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

The Japanese were at the core of the MC "revolution" back in the 80s, with Supex, early Koetsu, etc. In my recent visits to Tokyo, I see/saw no evidence to support the notion that they prefer MM. However, it might be fair to say that some of the virtues of the tube electronics, preferred by the Japanese cognoscenti over solid state electronics, parallel those of MM cartridges compared to MC cartridges.
Wow!
And that's all I have to say about that.

Dear Zaphod,
I am sorry if it seems I meant to jump down your throat regarding your statement on the preferences of Japanese audiophiles. In truth, I was just making conversation. I can tell from your response that you may be new to this aspect of the hobby. One reason why designers may "prefer" an MM phono stage is that it is so much easier to build one that is low in noise and distortion. One major advantage of MM cartridges and related types (Moving Iron cartridges, too, usually) is that they generate a much higher output signal voltage than do MC cartridges; typically there is about a 10X difference. Thus the gain of a MM phono stage need not be as great as the gain added by an MC phono stage needs to be. However, you could experiment with low output MC cartridges by using a step-up transformer (SUT) between the tonearm and the MM phono stage. SUTs increase signal voltage while conversely decreasing signal current. (It turns out that MC cartridges are able to generate very decent current.) Thus by trading off current for voltage via the SUT, the MC can be made to drive an MM phono stage. This is why some use a SUT. SUTs are passive devices and so can add none of the distortions associated with gain stages, but SUTs are not a "free lunch", as they can limit bandwidth or lose or distort some very low level musical detail, due to hysterisis. (SUTs are a bone of contention among us audiophiles.) MM cartridges differ from MC cartridges in a few other important ways. Feel free to ask. If you knew all this, sorry to waste your time.
Diatribes are bad enough, but these vitriolic diatribes are simply too much. Let's stick to diatribes and cut the vitriole.

On another thread was written, "the 420STR does/did for me what no other cartridge, MM or MC, has ever done" (or words to that effect). This is high praise indeed and places the author of this thought in a distinct minority, so far as I can tell. Could it be therefore that the 420STR is one of those great cartridges that elicits strong apposite views, like some of the van den Huls or the Ortofon A90?
Dave, Where does that place the LPM320STRIII, a long-noser of the 320 series? That's the only Acutex with which I am familiar. I own a used M312 (flat nose 3XX series) in unknown condition and have had thoughts of upgrading its stylus assembly, and my LPM420 is still a virgin. Do you go right along with Raul in stating that M3XX series (flat nose) is superior to LPM3XX (long nose) series?
I think (note: "think") that the major difference between LPM and M that could account for the difference in sonics (unless they have very different engines, which is not the case as far as I know) is structural rigidity. The M structure may better stabilize the cantilever assembly and may also dissipate energy into the headshell more efficiently than the LPM one. I have ideas how one might reinforce the LPM structure between stylus tip and headshell.
Exactly!!! You got it. Plus pixie dust.
Actually, it's probably easier and smarter to buy an M series Acutex rather than to mess with the LPM.
I and all my friends preferred Veronica. Archie was a shmuck.
Timel, bluetack is all I've come up with so far. But I fear it would add too much mass to the cartridge body. "Self-adhesive drawer bumpers"; does McMaster-Carr sell those?

