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

Nandric, FYI the rear tonearm mount on the L07D can be made as large as one wants (which means it can project to the rear of the turntable as far as one's shelving will permit) when in the first place one is making a new mount on a custom basis. All that is required is that it has to line up with the mounting bolts on the L07D chassis. Thus in fact I could mount an FR66S or for that matter a 16-inch transcription tonearm, if I so desire. I have an original accessory rear mount that Kenwood sold for use with an SAEC tonearm which I will use as a template to make a couple of new blank mounts for various tonearms of interest to me. Kenwood made accessory rear mounts for at least 4 or 5 specific Japanese tonearms, as far as I can find out, but they are as rare as hen's teeth.
For the $600+ difference in cost between the price for an original that you quote and the very fine copy that I bought and which works fine with my FR64S "silver wire inside", I will happily live with the disappointment that my knurled knob is 17mm and not 19mm in diameter. For that matter, I could not find an original B60 for any price, let alone $1100. Top Class had one for a while, I know. They have a ridiculously inflated value because of collectors who just want to own one. In fact, I am glad I bought mine when I did, because Nandric's post leads me to believe that even the repro is NLA.

Halcro, I see the grub screws on the barrel as essential to gripping the vertical shaft of the tonearm. Do you mean to say the original lacks such? How then does it grip the tonearm shaft?

What interests me is that Raul has always been underwhelmed with the FR tonearms, yet I have not heard from anyone else here who is disappointed in the slightest degree with the FR64S or the FR66S. Either we are all like monkeys, happy with anything shiny, or Raul is "wrong", which would be unusual. Disagreeable at times, yes, but not truly wrong.

Dover, I will let you know what I think of the FR64S, but the project to make a mount for it will likely take a few months to get done. As in all things vinyl, I am sure you would agree that your assessment of the two tonearms has to be related to the single cartridge that you used to compare them. The DV501 can be set up for very low effective mass and so might not mate as well with a low compliance cartridge, like the one you name I assume, as would the FR.
"Practical"? Practical is a one-box CD player. Not one bit of what we talk about is practical. I designed the slates to work with surface-mount tonearms. I have a very competent water-jet guy who can make holes in them wherever I want, for tonearms that require such in order to accommodate a vertical shaft that goes through a hypothetical arm board. To avoid that, I use some very nice surface mount tonearms, as you know, the Reed, Triplanar, and DV505. The L07D affords me the opportunity to use the other kind. Thickness of the Lenco and DP80 slates is 2 inches. Thickness of the SP10 Mk3 slate is 2.5 inches, in a sandwich with a 3-inch thick slab of baltic birch and cherrywood. The latter makes an audible difference and I may do it for the Lenco and DP80, if I don't sell them.

Raul, I am not in the camp with FR lovers, yet. I have yet to hear mine. I bought it out of curiosity, because of all the favorable mentions that it gets here, and because it seems to be better to own it than to have the money in the stock market right now. I also do own a Technics EPA500. That one has the fattest base imaginable; I don't know what they were thinking when they designed it. I may sell it in favor of an EPA100, which seems more practical to mount. My personal observation with my EPA500 is that the VTA adjustment is "stiff", to say the least. I think the lubricants have decayed with time. I am not so impressed as you may be with that part. The Reed, Triplanar, Talea type of VTA adjust seems better to me. IMO, the B60 does potentially more for the FR tonearms than simply to provide for easy VTA adjustment; it also adds substantial mass at the base, which might be advantageous for absorbing and dissipating some of the resonant energy that you otherwise hear. Did you try damping the arm wand of the FR64S? I have heard this is worth doing, but none of the users here seem to have done it.
Contrarian that I am, I mainly built the slate plinths on my own to flout the very high prices typically charged for them and the snotty attitude of one vendor, as well as to find out if slate is any good for a plinth. Anyway, I would never claim that my plinths are as beautiful as some of the commercial efforts,and my conclusion is that slate is excellent for a plinth material but may benefit further from some constrained layer damping.

