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... |
Dear Dgob: I take your point and I understand the Nandric one too.
Maybe you could understand better the Nandric post with this example on the thread ( second page. ):
you posted on: 09-07-10 and from here there was no single other post for more than a year till you posted again in: 10-08-11 and only to " reaffirm " ( that's what I read in this post. ) something that you posted before.
Makes sense this scenario to you?, I respect what you think and obviously you are free to make anything you want in any thread. I'm not questioning either if there are persons interested on the subject.
Anyway, go on: this is your privilege and not Nandric one or mine.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
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... |
Dear Dgob, You should know that thinking (Urteilskraft by your beloved Kant) is mostly our wrestling with pro and contra arguments about some premise(s). This however may be called an 'invardly discussion'. It is not, uh, usual , to do such thinking in public. Ie stating questions in public and answering the same questions by yourself. The usual 'procedure' (proscripted or prescripted) is to put forward the result of the 'wrestling' or the conclusion(s) and then see what the OTHER have to say about that. I don't think that Raul was wrong with his interpretation of what I intended to say in the mentioned post.
Regards, |
Hi Nandric,
And thanks for your company in my loneliness.
As always... |
Dear Dgob, I just visited your system site. I see that your "other" cartridges are also MM or MI types, albeit some of the very best ones. I wonder what has been your experience with LOMC types, especially given that you own a very fine MC phono stage, inside the 3160.
I think one reason you are so lonely here is the virtual absence of any Glanz cartridges from the marketplace. If I could find one, I would be interested to try it. |
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. |
Dear Dgob, Like Lew I have never seen the G5 or G7 on any ebay (4)which I visit regular. Except the 51 MF and some other with the 'wrong nr.' which look to me similar to the Astatic MF versions ( 100,200 and 300). Is there any connection between the two producers that you know of? Can you recommend some other (obtainable) models ?
Regards,
|
Addendum, My assumption about possible connection between
the Astatic and the Glanz is even more strenghtened by
the folowing consideratios. I compared (visualy) my own
Astatic MF 200 with the pictures of the Glanz 51.They look to me like a twin. Besides both have the marking 'MF' on the corpus. Then 'Glanz' (shine) is an German word so probable the Japanese producer made this 'brand' for some German importer. I am not sure if 'Astatic' is a similar American 'brand' but on my cart there is this inscription: Conneaut, Ohio. Made in Japan for Astatic.
Well Raul is very 'astatic' about his Astatic MF 100 and (even more so?)about his MF 200. He also mentioned to me to have posted his MF 300 to Axel with some 'exotic' intentions. Ie : beryllium cantilever with the Gyger II stylus.
My own Astatic MF 200 has an Shibata stylus while the 300
has, according to the seller, an elliptical stylus. I have no idea what kind of cantilever/stylus combo the MF 100 has.
My wild quess is that Glanz 7 is the same cart as the Astatic MF 100 while Glanz 5 should be the same as Glanz 5.
If this is actually the case than it logicaly follows that Raul and Dgob have, uh, the same 'teste'. The 'mystery' solved by Nandric?
Regards, |
Addendum 2, Well according to the logic of identity 'everything is identical with it self'. According to some logician :' Glanz 5 = Glanz 5' is true because of the meaning. Aka 'analytic truth'. However I made an error. My intention was to state that Glanz 5 is the same as the Astatic FM 200.
Regards,
|
Dear nandric: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1252605722&openflup&2&4#2
http://www.vinylengine.com/library/glanz/cartridge-data.shtml
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1252605722&openflup&12&4#12
Nothing to comment on Glanz/Astatic other that the MF-200 is an stellar performer. On the MM/MI thread are my experiences with Glanz, nothing that the MF-200 can't do it, even I don't have any more the Glanz.
I know that for Dgob Glanz is his star but not for me, period.
regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Wait, Nicola, didn't you start out by saying that the Glanz MF51 appeared identical to the MF (FM?) 200?
