About schematics...In the good old days the owner's manual always included the schematic. For pro audio equipment this is still true. If I buy the thing I think that I should have knowledge of how it is made without having to open the cover and reverse-engineer the circuit boards.
Rant over.
. |
|
Eldartford: I see. This appears to be a good way to switch the gain between MC and MM. However, the amount of gain change seems extreme IMHO.
Audiofeil: Thx for the info.
Regards, |
Me too. Circuit City is selling them. |
Jmaldonado...I bought the service manual, so I have the schematic. |
Eldartford, how do you know this? Do you have the schematic or something?
Regards, |
Jmaldonado...As I said in a prior comment, at least one such preamp exists (Tandberg 3008A). There are just 2 gain stages and only a couple of resistors differ between the MC and the MM circuits so as to adjust gain. (Of course the inputs have loading resistors and capacitors as appropriate for each cartridge type). It seems to me that if you can achieve a good MC preamp it is a trivial change to cut the gain for MM use.
On the other hand Rauliruegas has designed his unit with different circuits, and different transistor types, because he feels that each type of cartridge should have an optimal design. |
A direct comparison between MM and MC is difficult, because in common practice phono preamps have an extra pre-preamplifier stage or a step-up transformer to satisfy the extra gain required by MC cartridges. This introduces a sufficient loss of transparency as well as colorations, that will render the direct comparison useless.
For this test to work, both phono preamps should have identical number of stages, components, working conditions and signal response. This is of course not possible (due to the mentioned gain issue), but it can be approached within reasonable limits. With a good topology, it is possible to duplicate most of the circuitry without needing to have an extra stage (or transformer) for the MC cartridge, effectively rendering the differences between MM and MC phono stages irrelevant.
Having said this, I must also express that I still prefer MC cartridges. I have yet to hear an MM cartridge approaching the soundstage definition, the attack speed, and detail resolution of the best MCs (love the Dynavectors). Whether this has to do with the MMs having so much inductance, or its higher mass, I don't know for sure. This has to be investigated further.
Regards, |
Dear Ctm: Even if Jsman has the answers to his question ( IMHO he already has it ) and even if you read what he posted on 05-08 and 05-09, well he is the " boss " in this thread and he is right that his thread is a bit " away......" and we have to respect. Sorry to disturb you Jsman.
Why don't you start a new tread about?
Regards and enjoy the music.
raul. |
Jsman - I went from MC to MM and have decided to keep both. Although I am newer to MMs, I can say that I am glad I have gotten to experience them. I enjoy the strengths of each type of transducer. Since you have a phonostage that has a MM and an MC section, you have an excellent oportunity to find out for yourself which type you prefer through the Rogue.
As to whether or not I like an MC over a MM... :-) My posts should show where I stand on arriving at an answer to this question, which upon further inspection is a lot more involved than it appears initially. |
Guys I think this thread got a bit away from what I was looking for. I guess what I really want to know is, who went back to a MM cartridge because they did not like the MC cartridge. |
Hi again Raul,
In response to your 05-05-07 post, I do not have direct experience with simultaneous play of MM/MC cartridges on the same track. This is a nice feature to have and it would be interesting to hear a cartridge/stage combo in this manner. However, I can see some being concerned about the effect that one cartridge/arm combo has toward the other during simultaneous playback -- adding still one more variable to account for.
The author of this thread asked a question about using MM cartridges and going back to doing so after trying MCs. This question and the replies posted can potentially be misleading and may be better interpreted by clarifying that the preferences expressed by members involve more than just the sonic performances of the cartridges alone.
As to the test CD idea I did say that what I proposed is a long shot and that I was just thinking out loud. Of course this process requires some inverse RIAA step prior to routing the signals to the preamp. The set-up you suggest -- MM and MC cartridges with a multi arm tt through separate MM and MC stages in one chassis -- is a good one. However, this still does not allow one to separately determine the sonic contributions of the MM or MC stages. Although, not perfect, the test CD idea is more ideal than even the convenient set up you suggest when one wants to first evaluate the sonics of his MM vs. MC phonostage.
