Glanz moving magnet cartridges
Dear Dgob, I can't resist to report about my new acquired Glanz 71 l. I compared my new 'treausure' with the AT 150 ANV for about 5 hours. No contest. The Glanz is much better and nearly as good as the Glanz 5. I noticed the same cantilever/stylus as by Glanz 5. The cantilever is a cone like construction, complete different from the 31 version. I am not willing to buy those 'cantilever material' arguments. That is to say if the arguments don't mention the alloy of which the cantilever is made. The facts are that my best carts are all with 'aluminum'(alloy) cantilever: FR-7, Takeda's Myabi, Andreoli's Magic Diamond, Glanz 5 , Glanz 71 L and 31 L. Only my Benz LP S is in the same leaque with a boron cantilever. I also don't buy the 'break in time'. If the producer 'tuned' the cart to his best capabilities how is it possible that the same cart will perform much better after, say, 40 hours of use? In this sense I must confess that my AT 150 ANV is not 'broken in' (what an expression) but this cart sounds 'digital' to me. To pronounced mid/high frequenties.In contradistinction the Glanz 71 l does not accentuate any frequency domain and sounds as an equal whole. The cart was second hand and obviously 'warmed up' already. I need to thank you , dear Dgob, for your introduction to those remarcable Glanz carts. If only Vetterone would be so kind to swap with me his 61 for my Glanz 5 for some listening period of time. Regards, |
Dear nandric: You are right and I agree but for different reason: the ANV is mire accurate with lower distortions than the MF I own too. You are a wise man and maybe you should think where in your systems are the problem with the ANV " digital " oriented because I know it is not the ANV. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Raul, I mentioned very clearly that my AT 150 ANV is not yet 'burned in'. I have only about 10 hours on it. The suspension is, I assume, still to stif. So my valuation is only provisional. But you know how 'excitement' works. I was so glad with the Glanz 71 L that I wanted to share with at least Dgob. You may be also right regarding my 'system'. I test all carts in my second system with SP 10,mk II, FR-64 S , Jasmine LP 2 phono-pre and Marantz amp. (A class). However my experience is that extraordinary carts can be 'detected' also with a modest system. My main system is to complex for frequent testing. Regards, |
Hi Nandric, I'm still hoping to hear the 71 L and, as you point out, it's performance specifications are nearly those of the G5 and G7. Our distinct systems do seem to allow agreement on the quality of specific cartridges and that's also interesting. I've been tied up in trying to design and build a plinth for my SP10 and so have not been listening to as much vinyl as I would normally. Still, I hope to be back with deck shortly and to unleash the Glanz and company. As always... |
Dear Dgob, I am alas the owner of two 'left hands' so no chance for me to build my own plinth for my SP 10,mk II. My hope is that Vetterone will be intriquied with my Glanz 5 in such a way that he will offer one of his plinths in exchange. He make them himself from his own material so it may be the case that this swap is interesting as well as profitable for him (grin). BTW the performance specifications you mentioned can't be attributed to me because I have non. I only mentioned the similarities between the styli. To compare them in A-B-A configuration is possible but I would need to disconnect the Benz LP S from the Triplanar and Kiseki Goldspot from the Reed 2A to do so. But I spend 3 days to adjust both. I also need to open my Basis Exclusive for the purpose. Not an appealing proposition alas. I wish you all the success with your plinth but if carpentry is not your profession I would advice to contract out this work. Your 'own' Adam Smith wrote about division of labour 'ages' ago. Regards, |
Hi Nandric, Fortunately, the extended family and available professions means a cost free (well at least as far as labour costs are concerned) project here - except the cost of patience! It's great fun and I'm becoming increasingly aware of the constraints under which TT design and (more specifically) plinth design staggers. We'll get there soon enough but are looking at a couple of design challenges for which the known prior approaches seem inadequate. Thinking caps are truly on. As always... |
There’s no denying the tenacity of Nikola…. Here we have an esoteric cartridge Thread begun by Dgob (no slouch in the perseverance stakes himself) which may well have died from lack of contributors were it not for the surprising intervention of Nandric? Surprising…in that he himself had no experience with the topic at hand….nor was he to gain any for almost the entire duration of the Thread? Floundering initially in the vacuum he found himself…….Dgob kept plugging away, enticing us with tales of myth and promise and begging for responses…information….contributions. Anyone?….anyone?