Good carts with SME V

How could a lowly vintage Shure MM with a crudely shaped stylus profile and a low compliance bulky cantilever made by JICO possibly compete in sonics?

If the suspension is OK and its tracking correctly, then it will. Being a high output cartridge, one would have to pay attention to getting the cartridge loaded correctly as well, since loading affects MM cartridges at or just above the audio passband. I might have to revise my statement slightly as it occurs to me that a low compliance cartridge might be challenged to go up to a very high frequency. But they were getting cartridges to go past 50KHz in the 1970s...

EMT JSD75..
Resolution like the top Lyras, energetic, fun and musical cartridge

This cartridge has a low compliance. Do you really think the SME V is a good choice for it?

JSD75 is a medium compliance cart. Will work very well with SME V

Dear @fsonicsmith :  The VPI tonearm that you used was an unipivot design with not very good stability when your today Reed is a gimball design with very good stability.  Even the " humble " Jelco tonearm outperforms  that VPI design.

Today and vinatge non-unipivot tonearm designs works fine but are the it self cartridge tracking habilities whom defines how good or not pick-up that LP grooves information. The tonearm is part og that tracking " game " but the main responsability comes from the cartridge it self.

As all in audio every single link in the audio system chain is important but there are different levels of importance down there, at the end the tonearm is a slave of the cartridge.

Now, that Shure you mentioned is not a low compliance cartridge and that JICO after market stylus is a good repacement for it, as an after market  is manufactured at a market price point.

Today and vintage MM/MI cartridges are very good performers if you have the knowledge to play with. Does not outperforms top LOMC cartridges but made pretty good quality performance and listening times.

Here you can read about:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/who-needs-a-mm-cartridge-type-when-we-have-mc


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

I agree that the arm / cart combination is very important. Ideally we would be able to listen to several combinations before buyng an expensive cart or arm. We often can’t do that; such is life. So the issue becomes, does the combo behave reasonably good, or "good enough". Here, there is now considerably more leeway, according to the debate I’ve read. New good arms are able to take on a large variety of carts. And vice versa. More products sound fairly good (thanks gods) combined with each other. However, there is still the "optimal" factor that Ralph mentions, important by itself. Although, in my case, I doubt if changing to another arm, from the SME V, would solve my cart problems.

I have a dedicated mono set up and the Audio Technica AT-33 mono is wonderful when attached to a SME V. This cartridge can be tricky, many uni-pivots just can't handle this mono cartridge. 

I have Reed 3p tonearm and the better the cartridge on it the better the sound with it, cartridge is still the most important, not a tonearm. 

An old Garrott p77 is a fantastic MM cartridge for Reed "12inch tonearm. I have many expensive MC cartridges, but it is true that some vintage MM cartridges are still much better to my ears! But it's not because of the tonearm! It's because of the cartridges.  

I disagree with you Chakster. And that is despite you and I being the two principle Reed 3P fan-boys on this board. Btw, if you don't mind my asking, where are you (Asia?). Just curious. This might be the topic of a separate thread, but between the drive system, the tonearm, and the cartridge, if forced to choose priorities, I would list the tonearm first, the drive system second, and the cartridge last. Case in point, the guy that restored my Thorens TD124 got amazing sound from my Reed 3P, my Thorens, and a lowly Shure M95ED cartridge. He took special pains to align the cartridge precisely with a SMARTractor. Please don't get me wrong, priorities does not equal expense. Jelco for one renders $ as non-correlating with quality. My emphasis on the tonearm comes from practicality. A tonearm that is difficult to adjust makes life with a turntable unbearable. A tonearm that is both easy to adjust and that sounds good makes vinyl playback a dream. 

I have mainly done like Chakster proposes. Cartridge first. Start from the source. Then, trickle down, to get the best from the new higher resolution source. Maybe get a better arm, table, phono stage. This strategy has worked well for me. Yet I have not compared a lot of tonearms. Starting from the tonearm seems a bit strange - but who knows in this hobby? Using Lyra cartridges, Titan and Atlas, I have no major complaints regarding SME V - cartridge compatability. Even if the Atlas, ideally, might have a tonearm that "soaks up" the energy even better. What I do know, is that the SME V is a good allround arm, better than "outlier" cases like the Souther/Clearaudio parallel arm. Possibly a longer arm would be a plus, but there are minuses too, going away from the main middle path (defined by the SME V and other classics).

I disagree with you Chakster. And that is despite you and I being the two principle Reed 3P fan-boys on this board. Btw, if you don’t mind my asking, where are you (Asia?). Just curious.

I’m from St.Petersburg, Russia

This might be the topic of a separate thread, but between the drive system, the tonearm, and the cartridge, if forced to choose priorities, I would list the tonearm first, the drive system second, and the cartridge last.

With Direct Drive you don’t have to worry about it, all my turntables are first class direct drive and i don’t even want to experiment with the drives as much as i do with the cartridges and then with tonearms.

Case in point, the guy that restored my Thorens TD124 got amazing sound from my Reed 3P, my Thorens, and a lowly Shure M95ED cartridge.

Very subjective point, it might be "amazing" only until he will mount a proper cartridge instead.

He took special pains to align the cartridge precisely with a SMARTractor. Please don’t get me wrong, priorities does not equal expense. Jelco for one renders $ as non-correlating with quality. My emphasis on the tonearm comes from practicality. A tonearm that is difficult to adjust makes life with a turntable unbearable. A tonearm that is both easy to adjust and that sounds good makes vinyl playback a dream.

I agree, i like the arms that i can adjust quickly and easily and i love Reed 3p for this reason. But i have no problem adjusting many vintage tonearms, i believe all my tonearms are good (and easy to adjust for me): Sony PUA-7, Lustre GST-801, Victor UA-7082, Fidelity-Research FR-64fx, Technics EPA-100 mkII...  and Denon DA-401 is still in the box, but i’m gonna try it soon for high-compliance cartridges.

However, if i don’t like the sound of one cartridge with a few tonearms i will change cartridge, not tonearm and not a turntable drive.

I’ve not been able to compare tonearms. What I can say it that the Lyra Atlas cart, replaced in 2018 after problems with my 2013 version, sounds very good with my SME V arm, and displays no obvious problems with frequencies, arm/cart resonance, or mistracking.