Is it true that Veronica and Betty went on to invent "Post-its"?
Dear Thuchan, Is that the ceramic headshell supplied by SAEC? If so, I have second-hand information that it is not so good (meaning I have never heard it myself, but I do trust my source).
Kenwood offered an optional ceramic platter mat for the L07D; I have also heard rumors from the few that own one that the mat sounds terrible. Maybe ceramic is not so good for audio, except in certain bearings.
Dear Nikola, I am afraid it was I who promulgated the Orsonic/Arche analogy. On the Arche thread I stated that I had been offered the opportunity to be an "early adopter", but I held off purchase of the Arche, because others on this thread, including Raul, had expressed a dislike for the Orsonic. The physical resemblance between the Orsonic and the Arche is undeniable, and I already knew that Dertonearm was an Orsonic advocate. So it did not surprise me to see that his headshell is, shall we say, influenced by the Orsonic design. This fact did not and does not put me off the Arche permanently; it merely made me want to audition my Orsonic headshell prior to making a purchasing decision, on the premise that if I like the Orsonic, I might like the Arche much more. I hope that seems reasonable to you. In the meantime, I have received assurances from DT that beyond the physical resemblance between the two headshells, they have nothing else in common.
Actually, I take back my "touche'". I had not only the appearance of the Arche to go on but also the knowledge that DT likes/liked the Orsonic. Thus how could I not conclude that the Orsonic at least influenced the design of the Arche. Further, two headshells that use the same rather unusual engineering of placing the cartridge mount on two stalks projecting from the tonearm mount base, may be fairly suspected of having similar virtues as well as faults. The Arche to Orsonic parallel is much much more cogent than is that of a locomotive to a horse, for one who has seen only a horse. (I am just arguing this point for the fun of it.) But I do allow that it might be a big mistake to judge the Arche by listening to an Orsonic. Perhaps I just did not wish to spend $395 for a headshell.
Halcro, I share your reservations about the rigidity of the Orsonic, based only on its physical appearance, although I question whether you could "hear" the Orsonic bending under stress. I would say, "maybe". My interpretation would be that you heard "something" you did not like and that it was absent with the 4 or 5 other headshells you tried. Then you infer that the unpleasant coloration was due to flexibility of the Orsonic, which the eye tells us might be an issue. We audiophiles are often guilty of making this kind of cause/effect link without any real data to substantiate it. If Orsonic was looking for lowest possible mass in their design, they failed miserably because the authentic Orsonic 101b weighs about 18 gm, IIRC. (That weight is what I remember from something I read.) I think they had some idea that minimizing the surface area of the support structure for the cartridge mount was a worthy goal; they may have set out to achieve that goal and also provide for ample fore and aft adjustment of the cartridge as well as azimuth adjustment. On the latter subject, I agree with others that while adjusting azimuth at the headshell is theoretically a good idea, most of the attempts to realize that goal in practice are flawed (Arche excluded).

Is there anyone here who actually likes the Orsonic, assuming one has an original production item? (I have heard that there are Chinese-made copies that are truly awful.)
Dover, I too own and like the big brother to your Dynavector DV501, the DV505. In fact, I also have a mint DV501 that was given to me by a dear friend who is chronically ill at this point. I will see how my Orsonic 101b mates to those two tonearms vs how it mates to my FR64S. Perhaps there is some non-universality to the matching of tonearms with headshells.

BTW, I weighed my Orsonic tonight; it tops out at 16.5 gm, including the wiring. Not such a lightweight.
In my experience, the guys at Jensen are very approachable and forthcoming. When you call their main number, typically the phone is answered by one of their engineers, not a receptionist. They are willing to talk about anything related to their products or to the subject of transformers in general. Moreover, they publish some excellent "white papers" on the subject, available to all on the internet. I just cannot see them colluding to produce an "exclusive" SUT. It's a very "American" business, in the best and oldest sense of the word, out of southern California, not Bavaria.
Dear Stitche, I think it is you who may have misunderstood my post. I was saying, in effect, that it seems unlikely that Jensen would be building a "secret" exclusive SUT for one small enterprise many thousands of miles from their facility. I was agreeing with the premise that there may have been some attempt to create a false sense of exclusivity in order to justify what I imagine was a very high price for the preamp. This is done all the time in the "high end" business. Nothing new.
In keeping with what Raul just wrote, I recall seeing apparently NOS Orsonic headshells on prominent display in high end Japanese audio stores, within the past 5 years. This makes me wonder whether Chinese-made copies are circulating in Japan, which seems improbable given their sensitivity to copycat competition from China.
Dover,
I do not "prefer" Stevenson. I found that when I mounted one cartridge (I forget which one) on the DV505 in Lofgren or Baerwald geometry, I had to twist the cartridge such that it did not align with the long axis of the headshell. Concomitant with that, it sounded lousy. It sounded better with Stevenson alignment, which of course permits the cartridge to be aligned perfectly with the long axis of the headshell. Rightly or wrongly I concluded that perhaps the distortion I heard with the Baerwald or Lofgren alignment was due to stress on the cantilever, when the vertical pivot arc is not aligned with the arc of the cantilever. There is a thread on this on Vinyl Engine. Geometry is just geometry, IMO. I don't think one sounds better than another except if you like your outer grooves to be reproduced with the lowest possible tracking angle error (Baerwald or Lofgren) vs your inner grooves (Stevenson).

