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

For the record, I bought one of DT's protractors. It was an enormous sum to pay for a protractor, I admit, but more like $700, not $800. In the bargain, DT supplied the templates for 7 different tonearms (and more, since some of the templates are generic). If you went to MintLP you would pay $100 each for his tonearm-specific protractors, and so seven of them would cost the same as what I paid. Meantime, the protractor is a true precision instrument which includes every accessory you could ever think of to assist in accurately mounting a cartridge. Further, it can be used with any turntable, since he has supplied adaptors to account for differences among turntables in spindle diameter. In other words, I am very satisfied with my purchase. At the same time, I too have read these other disturbing stories, and Raul is not the first person to send me that link. In one other case, DT may or may not have been involved in slandering the name of someone in this hobby whom I hold to be above reproach, but it is hard to see how DT could have profited from that. In any case, I have an open mind at this point. In his dealing with me, DT was honorable. (Same goes for Raul.) But lets not turn this into a trial in absentia.
Maybe we are all a bit played out on the subject of vintage MM and MI cartridges, which is why these other unrelated issues come up.

What interests me is not the identity of the MC cartridge that Raul likes so much but rather the reason why he might not want to share the information with us. I cannot imagine it.
Audpulse, I think Raul's fave MC is something much more mundane than that SAEC. I think it's a fairly modern garden variety LOMC. For that reason, Raul is loathe to identify it, because revealing its identity would take the sturm und drang out of this thread and its more than 7000 posts. Something like, "Well folks, after reporting on more than 200 vintage MM cartridges, I have decided that my Lyra Titan (Ortofon MC2000?) is superior to all of them." Where would that leave the rest of us? (Back where we started, no doubt.) Perhaps we are better off not knowing what our putative leader is thinking. And Raul's revelation was possibly the result of changing a few capacitors in the MC section of his phono preamp. The horror! (Forgive me, Joseph Conrad.)
"the MC in casu must be realativ cheap (for now) but also relativ abundant. Say about 100 specimens."

I take it you assume we are talking about a vintage MC that is no longer being manufactured. I am not so sure. But we may never know. Among vintage MCs, I do know that Raul has always admitted he is very fond of the Ortofon MC2000, which is why I mentioned it in parentheses above. Maxime or Tour d'Argent?
Years ago, Tour d'Argent was another mega-expensive restaurant in Paris. In the late 60s, a good friend of mine took his then new bride there for lunch, on their honeymoon, and spent $400, FOR LUNCH, 45 years ago! Google says it does still exist but that their chef died a few years or more ago, which resulted in their losing a Michelin star. Apparently, you can now buy a prix fixe lunch at Tour d'Argent for 65 Euros, about the cost of a broken Clearaudio Virtuoso. The marriage, by the way, lasted only about two years and one baby.

I think Fleib's guess may be a very good one, the Denon DLS1.
Tom, I am just impressed that you did not screw around and bought the F10. Not an Enzo. Not an FXX for the gold-chain set. A bona fide Ferrari race car that would make Schumacher happy. When you are not swapping discontinued vintage styli among discontinued vintage cartridges for which the styli were never intended, you are one cool guy.

I live in the DC area, and my dear now departed mother-in-law lived in Southern Connecticut, about 330 miles from my front door, but miserable miles on rte 95 thru NYC, etc. When we had to drive up for an obligatory visit, I used to fantasize about having an F18 jet fighter to get me there in, oh, about 15 minutes, assuming my street is long enough to serve as runway.
I would settle for an F40, actually. It is to drool for, when you see one in person.
360 Modena or Berlinetta Boxer can be had for less than $100K, these days. Cheaper than a Continuum Caliburn.

