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 Halcro, All I am saying is that if some medium mass tonearms sound good with a given cartridge and some others in the same category do not sound good, then the cause is unlikely to be related to effective mass per se.

Dear Raul, Would rather not reveal the cost of the Silvaweld "in public". I will send you an email.
Dear Halcro, For what it's worth (not much), the Triplanar is firmly in the medium mass group, at 11 grams. Don't know about the Phantom, but my guess is that it too is in the medium mass group. On the other hand, most Reed tonearms longer than 9 inches will have effective mass at least a gram or two or three higher and on up into the high mass group, depending upon length and the density of the wood chosen. I don't know whether these numbers mean much re compatibility with your new flavor of the week cartridge.

Has anyone tried a mono MM or MI cartridge, particularly one of those AT products?

Dear Raul, FYI, I have been listening to the Lenco/Dynavector DV505/Acutex combo thru the Silvaweld. I have a long prior experience with the Ayre in that set up, so I feel competent to make a comparison between the two in my system. It is a bit unfair to the Ayre, which was never intended for use with such high output cartridges. (The Ayre has 3 gain settings; I have it set for the lowest level for use with MMs.) The Silvaweld uses silver mica capacitors in the RIAA equalization circuit, rather than the typical polystyrenes. I wonder whether that is a source of its transparency and musicality.
Dear Timeltel,
In your dissertation on wires Litzian, were you talking about headshell leads? IMO and IME, the best headshell lead is no headshell lead. Because of those poor quality connectors at the rear of the headshell and the poor connectors at the headshell/tonearm interface. I love the convenience of a detachable headshell, but my goal is to eliminate those physical two physical contact points that are in the signal path as a result of using any headshell. Raul runs leads direct from the cartridge to the rear of the tonearm (if not all the way to the preamp) and ignores those electrical contacts, which is a great idea that I plan to implement.
Nandric, Thought you had a Kuzma Reference, not a Basis Exclusive. Or do you own one of each?

Raul, Your and Dertonearm's goal is a lofty and desireable one, but I view it/viewed it as virtually unobtainable, because the principles among us live thousands of miles apart and on the surface seem to have wildly different listening biases, based on the vast differences among us in our choices of gear. To have a common understanding, we each need to have heard the others' systems, I think. For example, I have a dear friend here in my area who like me prefers ESL speakers and tube amplifiers. I know the sound of his system quite well. Consequently, when he tells me that he likes or does not like the sound of a particular piece of gear or software, I know instantly exactly what he "means", in the sensory sense of the verb. I have two other local friends with disparate tastes in gear, but I have heard their systems many times, and we do have a common ground for a conversation. In contrast, I can only imagine how your system sounds. And my imagination may not be so accurate. Over years of reading his reviews, I think I arrived at an understanding of what kind of sound HP prefers, and I concluded that he and I have little in common on that score. Subsequent conversations with persons who know him personally suggest to me that my perception of his perceptions is essentially accurate. In other words, this takes a lot of time, if one cannot have direct access to the other guy's system. I am only beginning to have a vague idea of your biases based on listening to cartridges that you like and reading your description of their sound. That is, if you can own up to having any biases.
Nandric, A belated apology. I was of course thinking of the Basis turntable line, not of the German-made Basis electronics. I understand now.
Dear Dgob, My point was merely that there is no absolute truth or value to a phono cartridge, or as Santayanna wrote, history teaches us that history teaches us nothing. (This is completely irrelevant, but I love it.) I should think that any great philosophe has more to offer than does a phono cartridge and therefore is more worth the effort required to reach a common understanding.
Dear Timeltel, I must confess I am a troglodyte in these matters. When I am enjoying a cartridge I tend to keep listening to it. So, yes, I have not yet tried the 315 or the MMC1 or etc. I do not much care for the pursuit of perfection in lieu of happiness. I have not been doing much listening these days, for one reason.
Dear Raul, I agree with you on stylus shape, except for one shape, spherical. Nearly every report or review I have ever read on cartridges with spherical styli suggests that spherical styli can do great midrange but not so great bass or treble. This is not to say that one could not be happy with "just" a fabulous midrange sound and only so-so bass and treble.
Re Halcro's article, last fall I picked up an NOS Stanton 881S MkII, locally. I guess that's another one I need to put on my "must listen to" list. But I doubt it's any better than the 981LZS, which has a permanent spot in my heart. Timeltel, have you any experience with that one?
Dear T, I bought the 980LZS (not 981; that was a mistype) from eBay in what appeared to be well-used condition. I therefore concluded before listening to it that the stylus must be worn or near to worn out. Right then, I could have bought an NOS D98S stylus for near $300 from a business in the Netherlands, thanks to Raul letting me know about it. I balked at the price, and within one week someone else bought it out from under me. The dealer had none left. Then I started listening to the 980, and it sounded just fine after some initial teething problems. The stylus assembly is a rather loose fit to the cartridge body, so I use a tiny elastic band to bind them together more firmly and probably to damp some resonances (an added benefit of the elastic band IMO). I am told that this loose fit is a typical problem with Stantons and can be rectified by tricky surgery. In any case, since then I have become quite happy with the stylus I've got, and I have never seen another true NOS D98S stylus for sale anywhere. Recently I was able to buy an NOS Pickering D7500S stylus, which I am told will work as well as the D98S on the 980. In Japan, you might have better luck.