One difference between the DV505 and the 501, IIRC, is that the former has a lateral mass balance weight, which is used to make certain that the horizontal bearing is neutral in space. ANY gimbal bearing tonearm will not work optimally if its horizontal movement is not plane parallel with the LP surface. With a unipivot, that would result in changing azimuth.
FYI, Raul's post reminded me that I have learned since that the DV505 may not have been designed exactly for Stevenson but merely for some Dynavector geometry that is nearest to the Stevenson paradigm. I subsequently acquired a protractor closer to the original Dynavector intent. Does it make a big difference? No. A small difference? Yes.

I wish I knew what the heck is actually being discussed in the "Maginot Line" metaphor. Since the German solution was to go around the fortifications via Belgium, I am concerned since one of my closest friends is a native of Liege.
Dover, FYI. Last night I tried to fit my Orsonic AV101b to both the DV505 and the DV501. You will be happy to know that I get the same result as you; the Orsonic and the Dynavectors are not at all compatible. The retaining collar on the end of the DV vertical arm will not get a grip on the pin of the Orsonic.

However, I then mounted the Orsonic on the FR64S, so as to mimic the combination once favored by DT. The fit is perfect and very firm.

What we have here then is a unique case of incompatibility between Orsonic AV101b and Dynavector tonearms, not an indictment of the Orsonic per se. (This is not to say that the Orsonic is necessarily a great headshell.) By the same token, the Dynavectors work fine with AT and Denon headshells. Go figure.

If I interpret his English correctly, Raul has been telling us that no metal headshell is up to his current standard. I also think he wrote that wood headshells are suboptimal as a class. We know he does not like ceramic. So what headshell material could he possibly have discovered to be the best? Quien sabe? Perhaps a composite of some kind. Perhaps carbon fiber.
In fairness, the Dual headshell has a built-in offset angle and a very odd looking contact area, and so can probably be used only on a Dual tonearm. But thanks for the history, Raul. I think I even recall seeing that headshell in use, back in the dark ages of my life. I certainly did own a Dual 1019 at some point. Don't recall if that headshell was used on its tonearm.

Also in fairness, one headshell pretty much has to resemble any other headshell in at least some aspects of its appearance. In the set of all headshells, the Orsonic is rather unique in its appearance. We know that its maker was a devotee of the Orsonic, at some time or other. (Perhaps not now.) So to criticize the Arche because it has a general resemblance to the Orsonic seems a bit unfair. (Of course, I am the one who brought that up, so I guess I share the blame.) One could similarly justify criticism of most any other headshell, because it looks a bit like some headshell that one does not like. The Arche should stand or fall on its own merits, also notwithstanding the personality or character of its designer.
Timeltel and Fleib, Is it not the case that the output resistance of a cartridge and its inductance are intimately related, not to say linearly related? I was under the impression that both were a function of the number of turns of wire in the coil. The coil has both a DC resistance and together with the nature of the core material, an inductance. So another factor relating the two would be the conductivity of the conductor used to wind the coil; a thicker wire would give a lower DC resistance for a given inductance, etc. This is both a question and a statement, so fire away if I am not correct.
Fleib, I am not arguing the point you make at all. I was just bringing up the relationship between inductance and DC resistance, upon which you have now amplified.