….. And then came Nikola….into the fray at first like some tentative Dutchman…….but gently and increasingly displaying his Slavic origins by somehow managing to contribute readable posts without offering the qualifications one normally requires of a ‘mentor’? Sucked in by this audacity…..others….. also suitably unqualified enough to speak….found their tongues and so the Thread survived. Still prodded back to life by Dgob however, whenever it seemed to collapse under its own lack of substance…..until out of the gloom (and without fanfare of any kind) dropped a post by Vetterone who, like Dgob, actually had heard and owned some Glanz cartridges. To Nikola…this was just what he needed. Validation from an expert practitioner in the field of analogue…… And so the quest began in earnest for Nandric to acquire these ‘unicorn’ cartridges for himself. And in this he was successful to the tune of four different models…. And why, you may ask…..do I summarise all this for the patient, baffled readers still wondering why they continue to read about cartridges they have never seen nor heard and are unlikely ever to do? Because dear readers……I now have all four of those Glanz cartridges belonging to Nandric. Look well dear readers at these cartridges, for you are unlikely ever to see so many Glanzs (Glanzae? Glanzi?) in the one place at the one time? Nandric wanted me to hear these mythical beasts and give my opinions. So…for what it’s worth, here it is……. The G5 (M5 stylus) with its sexy chromed integral headshell was initially mounted in one of my Fidelity Research FR-66s 12” tonearms on the Raven AC-2 turntable whilst the MFG-31L, MFG-51L and MFG-71L were all mounted in wood headshells on the SAEC-8000/ST tonearm on the nude Victor TT-101 DD turntable. After suitable run-in times for all cartridges…..listening began. At first it was almost impossible to distinguish between the 31L, 51L and 71L….so alike were their sounds. This is unsurprising when one studies the specifications of each cartridge to discover that they are to all intents and purposes identical? Dgob began this Thread by focusing on the G5 integral headshell model and continued with his enthusiasm….eventually including the G7, also an integral headshell design. I found the G5 to be a pleasant but unremarkable cartridge….very dependent on tonearm matching (it sounded fine in the FR-66s tonearm but in the Micro Seiki MA-505s the sound became recessed and boring with a loss of bass slam and an overall lethargy to the music). The ‘normal’ Glanzs were rather more convincing in their overall presentation with a better refined frequency extension. The bottom depth does not compete with the ‘hard-hitters’ in my collection…..but I can certainly live with the smooth, unfussed beauty they provide. I was able to pick up some slight differences in the three models with my preference going to the MFG-51L over the MFG-31L. The MFG-71L strangely enough…..was my least favourite….although I stress again the differences were subtle in the extreme. Had I heard these cartridges a year or so ago……I would have ranked them quite highly but recently I have acquired some samples (all MMs)…..which have raised the bar and revealed a presentation and information extraction that has shocked and delighted me….. Nevertheless…..I kept the Glanz MFG-51L and sent Nandric a pristine example of an AT-155Lc cartridge complete with its original square shank, nude mounted line contact stylus on its beryllium cantilever for transplanting into his Signet TK-7LCa. It will be interesting to hear his views on that compared to the Glanz G5? |
Halcro, "Dgob began this Thread by focusing on the G5 integral headshell model and continued with his enthusiasmÂ….eventually including the G7, also an integral headshell design. I found the G5 to be a pleasant but unremarkable cartridgeÂ….very dependent on tonearm matching." Thanks for your feedback and impressions. I would (as I have) recommend that you try the G5 or G7 in an Audiocraft AC3300 LB. My delight arose from that setting and - obviously - my experience is very different to the one you seem to have endured. I have recently had the opportunity to compare my Glanz to a new Audio Technica AT150 ANV (which I picked up for an obscenely low price) and my assessment of the former remains undoubtedly positive: so my 'enthusiasm' goes on unabated. Maybe I am looking for a degree of fidelity that differs to your target or our systems reveal different virtues. Large world/many views, so it's great to hear that you are still enjoying your DIY Signet and some other samples. I hope they continue to bring you happiness. As always... |
Halcro, Sorry, I have very little time these days and so did not correctly read all of your latest post: "I was able to pick up some slight differences in the three models with my preference going to the MFG-51L over the MFG-31L. The MFG-71L strangely enoughÂ…..was my least favouriteÂ….although I stress again the differences were subtle in the extreme." I am not certain about the state of the cartridges that you tested or the overall synergy that you managed to obtain with your system. However, honestly, this is as far away from the experience with the two cartridges that you note me referencing (the G5 and G7), as to be unr3ecognisable. In fact, these cartridges are so distinct in performance and (obviously) design that they could easily give the impression that they were designed by two distinct companies. If your G5 is in complete working order, I can only suggest you persevere until you have managed to get the best out of it. I have no financial or personal gain in this but I am certain that your referenced "big hitters" will have a high class neighbour once you move it into the correct environment. As for bass control on the G5 - compare it to the AT150 ANV or the magnificent Technics 100Mk4 and let me know what you think! If you can, persevere As always... |
