Who needs a MM cartridge type when we have MC?


Dear friends: who really needs an MM type phono cartridge?, well I will try to share/explain with you what are my experiences about and I hope too that many of you could enrich the topic/subject with your own experiences.

For some years ( in this forum ) and time to time I posted that the MM type cartridge quality sound is better than we know or that we think and like four months ago I start a thread about: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1173550723&openusid&zzRauliruegas&4&5#Rauliruegas where we analyse some MM type cartridges.

Well, in the last 10-12 months I buy something like 30+ different MM type phono cartridges ( you can read in my virtual system which ones. ) and I’m still doing it. The purpose of this fact ( “ buy it “ ) is for one way to confirm or not if really those MM type cartridges are good for us ( music lovers ) and at the same time learn about MM vs MC cartridges, as a fact I learn many things other than MM/MC cartridge subject.

If we take a look to the Agon analog members at least 90% of them use ( only ) MC phono cartridges, if we take a look to the “ professional reviewers “ ( TAS, Stereophile, Positive Feedback, Enjoy the Music, etc, etc, ) 95% ( at least ) of them use only MC cartridges ( well I know that for example: REG and NG of TAS and RJR of Stereophile use only MM type cartridges!!!!!!!! ) , if we take a look to the phono cartridge manufacturers more than 90% of them build/design for MC cartridges and if you speak with audio dealers almost all will tell you that the MC cartridges is the way to go.

So, who are wrong/right, the few ( like me ) that speak that the MM type is a very good alternative or the “ whole “ cartridge industry that think and support the MC cartridge only valid alternative?

IMHO I think that both groups are not totally wrong/right and that the subject is not who is wrong/right but that the subject is : KNOW-HOW or NON KNOW-HOW about.

Many years ago when I was introduced to the “ high end “ the cartridges were almost MM type ones: Shure, Stanton, Pickering, Empire, etc, etc. In those time I remember that one dealer told me that if I really want to be nearest to the music I have to buy the Empire 4000 D ( they say for 4-channel reproduction as well. ) and this was truly my first encounter with a “ high end cartridge “, I buy the 4000D I for 70.00 dls ( I can’t pay 150.00 for the D III. ), btw the specs of these Empire cartridges were impressive even today, look: frequency response: 5-50,000Hz, channel separation: 35db, tracking force range: 0.25grs to 1.25grs!!!!!!!!, just impressive, but there are some cartridges which frequency response goes to 100,000Hz!!!!!!!!!!

I start to learn about and I follow to buying other MM type cartridges ( in those times I never imagine nothing about MC cartridges: I don’t imagine of its existence!!!. ) like AKG, Micro Acoustics, ADC, B&O, Audio Technica, Sonus, etc, etc.

Years latter the same dealer told me about the MC marvelous cartridges and he introduce me to the Denon-103 following with the 103-D and the Fulton High performance, so I start to buy and hear MC cartridges. I start to read audio magazines about either cartridge type: MM and Mc ones.

I have to make changes in my audio system ( because of the low output of the MC cartridges and because I was learning how to improve the performance of my audio system ) and I follow what the reviewers/audio dealers “ speak “ about, I was un-experienced !!!!!!!, I was learning ( well I’m yet. ).

I can tell you many good/bad histories about but I don’t want that the thread was/is boring for you, so please let me tell you what I learn and where I’m standing today about:

over the years I invested thousands of dollars on several top “ high end “ MC cartridges, from the Sumiko Celebration passing for Lyras, Koetsu, Van denHul, to Allaerts ones ( just name it and I can tell that I own or owned. ), what I already invest on MC cartridges represent almost 70-80% price of my audio system.

Suddenly I stop buying MC cartridges and decide to start again with some of the MM type cartridges that I already own and what I heard motivate me to start the search for more of those “ hidden jewels “ that are ( here and now ) the MM phono cartridges and learn why are so good and how to obtain its best quality sound reproduction ( as a fact I learn many things other than MM cartridge about. ).

I don’t start this “ finding “ like a contest between MC and MM type cartridges.
The MC cartridges are as good as we already know and this is not the subject here, the subject is about MM type quality performance and how achieve the best with those cartridges.

First than all I try to identify and understand the most important characteristics ( and what they “ means “. ) of the MM type cartridges ( something that in part I already have it because our phonolinepreamp design needs. ) and its differences with the MC ones.

Well, first than all is that are high output cartridges, very high compliance ones ( 50cu is not rare. ), low or very low tracking force ones, likes 47kOhms and up, susceptible to some capacitance changes, user stylus replacement, sometimes we can use a different replacement stylus making an improvement with out the necessity to buy the next top model in the cartridge line , low and very low weight cartridges, almost all of them are build of plastic material with aluminum cantilever and with eliptical or “ old “ line contact stylus ( shibata ) ( here we don’t find: Jade/Coral/Titanium/etc, bodies or sophisticated build material cantilevers and sophisticated stylus shape. ), very very… what I say? Extremely low prices from 40.00 to 300.00 dls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, well one of my cartridges I buy it for 8.99 dls ( one month ago ): WOW!!!!!!, so any one of you can/could have/buy ten to twenty MM cartridges for the price of one of the MC cartridge you own today and the good notice is that is a chance that those 10-20 MM type cartridges even the quality performance of your MC cartridge or beat it.

Other characteristics is that the builders show how proud they were/are on its MM type cartridges design, almost all those cartridges comes with a first rate box, comes with charts/diagrams of its frequency response and cartridge channel separation ( where they tell us which test recording use it, with which VTF, at which temperature, etc, etc. ), comes with a very wide explanation of the why’s and how’s of its design and the usual explanation to mount the cartridge along with a very wide list of specifications ( that were the envy of any of today MC ones where sometimes we really don’t know nothing about. ), comes with a set of screws/nuts, comes with a stylus brush and even with stylus cleaning fluid!!!!!!!!!, my GOD. Well, there are cartridges like the Supex SM 100MK2 that comes with two different stylus!!!! One with spherical and one with elliptical/shibata shape and dear friends all those in the same low low price!!!!!!!!!!!

Almost all the cartridges I own you can find it through Ebay and Agon and through cartridge dealers and don’t worry if you loose/broke the stylus cartridge or you find the cartridge but with out stylus, you always can/could find the stylus replacement, no problem about there are some stylus and cartridge sources.

When I’m talking about MM type cartridges I’m refer to different types: moving magnet, moving iron, moving flux, electret, variable reluctance, induced magnet, etc, etc. ( here is not the place to explain the differences on all those MM type cartridges. Maybe on other future thread. ).

