Glanz moving magnet cartridges

Dear Dgob, I was suprised with Vetterone advice because
I thought that the higher numbers imply higher ranking.
Even more suprising is the price for the MG 70: 1495 GBP.
To be honest I have difficulty to believe this.However in
the nomenclature I have the Glanz series consist of MFG
31/51/61 and 71. So it may be the case that MG 70 is a
'different animal'. I expect to get today from Italy:
Krell mc 100 (aka Takeda's Miyabi Standard) and Sony XL
88. The same Italian seller promissed to post some pictures
of his MFG 61 but, alas, he lives in Nord Italy where two
earthquakes happened. He is well but needs to help his
friends who where less lucky ( homes damaged).
So my quess is that I will get this cart within 10 days or
so.

Regards,

m

Hi All,

Regarding the differences and similarities between the Glanz and Astatic range, I thought the following detail with the various patents that underpin these might prove enlightening:

"4072823 1978 Minamizono 'Mitachi Onkyo Seisakusho (brand name ""GLANZ"")' 'Pickup cartridge called as' 'Moving Flux'(see also 4011417). Unique construction having merit of MM/IM/MC. 'Also see Design patent D266504(1982) assigned to The Astatic Corporation (cartridge model MF200)'. Also '4123067 about unique stylus pivot suspension (embodied in model G-7 cartridge)'."

This might explain the preferences some have for the Astatic MF-200. However, it does suggest a uniqueness to the Glanz G-7 that might explain its distinct sound from the Astatic and Glanz cartridges that I have heard. It does suggest specific differences in and between both Glanz and Astatic cartridges.

The G7 continues to fascinate me but others (say the MFG-61o) might still supersede it in my ultimate estimations. Speaking of the latter, which was only recently brought to my attention by Vetterone, Grammophone April 1985, does note the new range of Glanz and the supremacy of the MFG-61o among that MFG range:

"In their 'moving flux'; range is the new MFG-310 (L4195) having a stylus lock fitment, glass-fibre body and line-contact diamond stylus. There is also a top model, the MFG-6Io (89) with a hollow boron cantilever, and a budget moving-magnet cartridge, the Glanz MG-70 at £1495."

Again, this seems to suggest the real variety of construction detail that affects Glanz. I hope Nandric decides to get hold of the 61o and lets us all know his perception of its strengths and weaknesses. I also continue to hope that more contributions and information are forthcoming.

As always...

'Tho'? There are foreinger in our forum you know.Besides why do you think that innocence needs defence? What kind of defence do you have in mind: religious or criminal?

Tho, does not fit in an innocent defense scenario

Nandric, I will give you a Touche'

Dear Isochronism, Your verbal construction is wishful thinking. You should construct something more convincing.
Say: if we were brave enough to commit our revenge by ourself we will not need attorneys.

Regards,

Dear Lew, There are at least two interpretations possible.
But you can be assured that your Slavic brother is not involved in the worst case scenario. He was never attorney.
I realy hope that this is of any help. The problem is that
this Vetterone provoke me which btw is very easy to do with
any Balkanese. I even considered to complain about him by
Vidmantas assuming that Vidmantas is also his friend. But
considering his kind of humor I doubt if he has any friend at all.
Besides who wants a TT addict as friend? BTW how many TT's
do you own?

Regards,

If it were not for Attorneys....
we would not need any.

Good one!

Dear Vetterone, I hope you will like this one:

Lawyer 1: 'colleaque your case is hopeless'.
Lawyer 2: 'dear colleaque a case is only hopeless if the
client is not able to pay'.

Thanks for your 'second opinion' . BTW I nearly wrote to Vidmantas to complain about you.

Regards,

Hi Vetterone,

That sounds fascinating about the MFG-61. I had made the assumption that you note which probably points back to the lack of available information. Along these lines, I'd be interested in seeing any Glanz cartridge literature that you possess if you could let me know anything I can do to assist here, please let me know.

Hopefully, Nandric grabs the availalbe model and lets us all know about his experience.

As always...

Nandric, I answered your question. Knowing lawyers as I do, I would never put forth anything more than what was asked from them. In fact most lawyers would never ask a question for which they did not already know the answer.
I hate to assume anything.

Now that you tell me of your intentions, I will gladly give you more information on the MFG 61. If you have not done so already. BUY IT! According to the info sheet included with the MFG 61, Glanz says

"MFG 61, as the most prestige model among Glanz MF cartridges..."

Obviously, the MFG 61 is the top of the line, even above the MFG 70/71 models.
There is no 61L model as Dgob was assuming.

A question for you Nandric, what is your favorite lawyer joke?