I love the Modena, too, but I fear the cost of service and maintenance.
Acman, This is by nature second-hand information, but nowhere have I ever read that F8 and F9 are similar, with respect to performance. Can you quote your source on that? If I owned both, I would listen to each and make my decision based on my own audition. IMO, you will not appreciably devalue your F9e by using it for a brief period. It is my further guess that you will then want to sell your F8 instead.
Fleib, I respect your opinion regarding headshells. However, have you ever taken a good look at the construction of some of the modern very highly regarded tonearms that do not allow for interchangeable headshells? Many of them, especially the wood ones, use a separate piece of brass or other metal as a fixing point for mounting the cartridge. Those metal pieces do not allow for a good contact surface between cartridge and mount and so cannot possibly be very efficient at draining resonant energy from the cartridge. Many of those same products also then affix the mount piece to the wood arm wand by a single fastener, usually a screw. Thus the contact between the metal piece and the wood seems insufficient to effect an efficient transfer of energy, also. This causes me some consternation, why I have not yet bought in to the mystique. To wit, take a look at a Talea or a Schroeder. My point is that the need to drain energy from the cartridge body seems to have taken a back seat in many cases among designers of modern fixed-shell tonearms, many of which are widely revered. In contrast, I would point out the structural superiority of the Triplanar; Herb Papier used to expound on the necessity for a firm grip of cartridge to headshell and of headshell to arm wand, and he was true to his ideal in building the TP. Yet, as we know, the TP is no longer the darling of the high-end set, having been supplanted to a large degree by Talea, Schroeder, et al. I don't know whether this is an example of elitism among the high end set or of adherence to a theory of energy transfer that is maybe not so important in real life, on your part and mine.
Dover,
Why not just add a weight, if that was your only objection to the TP? One can easily increase the effective mass of any tonearm, not easy to go in the other direction. I agree with you that "medium mass" tonearms are neither here nor there when it comes to matching with high and low compliance cartridges.

I was not necessarily touting the supremacy of the TP over all others; I was just pointing out that it seems to be well engineered as regards energy transfer. As to the goodness of wood for tonearm construction, Vetterone, whom I highly respect, has written on one of these threads in no uncertain terms that wood is superior to metal in terms of dissipating energy. Far be it from me to challenge him on that notion, but I did mean to point out that some of the most expensive wood tonearms may not be so good at getting the energy from the cartridge body and into the wood part of the tonearm, due to all the material interfaces the energy must traverse. That said, my one experience listening to a Talea with a ZYX UNIverse, in a system that was very familiar to me, was an epiphany; the pairing sounded absolutely great.

Fleib, Do you really think that's true, about one screw (or one fastener of some kind) being advantageous? It's an interesting idea. I'd like to see the math or some supportive physical theory.
Nandric, My Reed has the optional azimuth adjustable headshell. My inspection of it suggests to me that it is firmly imbedded into the wood arm wand, not just one fastener. Thus the mechanical interface between it and the wood seems to be a bit better engineered than that for some other wood arms. However, the azimuth device itself is perhaps suspect as regards its possible tendency to resonate.

Dover, AJ Conti is not alone. Effective mass is proportional to mass times the SQUARE of the distance from the center of mass to the pivot point. Thus, getting a larger mass counterweight closer to the pivot point will generally REDUCE effective mass vs a lighter weight mass that has to be farther away from the pivot point in order to balance the cartridge. It's the law. Modern tonearm designers tend to obey it; the older especially Japanese tonearms tended to ignore it.
I agree totally with Raul, which is why these discussions of resonance or "distortions" are so difficult, why each of us needs to listen carefully to the others, and also why expressing ones self as clearly as possible is a good idea.
Dear Halcro, As regards your little discussion with Fleib re vibrational energy emanating from a phono cartridge, I would like to add my voice to that of Fleib. IMO, you are incorrect if you think that such a phenomenon does not occur. And yes, it can represent lost information, which is why tonearm and cartridge designers fret over how to control it. (Did you read the piece on how JCarr designed his latest TOTL cartridge, so as to minimize the resonant peak of the body itself?) The physics suggest that the problem would be worse for low compliance (MC) cartridges than for high compliance (MM or MI) ones, because the former type get a hard ride through the grooves, sending more in the way of shock waves up the cantilever and into the motor and cartridge body.