I made all my very long ( time consuming ) cartridge tests using four different TT’s: Acoustic Signature Analog One MK2, Micro Seiki RX-5000, Luxman PD 310 and Technics SP-10 MK2, I use only removable headshell S and J shape tonearms with 15mm on overhang, I use different material build/ shape design /weight headshells. I test each cartridge in at least three different tonearms and some times in 3-4 different headshells till I find the “ right “ match where the cartridge perform the best, no I’m not saying that I already finish or that I already find the “ perfect “ match: cartridge/headshell/tonearm but I think I’m near that ideal target.

Through my testing experience I learn/ confirm that trying to find the right tonearm/headshell for any cartridge is well worth the effort and more important that be changing the TT. When I switch from a TT to another different one the changes on the quality cartridge performance were/are minimal in comparison to a change in the tonearm/headshell, this fact was consistent with any of those cartridges including MC ones.

So after the Phonolinepreamplifier IMHO the tonearm/headshell match for any cartridge is the more important subject, it is so important and complex that in the same tonearm ( with the same headshell wires ) but with different headshell ( even when the headshell weight were the same ) shape or build material headshell the quality cartridge performance can/could be way different.

All those experiences told me that chances are that the cartridge that you own ( MC or MM ) is not performing at its best because chances are that the tonearm you own is not the best match for that cartridge!!!!!!, so imagine what do you can/could hear when your cartridge is or will be on the right tonearm???!!!!!!!!, IMHO there are ( till today ) no single ( any type at any price ) perfect universal tonearm. IMHO there is no “ the best tonearm “, what exist or could exist is a “ best tonearm match for “ that “ cartridge “, but that’s all. Of course that are “ lucky “ tonearms that are very good match for more than one cartridge but don’t for every single cartridge.

I posted several times that I’m not a tonearm collector, that I own all those tonearms to have alternatives for my cartridges and with removable headshells my 15 tonearms are really like 100+ tonearms : a very wide options/alternatives for almost any cartridge!!!!!!

You can find several of these MM type cartridges new brand or NOS like: Ortofon, Nagaoka, Audio Technica, Astatic, B&O, Rega, Empire, Sonus Reson,Goldring,Clearaudio, Grado, Shelter, Garrot, etc. and all of them second hand in very good operational condition. As a fact I buy two and even three cartridges of the same model in some of the cartridges ( so right now I have some samples that I think I don’t use any more. ) to prevent that one of them arrive in non operational condition but I’m glad to say that all them arrive in very fine conditions. I buy one or two of the cartridges with no stylus or with the stylus out of work but I don’t have any trouble because I could find the stylus replacement on different sources and in some case the original new replacement.

All these buy/find cartridges was very time consuming and we have to have a lot of patience and a little lucky to obtain what we are looking for but I can asure you that is worth of it.

Ok, I think it is time to share my performance cartridge findings:

first we have to have a Phonolinepreamplifier with a very good MM phono stage ( at least at the same level that the MC stage. ). I’m lucky because my Phonolinepreamplifier has two independent phono stages, one for the MM and one for MC: both were designed for the specifics needs of each cartridge type, MM or MC that have different needs.

we need a decent TT and decent tonearm.

we have to load the MM cartridges not at 47K but at 100K ( at least 75K not less. ).

I find that using 47K ( a standard manufacture recommendation ) prevent to obtain the best quality performance, 100K make the difference. I try this with all those MM type cartridges and in all of them I achieve the best performance with 100K load impedance.

I find too that using the manufacturer capacitance advise not always is for the better, till “ the end of the day “ I find that between 100-150pf ( total capacitance including cable capacitance. ) all the cartridges performs at its best.

I start to change the load impedance on MM cartridges like a synonymous that what many of us made with MC cartridges where we try with different load impedance values, latter I read on the Empire 4000 DIII that the precise load impedance must be 100kOhms and in a white paper of some Grace F9 tests the used impedance value was 100kOhms, the same that I read on other operational MM cartridge manual and my ears tell/told me that 100kOhms is “ the value “.

Before I go on I want to remember you that several of those MM type cartridges ( almost all ) were build more than 30+ years ago!!!!!!!! and today performs at the same top quality level than today MC/MM top quality cartridges!!!!!, any brand at any price and in some ways beat it.

I use 4-5 recordings that I know very well and that give me the right answers to know that any cartridge is performing at its best or near it. Many times what I heard through those recordings were fine: everything were on target however the music don’t come “ alive “ don’t “ tell me “ nothing, I was not feeling the emotion that the music can communicate. In those cartridge cases I have to try it in other tonearm and/or with a different headshell till the “ feelings comes “ and only when this was achieved I then was satisfied.

All the tests were made with a volume level ( SPL ) where the recording “ shines “ and comes alive like in a live event. Sometimes changing the volume level by 1-1.5 db fixed everything.

Of course that the people that in a regular manner attend to hear/heard live music it will be more easy to know when something is right or wrong.

Well, Raul go on!!: one characteristic on the MM cartridges set-up was that almost all them likes to ride with a positive ( little/small ) VTA only the Grace Ruby and F9E and Sonus Gold Blue likes a negative VTA , on the other hand with the Nagaoka MP 50 Super and the Ortofon’s I use a flat VTA.

Regarding the VTF I use the manufacturer advise and sometimes 0.1+grs.
Of course that I made fine tuning through moderate changes in the Azymuth and for anti-skate I use between half/third VTF value.

I use different material build headshells: aluminum, composite aluminum, magnesium, composite magnesium, ceramic, wood and non magnetic stainless steel, these cartridges comes from Audio Technica, Denon, SAEC, Technics, Fidelity Research, Belldream, Grace, Nagaoka, Koetsu, Dynavector and Audiocraft.
All of them but the wood made ( the wood does not likes to any cartridge. ) very good job . It is here where a cartridge could seems good or very good depending of the headshell where is mounted and the tonearm.
Example, I have hard time with some of those cartridge like the Audio Technica AT 20SS where its performance was on the bright sound that sometimes was harsh till I find that the ceramic headshell was/is the right match now this cartridge perform beautiful, something similar happen with the Nagaoka ( Jeweltone in Japan ), Shelter , Grace, Garrot , AKG and B&O but when were mounted in the right headshell/tonearm all them performs great.

Other things that you have to know: I use two different cooper headshell wires, both very neutral and with similar “ sound “ and I use three different phono cables, all three very neutral too with some differences on the sound performance but nothing that “ makes the difference “ on the quality sound of any of my cartridges, either MM or MC, btw I know extremely well those phono cables: Analysis Plus, Harmonic Technologies and Kimber Kable ( all three the silver models. ), finally and don’t less important is that those phono cables were wired in balanced way to take advantage of my Phonolinepreamp fully balanced design.

