Thank you Lewm. BTW I will watch the speakers forum as
soon as your Beveridge is in the cellar.
Regards, |
Folks we all must know the gear road will never end. Like was mentioned here the flavor of the week month year will never end. The temptation from trolling these forums will get you sooner or later.
Think about it we've had numerous systems through the years some better than others. But we all have achieved systems that satisfy very well to listen and enjoy our favorite music. Like the man says its the music not the gear for true music lovers.
So like yogi the bear says only you can prevent forest fires |
|
He means LPs, Nikola. He means LPs are more important than the gear we use to listen to them. If one is an audiophile, one must always be careful to say that lest the listener were to think one is merely a gearhead.
You guys want vintage? I will give you vintage; I just took delivery on a pair of Beveridge 2SW loudspeakers and their Beveridge direct-drive amplifiers. As a lifelong ESL-ophile, I have finally reached Mt Olympus. (That's Olympus with a "U".) But a listening test will have to await moving the darn things from their shipping crates in my garage to my basement.
I for one consider it to be a personal deficiency to admit that I have not heard either Raul's preamp or JCarr's phono stage. Has anyone else in this little discussion group heard either (besides Raul and JCarr)? |
Dear Raul, Your 'brainstorm' is sometimes difficult to
understand. 'Software' is is a pretty recent expression
while I think that 'we' the humans deed pretty good before.
Anyway according to Darwin. Will you be so kind to express
your thoughts in a more elaborate way? To me: 'we are nothing without software' is not as evident as it is to you.
Regards, |
Dear Downunder: I agree and IMHO: with out software " we are nothing ". At the end software is all about.
Rergards and ennjoy the music,
R. |
I agree that the vintage MM's are a lot of fun and some do sound really great, however most of them just sit in my draw not being played. I have the technics EPC1000 Mk4 and it is a great cartridge and that does get played.
However, for the ultimate performance I prefer my more expensive Dynavector, Lyra or Ortofon. I get a larger, more dynamic, transparent realistic performance from these.
I wish Raul's cheap MM's did sound better as it would save me a lot of $$. But now,ultimately I prefer listening to the music than constantly changing cartridges for best cartridge of the week status. I guess that way you never really get sick of any cartridge.
I think the tonal signature of the system may lead some to like MM or MC's more. Perhaps if my system was brighter or leaner I would prefer more MM cartridges?.
BTW T-bone and Jonathan - The vintage Pioneer HZ-1 really is a great MC headamp. Does superb things to every MM stage I have tried it with and that is quite outstanding indeed.
In the end, it is all music, so it does not really matter what you play as long as it encourages you to go out an buy new music.
cheers |
Stltrains - actually I agree. I have heaps of fun with vintage gear, and it's rewarding when it all comes to together. One thing though, I wont buy second hand cartridges as a rule, my records are irreplaceable. |
Dover I would have missed on half the fun not being hands on with my vintage gear.
Great thing about this hobby theres a ton of options and opinions. |
And for the outlay and value of the time spent buying a cache of MM's, rebuilding your amplifier and shagging around setting them up, would probably have paid for an Olympus/Connoisseur, and then you could have spent all that time listening to music. Bugger.
I had a doctor client who had a dozen or so of the top moving coils of the day. Finally he came to me at 68 yrs and said - my ears are failing, I need a brighter cartridge with a rising top end. So save a nasty MC at least for your later years.
|
I'm coming to this thread late but i'm assuming you will be using the cart w/ Concept turntable. I have not heard the MM cart but i Have the Concept w/ the MC and it is a wonderful combo. My system has never sounded so smooth, open, and detailed. Bright records are still bright but less edgy with harsh sibilance being less grating and prominent. Dynamics are nice, bass is nice and tight. |
Hello all not going to take anything away from my Tom Evens groove plus srx phono amp or ZYX universe because i enjoyed that combination for many years in a row exclusively. Was on the verge of my 3rd universe swapout. Thats a lot of vinyl spinning and music listening.
Now im using a simple few component MM riaa circuit in my Fisher 400c preamp that i completely rebuilt paired with MM/MI cartridges. i believe i will be listening to this vinyl front end for years in a row. Out standing sound top to bottom truly quenches my musical thrust.
2 first class front ends one that costs many thousands and one that can be had for in the thousand range.
After years of MCs going back to MM/MI has been one of the best moves in my audiophile life. Yes i have accumulated a fine stable of MM/MI cartridges to go with that so simple phono stage which i believe has a lot to do with the super fine sound my system delivers. Less is better and its true. I have a good buddy and Rauls thread to thank for my return to MM.
So i would say Lostbears take a good look at vintage or modern MM vinyl front ends first. and good luck the world of vinyl delivers all of the music so satisfying. |
Dear T_bone, There are many (LO)MC carts with low compliance. To assume that tracking capability is important is the same as to assume that those producers have no idea what they their job is about. I know since 80s that 50 micron on the test Records is agequate for the ''normal LP's'' but never 'got' the reason why they are produced except reg. the 'effective mass' of the tonearms.