If so, then Glanz MF51 = Astatic MF200 = Glanz 5. Clearly, something is rotten in Denmark. |
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 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,
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... |
Dear Lew, Thanks to the fact that something was rotten in
Denmark we got a great literary work. However you should know that many carts in the same series share the same corpus (aka 'generator'). The Glanz 51 has the sufix 'E'
(aka 'elliptical) and should be 'the same', according to
Nandric, with MF 300 and not, as you wrongly assume,the MF 200. The MF 200 is a proud owner of an Shibata stylus. A big 'status' difference I should think. I also noticed that the 'model difference' is marked on the stylus and not on the corpus. The corpus of all of them (Glanz and Astatic) is marked with 'MF'.
My quess is that 'MF' should give the indication for the producer. Besides a Balkanes and certainly 'some' Serbian will never admit to be wrong in anything. The animosity
between Raul and Dgob should of course not count as proof of the contrary. I am a kind of proud with my discovery so it is really unsporty from my comembers to (be)grudge me
my success.
Regards,
|
Dear Dgob: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1252605722&openflup&56&4#56
I bought on Argentina and now the cartridge is with my brother. Was the MF-71L ( non-integrated headshell but stand alone model. I don't know but maybe what you like are the additional integrated headshell design distortions, I never heard that integrated design and certainly I don't care about integrated headshell designs: I don't like it for very good reasons that already discussed in this and other threads. ) and was identical to the MF-100 ( tha's why I remember was the 71L. ) that performs similar but a little better than the Glanz sample ( my MF-100 was a NOS and not second hand as the Glanz. ).
Anyway, the MF-200 IMHO outperforms both Astatic/Glanz. I think you need to hear the MF-200 and I'm sure that's as other MF-200 you will be surprised.
My MF-300 is on the road to Axel for an up date and to find out the Astatic up quality performance limits, the MF-200 on stock fashion is great one.
Btw, no I'm not ignorant on the Glanz.I think for my part is all said it about, I'm done on this Glanz subject.
Please go ahead and as till today you can follow sharing your experiences. As Lewm could be that other people want to follow with your thread/interest about.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Nicola, I assumed nothing except that I thought it was you who recognized a similarity between Glanz MF51 and Astatic MF200. I have never even seen any Glanz or Astatic cartridge in the flesh. Apparently I was wrong about your opinion. Sorry.
Dgob is a loyal user of Raul's preamplifier. I should think that would trump any disagreement over one particular cartridge's performance level. Thus I do not perceive any animosity on either side, just a difference of opinion. |
Dear Lew, No need to apologize because the identity relation is inscrutable. Even Wittgenstein made a strong point by stating: 'for two things to say that they are identical make no sense and to say that everything is identical with it selfs says nothing'. Well we can do with 'equal' in the sense that you own the Triplanar and I also or that you own a poodle an I own the same dog. This of course does no mean that we are coowners of the same dog but rather that we own the same kind of a dog. In this sense the Glanz 51 'E' looks to me the same as my MF 200.
'The same' qua corpus because there is no way to see on whatever picture what kind of stylus is involved. Then,speaking about the styli. No one of us knows for sure
which kind of shape is 'the best'. What is 'best' for our records does no imply our 'ears'. However even Raul is obviously willing to make Axel rich with his 'mega order'
in terms of money for the exotic cantilevers and styli.
One can hardly qualify such kinds of decisions as 'rational' but well of course as wishful thinking.
I can also hardly believe that Dgob owns Raul's amplifier.
This must be something from the past in which we all liked
each other...I am very glad with the fact that no (identical) lady is involved in the dispute. Otherwise we would have one member less.
Regards, |
Dgob, are your G5 & G7 MMs? What cantilevers does each use? Do the bodies look like the Astatic MF series? Have you tried interchanging styli?
The Astatic 100/200/300 as well as the Glanz MFG series are all Moving Flux. Hence the MF model designation.
Allow me share a few things I do know about these carts. All of the MF series from both Astatic and Glanz were made in Japan by the Mitachi Corporation. I can also say for sure that the Astatic/Glanz MF generators are not all the same. Well on the outside they are but the MF200/300 put out 4.2mv. The MF100 and all of the MFG Glanz 31/51/61/71, series put out 3.5mv. Interestingly, the G7 is rated at 4.2mv on the Vinylengine database. I wonder if that is true?
