Hi Raul,
Am I missing something or did I start this thread (with a clearly announced focus and purpose) and you then select to contribute opinions herer that I cannot appreciate?
Either way, let's keep it to the cartridges under discussion!
As always... |
Hi Raul,
BTW, I was using the term "aesthetic" in its wider Baumgarten sense around sensitivities that include 'sonic beauty' (the limitations of his wider political applications not withstanding). But as I say, let's keep it to catridges and you are welcome not to contribute anything further on this thread: if, as you seem to be suggesting, that is your wish.
However, as long as I find your apparently contradictory criticisms holds concerns that need to be addressed for the benefit of any potential users, I will attempt to address them.
As always... |
Dear Dgob, Sorry for your 'argument' but 'aestethic in its
wider...sense' make no sense. Raul is very clear in his
statement reg. function versus aestethics. I myself am very
impressed with the 'aestethics' of the FR-64s. But I
would never state that FR-64s is functionaly very good tonearm
because of its aesthetics. Those are different criterions.
Regards, |
Hi All,
Any knowledge of and/or experience with the above noted Glanz tonearms (or about Sibatech) would still be appreciated. Feel free to respond off-site if needs be.
As always... |
Hi All,
Just to note that I had a few friends over for the weekend: two of whom are gifted musicians. On hearing my Glanz G7, they suggested that they 'believed'the performances (including Miltstein's Bach) - meaning that they felt it presented the actual live events.
This was in comparison to my Technics P100c Mk4 and was based on the greater dynamic abilities of the Glanz. The classical guitarist was particularly impressed by the sheer quality of detail/information that was passed through it and how (to paraphrase) 'the music simply did not seem to emanate from mechanical and electronic equipment'. He has heard many manifestations of my systems but this was the first time it was greeted with such shock and awe.
I mention this because it pleased me beyond words. I respect more than I can say their musicianship and honesty and found an unexpected degree of satisfaction. Yes, it was easy for me to appreciate their views because they obviously complied with my own. Nevertheless, I am now even more hopeful that others will be afforded the opportunity to share that experience.
Simply magnificent!!
As always... |
Hi Dgob,
Which tonearm were you using with the Glanz G7, was it the Audiocraft ? |
Dear Dgob, The only possibility to get this remarcable G7 is to rob someone who owns this treasure and the only such a person I know is...
Till then, |
Hi Dover,
I am still using the Audiocraft with its AP300 armwand. If you use this, you need to use its own template to check and adjust the cartridge but once you do so... I would still like to explore other arms to see if there is even more to be eeked out of its performance. I have spoken to Hiroshi at Sibatech who informs me that:
"Mr.Masataka Hamada (Glanz tone arm designer) confirms both G5 and G7 accommodate and suit very well his new tone arm, called The Glanz, even in terms of 18g integrated weight (Maximum adaptable weight is 40g)."
However, with financial times still not great, I would love to hear from other (external) parties who have a view on their arms etc. Fingers crossed, that feedback will be quicker in arriving than has any around the G series Glanz.
As always... |
Hi Nandric,
I've just bolted the windows.
:~)
But seriously, I have seen a few come up for auction at Yahoo Japan (sadly missing out myself: most often due to time delays and differences). I finally got mine from Tommy at Topclass (Hong Kong). With time, I am certain more will appear and I can at least see dissenting or supporting perspectives.
As always... |
Dear Dgob, What a pity that you bolted even your windows
because my intention was to bring my Zeta, Lustre 801 and
Sumiko 800 for you to try. My FR-64S (+ B-60) is ,alas
for you, meant for my heir (the legal one).
I am reluctant to admit that I never succided to reach any
Japanese ebay site. Not even such a big company like Ogura
for those microridge styli for Alex. I wrote 5 emails to
all of Ogura divisions but they are probable not able to
understand my English? The 'Topclass' however I have seen
twice and, considering their prices, I have no intention whatever
to visit their site for the third time. Will you be so kind
to teach me how to reach the Japanese ? Should
I try Russian, Serbo-Croation, German or Dutch?
