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.
Ag insider logo xs@2xrauliruegas

Showing 50 responses by lewm

Dear Raul,
"This new protractor puts ( everything the same. ) the cartridge stylus position with more accuracy that any of the other protractors out there?, if yes then I want to " see " the comparison and if there are improvements on quality sound reproduction or could be that the difference in accuracy is so tiny that the audio system can't " resolve " or we could not hear it.
IMHO these questions are critical and I think we need precise answers about from protractor's owners."

Translated into what we call plain language, you want someone else to buy one, make a careful comparison to Mint et al, and tell you that Dertonearm's protractor is decidedly better. Whom are you going to trust to do that?

By the way, think if you had to buy 4-5 Mint protractors for your 4 or 5 different tonearms. That's $400 to $500 right there, if I am correct in thinking the Mints cost $100 each, and you still don't have all the other neat features that help the tremulous and/or the vision-impaired to do the job right. It seems to me that for the owner of multiple tonearms, the DT protractor is not so expensive after all.
Raul, For me it's ease of use that attracts me most to DT's protractor and the fact that I so far never invested in a Feickert or a MintLP type. I own a Dennesen that I bought maybe 25 years ago plus two of the Turntable Basics protractors, for different size spindles. That, plus the Stevenson protractor that I downloaded from VE for free, is all I have. This is partly because, like you, I have my doubts that super-precision makes much difference, but also because neither the Mint nor the Feickert addresses problems I have just seeing the tiny lines and the stylus and cantilever. I gave up using the Dennesen several years ago just because I cannot see the tiny dimple engraved in the alu base, nor the grid lines. This is not because I am vision-impaired in any real way; it's just normal presbyopia. When installing a tonearm, I do use the Dennesen for accurate pivot to spindle distance setting but not for aligning cartridges. Plus the Dennesen, or at least MY Dennesen, appears to have been cut for the smallest of the 3 possible spindle diameters. It won't fit over the Lenco spindle, for example. The TTB is really easy to use, but I am never sure that the line from the spindle is really pointing accurately to the pivot point. If you get that wrong, the alignment goes way off. It looks like the DT product solves all these problems in one go. Plus, if I bought the DT, I could sell my Dennesen and recoup at least a fraction of the cost. (I guess this sounds like I am talking myself into it.)
Question for Raul, Timeltel, Dialolum, or anyone: I am going to re-wire my phono stage so as to provide variable loads at the MM input. I am thinking that 100K is the max load ever needed. Do any of you disagree? Do you ever use load resistance greater than 100K to good effect?

Also, on a more ethereal level: I have room on my selector switch for combining a fixed resistance with some added capacitance. Do you ever add capacitance when using a 100K load? If not, what amounts of capacitance are typically effective with a 47K load, where 47K alone (with no added C) is not already optimum. I have a 6-position switch. I am thinking: 100K, 68K, 47K, 47K + X capacitance, 47K + Y capacitance, 33K, respectively, for the 6 choices. Any better ideas appreciated.
Dear Thuchan, Thank you, but you are talking about MC cartridges, and you are quite correct, added capacitance is never desirable with those. However, for reasons which are too arcane to re-hash here, having to do with the fact that MM cartridges have far more inductance than MCs, sometimes one does want to add a capacitative load to the MM input, with some cartridges and at some values of load resistance. (Note that we all agree that 47K is not optimum for every and all MM or MI cartridges. Some definitely like 100K better. Some like less than 47K.)