I'm with you on stylus guards. I have several cartridges sitting on a table next to my turntables, lying on their backs such that the slightest mishandling could crush the cantilever. Thus I am loathe to remove the stylus guards, altho I take Raul's point that it would be sonically beneficial. Interestingly, the only one of my vintage MM or MI cartridges that is "naked" is the Stanton 980LZS that I like so much. I removed its built-on brush early on when I first bought it, as well.
How can I prove to your satisfaction that the tracing of a record groove by a stylus attached to a cantilever would impart energy into the cantilever and hence into structures to which the cantilever is attached, ultimately to the cartridge body? Since you are in the decided minority in your thinking that such a thing does not happen (assuming I am correctly stating your position), perhaps it is you who should prove to us that your position is the correct one. Sure, there is marketing hype about methods used to dissipate this energy in the most harmless way possible (vis Lyra and Ortofon, to name two companies that address this issue verbally and in their designs), but that does not mean that the phenomenon is not real. I have to say that for me the problem is so patently obvious that I cannot imagine your argument that it does not exist. Maybe we can start there.
Jbethree,
Don't feel persecuted. I think posts are selected at random to be subjected to moderator approval. It's happened to me, too. (But you might say I deserve it.)
If your posts are deleted for no good reason, then you do have a beef.
Henry, Your retorts are ridiculous, but I love you for your persistence. Once you get a bad idea, you hold onto it for dear life. Since we are each separated from one another by thousands of miles, it is not practical to devise a real world experiment to prove (my/our) point, but if and when I think of one, perhaps I will make a video and put it on Youtube. However, theoretical physicists accept thought experiments within their discipline. Those are usually accompanied by mathematical proofs. How about this: if what you say were true, then we would not be fussing around with dozens of combinations of tonearms, headshells, armboards, platter mats, etc, and we would not be arguing about whether mounting an arm outboard of the turntable on a pod is a good or a bad idea. All these vagaries of LP reproduction are in some way or another related to the fact that spurious forces are generated whilst the stylus traverses the groove. By "spurious" I refer to forces that are extraneous to the reproduction of the music signal that lies therein. It's not so much that signal is lost by this phenomenon as it is that spurious information may be added to what was really recorded, altho I am sure that in extreme situations, music signal is both lost and distorted. It is the job of a good tonearm/headshell/mount/platter mat to dissipate this energy as harmlessly as possible. Does that score any points with you?

OK, here's another idea. Would you concede the validity of the math that is used to calculate tonearm/cartridge resonance, which is based on the compliance of the cartridge and the effective mass of the tonearm? (I know you seem to be able to combine any of your high compliance cartridges with your FR66S and get great results, but for the rest of us, "it's the law".) The premise of that equation is that there IS unwanted resonance. For this resonance to occur, there must be a source of spurious energy. Where else can it come from if not.... the cartridge?
The typical Vitus owner does not know what a "db" is, and if he does see that number, he thinks 0.75 db is a very small error. He does know what $60,000 is and that spending it on a phono stage should guarantee perfection. For Fremer himself, there is no excuse. He clearly does know his stuff. I would posit that if one takes the old HP/TAS stance that listening tests and subjective opinions are all that count, then one can ignore inaccurate RIAA equalization. We all know that imperfections in one part of the reproduction chain can serendipitously compensate for imperfections elsewhere, so as to give a copacetic result. If one would give MF the benefit of the doubt, it may be that he quoted those RIAA specs so as to point out to the cognoscenti the technical shortcomings of the Vitus, even while he praised the sound (or maybe that was John Atkinson's measurement).

Have you read MF's comparison of the Caliburn to the Onedof turntable? $150,000 for a turntable with no tonearm that comes with a $5-rubber mat.... a rubber mat!!!! MF did a decent job showing that the rubber mat had to go, but there is no excuse for the maker to have supplied it in the first place.
Dear Raul, I envy you that these issues are what you have to worry about. For what it's worth, I tried to find NOS vintage cartridges, whenever such were available. But in a truly NOS vintage cartridge, the suspension is likely to be stiffer (less compliant) than the manufacturer intended, due to lack of use and age. So, if one is concerned enough, all of them, used and NOS, need to be rebuilt. I've got other fish to fry.
Saw an ad in the latest TAS for the Cadenza series of Ortofon cartridges. Seems that these are high-priced MM cartridges. The Black is the top of the line and costs $2500. Could it be that we have started something with cartridge-makers who now may want to tap into the renewed interest in MM cartridges? Has anyone heard an Ortofon Cadenza Black? Looks yummy with boron cantilever and many other goodies.
Thanks, David. It is interesting to note that in the ad copy there is no mention whatever of the technology (MM vs MC), but they take pains to mention the boron cantilever. I fooled myself into thinking the cartridges were MM because of the naming system based on colors. I guess also I wanted them to be MM types, because I would like to see our influence felt among the manufacturers. Ortofon is one company that certainly has the capacity to advance the state of the art.
I have two Grace Ruby. One you know I like a lot. The other came to me with no cantilever at all, and was priced commensurately. I am thinking of sending it to Axel. Did you guys get a ruby cantilever from Axel, or can he do ruby? I would like to preserve whatever character is due to the ruby, but I am open-minded about a different stylus tip shape. I was going to send it off to SoundSmith for ruby+line contact, but I am thinking maybe Axel is a better bet. (For one thing, I sent SS an email and never got any response from them. That does not inspire confidence.)
No. I like sapphires and have bought her a few. Just for the color. Looks good on her. Also, a potential source for cantilevers, if civilization collapses.
Dear Nandric, I am sure that in some cases your analysis is accurate, as regards why US sellers (or German or wherever) may not want to sell to persons outside their own borders. But there are other perfectly understandable reasons for adopting such a policy. First, the term "Paypal protection" is about as much an oxymoron as is the term "military intelligence". Second is the increasing number of scams that seem to be based in the UK and on the continent, at least from where I sit. Having said all that, I am not one who refuses to sell to persons in Europe, providing the buyer agrees to certain conditions that guarantee the integrity of the deal. I am, however, very reluctant to buy from outside the US, for reasons noted above, unless I know the person directly or the seller is a reputable dealer.