Nandric and Thuchan, You guys might enjoy this "scientist joke":

The scientist wants to investigate the frog.
He has trained the frog to jump upon the command "Jump!".
Now he cuts off one front leg and gives the command to jump, and the frog jumps.
Next, he cuts off the other front let and gives the command to jump, and the frog jumps.
He then cuts off one of the hind legs and gives the command to jump.
The frog makes a real effort and is able to manage a facsimile of a jump.
Finally, he cuts off the one remaining leg and gives the command to jump.
The frog remains motionless.
From this, the scientist concludes that if you cut off all four legs of the frog, it becomes deaf.

This happens in science and is often a type of problem with our thinking in audio world.
Dear Fleib, I assume then that you own a 980LZS. Yes? I am listening to mine in the L07J tonearm which is the installed tonearm on the Kenwood L07D turntable. It does sound a bit reticent in the highs, but I cannot tell whether that might be due to the old (Litz) wiring in the L07J and the connectors in the signal path. To me Litz wire typically sounds a bit that way per se. In any case, I have no complaints with the treble performance. I am waiting for an eruption from Raul, to your remark about the hi vs lo output versions of the 980. I have never heard an HZS, so I have no opinion about how the two compare.
No. I've got a full-up L07D cum L07J tonearm that I like very much, not just the tonearm. I found that the table itself sounded much better after I installed an EMI/RFI shield under the platter mat (termed a "platter sheet" by Kenwood). I used TI Shield available from Mike Percy. I have been meaning to try it with my other dd turntables, but for sure it is a must-do for the L07D. The idea was not mine, came from reading the L07D owners website. The leader of that group uses ERS cloth. If you still have your Kenwood, you might give it a try too.
Dear Fleib, Empirically, I would recommend against the ERS cloth and in favor of the TI Shield. For one thing, ERS cloth can be kind of lumpy; the platter sheet might not sit perfectly level on it. For another, the ERS cloth would tend to decouple the platter sheet/mat from the platter and thereby abrogate the designer's intent as regards dissipation of energy from the LP. But most importantly, TI Shield just measures way better for both EMI and RFI rejection than does ERS cloth. However, I have not compared one to the other. TI Shield needs to be grounded for optimal effect. I figure that is achieved via the large contact area between TI Shield and both the platter (below) and the platter sheet (above).
Dear Raul,
Since it is OK for you to rather harshly dismiss Thuchan's phono stage, and indeed his entire downstream amplification chain, and since it was OK for you to categorically dismiss vacuum tubes as a way to amplify music, I hope you will take it with equal grace, as Thuchan took your remarks, when I ask the rhetorical question, what are you listening to? Answer: You are listening to sound coming out of your speakers. You are not listening to your preamp or your modified Mark Levinson amplifiers. They are just generating complex AC signals that need transducing to be heard. How on earth did you select those speakers and that subwoofer, if your goal is as pure as you say it is? I posit that you made your choices subjectively. You are trapped, just like the rest of us, with your ears and brain. There are many many other speaker systems that would likely have lower distortion and flatter response than does yours, that employ much fewer distortion- and phase anomaly-inducing crossover components than does yours. Your whole rationale for stating that you operate on a higher plane than the rest of us falls apart when I consider your speaker system. But it's OK. I respect you anyway. I am with Dertonearm on this.
Dave, I think the latest fracas is about how one selects one's components downstream from the phono cartridge, be it MM or MC or ceramic, even. As you know, I keep some good MC cartridges around as a reference. But even so, I am far from drawing any global comparisons between the two archetypes, because I have not heard many/most of the "very best" (i.e., most expensive) MCs and may not ever be able to do so in my own home system. Another thing is that we tend to lump MM and MI cartridges together. I think they may sound distinctly different but more like each other than like a good MC.