Here is yet another (admittedly expensive) idea... a TT using laser technology to extract music from the grooves may serve as a source to be able to compare the a MM vs MC phonostage. If such a unit already puts out line level signals, then it would be easy to add a well designed inverse RIAA to feed the phono sections being compared. Despite the need to have to also apply a neutral attenuation/gain stage to equalize the signals, this approach had one advantage over the test CD idea. It does not require an AD/DA conversion as all signal processing is done in the analog domain.
As you and Frankm1 already posted, ultimately and as far as day to day use is concerned, it really does not matter. In fact, I also hinted similarly near the end of my second post to this thread. Although obvious, it is easy to overlook that a comparison of a MM and MC cartridge is one that involves an evaluation of a specific cartridge/phonostage combo vs. another. In such a setting, we have to accept that we cannot conclude that a MC is better than a MM, or vice versa, as the differences heard is partially attributable to the performances differences between the phono sections used.
So the attempt to investigate how one can characterize the sonic differences between MM and MC phonostages is consistent with trying to keep all other factors equal. Once accomplished and an equivalent performing MM and MC stage (with identical sonic signatures) is found, it can serve as a great tool. THIS IS ONLY IMPORTANT if one aims to truly and definitively determine the real differences between a MM and a MC cartridge.So it would still be interesting to hear excellent, creative, or crazy suggestions on how one can compare (purely from an academic point of view) the sonics/performance of a MM vs a MC phonostage. It would be great to have a way to factor out this variable so it does not cloud a MM/MC cartridge comparison.
Regards, |
Jsman - The output of the Dyna 20X may allow you to use either the MC or MM sections of your preamp. It would be interesting to see which phonostage you prefer.
If you also use a JMW arm with your Scoutmaster, then take advantage of being able to compare cartridges via interchangable armwands. So when you have another, identical armwand you can see if you enjoy your new MC more than your AT 440MLa. |
Well I think for now I will use the Rogue phono stage, I had Anthem pre 1-p phono stage until recently, I sold it to simplfy things and installed the phono stage in the Rogue. As for the cartridge I have decided on the Dyna 20X VPI special version (1.0 mv) output. |
Jsman - So what MM and MC cartridges have you deciced to try? Do you plan on using the Rogue or something else? |
Thanks you guys for all the replys, even the ones that got a bit OT. |
Dear Jsman: The B&O cartridges are a very good choice too.
Regards and enjoy the msuic.
Raul. |
Dear Eldartford: The last Piezo that I use was a very very old Zenith, because of time I can't comment nothing about. I never knew any High Fidelity unit like you mentioned, sorry.
Strain gauge, well Sao Win ( Win Labs ) designed one: the SDT10 that I never heard and that had not much success and in the last CES was presented a new strain gauge cartridge design that I can't remember the manufacturer. The strain gauge design has some advantages because there is no magnets/coils/armature/moving mass ( there are no problems with capacitance, impedance, hum and the like ), it can go down to DC!!! and goes easyly to 40-50kHz ( flat ), needs its own preamp that could be its " weak " link.
It will be interesting to test this one straing gauge cartridge bis a bis a " normal " one and compare the quality sound reproduction of both. Any one out there ( in controled conditions ) already hear it?
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
|
Jsadurni , don't forget Apple and Microsoft:) |
Rauliruegas....What can you say about the other cartridge technologies.
Ceramic (Piezoelectric)..Using this technology very cheap cartridges could be made, but a few true High Fidelity ones were also made.
Capacitive...Tracked at one gram when other cartridges were 5 grams or so.
Strain gauge...
Any others?
. |
I would like to add to my previous post that a retailer does a great job for the community with the knowledge of listening to a lot of gear through the years in their own listening rooms and guiding the customer...we are lucky to have serious input from experienced retailers.
I feel much more comfortable giving my credit card number to a known retailer or a manufacturer than to an unknown no-feedback seller.
All the Best |
"A couple amateurs working out of their garage"
A lot of the Great American Enterprises have started in a garage; Hewlet Packard, KFC, Pizza Hut, Barbie..GE..should I go on?
The thing about internet and buying directly from the designer is that Retailers are no longer needed, at 40%-50% discount the retailer is making more money than the manufacturer!