Regards, |
Dear Dgob, I got my first Glanz. The MFG 31 L. But what is
more the user manual is included. According which the series consist of 5
carts each of them with either line contact or elliptical
stylus: 71 L/E, 51L/E, 31 L/E, 11 T/11R. As you can see
there is no 61 with whatever stylus. I know that Vetterone
is an inventor so, probable, he invented the 61?
The specs reg. inductance is the same for all ,impedance is the same by 71 and 51 while the output is also the same for all. Ergo the difference must be the cantilever. I own
the Astatic MF 200 which looks as a twin brother or sister
of the Glanz but the stylus of the MF 200 is Shibata.
The Japanese have obviously their own logic. There is no
mention of cantilever material except by 31E and 11 T
with a kind of a cryptic description: 'Titanium bonded line
contact and/or titanium bonded elliptical'. Probable because of the mentioned logic there is no such description by (my) 31 L by which, I would hope, the line contact stylus suggested by the letter 'L' is somehow fitted to the cantilever. Why they 'bonded line contact stylus in the elliptical 31 E ' is an enigma to me. I also got the 'punishment' for my carts greedyness because I accumulated 6 different carts in one
month time and have no idea with which to start. Anyway the 31 L is the cheapest of them all so , I hope,this one will get his turn somewhere in June or July next year.
Regards, |
Hi Nandric,
Firstly, apologies for my apparent tardiness in responding: personal life and such has had its way.
Anyhow, the best way to follow or use the Japanese market might be to use Google Translation to translate the actual auction sites, their products and bidding and then join up to Rinkya, Japan. They conduct the bidding, which is especially useful for auctions where the seller stipulates Japanes only bidders! They will then arrange for delivery and shipping to you. This it the way that Sinyo123 advised me and it has worked in my case also.
About the range, many thanks for the additional information. I wonder if the 61o and 31o are therefore later models or part of a similar line. Also, what are the differences between ranges (if such they be) and what are their optimised strengths? I know that the 61 is said to use a Shibata - according to the review piece in the noted Grammaphone. I would guess that the 31 L would be the line contact version in keeping with their labelling. Given their range and options, I wonder do they all use Samarium Cobalt magnets and, if so, how many, what types (MGOe) and in which arangements? I am humbled by the amount still for me to learn.
I think that the chart you show has formed a large part in my uncertainties. It misses so many apparently linked cartridges (the G series, 61o, 31o) that I become more curious about the links between these and, of course, the differences. The cartridge database gives the G series but has clear gaps and limitations to its information. Bit by bit, maybe we can piece together the cartridges that represent the Glanz range and their merits.
I do hope so.
As always... |
Hi All,
With nearing 20,000 readers, I am pleased that this thread is still of interest to others. However, I really would appreciate more input - particularly concerning the Glanz tonearms.
The G7 (and G5, although hugely different in performance) is still very much recommended for your 'best of the best' shortlists!
As always... |
Hi Dgob, I compared Raul's 'darling' Astatic MF 200 with
the Glanz MFG 31 L and was not able to hear any difference.
I even switched the styli with the same result. Both are
excelent carts. I am still searching for the 51, 71 and this mysterious 61.
Regards, |
Same results here Nandric. The MF200 and 31L are very close sonically and both sound very good. The 51E is not even close, at least with the stock cantilever/stylus. A good candidate for a retip I suppose. Without doing a direct comparison, I have to say the MF 61 is the best sounding MM/MI/MF cart I own.
Just a great balance of dynamics, tonality, texture, detail and sparkle up top.
I have heard better bass from a few other carts but not by much. |
Nandric,
Many thanks for the feedback. Good luck with your serach for the 61 and I would, of course, love to hear your results and any further opinions about the Glanz.
Gratefully received
As always... |
Vetterone,
I know what you are saying about the 61 because I feel exactly the same about the G7 (and in different ways, about the G5 - they are so different in various areas and I suspect the G5 would be closer to the MF200). The more I test them the more certain I become of their magnificence and the more frustrated I feel that I cannot find anyone (apart from the Hong Kong retailer) who has experience with these and can/will discuss. Given that, I would dearly love the opportunity to hear the 61 and compare.