The MFG51E Glanz is not a MF200 or even a MF300. The sound is quite different on each. They should because they have different output and have different styli. The cantilever on the MFG51E I have also has a much different aluminum cantilever than any other MF units. It uses a very large taper. Looks heavy to me. My MFG51E is on the bottom of the totem pole sonically of all the MF/MI carts I have heard. The MFG31E/L is much closer to the MF200. It uses the same color stylus holder as well as the same cantilever. All three have different styli. MF200 is a nude Shibata. The MFG31E has a nude elliptical and the MFG31L has a nude line contact. The MFG31E/L both sound close to the MF200. The MF300 is good but I would use it for target practice after hearing the MF200 or MFG31E/L. |
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... |
As I said: I'm done on this subject. Nothing to add.
R. |
I forgot, Vetterone: """ +++ Do the bodies look like the Astatic MF series? " ++++
the Astatic are stand alone ( 1/2" ) mounting cartridges where the ones you named ( the ones that Dgob owns. ) are headshell integrated designs: way different.
R. |
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. To surpass him I decided to check the German forums but to my big suprise as well as disappointment the Germans know even less than we do. Glanz was established in the 80is and despite some 'pushing' by two German HI-FI Magazines never get off the ground.Besides the German snobs (all of them) preferred Shure. More in particular the Shure
V15V. What some of them could remember was that Mitachy in
Japan produced the carts (with the known nomenclature labyrinth) while only 51 and 30 models are mentioned. So 'Glanz' (shine) 'shined' for about 1 year only. I am interested in the 'twin' brother or sister of the MF 200 of whatever 'brand' and would love to inform Raul with something like this: ''I got my MF 200 for 30 Euro, how much deed you pay for Axel's upgrade of your MF300?''
Regards, |
Dear Raul, There are also 'stand alone' Glanz carts so you
should not give up. But if both , the G5 and G 7 are 'integrated' I need to concentrate only on the 31 E or L?
BTW Vetterone asked Dgob about the styli as well about the
kind (mms or mf's) of his G5 /G 7 which imply that he is not familiar with those.Besides to be able to 'integrate' whatever cart in whatever headshell both are (pre)assumed to be 'stand alone' before the (re)union. Ie. it may be the case that the carts 'in' G5/G7 exsist as separate or 'stand alone' entity.
Dear Dgob, I hope you can answer all those questions. Considering the time that you spend on the 'subject' I am very optimistic. It is , I would think, much easier 'stuff' than Kant's Critic of the pure reason.
Regards, |
Dear nandric: My MF-300 is still " on the road " along several cartridges and right now I can't say the up date price because I don't decide yet if I go for the very top Axel up date ( expensive. ) or something " different ".
Of course that like any other cartridge if cantilever/stylus are different on two similar cartridge motors the performance is a little different on both cartridges. I have a second sample that permit me to experiment about and of course I can make the up date to my MF-200 too but I need this one in stock fashion as a reference so maybe latter after comparisons that I will report on the MM/MI thread.
Btw, as with other cartridge manufacturer/models where exist an integrated headshell cartridge design always exist its stand alone counterpart, you can see that on the Technics P100CMK4 or with Yamaha and many more and Glanz is no exeption. The one that own my brother is the top of the line stand alone one.
I decided to go with the Astatic ones through its up dates: we will see.
regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
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 alwaysÂ… |
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 alwaysÂ… |
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 alwaysÂ… |
Hi All,
Apologies for the repeated post: although I am clearly not alone in that respect. |
Dear Dgob,I borrowed the expression (and now) 'something
totally different' from some (hilarious) English comedians
while the part about Vetterone was inspired by my native
Balkan humor. You however changed the issue from 'who
knows better' in 'which cart is better'. But your own answer is, I should think, very predictable: there is no better one then G7. In contradistincition to Nandric
you borrowed the way to express yourself from Kant. Long,
complex sentences, but without a clear outcome. Ie I still have no idea if the 'stand alone' carts which are integrated in their respective headshells are to get as stand alone carts? You see those of us who don't own tonearms with removable headshell have no use for G7/G5 despite the fact that both may be the 'best there is'.To buy a separate tonearm for the purpose while the prospect to get any of both is so slim looks not very attractive to me. This argument of course does not apply for Raul but my suggestion to you is to tell Raul that the internal wire (aka 'tags') in those headshells are made from 100%
pure silver with gold coating. For the sake of argument as the phylosopher are used to say. I am sure Raul will then invent some other contra-arguments. Say the impossiblity to change the headshells which any true connoisseur can't
do without. Not even those from Australia (Henry is all well?).