I must must hear an Olympos. It is such a revered cartridge, and by people who have everything and have heard everything.
Dear Fleib, I did not know that Mr. Lurne' founded a school. I do know that I heard one of his early turntable efforts that had a spring suspension, and I thought it was a very bad sounding, over-priced product. Possibly his later efforts have been better; it would have been easy to improve the one I heard by tossing out the springs. The thing was visibly bouncing whilst trying to play music. (The suspension seemed completely undamped.) But this is all OT. Yes, the platter (and platter mat) is a very important and often neglected determinant of turntable sound, IMO. There are as many opinions on how to make the perfect platter (and platter mat) as there are audiophiles. The negative opinions that some have regarding the vintage Japanese dd turntables may have as much to do with their typical heavy, dull-sounding rubber mats as anything else. First thing to do with a Technics or a Denon is ditch the mat (but keep it hidden away, for originality). And yes, the shield is something that you don't miss until you install one and hear the difference. I would not run my L07D without it. However, I think the shield is likely to be specific for dd turntables and maybe only for Kenwoods at that. Some guys were going to try it with Technics tables, but I never read a report on the results. (The better Kenwoods have a coil-less motor that is mounted right up high just under the platter, so my completely unproven theory is that the motor may radiate EMI upward and affect the cartridge.)
Dear Fleib, You are quite correct, I am ignorant of the 3 turntables you mentioned, but I only commented on one model of one of those 3 brands that I listened to at least 15-20 years ago. I listened long enough and often enough to that one particular Lurne' turntable to form an opinion. If you noticed, I tried to allow for the probable fact that his products have favorably evolved since then. The earliest efforts of any designer are often best forgotten. Sorry if I offended you.

Having owned two belt-drive turntables with relatively undamped spring suspensions (Thorens TD-125 and early SOTA Star Sapphire III), I feel I can fairly say that they are not to my taste.
Dear Fleib,
I don't know whether the word "fair" applies. I just gave my opinion and qualified it so as not to include his more recent designs. For example, it would not be unfair for you to say I am balding. I tried to be fair, in fact, in the sense that I concede that what I heard so long ago may be totally irrelevant to Lurne's present work. Now, how are you going to mate the Teres rim drive to the Sota? Won't the Sota chassis get in the way? I once thought of using the Teres with my Nottingham Hyperspace, because that one has no interfering platform or apron that would impede contact between Teres and platter.
Dear Nandric and Fleib, This here is a "chat" group. I am not a reviewer, and this is not Stereophile or TAS. There are so many unscientific, unsubstantiated, and "unfair" opinions stated on Audiogon discussion groups that we could throw out the website on that basis. All I said was that I had extensive listening experience with what might have been Lurne's very first design, many years ago, and I did not like it. IThe reason it failed as a design, IMO, may have been due to its apparently undamped spring suspension; pitch stability was poor. For all I know, Mr. Lurne' may now be the genius behind some of the greatest turntables available today. I have completely lost track of his work. Was not even aware that he is still in the business. It is often the case that flawed early efforts (if it is possible that I am correct about what I heard) are no indicator of future success or failure. Moreover, he may be an absolutely wonderful person whom I would be proud to know. Nothing personal was intended. But you're right, I should have stifled myself to avoid this brouhaha. Can you tell me what current products bear his stamp?