Thanks for your response, Raul. I was thinking about trying ordinary shrink tubing to damp the FR arm wand if needed. However it would add a few grams of mass that would be evenly distributed between headshell and pivot. Of course, then we would not be able to see the beautiful machined and shiny arm wand.
Dear Henry/Halcro, I enjoy the banter, but in this case, I don't get the point. Are you trying to say that you find the additional screw-head on the surface of the repro B60 to be offensive to your sense of esthetics? Yes, I do find those fiber-glass 550 Spyder replicas also to be esthetically offensive compared to my late lamented original, but the replicas can be made to go much faster, with bigger more powerful engines, made by (yechhhh) Volkswagen. In the case of the B60, all I care about is that it works and does seem to be of high quality and therefore weighty enough to provide the added benefit to the tonearm of its mass.

Dover, I fear that I may seem contentious by posing this question, but believe me I do not intend it that way. We are all on the same yellow brick road. Do you suppose that the highs that go on forever, that you perceive with your FR64S, are in fact a symptom of a resonating arm tube, which may enhance upper harmonics? (I own one too, don't forget.) Or, maybe it is worth discussing what would be the expected effect on sonics of tonearm "resonance", a phrase that we all use and abuse. The gospel is also that MCs put much more energy into the headshell/tonearm compared to MMs, because of the typically lower compliance of their cantilevers. So that's a factor as well, if true.

What's interesting about the MA505 tonearm is that in chronologically successive versions they made the VTA adjustment less and less revolutionary and more and more conventional. I owned a Mk III version, and by then they had totally eschewed the adjuster you describe in favor of a functionally more usual one, albeit they retained the very useful lever for tightening. Do you suppose that the VTA adjuster on the Mk I was found to be prone to slippage?
An interesting cartridge of obscure origin can be a "bargain" to someone who owns no or only a few other cartridges, but what is it to those of us (notice I include myself) who have more than a dozen other cartridges of similar or better pedigree? Fortunately, Raul admits his is an obsession.

This question may seem OT, but I am thinking where there could be a better place to get advice on digital from guys whom I know love analog above all else, like me. My beloved and much modified Sony SCD777ES cdp seems to have suffered a catastrophic failure in one of its irreplaceable chips. This forces me to consider buying a new digital source, and I am thinking about a separate DAC, so I can benefit from hi-rez downloads off the internet. Has anyone here had any experience with a good USB DAC? I am considering the PS Audio Perfectwave2, the NAD 51, and the Wyred4Sound DAC2, at this point, but I have an open mind. Thanks.
Yes, I own a few hundred CDs and SACDs (the latter because the Sony SCD777ES was their "flagship" SACD player, second only to the SCD1). And I am very curious to sample hi-rez digital off the internet, as well as to be able to play my own CDs and SACDs, which is why I asked about a DAC, rather than a one-box CDP like the Oppo. By the way, according to my reading the improvements to the Oppo 105 vs the 95 are entirely in relation to video, the audio portion is largely unchanged, so far as I recall. If so, a used BDP95 would be a good bargain right about now, if I were to opt for a CDP at all. I am thinking maybe my Sony will still work as a transport, so I can use it to play CDs and SACDs and feed the putative new DAC. (I am aware that DSD signals from SACDs will be outputted as PCM, thanks to Sony's foolish desire to prevent the widespread use of SACDs and DSD.) Said DAC would also plug into my Mac laptop for downloads and streaming.
Dover, Love that line about the Oppo and MacDonald's. For the record, I have not eaten at MacDonald's (except for a cup of coffee and a, you should pardon the expression, "breakfast muffin") since 1985. Keep in mind that it was not I who brought up the Oppo, but a lot of people do like it. And it must be regarded as a lot of bang for the buck, particularly if one wanted also to use it for video. I owned a 508.24 before the Sony 777, about 15 years ago. (That's how often I change CDP's.) I made many mods to the 777 along the way, including a Superclock IV which I ran on a car battery, so I can only say that my modified 777 blows away my old 508.24 by a very wide margin, and I do fear that the audio portion of the Oppo, as is, might not be as good as my particular 777. Since fate has forced me to move on from the 777, I now want to take another step up. Thanks for your thoughts on the DAC options. The Grace m903 (I think) is another one on my short list. By the way, I only listen to digital, thus far, for background if I want to read a book or if we are having a party, but from what I read about the latest DACs and the wonders of hi-rez downloads, the horizons for digital may be expanding.