Now I've got a technical question. I am about to install a rotary switch at the rear of my MM-only phono stage so as to be able to select various load resistances and capacitance. The added Rs and Cs will be in parallel with a 100K resistor that suffices for the basic load. I intend to use a second 100K in parallel to obtain a net R of 50K, etc. But what capacitance should I add? I am thinking 100pF, then 200 or 250pF. Should I go any higher than that? Should I parallel the added capacitance with the 100K load R or with 50K? I know this is just a matter of opinion, but if anyone has a feel for the subject, your opinion would be valued. I want no more than six additional choices, assuming 100K with no added capacitance is the base.
Dear Raul,
Do you mean to say that you hold 100K as a constant and vary only the added capacitance? That would be fine by me, but I was given to understand from certain posts by Dlaloum and Timeltel and perhaps others that there are cartridges that benefit from a lower load R (vs 100K) AND adding to C. I agree with you; it would seem to me that as long as the product of R and C is a constant (e.g., 100K paralleled with 100pF should be similar in effect to 47K paralleled with 200pF), it should not make a difference to the cartridge, but it did not seem that way based on my reading here. Comments appreciated.

Dear Nandric,
In my one experience of being duped (by a guy in Long Island, NY, not a "furriner"), Paypal did nothing to protect me and actually told me to go through VISA. Fortunately, I had paid part of the cost via VISA and was able to recoup that part of my investment with their help. My experience with Paypal is not unique. This is why I classified the term "Paypal protection" as an oxymoron. Perhaps they do better with international exchanges.

A funny story about scams originating in the UK. There once was an SME model 10 turntable (the TOTL) for sale out of London on eBay for what seemed an incredible low sum. I was naive in those days and so thought about buying it. The seller wanted to use bank transfer, which should have told me right away not to bother, but in any case, I obtained from him his mailing address. A Londoner with whom I work and who was about to visit her family offered to inspect the tt on my behalf prior to purchase. But we googled the address I was given, and we found it to be that of a very well known pub. She said also that the pub was in a very "sketchy" (means dangerous; don't park your car there) part of town. I guess I have not made the incident sound funny, but it was funny to us for some reason. (I like her dry English humor.)
Nandric, If you are the buyer, why should the (German) seller hate the Paypal fees, if you presumably pay them? I only hate the fees when I am the buyer and have to pay them. In any case, the time is ripe for Paypal to have a competitor who charges less; the fees have become ridiculous. And then there is the issue, at least for me, of their willingness or ability to protect either buyer or seller.
Thanks everyone for your informative responses.
Dlaloum, How do you "measure the frequency response" of your MM cartridges, meaning what tools do you use for that? I am inclined to be lazy and just go by my subjective "feeling". Thus I "feel" that 100K sounds best with many MMs. But if there is a quick and easy way to do it, I am game. I have a fair amount of measuring equipment. At work, I have to be anal; at home, not.