Halcro - since you guys brought it up, I hope this isn't too far off-topic but having recently acquiring a Signet TK7Ea body, I'm about to find out for myself just how good your TK7*a/ATN155LC combination sounds in my system. I haven't done any comparisons yet but would you say this hybrid combo sounds better than the AT155LC itself? I'm planning on doing some comparisons between the two and will be throwing an AT7V/ATN155LC combo into the mix just for kicks. |
Dgob, I’m sorry if my impressions appear to be negative? That was not my intent…..nor is it accurate. I found the G5 to be “unremarkable” in that it’s presentation revealed nothing that was not available from a number of my finest cartridges. This is not a ‘condemnation’ of the G5…..as it is being compared to the ‘crème de la crème’ of my selected collection. I do find the AT150 ANV to be more detailed, transparent and convincing in its overall presentation than the G5……but this is to be expected from a Signet TK-7LCa ‘wannabe’ :-) Where the 150ANV loses out to its illustrious predecessor IMHO… is in its emotional content. The ability of some cartridges to suspend belief…and draw you in to the performance is akin to alchemy? How do they do it? Whilst it may be an ‘emphasis’ in the 40Hz region that makes one cartridge appear to delve deeper than another and a ‘peak’ in the 10K Hz range that delivers perceived ‘air’ or ‘detail’…….how does one explain with science….the way one cartridge can startle and amaze? How can one cartridge deliver the performers into the room whilst another ‘wallpapers’ with a flat presentation? How does one cartridge seem effortless and ‘alive’ whilst another seems to strain under its onerous duties? I’m not sure Dgob whether you have spent much time with the ‘normal’ Glanzs……the MFG-31L, 51L and 71L?…….but it was to them I was referring in their ‘likeness’ to one another. The G5 was easily distinguishable but I have not heard a G7 to enable comparisons? As you rightly observe…..there are many views, tastes, preferences and system differences to explain our varying experiences and all each of us can do is find the path that individually suits. I don’t for instance, find the AT150 ANV particularly impressive in the “bass control” or ‘depth’ region….nor do I find the Technics EPC100Mk3 any competition for the real champs ‘down there’? But then again…..I find the EPC100Mk3 to be one of the most boring cartridges I have heard. So concerned was I about this fact after reading the eulogies heaped of the 100Mk4….that I sent my 100Mk3 to Axel Schuerholz to check its functions. It was returned as “working flawlessly”……… I don’t personally know the differences between the 100Mk3 and 100Mk4…..but a trusted former contributor called Travis Lundy (Tbone) has both models and loves his 100Mk3? The audio world is a vast territory with a tiny subspecies of lunatics devoted to analogue and an ever smaller sub-culture of these who are obsessed with cartridges/styli/cantilevers. I genuinely thank you for bringing the elusive Glanz cartridges to our notice and it has resulted in the very fine MFG-51L joining my select collection. Kind Regards Henry |
Jmowbray, The AT-155Lc cartridge.....whilst retaining the signature 'sound' of the Signet TK Series.......always sounds a little 'thin' to me. There is a 'body' to the Signet TK-3, TK-5 and TK-7 which somehow eludes the AT despite the fact that it runs what was my favourite stylus assembly before the Jico SAS. Even the TK-3Ea, TK-5Ea and TK-7Ea with their own styli sound more relaxed and focused to my ears. With the 155Lc stylus transplant in any of these Signet models.....the AT-155Lc cartridge is easily outclassed and out-refined. The AT-7V shares more than a passing resemblance to the AT-155Lc cartridge to my ears.....and whilst I have not attempted the comparison with the 155Lc transplant.....I would be surprised if it matched the composure of the Signets? I think you will enjoy your forthcoming listening experiences? Please keep us informed? |
Dear Henry, If I knew in advance what kind of comment you would produce about my Glanz collection I would not even dream to borrow my whole collection to you. But the sentiment is easilly explained. I used to like you while your Slavic descent added to the illusion of brotherhood. Thanks to Dgob I got interested in the Glanz brand and got my first 31L not in Germany but in his motherland GB. Just before the 31 L I managed somehow to get the Astatic 200 the cart of the year and not of the month. By my Glanz 31L there was also the user manual included from which I learned that neither Glanz or Astatic have anything to do with the production of the MF (moving flux)carts. The Germans have the expression 'Aha Erlebnis' for such kind of discoveries. By comparing them I was surprised to hear or, better, not to hear any difference. With some reluctance I posted this finding in Dgob's thread. The reluctance because of implicite questioning of 'his authority' the Mexican. You have no idea how glad AND proud I was when Vetterone HIMSELF agreed with my judgment. This accident or fact then induced me to try to get the other 'top line' Glanz carts. The pride induces people to long for more succes. But it took me two years of 'global searching' to get the 4 which you got without any effort or trouble. We in Europe, you know, have learned the expression 'gratitude' as well what it means. Well different countries different customs as one would say. Now lucky me and probable unlucky Henry Vetterone also clearly stated that the worse of those is the 51L . Your