Selling direct, leaves the manufacturer with the possibility of adding more quality components and still have a product in a logical price range.
This great Internet era we are living in allows us to buy and sell gear in places like Audiogon and gives us the chance to try a lot of toys, 10 years ago having this much gear would be unthinkable!!
Buying without a retailer also puts more value into reviewers, audio magazines, Audio Shows and Forums like this one where one can get an idea of the sound and good opinions before buying.
As a customer I had good and bad experiences dealing with both, from the designer who guides you and listens to you and almost changes his product to fit your system, to the modder who takes a year to deliver, to the dealer that lets you take the gear to your house for a couple of weeks to the horrible retailer who tries to sell you his unsellable residual pieces at incredible prices and treats you like dirt in the process.
I always had good experiences selling and buying stuff from Audiogon and made some friends in the process!
I have to admit buying on the internet from a dealer gives me some piece of mind, but "the times they are a Changin"!
What would be of the audio world if Altec Lansing would have never come and gone... |
Frankm1 - Psychicanimal's response beat me to it. Some of my recommendations would have included a few of the MM cartridges Rauliruegas mentions in his thread. The Grace F9E is superb and the EDR.9 is very good. This list is a moving target for me currently since I am relatively new to MM cartridges. I used MCs exclusive until nearly two years ago when I first heard a MM.
I have not yet tried the top shelf Stantons or Linns. The Ortofon MI are also intruiguing.
|
Dear Ctm: I wonder why do you want to be so " strict " on the subject, well not so strict because you know want to use a limited digital technology with a signal that comes with no RIAA eq.
+++++ " to achieve identical musical passages when played back though the system " +++++
You can have it directly running both cartridges the same LP track in real time.
There is other subject that we have to take in count: that many preamps change its characteristics ( frequency response/distortion/noise/etc ) at different listening levels and that ( too ) if the Phonolinepreamp does not comes in one chasis there will be another variables: connectors and interconnect cable.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
|
By all means! Agree with your comments. Mind you, now I'm stuck with outboard phono stages MM & HO MC are my limit; price-wise also!
From the Beginning:
Shure M75ED
M95ED
V15-III
Ortofon FF15
VMS20
Goldring 800/900/920
A&R Cambridge P78
Grado FTE+, FTE3(?), Green & Gold
Rega Elys 1 & 2.
The A&R was my all time favourite: it LOVED the ITTOK! |
Im currently using a low output (.4mv) MC Shelter 501, through a Black Cube into a line input on my preamp (Mac C2200). The preamp has a phono section, but it is designed for MM. Ive been hoping to try a direct connection to the preamp, but I understand I need a higher output MM or MI to do it.
Ive read the above about strict comparisons between MC and MM. In that vein, keeping components, cables, etc the same shouldnt be too difficult. Matching phono preamp sections this seems to be where the difficulty arises, due to the differing nature of MC and MM cartridges. My question is at the risk of becoming a human dartboard ultimately, does it really matter? OK, from an academic point of view it would be nice to be able to pinpoint the plus and minus aspects of MC vs MM, but many/most of us dont have the resources to set up a system to precisely determine the relative sonic differences of MC cart A vs MM cart B. But within the context of our own systems, which is what we live with every day, isnt the bottom line - what sounds good? If, for example, in my case, I buy an MM cart, I understand that any differences I hear will be partially attributable to the cart and partially to the phono section of the preamp.
With that said, I still think makes sense to consider an MM or MI that others have found to be effective in their systems. Several have been mentioned above, including the Shure V15 mr, Ortofon VMS-20 E Mk II, AT 440 ML and Linn K 18 Mk II MM.
Ctm_cra, you mentioned a handful of MMs that have worked for you. Would you be willing to share that list? |
and back to MC! My saga began with(foolishly) "upgrading" from an A&R Cambridge P78(although I think it was the destruction of a 2nd Beryllium cantilever that...) to a Linn ASAK So I'd have THE then RIG:LP12/ITTOK/ASAK the rags were raving about back then. As soon as I switched to a moving coil I stopped enjoying music and my audiophilia began...I kept feeling something was wrong without being able to articulate precisely what. I changed preamps, power amps, speakers...ICGO&O...switch to the States
and reduced circumstances; LP12 gone and cheapo NAD deck with HO Sumiko MC. Same thing! Stylus gave out, short of funds, substitute the SRC cheapo Grado, reduced expectations...SWIZZ! Just enjoying music once more and audiophilia outbreak contained! got a Systemdek IIX and have upgraded steadily since to where the hankering for my old RIG is assuaged. But in buying a LVX arm I came by a REGA Elys; swapped to an RB300 and put in the Elys with the 3rd Screw...BINGO! Superb, glorious music, better than before. Circumstances improved and further outbreak of audiophilia!