My "small loading tablet" will be a 6-position ELMA or Shallco rotary switch.
Thanks, Timeltel, Raul, and everyone for your interesting responses. I must say I am surprised at the (high-ish) amount of capacitance Timeltel has found to be optimal with various different cartridges. Also, as regards the inherent capacitance at the input, we must also consider Miller capacitance. Here or elsewhere I was recently reminded that Miller is equal to the sum of the plate to grid and grid to cathode C multiplied by the gain, for a common cathode tube input and probably also for a standard analogous transistor input, that can add a fair amount to the 75pF we allocate for cables. So I have to ask Timeltel whether he uses tube or solid state phono and what brand. (Pentode or cascode input shields the grid from Miller effect, so there we do not have much input capacitance due to Miller.) What type of load C sounds best: polystyrene or silver mica? The latter seem to be popular these days for use in RIAA equalization. I only wish I had room for two rotary switches, one for load R and one for load C. Won't fit.
Dear Timeltel,
What's up? First of all, I made no statement about a preference of tubes vs solid state. As I am sure you know, ss gain devices have Miller capacitance too. I was only discussing Miller capacitance. I happen to own an Ayre p5Xe as well as an Atma-sphere MP1, and I like them both. In fact I also modified the input stage of the phono section of my MP1 to a hybrid cascode, with an MAT02 bipolar transistor on the bottom and an ECC99 vacuum tube on top, to get more gain and less noise vs the all-tube stock circuit. The amount of phono gain I have now is staggering. Even the lowest output Ortofon MC does not strain the system. Unfortunately, there is TOO much gain for most MMs, even when I cut back the gain by a little trick inside the dual-differential cascode topology. Thus I am using the Ayre for MM/MI cartridges. I am still trying to figure out where it was that I may have dissed transistors. I don't love them per se, but I don't dismiss or disrespect them either. By the way, the selector switch I am going to install is for a third (all-tube) phono stage I just bought, because it is kind of a legendary piece, out of production for 10 years. I am going to see if it can be made to outperform the Ayre with MM/MI cartridges.

As to my expression of surprise at the amount of added capacitance you suggested, it was only that - surprise. I in no way meant to indicate disagreement, because I have no opinion on this subject. Even if I did, opinion does not count where there are facts available. You are correct in pointing out that I did not do my homework by consulting tables apparently available on VE. That is because I did not know such tables were available. Had I done so, I probably would not have been surprised to read your recommended load parameters. Meantime, thanks for the factual input in your previous post. I take your guidance in this matter seriously. But there is no need to get into a tete a tete on tubes vs transistors.
Dertonearm, I completely agree with every word you wrote. I also think that verbal arguments on the subject of tubes v transistors are about as worthwhile as arguing about one's religion vs another's. That's why I never intended to "go there". I am not sure I understand Timeltel's last sentence, but I hope he gets the point. Enough said. Apologies all around.

Now I have to go back and see what Nicola wrote.
Nandric, You are reviving the argument. Bad. I will give you one surprisingly pragmatic reason why I generally prefer tube equipment: I know enough about it to build and repair it myself. I will leave out the other reasons while also insisting that I have shown in practice (Parasound amp and Ayre phono stage) that I am not at all close-minded when it comes to solid state. If it's good, it's good.

Timeltel, I guess there may be another term (i.e., other than "Miller") to describe the natural input capacitance of a solid state device, but it does exist. And I think it's even of a magnitude not terribly different from that of a vacuum tube used in a gain stage. That's all I was talking about above.
Timeltel, Do you mean to say Rumsfeld read the book you mention, and did not realize how apt the title was with respect to his own work as our Secretary of Defense? Actually, there is no need to respond. Any humility you may see there is false.
But here's the thing, Raul: The o-ring is made of a material that is dissimilar from the apposing metal surfaces. When the vibrational energy put into the headshell reaches the boundary between two dissimilar materials, a large fraction of it is reflected backwards, in this case back into the headshell. That might not be a good thing. This is why J Carr's suggestion of a metallic washer or ring seems better to me than rubber, altho the issue could be mitigated in the case of the headshell/tonearm interface, because there IS the underlying firm link between the two that constitutes also a partial metal to metal contact, which would permit some drainage of energy to the tonearm. As in all audio things, it's a trade-off, I think.
Timeltel, But for whatever reason there are lots of audiophiles who despise the "sound" of sorbothane used as a footer or as a gasket. The usual indictment is "muddy". I have no opinion but have stayed away from sorbo for that reason. I have some very old big squooshy sorbothane feet that I have never used, in fact.
Mine has got to be 25-30 years old and does have a small brush attached to the inside of the cap, just like Caig stuff. (I doubt I could find the Cramolin in my large house if I wanted it, but it always turns up when I am not looking for it.)
Guys, I have never done any experimentation with headshells. It is only a year or so that I have owned any tonearm with detachable headshell, which i used to consider an anathema and now consider a convenience. So, if the headshell came to me with a rubber gasket, I am using the rubber gasket. If not, not. I am using Dynavector headshells on the DV505, Kenwood L07J headshell on its tonearm. The Denon headshell also has a very thin gasket of some kind, probably not a rigid one.
Timel, In the end, you just have to listen. There's too much conflicting scientific theory to make a decision based on it.
Dear Raul, Do all 3 of the headshells you cited above follow the AT trick of providing three pairs of threaded holes on the bottom side (not shown in any of the photos), to allow for some adjustment of overhang? I bought one of the MG series, and while it is nicely built, I am wondering whether I will ever be able to use it except by luck, if there is one pair of threaded holes that just happens to give me correct overhang. I can't understand what they were thinking in this design. If they are used on an SME with the base that is adjustable for overhang, then OK. Otherwise, problems.
Raul, The other potentially maddening thing is that you secure the cartridge in the headshell only to find during alignment that you have chosen the wrong pair of mounting holes, not to mention that it is possible that none of the mounting positions will work for a given cartridge in a given tonearm. I will try it, however.