We now return you to your regular programming.
Still, not recommended. Specifically, when you use any meter to measure resistance (not voltage), the meter puts out a current in order to sense resistance to flow of current. The current put out by many volt-ohmmeters is sufficient in magnitude to heat up the very delicate coils of any MC and thereby damage them. That is to say, the coil may fry, in which case the cartridge becomes an interesting but inadequate paperweight.

The act of measuring destroys that which is measured. As I wrote to Nandric, this is Heisenberg's nightmare.
Nandric, You keep talking about "voltage". There is no voltage difference to be measured across the pins of a disconnected cartridge. I would think you are measuring resistance, in ohms.

But maybe I am totally out to lunch (not unusual). You may be measuring voltage output of the cartridge whilst it is playing a test LP putting out any single frequency in the audio spectrum, say 1kHz, via the phono inputs. That's fine. No danger to the cartridge in doing that. You could compare R and L channels which will tell you that both are working normally, if the voltages are very nearly equal or better yet exactly equal. If this is what you are doing, please forgive me for my failure to understand.
Here is where I admit that before I knew any better, I tested the internal resistance of my Koetsu Urushi using a very cheap-ish meter handed to me by an audio salesman in Tokyo. I had ordered the cartridge from this dealer so its delivery would coincide with a visit to my son, who lives there. I wanted to be sure it was "good" before paying for it. Like you, Nikola, I had the luck of the ignorant. No damage occurred. But I won't do that again.

Tim (Pryso), In fact I usually test cartridges these days by playing a record. It's a lot easier than any of the more scientific alternatives. In recent years, I've been buying used cartridges, like the rest of us. Usually, I don't know the seller, and there is no warranty. So why not? BUT if you were to measure the AC voltage output of a cartridge, which would have to be done most likely after amplification by the phono section, you would ideally like to see no more than a 1 db difference between the two channels. (You'd have to know also the intrinsic difference in gain that may reside in the phono stage itself, between its two channels.) If one wanted to measure the internal R of an MC, one might place a resistor in series with the meter to protect the coils from an excess of current. For example, if you might put a 50-ohm resistor in series with the coils for each channel. In that case, if the expected reading is e.g. 6 ohms, the meter would read 56 ohms, etc. I think that should work but I have not tried it. The resistances of the two channels of an MC should be very close to exactly equal.
Obviously, I hope, I was joking with In-shore who accidentally posted the same post 3 consecutive times. Each "Not I" was a response to each of those 3 posts. Just trying to inject a little levity. After all, this topic is not so serious to begin with.

On the subject of Newton, I would have thought that a person versed in philosophy would also embrace Newton. None of those philosophers you like to quote was living in a vacuum, and philosophy was and is affected by advances in concepts that pertain to the physical world. I always felt that Rousseau, Hobbes, and Locke (to name 3 of the meager few philosophes with whom I am familiar) were all influenced in the direction of their thinking by Newton. I am sure you know that Einstein was profoundly influenced by the philosophers of the late 19th century, and in turn, philosophers of the early 20th century were influenced by Einstein and his two major works.

I went to hear a live performance of a very fine jazz singer last night, Roberta Gambarini. We had a very good table only about 15-20 feet from her microphone, front and center. Yet I am here to tell you that if my audio system were to sound the way I perceived the sound in the club, I would shut it down in order to try to figure out what was wrong. Her voice was submerged and lacking in clarity. (I own several of her CDs and have heard her perform live on at least two previous occasions, so I know well how she can sound.) I could barely hear the pianist, who was seated to the left of the stage. Sax, bass, and drums were relatively "real" sounding, off to the rear and to the right of Ms Gambarini. I think she sensed there was a problem, because she kept gesturing toward her own monitor speaker, during the early part of the performance. Things did improve a bit around the middle of the show. But still, there is the thrill and spontaneity of a live performance that is irreproducible in our listening rooms. After a while, I forgot about the relative lack of fidelity. But I daresay, Halcro, Mr Wippy's truck may sound more "real".
Tim, I totally agree with you. While my wife and I were waiting for the show to start, I noticed that the house audio system included a mixer that must have at least 32 channels. I said aloud to my wife, "I wonder why they would need such a huge number of channels on their mixer". To which she responded, "What's a mixer?"