But if it were as simple as that, the idea that low inductance is better, then why do I, at least subjectively, far prefer a top quality MM cartridge to any HOMC cartridge, when generally an HOMC has lower inductance than most MMs? I have owned 3 HOMC cartridges that were considered among the best of their time; all of them left me underwhelmed.
Dear Griffithds, You wrote, "Why do CD's sound so similar to are records..." (Presumably you omitted the question mark that would seem to have been appropriate punctiation.) I take huge issue with your premise. I say CDs do NOT sound so similar to records. That is why we are here on this Analogue forum. Otherwise, what's the point? Microphones are a problem, too, a different problem.
That's fine. For my part, I only said that I don't hold the same opinion. For me, vinyl mimics "live" better than digital can mimic "live". For signal to noise ratio and bandwidth, digital can be superior to vinyl, but I am listening for something else in the music, call it visceral, and for another reason. However, hi-rez digital has piqued my curiosity, and I intend to investigate.
Dear Griffithds, I am sure Halcro has more than a few question marks that he can spare for you. He may even be willing to trade that last explanation point for a question mark. As for "H"s, I think you should conserve them better.

Dear Raul, No argument here. "Live" can mean many things, which is why I put the word in quotation marks and made no attempt to define it.
"Shurely" I now get it. Next time, I guess use a sledge hammer. Thx. Sorry to be a pedant, but I too was aiming for a laugh. I missed badly apparently.

I need Nandric to have 8 tonearms and 26 cartridges, otherwise I might be the champion owner of tonearms and cartridges, aside from Raul of course. So, Nandric, I have a few tonearms to sell to you. I am cutting back to no more than 5.
Anyway, I got a kick out of Henry's "Mr Wippy" example. Thanks for the laugh. And he has a good point there; sometimes one can be shockingly wrong about the source of a "real" sounding bit of music. As for an outdoor performance (in Ravenna), all bets are off when you're outdoors, because humidity, wind, etc, have a major effect on what reaches your ears or does not reach your ears, in an orchestral setting. Standing 5 feet away from a solo instrumentalist in some subway station is a different story. Recently, a good friend brought her teenage daughter to our home to play saxophone for several of us. She was about to try out for a local jazz band and wanted to practice her sample pieces in front of an audience. (Either that, or her mother thought she should do it; I could not tell which.) She stood right in the middle of our listening room, between my large ESLs, and about 5 of us sat at the listening position. I have on occasion heard my system sound AS dynamic and effortless as is the real thing, but the experience set the bar pretty high for the system to emulate. (She got the gig, by the way, and deservedly so.) Saxophone is a good instrument on which to judge dynamics, because it is inherently so flexible in tone and amplitude. Try that, sometime.
Nandric, To me, that is part of the key also; live sound can be VERY loud and yet not irritating. To the contrary, it can often envelope you in the experience. This is a quality to be sought for in the electronic reproduction of music. When the sound becomes loud, and irritating at the same time, way before one has reached the physiologic pain threshold in terms of db, the system is at fault somewhere. (That is to say any sound, live or electronically reproduced, can eventually become painful and irritating at some SP level well above 100-110db.) Typically, the speakers have been driven into distortion or the amplifiers are operating above their limitations (or the cartridge is mistracking or the LP sucks). Now I read what I just wrote, and I do realize it's probably obvious to all of you. But to me it was a kind of revelation when I first noticed that this does not happen in live performance in a closed venue, when the concert hall itself is not creating nasties, e.g., in a small jazz club when you have a good seat or in my living room with Aina playing the sax.
Dear Dover, Do I perceive an anti-MM bias in your remark? If so, I must have been asleep, because I did not previously appreciate your feelings on the matter. If you prefer MCs, that is one thing, and it's not for me to put you down for that, but to attribute what you perceive to be the superiority of MCs vs MMs as regards "distortion" to the lower output of a typical MC is wrong-headed, IMO. MMs make a much higher signal voltage, because the technology naturally results in a higher signal voltage, compared to MCs. This does not necessarily make for higher distortion. In fact, one might equally as well argue that MMs have the advantage, because their higher compliance makes for better tracking of the LP groove. Also, their higher output permits the use of lower gain phono stages, which also tends toward reducing distortion in the signal chain. Nor is the moving mass of an MC always lower than that of a comparable MM type (which would be one rationale to support your generalization). In fact, MI cartridges typically have a lower moving mass than do MCs. However, if you were to say that HOMCs are not nearly as true to life as LOMCs, as a class (exceptions are always possible), I would agree. I prefer the better MMs to any of the 3 HOMCs I have owned. None of them ever gave me goose bumps. So, tell me how the higher output of an MM cartridge necessarily makes for more distortion, or whatever it is you don't like.
Dear Henry,
I fully agree with you that low-efficiency, multi-driver speakers with complex crossovers just about never get it right. But I would have thought that the Magico big speakers were in that group. I heard the Q5 at the RMAF two years ago. With multi-megabuck source and amplification components to back it up, it sounded "only" very good. Hard to fault but not life-like by any means. Of course the room was full of people who were ooh-ing and ah-ing the speaker. Likewise I got a good taste of the Vandersteen 7 at that show. It too was highly regarded, but to me there was a marked discontinuity between its self-amplified woofer and its upper register. I liked it less than the Q5, even though I am in general a fan of the lesser Vandersteen speakers, on a cost/performance basis.
But Nicola, two you have named above, the Apogee and the Infinity monsters, are horribly inefficient. The Apogee Scintilla, in particular, is a well known 2-ohm amplifier killer. They both do make a "big" sound, because they are physically big with a large radiating area from floor to near ceiling. And the Infinity, which comes down to us in a present day equivalent as the Nola Grand Reference, needs a whole column of woofers to produce what must be prodigious bass response. I am very curious about the Megalines, but I have heard the other two many many times, and all I got from them was their big soundfield that was not so transparent, not so "real", fun but just big.