Timeltel, Sinatra also said with regard to his religious beliefs that he was for "anything that gets (you) through the night", including a bottle of Jack Daniels. I sang one of his tunes last Tuesday, when I performed for the first time in more than a year (Too Marvelous for Words, by the way). It went over well, I think.

You have correctly guessed at my feelings about Rumsfeld.
DU, That's a beautiful piece. Hope you like it. I too have toyed with the idea of buying a 70s or 80s Japanese phono stage (usually in those days you got a full function preamp along with it). The main attraction for me is the built-in loading options for C and R and sometimes the choice of equalization curves. But there can be problems with the very old electrolytic capacitors in those beasts. Be prepared to replace them, if needed. Plus all the switches and potentiometers are old and may be noisy. Plus indeed there have been advances in transistor technology since those days. But please do not let me discourage you. The proof is in the pudding. And Luxman is one of the best of the best. (I was considering an Accuphase C200 or C200X. Those have lots of controls.) I still enjoy my Luxman T110 tuner that I bought new in the early 80s or late 70s.
Because I use the supplied brush for applying Cramolin, and probably also because I used it to enhance the electrical contacts in my old Porsches (6V systems that needed all the V they can get), my original bottle of Cramolin is so filthy with junk that came off those contacts that I no longer like to use it. I use the Caig stuff to clean off oxidation and then I use the Walker silver paste. Love it.
Hi Banquo, Sorry for your klutziness but it happens to us all once in a while. You wrote, "The cart had a muddy bottom end that drove me crazy, and it was deficient in dynamics." In what tonearm?
Dear Banquo, Thank you for your response. I must say I don't understand why you cannot identify the tonearm in question, unless you heard the "muddy bottom end, etc" at a friend's house, and he cannot provide the info. Sorry to bug you, but it would be helpful to know.
Banquo, Is it a Sony tonearm, can you tell? Some of those were pretty good though they are under the radar these days. They are designated PUA-XXX series, I think. Effective mass might be on the high side for an Empire, which may account for the "muddy bass". The 2251 was decent but I don't think it competed with the SP10; you'd have to go up higher in the Sony line-up for that.