You are also spot on when you say that 15kHz is a "memory" for my sensorium. And I never was blessed/cursed with the ability to hear phase differences that drive others nuts. (Perhaps this is because I am a long term listener to dipole speakers [full-range ESLs], which probably are death to accurate reproduction of phase response at the listener seat. I also have theoretical issues with the phase-obsessed.)
Ideally, one wants two controls, one for R and a separate and independent one for C. Many vintage preamplifiers provided both. I just don't have room for two ELMAs on the rear of my MM phono stage, so I will have to make some educated guesses as to how to combine various Rs and Cs to satisfy most of my cartridges. I do have 12 positions on that switch. I had not contemplated using all of them, but I guess I will end up using more than 6. I agree with Halcro; the bell-shaped curve model is a very good one to explain the different effects of R and C. And I love the idea of a 1M load R that is permanently installed, so one can easily parallel Rs to achieve lesser loads. From a theoretical and complete audiophile extremist point of view, I wonder what is sonically preferable (assuming one could hear any difference at all), paralleling like or near-like values to achieve the load R or paralleling a very high value (1M) with values that are at or near to the actual desired load, to achieve the final load R. There is also the issue with a switch arrangement that the necessary wires running from the PCB to the switch can add noise to the phono signal; they are like little antennae. Having the 1M resistor actually on the PCB might attenuate that noise(?) Maybe.

Dlaloum, thanks for your explanation of how you take measurements. I own some of those test LPs you mention but none of the computer programs. I think I might learn something by looking into that subject further. I have a Mac laptop that is pretty much idle these days, could use it for such a purpose.
Thanks, Al. Much of what you say are reasons why I have hesitated to install the switch. Obviously, any such set-up will add some noise, even just the switch itself. I had planned originally to keep the 100K load resistor in place on the PCB, where it is physically closest to the grid of the input tube and its ground connection. Then, I would run wires to each end of it from the switch, thus paralleling additional Rs and Cs with 100K. By my guesstimate, the wires would be 3 to 5 inches in length. Resistors on the switch would be highest quality, low noise types, of course, but as you say, there is no free lunch. (Did you say that? Anyway, it's true in audio as it is true in most restaurants.)

The other guys made me think about using a 1M resistor on the PCB; don't know whether that would be good or bad as regards attenuating any noise that could enter from the switch or its mounted components or the wiring itself. (Wiring is the culprit I fear most.) The saving grace is that all of these concerns would be somewhat mitigated by the relatively high output of MM cartridges.
Can't edit my last post, but I meant to add that your comments make me think of a third alternative, mount no resistor on the PCB and all loading is done from the switch. Thus one is not paralleling resistors, if that could raise issues.

There are some who say that for a plate load on a triode, if you parallel resistors to attain the desired final R, then you should only use Rs of equal value. I have read many arcane arguments pro and con this idea. Never thought about it as regards a phono cartridge.
Al, Why do we care about RF? This is an MM phono cartridge that is probably not doing anything at those frequencies. If RF is picked up spuriously, then all bets are off, I guess. But it's not like bypassing an IC or similar, where we do want the component to behave even at RF. (Even the capacitors in the RIAA and in the load would not behave at RF, unless you use ceramics or the like, which sound bad. I guess silver mica is pretty good too, at those frequencies.) Anyway, I am convinced of your basic premise, will go back to my original plan.

Dave, We have discussed this a few times. It was my conception that those LDRs cannot go much above 10K in resistance (which if true would make it impossible to achieve 100K net resistance in parallel with 200K) and that there are problems with matching them, etc. How do you make it work?
God! The last thing you should want is a "Top Ten" or any sort of rank order. Inevitably anyone's opinion will be only of minor relevance, a guideline at best, in your final determination of what you like best in your system. Indeed, has anyone here or anywhere on the internet ever said that his new cartridge was "bad", "terrible"? Only if the cantilever was broken.

As to the Grado TLZ, it is still mounted on a headshell that can go right into the DV505 tonearm. I should try it again. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since I declared that it suffered from a stiff suspension. (Oh how I wish that would happen to me once more!)
Nikola, I have never broken a cartridge in my audio life. You can trust me.
Tim, The XTZ is the "super" version of the TLZ. It was TOTL back in the 80s. Grado introduced it to stimulate sales after the TLZ had been on the market for quite a while. I always was curious about the XTZ myself. The TLZ was a great cartridge and one of my own all-time favorites. I still have that very same TLZ, but last time I tried it, it seemed to have lost its kernel of goodness. I have learned a lot since then about alignment in my Dynavector DV505 tonearm, so I really should give it another go. The main problem seemed to be that the suspension had stiffened up. $700 seems about right for the initial retail price of the XTZ; the TLZ was between $500 and $600. So you may have a real gem there.
Tubed1, I don't think Buddhists observe any "sabbath". Thus, I think the monks hum every day, just like a miswired Grado.