I still think that the restraint and control of the bass on the Technics 100Mk4 is slightly superior but the differences are more in accord with distinct venues than distinct or inaccurate renditions of the instrument itself. Again, marvellous! I stand in hope of hearing further from you on these matters.
Do give some form of exchange or audition plan a consideration and thanks for the information.
As always... |
Dear Vetterone, By my MFG 31l the user manual is included
with the nomenclature of the whole series. There are 51 and 71
(L and E) above the 31 but 61 is not mentioned. That
is why I called this one 'mysterious'. I also own the 31 E
but am , like you with the 51 E , not very impressed. BTW
deed you try the stylus from the 31 L in the 51 cart?
The strange thing is that I have never seen any Glanz on the German ebay.
I got my specimens from the UK.
Regards, |
Nandric,
I did not take the time to swap stili between bodies. All of the 3.5mv Mitachi generators most likely sound the same or very close but to be sure, I will experiment later. I think I have six different bodies between Astatic and Glanz. Could prove interesting.
The MF-61 has its own booklet that mentions no other Glanz products. As I posted a while back, all it says is that "MFG-61, as the most prestige model among Glanz cartridges...". My sample came new in the box. Under close inspection I am sure it had never been mounted or used. The cantilever is boron but it is much smaller in diameter than the boron cantilever supplied these days by Ogura. I would guess 30% smaller. I bought it off eBay many years ago before I had read the MM thread on A'gon. I had been studying cartridge designs and moving flux and moving iron seemed to be the best design, in theory at least so I was buying cheap samples to try. It came from Peru or Portugal I think. I did see one listed a few years ago. I wish I would have bought it but at the time, I had not yet tried the MFG-61 and had no idea how special it is. Silly me. |
Hi Nandric/All,
On the issue of cartridge comparisons, I am currently optimising my Morch DP-6 tonearm with the kind assistance of Mt. Moerch. As I have told Raul and demonstrated to close friends and family, the combination of the DP-6 and Technics 100 Mk4 cartridge moved my expectations of analogue replay to a new level.
My Glanz G5 and G7 cartridges in my Audio Craft AC3300 LB tonearm are the closest comparison I have come across and the G7/AC3300 seem to exceed the Moerch/Technics combination in certain aspects of their performance. HOWEVER, my Moerch has been a trusty companion for over thirty years and needed optimising. Hence my current preoccupation.
Once I have completed the work, I will be able to run a full comparison of both cartridges and tonearm/cartridge pairings. I'll most likely post my findings and impressions once that is completed.
As always... |
Sorry,
I am not aware of the existence or location of a mount moerch!
I was of course referring to Hans and should have said: "with the kind assistance of Mr. Moerch". |
Dear Dgob, This to me is like dating Michelle Pfeifer or
Nocole Kidman and suggesting to us to try the same. Now those 'girls' at least exist and are in theoretical or imaginary sense attainable. But I have never seen the Glanz 7 or 5 nor the Technics 100 mk IV anywhere. Vetterone already made my life misarable with this 'misterious' Glanz 61 for which I search all ebay sites that I can read and even those that I can't read while I am supposed to spend as much time as possible to listen to my records. BTW the tonearms are not a problem in my case; I own 8 of those. If you can provide the source for any of those carts I can ask Van den Hul for assistence for their adjustment in one of those arms.
Regards, |
Hi Nandric,
:~)
I will keep a keen eye out for them and notify you (possibly off site) as soon as I spot anything. Is there a spending price limit that you would set for each of them?
As always... |
Sorry Nandric but I am sure you will be fine as there will always be another "must have" to hunt down.
I did buy the Glanz MFG-11T off eBay the other day. Had not seen one of those for sale until then. It has a Titanium cantilever so it can't be all bad. Hope it is as good as the MF-200. Will give my impressions later. |
Dear Dgob, thanks for your good intentions but I don't
believe that you have as much of spare time as I have to
search. I am a retired civil servant with good pension...