Cheers

Dear Vetterone, The intention of my question was to get
advice reg. the purchase of the MFG 61. From your answer
I can conclude that you prefer to keep your knowledge for
yourself. I know that you are a kind of inventor but the
so called 'know how' in the context of the intellectual property
apply for your turntables and not carts. Or so I thought.

Regards,

Yes Nandric, I know of the MFG 61

Sorry Nandric,

I have never heard it. However, if it is the MFG-61'L', it should be a good buy. I think that if you can get it at a reasonable price, it will be useful just to explore for yourself. Obviously, I do rate the Glanz that I have tried and other fora are positive about other Glanz.

Good luck either way

As always...

Does anyone knows anything about the Glanz MFG 61?
This one I can buy from some Italian seller.

Regards,

The above obviously relates to additional couplings and mechanical response - although not really treating of the issues surrounding coupling disparate build materials. The universal headshell and fixing screws are of course, as has already been pointed out, a useful way to tune in our prefered distortions.

As always...

Hi All,

Fleib posted the following on the MM/MI thread:

"Using a removable headshell you're much more likely to have vibrations remain in the headshell as they hit the headshell coupling. I have some arms with removable headshells, and I think this is true. IMO it's better to avoid additional resonance, retain greater arm rigidity, and allow the arm to dissipate mechanical energy."

This seems to make sense to me and might explain (in part) the biggest comparitive difference in the performance of the integrated cartridges that I have recently explored. This would still be the case even 'if' all other design factors were the same. That would also suggest the grounds behind Nagaoka and Glanz views of their own benchmark cartridges!

As always...

Hi All,

Does anyone know of or have anything useful to say about the following? http://www.sibatech.co.jp/glanz/index.html.

I am just concidering their potential performance and how might match with the G series so I would appreciate any information here also.

As always...

Dear Raul, this thread is moved to our regular MM thread.
I have no idea why you count me as 'proponent' of the integrated carts? I owned just one, the FR-7, but never used the thing. I am on your side in this dispute but my
reason is not connected with the performance but with the lack of practicality in my case.

Regards,

Sorry Nadric,

It's early here and so I just spotted the linguistic link (shine, glanz).

I would hope that the repeating on the MM/MI thread might bring more Glanz users forward. I'd still like the forms of discussion around set up tips, tonearm matching preferences, vtf, sra etc. I'd also love to think that some former or current users of the Glanz G series would have anecdotal and personal reflections that might help situate these gems in experiiental time and space.

As always...

Hi Nandric,

I'm not really sure that I follow your last post but that seems fine!?

As always...

Dear Dgob, Because your thread , as I already mentioned,
become 'who knows better' our beloved Henry decided to
move your thread to the right place: the MM thread.
I love the guy and will follow. As you know my beloved Frege was obsessiv about 'foundations' so I, as a good student, will try to question some of Rauls 'foundations'. He, it seems, is also very fond of 'foundations' but thinks that his are the only 'right one'. This of course is a very strong indication that he 'knows better' and that is and was my point. No more 'shine' alas for your Glanz as separate thread.

Regards,

Raul,

Everyone is free to read and judge your comments and make their own decisions: hopefully in the light of a few facts:

1. You have simply NEVER heard the cartridges about which you have repeatedly announced a keen dislike!? [That underpins your desperate scratching around to find things/a logic that - "apparently" - support your hatred.]

2. You have now contradicted every tenet on which you argued the case for antique MM/MI cartridges and you have done so in a manner that would have been more fitting of the received wisdom that often stated that MC's were more modern and therefore better?

Is this mere dishonesty? Or is it an ego related failing? I am not certain. It does make we wonder about your constant exclamations that "I have said all I have on Glanz" (assumedly here meaning, 'nothing').

No, your willingness to spit out negative comments about a cartridge that you feel no shame in admitting that you have never heard seems to suggest more hidden motives and recalls the recently mentioned bard. As the infamous Iago concludes his part in the drama that he has helped to unfold:

"Iago: 'Demand me nothing. What you know, you know. From this time forth I never will speak word."

And yet, as though some monarch-like ghost wondering the battlements of his demise, here you stand providing what seems to me to be the same blind criticism.

I'm only saying

As always...

Hi Nandric,

"You also dismissed Ortofon SPU and EMT with a very strange 'foundation' : for some silly Japanese?"

I am not wholly surprised. Cartridge/people? An easy digression!

As always...

Dear nandric: I repeat, those integrated headshell designs were a fashion on those old times and in many ways more marketing that a scientific achievment.

Almost all the cartridge manufacturers of this kind of designs were tonearm manufacturers too: Technics, Audio Technica, FR/Ikeda, Yamaha, Sony, ADC, etc, etc.