Dover, Like the others who commented, I disagree with your summation of the nearly 9000 posts that make up this thread. I will be the first one to step up and admit it if I find a LOMC that blows off the best of the MM and MI cartridges I own. I have already investigated Koetsu, Ortofon, and van den Hul LOMCs, and none of those does the trick. I am trying to decide what comes next. Thinking ZYX, Miyajima, etc. Got any ideas? What do you like currently?
Dover and Halcro, My main turntable these days is my SP10 Mk3 with Reed 2A tonearm. I also do have an FR64S which I have not heard yet, only because I have to find a way to mount it, probably on the secondary armboard on the Kenwood L07D. Contrary to the experience of whomever you may know who owns a Kenwood tonearm, I find little to fault with the L07J tonearm, which is the one that comes with the L07D. What one must do is to upgrade the wiring; makes a big difference. The way the L07J tonearm is mounted into the structure of the L07D turntable is unique and represents very sound engineering, but I guess it might be said to violate the Copernican view. I know of no other factory built tt/tonearm combo that is so well done, on that score at least. I have heard LOMCs on the Triplanar (with several turntables), the Reed (with Mk3), the L07J, and on an RS Labs RS-A1, which is shockingly good despite the quite weird design. (Ortofon MC7500 may have sounded better on the RS-A1 than on the Reed 2A, by a hair.) I modified my RS-A1 so as to run the wiring straight from the cartridge to the phono inputs. The same will be done for the L07J, now that winter is approaching. I do plan to rig the L07D so that I can mount the Triplanar and/or the FR64S in the secondary position. I am working with a machinist to create the mount platform.
Dover and Halcro, At last we have a subject upon which we can agree; the original CLS was one of the great speakers of all time, IMO, at least from the mid-bass on up. I still recall the night I first heard a pair at one of the few high end emporia that then existed in the Washington, DC, area. (Now there are none, zero.) I had prior to that evening been listening to a variety of different Magneplanars in my home system. (That was my only vacation from ESLs, lasted 4-5 years.) I was amazed at the life-like speed and transparency of the CLS (especially in contrast to the slow and damped sound of the old Maggies, sans ribbon tweeter) and bought a pair within a week after hearing them. I drove them with a pair of Futterman H3aa OTL amplifiers. It was all quite lovely. Then when the CLS II came out and was highly touted, I made the foolish error of selling my original CLSs in favor of the CLS IIs, without a prior audition of the latter. Needless to say, they sounded like s**t in comparison to the CLSs. I then learned that the major difference between the CLS and the CLS II was impedance. The former had a nominal impedance of 8-15 ohms; the latter had an impedance more like 2-4 ohms. Thus the CLS II was really built for solid state amplification. After that, M-L came out with the CLS IIz, which was to correct for the terrible load presented by the CLS II. It sucked also. And thus I drifted away from M-L speakers, altho I did own one of their hybrid designs later, which was quite good, but not as pure as the original CLS. Now you Aussies want to claim creative input to the CLS? Ok. Good job then. Too bad M-L has never gotten the point that their ESLs sound best with tubes. All their subsequent designs are aimed at the dreadnaught solid state amplifier crowd. Sometimes I peruse the for sale section of this website looking for a pair of original CLSs. They are quite a bargain, but I have enough speakers for this lifetime.
I try to keep an open mind on issues such as boutique fuses. My reading led me to believe that the possible benefits might be related to (1) a ceramic body, rather than a glass one, and (2) silver, or some other metal combined with silver, as a conductor. I found a source in the US for ceramic fuses with silver wire, here in the US:

http://www.acmeaudiolabs.com/products.htm

Their silver/ceramic/cryo-treated fuses cost $16 each. That's good enough for me. I will not pay $59 for a fuse. Also, it seems absurd to spend big bucks on a fuse unless one also pays attention to the quality of the fuse-holder. Most of them are made with fairly trashy metals as conductive contacts for your boutique fuses. Acme also sell nice quality fuse holders for a very reasonable price. I use both their fuses and their fuse-holders.

Do I hear a difference? My OTL amplifiers require a fuse on each output tube. In other words, the fuse and fuse-holder are in the signal path, so I have no doubt that there is a rationale for using the best possible. I installed them in conjunction with some other more major upgrades to the amplifiers. All I can say is that I am very pleased with the overall result of that work. Maybe some day I will install some cheap hardware store fuses and do a comparison test; maybe not.
To you guys and any other BAT amplifier users, I have six matched pairs of NOS 6C33Cs, selected by and purchased from Victor Khomenko of BAT, himself, about 10 years ago. They are available for sale. I originally bought them, because my own Atma-sphere OTLs used to use 6C33Cs, until I recently converted them to use type 7241 triodes. (I get a little more power per tube with the 7241s and thus can use fewer output tubes per chassis with no downside, except the extreme rarity and cost of the 7241.) The 6C33Cs are vintage early 1990s, were manufactured at the Ulyanov factory, which makes them desirable. I also have NOS sockets for each tube. Sorry for the OT comment and for the sales pitch. You can contact me privately.

For a relevant comment, I was just recently able to purchase an NOS Acutex M320. Now I will find out whether I agree that it is superior to the LPM320.
Fuses are generally used for good safety reasons. To bypass a fuse with a wire, silver or otherwise, requires some solid knowledge of what you are doing and the possible negative consequences. Sometimes, it can be done safely. Most of the time, not.

As to re-tipping an Urushi. I had not thought of doing that as it would devalue the cartridge. Of course, if the suspension or tip were worn out, then it makes perfect sense. Absent those issues, I would as soon sell the Urushi in its original state and turn to something else. Right now, it merits another audition, since I have not listened to mine in nearly a year, and my system, especially my speakers, are much different/better.
Dear Raul, You make a good point; I have no idea either why fuses on the AC line make such a difference, but "silver" and "cryo" are part of the audiophile mantra. We believe in those twin gods, don't we? What's even crazier, not to say much crazier, is the idea that fuses have directionality. Some of the most expensive fuses are marked for "proper" orientation. On an AC line, the AC passing through a fuse would be at a fixed frequency (50 or 60Hz) and would have a sine wave form, equal amplitude in both up and down phases. Orientation should be irrelevant. I am not saying I think it IS relevant, but some think they hear a difference. (This is why we favor double-blind placebo controlled experiments as data vs subjective opinions, everywhere but in audio.)