Hi Tim, I sold my Hyperspace long ago and have no interest right now in converting any belt-drive to rim-drive. In fact, I am quite happy with what I've got and will probably go to the great beyond with one or another or all of them. (Well, actually I know I cannot take them with me. Perhaps I can work a deal and take a nice cartridge, in case there is audio on the other side.)
I really do enjoy all you guys, and I do apologize for over-apologizing AND for any unintended insults to Pierre Lurne'. We have been navigating a very delicate situation with our mentally-ill son. This may have caused me to over-post and to perseverate. Tonight I think we entered calmer waters, and I am very happy in fact. The minutiae we endlessly hash over is actually good therapy for me at times.

Tim, Have you seen the Teres motor in person? My only question about it is that it seems to rely upon its own mass to provide a force to hold the idler wheel against the side of the platter. But thanks to Mr. Newton, that also means the platter is pushing on the motor assembly. I wondered who wins.

Re my "thoroughbreds": Will someone please buy that friggin' L07D that's for sale on the 'gon? It bothers me that no one will pay that incredible bargain price. Or is this just an indication that the whole upper end audio market is in a shambles?
Dear Raul, Spare me, please. I have not even had time to listen to music for a week, and you want me to spend my tiny amount of spare time re-fitting a dd turntable and building an outboard arm pod, so I can test YOUR theory to which I do not ascribe and anyway don't much care about? I am glad you're happy with your set-up. If it also makes you feel superior, that's an added benefit. Lets leave it at that. If you ever want to hear my SP10 Mk3 in a huge composite slate and cherry/baltic birch plinth, you are most welcome at my home. I won't be removing the Mk3 from its plinth, however.

Also, I did not mean to question the goodness of your Velodyne subwoof; I only questioned the idea of using a subwoof with a full-range speaker in what looks to be a normal size listening room. And that was only to point out that in the end you, like all of us, have made some choices based on your personal taste, not by the scientific method.
FWIW, you can mount a second tonearm on the Kenwood L07D. There is a bolt-on platform at the rear for that. The L07D was sold with a blank platform that can be drilled to accommodate a wide variety of 9- or 10-inch tonearms. Plus, Kenwood made at least four different accessory platforms dedicated to one or another of the then popular Japanese tonearms. These accessory platforms are rare birds to find now. The second of the two L-07Ds that I own came with one of these special order platforms; after some research and with some help from T_bone, we think it is meant for an SAEC tonearm, cannot now remember which one. Plus, Vantage Audio in the UK will make a platform for anyone who is interested. Original Kenwood quality is higher, however.

The L07J tonearm that comes standard on the L07D is very good, too. Looks like it might have been made for Kenwood by M-S, since it resembles the MAS237 but with a J-shaped arm tube. Its Achilles heel, if it has one, may be in its internal (Litz) wiring and in the connector they used at its base for the downstream wires to the preamp. (It's not a DIN plug, has big fat pins.) I plan to bypass the whole thing with Audio Note or Ikeda silver, one of these days, straight to the preamp.

Consider that for the price of the L07D, you get a still state of the art 65-lb plinth that needs nothing, a first rate motor that is coreless and in that way may be superior to the SP10 Mk2 motor for audio (I make no judgement here), and a fine tonearm that is engineered to couple tightly to the plinth/bearing (for those of us who swing that way).