Dear Vetterone, I think that my Astatic MF 200 sounds better
with the stylus from the Glanz 31 L ( line contact)
while my Glanz 31 E sounds better with the stylus from the
Astatic 300. You should try exchanging those styli instead
of buying inferior Glanz versions. It is ,alas, not the case that
all Glanz carts are exceptional.
Regards to both, |
Hi Nandric,
If you're sure. Good luck looking and let me know if you find any of these targets and about your consequent impressions.
You're also undoubtedly correct about all Glanz not being exceptional. I can really only vouch for the G5 and G7 (which still stands as their ultimate cartridge in the literature that I have read). Incidentally, I know there is a G3 available for sale at present but have no experience with that model. Maybe worth a punt if you're of the school of trying all of a producers line and not accepting their perception of the pecking order. I know many are.
I'm honestly not certain if the various series were produced by the same engineers or companies and any time line differences. Much to learn.
As always... |
Dear Dgob, Wishful thinking is a strong psychological part
of our hobby. But I added logic to it as follow: all the
top line Astatic and Glanz carts have the same body (aka
'generator') and the only difference are the styli.
According to this logic the G 7, 5 and 3 should have the
same 'generator' but different styli. So, if you will
be so kind to give me the address for this G3 I would
be very grateful (nikola et andric.com). My search on
the net was without result. BTW I inspected the styli of
'all' Astatics- (2x) and Glanz carts (2x) that I own
with my (50x) hand microscope and discovered that the Glanz
styli are of better quality than Astatic. Should I tell this to Raul?
Regards, |
Hi Nandric,
I have emailed you the details about the cartridge and hope it turns out well. Do let me know.
On the issue about the similarities across brands and cartridges, I am not so certain. If you look at the patent data that I posted here on 05-30-12, you see that the differences seem to exceed styli alone. I believe that both Glanz and Astatic used Mitachi who - as the OEM - designed to distinct customer specifications and/or conditions at the time/s. And, yes I am acutely aware of Goebbles' maxim concerning the forceful repetition of an inaccuracy leading to it becoming accepted as fact. Yet my logic here relates to the noted patented distinctions, my own auditioning of the top the range models in both makes, and now to the styli distinctions that your reseach has helpfully identified. (On your question, "no" I really don't think there would be any mileage in sharing your findings on this particular matter with Raul.)
As I also suggested in my second post of 05-23-12, there are other grounds why I am not certain of the distinctions between the noted cartridges. I think I've also raised the question on 06-24-12 about distinctions regarding types of magnets and their arrangements.
Yet, as I say, these reflections are based on my noted triangulated logic and need not be wholly accurate: except that the performance distinctions are certainly profound and notable. Maybe your experimentation will prove the case to be otherwise regarding construction and so I'm hopeful that you do get hold of the cartridges and share your findings and impressions. It can only help.
As always... |
Dear Dgob, You obviously overlooked my connection between
wishful thinking and logic. From only two carts of both
kinds (Astatic and Glanz) I constructed the 'all quantor'
by help of which the universal statements are made. Now
by Astatic versions MF- 100, 200 and 300 only the styli
differ. I own the 200 and 300. From 'all possible' Glanz
carts I own the 31L (line contact) and 31 E ( elliptical?).
Those Glanz look exactly the same as the Astatic's
qua body and even (packing) boxes. All of them
have the marking 'MF' on the styli with respective numbers.
Ie without the stylus one can not determine which
one one has at hand. There is not much to compare visualy.
But if one compare the prices there are huge differences.
I got my Glanz 31l and 31 E for about 30 Euro each. As
Vetterone also concluded there is no difference qua sound
between Glanz 31l and Astatic MF 200.
Regards, |
Hi Nandric,
Sorry, my points only relate to the Glanz G series and their distinctions really and I should have made that clear. My triangulation only works in that domain - no real experience with the others (only the specified Astatic and Glanz): although I have observed the cosmetic similarities between the Glanz MFG and Astatic MF ranges. I think your logic and experience here seem sound.