Regards, |
You called Nikola?
I am happy to say that I am well but puzzled slightly about your reference to those who do not own tonearms with detachable headshells?
You are surely not one of those........?! :^)
With regard to cartridges with integrated headshells.......I tend to agree with Dgob.
It would seem impertinent to assume that the manufacturers did not conduct a thorough testing procedure to determine the best possible results in their integrated designs?
It would be hard to imagine the 'improvements' bestowed upon the legendary Fidelity Research FR-7 series of cartridges were they to be stripped of their integrated headshells?
But perhaps others know better?
How goes it with you Nikola?.........do you ever see yourself mounting your 'perfect' silver wired FR-64s tonearm?
It would be interesting to compare it to your Reed.....no?
Cheers |
Dear Henry, My arguments are 'in general', not reduced to
my subjective feelings and interest. Add to that the Balkan inclination to try to be funny at whatever cost. Btw I used the phylosophical way of speaking to explain my intentions: 'for the sake of argument'. You don't actually mean to refer to me in this context but to somebody else. Some Mexican perhaps? Ie I never stated anything against the 'integrated carts' but only considered possible problems by those who don't own tonearm(s) with
removable headshell ( I am a lawyer you know). I even provided Dgob with this strong argument for the 'integrated case '( 100% pure silver wire + gold coating). However you should also know that you can't use your beloved + upgraded FR 7 in some other, possible better headshell. I assume, but I may be wrong, that you deed not buy those 33 separate headshells for the esthetical reasons only? Not to mention rubber or metal rings for all the headshells which seem to add some extra 'finnesse' to the 'extracted'sound.
Glad to see your post of course but do we need to force you to contribute?
Regards,
|
Dear Henry: +++++ " It would seem impertinent to assume that the manufacturers did not conduct a thorough testing procedure to determine the best possible results in their integrated designs... " +++++
I'm not assumming that. Now, even that suppose I was " impertinent " , seems to me extremely stupid ( for say the least ) assume that 30-40 years old cartridge designs manufactured with the way of thinking of 40 years ago can be today justified as the best way to go against its stand alone counterpart.
All the integrated headshell designs came from the same times, was a trend with the those days way of thinking that a dedicated headshell was the better for a cartridge can shows at its best.
In those old times the subject of cartridge headshell comparisons for a better performance was not only the trend but almost no body cares about. Today we learn and cares about: that's why ( according to Nandric ) you own 30+ headshells and 100+ by my self.
Try to find out the P100CMK4 stand alone cartridge and compare it against your integrated headshel counterpart you own.
Now, I have no single doubt ( because I'm not stupid ) that the FR7 in stand alone fashion outperforms easily the integrated model.
Today we know that the same cartridge in the same tonearm mounted in two diffrent headshells performs different. If not why every one of us are looking for " new " headshells?
Today we have several options on headshells, several options on mount screws, several options on headshell wires, several options on headshell wire connectors, several options to align the cartridge. Even some of us like to tame the cartridge " color " through the mount screws using different pressure on the screws/cartridge mounting to the headshell.
Many of these " severals" was almost unexistent on those old times, example: almost all the japanese tonearms use the Stevenson cartridge/tonearm alignment, no options and no one cares about. One of the reasons on those integrated cartridge headshell designs were because were almost " plug and play " and suppose more user friendly.
Today we have a lot lot better cartridge wires against those 30-40+ years old internal wires that came with those old integrated headshells..
All we know the critical and paramount difference that those headshell wires can and makes on favor to quality performance level, this " sole " parameter makes huge differences between any integrated headshell cartridge design and its stand alone counterpart.
Glanz is no diffrent to Astatic, Astatic bought the patent of that design but were clever than Glanz and even that Astatic cartridges came along a headshell this is not integrated one but an univeral headshell where you decide if mount the Astatic there or in other headshell and of course with headshell wires of your choice,
Anyway, my point is that any stand alone vintage cartridge design beats its integrated headshell counterpart.
The last integarted cartridge design I remember was the Nightingale ( I think that was the model. ) for the Graham tonearm and has no success on the market, today IMHO that kind of cartridge designs is a huge mistake/error for any cartridge manufacturer.