Your statement ' L1000 plus HZ-1 and a phono stage' is not
clear to me. It is difficult to 'hunt' if one has no idea
about the 'animal in casu'. BTW how are we supposed to hunt in Japan?
Regards, |
Dear T_bone: +++++ " a cart/arm combo to track the cannonball shot of the 1812 Overture is not a relevant determinant of how well the cart does with other music). " +++++
yes, I agree. That and other cartridge tracking tests only tell us that cartridge abilities, how good the stylus tip is " always " or not in touch with the grooves.
Cartridge quality level performance depends on several additional factors that as a whole makes the difference- Cartridge tracking abilities is one of those factors.
Yes, too: Phono Stage is almost as important as the cartridge/source. Its role IMHO is that trough it preserve the cartridge signal integrity loosing and adding the less. This is more easy to say it than to achieve it, the PS overall role is " complex " because at the same time that amplify the delicate cartridge signal ( some times 10K times with very low MCs.. ) must do it with no noise added or distortions added in a signal that's extremely sensitive to contaminate by trash pollulation.
It has to do it following an inverse RIAA eq. with no frequency response deviation.
All these factors are a challenge to any PS and these factors are not independent but are interrelated and in some ways ( inside some limits. ) one of those factors can be against others, example: active high gain vs noise, the equilibrum in this relationship has a tiny tiny line.
Btw, I assume that headamp is the Pionner one. I never owned but heard it but even that my memory has almost nothing to remember because in those all times my ignorance level was to high. One headamp that I owned was the Classé NIL-2/3 and was a good one.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Hi Jonathan,
Happy Holidays, and now あけましておめでとうございました！
Thanks, as always, for chiming in.
I have to agree with several of your points. Regarding tracking, I definitely agree. I also think that personal preferences on arm and arm-type make drawing conclusions "too easy". I would expect that certain people who like certain kinds of arms would find that MMs track a LOT better than MCs, but I find for a great deal of music that the ability of a cart/arm combo to track the cannonball shot of the 1812 Overture is not a relevant determinant of how well the cart does with other music). However, I think your point about the phono stage is most important - both in terms of absolute quality of gain stage and how well the phono stage deals with the nasties that come from downstream. While I liked great MCs better than many of the great MMs with previous phono amplification, it took a great headamp for me to learn how sublime a great MC could be.
As you know, I am a big fan of the JVC L1000 MC (and I even referred to it obliquely here on Agon a day or two ago). I have not found an MM (and I must admit to more limited experience with great MIs) which can beat the JVC when the JVC is matched with a great headamp.
That said, for many people out there, buying a Connoisseur, an Essential (Raul's phono stage), or something similarly spendy is out of reach. I don't have either but adding a JVC L1000 plus an HZ-1 and a phono stage to do both of them justice, while relatively speaking, a bargain in my eyes, is also beyond what many people want to deal with (in terms of hunting them down, and mentally dealing with the fact that they are 30 years old). |
Dear Lostbears, To save you from the 'digital alternative'
as well to save you some money I need to add that there
are more 'alternatives' by Clearaudio MM carts. According
to Fleib all Clearaudio MM carts use the same 'generator'.
The difference in models and prices is because of different
styli and cantilevers. So no need to focus on the Virtuoso.
Under proviso that you will post the cart to Axel for the
upgrad you can buy the cheapest model and still get an very
good MM cart. I have just seen one on ebay.uk for cheap.
Regards, |
Dear nandric: Yes, " contender " was my word mistake.
regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Thuchan: +++++ " for the ongoing controversy about MM,MI and MC carts as it seems here in particular. " +++++
seems to me is because people does not seems as two alternatives as can be BD and DD in TTs. This is ok with me but as you states: " It is a very good alternative for a beginner`s system as well as for experienced users. " +++++
About the importance on phono stages, either for MC or MM/MIs, my experiences tell me that out there there is no first rate MM/MI dedicated PS but dedicated MC stages that gives the MM/MI option.
The PS I have on use is not on this last kind, it has a dedicated MM/MI PS and not only because its facilities for impedance/capacitance but because fulfil the whole MM/MI needs, example: both dedicated phono stages ( MC and MM/MI ) use different active devices for gain: bipolars in one and Fets in the other. Choose of these devices was thinking on specific needs for each kind of cartridge: MM/MI or MCs. Even that we can think are similar well are not and needs are differnt.
I posted several times that MM/MIs are in disadvantage against the MC because there are no MM/MI dedicated PSs when in the other side all are dedicated MC Pss.
Anyway, now lostbears could goes to the digital alternative.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
|
Of course sometimes a thread is a little abused for the ongoing controversy about MM,MI and MC carts as it seems here in particular. On the other hand it is very interesting reading about different opinions on this topic. And this may help the thread owner too. Forget all the personal implications Raul is sometimes leaning to and better focus on the topic related issues.