What do you note the first time you put your MM cartridge on the record?, well a total absence of noise/hum or the like that you have through your MC cartridges ( and that is not a cartridge problem but a Phonolinepreamp problem due to the low output of the MC cartridges. ), a dead silent black ( beautiful ) soundstage where appear the MUSIC performance, this experience alone is worth it.

The second and maybe the most important MM cartridge characteristic is that you hear/heard the MUSIC flow/run extremely “ easy “ with no distracting sound distortions/artifacts ( I can’t explain exactly this very important subject but it is wonderful ) even you can hear/heard “ sounds/notes “ that you never before heard it and you even don’t know exist on the recording: what a experience!!!!!!!!!!!

IMHO I think that the MUSIC run so easily through a MM cartridge due ( between other facts ) to its very high compliance characteristic on almost any MM cartridge.

This very high compliance permit ( between other things like be less sensitive to out-center hole records. ) to these cartridges stay always in contact with the groove and never loose that groove contact not even on the grooves that were recorded at very high velocity, something that a low/medium cartridge compliance can’t achieve, due to this low/medium compliance characteristic the MC cartridges loose ( time to time and depending of the recorded velocity ) groove contact ( minute extremely minute loose contact, but exist. ) and the quality sound performance suffer about and we can hear it, the same pass with the MC cartridges when are playing the inner grooves on a record instead the very high compliance MM cartridges because has better tracking drive perform better than the MC ones at inner record grooves and here too we can hear it.

Btw, some Agoners ask very worried ( on more than one Agon thread ) that its cartridge can’t track ( clean ) the cannons on the 1812 Telarc recording and usually the answers that different people posted were something like this: “””” don’t worry about other than that Telarc recording no other commercial recording comes recorded at that so high velocity, if you don’t have trouble with other of your LP’s then stay calm. “””””

Well, this standard answer have some “ sense “ but the people ( like me ) that already has/have the experience to hear/heard a MM or MC ( like the Ortofon MC 2000 or the Denon DS1, high compliance Mc cartridges. ) cartridge that pass easily the 1812 Telarc test can tell us that those cartridges make a huge difference in the quality sound reproduction of any “ normal “ recording, so it is more important that what we think to have a better cartridge tracking groove drive!!!!

There are many facts around the MM cartridge subject but till we try it in the right set-up it will be ( for some people ) difficult to understand “ those beauties “. Something that I admire on the MM cartridges is how ( almost all of them ) they handle the frequency extremes: the low bass with the right pitch/heft/tight/vivid with no colorations of the kind “ organic !!” that many non know-how people speak about, the highs neutral/open/transparent/airy believable like the live music, these frequency extremes handle make that the MUSIC flow in our minds to wake up our feelings/emotions that at “ the end of the day “ is all what a music lover is looking for.
These not means that these cartridges don’t shine on the midrange because they do too and they have very good soundstage but here is more system/room dependent.

Well we have a very good alternative on the ( very low price ) MM type cartridges to achieve that music target and I’m not saying that you change your MC cartridge for a MM one: NO, what I’m trying to tell you is that it is worth to have ( as many you can buy/find ) the MM type cartridges along your MC ones

I want to tell you that I can live happy with any of those MM cartridges and I’m not saying with this that all of them perform at the same quality level NO!! what I’m saying is that all of them are very good performers, all of them approach you nearest to the music.

If you ask me which one is the best I can tell you that this will be a very hard “ call “ an almost impossible to decide, I think that I can make a difference between the very good ones and the stellar ones where IMHO the next cartridges belongs to this group:

Audio Technica ATML 170 and 180 OCC, Grado The Amber Tribute, Grace Ruby, Garrot P77, Nagaoka MP-50 Super, B&O MMC2 and MMC20CL, AKG P8ES SuperNova, Reson Reca ,Astatic MF-100 and Stanton LZS 981.

There are other ones that are really near this group: ADC Astrion, Supex MF-100 MK2, Micro Acoustics MA630/830, Empire 750 LTD and 600LAC, Sonus Dimension 5, Astatic MF-200 and 300 and the Acutex 320III.

The other ones are very good too but less refined ones.
I try too ( owned or borrowed for a friend ) the Shure IV and VMR, Music maker 2-3 and Clearaudio Virtuoso/Maestro, from these I could recommended only the Clearaudios the Shure’s and Music Maker are almost mediocre ones performers.
I forgot I try to the B&O Soundsmith versions, well this cartridges are good but are different from the original B&O ( that I prefer. ) due that the Sounsmith ones use ruby cantilevers instead the original B&O sapphire ones that for what I tested sounds more natural and less hi-fi like the ruby ones.

What I learn other that the importance on the quality sound reproduction through MM type cartridges?, well that unfortunately the advance in the design looking for a better quality cartridge performers advance almost nothing either on MM and MC cartridges.

Yes, today we have different/advanced body cartridge materials, different cantilever build materials, different stylus shape/profile, different, different,,,,different, but the quality sound reproduction is almost the same with cartridges build 30+ years ago and this is a fact. The same occur with TT’s and tonearms. Is sad to speak in this way but it is what we have today. Please, I’m not saying that some cartridges designs don’t grow up because they did it, example: Koetsu they today Koetsu’s are better performers that the old ones but against other cartridges the Koetsu ones don’t advance and many old and today cartridges MM/MC beat them easily.

Where I think the audio industry grow-up for the better are in electronic audio items ( like the Phonolinepreamps ), speakers and room treatment, but this is only my HO.

I know that there are many things that I forgot and many other things that we have to think about but what you can read here is IMHO a good point to start.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
rauliruegas

Showing 50 responses by fleib

Lew, the problem is no further response manipulation is possible due to lack of inductance, not that it sounds bad at 1K. At 100 ohms it sounds like a refined Grado IMO and 1K is a vast improvement, but still not perfect.
Even though vocals sound amazing on some of the better Grados, I don't like them, except the TLZ which is the best of the bunch I've tried.

It's unexpected to read that a SS level 3 on your Grace Ruby of all things, was disappointing. Isn't the original tip a .2 x .8 elliptical? Can you describe the change?
Regards,
Hi Lew, I just read the 505 manual or part of it. I see what you mean. Have you ever tried it with the sub arm not horizontal? If it doesn't function properly like that, your only recourse for SRA is to use an angled shim in the headshell. Not exactly convenient for working things out.

I think it would be more productive to consider this a different cart than your other Rubies, and it might well be. Is it difficult changing resistance in whatever you're using for this? It wouldn't hurt to try and it might be the solution. I'd also experiment with a different arm. I'm bothered if I don't have VTA on-the-fly. The 505 would drive me to distraction. BTW, have you tried the stylus on one of your other bodies?