preferd choice (grin). He also mentioned some misterious 61 which I was, alas, never able to find in the known universe. This one was according to him the best of his collection. I am a kind of member of the so called 'German group' but more in intellectual sense as in 'nationalistic one'. Because of this membership I understand their obssesion with FR-66 tonearm. In order to legitimate their opinion as well to be consistent they use this monster with any cart whatever. I myself would never dream to use the FR-66 for any MM cart whatever. And certainly not with the 71 L which has the highest complience of them all (aka 'all 4'). Why and how this German illusion was exported to Australia is an enigma for me. But,'in the other side', as the Mexican is used to say (aka write) this enigma may explain the 'deviant' opinions about many carts by our Aussie friend. Regards, |
Hello Henry, Your clarification "…..as it is being compared to the ‘crème de la crème’ of my selected collection." has put everything that you have stated into clear perspective. Just because they have not replaced your harem's #1 cartridge or cartridges, does not mean they are not competitors! Matter of fact, there would be nothing wrong with being #2 if so be judged when comparisons are made at that level! I also have a few of the Glantz's/Astatic's. Because of the bodies/generators all being the same, it is not quite true to say that a person has a favorite Glantz. It would be more 'correct' for you have a favorite cantilever/stylus combination mounted on the Glantz. Mine happens to be the MF 21TL. Even more so over the Astatic MF100. The TL is a Line Contact styus on a Titanium cantilever where as the MF100 has the softer sounding Shibata stylus. It's all system related or personnel preference so do enjoy your Glantz that you have acquired from our comrade in the Neverlands, I mean Netherlands! (grin) I am also happy to hear that our beloved comrade has "FINALLY" acquired a AT155. He has lusted after one of those for so long that I thought perhaps hell was going to freeze over! Best regards, Don |
The king is dead , long live the king. Or rather the frog become the princess thanks to my Glanz collection and some Aussie prince. Comparing the last 5 or so contributions with the MM thread caused those associations. If whoever is interested in compliments exchange between the Mexican and Harold the barren one can see the 'why' for himself. What we need in addition is the Professor, Lew, Flieb (in Don's notation) and more. To provide the substance , cause or occasion I am willing to borrow my Glanz colection to those mentioned. Then we will be complete again while Dgob's thread can florish with humorous AND informative content. Vetterone is also welcome but we (aka he and I) need to first agree about one of his plinths ... Regards, |
Dear Nikola, The Bavarian audiophiles (and the Japanese) know their onions...... The fact is that most people never have heard a Fidelity Research FR-66s tonearm in their system or a 'known' set-up.....yet so many feel the need to disparage it? Only when you hear one....with almost any cartridge you care to choose.....will the 'light' come on..... There is no other arm I've heard (apart from the Cobra and Copperhead) which has the control and authority over LOMCs and MMs equally.....to be truly called a 'Universal' tonearm? But the Cobra and Copperhead do not have interchangeable headshells and are such a pain technically to set up with any cartridge....that I could not recommend them for those with multiple cartridges. This is a shame as the Copperhead is probably the best tonearm I've ever heard with each and every high-compliance MM I've mounted. Just behind the Copperhead in magical synergy with MMs....is the SAEC-8000/ST...and it DOES have interchangeable headshells :-) It is however not such a good match for heavy LOMCs. So if anyone wants the very best genuine Universal tonearm which takes interchangeable headshells and is a breeze to set up.....there is really no competition for the FR-66s IMHO. And for those who might want one in perfect condition.....they need to be prepared to pay heavily for the privilege? But that is the mark of excellence....and only 'time' can bestow this quality. |
Hi Don, I didn't realise that you also had joined the Glanz club? It's good to read your thoughts.....and gratifying for me that you 'get' my comments? :-) Nikola is unlike most Slavs (who actually say what they think) in that he kept making snide remarks about the quantity of 155Lc styli I owned? How was I to realise he meant for me to share around my stash? The 'ruse' of sending me the Glanz cartridges was a brainwave on his part....and it worked a treat :-) I am however anticipating a muted reaction from this Dutch/Serb who distinctly prefers the sounds of LOMCs? |