My personal experience is: there are some MCs and especially MIs a MM design will never reach. I agree with Jonathan that MCs need extraordinary Phono stages and SUTs. When I started experimenting with SUTs in 2002 - since then I ended up with a total of 14 designs - the market was not open to SUTs in any way, especially the magazine writers. Focussing on a careful match you put some investment into it regarding money and time. But the result is in many cases just great.
Regarding MMs I figured out one is able to get very good results with Phono stages like the EMT JPA66 being able to calibrate all necessary parameters. I think that the negative image MMs have among most audiophiles is not justified. It is a very good alternative for a beginner`s system as well as for experienced users.
best and fun only |
Raul, the audio bully, strikes again. |
Dear Lostbears, The best MM cart I own (my opinion also)
is the Virtuoso wood. As you probable know whenever a cart
get recommendation by Raul and others this cart become
an 'object of disire' so we all hunt for this cart. However
I was able to buy two specimens of this cart with broken styli on the German ebay for 50 Euro each. Then I posted them to Axel for the upgrade with line contact styli and
different cantilevers. Added cost +/-170 Euro (-19% tax
for those outside E. Union). Are the Germans crazy? No but
they are not familiar with our MM thread and are consequently ignorant about the value of this cart even with the broken stylus. For the mentioned 'hunt' one need
'some' patience and search but can ease the waiting period
with some other MM cart. Anyway this the method I use . My
latest 'hunt' resulted in one AT 180 and one Signet 9LC for
about 160 Euro each.
Regards,
|
You guys are doing the gentleman who started this a great disservice. If he is still with us then we are lucky he hasn't given up on analogue and spent his money on CD.
Jonathan Carr is absolutely spot on when he says "The tracking ability of a cartridge depends greatly on the tonearm that it is installed in, and the sonic performance of a cartridge can be made or broken by the phono stage. Regarding both tonearms and phono stages, I have found MCs to be considerably more demanding of the equipment that they are paired with. Phrasing that observation slightly differently, you could say that MMs/MIs make it easier and cheaper to design a phono stage or a tonearm that sounds relatively good."
If the turntable/tonearm are modest then a good MM/MI would potentially be a better choice than a moving coil which may show up limitations in the arm. Lostears is looking at turntable/arms up to $2000 new and mentions the Clearaudio Concept - hence the question on the Clearaudio MM and MC.
Who gives a shit as to whether MC or MM is best, or if some super rare unobtanium vintage cartridge is the bees knees.
The bottom line is that the Clearaudio MC @ $800 is probably better than the Clearaudio MM @ $200.
You would giving the gentleman better advice if you suggested he compare the Clearaudio $800 MC to a Clearaudio $500-800 MM such as the Virtuoso and to consider his phono stage and the cartridge output he requires.
The Clearaudio Concept has a tonearm that is not rigid and I think needs a cartridge of medium compliance.
My suggestion would be for Lostears to arrange a comparison of the Clearaudio MC and the Clearaudio Virtuoso MM at a Clearaudio dealer, preferably with his phono stage.
|
Dear Raul, Thanks for your advice. I thought that our forum
is about (different) opinions and not about 'contenders'.
I 'use' the statements made and try to understand what they
are about before I can 'use' them. When I 'use' your statements I have no impression to use 'the person' Raul but rather that I agree with some of them and disagree with
some other. It is more a 'logical thing' you know then personal.I wish I could 'use' Carr. My first wish would be his phono-pre, the second the Atlas, the third...
Regards,
|
Nandric: I respect you but you are no contender at least on audio subjects and that's why you "use " other persons ( as J.Carr. ).
Be your self, you are better that what you think, don't dimish your self: learn and enjoy.
R. |
Dear Nandric: There are advantages with ignorance:you don't have to worried of anything.
Be happy, useless to argue with you.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Raul, I have no idea how this Greek conception about
essences become universal because I am not aware that Aristoteles was teached everywhere. What I do know is that the Greek used this 'metal analogy' in attributing properties to humans. So if John has the property to be 'honest like gold' but robed some bank and seduced the wife of his best friend we feel somehow embarassed by those facts because they are contrary to what we assumed and believed. Consider this statement: copper sometimes conducts electricity and sometimes does not. This statement 'obviously' make no sense because we know that copper 'always' conducts electricity even if it is not connected to any electrical source. However this 'thought
model' is not adequate to 'describe' humans.
So, dear Raul, you get my praise with the good things you
do or have done and my critic when you state some 'bold'
things about your omnipotence ,extraordinary hearing capabilites, the highest level among all of us on your learning curve, etc.,etc,. This also apply to your gear.
I can claim as you do that all my componets are 'second to
none' if my own claims are to be considered as legitimate.
You stated explicite that your 'system' is better then the
'one'(?) J. Carr owns and this should 'explain' why you think that Carr is not able to hear the differences among carts like you can. But we , the poor souls, are seduced by
HIFI Magazines to believe that this J. Carr produced not only some of the best carts in the world but also the best preamp as well as the best phono-pre there is. Not to mention his proven capabilities. There is ,dear Raul, so much one can swallow depending on one's character and other capabilities but I am not among the 'blind followers' of anyone.