Audio and most important the understanding on the " fine tunning " audio parameters today are far away on the way of thinkinh of 40+ years ago. Everything grows up.
Vintage cartridge designs are really great ones with very very good " motors " but as you and many of us already experienced every single vintage cartridge that we send to any cartridge fixing source for an up date outperforms the sound quality level of that cartridge in stock condition.
For me there is no way to support the most critical subject in the cartridge quality level performance: cartridge/headshell/headshell wires saying that the 30-40+ years old cartridge with integarted headshell are better that its stand alone versions with todays " technology ".
Today IMHO that a cartridge manufacturer said 30-40 years ago that's its integrated design is better means almost nothing.
Other subject with those integarted designs are to know : how the designers voiced those cartridges, which tonearm, phono stage, speakers, electronics, ewtc, etc? because as you pointed out the " manufacturers made and had testing procedure ".
The only integrated headshell design that IMHO was a wise design was and is the Dynavector Karat Nova 13/17D that came with a dedicated headshell but you can use it in stand alone fashion too!!!
Things change over time, after those monolitic cartridge designs the trend for the top cartridge models was that with the cartridges came a dedicated headshell ( separate ): this is the case of the AT100, AT700, Ortofon MC2000/3000/5000 and many more.
Monolitic cartridge designs today are a wrong cartridge design and if you support it then why you own not only several headshells but several removable headshel tonearm designs?
I respect you opinion but disagree with.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Glad to see your post of course but do we need to force you to contribute? As I have zero experience with Glanz cartridges..........the obvious answer is.....yes. Regards |
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,
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... |
Dear Dgob, Anyway no reason anymore to feel lonely. You
even got support from Australia. I was puzzled with the fact that the Glanz carts are so rare on the German ebay. My 'primary source'. Even thought that Glanz is not an German brand at all. But the fact that Glanz was established in the 80is may explain why. By lack of the more precise info I intend to look for the 71 L. Assuming
at least the 'similarity' with the Astatic MF 200. I agree with Raul that this one is relly, say, 'special'. As you can see I am not (anymore)so sure about the identity issue.
Regards,
. |
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." |
Dear Raul, I agree that stand alone carts are more convenient or practical but , first, the FR-7 have had such a huge magnets (Alnico?) which were impossible to fit in a stand alone model. But then we still have Ortofon SPU and EMT integrated. The last mentioned sells more integrated carts then stand alone models (JDS 5 and 6).
There is obviously still demand for such carts and there is
no way to argue against the demand. From the producer stand point of course.
Dear Henry, your contributions are always welcomme while
such a forum as our assumes ignorance. Even the science
assumes 'ignorance' as the start point for the knowledge.
Besides you can write for our regular MM thread. Ie no
excuses. There are no privileges for the Aussies.
Regards, |
Raul,
I have no dog in this fight, but I would point out two things in response to your long post:
(1) In part, It is certainly possible that integrated designs went away back in the 80s mostly because phono itself was on the wane and the latest and greatest tonearms of those days tended NOT to have removable headshells, which would render such integrated cartridge designs unusable by their target audience of high-end aficionados.
(2) It's rather amusing that intrinsic to your argument is the notion that 30-year-old cartridges and the like are "old fashioned" since this is a contradiction of your original mantra (which states in part that attention to quality of design and construction was at a higher level in "those days" compared to the present). I would posit that the observation that rebuilding vintage cartridges typically results in an improvement in performance could as well be due to deterioration of suspensions with time (applicable even to NOS samples) and/or to abuse of the original construct by previous owners of used samples, as to true benefits of the rebuild. For a given cartridge, we can never know the truth in that regard. There is also the fact that after a rebuild one "expects" an improvement; this causes a subconscious bias in favor of hearing an improvement. None of us are immune to that bias. This is why serious science demands double-blind, controlled studies as a qualification for publishing.
It's true that having a choice of headshell, wires, screws, torque on the screws, etc, does allow much more freedom to "voice" a cartridge. Perhaps in your hands, this is a big advantage. For most of the rest of us, we are taking a complete shot in the dark. We could be missing what a given cartridge may have to offer by making bad choices. At least with an integrated design cartridge, one can assume that those variables are not in the equation, and one can hope that the engineers who designed the product made good choices so as to maximize the performance of their product.
I'm just saying' |