I had totally forgotten about your tribulations with your SP10. Sorry.
Dear Banquo, Anything Jean says and does is (1) brilliant, (2) revelatory, and (3) unappreciated by the rest of the audio world. I thought you knew that. Moreover, if it costs a lot (or more than he wants to spend) it must be crap. I do give him credit for his work to bring the Lenco L75 into the fore, however. I love mine, once I put it into a PTP and a slate plinth, both of which he now abhors.
Hi Rich, There has not been much discussion here about modern day MM and MI cartridges, and it is certain that some of them are very very good. The thread per se is focused on vintage. I have curiosity about the upper end of the SoundSmith MI line, including their Susurrus (or however you spell it), but that one costs more than $4K. "The Voice" for much less money is also said to be excellent. The Clearaudio MM products might be good, altho I dislike their MC cartridges immensely. Then there's Grado. Apart from these 3 makers, I don't know of any other companies that are really trying to build and sell "high end" MM or MI cartridges. Oh yes, there is also the new iteration of Garrott Brothers in Australia; very interesting stuff there. And there's also some Japanese products. I think what we learn here is that those vintage MM/MI cartridges, which sold new for relatively low dollars, can compete with any MCs now available.
Nothing happened to the Ayre. Decided to try the Silvaweld, because there was a great deal on eBay, and because I have a certain belief that the designer knew what he was doing. Plus, the Silvaweld got a fantastic review on Positive Feedback a few years ago, although that was of secondary importance to me. Anyway, I now prefer the Silvaweld. C'est la vie.
Nandric, I really do think it's the other way around: The mind is with LOMC; the heart is with MM or MI. At least it is for me.
Raul, I think there is a business called "Comet" in the US that is selling new DLS1 for less than $600. I thought I read that on Vinyl Asylum, where the DLS1 is also getting favorable mention, from Dave G, as well as from many others.
The formal scientific definition of "synergy" is to say that the sum of the effect of changing two or more variables is greater than what could be expected from adding up their individual effects. If 1+1=2, that is an "additive" effect. If 1+1 = more than 2, then we have synergy. I have to say that it would take an astute ear to hear the difference between an additive and a synergistic effect, where something so subjective as the sound quality of an audio system is concerned.
Funnily enough there are three A90s now for sale here. Life imitates art.
Dear Raul,
I agree with Nandric re your habit of listing here the interesting cartridges you find on eBay. I know you have only the best intentions, but what you are doing is quite likely to raise the cost for any one of us who may want to post a bid. Plus, we lose all the fun of the hunt. We know how to search eBay as well as you. It really does pain me to write this, because I am certain you only want to be helpful.
Dear Raul,
It would certainly help me, and probably everyone else here, if you could really explain what you are doing, if indeed it is correct to say that you seek lowest possible distortion without regard to highest possible happiness, in designing and implementing your audio system. I can only imagine then that you have a well equipped audio lab with much test equipment, including distortion analyzers and acoustical measuring devices, so as to obtain the best possible measurements from your electronics and in your listening room. Is this so? It sounds like audio Hell to me, especially since it is a well established fact that as regards electronics, "we" (meaning the audiophile faithful and the electrical engineers that love us) have only a faint idea what distortions are worth measuring. Surely, it is well known that lowest possible harmonic distortions of a sine wave resulting from a pure tone are not the key to Nirvana. Transistors do really well in such tests, however.

Having said all that, I also say that I have learned a lot from you by picking and choosing among the bits of advice you freely give, and I thank you for that. Carry on.

By the way, it seems intuitively obvious that Fleib's points about tonearm/cartridge matching are spot on. Yet, I also take seriously the testimony of Thuchan and Halcro that those big heavy FR tonearms can work well with MM cartridges. I don't know what to make of this paradox.

And Henry, there are only so many question marks available in the Universe. You are using them up rapidly.
I confess I love my system, and it definitely does not suck. My system is better than it has ever been, and my hearing acuity is worse than it has ever been. Perhaps this is another definition of audiophile Hell of which I spoke above. What would LeFleur say about that? Henry, thank you for your good sense of humor.
Slightly OT. If anyone wants to see a photo of my SP10 Mk3, go to my system site. Unfortunately, it appears that only one photo is allowed per piece of gear in a system. Raul or someone asked about photos, which is why I mention it here.
Dear Atlasiris, I don't know where you live, but you seem to know where I live. In any case, I assure you that there are very fine people where I live, with scruples and good taste equal to yours. Raul and I have now been acquainted electronically for a couple of years, and I hope he knows that I hold him in high regard, while at the same time I feel free to disagree with him on several issues (not just the eBay issue). Raul can tell you that I have also defended him from some unfair attacks in the context of other threads. I don't know what more I can say to convince you that I am not and would never personally attack Raul here or anywhere else. I was/am just stating my opinion on Raul's practice of listing here his eBay "finds". You are free to disagree with me (and Nandric), as others already have, but please do not attack me personally in the process. In any case, I am sure Raul will continue to do whatever he wants to do, so to save you the trouble of using the eBay search engine.

