are not included. There is also no mentioninig of this 61 model or version so both Vetterone and Dover enjoyed teasing me with the fact(?) that they own this 'treausere' and I do not. So while I am not very optimistic in 'nature' I still hope that both will inform us about this misterious cart.
Dear Nandric, In mid 80´s this MFG-610LX was the best GLANZ model for sale, at least in this European frontier. The stylus tip is Line Contact. In my younger and not so wealthy days I had to be very careful when spending my money on high fidelity things such as expensive phono cartridges. I had to choose between SHURE V15V-MR and that peculiar GLANZ. Just previously I had experienced the excellent MFG-310LX. I chose the SHURE instead. Had I chosen the GLANZ, would I still be enjoying it ? I mean as much as the ULTRA 500 with witch I completed my MM search 25 years ago I ? Mysteries of life... Yes, we must ask Dover.
Dear Harold, To know if A is similar to B one need to know something about both or, at least, to have seen them both. To my knowlege only two lucky b's own this misterious Glanz: Vetterone and Dover. Vetterone also owns many other Glanz - as well other other carts. Alas he is to busy with his inventions so we may get some comment from Dover ?
Dear Jmowbray, Dgob got my best (G5), Henry got my worse (51L) and you can get my second best (aka 71l). BTW those Glanz are MF not MI. The 71 l is the same as the Astatic 100 MF.
I've got a Signet TK7E on the way and saw posts on this thread talking about substituting the AT155LC stylus in it. What about the LPGear stylus the ATSAT0155LCU?
Just to highlight two more criteria that I believe distinguished the G7:
1. It's superior ability to resolve complex passages while displaying all instruments and acoustic nuances accurately and 2. It phenomenal detail retrieval abilities (only approached by the Axel transformed Acutex 420STR and Technics 100Mk4), which links to the above.
I've been testing the Audio Technica AT150 ANV cartridge and been really impressed by it's performance (midrange in particular). Having given it a couple of months devoted listening this impression improved with the matching of it to a suitably light armwand and experimenting for perfect alignment. A lovely cartridge.
However, over the past ten days I have been A/B comparing it against my Glanz G7 and comparing both of these against the same tracks heard on my Marantz CDP. In order of performance (concerning frequency extension, imaging, dynamic range, timbre and tonal accuracy and overall realism) here is the order of their relative performances:
1. G7 2. Marantz CDP 3. AT150 ANV.
As with most explorations, I have really gained from the time spent with the ANV and it has helped confirm just how great a cartridge the Glanz is. You do of course need to match it to a tonearm whose perfect overhang is precisely 50mm from the tonearm/universal headshell collar. Good fortune afforded me the Audio Craft AC3300 LB arm, with which the Glanz G5 and G7 truly sing. Joyous and even more highly recommended!
In an ordinal system like Glanz ranking order the numbers on the carts express their place in this ranking. Consequently the top of the Glanz carts is numbered as: 31, 51, 61 and 71. As far as I know I am the only one who owns the 71. Sorry fellows.
Hi Dover, so glad to hear you are hearing what the '61 can do for your rig. I think mine continued to smooth out on top and deliver more vocal textures and bigger, tighter bass for around 20-25 hours.
I wish everyone could hear this, especially Nandric. Seriously, I wish there could be a way to build this cartridge again. Alas, that seems doubtful.
Dearest Nandric, As Booker T sang, Time is Tight and as I get older, it becomes more and more valuable but it is worth every minute I spend reading your cerebral thoughts.
Are you OK Nandric? I am concerned you may have had a stroke or suffered a severe head injury. Your offer of trading your G5 for one of my SP10 plinths is so crazy generous I am concerned for your health. I could never take advantage of you like that, I would never be able to live with myself. Besides, I have my own G5.
Vetterone, 2nd day of listening, the top end has smoothed out considerably and I lightened the tracking force. I suspect the cartridge suspension was a bit stiff initially and is now running in. The capture of the body of instruments and inner detail through the midrange is quite exceptional. One of my many tests for transparency is Jimmy Witherspoon - 1959 Monterey Jazz Festival - recorded live on Everest ( in a noisy bar ) - bags of ambient noise, booming mikes, bar talk etc and great music - passes with flying colours.
Dear Vetterone, Glad to see you got at last some free time for the discussion with the common mortals. I assume that even inventions can be boring from time to time? Well our Dover knows about human nature so he posted some pictures as proof for the exsistance of this misterious Glanz 61. I want mention the Almighty in this context but think about the money we in Europe spend for Cern in order to show that those small Higs particles exist. Now if you and Dover could hear the Glanz 5 you both would be able to make a real interesting comparison. BTW I am still wiling to swap my Glanz 5 for one of your plinths for my SP 10. What about this generous proposal?
Congratulations. I still believe the Glanz cartridges are at the very top table of high end sound. I am still to hear the MFG-61 but expect nothing less than excellence and hope more become available to spread the joy.
Your description of the MFG 61's sound are very close to what I hear. I have used it in several different modern tonearms but have yet to try with any of my vintage arms.
When I read it sounded slow to you, I was confused but you shortly changed that to "very quick" and then I felt better. Your description of it sounding more like a MC is right on. I also prefer MC carts to MM carts but the '61 is my exception. One of my friends call the '61 "the magic cart". I think he nailed it.