As always... |
Dear Dgob, We both try to inform other members about the Glanz and Astatic carts. While both kinds are not easily available one may have luck and if one find ,say, Glanz
31 l or E even more luck because of the price difference with the Astatic MF 200.
Thanks to your info I was able to at least see the G3 which should be similar to your G5 and G7. I do believe that those are exceptional carts but I also noticed that
they have no azimuth and eff. lenght adjustment provision.
By the integrated headshell/cart combo's such a provision is necessary for the correct geometry adjustment. One can see by Technics 205 mk 3 ,for example, how those provisions look like. BTW there is no standard or 'norm' for the 'right stylus place' in a cart. That is why the most headshells have this adjustment provision.
Regards, |
Dear nandric: Your point is of paramount importance and I already posted several times in several threads including this.
IMHO any cartridge where you can't make change azymuth set up always be a wrong cartridge set up and the same if you can't make a headshell changes or even overhang changes.
In the old times I bought it almost all the cartridges that came with integrated headshells but some manufacturers as Technics and AT where wise/knowledge enough to permit in those designs both parameter changes. Some other very respectable manufacturers as Yamaha or FR just don't care about. I think that with these kind of designs they made it a mistake a heavy mistake.
IMHO there is no single justification or no single argument to support no-azymuth change designs, period.
Today all those integrated cartridge designs including the ones where we can make azymuth/overhang changes are the " wrong " item because that so old internal wiring/connectors and because we really can't match if with the right headshel/tonearm.
Like today I read this thread but IMHO is useless ( at least for me ) that some of you put all that energy on " faulty " cartridge designs.
Of course that fortunately we live in a free world, go a head! some of us likes to be sticky with some audio subjects/items.
regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Hi Nandric,
All I can really say is that the Glanz G series are designed with the aid of fortune. By this I mean that they are perfect fits for the Audio Craft AC3300 LB tonearms (with AP300 wand) and can be checked against their own protractor. My fortune was simply to have tried it on the AC3300 in the first effort and JOY!
I am certain you could find similar fits with other arms but I simply have had no need to assess their stunning performance in any other combination. Maybe it would be a fine fit on one of your other arms. I know that the only expert that I know on my cartridges (G series) suggested they might also be a good fit on the SME 3012R. I do hope you have the opportunity to try one to assess their performance for yourself. You already have some experience of the direction that these cartridges take you musically and I share your positive and mature assessment of that experience.
As always... |
Dear nandric: Not only that but even you can't make a precise/accurate cantilever alignment!!!
R. |
Dear Raul, I am sorry but I don't understand what you mean
with 'not only that but even you can't make a precise/accurate cantilever alignment!!!'. I have no idea to what 'not only that' refer nor what you mean by 'precise/accurate cnatilever alighment'.
Regards, |
Dear Nandric: With an integrated cartridge design you can't move the cartridge to the left/right side incase that the cantilever came in with a tiny side deviation. Remember that when you make the cartridge alignment/overhang with the protractor ( MINT LP, for example. ) you must align not only the stylus tip but that the cantilever coincide with the protractor " lines "/align-lines and almost always to achieve that in precise way we need to make tiny very tiny cartridge changes to one or the other sides ( left/right. ).
Nandric, in those all times many of the cartridge alignment subjects that we already learnend were almost no " important " for the cartridge designers ( for different reasons, between them: no-knowledge about. ).
I know many of us already grow-up through the years ( and still doing every single day in favor of music. ) but unfortunately some of us ( including cartridge/tonearm/TT/phono stages designers. ) did not.