After a year performance fell off and I lashed out on a 10x5. Whilst there was superiority of Stereo imaging and Bass output, the treble sweetness of the Elys was gone...found an almost brand new Elys2 in UK for $120. DIFFERENT! Where is everything...50-60 hours later...ah, now I see. Then got a chance for a DL-160 at a killer price and lashed out again.
The same strengths as both the Elys & 10x5 plus a captivatingly forward presentation and spectacular stereo imaging that puts the others to shame. A better match than either, with the RB300(Stock) to my ears. Knowing that a retip amounts to to a mere $90 is another bonus. so for the nonce at least...it's MC! |
I have been interested in doing this kind of MM/MC comparison myself.There is one point I'd like to make in that using different loadings especially with MC's it is easy to alter the sound of the performance on a record.I also found that in using the Denon at 100 ohms for example, it was more true to the actual sound in the real world,and that is probably why this was the manufacturer's recommended setting.I take this approach and look for the real world sound rather than a "sweetened" one.The Denon at 220 ohms for example is quite nice sounding but I moved back to 100 ohms.I used the Denon in several stages at 100 ohms.The stage I am using now is not the same as before as I have now made a system change.I found that,as I said in the earlier post,that Ortofon sold a little capacitor clip-on for the VMS 20.You can use it with or without depending.I am using an English Moth stage made by Stan Curtis with 45 Kohm and 300pf for the MM section.So here is the Ortofon running in a most suitable environment.I heard the Denon through maybe 8 different stages at 100 ohms,the Ortofon and Denon in the same stage.I know I was able to get a grasp of the nature of both cartridges.I think the Ortofon succeeded where at the last hurdle the Denon faltered.The Ortofon can play a record. |
Rauliruegas - I saw your last post before it was deleted. Lets try and discuss this topic without presenting something that can be interpreted as crossing over the controversial "advertisement" line. I think we can do it, yes?
I admire all attempts a manufacturer takes in making sure the component is made with the very best parts with much attention toward quality construction and design. Your focus on important specifications like RIAA accuracy, frequency range, signal to noise ratio, distortion level, crosstalk, slew rate, etc., along with well defined goals for sound reproduction are great.
However, even within this context, completely separate MM and MC stages within a single chassis with identical specs do not necessarily yield the same performance. This is the case for nearly identical circuits with only slight differences by way of additional booster stage or via a gain control. It is even more of a challenge for a preamp like yours when completely different parts are used. Specs alone (identical or not) do not predict the sonic signature of a component.
It would be interesting to know how you determined the sonic characteristics of the MM stage is identical to the MC stage without using different cartridges or, more generally, without adding a new variable.
Respectfully, |
Eldartford - I know of several phonostages that have a MM stage that is completely separate from the MC stage in a single chassis.
As to the other approaches you suggest, the additional booster stage or the manner in which the gain is changed concerns me.
Regardless of the approach, the inherent sonic differences between a MM or MC phonostage (even if these are independent from one another within the same unit) are not easily determined.
Here is a long shot: Just thinking out loud here so pardon the lack of clarity... I suppose two sets of a few musical passages and test tones can be recorded on (heaven forbid) a CD. The volume differences from one set to another must be set appropriately to avoid overloading the respective stage for which they are meant to be used. This can then serve as the input to a phonostage. I know of burn-in CD that have appropriate output levels that allow you to feed line level output directly to the phonostage.