Regards,
Hi Nandric,
The quantifier "all" was not used. If you have a problem with Jcarr's statement, take it up with him.

My one example contained a joint pipe, so it was not contrary to the statement. It did have an unusual suspension wire which appeared to be the same as the cantilever and had no sleeve. Still, not contrary to the statement about joint pipes.

I made no argument, merely a quote about joint pipes and an anecdote about an unusual AT stylus. Thank you for your concern. The stylus has been replaced with a lucky find. Hope you can find an original replacement for your JVC.
Regards,
Griffithds,
Satin had an M-21 and M-21B in the early '80s. They might be the better ones. They made a lot of HOMC.

I thought the early Sony XL were Satin, but I'm not sure.
David says no.

Regards,
All what, cartridges or seen cartridges?
All cartridges were never part of the equation.

**Neither of us (J.Carr and I) addressed each other in this context.**
Surely you jest. The Jcarr quote was addressed to you.

I think Technics called the joint pipe a stylus sleeve and the cantilever is connected in a way that does not facilitate replacement in its entirety. I have no idea if Jcarr has ever seen one.

Why don't you tell us about Dertonearm's cartridge? I think it would be more interesting than joint pipe universality.
Regards,

Storyboy,
I think you might be right. There is a finite number of great vintage MM carts and once every major manufacturer is examined, where do you go from there?
There may be one or two that fell through the cracks (was Jico MM discussed?), but the obvious answer is MCs.

For questions about stylus replacement/substitution, one would be better served at Audio Karma. The only new and interesting topic here lately, is from 3ox. Like Halcro we can revisit favorites and change rankings and/or wax poetic.

SS now makes a complete replacement for Grace Ruby and users say it's wonderful. I don't know the problem with Lew's rebuild, but I suspect it could be worked out with SS.
My apologies for instigating that exchange with the Dutchman who is really a Russian in clogs. I found his misapplication of logic mildly amusing, but I can see how you might not.
Regards,

Lew,
This is a public forum and it's not your place to give permission to hang out. If Raul were to come back, it wouldn't be his place either. If Storyboy wants to comment on the current relevance of this thread, his comment alone is a contribution, without making further contribution.

I have no objection to discussion of vintage cars, vintage preamps or ebola, but this is an analog forum and the subject is phono cartridges. You might think this is an old boys club, but it is only to the extent that those old boys have, or might contribute further.

Have any mono carts?
Regards,
Hi Dover,
The Koetsu Black is within 2dB, 20 - 20K ?
That's the Goldline? The older Black seemed to have more bass than + 2dB, made it sound "mellow/lush". Their redesign really made a difference.

The Ruby was loaded at 100K and that's less rise than most MCs. I never owned one, but it seemed a little forward at first listen. In that respect one has an advantage with loading a MM.

Regards,
Timeltel,
I forgot to ask the specs of the ML150? I thought I had it written down somewhere, but it eludes me. The database has it listed as 2500 ohms, 4mV. It looks to have the same generator as the 170, 180 with only the cantilever being different?

Speaking of cantilevers, in a general way I think more rigidity gives more detail/exactness often at the expense of that relaxed, natural Denon type presentation. Just as you can't emphasize one extreme of the frequency spectrum without relatively affecting the other extreme, more detail can result in clinical rather than natural.

Beryllium seems to give the best results with ATs IMO. It's more flexible than boron so it's a little more like aluminum in that respect, but it's also the lightest. Was the original ML150 stylus broken?

Harold NTB,
There's a thread on Asylum about rise time. Luckydog discusses the problem with quantifying it. I thought you might be interested.

Regards,
Greetings Timeltel,
I have one manual for six F9 models including the F, E, and L. Ruby is not included. All have impedance of 2.4K and same output except L is +2mV. I naturally assumed it has stronger magnets. Thanks for confirmation.
I also assumed this is the earlier manual. The F (line trace) is the top with response to 50K, but it seems the stylus is the only difference. There's a response graph for F taken with 100K load. Response is up about 2dB @ 20K, and 3dB @ 30K. It looks like high frequency resonance is around 30K. There is a slight treble droop centered around 8K, but it's very slight. One curious thing is capacitance load was 80pF. There is no recommendation in the specs.

If Ruby impedance is 1.7K with no drop in output, it would imply stronger magnets and less inductance. Still, it might be a good idea to keep capacitance low as possible. AT's seem best at 150pF total. This might be a little high for a Grace, don't know exactly why. Resonance seems high enough that it wouldn't matter unless excessive.

Lew,
Assuming you have azimuth correct, I think SRA and resistance load is the solution. I'd drop the rear of a 9.5" arm about 4 or 5mm, more if you have clearance and take it up from there. You might want to check alignment.
If you're running 47K you might not have to load it down, but that would be your only option for excessive brightness.
Regards
Regards Timeltel,
The database has the 150 w/berrylium and the 170-180 w/boron. Maybe it's a mistake. I was hoping you knew inductance. I'm guessing it's 370mH, but that's just a guess based on the 150MLX - 2.3Kohm, 350mH. But they might have stronger magnets.

I think I have those specs somewhere. I'll have to look.

Thanks,
Haven't heard anything more about the JVC MM's. Griff loaned me an X1 for awhile and I found it most interesting.
I haven't tried the Z1/SAS. It seems, there's much love for this combo. Nothing to say?

neo/fleib
Lew, Interesting arm. The sub arm is like the Souther linear tracker. I see no reason other than tracking warps, why you can't stray from maintaining perfectly horizontal arm tube. As mentioned previously, the SRA orientation of the OCL tip might not be in agreement with original F9, and the tip itself might have a more forward orientation. I can't confirm the later, but people have reported such.

I can't give you a mathematical reason for loading down, other than it's your only option for brightness with respect to LCR. Inductance is probably around 300 - 325mH, but adding capacitance will not help. A cart with lower high frequency resonance would normally get brighter as that resonance is lowered into the treble region, but that's not the goal anyway. LCR manipulation is specific to mechanical response and everything except playing with resistance is contraindicated. Mechanical response could be different with a different cantilever and tip.

There is a quasi-mathematical reason to try loading and stylus swapping. Albert Einstein said, insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results. If I remember correctly this is a NOS body or something like that? It could be a dud. You have a couple of good exemplars, so..... you could see what it takes to get results with a known entity.