Dear Henry,If one compare your use of languge by describing my Glanz collection with the language you used to describe your AT 155 Cl stylus one will get a clear picture about the distinction between prose and lyrics. I got the feeling that I need to abandon my atheistic convintion, knee-deep for the Almighty and thank him for the immeasurable luck to have at last got the treasure. And well as exchange for my abundant Glanz 51L. But if scarcity has anything to do with ecomics and prices the fact that you own 6 (!) of those AT 155 CL styli while nobody except Nikola was able to get one of those 51 L one may get some different perception about the swap involved. And, speaking about economics, in those difficult economic times an architect NEED to be very inventive in order to sell his stuf. No wonder then that some lyrical capabilities are developed. Now about the Germans. It is a known fact that they made and love heavy armors. The 'big Berta' ( the cannon) and those huge Panzers should provide some mind images. I myself call my ASR gear ( EmitterII and Basis exclusive) my 'German artillery'. I ever considered to by an Kalashnikov in Bosnia for $250 or the FR-66 to defend myself. The price difference should make it easy to guess what my choice was. So I can understand ,as I already mentioned, the 'German group' inclination reg. 'big guns' but had no idea about similar militaristic inclination buy the Aussie. Regards, |
++++ " The Bavarian audiophiles (and the Japanese) know their onions " +++++ problem is that they don't really know, maybe they think they know but this is different to really know. FR Mr. Ikeda more that anything is a cartridge designer, a good cartridge designer, but even that it's curious that the best quality performance cartridge ( a vintage one LOMC. ) was designed for the today My Sonic Labs cartridges. IMHO normally japanese audiophiles have a truly different music/sound priorities that almost all other world audiophiles they like: tubes, horns, SPU cartridges FR tonearms, SAEC, MS TTs and the like. Almost all are sinonimous of high distortions/colorations and that's what they like and nothing wrong with that. It's untrue that I did not owned a FR66 or that I did not know how to make the set up, even today I own the FR 64. I never talk with out first hand experiences and after made several tests and comparisons. Problem with the FR tonearms is that are all metal non-damped balanced designs. Trough my experiences the worst self resonance/vibrations tonearm/headshell build material is metal or a blend of it. A tonearm must " fight " against stylus/cantilever and cartridge body generated vibrations/resonances ( at microscopic level ) that one way or the other needs to be damped and at the same time that the tonearm/headshell can stop/disappears the feedback of those cartridge/LP generated resonances/vibrations: this can't do it by the all metal FR design and not only that but due to those microscopic cartridge/LP resonances the tonearm wand and bearing is exited with creating additional resonances/vibrations/distortions that degrade the cartridge signal as in no other tonearms. Additional the FR balanced design kind of operation has its own " ringing "/noise " to operate in balanced way with out no single kind of dampening that could stop those " vibrations ". That's what the FR owners are hearing. That, as some of you, like it what are hearing does not means in any way that those very high distortions disappeared just because you like it: NO you are hearing those distortions, period. Now, not one but two times a gentleman that knows a lot more that any one of us because he is a cartridge designer and he tested his cartridges with almost any kind of vintage/today tonearms and that knows exactly how each tonearm affect the cartridge signal posted ( when some one asked. ) that the FR is not a tonearm he prefered and even posted that the Ikeda tonearm are a little better than the FR some of you are in love with. The FR subject is not what we like but what is wrong or right. Yes, that authority or what ever adjective you can give to those tonearms are weighted with " tons " of distortions. SAEC, is a little different but with high distortions too. Gentlemans years ago whom brought here the SAEC 8000/506 tonearms was me. I?m the original owner of the SAEC tonearms and I was really impressed by ( build quality between other things. ) but as many people I learn trough the time problems with. First is the way resonant headshells and second its double knife bearing that is way resonant and can't stop feedback or even dissipate it in right way. Do you remeber the cartridge designer Sao Win? well he stated very emphatic not to use his cartridge ( LOMC ) design with knife bearing tonearms. Wonder why? and this is the people that knows and knows a lot of things that no one of us can't even imagine because we are not expert cartridge designers. Do you know something?, in some audio subjects some of us learned faster than others as in some other audio subjects some other gentlemans learned faster than us and IMHO in the FR subject some of you do not learned enough. Three-four years ago when I started to post that today digital medium outperforms the analog one some of you Agoner's just " laughed " because you did not learned enough about. Welol at least one of you today learned about and even posted a thread where he said something that I posted 3-4 years ago. The difference down there is that my digital/analog finding was 3-5 years ago using a humble 1K Denon player and the gentleamn I'm referng tokk him additional 4 years and 150K of invest on a digital item to take in count that digital is superior. Of course that each one of us are different mainly because we have different audio/music trainning. Today I'm " sticky " with the LOMC alternative for very good reasons. nandric was the only one of us with a clever/wise brain to states always that he prefered the LOMC alternative over the best MM/MI and I agree with him. Perhaps only the Astatic MF-2500 can be really a challenger to top LOMC cartridges. I respect that almost all of you are still sticky with the MM/MI alternative I'm not and not because is not a good alternative but mainly because I like to learn I like to grow up. As Lewm said: life is to short to stay " sticky ". Gentlemans, all of you know the respect I have for each one of you and I know that I'm not your " cup of tea " because who I'm and because my posts but this is the way I'm and believe or not no one of my posts try to hit in severe way to any one. Anyway, have fun. regards and enoy the music, R. |