The way I've wired my output stage, I have to remove their fuses in order to bias each output tube (separately). The ability to do so is a big advantage over commercial OTLs, where one has to bias a whole bank of output tubes with a single control, such that one really does not know what is happening with the bias at each individual output tube. (One or more tubes could be drawing most of the bias current whilst the others are near to being turned off.) However, the trade-off is that I would not be able to hard wire the output tube fuses into the circuit. I am kind of stuck with fuse holders.
I think the manufacturers realized that endorsing the idea of directionality was yet another good way to promote the sale of $50 fuses; if direction makes a difference, then surely all the other associated less controversial mumbo jumbo makes sense too.
Perhaps vdH is more fascinated with the beautiful women of the Ukraine than he is with repairing another Colibri. Who can blame him?

It was slowly dawning on me that Axel was raising his prices. Now that Nicola mentions "400 Euro", I am both flabbergasted and sure of it. That makes SoundSmith look like a very reasonable alternative. Raul, what about the other company, located in the Northwest USA, that you once mentioned? Have you given them any re-tip business?
Dave, So I gather that (for $500?), SS sells an entire stylus cum cantilever assembly for the Grace? What bothers me about that is the fact that one is replacing not only the stylus, cantilever, and associated suspension, but also the male part of the stylus assembly that sticks up into the cartridge body. Or to put it another way, the part of the cantilever aft of the pivot. Seems this could change the sound quite a bit vs that of the stock component. I am curious to learn how it works out.

Interesting to note that when Raul started on this odyssey, he was probably paying no more than $100 for any of these cartridges. Now we accept it as a given that spending $500 to $1000 (including the cost of rebuild in some cases when necessary) is the norm.
Funny.
Except in this case the added part is the most relevant part.
Or maybe not; in both cases the body is slave to the addenda.
Raul, Perhaps it is you who should tell me what is the difference between one silver/ceramic/cryo-treated fuse that costs $16 and another silver/ceramic/cryo-treated fuse that costs $59. Pixie dust? (Just kidding.) For me, the Acme fuses are an example of what I call "good enough", not worthy of further thought and mental anguish.

Prior to finding the Acme products, I used to coat the ends of my conventional glass fuses with Walker Audio SS contact enhancer, just empirically. I never did an A/B comparison, with vs without the Walker enhancer. I still use the Walker enhancer on the Acme fuses.
If anyone here has a blown $59 fuse, I will donate an Acme fuse so we can cut them in half and find out indeed whether there is any difference at all between them. I am curious.
Dear Fleib, In an OTL amplifier there is nothing between the output tube and the speaker. Therefore, if an output tube arcs over or otherwise fails catastrophically, there is real potential for speaker damage. By far most output tubes commonly used in OTLs have their own built-in fuse protection. This is true of 6AS7s (commonly used by Atma-sphere) and of the family of tubes commonly used in Futterman amplifiers (6LF6, etc). It is not true of the 6C33C or of the 7241, both of which are relatively recently developed for military use. Thus, use of an external fuse is advised with these two outputs. The point is that whether the fuse is external to the tube or not, there is still a fuse protection in nearly all OTLs. You're correct, I could take a chance and bypass the fuses. However, who are you to say it is "ridiculous" not to?

I am saying nothing about Roger Modjeski, in the interests of diplomacy. But I will say that I choose a fuse willingly in lieu of an output transformer. He designs transformer-coupled tube amps (in the last 3 decades or so); I don't use them. Of course, once upon a time he did design the direct-drive OTL amplifiers for Beveridge speakers, which amplifiers use---- internally fused output tubes. He's no cowboy.
Fleib, You do have a point; my ESL panels have a step-up transformer, so it might be safe to do away with the fuse, but I believe that the fuse also protects the circuit of the amplifier.