Regards,
Regards Timeltel, Thanks for the specs, most interesting.
It seems that the neighborhood of 240mH is the practical limit for AT inductance lowering. Beyond that it gets too bright for the mandatory 47K load recommendation, but that doesn't entirely explain Signet.
Did you ever have a TK9Ea or 9LCa ? 550 ohms imp. 85mH tapered beryllium.
The 10ML also has 85mH. When new the 10ML II could make your ears bleed. Just wondering if you've ever messed with one of these?

Regards,
Hi Lew,
It seems to me that VTA/SRA has more to do with harmonics and loading is more about bright/dull. Of course they're interrelated. Wondering what conclusions await.

Regards,
Regards Timeltel, Halcro,
I bought the TK10ML II new in the '80s before I knew anything about loading. My MM phono input was 47K and I could select from three capacitance settings which seemed to do nothing with this cartridge. I played with VTA, checked alignment etc. I think I sold it before it was even broken in, a decision I now regret. How could this cart have response on test reports that looked like a ruler line, and sound like this?

The AT22 - 25 and Signet 9 and 10 series all had 85mH inductance! Dlaloum tells me they had toroidal type coils and were sort of experimental TOTL types.
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=88878.800

"The AT22-25 and TK9/10 were a generation earlier, they were more expensive to make due to having true torroidal construction... all the rest of the VM series have always used para-torroidal design - so the earlier generation were magnetically superior - but the difference may have been very minor.

The shorter cantilever on the ATML series made a bigger difference I think, than the torroidal structure on the earlier series...

Seems to me the ATML180 is up there as one of the all time greats.

My own measurements of the TK9 show a noticeable midrange trough (not a bad one, but not the best I have seen either) - which is caused (I think) by a combination of magnetic losses and cantilever flex losses - the low inductance is reflected in the high end rise to a resonance beyond the audio range (cannot recall right now the frequency - would have to look up my measurements).

The higher inductance of the ATML allows it to achieve a flatter frequency response at the high end - would love to get my hands on one to measure - and see what the midrange trough looks like... I have a feeling it will/would do better than the earlier series or the AT150 - mostly due to the shorter cantilever."

Low inductance carts are generally harder to load, but have great potential. All thing being equal, a shorter cantilever will have a higher resonant frequency. The Grace F9F has about the same HFR as a 6mm boron cantilever.
Higher inductance MMs are voiced so that electrical resonance (LCR) moves HFR to a frequency that compliments response. If a MM has extremely low inductance, playing with capacitance loading is fruitless, but potential for transparency and resolution is high.

I recently purchased a Signer MR 5.0ML. This series has the same stylus fitment as the current 100/120 series, but the plastic stylus holder is a little taller and must be trimmed slightly to use on a 440/150.
I tried the cart at 50K and 47K and it was decidedly uninvolving, underwhelming. I didn't expect much because DC was out of spec and it was inexpensive. Luckily, the stylus still has some life and sounds great on my 440. The stylus is beryllium/ML. I bought it for the stylus and got lucky.
The MR 5.0 entire series has the same generator as the 440. For years this was the go-to motor for many ATs. Carts like the 160 have the same motor, and numerous others.

Regards,
Nandric,
I realize English isn't your native language, but really?

You might not think that post was amusing, and maybe it wasn't, but how could you possibly think I was serious?
Can't take a little friendly kidding? Ulysses and the Sirens indeed!

No one posted on this thread for a week and now we have 15 posts in one day. My post was meant to be both provocative and facetious. I have no doubt the JVC is a good cart, exactly how good I'm not sure. Specs and test reports help some of us figure out the physical attributes of the good ones and how that impacts on preference.

Have a nice night.
Hi Timeltel,
I guess the database threw me another curve. 550mH and impedance 750Kohm?? Is that a typo?

The 5Ea, 7Ea, 7LCa are all 5mV, 550mH, 800DC,
900 impedance. That's from a Signet spec sheet. Apparently nice relationship between DC and impedance. Impedance is resistance with reactance figured in. Reactance includes the affects of inductance or capacitance.

The 440 OCC is 5mV, 490mH, 790DC, 3200 impedance. The MLa is 4mV, everything else the same. 150MLX - 4mV, 2.3K impedance.
Looking at the relationship between DC and impedance is confusing. One would think the TK7 with more inductance would have greater impedance than the 440 or 150. Impedance is specific to 1KHz though, which could make a difference?
They might have changed the way they calculate impedance?
Clearaudio only lists DC and they call it impedance.

The 440 has a cantilever resonance around 16KHz which reinforces a rising high end and tends to give an unfortunate brightness loaded at 47K or more. I got acceptable response loaded at 32K, 150pF. I tried a 140LC stylus and no discernible difference. It sat on a shelf until I tried a 152MLP (beryllium/ML) stylus which transformed it with very nice performance at 47K.

My sample of the MR5.0 is nearly 830DC in one channel. Is that spec 750DC?

Regards,
Thanks Tom,
780DC is pretty close to those other Signets.
I think virtually all AT V magnets are paratoroidal. It's the TK9, 10, and AT22 - 25 that are supposed to be true toroidal.
The difference is in the way they are wound. Toroidal are donut shaped and the wire is wound from inside to outside, instead of around the outside of a circle. I don't know the difference in windings between these toroidal and paratoroidal.

There's an interesting interview here by Roy Gregory:
http://www.symmetry-systems.co.uk/Images/pdfs/Michel-Reverchon.pdf

Michel Reverchon talks about phase. Specifically, the need for phase integrity and extended bandwidth. There are implications for all kinds of music reproduction including phono, but that's for another day.

Regards,
Hi Dover,
Nice little primer on harmonics. Energy storage in speaker cables? Seems to be more about amplitude than phase, but I guess it could be both if they talk about arrival time. I didn't watch the whole thing. As Lebowski might have put it, Dude doesn't abide passive electronics in speaker cable. A zobel for ultrasonics might be the only exception and that could be considered a speaker crossover addition.

There's a better solution IMO. Put your amp between your speakers and use short speaker wire. A long interconnect is easier to optimize. It doesn't carry the current that speaker wire does. Interconnect still has capacitance and inductance, but with the exception of phono cables, I think it would tend to be less easily compromised in long runs.

Regards,
Hi Nandric, I'm not familiar with JVC pulse train transducer analysis, but there's a lot I'm not familiar with. AFAIK a pulse train is irregularly shaped square waves and a pulse train is used for such varied things as radio frequency signal analysis, radar and optical guidance systems etc. I believe it's related to pulse code modulation which is the basis of analog to digital conversion.

The Ortofon article is based on analog data from a study they did sometime around 1980- 82. I think they were originally studying things like tip mass analysis. They mounted an accelerometer on the headshell. The article shows the relationship between amplitude and phase in phono carts and dispels some commonly held myths, namely the affects of electrical and mechanical parameters on phase linearity.