So dear Raul while you believe that I am ignorant about your capabilities you may be ignorant about my. I believe your descriptions of MM carts but am very skeptical when
you describe yourself. BTW is in Mexico the word 'modesty' totally unknown?
Regards, |
Dear Nandric: I know I'm not your cup of tea, my personality that for you is arrogance only means what is a fact: you don't know me in almost no way.
About the Essential ( I'm not on commercial " road ". ) and about my " arrogance " I can tell you that I already heard in my system and other great systems almost all the top Phonolinepreamps through years to be aware if our design can fulfil our main targets that as always is to be the best: period.
I don't care about magazines I care about music and music sound reproduction at home.
Second to none: I can show it. Why not prepare a meeting at any place where exist a top audio system and where you or any other person could bring with any/several top phonolinepreamps including the J.Carr one and then I will meet all of you with the Essential to make a serious shoot out and then we will see if my statement: " second to none " could be confirmed or not.
Before the shoot-out we can arrage the shoot-out rules/mechanism and audio items involved. We can do it with two sources analog/LPs and digital.
In the mean time I can say you again that IMHO the Essential 3160 is second to none.
Btw, I'm not dismiss the opinion of J.Carr in any way. As acartridge designer he has that advantage against me but as an " audiophile " he as any other persons is just as me or as you. He has his opinions and I have mines, some times we agree and some times we disagree. In both sides for very good reasons.
Nandric, you as any audio roockie ( and I'm not saying you are. ) looks to the pro-reviewers, designers, manufacturers and even auido distributors as something near " God ", people that knows more than you.
Through my audio life I learned that that is not true, I know several " pros " that are worst than you are. Those kind of " especial " audio persons are only that: audio persons as any one of us. J.Carr or any other designers can have a superior knowledge level of what he design but in my case only in that regards.
In the other side we have to accustom that always exist people with a knowledge audio level superior to the one we have because there are several a lot of different audio subjects where IMHO does not exist any one that is " perfect " in all them.
I have two-three audio areas where I know I have a good knowledge level but I know too that in other audio areas I'm almost ignorant.
Problem with you and me is that you can handle my " personality " for what ever reason.
Stay calm and be happy, especially today.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Hi Nandric:
Some of Raul's accusations feel a bit hollow to me, since I for one never stopped listening to MMs or MIs alongside MCs (which is by no means uncommon among audiophiles in Japan). Hearing about Raul and other audiophiles "rediscovering" MMs or MIs therefore sounds rather bizarre. Also, Audio-Technica and Nagaoka-JewelTone continue to make and sell lots of MM cartridges in Japan, so I don't get the impression that there is a lack of development effort being put into the genre.
But everything is OK between Raul and me. I don't have any animosity for Raul, and judging from the way that he writes, he doesn't have any for me.
As I said in a previous post, my attitude to MMs or MIs is that if or when I can design an MM or MI that convinces me that it is is worth signing my name on it, I will add it to my product lineup. When and if.
But please, let's not create flames where there is no need. I will continue to design and produce as I feel is correct, and I am sure that Raul will post and design in the same spirit.
At the very worst, we will simply agree to disagree about our respective opinions.
kind regards, jonathan carr |
Dear Raul, We have also this thread about 'Stand out phono
stages' in which the Lyra Connoisseur is mentioned as the
best phono-pre among all others. Whatever one may think about HIFI Magazines it seems that the common opinion about this phono-pre is universal. While your phono-pre is
according to you 'second to none' I have seen no reference
to your phono-pre anywhere at all. Tolking about 'biased'
opinions. While you have no any understanding of carts construction and production you have no problem at all to dismiss the opinion of one of the most talented designer we know at present. One which already designed and produced some of the best carts in the world. I mentioned earlier your arogance but this one is above any comprehension. There is something wrong with you in my opinion.
Regards, |
Dear J.Carr: I own the L1000 and yes it is very good performer as the 100CMK4.
Now, on phono cartridges as in other audio products theory not always is confirmed through playback, many of us experienced this fact.
Of course that I can hear differences very tiny differences. Things could be that those differences that you and me are hearing could be " different " because different audio systems and maybe different main self targets.
What for you is right for me ( against my goals ) could be not so right.
Argue about could be endless till you can hear my system and I can hear yours: there are the main differences, different system distortions and different system resolution. I hope some time we can do that, IMHO could be a learning time ( and fun too. ) for both of us.
I respect your phono stage but our Essential is IMHO second to none. This is not the subject because I know that your audio systems are first rate.
As you I know what I'm hearing " problem " is that you don't know what I'm hearing and that's why this is an open invitation to meet you here at my place as my guest. You only need time to do it. We will see.
Yes, I posted that as designer/manufacturer is your privilege decide what to build, no problem with this.