I realize that one can argue that this may also not be a one-to-one comparison. This may be the case, but if the volume differences are well executed on such a CD to achieve identical musical passages when played back though the system, this may be an acceptable (but definitely unconventional) way to determine the sonic differences of a MM vs. MC stage without using a cartridge. This could be as close as we can get to determining the sonic differences between the two stages (so long as the overall volume levels are the equalized when switching from one stage to another).
If after such an exercise you determine that your MM and MC stage have similar performance, then you can confidently interpret the results of a MM vs. MC comparison. So does such a test CD exist?
Regards, |
Ctm_cra...For clarification...the Tandberg preamp has two complete phono preamps built in. I don't think this is common, although there may be others. One approach is the have an additional booster stage that the MC goes through before the MM circuit, or the gain of the phono circuit can be changed by switch setting. |
Stefanl - I was referring to the voltage outputs of each cartridge @ 1Khz, 50 mm/sec. From the informative database, the Denon DL103 is a MC unit whose output ranges from 0.12 - 0.3 mV vs. 5.0 mV for the moving iron Ortofon VMS-20 E Mk II.
I originally thought your phonostage is one that is either a MM or a MC. I see now that the phonostage you are using has a MM and a MC section. Thanks for clarifying. So essentially the capabilities of your phonostage is the same as that for Eldartford and others whose phonostages have a MM and MC settings. One of my phonostages also has this capability.
What is your phonostage? It would be interesting to know the design of its MM and the MC sections. I also want to know to what extent you have investigated that the performance of both sections is identical so that neither the MM nor the MC stages introduce an effect that confounds the MM vs. MC comparison. In other words, how do you know that the differences you hear when comparing MM and MC cartridges are only due to the distinct sonic signature of each cartridge? In my original post and in my responses to Eldartford I listed some of the difficulties one runs into when trying to objectively interpret the results of a MM vs. a MC cartridge comparison.
I would jump at the chance to AB MM/MC cartridges the way we can with cables and PCs, for example, with all other components being equal. In such evaluations only one variable changes -- the unit being investigated -- for a true apples-to-apples comparison. For other components like CD players, for example, it can also be done. However, it is not as simple because of the need to be sure that the volume levels are the same for each unit.
It would be great to hear from the designers.
Respectfully, |
Jsman - Thanks for posting your questions. It highlighted this very important discission of determining if one can objectively evaluate a MM vs. a MC cartridge.
Congratulations on your new TT purchase. I am glad you started a new thread to obtain more MM and MC cartridge suggestions. The cartridges already mentioned in this thread are great starting points. Let us know your findings. |
In reply to Ctm the output impedance for the Denon is 40 ohms and for the Ortofon 800 ohms according to the cartridge database.I had the Denon loaded at 100 ohms.I tried other loadings with it 47 ohms,220,1Kohm that had been suggested but the 100 ohms manufacturer's suggested was obviously more correct.The Ortofon went through the same stage's MM side with 100pf.The stage I'm using now has a 45Kohm with 300pf setting.This is just about what the VMS 20 prefers as most MM stages are 47Kohm.The Ortofon used to have a little clip-on device to vary the capacitance if you so desired but I have never seen one.So what I can say is that I heard the Denon in a lot of guises and got to know it quite well.I stand by the Ortofon as a "poor man's Koetsu".I think that the Linn K 18 Mk 11 MM must rank as one of my favourite cartridges. It was the one that initially woke me up to the fact that MM's can go stride for stride with MC's.That was only with an elliptical stylus too.I hear it doing even more now with a conical stylus.The level that is way past the "silky" epiphets.It plays the record.The other night I played some English Beatles pressings through the right channel to listen to the stereo mix.It was perfect for every nuance.I don't want to tell you how long I have not heard these records. |
I grow weary of those who add nothing to a good thread. But sometimes, every once in a while, I come across something so astonishing, that I have to barf, clean off my keyboard, and post a reply.
In Mr. Audiofeil's list of failed audio businesses, I noted one in particular:
Fisher.
Dude, you need a vacation! I'd recommend New York City. Take in a concert by the New York Philharmonic. The building in which they perform is named after that failed business man.
Cheers.
|
Stefanl - Thanks for your clarification. Sounds like you have tried a number of MM and MC cartridges. I used MCs exclusively, until I tried my first MM in late 2006. Since then I have identified at least a handful of MMs that I cannot do without!