You were lucky to find an SAS stylus for that cart. Jico does not have a wide selection of SAS. The database has it listed as beryllium/shibata, 2.7mV, VTF 1.55 - 1.75g, 12cu (100Hz?), and response to 60K. Is this right? What else?
Nice specs, similar to some 4-ch models with that output and low inductance? How did the stylus change the sound, more exact and slightly less sweet?

Regards,

It looks like Jico has a SAS for the Z1 - four or five listings, might be a cross reference. I don't know about these JVC styli. They are the same basic style and if the joint pipe and cantilever are the same, you might be able to trim some plastic on the stylus holder and get a fit.

Maybe someone at Audio Karma knows, or you could buy a cheap Z1 replacement to see if this might work.
Regards,
Hi Griff,
Going by this limited info, they're not likely the same. BTW, do the owner manuals in VE library have more specs?
The X1 has response to 60K. Maybe it was developed for 4-ch. The shibata stylus might be an indicator and it should have relatively low inductance for high frequency extension.
The Z has 4mV out, as opposed to 2.7mV and extension is to around 30K at best. Two of the Z (Z-2?) are listed as 2.4K ohm impedance and 4mV - looks like a 150MLX. You could measure DC resistance with a digital (only) meter and see if they are close. I'd guess that the X is around 4-500 ohms and the Z is closer to 800. This is a wild guess based on very little information. Still, the SQ might be closer than you'd expect.

If you're not in the habit of measuring DC on carts, just hold the probes to the pins (not connected to anything else)of the cart just long enough to get a stable reading. Digital meter only.

Jico sold a complete MM cart w/SAS about 5 years ago. It was called the SAS MM1 and people raved about it. Anybody get one of these? At the time there was conjecture it was a Philips cart. The specs look like a JVC Z:
http://stylus.export-japan.com/sascartridge.php
You never know.

Regards,


A fitting end to the MM/MI thread?
Nandric and Griffithds declare a winner with a "sweet little cart" rescued from obscurity. Who's to offer another opinion with only a few examples in the known world? Known to us, that is.

Raul has this cart, yet never declared it the best? Just got a mention? Maybe it isn't so great at 100K, but it looks like a 4-ch cart.

What do we make of this, a conspiracy of two who prefer MCs (at least Nandric), to have their way with the defenseless MM damsels? Is this sweet little cart a pawn in a power struggle for MC superiority?

Since Raul isn't here I want to tell you, it's plagued with distortions. These are insidious anomalies designed to mask reality and lull you into sweet stupor. This is a warning. Don't listen to the JVC Sirens. Cover your ears like brave Ulysses or you'll be lulled to your demise. You'll be doing crazy things and sabotaging your set-up. Nandric wisely bent the beryllium cantilever and broke out of his stupor, but the call of the Siren was too much to resist.

Regards,
Griff,
David Dlaloum has an original X1 stylus. It's the body he lacks. It would be interesting to see some measurements.

Did you special order your stylus from this Morita guy? Seems there's a consistency problem.

All Jico non SAS styli are bonded tips on straight aluminum cantilevers and some are more expensive than some other SAS models. It seems the regular ones are used to subsidize the SAS which are bargains. The regular ones are overpriced. That's why LP Gear switched the shibata to vivid line. They're made by another company and retail for a little more than half the price.

Regards,
Nandric,
No further comment on your post 11/20/14 because I realize you were angry. As Kant said, cogito ergo sum. I'm not sure how that fits in, but at least he said it.

**By my first I broke the cantilever copying Fleib by trying to bend the beryllium cantilever**
This is inaccurate. I was performing a transplant and the bend was unintentional. The patient survived but the transplant part unfortunately did not. This happened not once but twice. The other time excess pressure by the compliance screw on an un-shrouded tension wire caused the break. Both times I was performing delicate surgery and not trying to bend a beryllium (the most brittle) cantilever.

So you see Mr. Serbian warrior, I am the king of beryllium breakage unless we hear otherwise. I'd bet there was someone who worked in a cantilever factory and greatly exceeded my record. They might be dead by now because beryllium dust is highly toxic and they stopped using it in the early '80s.

Regards,

Audio Technica has been raising prices for the past few years, but the carts are still a relative bargain. Some of the price increases are in the features you get for the price. The 33EV is a redesigned 33 series LOMC with a tapered aluminum cantilever and a .2 x .7 elliptical - more expensive than the older 33PTG w/boron ML.
They just introduced the 33Sa. This sports a boron cantilever described as tapered, and a shibata. Price is $890 @ LP Gear.

AT has Japan only models for years and some seemed to be bargains for the Japanese consumer. The 100E was such a model. Its generator is almost identical to the 150MLX. It comes in a plastic body with a bonded .3 x .7 tip on a straight aluminum cantilever. Being a 100/120 series stylus fitment, you could use an ATN150MLX stylus or any from that series. The 100E is currently $80 @ Gear.

There's now an ART9. It's a higher output version of the ART7 (.5mV) and used the same low resonance body. The price is just shy of $1100. It's not on Amazon (yet?) where you can get an ART7 for around $900.

Regards,
**If I'm off roading, I take my Jeep.**

That's where the analogy breaks down. Going to change vehicles midstream, or carts mid-record? What if you're driving in your car and don't happen to see a larger than medium pothole?

While 50um will fall short of tracking some passages that are less difficult than cannon shots, most carts do at least a little better. David's Ortofon examples are exaggerated. A 2M Blue tracks at 80um, but so does a Quintet Bronze, so you don't have to get Anna to achieve 80um.
Windfeld seems to be their best tracker - 100um @ 2.6g and 16cu. Trackability (Shure's term?) isn't just high cu, it's more complex.

Regards,
David,
"At 3mH this family of cartridges are relatively high inductance compared to MC's - but a couple of orders of magnitude lower than most MM's." ?

980/7500 = 0.3mV, < 1mH.
Approaching 1mH is a lot of inductance for .3mV. Typical LOMC inductance is 20uH. I'm not sure if this is the reason these seem to sound like a MM (to me) despite low output.
I can't quite put my finger on what it is.

In the BAS link provided by Lew, Cotter talked about moving coils vs. moving fields (bottom page 20) types. He attributes superior MC info retrieval to torsional affects on MM cantilevers, their being more susceptible to stylus drag and the cantilever rotating.
Seems to me in '77 this conclusion is more of a distinction in cantilever/stylus design and material, than generator types. Still, the question remains. Is one type superior, and why?