Hello Henry, It is true that our Serbian Comrade does like his 'artillery' large. Just ask him about his favorite melons! It would appear that our warrior brother lured you into a trap with his tempting Glantzs only to reap the rewards of a AT155. He is a sly one! He has been spending his latest hours listening to his AT150 ANV. cartridge. It just might 'force' him to rethink his preference for those LOMC's. But his Serbian pride might keep him from ever admitting it to us! (grin) Regards, Don |
Dear Don, That is probably why the Dutch invented this saying: 'Protect me my Lord from my friends I can manage my enemy myself.' Henry likes to tease me with Raul's influence but he forget to mention that I always prefered the (LO)MC's above the MM kind while the Mexican only recently changed his mind in this, uh, connection. Anyway I mostly agreed with his MM valuations and only with the Ortofon MC 2000 of the MC kind. While I can manage my enemy my cheap Jasmine phono-pre can manage Ortofon's output:0,05 mV. What a cart! Realy difficult to believe considering the price. My conclusion: not the carts are important but our knowledge about them is. Regards, |
Regards. GENTLEMEN: Cars. Listening now to "Heartbreak City", Rick Ocasek's song "Drive" (Who's gonna' take you home ton_-_ight". I know, not everyone's cup o' tea. While watching the tonearm float gently above the mild warp there's a modest amount of contemplation going on, relating to carts, cars, suspensions and engines. A car doesn't choose the road traveled, neither does a cart care where the signal originates. Be it road or groove related, cars or tonearms bounce/compress, horizontal excursions exert their influences, treads and pavement, suspensions and coils interact (unless it's an electrect condenser generator, but you get the idea?). Engines. Two motors, two 2-seaters I'm extremely familiar with. A first generation Mazda RX-7 with an 1146 CC (70 Cu. Inch) 105hp Wankel rotary, the other a Nissan V-6. The "Datsun" has more than twice the displacement and nearly three times the horsepower, yet the little RX can equal it's performance. OK, so now where is this going? Dgob (hi, Dg!) brings up this consideration: The "state of the cartridges that you tested or the overall synergy that you managed to obtain with your system" obviously has an influence on the listeners' impressions. Wether car or cart, compression and extension need be appropriately matched to the mass-related load applied in operation, otherwise a less than critically damped system will introduce unwanted excursion. Neither car nor cart care but their might be unwanted outcomes associated with mechanical mismatches or operator error. Suggested reading, starting w/page 9: (url)http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/pdf/bass/BASS-03-04-7501b.pdf(/url) The FR-66 isn't mentioned--- Engines. The rotary delivers constant acceleration, easily and without an apparent peak in Hp/torque. In the driver's position, acceleration is smooth and constant. For the high compression V-6, torque at low RPMs gives way to increasing Hp at a measured 4600 RPMs, the initial impression is of immediate response. None-the-less, either offers comparable performance. The Mazda with its' skinny donut sized 13" tires, light, agile and constant. The other, fat 18" tires, aggressive (comparatively) and instantaneously responsive. So, IMHO, it goes with carts. IM/MI/MF carts are the low mass, refined and smooth performers. MMs the more operator involving, engaging and immediate. I'll not debate stereo-typification. There still remains the requirement to maintain a proper balance of mass, suspension and mechanical damping for optimal (critical) performance. There's little need for anyone to experience "Heartbreak City" because of varying preferences. So make sure your carts and cars are properly aligned, suspensions are appropriately matched for their load, keep your styli in the groove and may the rubber always meet the road. Great thread! Peace, |
Dear Professor, I need to read your prose at least twice to understand by approximation what you are talking about. Your lirical productions are, alas, impentrable for a foreigner like me regardless how many times I would read those. When I invited you to this thread I hoped for your humorous and informative contributions. I now hope that Lew will join us because he was always willing to explain to me difficult American expressions (like 'prostitute variations', etc). Besides he is among many other things also interested in (Italian) cars so the right person to explain your strange parallels between cars and carts. I hope you will be not surprised with this kind of welcome 'speach' from your friend from the Balkans? Regards, |