I was interested to read that others like and admire the TLZ as much as I once did. I must give it another try. Here is a case though where an aftermarket cantilever will NOT give the same result as that sectioned cantilever unique to the Grado's. And maybe not as good, either. I think Grado called it a "transmission line" cartridge, back in the day. I was a big aficionado of TL woofers and found their use of the term rather silly.
Dlaloum,
Needle Doctor carries replacement stylus for TLZ, for $250! I asked them whether this stylus assembly is (1) true NOS (a leftover from the old days, in other words), (2) made currently by Grado as retrofit for TLZ cartridge, or (3) an aftermarket copy made by someone else. (Based on price, one would hope that the product is truly NOS.) The refreshingly honest response was that the item is made currently by Grado expressly for the TLZ. I then asked whether it retains the complex cantilever design of the original TLZ stylus assembly, and the response was affirmative. If this is true, possibly the cost is justified. Still....
Tim, wasn't there an "MCZ" Grado? I seem to recall comparing it to the TLZ, back when I was making a decision whether to purchase one vs the other. The TLZ so clearly blew away the MCZ, or perhaps it was the MZ, that I quickly realized that the additional cost was well justified. Perhaps I have a dim memory of an 8MX but nothing to offer as regards listening impressions.
Chris, My wife will occasionally whip out her credit card before I can get to mine, and believe me, it's been a LONG evening. We are married for 35 years. (And yes, she has her own income to support her credit card.) But I can attest that in New England, the term "go Dutch" or "Dutch Treat" had the same connotation at least since the 1950s.
Henry, the other confounding fact is that well before a 16kHz harmonic is invoked, my hearing has checked out at around 12kHz or below. Yet without a doubt I can hear the subtle differences among cartridges of which you speak, on instruments like piano, cymbals, triangles, and the flute, all of which are tests for transient attack and the capacity to reproduce overtones. �The really good cartridges make you "feel" the 3D quality of those instruments in space. I have a well worn Johnny Hartman LP that has a really long flute solo on one band; I use that passage for testing this quality. Also, Billy Taylor's piano on the same LP sounds electronic with an ordinary cartridge but can be heard to be a "real" piano when the cartridge has "the goods" to articulate it. The brain is a terrible thing to waste on mediocre cartridges.
I can only say that the BluzBros "NOS" styli for the Acutex's are not NOS in the usual definition of that term, which means to me that they would be originally manufactured by Acutex in the era when the cartridges were being sold to the public. Nope. The fact that they misrepresented those items causes me to be hesitant to do other business with them.

Nicola, For what it's worth, Raul prefers the older blunt-nose version of the 320, called the "M320". The later version, which is the one I own, I think is called the "LPM320" for "Lowest Possible Mass". I own a used M312 (blunt nose) which I have never auditioned, AND one of those NOS 420s from Italy, initially shunned by the choir but now an object of group harmonic admiration. I have to say that right now, in my rig, I prefer the Grace Ruby and the Stanton 980LZS to the Acutex LPM320, but not because the LPM320 does anything bad. The other two are just more to my particular taste. The Acutex is a bit on the clinical side, compared to them. I want to try it in the Saturn V headshell, because I think it grips the cartridge body better than does the commonly used Acutex headshell adapter. I think we have to be very careful how we evaluate P mount types, because the rigidity of the coupling to the headshell adapter can have a major effect on sonics. That coupling should be totally rigid and never is.
Raul, All hypotheses about why one cartridge sounds different from another, based on one man's opinion, are possible. So your idea about why I might prefer both the Grace and the Stanton to the Acutex is not for me to challenge, but I don't want to be pigeon-holed for having chosen the word "clinical", either. This is why you may notice that I don't say much about how cartridges sound except to say "I like" this or that. I slipped up by using an adjective.
Dear Dover, I agree with you about expressing one's opinion so that others might benefit, but it is rare to find a reviewer, here or in the audio press, who is up to the task. To do it well requires a lot of time and thought. Very few guys get it right. You could fairly say that I am too lazy to try most of the time. OK, so I will try to say what I meant by referring to the Acutex LPM320 as "clinical", only in comparison to the Grace Ruby and Stanton 980LZS: The latter two cartridges give me more information about the ambience of the recording venue and about what the supporting musicians are doing, particularly this is so for the Stanton. The Acutex does a great job with the spotlighted lead performer but is not as good at transmitting those cues just mentioned. The Grace and the Acutex are auditioned on my Lenco using my Dynavector DV505, with different headshells for each cartridge. The DV505 feeds a modified Silvaweld SWH550, with a revised output stage. The Silvaweld feeds the Atma-sphere MP1 line stage section. The Stanton is mounted on my Reed tonearm on my SP10 Mk3, feeding directly the (hi-gain) phono section of my MP1 preamplifier, which has been modified many times and uses a hybrid SS/tube input gain stage. The MP1 feeds my Atma-sphere OTL monoblocks, which drive my Sound Lab 845PX loudspeakers. Lately I and others were able to work out a scheme using an after-market ESL step-up (made in Oz, Halcro) such that there is no crossover network in the 845 circuit. This has made a huge improvement in "continuousness" and in efficiency. I daresay that a 50W tube amp could drive the modified 845s to ear-splitting levels. Anyway, I quote here the system components, because it can be seen that the differences I perceive among the three cartridges cannot be due to "coloration" of the Silvaweld phono stage. This is not to say it has no coloration, because IMO nothing has no coloration. However, differences between Grace and Acutex could be due to headshells, loading, etc. There is always some uncontrolled factor that could cause one to wrongly ascribe the sound quality to one component vs another. I am going to build in some switchable load capacitors and alternative load resistors into the Silvaweld for just that reason.
Guess I'd better break out my 420STR. I think what you are calling "dark" in the Stanton sound is what I call "rich" (in ambient details). Also, the SP10 Mk3 probably slightly brightens up the Stanton, compared to a belt-drive.
Nicola, To quote myself, "OK, so I will try to say what I meant by referring to the Acutex LPM320 as "clinical", only in comparison to the Grace Ruby and Stanton 980LZS: The latter two cartridges give me more information about the ambience of the recording venue and about what the supporting musicians are doing, particularly this is so for the Stanton. The Acutex does a great job with the spotlighted lead performer but is not as good at transmitting those cues just mentioned."