Regards,
Griff,
Maybe it's a matter of language, your quote from Richard Steinfeld proves my point. Stanton was not trying to "replicate" a MC, he was trying to build a better LO cart, not a replica or copy.

"To me, I felt the LO version more lent its presentation towards the M/C spectrum of sound. Not that I found anything to dislike with the HO version. But if forced to choose one over the other, I would have picked the LZS. The whole idea of this cartridge design was to replicate a M/C."

The Epoch carts came later. The Epic II LZ9S and HZ9S were reviewed 1/'85 in Stereo Review. I don't have a link.

Regards,
Griffithds,
"Only that he was trying to replicate what a M/C does to the signal it receives."

A MC doesn't receive a signal it generates a signal by a specific method. There are both LOMC and HOMC, differentiated by output voltage and impedance. Inductance is a product of generation.

Stanton was not trying to "replicate" a MC.
"Walter Stanton did not like the moving coil principal that's been so dear to many audiophiles."

That's what I mean by language.

Regards,
"Maybe it's a matter of language, your quote from Richard Steinfeld proves my point. Stanton was not trying to "replicate" a MC, he was trying to build a better LO cart, not a replica or copy."

Seems reasonable to me. Now you choose to qualify your statement, and in your colorful world a record groove is a signal.

Give it a rest.
Sorry, I meant 150ANV the MM.
The 50ANV is still available and might be a good investment. It's now < $1.5K and seems to have slightly better specs than ART7.
Griffithds,
Garrott did/does repairs, mods and retip. Slimline was their name for a stylus type - think it was like a fine line or shibata. Here's an Excel ES70_ retipped:
http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?t=27221

DIY mods are popular for Grados with replaceable stylus. They usually entail a drop of silicon somewhere near the end of the cantilever to dampen it, and an outrigger to stabilize tracking.
The undamped or under-damped cantilever is actually a design feature, but the damping might improve tracking and the infamous Grado dance. Not sure what can be done internally to a plastic bodied Grado.

Regards,
David,
Re: Sony - The coupling on my MC2 seems less secure than your 104. That's why I mentioned it. I have a bit of tack on the cart body where it meets the carrier. Any resonance like that measured at the output would have to originate with the cantilever, so in that sense you're right, but the question is why. 6KHz seems too high for it to be that coupling and I noticed on the standard mount the output pins seem to be on a type of suspension.

Since the vast majority of mechanical energy is not converted to electricity, it could be just about anywhere in the cart/setup. Have you measured similar resonances in P-mounts, or are most on universal adaptors?

Regards,
Thanks Griff. I thought there might be more discussion/opinions.

Awhile back, Luckydog posted on Karma that strapping a cart in series rather than parallel, will give true mono output.
Can't say I understand this, but I thought I'd test it. I'll have to get another set of headshell wires. Hooking this up is a PIA. I assume you have to connect the red and white together and likewise the negatives, then connect it like two speakers in series.

Cart inductance/resistance should increase instead of decrease.
Anyone know why vertical cantilever movements would cancel?
Regards,
Halcro,
In fairness to Raul, I seem to remember specific criticism, why the TK7LCa was not recommended. While the 5Ea, 7Ea, 7SU, and 7LCa share the same body and your opinion may differ with stylus substitution, none of those other relatively high inductance carts are worthy of cart of the month IMO.

What's the appeal of a TK3Ea? It's an old Signet w/nude .3 x .7 and that makes it cool? An AT120E seems to be exactly the same even down to the nude round shank on a straight aluminum cantilever. Why wasn't the 120E cart of the month?

I didn't agree with all of Raul's opinions (of those I knew), but it was methodology to which I objected. Results differ and no two models of the same cart are exactly the same.

Regards,
neo
Halcro,
Not sure how you established I never heard a TK7LCa, but the notion is erroneous. I chose the TK10MLII over any TK7 because of theoretical reasons, and it was TOTL. I sold Signet, we had it on demo and a friend had a 7LC, so I heard it many times. I didn't say it was a bad cart. I said Raul gave his reasons. If those reasons were about the 7SU, then that one was also on your list.

Anyway, what does my experience with a particular model have to do with Raul's opinion? I was defending his right to his opinion, not the content.
Regards,

Professor,
Not quite:
TK7LCa - 550mH, 800 DC beryllium/LC
TK5Ea - 550mH, 800 DC tapered/.2 x .7
TK3Ea - 490mH, 780 DC straight/.3 x .7 (nude)

The 20SS is lower inductance. All the 4-ch carts were low inductance, like the 12S and 14S. I don't remember all the figures, but they all have around 500 ohms DC and lower output.
Higher inductance AT models are generally easier to load and sound "right". Yes, the beryllium/LC is a good stylus and while you can wax poetic I had a beryllium/ML - decidedly better IMO.

I'm sorry I posted here last week. Once again this thread was dormant for a couple of weeks...
Regards,
Halcro,
I didn't suggest you were attacking Raul's rights. I merely stated that he addressed the Signet TK7_ etc. Your inclusion of the TK3Ea made your post an easy target. Perhaps I went too far in mentioning that, but it was accurate. The 490mH generator was an AT high end model for a long time and still resides in the 440 and 120. You'll find it in multiple models from the 160ML, 155LC, Signet 5.0 series and many others.

There's only one question mark in your quote of me. I wasn't sure about the TK7SU vintage. As it turns out, both the TK7E and 7SU ('77) are low inductance models and are the standouts on your list, which I overlooked. It appears the Professor was wrong about the 3Ea, but right about the 7SU being the same as a 20SS at least in body, and Raul's Signet survey was incomplete. If I remember correctly, he favored the 10ML II which is a whole other animal. BTW, the specs I previously quoted were from an '82 spec sheet.
Regards,
Prof,
You can pretty much tell what it is from the output. The old 4-ch carts were 2.7mV, approx. - 350mH and 500 DC.

The desirable 15/20 family were all 2.7mV, but inductance ranged from 350 to 450mH. The 20SS was actually 450 (according to Dlaloum).

The TK9/10 family and the AT22 - 25 were probably some of the lowest inductance MM's ever made. Output is 2.2mV, 85mH, 240 DC. Get out your load resistors.
Regards,
Hi Prof,
Distant?
An unexpected description. Loading issue is doubtful, more likely a worn tip, especially if you're using the same stylus for both. I guess it's possible the magnets could be weakening, but less likely.

The elliptical tip has the smallest contact area of any, including spherical. AT advised checking an elliptical after 300 hrs. I used to check them with an AT scope (made the Shure scopes look like toys). Never saw one worn out after 300, but at approx. 500, some were.