IMHO any tonearm/cartridge combination where you have set-up/alignment limitations means that what you are hearing is a higher distortion performance against the ones with out those limitations.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
I just received a Sony xl33 w/integrated headshell. The owner's manual asserts that on a Sony tonearm overhang error of +/- 3mm (!) is not a problem for it's "practical use". Either Sony is crazy or else they have a loose conception of practical use. Evidently, they are not crazy since the cart sounds pretty darned good, but I'm pretty sure that it could sound better if adjustments were possible. |
Dear Banquo, '+/- 3mm'? I ever made a joke pretending not to be able to see whatever fraction of just 1 mm. Then I got reprimand from Dertonarm and Raul togehter. As you probable know they often disagree but not in this case. Since then I never make jokes about any dimension. BTW those Sony integrated are ugly as well as clumsy while one
can get all of those integarted models also 'solo', without the headshell. I own the XL 88 and hope to get the XL 55 very soon. Raul already mentioned XL 44 as a very good cart.
Regards, |
Banquo363,
I appreciate what you are saying but with the Glanz G series and AC3300 there is no error. It is, as my expert had asserted from the start, a precise match for the Audio Craft template and their performance in this combination really needs to be heard to be appreciated. I suspect you can find such a tonearm match for your Sony if you feel it merits it and have a mind to undertake the necessary work.
Either way, happy listening and good luck.
As always... |
Dear banquo363: +++++ " but I'm pretty sure that it could sound better if adjustments were possible. " +++++
absolutely right. Now, don't have to believe in my words right now is a XL44L on ebay if you try it I'm almost sure that's performance level beats the XL55 you own. Btw, mine already has the Axel's touch.
Sony made a great job in that XL cartridge family, very good indeed.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Nandric,
After I mounted the sony, I wanted to see how close it was to the Mint LP's arc that I have for my arm. Even Ray Charles could see that it was off.
Dgob: oh, I wasn't trying to imply anything about your set up; I'm sure it sounds divine. It's true that finding the right tonearm would make the Sony better, but my point was that Sony itself doesn't appear to think so since it accepts quite a margin of error.
Dear Raul: I need another cart like a hole in the head. You can't imagine how many times I've looked at a Goldring g800 after I read your remarks--but I can't bring myself to buy another cart. |
Hi Banquo363,
No inference drawn but my point still stands. You're obviously mature and intelligent enough to appreciate what you hear and, equally, what you read. My Glanz operate the way they do because I fell upon the correct combination and I was only trying to confirm that finding the correct arm/cartridge combination is no more essential with the integrated cartridges than it is in optimising their stand alone brethren.
I recall that without electricity even the finest equipment is just scrap metal and therefore realise that there are always interdependencies in our hobby. And againm we should be acutely aware of Geobbels' contention that if one asserts an inaccuracy with sufficient force, many will accept it as fact.
As always... |
Banquo363,
Equally, I accept your point about Sony's thinking. It is a thinking shared by Glanz and Nagaoka (except both emphasise the importance of correct VTF and overhang) - to name two brands that I know of. I also accept completely that your ears and the intelligence that informs them must be the final arbiter.
No offence intended and pleased that you found your way to my Glanz thread. Sensible contributions are always welcome.
As always... |
Banquo, It seems to be obvious that Sony made those integrated cart/headshells for their own turntables/arm combo's. As deed Ikeda for his own tonearms. But the difference is this. According to J. Carr the magnets by FR-7 series are so big that no other solution was possible. This however is not the case by Sony. The Pro.55 for example contains the regular XL 55. I would not mess myself with the cart but you can post this cart to Axel and ask him to do this job for you. The added benefit is his check of the suspension and stylus. As Raul stated and I can confirm this XL series is exceptional.
Dear Dgob, I am not 100% sure if the SME sliding base can provide optimal geometry for whatever cart but should be obvious solution for the Glanz G series.
Regards, |
I seem to have inadvertently found myself in the middle of something.
Rest assured that I don't know enough (nothing really) about integrated headshells to take sides either way. I will say that I am surprised by how good the cart sounds given the degree of 'error' it has in my setup. I find that comforting.
I'm selling the cart anyways, not because of the headshell but because I'm looking to go all MM.
If I ever find a Glanz cartridge (6 months of snooping and I've yet to lay eyes on one), I'll be back here for more lessons from the ghost of Goebbels. |
Banquo363,
:~)
As always... |
Dear Banguo, My gosh! There is no conspiracy on either side
so you are consequently not in 'the middle of something'.
