NOS Grace F9E question

If you're comparing an MM to an MC, the one thing I always notice is that MCs typically emphasize the attack of a musical note.  Whereas, the best MMs and MIs tend to get the "meat" and the trailing edge of notes, perhaps better. (Please don't attack me for this gross generalization.  I am sure there are exceptions.)

@nandric

Dear chakster, I own both; JVC-X1, mk1 as well mk2 . Both

have solid beryllium cantilever + shibata stylus. If titanium

cantilevers are available than as separate styli. There are also

aluminum kinds available for both X-1,mk 1 and mk 2.

What’s the point? You don’t have the model i am talking about, this model is X-1IIE and it comes with Titanium Cantilever (tapered pipe), the stylus replacement part is orange. The models you’re talking about are all have Beryllium Cantilevers (solid rod) and they are completely different (with clear stylus replacement part). I hope you can see them all on my pictures above.

The rest of what you’re talking about are made by JICO, because JVC/Victor never ever made those top models with aluminum cantilevers. JICO made modern replacement for them, they are also orange in color, but does not have tention wire, they are not even SAS and very bad quality compared to the original Beryllium or Titanium.

P.S. X-1, X1II, X-1IIe cartridges killing the Grace F9 series with ease, they are superior and belongs to the best MM ever (they are also much lower in compliance which is no problem to use on any modern tonearm).

Ceramic is even more resonant and very bad for cantilevers. Other than in cartridges some manufacturers used in headshells and tonearms and all sounds really bad.

Raul, You’re comparing Apples to Oranges and i believe you have never ever tried the Grace with Ceramic Cantilever to even talk about it (this model is extremely rare). Also nobody knows the process used in manufacturing such cantilevers. I am not trying to say this is the best material, but anyone who blame it should have it at least. You’re talking about headshells and tonearms when the question is cartridge and its tiny cantilever. I use ceramic record weight (disc stabilizer) made by Noritake and it’s excellent compared to Micro Seiki copper disc stabilizer (but i think it has nothing to do with the cantilever). 

Do you know any audio products made of bamboo? Miyajima made first Bamboo cantilever not so long ago. Nobody made such cantilevers before, so what?

Every rejoinder starts a new argument.  I'm guilty too.

Dear @lewm : That's transient response and speed where LOMC are way better but to each his own.

@tzh21y , thank's to confirm you are satisfied with your F9 gift and if what you said is new then still will improves a little with more hours playing. Good !

R.

thanks guys for the info on the voltage output. @chakster I was looking for info on the F9 and also the Level II cartridges. @rauliruegas thanks for that link - I had actually seen it before. it’s what made me wonder why it’s so hard to get simple output numbers (the info isn’t there in that blurb). I’m guessing that it was the arrival of low output MC cartridges that made voltage output into an issue (or a ’thing’ as we’d put it these days). I’m too young to know first hand but at least that could explain the dearth of specs on the Grace F9s etc.

@jollytinker Grace made mode than 20 versions of LEVEL II cartridges in the 80s, which one you’re looking for ? As i said the output is from 3 to 5 mV depends on the model. You’re welcome.

vinylengine is the worst source for information regarding rare models of japanese cartridges, there is a lot of misinformation, you have to check on japanese sources for correct info


Everyone can find more about rare Grace models here
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/grace-level-ll

Dear @jollytinker : Maybe could be better to you to look for a different cartridge " taste " that could be the excelent Acutex M320 or Acutex 315/320LPM, B?O MMC1 or MMC2 or even the Astatic MF200 or MF100.

All those are MI type not MM and with enough output level for you.

If you want MM there are many very good contenders in the AT, Empire, Pickering/Stanton Azden, Shure, Nagaoka, etc, etc

First enjoy and lear what you can learn with what you own, give you some time before switch to other cartridges.

Yes, the temptation is big .

R.

Raul, Don't you think the word "speed", as applied to the difference in SQ between MC and MM or MI cartridges, is really saying the same thing as what I said, that MC cartridges seem to emphasize the attack of musical notes?  Psycho-acoustically, that would come across as a greater sense of speed.  But we know that our turntables are rotating at a constant speed, and the TT is the sole determinant of the time axis.  So, it cannot be actual greater speed that we are hearing with MC cartridges.  And my interpretation is that MC cartridges may lose the trailing edge of notes more quickly than do the other types, which makes them seem to emphasize the attack.  Always keeping in mind that my gross generalizations do not apply to ALL MC cartridges or all MM or MI types.  I think I am hearing this in comparing the AT ART7 to the Acutex LPM320.  Not so with my ZYX UNIverse.

All B&O cartridges made by SoundSmith for B&O under contract. SoundSmith is OEM, Peter spread the light on this interesting fact in his interview for Stereophile: https://youtu.be/Rd948px1230

@jollytinker : Maybe could be better to you to look for a different cartridge " taste " that could be the excelent Acutex M320 or Acutex 315/320LPM, B?O MMC1 or MMC2 or even the Astatic MF200 or MF100.

Yes, please buy all those, but leave the Grace LEVEL II and F14, AT-ML170 and AT-ML180, Victor X-1II, Stanton CS-100 WOS, Glanz MFG61 and Pioneer PC-1000 mkII for me, i will appreciate it very much, thanks :)

Dear @lewm : Agree that no one can change the speed of what the TT has. Maybe I explasin me in wrong way.