Wonder where those integrated headshell designs performs the " better "?, you are right!: with its tonearm counterpart designed by the same cartridge manufacturer.

I owned several of those integrated headshell designs on those old times and I remember the USA distributors/sellers how they push to the integrated designs against its stand alone brothers, curios was that normally first appears the stand alone one and suddenly after that the integrated headshell design arrived and some " stupid " people like me goes through the integrated designs too!. At the end we owned two same model cartridges that means profits$$$ for the manufacturers: who cares?????

Japanese manufacturers does not cares about those " high end " tonearms with non removable headshell designs ( the Lewm argument. ) because almost all of them have on sale their own tonearm designs that were the " best " tonearm match. The integrated cartridge designs were on sale mainly in Asia, then Europe and in lesser way in America.

Marketing always has an important " weight " on audio item designs and in many cases with no clear audio quality parameters/factors as its foundation.

Btw, 80% of the sales on Ortofon/EMT integrated cartridge designs goes to Asia where today still exist a " cult " for that kind of sound.

I don't see that you and the other " proponents " of integrated headshell designs have wide experiences with this kind of cartridges.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear Raul, What I assumed reg. the FR-7 is that I quoted
J. Carr correctly . He called the FR-7 'big,heavy monster'
(FR 7 thread; 05-26-09).It is also a fact that FR-7 was never produced as stand alone cart. Why not? With your own 'foundations' you should be able to answer the question. You also dismissed Ortofon SPU and EMT with a very strange 'foundation' : for some silly Japanese? Both carts are still produced so obviously there is demand for them. I don't believe that those who buy them care very much for your arguments. BTW from the same FR-7 thread I 'deduced' that you are pretty fond of this integrated cart? My own objection is that they are impractical . That is to say impractical for me. Everyone else is free to think what he likes.

Regards,

Dear Lewm: Integrated headshell cartridge designs were a trend a fashion on those old times. As I said the way of thinking on that subject was how 40 years ago manufacturers thinked.

What Nandric pointed out has no sense: how any one could think that magnets can't go in an stand alone design??, IMHO Nandric can't assume that he assumed but with out foundation and about the SPU/EMT that's only to fans ( mainly in Asia. ) of that kind of sound.

Anyway, I made my points and till here I can't see/read any argument that was/is strong enough to convince the common sense and experiences about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

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'

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,

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."

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...

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.

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 Nandric,

Just to add that I have not stated that these Glanz are "the best": I still lean towards the Technics when giving out such meaningless accolades. In this sense I suppose my reflections have helped me mature to the point where I now appreciate the view of Siniy123 and Jcarr who have both suggested to me that "there is NO perfect cartridge". They all make compromises due to natural mechanical limitations and the nature of the tasks that they are being asked to perform.

However, as I hope has emerged through this thread, I do think that they are "great" cartridges that have largely been overlooked. This fact and my own fascination with their unexpected performance has driven this thread. That is why I baulk at the blind dismissal and its potential to deter others from trying them out (should the opportunity arise). That's all.

As always...

Hi 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...

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

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.

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,

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 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,

Hi All,

Apologies for the repeated post: although I am clearly not alone in that respect.

Hi All,

It might be helpful if I address a couple of myths that are circulating on this thread. The first bewildering piece of misinformation is that integrated cartridges lose something to their so called "stand-alone" brethren. Rubbish!

Both Glanz and Nagoaka, foir example, would seem to disagree with that statement. Notably, with both the G series of the former and MP series of the latter, there is clear and explicit statement by its actual makers that their integrated headshell versions are sonically superior. But amateur hifi enthusiasts beg to differ – even where they have never heard or tested these!?

The other baffling piece of puerile drivel involves that same reference to “stand-alone” cartridges. I take it that this is referring to cartridges using the normal ½ inch universal headshell mount. It need hardly be seen as rocket science to appreciate that those headshells deprive such cartridges of being anything like ‘stand alone’.

Some of these enthusiasts also suggest that the importance of finding the right/best headshell for any cartridge is paramount. However, the same people have again denied the manufacturers of these golden age gems the credit of having tested and selected a mounting which optimises their cartridges!? My own personal testing and experience finds accord with the manufacturers and bafflement with the blind critics.

A consequent myth that follows on the soiled coat tails of the headshell one is that all integrated cartridges suffer similar problems and – assumedly – performance characteristics: whether they are Nagaka, Glanz or Ortofon, for example. I wont even bother unpicking the problems with that form of prejudiced nonsense. The thoughtful readers will draw their own conclusions.