Dear Shane, I am willing to part with many of the cartridges I have "stockpiled" in my earlier hysteria and gluttony, of which I am now cured. Contact me if interested.
My MMC1 comes with its own special adapter, I now know. Good thing, too. The unusual arrangement of the pins at the rear of the MMC1 make it unusable with a standard adapter. Ergo, that one on eBay that you just cited, Raul, may not be so desirable if one does not own the proper adapter. I guess it can be bought from SoundSmith(?) I seem to recall SS charges $50 for it.
Raul, What is the effective mass of your Grace tonearm? Due to the relatively low output of the MMC1, I will want to feed its output directly into the MC stage of my Atma-sphere MP1, as I do for the Stanton 980LZS, which means the MMC1 could ride in my Reed tonearm with 14g effective mass. (Probably also the adapter adds a gram or two.) On paper, that's not the best match for a cartridge with a compliance of 30, but....
I was going to be done with this thread, but Raul, those two B&O cartridges are being sold by the same person. He has a highly inflated opinion of their value, IMO, whether or not they are "good" sounding. He also is carrying a 94.1% eBay approval rating. That sucks. I would not buy from him (and of course I don't have to, because I own an NOS MMC1). I have no thoughts of selling either of my B&Os until I have had a listen for myself. I was asking for the comments of others, but no one has come forth. So I conclude that no one is currently listening to a B&O. Peace. Out.
By my calculations, Banquo spent a total of nearly $1100 on his listed acquisitions. So it is really up to him to decide, but there does remain the possibility that Thuchan is correct in this instance, especially if one buys a "used" MC off Audiogon from a reliable colleague. (The answer would of course be different for different ones of us.)
Fact is, I cannot remember what I paid for any of the MM and MI cartridges I bought in the last 2 years or so. It's all a blur. I can ballpark it at best. As in, I paid "a lot" for my NOS B&O MMC1. I paid "a little" for my Acutex. One conclusion I think will hold solid from this experience is that any one of the better ones of these vintage cartridges will do a better job of tracking piano than even the best of the MCs in a high quality tonearm. Both attack and decay of individual piano notes are more real. MCs may have some superiority in other areas, however. Not sure what those areas are quite yet.
Thanks for the tip on Soundsmith for an adapter. MM20CL sure looks like a Pmount sitting in its case, to me. Cripes, I haven't looked at the MMC1 in so long, I have forgotten what came with it; perhaps it has an adapter included. Mine is in original box.
Dear Timel, Reading your excellent description of the sound of the MMC4, I got an eery feeling for the sound of those vintage straight-line B&O tts with B&O cartridges. (I have no idea what cartridges I was hearing in those days.) A very polite and correct sound but not sufficiently "earthy" or visceral to capture my fancy. This is what I summed up by using the term "hi-fi-ish". We'll see soon how the MMC1 and MMC20CL perform in perhaps a better turntable and tonearm. The MMC20CL in particular has many adherents. Raul, do you have any recollections of your impressions of these cartridges? I know you said back then that you ranked them ahead of their current equivalents being made by SoundSmith,

Another question is the P-mount adapter. Are there any recommendations? The adapter can have quite an effect on sonics. On eBay there is always the pfanstiehl version but little else to choose from.
Dear Timeltel, My Irish friend tells me that an Irish seven course dinner consists of a 6-pack of beer and a potato.

So the MMC20CL will not work in the MMC1 adapter? Too bad.
Dear Thuchan, When I contemplate what my poor wife has to put up with, I cannot wonder at the condition of post-marital sex.
Henry, Both knees at once? You definitely do deserve a sponge bath from a "private duty" nurse.