"""  my interpretation is that MC cartridges may lose the trailing edge of notes more quickly than do the other types, which makes them seem to emphasize the attack.... """

The decay time through a LOMC cartridge is faster and sound faster than with MM one. First because lower rounds of wire at the coils and second because are truer to the recording and you can attest this when you attend to an acoustic lmusic live event and are seated at near field: a few meters. Here you can listen how fast is the decay time of the different instruments that when you are seated at 30m. that decay time is longer because the " reberberation " effect of the venue. 
We have to remember that normally in good recordings the recording microphones are at near field position and from this point of view the LOMC are truer to the recording.

In a MM/MI performance the bass range almost always is floating/larger decay time that the tigthness / no overhang/low distortions in a LOMC ones.

Obviously that all depends of the quality level of each one room/audio system.

Your point seems valid.

R.

We have to remember that normally in good recordings the recording microphones are at near field position and from this point of view the LOMC are truer to the recording.

We’re talking about vintage cartridges here (let’s say from the 80s max), and some of the best mastering and cutting engineers have completely different opinion about MM vs. MC. Here is a TAS article about it. All of them prefer an MM over MC. But the choice of MM is very special: The Audio-Technica AT-ML170, Technics 100c mk4, and even Stanton 881s.

"Kavi Alexander, auteur of the remarkable Water Lily Acoustics series of analogue vinyl discs, is monitoring disc production by comparing test pressings to the master tape. What cartridge is he using? Another moving magnet, this time the Technics EPC 100, Mark IV, unfortunately no longer available in the US. But he describes the Audio Technica ATML-170 as very similar, and very close to the actual sound of the tape. In this comparison, he says, virtually no moving coil does so well; most have seriously apparent colorations."

I believe there are an exceptions, but everyone have to compare prices for the exceptional MC to some amazing MM first.

I do trust people from the industry, who mastered and cut some of the best records at the studios like Doug Sax’s The Mastering Lab in L.A. etc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Sax

A good point Chakster....and one I have read many times.
It's not as if these famous mastering engineers haven't heard the best LOMCs....and their opinions carry far more weight than the average punter.
After all.....they are comparing directly to the master tape and that's a comparison almost none of us can duplicate.
My vintage MM cartridges generally sound more 'natural' and satisfying than any LOMCs I've heard or owned.

Dear @halcro : I was thinking as you and as a fact I was whom brougth to Agon that link. Unfortunatelly we never had the opportunity to ask them directly about and today two of them pass away.

But in other forum with several recording engineers I had that opportunity because they posted there and were gentlemans that made it their work through the best regarded quality recording labels.

Well, rigth there and after different discussions overtime I learned that the main priorities of all of them were different ( many reasons about. ) of the normal audiophile room/audio system priorities because in reality are way different what they are looking for and how each one of them is biased and what system use to monitoring and the like.
There are great recordings and a lot more really bad.

A room audio system LP recording reproduction is a total different " animale " than a recording studio/mastering and each one of us music/sound priorities are different too. Yes, you can think that they and us want it the same: extreme/perfect quality performance levels but that happens only a few times.
. Two different worlds.

If we follow them we just can’t grow up and can’t achieve the real qualituy our system can shows.

I’m not diminish in any way their job that’s a main important subject only that is a different world and not the audiophile world.

Do you think that those ( any ) recording professionals own top audiophile electronics or speakers as the top Magico/Wilson or the like and TTs as the Exclusive P3 or SP10MK3 or top Clearaudio statement TT or top cables and everything we audiiophiles own. Top highgain phonolinepreamps, Cobra tonearms.? Do you think that their system outperforms the M.Lavigne system?   No they own nothing of that level not even what I have in my humble/modest system. ! !

Obviously that each one of us have the privilege to make a choice. As you I did it many years ago but I always say that each day is a learning one and through the time I learned about. Sooner or latter you will learn or maybe not is up to you.

Anyway only a point of view. My main room/audio system music/sound priority/target is stay truer to the recording and I don’t care of other matters. It’s me not what the engineers did it, they already did their job and now I must do mine at home. This is my task no mater what.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.


Btw, I remember when I started in audio: what I wanted is to have the electronics/speakers that the recording engineers/professionals uses, go figure !.

As I said every day is a learning day and time to analize some great sounding LP recording labels where engineers used audiophile systems. This is an exception because normally it’s not this way.

Examples: Wilson Audio where D.Wilson was a recording engineer before started Wilson Specialities. I own some of his old recordings where we can note that he always used subwoofers to monitoring/evaluated his recordings.
Well, we can take any of newer of his recordings under Wilson Audio label ( Center Stage for example. ). He created/designed a dedicated speaker monitor for his self and that was the Watt and latter on added lower bass range and converted in the Watt Puppies. You can read in those recording information that for the final evaluation he used his WAMM 4 towers Wilson 3/4 ton. design nd SS electronics with top ll around gear.

Other is Telarc that has some great recordings quality sound where the engineers choosed big Threshold electronics and biamp speakers made it expressely for Telarc by ADS and latter used the speaker monitors by ADS model L2030 and L1530. Always biamp. Stand alone bass range is a must for top quality recording sound.

Reference Recordings is other very good example where the engineer Proff. Johnson used his full SS Spectral great electronics, with the big Duntech Sorvegein speakers, mated with the Versa Dynamics top TT and using Lyra cartridges. Nothing less !!

But all those are the exception, normally recording engineers has no specific idea of what we audiophile are looking for, that's the way the audio industry educated almost all. Sheffield Labs recordings is a little different because are D2D.

All these gentlemans priorities coincide with audiophiles priorities because they are audiophiles and knows what audiophiles are looking for and that's why their recordings have that astonishing quality levels.

If you compare Water Lily that came from KA is a little inferior to ll those and others like the Rega recordings.

MM/MI are good but the reference is LOMC units.

Again, I’m talking of quality of the sound.

R.