We all try to provide info to our best knowledge but what
you intend to do with this information is your own choice and/or decision.
All my headshells have 'splits' and azymuth provision for obvious reasons
but if I get the chance to obtain the Glanz 5 or 7 for a good price I would
certanly buy any of those. This is how I interpret Dgob's
recommendation. That is btw how I bought the most of my carts: by others recommendation. More in particular by Raul's recommendation.
Regards, |
Hi Nandric,
You have precisely interpreted my intention.
Thanks
As always... |
Dear Raul, I assume that you made a typo by 'promoting'
Banquo's XL 33 to XL 55 'status'. My own interest is involved
because I hope to obtain the XL 55. If your XL 44
is somehow 'better' than the XL 55 you are using 'top line'
argument in some other sense than you are used to do . Say, those Signets and the arguments against Halcro and Professor who prefer lower kind ( 3-7) above the above
ranked kinds. Halcro btw even refused to cosider my kind offer
of my beatuful Signet 9 CL (NOS!). I, on the other side, bought
the Signet 7 E as a proof of my own open mind (grin).
Regards, |
Dear Dgob: +++++ " The owner's manual asserts that on a Sony tonearm overhang error of +/- 3mm (!) is not a problem for it's "practical use" " +++++
++++ " It is a thinking shared by Glanz and Nagaoka ... " +++++
I think I did not made clear my take down there:
the cartridge integrated headshell designs had its " euphoria " ( marketing more than any other real meaning. ) at the end of the 70's early 80's.
I was " infected " by that market euphoria and even that I owned the stand alone model I bought it the " new and better " integrated one ( I still own a FR one. ) and for many years I live thinking that the integrated ones was the best road to go.
Why accepted that marketing " hype "? IMHO for the same reasons that some of the manufacturers had when they started with those designs: ignorance, in my case " full ignorance " and maybe in some cartridge manufacturers: part ignorance, part marketing$$$$ and part don't be aware of the critical importance in any cartridge alignment/set up.
Please tell me any one of you when was the first time/year that you be aware of the importance and the why's of: Baerwald, Stevenson, Löfgren, etc., when you was really aware of the importance to match the cartridge to the right tonearm/headshell, when you was really aware of the importance of VTA/SRA/VTF/AZ/Overhang and accuracy in all those parameters, when was the very first time that you read a cartridge/tonearm review where the reviewer made it emphasis on all those critical cartridge/tonearm alignment/set up, when was the very first time that you read from any single cartridge designer about, when you heard for the first time that an audio dealer/distributor talked in that way?????when???????
IMHO today any one of us are truly aware of all those subjects in a way that no one in those old times been and many times not because they as " professionals " don't know about but because they did not gives the importance level it has.
Take that Sony statement: " +,- 3mm. " this means that 6mm on overhang makes no difference but we all know it makes a whole and huge difference for the better or bad.
Why am I still with the FR integrated design?, because sounds good but even that I can't be sticky with a cartridge where I can't improve its performance due to set up cartridge limitations when exist ( in my case I own. ) almost endless cartridge alternatives that outperform my FR, the Glanz, the Yamaha or AT integrated ones.
I always support and supported that the best way to improve any audio system and any audio cartridge signal is. TO LOSE AND ADD THE LESS. A wrong cartridge set up permit that I " lose and add " not the less but the " more ".
My target my main target is to have the lower distortions( any kind. ) in my audio system and the cartridge integrated headshell designs IMHO can't help me to achieve that main target. Remember that to " lose and add the less " accuracy is a critical factor to achieve it. This was and is our Essential target when designed.
Fortunately I have an " adventure audio attitude " that permit me till today learn each single day and that permit me discovery new roads and new alternatives in favor of music.
I understand you about but I already left behind that audio stage of my audio life. Almost everyone pass through the same audio stages trhough our audio life, well I already passed there as I'm sure you will pass it sooner or latter.
In the other side each one of us like different kind of audio system distortions and things are that I like different distortions you like.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