Greetings Professor, As usual....an interesting contribution and a great Link. Thanks.... As the only damped tonearms I've owned have been uni-pivots (Hadcock, Grace, Graham)...I'm not sure how other types can be damped unless one resorts to the DIY outboard rigger in a bath of oil as shown in your Link? But without derailing this Glanz Thread for Dgob.....perhaps we should begin another? But as Nandric seems to be consumed by the madness of matching the FR-66s to MM cartridges......I have tested it with the Garrott P77/SAS using the Shure V15Type V Audio Obstacle Course Test record and confirm that the resonant frequency of this combination is 11 Hz. A nice figure..... But the question of the resonant frequency of a tonearm/cartridge combination only arises IF and WHEN the stylus meets a warped record? Without a warped record.....there is no significance to this calculation? There are far more important factors involved in the mating of an arm/cartridge IMHO.... |
Regards, Griffithds: Took an Autumn tour through your former Illinois stomping grounds several weeks ago. Cave-In-Rock, the locus of the deadly 18th century river pirates (url)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave-In-Rock,_Illinois(/url) and through the Shawnee Hills/National Forest. Beautiful country. Pardon the thread wander, back on topic: There is an on-line archive of the Boston Audio Society "Speaker" publications from the early '70s through '05, seminal works by many recognizable contributors. Most of the information is still relevant, find it here: (url)http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker.htm(/url) Peace, |
Regards, Halcro: Agreed, Henry, although I do believe you are teasing me! However there are other means of damping a tonearm. Fluid damping is effective when there is a mismatch of cartridge compliance and tonearm mass, evident in "scrubbing" of the stylus in the groove and sometimes of the entire TA. Woofer pumping may also occur. It also serves to dampen vibration. Filling the TA tube with the material of your choice, wrapping with heat shrink tubing, anodizing, or strategic placement of neoprene washers or Blue Tack are thought by some to also be effective means of dealing with vibrational feedback. Alternate materials such as wood or carbon fiber used in construction of the arm tube are other options. Both of my Technics EPA arms incorporate a vibration absorbing mass in the counterweight (Technics has an impressive name for the mechanism, it escapes me at this moment) which is positioned magnetically. Compared to my several other TAs, I consider the EPA-250 well damped. Damp or dump- Raul mentioned vibration in the tonearm, it would seem beneficial to either dampen these vibrations or provide a line transference path capable of dumping those disturbances elsewhere. Afraid I view our hobby as a veritable carnival of resonances, critically damping or redirecting those disturbances to a vibrational sink goes with the territory. It might be remembered that resonances can be either constructive or destructive. I'd speculate that this, relative to the cartridge used, contributes or detracts from the synergistic qualities Dgob referred to in a previous post. In the past I'd posted on vibration in an anchored beam. That a tonearm is pivoted at one end and only partially constrained by the stylus at the distal end adds complications, usually manifested as untreated border resonances, vibration induced ringing or overshoot due to lingering resonance. Given a day or so to reassemble data and references, I'll give a better answer. Should anyone else care to contribute, please do. It will, I'm afraid, take longer to sooth Nikola! Peace, |
Dear Henry, 'The Bavarian audiophiles (and the Japanese) know their onions'. I first thought about their 'onions' in the context of being alliance in both (I +II) wars. But I now think that the Germans think about FR-66 as their own... This is because Japanese are educated in mechanical engeneering in Germany even before the first one. So they are a kind of a spirutual father of the FR-66 as one among (many) other armours. |
Mechanical damping comes in many forms - in the Naim Aro that I have the location of the counterweight and the lowering of the centre of gravity to below the pivot point provides about 6db of mechanical damping to the stylus. Furthermore the bearing deisign - radiused tip sitting in a slightly larger radius cup provides another 2-3db of mechanical damping. Thus mechanical damping can be achieved without the use of chewing gum, blue tack, rubber bands, ky jelly and other addons if an arm is well designed. Martin Colloms - Stereophile From an engineering point of view a true self centering unipivot provides the most rigid bearing possible in a tonearm - no chattering, no sloppy bearings, no drag on maladjusted gimbal bearings. No jitter or dither ! In my system the Aro is more resolving than the Fidelity Research FR64S. The Graham has an upside down bearing - cup is in the arm - is not a true mechanical ground in the context of Martin Colloms comments above. This coupled with excessive arm tube dampening was the reason I chose the Aro over the Graham several years ago.. As an aside the Hadcock is not a true unipivot - the spike sits in the crook of nested ball bearings with multiple points of contact. Similarly I believe that the Satin "unipivot" that Raul lauds uses a nested ball bearing system as well and I suspect is not a true unipivot. |
Dear Henry, There are mechanical engineering schools with their specific 'design ethic' but my 'picture' of the 'Teutonic appearance' is more connected with cruisers, aircraft carriers, tanks ans similar 'subjects' by the German education of the Japanese engineers.How then the big Micro tables and the big FR- tonearms become by-products of this 'design ethics' I have no idea. |