If it were possible to edit the post above, I would add that it is this difference in portraying the ambience of the musical venue that caused me to use the term "clinical" with respect to the Acutex. The Acutex, to exaggerate, seems to cut out the lead performance with a very sharp scalpel and hand it over to the listener, whereas the Stanton and Grace give me a wider rougher chunk of the music. Thus the lead performance is more submerged in the mix. I happen to prefer the latter presentation. On a practical level, if I am listening to a great saxophone player, I like also to hear what the bassist and drummer are doing behind him or her. If it's a big band, I revel in the massed brass sections. (As you know, I am no surgeon.)
Dear Raul, You really ought to work on how you relate to others. Because you hear things differently from me or anyone else does not mean that the other guy's system is somehow inferior to yours. I take your point that the DV505 may interact differently with the Grace Ruby vs the Acutex LPM320. And you did not even mention the obvious factors that may be making a difference in my perception of the two cartridges: the headshells (they are mounted in two very different headshells) and the cartridge loading. Also, because I say that the Grace does a "better" job at presenting ambient cues than the Acutex does not mean that I can hear no ambience via the Acutex. Please read what I wrote; I said that the Grace (IMO) does a "better" job, not that the Acutex is a total failure. Moreover, this is not likely to be due to colorations or distortions of my electronics, since I AM hearing this difference between two cartridges. If the electronics were failing me, then no cartridge could make up the difference. Got it? Now I will stop short of criticizing YOUR system, because I have never heard it.
Dear Acman
I sent SS an email on this subject (replacement ruby cantilever cum LC stylus for my broken Grace Ruby) at least 2-3 months ago, and I received no response at all. I figure if my interest in spending the requisite sum is so boring to them, why force myself upon them? I may give them one more chance, based on the fact that when I was a bachelor, I would give a second chance to any woman who attracted me enough to cause me to want to spend time with her in the first place.

The attraction (to the SS cantilever/stylus, not to single women) is that apparently they can just send you the finished product; no need to send off my broken Grace Ruby to Europe and hope for the best as regards shipping and customs mishaps. OTOH, based on the universal praise for Axel and the not so universally positive opinions of SS, I tend to favor Axel, if all other considerations were equal.
Nandric, To me as an English-only speaker, the term "refresh" conjures up an ice cold glass of lemonade or the beverage of your choice, on a hot day. Or a cold shower on that same day. So perhaps Axel must dip the cartridge in some ice cold lemonade?

Thanks for your response, Dave. I feel better now.
Note from the Underground, to Nicola. It was SS to whom I sent an email "2-3 months ago", regarding their Grace stylus. I have no complaint regarding Axel, except if he really has raised his prices..