Hi all, Managed to find an early Xmas present a few weeks ago - Glanz MFG61. Purchased from a German gentleman. Please find attached pictures here - Glanz MFG61 Initial impressions mounted on FR64S running into Theta B Revised tube preamp were big, big midrange, massive soundstage very detailed but a bit slow. Then tweaked the azimuth and the sound took off like a rocket - very quick. So far it is early days, but the overall sound is big, alive, big midrange, slightly warm and fat bottom end ( but still in control ) - top end can be a little edgy. Soundstage is large, instruments have a lot of body, but not bloated. It sounds more like a MC than any MM. I generally prefer moving coils - I have in my stable Dynavector Nova 13D, Ikeda Kiwame, Fidelity Research FR1mk3F, Denon 103D and my daily runner - Koetsu Black. This is easily the best MI/MM cartridge I have had other than the Garrott Bros Decca London ( Gold and Maroon ). Other MM's owned - Grace F9E F9E Ruby ( both pathetic ), Shure V15V ( Vxmr & Vmr ) ( very musical when mounted in ET2 but not hugely resolving ), Garrott P77 ( very vibrant when matched correctly with suitable arm & preamp, rolled off in top end ) and Sumiko Andante ( ok for budget MM ). I would highly recommend this cartridge if you can find it. Thanks to Dgob and Vetterone for highlighting this great find.
Dear Henry, There are mechanical engineering schools with their specific 'design ethic' but my 'picture' of the 'Teutonic appearance' is more connected with cruisers, aircraft carriers, tanks ans similar 'subjects' by the German education of the Japanese engineers.How then the big Micro tables and the big FR- tonearms become by-products of this 'design ethics' I have no idea.
Dear Nikola, I think you are right..... The Fidelity Research FR-64s and FR-66s tonearms have a very Teutonic appearance. The big Micro tables also have that same design ethic IMHO?
Mechanical damping comes in many forms - in the Naim Aro that I have the location of the counterweight and the lowering of the centre of gravity to below the pivot point provides about 6db of mechanical damping to the stylus. Furthermore the bearing deisign - radiused tip sitting in a slightly larger radius cup provides another 2-3db of mechanical damping. Thus mechanical damping can be achieved without the use of chewing gum, blue tack, rubber bands, ky jelly and other addons if an arm is well designed.
Martin Colloms - Stereophile Lowering the counterweight to about record level has given the ARO excellent stability. This also lowers the center of gravity to below the pivot point, providing about 6dB of mechanical damping of the stylus. Another 2dB or 3dB seem to come from the bearing cup, which has a sapphire insert. The bearing is the ARO's stroke of genius. In other unipivots, a sharp pin is mounted to the turntable and the arm carries a cup which sits atop the pivot point. The ARO's arm carries the sharp tip, resting this atop a stationary cup: a true mechanical ground, and the only spiked tonearm I know of!
From an engineering point of view a true self centering unipivot provides the most rigid bearing possible in a tonearm - no chattering, no sloppy bearings, no drag on maladjusted gimbal bearings. No jitter or dither !
In my system the Aro is more resolving than the Fidelity Research FR64S.
The Graham has an upside down bearing - cup is in the arm - is not a true mechanical ground in the context of Martin Colloms comments above. This coupled with excessive arm tube dampening was the reason I chose the Aro over the Graham several years ago..
As an aside the Hadcock is not a true unipivot - the spike sits in the crook of nested ball bearings with multiple points of contact. Similarly I believe that the Satin "unipivot" that Raul lauds uses a nested ball bearing system as well and I suspect is not a true unipivot.
Dear Henry, 'The Bavarian audiophiles (and the Japanese) know their onions'. I first thought about their 'onions' in the context of being alliance in both (I +II) wars. But I now think that the Germans think about FR-66 as their own... This is because Japanese are educated in mechanical engeneering in Germany even before the first one. So they are a kind of a spirutual father of the FR-66 as one among (many) other armours.
Regards, Halcro: Agreed, Henry, although I do believe you are teasing me! However there are other means of damping a tonearm. Fluid damping is effective when there is a mismatch of cartridge compliance and tonearm mass, evident in "scrubbing" of the stylus in the groove and sometimes of the entire TA. Woofer pumping may also occur. It also serves to dampen vibration. Filling the TA tube with the material of your choice, wrapping with heat shrink tubing, anodizing, or strategic placement of neoprene washers or Blue Tack are thought by some to also be effective means of dealing with vibrational feedback. Alternate materials such as wood or carbon fiber used in construction of the arm tube are other options.
Both of my Technics EPA arms incorporate a vibration absorbing mass in the counterweight (Technics has an impressive name for the mechanism, it escapes me at this moment) which is positioned magnetically. Compared to my several other TAs, I consider the EPA-250 well damped.
Damp or dump- Raul mentioned vibration in the tonearm, it would seem beneficial to either dampen these vibrations or provide a line transference path capable of dumping those disturbances elsewhere. Afraid I view our hobby as a veritable carnival of resonances, critically damping or redirecting those disturbances to a vibrational sink goes with the territory.
It might be remembered that resonances can be either constructive or destructive. I'd speculate that this, relative to the cartridge used, contributes or detracts from the synergistic qualities Dgob referred to in a previous post.
In the past I'd posted on vibration in an anchored beam. That a tonearm is pivoted at one end and only partially constrained by the stylus at the distal end adds complications, usually manifested as untreated border resonances, vibration induced ringing or overshoot due to lingering resonance. Given a day or so to reassemble data and references, I'll give a better answer. Should anyone else care to contribute, please do. It will, I'm afraid, take longer to sooth Nikola!
Regards, Griffithds: Took an Autumn tour through your former Illinois stomping grounds several weeks ago. Cave-In-Rock, the locus of the deadly 18th century river pirates
and through the Shawnee Hills/National Forest. Beautiful country.
Pardon the thread wander, back on topic:
There is an on-line archive of the Boston Audio Society "Speaker" publications from the early '70s through '05, seminal works by many recognizable contributors. Most of the information is still relevant, find it here:
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