Hi all, Managed to find an early Xmas present a few weeks ago - Glanz MFG61. Purchased from a German gentleman. Please find attached pictures here - Glanz MFG61 Initial impressions mounted on FR64S running into Theta B Revised tube preamp were big, big midrange, massive soundstage very detailed but a bit slow. Then tweaked the azimuth and the sound took off like a rocket - very quick. So far it is early days, but the overall sound is big, alive, big midrange, slightly warm and fat bottom end ( but still in control ) - top end can be a little edgy. Soundstage is large, instruments have a lot of body, but not bloated. It sounds more like a MC than any MM. I generally prefer moving coils - I have in my stable Dynavector Nova 13D, Ikeda Kiwame, Fidelity Research FR1mk3F, Denon 103D and my daily runner - Koetsu Black. This is easily the best MI/MM cartridge I have had other than the Garrott Bros Decca London ( Gold and Maroon ). Other MM's owned - Grace F9E F9E Ruby ( both pathetic ), Shure V15V ( Vxmr & Vmr ) ( very musical when mounted in ET2 but not hugely resolving ), Garrott P77 ( very vibrant when matched correctly with suitable arm & preamp, rolled off in top end ) and Sumiko Andante ( ok for budget MM ). I would highly recommend this cartridge if you can find it. Thanks to Dgob and Vetterone for highlighting this great find. |
Congrats Dover! Will Nandric now believe me? Your description of the MFG 61's sound are very close to what I hear. I have used it in several different modern tonearms but have yet to try with any of my vintage arms. When I read it sounded slow to you, I was confused but you shortly changed that to "very quick" and then I felt better. Your description of it sounding more like a MC is right on. I also prefer MC carts to MM carts but the '61 is my exception. One of my friends call the '61 "the magic cart". I think he nailed it. |
Dear Vetterone, Glad to see you got at last some free time for the discussion with the common mortals. I assume that even inventions can be boring from time to time? Well our Dover knows about human nature so he posted some pictures as proof for the exsistance of this misterious Glanz 61. I want mention the Almighty in this context but think about the money we in Europe spend for Cern in order to show that those small Higs particles exist. Now if you and Dover could hear the Glanz 5 you both would be able to make a real interesting comparison. BTW I am still wiling to swap my Glanz 5 for one of your plinths for my SP 10. What about this generous proposal? |
Vetterone, 2nd day of listening, the top end has smoothed out considerably and I lightened the tracking force. I suspect the cartridge suspension was a bit stiff initially and is now running in. The capture of the body of instruments and inner detail through the midrange is quite exceptional. One of my many tests for transparency is Jimmy Witherspoon - 1959 Monterey Jazz Festival - recorded live on Everest ( in a noisy bar ) - bags of ambient noise, booming mikes, bar talk etc and great music - passes with flying colours. |
Dearest Nandric, As Booker T sang, Time is Tight and as I get older, it becomes more and more valuable but it is worth every minute I spend reading your cerebral thoughts. Are you OK Nandric? I am concerned you may have had a stroke or suffered a severe head injury. Your offer of trading your G5 for one of my SP10 plinths is so crazy generous I am concerned for your health. I could never take advantage of you like that, I would never be able to live with myself. Besides, I have my own G5. |
Hi Dover, so glad to hear you are hearing what the '61 can do for your rig. I think mine continued to smooth out on top and deliver more vocal textures and bigger, tighter bass for around 20-25 hours. I wish everyone could hear this, especially Nandric. Seriously, I wish there could be a way to build this cartridge again. Alas, that seems doubtful. |
Hi Folks, just a quick update: I've been testing the Audio Technica AT150 ANV cartridge and been really impressed by it's performance (midrange in particular). Having given it a couple of months devoted listening this impression improved with the matching of it to a suitably light armwand and experimenting for perfect alignment. A lovely cartridge. However, over the past ten days I have been A/B comparing it against my Glanz G7 and comparing both of these against the same tracks heard on my Marantz CDP. In order of performance (concerning frequency extension, imaging, dynamic range, timbre and tonal accuracy and overall realism) here is the order of their relative performances: 1. G7 2. Marantz CDP 3. AT150 ANV. As with most explorations, I have really gained from the time spent with the ANV and it has helped confirm just how great a cartridge the Glanz is. You do of course need to match it to a tonearm whose perfect overhang is precisely 50mm from the tonearm/universal headshell collar. Good fortune afforded me the Audio Craft AC3300 LB arm, with which the Glanz G5 and G7 truly sing. Joyous and even more highly recommended! As always... |
Just to highlight two more criteria that I believe distinguished the G7: 1. It's superior ability to resolve complex passages while displaying all instruments and acoustic nuances accurately and 2. It phenomenal detail retrieval abilities (only approached by the Axel transformed Acutex 420STR and Technics 100Mk4), which links to the above. Therein lay key reasons As always... |