I have a couple of follow-up questions for you:
1) What are the relative outputs of the Denon 103 MC and the Ortofon VMS 20 Mk11? Sorry I could look these up, but I a few errands to complete before the day ends.
2) When you switched from the Denon to the Ortofon please explain how you equalized the volume levels?
3) What impedance load was used with the Denon and what capacitance did you use for the Ortofon?
4) Among the Ortofon, Linns, AT and other cartridges you've used, what are your absolute favorites?
Regards! |
Dear Tfkaudio: +++++ " Or to say it another way, IMHO it is better to have a great phono amp and a good cart than to have a great cart and a good phono amp. " +++++
I totally agree about.
Regards and enjoy the msuic.
Raul. |
Audiofeil - What amateurs and what unreal specifications are you referring to? The author of this thread and perhaps a few members may want to know.
The "amateurs" that I have dealt with ARE responsible retailers and they aim to be well established. And if their products are given the same playing field perhaps they have a chance of being around next month, next year, and next decade.
The list you provide of companies that are no longer in business is comprehensive. I am no historian and have no inside scoop, but just as much as these "amateurs" can drop the ball on customer service, product support and make false specification claims, so can established manufacturers.
To keep referring to them globally as "amateurs" is also puzzling. Email me privately and I'd be glad to reveal the names of those with whom I have dealt. They are an impressive list of respected engineers and designers. You would be proud to represent their products. I refrain from identifying them here seeing how people are sensitive toward anything that can be misinterpreted as advertising. Additionally, if I were them I would not want my name associated within the context of this discussion. |
Eldartford,
Is the better MM cartridge you upgraded to the Shure V15MR or another unit? When you compared MM and MC cartridges through your Tandberg how did you equalize the listening levels?
CD playback is great and has come long way since it was first introduced. However, no CD player to date has outperformed my analog playback. This includes some highly regarded and top-of-the-line CD players (modded or otherwise) that I was lucky to hear in my system recently and within the last two years.
As to MM/MC comparisons
In a resolving and musical system (using well recorded, uncompressed acoustic media) one should expect to hear the difference from one IC to another, especially if you often attend live acoustic performances. One should also expect that this is the case when you introduce new speaker cables, PCs, line conditioners, vibration control platforms, and tweaks like footers/couplers, etc. The introduction of different capacitors or attenuators within a preamp, for example, can noticeably affect the overall sonic presentation. Resistors are no exception.
The Tandberg sounds like a well designed preamp. However, despite the nearly identical MM and MC circuits (and despite the use of the same transistors), the small differences including the presence of the resistors in one phono section to address the outputs of MM vs. MC cartridges add variables that confounds the results of a comparison between these different types of transducers.
Consequently, one cannot conclude that the differences you hear is due only to the two types of cartridges. Moreover, it is not an easy task to verify or isolate the sonic effects introduced by the differences between the MM and the MC phonostages within the same unit. So even with the use of the Tandberg, an evaluation of a MM vs. a MC cartridge is not an apples-to-apples comparison. |
Ctm_cra
If you are referring to my post, perhaps you should think with a tad more foresight.
First, motives.
Motives?
I dont think so. Any responsible retailer would recommend his customer deal with a well established manufacturer that will be around next month, next year, and next decade. I mentioned none specifically nor would I do so here.
Second, the audio world is replete with failed audio businesses. See:
California Audio Labs
Zoethecus
BMI
Meadowlark
Melos
Apogee
ADS
Counterpoint
Luxman
Platnium Audio
Essence
Great American Sound
Golden Tube
Dunlavy
American Acoustics
SAE
Soundwave
Condor
Normal
Yamaha (high end audio products only)
Celestion
Spica
Lineaum
Ohm (the real Walsh driver company)
Tandberg
Beveridge
Altec Lansing
Arcurus
Aragon
Mondial
Dahlquist
HH Scott
Fisher
Dynaco
KLH
Sonic Frontiers
Nirvan
Timbre
And you suggest that a smart buyer trust a couple amateurs working out of their garage with a product that cant/doesn't meet unreal specifications and need to promote same in these threads?