About the AHEE pressure I talked that " pressure " exist every single day, customers almost has not a wide and free land to choose: for years suddenly audio magazynes speaks on the MC superiority and not only that but stop to review on MM/MI cartridges; audio distributors only marketed MC cartridges not MM/MI as alternative and even if they handle one or two MM/MI models they almost always took as a very inferiuor source; manufacturers ( like you ) for whatever reasons just don't care and diminish MM/MI cartridges as an alternative in his cartridge line, internet forums for years speaks about MC not MM/MI with out reasons.
I remember that when Lewm ask something to the designer/manufacturer about MM set up of the phono stage he was using with MM cartridges ( I think Ayre, can't remember ) this person told him something like this: " don't waist your time and go with MCs ", and this happen a few months ago.
As like this there are several examples of what is happening around.
J.Carr we can't close/disappear the sun with a finger: ask any of the top guys in Agon ( megabucks systems. ) about MM/MI or if 5-10 years ago they owned MM/MI cartridges when even today is almost an " insult " to think they can own and hear to MM/MI alternative: no way, it is a " shame " against its friends to have a humble MM/MI with them: you know, it is not expensive enough to own it and in the other side: distributor, reviewers, designers are not against but does not cares about and still think ( as you posted. ) MM/MI as an inferior source.
I respect persons that as M.Lavigne took the time to heard the MM alternative perhaps for the first time in last 20 years with out taking in count what his audio friends could think about.
For me this kind of audio environment where we have no alternatives is a " pressure " and there are other factors that the AHEE use to make that pressure.
I'm intenting to have a cartridge that can outperform every other cartridge we have today but I'm a rockie on cartridge design so I don't know if I can fulfil that target but at least I'm on this proccess.
I don't die for the MM/MI in the same manner that I did/do not with the MC, as I posted several times both are only alternatives and each one with its own trade-offs.
Anyway, I think you made your point of view and I made mine.
Could this change?, could be but the " future " is the " ball's owner " and has the last word in the subject.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
To my mind J. Carr is one of the most valuable member of our forum. In all of his contributions he demonstraded his scientific attitude, integrity , eloquence and kindness.
It is very unfortunate that some members are questioning
his integrity. It may be the conincidence regarding the MM-versus MC carts and the Atlas story but 'biased' is mentioned explicite.
I am the last to defend the MC prices but one should think
about import duty, importers and dealers fees. My estimate
is that the producer get 30% of the actual sell price. Besides for the question which kind, MM or MC, is really better sounding the price is not a relevant criterion. Ie it
is not about the value in terms of money . This question is already answered btw. While we all assume that anybody is free to spend his money as one pleases we are continualy
asking why should someone spend 8K for a cart. Then there is a very strong competition among MC producers so the market is supposed to solve this issue.
Regards, |
Raul: As I have stated repeatedly, among other MM and MI cartridges, I own multiple units of the EPC100C Mk4. I find it to be quite good, but not nearly as good as you seem to think. When I play a Titan, for example, through my Connoisseur phono stage, the EPC100 does not measure up.
I have also designed MMs (OEM jobs), and apart from the fact that the high output voltage makes the job of the phono stage easier, and is more resistant to the sonic degradation that you get when the tonearm designer has decided that it is OK to put multiple electrical contacts in series with the signal (like you get with universal headshell tonearms), I don't see the advantages.
In the past, myself and other posters have suggested cartridges like the JVC L1000, in which the signal coils are ultra low-mass microcircuits that are bonded directly to the stylus. This is a huge architectural advantage, and there is no engineering aspect about the EPC100 that should make it competitive with the L1000. This is exactly how these two cartridges sound to me, also. The EPC100 is sounds good, but it is not nearly as good as the L1000. I think that other audiophiles who own both of these cartridges, and use the L1000 with a really good phono stage or headamp like the Pioneer H-Z1, will agree with this.
The fact that you don't seem to be able to hear this to me sounds completely illogical. Why on earth should passing the LP signal via a longish cantilever into a large and comparatively sprawling high-inductance magnetic circuit (as on the EPC100) sound better than passing the LP signal directly from the stylus into a compact magnetic circuit with very low inductance (as on the L1000)? Apart from personal preference, and perhaps the vagaries of matching cartridges to preamps, I can't think of any reason.
>For me had no sense to change under hard pressure by the AHEE from MM/MI alternative to LOMC one. This happen several years ago with no clear reasons other than $$$$$.
A manufacturer is free to make whatever he likes. A customer is also free to buy whatever he likes. I would like to hear specifically what kind of "hard pressure" you are talking about, because I've not seen it.
>why in the hell the AHEE took the customers and left in the LOMC road?
Again, you seem to be making accusations that have no factual basis. FWIW, my limit as a cartridge manufacturer is monthly production capacity. Right now it wouldn't be feasible for Lyra to make much more than 80 cartridges per month. Since it is possible to make MMs and MIs at a much faster rate than with MCs, if I knew how to design a superb MM or MI that I felt was fully competitive with the very best MCs, I'd take the opportunity in a flash, because it would be the answer to my production capacity problems. I could earn a lot more if I had such an MM or MI in my product lineup.