As always…

Hi All,

It might be helpful if I address a couple of myths that are circulating on this thread. The first bewildering piece of misinformation is that integrated cartridges lose something to their so called "stand-alone" brethren. Rubbish!
Both Glanz and Nagoaka, foir example, would seem to disagree with that statement. Notably, with both the G series of the former and MP series of the latter, there is clear and explicit statement by its actual makers that their integrated headshell versions are sonically superior. But amateur hifi enthusiasts beg to differ – even where they have never heard or tested these!?
The other baffling piece of puerile drivel involves that same reference to “stand-alone” cartridges. I take it that this is referring to cartridges using the normal ½ inch universal headshell mount. It need hardly be seen as rocket science to appreciate that those headshells deprive such cartridges of being anything like ‘stand alone’. Some of these enthusiasts also suggest that the importance of finding the right/best headshell for any cartridge is paramount. However, the same people have again denied the manufacturers of these golden age gems the credit of having tested and selected a mounting which optimises their cartridges!? My own personal testing and experience finds accord with the manufacturers and bafflement with the blind critics.

A consequent myth that follows on the soiled coat tails of the headshell one is that all integrated cartridges suffer similar problems and – assumedly – performance characteristics: whether they are Nagaka, Glanz or Ortofon, for example. I wont even bother unpicking the problems with that form of prejudiced nonsense. The thoughtful readers will draw their own conclusions.

As always…

Hi Vetterone,

I must start by apologising for the slight delay in responding but that was caused by personal demands that kept me occupied yesterday.

Anyway, in responding I should note that there exists too little information on the Glanz and most particularly on the "G" series. This includes the absence of the User Manual, Specifications sheet and test data that often accompany cartridges. That fact played a large part in my starting this thread. Hence, the little I know is still in need of kind contributions such as yours.

As far as I am aware, all the G and MFG series of Glanz and the Astatic MF series are - as you note - moving flux (MF). Of course that does not apply to the MG series of Glanz. Indeed, the literature from France positions 'those Glanz that it covers' as at the cutting edge of design by displaying a [then] new mf technology: "Les cellules GLANZ sont fabriquees au Japon par la societe MITACHI Corporation. Ces cellules sont dites a flux variable (Moving flux) nouveau procede dont le pricipe est le suivant..."

I should note that this technical commonality should not be seen to make the cartridges the same. As you note, THEY ARE CLEARLY NOT. It would be the equivalent of classing a Rolls Royce as the same as a Morris Minor because both share a combustion engine!! Equally, there appears to be no original literature treating of the G3 and G5 models. And so I can only discuss the differences that I have observed.

All of the G series [G1, G3, G5 and, ultimately, the G7] share the same fixing method and their styli are interchangeable and bear their common number: meaning they are the M1, M3, M5 and M7 styli, respectively. The G7 and top of each of their cartridge range [G7, MFG-71L, MFG-51L, MFG-31L and MG-70L] all use line contact stylus. All others use elliptical styli. This is an obvious difference concerning their performances.

Furthermore, even a cursory glance at the top Glanz G7, G5 and the Astatic MF-100 shows obvious differences. There is, for example, a conspicuous difference in materials used for the cantilever and its housing. But it is with regards to performance that you are correct to note the most important distinctions.

The Astatic is a very good cartridge but I do not feel that it is in the same domain as these Glanz. Coil windings, materials used, coupling mechanisms and output are distinct across them. And the G7 is, as you note, rated at a whopping 4.2mv. For testing purposes this means that you have to elevate the gain/volume control in order to place the other two on an equal footing when it comes to sheer scale and definition. The Glanz are simply better at retrieving detail than the Astatic and the G7 is better than the G5 on this aspect: once correctly set up and run-in!

Regarding the differences within the Glanz “G” series, the power and detail superiority of the G7 over the G5 is therefore not only down to their distinct output powers nor is it down to their distinct styli. This is easily tested by the noted volume alterations and by interchanging the styli and testing on both cartridges.

Incidentally, the G7 comes as close to repeating the accuracy that I detect with my Technics P100c MK4 as any cartridge I have heard. The most notable difference between the two is the Glanz's transient speed and dynamic impact. If you need a platform from which to best explore this distinction, there is no finer place than Solti's Mahler 8 (Decca). Due to the physical laws affecting the volume of sound on such a large and sonically complex work, this box set is one of the most difficult to replicate within a listening room. The G7 comes as close as anything I have ever heard. There are nevertheless delicacies with the Technics (on a Morch DP6) that I have also not heard replicated anywhere else. Conclusion? Both great cartridges but different.

I hope my slight knowledge proves useful and that further contributions are forthcoming.

As always…

Hi 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...

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.

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,

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,

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.