Not sure of your exact situation with these. Those stylus assemblies are rare. I'd try a transplant or send it to Soundsmith for evaluation. Peter knows what he's doing and he's honest, although putting an OCL on a beryllium cantilever is $450, it might be worth it. He did a great job with my Genesis 1000 - sounds like new.

If this is a relatively unused stylus that should not be worn out, try the usual loading tricks. The ATN25 doesn't have quite the extended response of LC/ML, maybe adding capacitance will help?

BTW, they say those little band aids on the bridge of your nose help with snoring. Many of those studies are BS anyway. Look on the bright side, as you age you'll probably lose memory anyway.
Regards,
Timeltel,
Although interrelated, I suspect it's really a problem of too little gain, rather than sensitivity. Sensitivity is the amount of voltage required for full output. Voltage varies with velocity, but assuming a high quality stage, if you had more gain it should be less distant - louder and hopefully, not noisy during quiet passages.

I have no idea what you're running, but for example if 40dB of gain were increased to 50dB with the same sensitivity.....

You might be able to compensate elsewhere. Line stages vary from about 10 to 20dB, and of course speakers.
Regards,
Griff,
I'm also not a big fan of line stages. Your solution for gain is certainly novel. The BAT has built-in SUT's for additional gain, consequently you're running a head amp + SUT + phono stage?

Regards,
Back in the day analog reproduction was all there was for the consumer, and records were pressed in the tens of thousands, even millions of copies, so why wouldn't most efforts back then be concentrated on analog?

Even with the resurgence records are now a specialty product and record playing is more of a hobby, but I doubt if the best tables/arms 30 years ago better all of todays'.
If you were considering being a cart manufacturer today, would you want to compete with the big guys for a non-existent mass market, or tout your hand made $8K MC and hope you can survive or even thrive?

Japanese MC's started flooding the market in the '70s. The characteristic rising high end complimented many primitive speakers, and in all honesty some have superior imaging. This is due to that rising high end and/or more extended high frequency resonance, plus low inductance.
Of course there are exceptions, but the situation was worsened by incompetent and corrupt reviewers who defined the gestalt. MM/MI carts require more careful loading, not less, and without it performance suffers.

On page 233 in this thread Dlaloum mentions Shure V-15/SAS. He says the V15 III and IV are best with SAS.
Chakster,
Any problems with tracking or the suspension on the MC500HS?
There's not a whole lot of information out there. Apparently Argent went out of business after a few years.

Tracks 1.8 to 2.2g, 1.9mV, boron/HE ???

Thanks,
Hello Chakster,
You're talking about a modern 7" 45rpm record with a 1.5" center hole? Those are stereo microgroove pressings and normally played with a stereo pickup. If you have older mono versions you could play them with a conventional mono pickup. The only 45 dedicated cart I know of reside in juke boxes, but maybe there is?

If you're playing some vintage recordings you might want to use a slightly bigger stylus. Mono tips vary from modern advanced sizes and .6 - .7 spherical, up to about 1 mil. A very old or used record might sound better with the larger tip.

78rpm styli are 3 mil and inappropriate for microgrooves.
Regards,

Judging a cartridge from incomplete specs is like pissing in the wind - might not be what you had in mind. The 155LC has the same basic motor as the modern 440/120 or the 160ML. There's no arguing with opinion or value judgments, but don't try to pass it off as fact.

This 490mH generator isn't always loved when coupled with a tapered aluminum cantilever and a nude square shank ML, but in a deluxe body with a boron/ML or with a beryllium/LC, it might be a favorite.
There also could be some generator modifications or "improvements" like laminations or stronger magnets, but everything old is better than new?

The 50ANV has a 350mH (150MLX) motor, the lowest inductance for an A/T MM today. Lower inductance means greater potential for transparency and extension. It's also harder to load.
A/T first used titanium (body) in '89 with the ART1, a cart that set the industry on its ear. At $1200 list it competed directly with Clearaudio and Benz and outperformed them IMO.
The ART2000 looks like an OC and has similar specs - .4mV, 12 ohms, boron/ML, 8g body. Is this different from an OC9II ?

Some express love for the Ortofon MC2000/3000. Were these coreless designs manufactured by Ortofon or Audio Technica?
Strange that AT had identical models, they must have been the OEM.

What's the inflation rate for the past 30 years, 300% ?

No 2 phono carts of the same model are identical. Hand made MC's tend to be less so. Some companies QC is better than others. You pay your money and take your chances, but don't fool yourself thinking yours sounds just like all the others of the same model.
Chapster,
You have a 12" Reed ? Oh my, you must be the object of desire or envy of all the girls and boys.
I guess it might be hard to separate humor from serious content, at least when we're discussing something as controversial as offset or not to offset. That is the question that coincides with 7" 45 alignment optimization.

Methinks it nobler to forgo offset here with such small groove span, but aesthetics dictate otherwise. You should seek out Robin. Gold plate it if you must, and you could always employ in the usual manner or sell it if you dislike it sans offset.
The Chpratz protractor is real and invaluable when devising alternate alignments.
I suspect Mr. Van den Hul's consideration was tracking/tracing ability, but you provide no explanation. If that is the case, things are a little different today with tracking ability. I would think 90um or greater would be more than sufficient.

Regards,

Hi Lew,
Certain specs can tell us something, especially within a context. How about MM/MI inductance? High inductance models tend to be mellow (Stanton 681 - 930mH) and lower inductance less so (881, 981 - 450mH). All 4-ch carts were low inductance for high frequency extension.

Within a line like AT we can often fill in the blanks if some specs are unknown. If an AT MM has 3.2Kohm impedance we know it has a 120/440/160/155/140 etc. type generator - 490mH. Output might vary by a mV or so due to magnet strength. That's the only difference between a 440ML OCC and a 440MLa.
That could also tell us the type of stylus we might prefer on that model. An AT100E has almost identical specs as a 150MLX, so..... BTW, the design team that brought us the 50 and 150ANV and probably the ART7 and 9, redesigned the 350mH (150MLX) motor for the near budget 5V. It has 360mH and lower impedance.

Remember all the conjecture trying to figure out Clearaudio MM's ? I started a thread about that and since then CA scaled back the specs even more to where they're virtually identical to an AT95. At first some V2 models had greater output, but apparently that too is gone. The shocking thing about that thread was poster Kiddman:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1392385752&openfrom&1&4#1

Last year I posted a link to a magazine test (HFN?) of a Concerto. The tip was misaligned by something like 10° and the high end was absent. In all fairness, all their tests have high ends rolled at 15KHz, but this was a bit much. The reviewer said it was a rock cart. Funny name for a rock cart. I wonder what a good sample sounds like, but not enough to want one.

Regards,