How to make this post on-topic: the L07J is giving my Stanton 980LZS a great ride. Signet has dominated the last several weeks worth of posts; I need to get one, I guess.
Hi Dertonearm, Is it the very low bearing friction of the FR tonearms? That might be a factor with high compliance MMs.
It would seem to me (without of course my having done any work to investigate it) that a resonant frequency higher than 10 Hz might be more problematic than a resonant frequency less than 10 Hz, for example the 4 and 5Hz figures that some mentioned above (but not lower), if the associated equipment is of very high quality (tonearm, turntable, turntable mount). Above 10Hz is likely to give an artificial boost to the bass response, or at least one is risking such a boost that could give a bloated indistinct bass. But it might also be beneficial in systems that are bass shy but where the added energy could be "handled". So, assuming good equipment that absorbs or otherwise dissipates the resonant energy, you could say that the "issue" of the calculated resonant frequency being too high or too low is over-stated.

I've got to mount my FR64S on something to see whether I can agree with the FR-lovers on its goodness with high compliance cartridges. Raul, I think the Technics EPA500 has similar low bearing friction to the EPA100. Do you think this is about bearing friction? You once posted something to that effect, I think. Also, I gather from your response to Dertonearm that you are still not a fan of FR tonearms.

Both of the Technics tonearms have trick spring-loaded counter-wts that are designed to spread the resonant frequency out, so that the peak energy is lower over a wider frequency range. Dynavector does something similar in a different way. (There is a weight on a spring mounted under the tonearm; resonant energy causes it to vibrate thereby dissipating energy of resonance. It is adjustable but no one knows how to adjust it and for what. The instructions in badly translated Japanese are quite opaque.)
Thanks, Fleib, The other factor, which I have mentioned before, is the accuracy of the data we are given for tonearm effective mass and for cartridge compliance. We never know how fastidious tonearm makers are about calculating the figures that they then publish. We also never know the actual compliance of the actual cartridge we are trying to implement, unless we actually measure it. One of the guys on VA posted a very novel way of doing that, if one has the expertise and either a 'scope or a laptop with the proper software. We have all agreed at one time or another that 30-year-old cartridges are quite likely to have lost some compliance in their suspensions. The reason some of the mentioned "high compliance" cartridges work well in FR tonearms and their like may be nothing more than that. Plus, of course, low bearing friction and good energy dissipation.
Raul, Who is pushing you to talk about FR tonearms? I don't even have an opinion yet about mine. I am trying to talk about your dogmatism regarding your equipment choices. It's OK to love what you have chosen to own, but that does not make everyone else's choices "wrong". I think you may be alienating many persons who are valuable to this thread.
Dear Dertonearm, To elaborate on what I think T_bone was getting at, of the 3 basic types of cartridge, MM, MI, and MC, the MI type will tend to have the lowest moving mass, not the MC type. This is a matter of fact as told to me by Peter Lederman, to explain why he still pursues the design and production of top quality MI cartridges. I subsequently have read statements that are in agreement with this concept, from other independent sources. (You could argue that PL has a vested interest in making me believe that MI cartridges are superior in one way or another, but I don't think he was "blowing smoke", as we like to say.) Furthermore, it makes sense if you think about how each type of transducer has to operate.
Dertonearm, Nice to know you might have been an admirer of my Grado TLZ. It was my one and only cartridge during the mid to late 80s. Over the years, I kept it in storage while I was preoccupied with a variety of high output MCs and finally low output ones. This thread stimulated me to resurrect the Grado from my bedroom closet. I experimented with it before going on to try others that Raul and others here were raving about. It seemed to have stiffened up during 20 years "in the closet". I probably should run it for several more hours on a test LP before making final judgement. However, the same Grado company still makes expensive MM or MI cartridges (I think the latter), albeit under the leadership of Joe's son. There has not been much comment here about those, probably due to the obsession with vintage types. But I am curious, since in its day the TLZ was superb, really better than any HOMC I wasted time with during the 90s and early 2000s.

Dear Nandric, To be precise, DT and we were discussing the moving mass of MI vs MC. I don't think there's any question that a typical MM would have a higher moving mass than either of the other types. Or perhaps you knew that and I misunderstood your post.
Not to beat a dead horse, but I think Dertonearm posited that the difference in observed capacity to pass a square wave was due to differences in moving mass, and in so positing, DT stated that MC cartridges have lowest moving mass. I only responded to that part; on average, MC cartridges do not have lower moving mass than MI cartridges. That's all I meant to say about that. So if MC cartridges were observed to pass square waves better than MI ones, it is not likely to be due to the MC type having a lower moving mass.