The reality is that I don't know how to design such a superb MM or MI, nor have I encountered any MMs or MIs that were good enough to convince me that I should seriously study how they were designed and put together.
As to why more cartridge manufacturers don't have MMs or MIs in their product lineup, it's most likely because not everyone shares your opinion.
As to whether I am biased in favor of MCs over MMs, my position is completely neutral. If I can figure out how to design an MM or MI that convinces my ears that it is is worth adding to my product lineup, I promise that I will do so. If not, I won't.
Business-wise, I wish that I could have a really stellar MM or MI in my product lineup, because it would allow Lyra to expand as a cartridge manufacturer.
kind regards, jonathan carr |
Dear J.Carr: +++++ " The tracking ability of a cartridge depends greatly on the tonearm that it is installed in----- " +++++
I respect your opinion but I disagree with that statement.
Through hundred of experiences in my own system testing same cartridge with different way different tonearms ( decent tonearms. ) the cartridge shows its tracking abilities does not " matters " in which tonearm. I'm not saying that's not important the tonearm in this regards but what I'm saying is that the tracking abilities is something mainly on onw and inherent to each cartridge. Can be one or two exceptions to my experiences but these exceptions only confirm the " rule ".
My experiences were with MM/MI and LOMC cartridges where the LOMC cartridges shows were more dependable on the tonearm but even that its tracking abilities mainly belongs to it.
I can give you some examples: AT20SS running/playback the Telarc 1812, it does not mattters which tonearm you are using always track clenaly the tortuose grooves on the recording, Denon DL-1000/Ortofon MC2000/DL-S1/etc tracks in that way too.
In the other side, Clearaudio Virtuoso can't do it or the Acutex M320 ( flat nose ). Not only fail on tracking but always did it on the same grooves it does not matters which tonearm in use: same for KRSP or XV-1 or Goldfinger or Lyra Skala.
Why this happen, I don't know I'm not an expert cartridge designer, I report only it happened.
Certainly there are reasons that can give answers to the whys but at this time I have no answers but only speculations and I don't like speculate on any audio subject.
We need scientific tests/research to be sure about.
+++++ " I have heard no current or out-of-production product that has made me think that I must add a similar MM or MI to our cartridge lineup. " +++++
well in the same way that are manufacturers/designers that are biased through tube electronics and others to SS ones you are an advocate ( for whatever reasons. ) to MCs and that's a good option and your privilege as designer.
I like both alternatives and in both sides are very good performers. IMHO and as with cartridge cantileverless design in the MM/MI alternative exist a very wide " land " to explore ondesign to improve the today status. IMHO too I think that the research ( serious and deep research ) on MM/MI alternative stoped several years ago when MM/MI alternative did not " business$$$ " any more.
For me had no sense to change under hard pressure by the AHEE from MM/MI alternative to LOMC one. This happen several years ago with no clear reasons other than $$$$$.
J.Carr: why in the hell the AHEE took the customers and left in the LOMC road? when this alternative was and is not user friendly as the MM/MI one?: a LOMC cartridge needs additional gain, additional care on noise and audio pollution around, extra stages, " special " tonearms, etc, etc: all these in change for what? when a normal MM/MI with an user friendly approach by inherent design gives to the customers 99.99% of what any LOMC can offer.
Makes sense to you?, not for me but that's me.
J.Carr, take a Technics EPC100CMK4 that in stock shape is fully IMHO competitive with any today top LOMC cartridges ( including Lyra models. ), then rebuild it to today standards on build materials as coils, cantilevers, suspension or/and stylus shape to improve it and I can tell you that that " new " Technics will now not only competitive as already is but will outperform the best LOMC today samples.
As I said: MM/MI is a land almost virgen and I hope that the best on it is to come.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
I guess I should have mentioned that I know of the MC cartridges that are more affordable and would offer very good value from what I understand. Some of the Audio Technica models like the AT33 and some from Denon. If I decide at some point to try a MC design again it would be a model from either of these two companies. I just think some of the MC cartridges are just overpriced. Just my opinion, though. |
MC, the designer and salesman dream. Bigger profits from the cartridge itself, better (more expensive) tonearm needed, better or more expensive phono stage needed and or an extra gain stage usually needed which would also be expensive. I need all this to hear a slight improvement over a high-end TOTL MM model? And after all this extra expense, just how much better would it be I wonder? Or would most of my decent sounding records still just sound decent and only the best recordings sound a little better?
Plus what exactly is invovled in designing and building a TOTL MC cartridge that drives the prices up to 4K and even much more being the parts are essentialy inexpensive things. There are MM cartridges with just as good quality cantilever and diamonds as the super expensive MC models, but for a fraction of the cost.