Perhaps I should ask, whats your motive? |
Jsman,
As to your quest, it is hard to go wrong with some of the MM cartridges already suggested and there are many more to try. The great part is that all of them are reasonably priced. So go for it and enjoy! This is not easily done with MC cartridges. Dont get me wrong. I enjoy having both types. However, unlike MMs, trying some of the best MCs can get very expensive. So let us know
it would be interesting to hear your evaluations of the MMs that impress you most.
I also agree with the suggestions to also look into a high quality phonostage. However, the sonic performance of such units within your system should be the among the major reasons for your purchase. Three of the top five phonostages I have used are one-off, prototype or beta units from highly regarded and talented enthusiasts. In fact I still own two of these quality units and use them regularly. None of these designers have ads in major print or online publications and none have a network of dealers. All of them were OK to have me try their units on a trial basis. If specs are a huge concern, then you can always have the units tested to verify the claims. They all provide excellent and timely, customer service and tech support. They have to. They much more to lose than a sale if they did otherwise. Sure they make products that are hand made, but they also happen to be often-consulted experts by the more highly visible companies. So do not overlook highly regarded products from such manufacturers. Forums such as these are a great place to learn about them. It is possible that persons suggesting otherwise have a vested interest (or at least I question their motive(s)) for doing so. |
Hi Raul,
I agree with what you said 100%. Maybe I should have said it like this - the job of amplifying a .4mv signal (MC) well is much harder than amplifying a 4.0mv signal (MM) well. The phono stages that can really do a great job with the low voltage MC signal are usually much more expensive than a phono stage that has great MM capability only.
That being said, unless the person has told us what phono stage is being used, I tend to assume that a person just getting into serious analog doesn't have a Manley Steelhead laying around, but rather is likely using the phono inputs of a stereo receiver or maybe a modest phono amp. In that environment, I think a good MM cart can deliver much better results.
Or to say it another way, IMHO it is better to have a great phono amp and a good cart than to have a great cart and a good phono amp.
Cheers. |
A good phono stage is a great recommendation. Look for companies that are well established with strong customer service and tech support.
Avoid the home brew stuff that is strongly marketed and pervasive in these threads. Amateur manufacturers are a dime a dozen. Most of their published specs are highly fictitious and unsupportable.
Ole' |
I switched from a Benz Micro Ace lo to an Ortofon 540 MkII. I made the switch because I couldn't turn the volume down enough on my preamp without loosing the left channel. My volume pot is a little worn out down near the bottom of it's range. My mc section has a lot of gain so I got the 540 to use my mm section. I expected to not like the Ortofon as much as the Ace but I actually like it just a little more. It looses a little of the top end sparkle that the Ace had but it is just as good in the mids and the bass is fuller. It rocks more than the Ace does and it seems to have less surface noise but that could be the difference in gain between my mc and mm sections.
I have a VTL TL5.5 with built in phono and use Mullard 12at7 and RCA 12ax7 tubes in the phono section and a SOTA Sapphire with Graham Robin.
Cheers,
Jim |
Dear Tfkaudio: IMHO, you need a high quality phonolinepreamp to obtain the real quality performance of any cartridge: either MC and MM, why do you think that you don't need it in a MM cartridge?, you need it too.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
"What's disappointing is the Dynavector's lack of adequate trackability. Imagine the wear and tear (literally) on a valuable record collection! No thanks.
"
Haha. Wow! Couldn't be more wrong! |
I would hate to see Jcman feel disappointed in his VPI Scoutmaster because his associated equipment didn't do justice to his Dynavector DV-20XH VPI cartridge. What's disappointing is the Dynavector's lack of adequate trackability. Imagine the wear and tear (literally) on a valuable record collection! No thanks. *** |
Would somebody please chime in? Would you agree, in general, that a high quality phono stage is required to bring out the best in a low-output MC cartridge? I would hate to see Jcman feel disappointed in his VPI Scoutmaster because his associated equipment didn't do justice to his Dynavector DV-20XH VPI cartridge. That's why I recommend staying with an MM (for now). I've done both, and I have strong opinions on the matter. But that's all I have to say, for now.
Cheers. |
great mm's...garrott bros k1 k2 k3...audio technica 150 |