I always thought that capacity to pass a square wave was related most to bandwidth. In cartridges, bandwidth must be delimited by cantilever resonance, inductance, capacitance, etc, as well as by moving mass.
Dear Nandric, I don't know about the totality of your report of what Mr Lukashek says, but yes, as far as I know the number of turns of wire in the coil is the major determinant of cartridge inductance.

Dear Travis, You got it..."Haniwa" was the guy or the company with the very novel MC cartridge. I will see if I can Google it based on that. I had one of his brochures here at home but in one of my cleaning frenzies I discarded it, apparently.
Here it is:

http://www.kubotek.com/haniwaaudio/p_cartridge.html

Internal resistance (shown here as "output impedance") = 0.8 ohms!!!
Inductance = 1.3 microhenries!!!! Yes, that's "micro", not "milli", as we are used to seeing for MM cartridges.

Yet, output is 0.35 mV and tracks at near 1.0 gm.

Probably you should not go near this cartridge if you are wearing a pacemaker, so powerful must be the magnet.

So sue me; the name does not begin with either N or K. But the distributor's name does begin with K (Kubotek).
Dear Fleib, I heard the Sussuro in several systems at RMAF last October. It sounded consistently excellent, and IMO sounded less "mechanical" than some very expensive MC cartridges, including in one case the Ortofon MC A90, but this is far from a "judgement" of their relative merits; conditions did not permit that. The other cartridge I liked a lot in Steve Dobbins' room was the new TOTL Allnic Puritas. Really, really nice. A moving coil type, however.
Dear Thuchan, Lest anyone else pick up on what you wrote, I did make a point of saying that I was NOT making a "judgement" of the MC A90 as compared to the Sussuro. To further quote myself, "the [listening] conditions did not permit that". Believe me, I would love to own either of those two cartridges.
I have often seen the statement that LOMCs make current rather than voltage. Since I lack formal training in electronics (beyond college physics), I am always cautious about my own thoughts on these subjects, but it seems to me that this is marketing hype. LOMCs make current insofar as they tend to have a very low output resistance. So if you think of their output "power", P=current X voltage, the term for current would tend to dominate. But I would like to see some measurements of the current made by an LOMC compared to that of a high (voltage) output cartridge. I would bet that high output cartridges that are so-called because of their voltage output would also tend to make more current than a typical LOMC. Don't know but wonder about that.

At RMAF, I visited a room where a VERY low output resistance MC was being touted. And it had vanishingly low inductance. Yet the output voltage was quite reasonable, around 0.3mV, I think. It is a Japanese company and I think the name begins with N or K. A very interesting product that I meant to follow up on but forgot. The designer himself was in the room and seemed miffed that his cartridge was not getting a lot of attention. He also had bookshelf speakers that were quite novel in design and sounded very good.
With regard to Acman's question, I am wondering whether or not there is some double-talk on that eBay ad. The seller is allowing us to think that the elliptical stylus on the cartridge is an original made-by-Nagatronic stylus that was offered as an alternative to the "triangular" stylus, or in late production after Nagatron may have ceased to supply the triangular one, This is all well and good, but he never comes out and says so explicitly. Therefore I wonder whether he is supplying an after-market stylus assembly, which could be good or bad. Caveat emptor.
Nandric and Acman, I am a bit disappointed in the integrity of some who sell these unusual items. One company we know about says on their website that "all" their styli are NOS, when we know thanks to others that this is not so, at least for their "Acutex" styli. (I am not referring to Garage-a-records; I know nothing about them.) And this is not meant to cast any aspersions on the seller in the eBay ad. I was just suggesting that buyers should ask questions about the provenance of that elliptical stylus.
Dear Dlaloum,
So your Pickering would be equivalent, I think, to my Stanton 980LZS vs the HZS version. As I mentioned earlier I was fortunate enough to find an NOS Pickering 7500 stylus to be used eventually to replace the D98S stylus in my Stanton. (NOS D98S seems unobtainium.) I continue to enjoy the Stanton, but I have no idea whether or not my contentment is in any way related to the fact that my version is LO (vs HO), It is, however, interesting to learn of your own findings. Thanks.
Sorry to learn of your terrible experience with Bluz Broz. They also are less than honest about the provenance of their Acutex styli. It seems it would be fair to say openly that none of us should do business with them in future. I wonder whether they know that to misrepresent items for sale via mail order can be prosecuted as "mail fraud"? I am not a lawyer; a lawyer told me this. You might want to remind them of this fact when seeking compensation for your trashed cartridge. Obviously, if it had been properly secured and packed there is virtually nothing that UPS could have done to damage it.
Dear Henry,
Nice word, "furphy". But I think you defined it incorrectly, even though it is of Australian origin. The on-line dictionaries all define it as "an unsubstantiated rumor". You defined it as follows: " 'furphy'....unable to be substatiated under any objective criteria". There is a difference between "unsubstantiated" and "unable to be substantiated". More of a furphy is the idea that all direct-drive turntables sound best with no plinth. (Could not resist; fun intended.)