It all makes sense to me that a high quality MM cartridge is a good solution for those of us who are on a budget or budget minded. Example of why someone might be budget minded, "the wife would freak out if I spent 4K on a cartridge" and then probably kill me if told her "well now I need a better phono stage and tonearm to hear how good this cartridge sounds" etc. :) |
Speaking as someone who has designed cartridges, phono stages and tonearms, my experience is that the choice for best sound between MM and MC depends largely on the phono stage and the tonearm and to a lesser extent, the turntable.
The tracking ability of a cartridge depends greatly on the tonearm that it is installed in, and the sonic performance of a cartridge can be made or broken by the phono stage. Regarding both tonearms and phono stages, I have found MCs to be considerably more demanding of the equipment that they are paired with. Phrasing that observation slightly differently, you could say that MMs/MIs make it easier and cheaper to design a phono stage or a tonearm that sounds relatively good.
Although I have heard many MM/MIs and rather like some of them, I have heard no current or out-of-production product that has made me think that I must add a similar MM or MI to our cartridge lineup.
OTOH, I do believe that MM/MIs have the possibility of conferring certain key advantages over MCs for a cartridge designer who has very specific design goals in mind.
hth, jonathan carr |
Lew,
the 3 MM cartridges were the Ortofon M20FL you mentioned which i gave away, the Azden YM-P50VL, and the Empire 1080LT....both of which i still have.
i was tempted to keep my Dobbins/Loricraft/Garrard 301 for 'messing' around with stuff like these cartridges. then you need another shelf, arms, another phono stage, etc., etc. and it does add quite a bit of hassel to access things and makes the daily ease of use for the system more problematic. it's easier to have multiple RTR tape decks. they are all on wheels so i can just move them out of the way when i need to. just another aspect of my decision tree. |
Thanks for taking the time to respond, Mike. For what it's worth, those two just happen to be among the few that I also have auditioned. The top Acutex's and the top Stanton/Pickerings are better, FWIW, and not that I think this will send you out to look for either. Not to say that the Ortofon M20FL or M20E (whichever one you tried) and the top Azden are chopped liver. |
Lew, regarding your question; Which of the MM/MI cartridges did you audition in your own system? Just curious. i'm at work, from my memory there was an Ortofon ML20 (or something like that), and an Azden of some sort, then an additional one. i gave the Ortofon to a friend, and still have the other 2. tonght when i get home i'll get the details on the exact models. Raul very helpful to me in getting these and they did perform as advertised. i would have no trouble living with any of these as my 'go to' cartridge. |
"I like or am fond of my TT's a,b,c...n'' is a different proposition from ''I need the TT's a,b,c...n''. Cheating seems to be a relational 'concept' in the sense of cheating
sombody else. As such it has a very negative connotation.
But the most cases are about cheating our self and there is
no sense in attributing negative assumptions to this kind
of 'cheating'. Ie : mind your own buseness. According to
the most fundamental rules of the private Law anyone is entiteld to spend his own money as he may prefer. In principle that is.
Regards, |
Dear Mike, Me, too. I wanted to hear what idler- and direct-drive turntables could do, after spending 30 years or so in the belt-drive world, albeit not at the top of that world. My experience thus far leads me to stick with idler- and/or direct-drive vs belt-drive at a comparable price point (which is a very important qualification for me; I do not wish to suggest that there are no great belt-drive turntables, just that I do not wish to afford any of them). Unfortunately, in the process I have developed an affection for the turntables I "collected", and although, like you, I could now settle down with just one (or maybe two), I am finding it hard to let go of the ones I seldom use. Still, as I like to point out to my dear wife, I have had as many as seven here at home; now I have "only" four. She's a good sport. And I tell her they have been a good investment.
Which of the MM/MI cartridges did you audition in your own system? Just curious. |
I just got into Vinyl also. A friend told me to start cheap and move up. He said the TT is easy to break until you get used to handling it. I started with a Thornes TD 235. The first thing I broke was the stylus. Fortunately it was a $29.00 Sharp. After I got used to handling the needle, etc. I moved up to a more expensive version of MM (Ortofon 2M Black). I use a phono board in my pre-amp (Bat VK-32SE). My next step will be to switch to a better TT, new phono stage and MC. |
Dear Mikelavigne: +++++ " there are still others which have been found to be even better. maybe they can be equal or better than the best MC's; or maybe they are just different. but i've moved on from that question for myself. " +++++
yes, through my experiences about there are a few better MM/MIs but the whole subject is not which kind of cartridge design ( LOMC vs MM/MI. ) is better than the other.
IMHO the best of the best of both worlds are more alike than different on quality performance level. Both cartridge designs are imperfect ones with its own trade-offs and are these trade offs the ones that could define which design matched our each one music/sound reproduction targets.
I think that the " presence " of one does not in anyway diminish or eliminate the other alternative.
Both are very good alternatives and the people that are fortunate to own top samples on both enjoyed both at almost the same level.