Direct-drive OTL for Sound Lab has been discussed ad nauseam among the small circle of people who care about it. The bias voltage of Sound Labs is very high in comparison to most ESLs, something like 8kV to 10kV, so solutions that work for all other ESLs, with lower bias voltage, will not necessarily be sufficient for the Sound Labs. Believe it or not, I actually did speak to RM about this and about his design for the Beveridge amplifiers, which he is willing to rebuild, at very great expense. Since mine are not broken, I had no desire to drop several kilo bucks on a rebuild, but I am making some mods to the input and driver stages. The Bev panels, for comparison, only need 3200V for bias. I think other common ESLs, like KLH9s and Quads use bias voltages under 3kV. But when you look at the other compromises associated with direct-drive, the use of a step-up transformer is not so bad.

By the way, I misspoke, and I expected to get hammered for it. The 6LF6 does not have an internal fuse. I distinctly remember that Julius Futterman used hair-thin wires as fuses on his OTLs. He always supplied an extra set of these fuse-wires, which he taped to the inside of the chassis of each monoblock. I don't know what NYAL and other makers of Futterman type amplifiers did about fuses on the outputs. And truthfully, I am not sure about the output tubes that Modjeski used in the Beveridge amplifiers, 36KD6s, whether they are internally fused or not.
Dover, The question is whether expensive silver fuses are a "cure without a disease", when it comes to the AC line. For fusing output tubes, as in my rare case, I think a high quality fuse element is worth the effort. There must be formulae available to relate current-carrying capacity to wire gauge. What gauge will melt out when the temperature reaches a certain point due to what current? Thanks to the internet, such information is probably available somewhere, or from the horse's mouth, since we have guys like Ralph at Atma-sphere and possibly Modjeski to ask. Possibly, one has to select gauge by trial and error. Keep goosing the current until the wire melts, then take note of the current at which this occurred.

If you suggested this approach to fusing previously, forgive me for not having noticed. I was always aware of the Futterman approach but had stuck it away in some cranny of my memory. I do think a fine wire soldered in place would be superior to any fuse, because of the necessity for end caps and fuse-holders, when using a fuse.

I finally got off my duff and started listening to some of my MM cartridges; I want to wittle down to a select few to keep. I've got the LPM320 running now, replacing the Grace Ruby, and I am hearing it the same way as before. Not as rich sounding as the Ruby, so far. But is "rich" a good thing? Raul would say no, I think. I might call it a guilty pleasure.
One reason I am "married" to the fuses in fuse-holders is that I measure plate current across the empty fuse-holder, after removing the fuses. I then can adjust each output tube for equal current and the whole output stage for near zero DC offset. (In reality, I can get DC offset down to a few mA.) I have built a pretty neat little system box that attaches to each amplifier, when I want to re-bias, and it all depends upon being able to remove the fuses. If I can figure out how to maintain that bias capability with soldered fuse elements, I would seriously consider fuse wires. One way would be to measure voltage across a resistor, but there are no resistors in the circlotron output stage. Thinking.

I bought a replica B60 base to go with my FR64S, the one that was being sold on eBay. Build quality is nothing short of superb, and I cannot imagine that the original is any better. I do have plans to mount it on my L07D. But can you say how the FR64S differs sonically from the DV505, and with what cartridge(s)? I don't think one should take the cartridge out of the equation, when comparing two very good tonearms.
Nandric, I guess the very same reproduction version of the B60 was or is sold both on eBay and on Audiogon, so I imagine you bought the same product I bought. I noticed it is pretty "stiff" to adjust the height, but how did you change the lubricant? Did you disassemble the thing?

I will mount the FR64S in the secondary position on the L07D. I would never muck around with the primary tonearm and its mount, which would be necessary if one wanted to displace the L07J tonearm, unless by chance the replacement tonearm has the identical pivot to stylus distance and the exact same diameter of its vertical shaft under the pivot. I don't know of any such tonearm. If the Sumiko indeed fits those requirements, I would still not accept a priori that it is necessarily any better or even as good as the L07J. But on the other hand, I have no way to compare the two. I can only say that the L07J must represent the state of the art as Kenwood engineers saw it circa 1980, suitable for use on their statement turntable.