Raul, I am sorry to have made that crack about your need to feel superior, but you must know it is very aggravating to discuss these matters with you, because you give no one room to disagree with your approach. And you are not really paying attention to my responses.
Dear Raul and Dave,
(1) The Reed tonearm and the MP1 phono inputs are within physical reach of each other using 3-ft interconnects, which is why I linked use of the Reed to use of the MP1. Plus the Reed has XLR connectors and the MP1 has XLR inputs.
(2) I have set up my MP1 with switchable gain ("low" gain is good for cartridges with output between ~0.6 and ~1.5mV; "high" gain can handle any cartridge with output less than 0.5mV) and with switchable 47K, 1000R, and 100R cartridge loading. So if I set MP1 to low gain and 47K, should be fine with B&O.

Yes, Dave, I can run the 980LZS into 1000R; sounds very very good.
Dear Raul, Within the US, isn't Sound Smith also an authorized repair service for B&O? Plus do they not manufacture cartridges sold under the B&O name, if there are any?
"Of course that Lewm could try in his MP-1 but I'm with you about."
Dave's view was that the load resistor on my MP1 input might be too low in value to suit the MMC1. If you noticed, I responded by saying I have switchable input resistors, 100R, 1000R, 47K (may change the latter to 100K). So that's not a problem. I also have two levels of gain available in the MP1; the low gain setting would probably work fine with the MMC1. I do also have an entirely separate phono stage for really high output MMs. However, I think the output of the MMC1 will be too low to drive the MM section of that phono stage. (Silvaweld SWH-550 just replaced the Ayre P5Xe for that use. The Silvaweld is amazingly good, but you might not like it, because it uses only tubes, including even a tube rectifier. It does also have a pair of MC inputs which surely would be capable of working with the MMC1.)

To me, the big advantage of solid state vs tubes in a phono section, lots of gain with low noise, is negated by using MM/MI cartridges, except for the really low output ones.

Meantime, listening to Ella Fitzgerald sing Harold Arlen via the Acutex driving the Silvaweld makes me think that you are quite correct, Raul. We don't need no stinkin' MC cartridges.
Dave, I've only used it so far with the Stanton 980LZS, which is low-ish impedance. Actually, the input stage of the MP1 is a dual-differential cascode in its totality, as you know. Cascodes have high input impedance (I think) notwithstanding the fact that in our cases the lower device is a transistor. I will have to look up the math, but the input Z may be high, certainly higher than that afforded by a typical 47K or 100K load resistor seen in parallel. In fact, are you sure the MAT02 even by itself has a low impedance at its gate? Gotta check it.
Dave is correct about my/our mods to the MP1 phono section. You and I once discussed this, Raul. Well, if the MMC1 does not mate well with the MP1, I can try it into the MC inputs of my Silvaweld. But the Silvaweld seems to use a JFET gain stage at its MC input which then feeds the all-tube MM stage. Conceivably there might be the same problem with noise using that input as well. If all else fails, I could use the MM input of the Silvaweld with a SUT. But we don't care for SUTs in principle, altho I am sure the proper one could sound great. I won't worry until I hear a problem in actual practice.
Dear Raul,
You wrote, "Well that korean Silvaweld design looks unimpressive but only looks as that because you are really impressed with!"
Really? You have some information on the Silvaweld SWH550? Because I was unable to find any information anywhere on the net. I searched high and low for a schematic in fact. The only relevant info I found was the review on Positive Feedback by Brad Morricab. He reviewed, loved, and still owns the lesser version, the SWH450. Brad told me himself he never has heard the SWH550. So if you have any info on the SWH550, I would appreciate your sharing it with me. I never thought it would impress you; it uses tube rectification, tube voltage regulation, and of course an all tube circuit, apart from the jFET that is used to add gain for MC cartridges. I have not evaluated the MC gain stage, but the MM one is divine, after a few tweaks. However, no, it does not use coupling transformers or LCR phono EQ, unlike all the Allnic stuff subsequently marketed by Mr Park. It's quite old school in that regard.
Downunder, no trafos in the signal path.