Lew,
No mono for these models. The 50ANV and ART7 are coreless, each with .12mV out. ART9 is .5mV
The 33PTG/II looks interesting. It has a tapered boron cantilever/ML, but not the new body, yoke, etc.
Here:
http://eu.audio-technica.com/en/products/cartridges/subcategory.asp?catID=8&subID=57
50ANV here:
http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/cartridges/55c732e450a18cb1/index.html
Regards, |
Right now you can get the MONO3/LP for under $100 from Amazon, direct from Japan. It's a med output coil - 1.2mV, 2.0g VTF recommended, load 30 to 47K or whatever. It has a .6 mil spherical tip on a thin, straight aluminum cantilever. Cu is 7 @ 100Hz, same as a 7V - med/heavy arm.
Not sure mine is completely broken in, but has superior presentation on mono records, if not resolution. It's a revelation on some older, noisy copies. When the tip wears, send it to Soundsmith for a level 1 - nude elliptical. Hard to go wrong. It sounds pretty good.
I don't know why all the Japanese manufactures use spherical styli exclusively on mono carts. Modern mono pressings benefit from more advanced tips, similar to stereo. Maybe they should try a Cadenza or Lyra mono on a Japanese pressing.
I too am trying to decide between ART7, 9, and 50ANV. I suspect 50ANV is the ultimate. It has a titanium base as opposed to aluminum, and titanium coil formers- armature. BTW, output is measured @ 3.54 cm/sec and has admirably low inductance/resistance.
Regards, |
Oregonpapa,
If you have tons of mono records, you might want to consider a mono cart. A stereo cart, no matter how good, can't compete with a true mono cart. Your ART9 or OC9 might have better resolution than a particular mono cart, but it also has differences between channels that at best, get blended rather than eliminated.
That difference includes phase, crosstalk, noise, antiskate, etc, are virtually eliminated with a mono cart. The absence of output for vertical movement does away with a lot of noise on mono records. It also eliminates the affects of pinch effect - vertical tip displacement in-groove.
Besides the usual mono carts, I've read that any Soundsmith cart can be ordered in mono. I bought the inexpensive MONO3 to check this out for myself. It doesn't have the resolution of my better stereo carts, but it does have superior presentation on mono.
Regards, |
Bill K,
Skating force is not eliminated with mono carts. Quite simply, because there is only one channel output which is duplicated, it does not contribute to a difference between channels like in stereo.
Regards, |
Chakster,
That would depend on your records. I think most of us have re-issues, but pre '67 pressings is misleading. The microgroove was introduced in '48 and adopted willy-nilly mostly through the '50s. However, if you have older wide groove mono, you're right. A .7mil (18um) tip could bottom out. Here's an explanation:
http://ortofon.com/hifi/products/mono-series
There are a couple of SPU and Miyajima models with appropriate tips. If you're looking for something inexpensive to play an older record, an OM-D25M might fill the bill:
http://www.lpgear.com/product/OROMD25M.html
I don't know much about it - just saw it listed. If it can take regular OM tips, it might be a good, versatile cart. The caveat is VTF/compliance. With the big spherical it's made for heavy tracking. Reg OM tips are much higher cu.
Regards, |
Oregonpapa,
Based on what you say about the sound, I wouldn't worry about it.
I don't know about your record collection. You said you have tons of mono. I have quite a few old jazz mono LPs (< ton), and every one is a microgroove. Most are re-issues, but even one or two oldies are microgroove. For these records your carts will do a better job of extracting detail/nuance than an inexpensive mono cart. This is especially true if your records are in good shape.
Some of my re-issues are Japanese pressings and most are in great shape. Although the presentation with the MONO3 is nicer, I miss the resolution. It's sort of like using a stock 103 instead of your AT. It might sound nice, musical, etc, but .....
The noise reduction on some old monos is substantial and if you have original wide groove pressings you might need a 1 mil stylus anyway. I found an old copy of Mozart Requiem Mass in the basement. This was so noisy I couldn't listen to it. I'll check it out and let you know. It might be wide groove and I'm not expecting much.
You said your mono records sound good and you have a mono switch. That goes a long way. It would cost a ton of money to set up mono approaching the same resolution as your ART9/OC9, for a somewhat nicer presentation? Enjoy what you have.
Regards, |
I replayed that old Mozart record and the noise reduction w/mono cart was amazing. I could hardly believe it. It still sounds grainy, but the clicks and pops are virtually gone.
Maybe it needs a 1 mil stylus, I don't know, but what they say about noise reduction on scratchy old records is true. |
The Jelco 750L has eff mass of 11g, yet the headshell weighs 12g? Neat trick!!
I happen to own an old, but sturdy bridge connecting Manhattan to Brooklyn and due to unforeseen circumstances I'm looking for investors.... |
Hi Aigenga,
They're not listing effective mass. It looks like it's the weight of the armtube w/o the headshell. I don't think it's possible for the eff mass to be less than headshell weight.
Normally, you can reduce the eff mass of an arm with a 12g shell by substituting a lighter shell. A high percentage of the difference in weight will subtract from the eff mass. So if you use a 7g shell you'll reduce eff mass by almost 5g.
One ray of hope - listed mass is lighter than the 9" version and it looks like this is due to the aluminum collet? Normally a longer armtube of the same design will be heavier. If this is the case, the collet is directly behind the shell and that is the second best location for reducing eff mass.
Another good thing is the fluid damping. This will reduce the amplitude peak of the resonance. Use sparingly though, it can also affect transient response and you'll probably have to experiment.
The easy(?) way to figure the mass is with a test record and cart(s) of known compliance. This might be easier if the damper is dry. With the low frequency tones you'll see the cart vibrate at resonant frequency. Take the info to VE tools in database. Just solve for eff mass. You need the cart and fastener weight.
When these arms first came out the Brit importer said the eff mass of the 750E was 20g. I don't know if this is right, but it seems more realistic. People reported using the OC9II successfully with it. I think the cart cu is the same. Maybe a weight difference? BTW, AT 10cu @100Hz = 18cu @ 10Hz.
With the fluid damper I suspect you'll be fine, but I have no experience with the arm.
Regards, |
ART 7 is available through Amazon from Japanese sellers. You might have to look in musical instruments or do a general search.
Optimal MC load is preamp specific. The extra capacitance acts as a low pass filter for the RF type noise. |
I still don't have an ART9, although I plan to get one. I have a question for ART9 owners. It has to do with compliance which is listed as 18cu @ 100Hz. On what arms are you using this cart? I'm asking for someone on another forum looking in the $1K price range. He has an arm approx. 16g eff mass and is afraid the cart might be too compliant. I'm well aware of the difference between 10 and 100Hz compliance, so no dissertations please. Specs say VTF is 2g max. I figure he should have no problem on that score. Thanks in advance for answers.
|
Thanks Oregonpapa, That doesn't help for a 16g arm though. I think Pani said a SME M2-12. Not sure of the mass, but that would be a bit closer. Regards, |
Thanks guys, maybe it's enough to convince him, although I'm reluctant to take responsibility. I think he said he has a Grace unipivot, it should be good enough for great results. Quite an impressive list of carts replaced by ART9. You have me drooling. I just purchased a TT81/7045 and I want to get that functional so I'll will have to wait for a bit. It's at the top of my list. I can understand how a 100Hz cu of 18 can be scary. We developed a 10Hz conversion based on AT MMs. It works to a limited extent, but not in all cases. The problem is 100Hz cu is not really a measure of compliance. It's more a measure of cu + tracking ability at 100Hz. Compliance at 100Hz doesn't make much sense. Regards, |