That's the scuttlebutt, and I'm stickin' to it.
Dear Raul, Henry's response and others have prompted me to ask this question, finally and with due respect. How, indeed, have you obtained your training in listening to an audio system? The one thing I fear as I grow older (other than all the other usual things to fear) is that I will lose my hearing acuity. In fact, I already have lost some of it. I do believe that paying attention to what you are hearing and how you hear it, and continuing reference to live performances, can help greatly in overcoming nature's way of taking away our sensory prowess over time. But I am nevertheless curious to know what specific action you took to achieve your stated level of perception. Thanks.
Dear Fleib, The phenomenon you refer to I think of as an analog to "intermodulation distortion" in audio equipment. I definitely have a diminished capacity to hear a single voice speaking to me when there is background cacophony.

Dear Nandric, 12kHz? You are an optimist. I wager that neither of us has hearing flat out to 12kHz. But then, there's Beethoven.
My dear friend Raul, How can you be shocked at the rapid sale of all those Nagatrons? You advertised them here. It's perfectly OK that you did that, but the results should not surprise you.

Dear Fleib, "On the subject of hearing loss - a few years ago I read an interesting excerpt from an article by a research scientist doing studies of sound perception in deaf people. He measured physiological responses to stimuli applied to different parts of the body. I believe the hard skull structure around the ear was very effective in transmitting sound."

This is called "bone conduction". It was a well known phenomenon even when I was in medical school back in the late middle 20th century. Certain types of hearing aid rely upon that mechanism. But I am not sure whether it is significant for our ability to detect airborne vibrations. It's worth a little research to find out.
Timeltel, Your opportunity for a Johnny Carson joke: How good is it?
I have a second-hand 412 which I have not yet auditioned.
Dear Timeltel,
You quoted my favorite Carnack exchange, "Siss, boom, bahhhh".
Always good for a laugh.
David, Are you aware of John Ellison's method for calculating (vertical) compliance? Here is a URL:
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/vinyl/messages/89/892332.html
If I owned the needed equipment, this is the way I would do it.

I am wondering why you would necessarily expect vertical and lateral (horizontal) compliance to be equal or even near equal? Further, in terms of tracking and tonearm matching, I would think that vertical compliance is by far the most important factor, although I can see your coming response that the stylus tip is wiggling in the horizontal as well as the vertical plane.
Dear Fleib, You obviously know what you are talking about. But is it not the case that, historically, published figures for "compliance" are for the vertical plane, notwithstanding the fact that Ortofon may now be publishing horizontal compliance numbers? Further, most internet discussions regarding compliance and tonearm matching are with reference to the vertical. Yes? If not, I have been "out in left field" for a long time. (This was often said of me when I was a young man, so it would not be surprising to find myself in that situation once again.)