From my side and from the very first moment ( 6-7 years ago- ) that I was " aware " of the performance MM/MI level I said and posted that this was and is another alternative where in those times the only road was LOMC.
Two good alternatives to enjoy our LPs is IMHO a very welcomed " stage " instead only one, don't you think?
You are right the LOMC needs cares on set-up and IMHO the MM/MI deserves the same ( if not more. ) cares on set-up. For many of us the MM/MI alternative is almost " new " and we are learning ( still learning. ) how fulfil what MM/MI ask for it can shows at its best, not only at mechanical/geometry set-up but electrical one that means: load impedance and load capacitance and this load combination determine the success level on cartridge performance when in a LOMC we have only one electrical parameter: load impedance.
Anyway, I like both designs and as you I'm trying to go " simple ": less cartridges, less TTs and less tonearms, I don't know if I can have success about but I decided to do it.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
everyone needs to be at the place where the their approach to enjoying vinyl playback is most enjoyable for them personally. and after my years of 'playing the field' of multiple tt's, arm's, vintage tt's, cartridges, etc......i've found that (at least for now) simplification is where it's best for me.
if i look back at the last 5 to 10 years of vinyl culture, many things have been learned by many people. the collective knowledge and overall vinyl playback performance for the dollar for all of us has taken leaps and bounds. much of it fed by people actively comparing different products with open minds and ears. it's why i added turntables and arms when people thought i should just enjoy my one tt. i was curious.
MM or MC; these type questions only help us all. |
I am far from "done" in comparing MM to MC cartridges. I view this as a work in progress. I would also point out that MI cartridges and induced magnet (IM) cartridges have something to offer which may be unique with respect to both conventional MM and MC cartridges. (Sometimes I think it is the IM/MI "alternative" that draws me in the most.) Then, in the end, it's what you personally like plus what your system "does" best. Plus plus, Mike might be playing with MC cartridges that I do not dare dream about in terms of cost. Having said all that, I am at the point where I would never be without at least one of all 3-4 types. Two years ago, I was a total skeptic on anything but MC cartridges. |
i have purchased a few of Raul's highly recommended MM gems (thanks Raul) and found that they were absolutely wonderful for the dollars. vintage $200-$500 MM's that outperformed 10x as costly MC's. and even did things which were competitive with even higher level MC's. and they were typically very listenable and musical.
for a few years i had multiple tt's and arms and a phono stage which accomodated MM's and MC's. i had these various cartridges side by side, and the best MC's were able to consistently resolve detail and texture which sounded indistinct on the MM's. and ultimately this advantage (albiet at a much higher cost) did allow for a higher musical experience. for the best moving coil a lower noise phono stage is required, more accurate set-up is needed.
at this point i still own a few nice MM's but now only have 1 tt and 2 arms, one for a mono MC and one for a stereo MC.
MM's are excellent but for ultimate performance it's MC.
i know likely since i bought my last MM there are still others which have been found to be even better. maybe they can be equal or better than the best MC's; or maybe they are just different. but i've moved on from that question for myself. |
Dear Rockitman: I will email you about.
Btw, IMHO and in the other ( many. ) people opinions my MM " information " is not only theories but something that you as any one can confirm.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
My dear audiophile friend, who is now too ill to have fun with this hobby, and I found out about HP's feet of clay early on, I think around issue #3 of TAS, when he went wild over the then new Harman Kardon solid state preamp (Citation 12, I think). He and I auditioned one and found it to be just plain awful, "shrill" is the best single word description. This was our first bit of evidence that HP favored a very clinical sound with exaggerated hf response. What HP did do that makes him memorable is to invent a language that can be used to describe the differences in sound among audio components. In that way he was/is a genius.
To his credit, he did also recognize the Audio Research products early on. His endorsement of this and other tube gear was a seminal event in shattering the notion that solid state was inherently superior to tubes just because it measures better in the then common analytical tests. (This is not to say that present day SS gear is in any way inherently Inferior to present day tube gear. Don't want to start a war. The SS gear of the early 70s was like early digital gear of the late 80s.... not so good sounding but great in the laboratory.) |
Dear Rockitman, check out the huge 6000+ post thread. All kinds of stuff to learn. Look at ebay and Audiogon to find some of those gems, sometimes for cheap. If learning more about the MM alternative would not be interesting and fun for you than maybe just try a Clearaudio Virtuoso or Maestro, but vintage can be a cheaper alternative. Or just stick with modern MC since you already enjoy them a lot. Good luck. |
12-26-11: Rauliruegas
Dear Rockitman: That benefits of superior cartridge tracking abilities that means lower distortions means at the same time more music recorded information that with cartridges that are " jumping "/out of the groove walls at microscopic levels.
So, two advantajes: more precise and clear recorded music information with lower distortions!!!
Dear Raul...Please recommend that is available today, the absolute best MM cart you can think of. My system link is there if needed for the recommendation. Given the price of hi end MC's, it would be nice to have an inexpensive cart to test out your MM sound quality theories. Best, Chris |