It didn't end there. I had to explain the function and why I was concerned that a small club with such a confined space would ever need such a device. In the event, my apprehension was justified. This is Blues Alley in Georgetown, DC. One of the oldest and best known jazz clubs on the East Coast outside of NYC. I have been there many many times over more than 3 decades. I once before noticed that the piano sound, to the left of the stage, was relatively muffled. I think it has something to do with the acoustics of the room. Last night was the first time I detected major issues with the main performer's miking. I heard Diana Krall there, before she was Diana Krall. I heard Dizzy there, shortly before his death.
Dear Lawrence, You wrote, "I'm going to play the devils advocate here and say Lewm really was saying he preferred the sound of his hifi to having better sound then live!"

That is a complete misinterpretation of what I wrote AND what I meant. I meant that the electronics inside the club, through which I was perceiving the star performer, were set up so badly that her particular contribution to the music did NOT sound "live". I inferred by my little aside that if my home audio system were to portray her voice the way I was hearing it inside the club, I would wonder whether something was amiss with the system, i.e., she sounds better (more like "live") on my system than she did for the first part of her performance in the club. (As noted, they evidently tweaked some controls, and things did get better toward the end.) I can say this, because I am quite familiar with Roberta Gambarini's real live "sound", having seen and heard her perform several times previously. I also know well how she sounds on my audio system.

This problem in the club occurred because, even though we were sitting close enough to have heard her without any electronic amplification, what you get in a club when it is full of people is mostly coming from their speakers, which are not typically "high-end", to say the least. I am now wondering why instrumentalists faired much better, because the sax player, who was standing right next to her, sounded very "live". But also he was using a different microphone, so it could be true that that infernal mixer box was sucking the life out of her voice or adding distortion of some unflattering kind. If the issue is still unclear to you, let me know. My post was written in agreement with Pryso's one, wherein he decried the use of electronics in live performance in instances where it might not be necessary, like in a small jazz club. I don't know why you find this even controversial, so I feel that I must not be making myself clear.
Lespier, My thought too; the sax sounds "louder" (bad word for what I am thinking) than the human voice, in the sense that the human voice (I am speculating) is a more complex entity, comprised of more frequencies above and below the fundamental, compared to that of a sax. Thus the total energy in the voice may be similar to that of a sax, but the latter sounds louder due to more of the energy being devoted to the fundamental. (Why human voices sound more different from one another than do the "voices" of different saxophones and saxophone players????) Thus the sax may be better able to overcome the house sound system. (I realize this could be total bullish*t, just thinking out loud. Two minutes from now, I may disagree with myself.) Anyway, the fact remains that's the way I heard it. And further evidence for your hypothesis and mine is that the drummer, who was furthest from my listening position, was obviously the most "live"; there was no sense of the drums being artificially augmented.

Most of my unhappy experiences with live performance have had more to do with the acoustics of the venue than with the nature of the amplification being used.

Dave, keep us posted on your re-tipped Ruby; as you know, I am in the market for a re-tip of my broken one. Also, until now I had not realized that your M320 was "refreshed" by Axel. Do you (and Raul) mean to say that the wonderfulness of the M320 is dependent upon an Axel refresh? I would be very disappointed to know that, as I paid "a lot" for my NOS M320 and would not want to spend yet more money on it.
Help! I am prisoner in a Gulag.
Do not ask the Moderator a question.
It could go badly for you as it has for me.
Please send refreshments.
Trotsky went to Mexico where no doubt he encountered Raul, became a devotee' of phono cartridges, and was subsequently assassinated by Stalin who preferred digital, with a hatchet that was only intended to refresh Trotsky's latest MM cartridge. (I know this vividly, because one of my sons played Trotsky in a one-act play, during which he had a stage prop hatchet seemingly imbedded in his cranium. It was disconcerting to watch.)

Make mine a very good French cognac, preferably an aged one. And a piece of Belgian dark chocolate.
Nandric, I agree. Trotsky was a very interesting person, perhaps the most intelligent of the original Bolsheviks. Too bad he lost out to Stalin and the rest. I think he was portrayed also in the movie about the Mexican artists Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera. Or else there was a separate American movie made about Trotsky. My family came mostly from Russia, about 100 years ago. Obviously they were not Reds.
What I meant was, what you wrote was similar to what I wrote. We used very different words, however. I guess you disagreed with me when I said that the tonal composition of sax is more grouped around the fundamental than is that of the human voice. (I did not use those words, but that's what I meant.) I have no reason to doubt you may be correct. Obviously, the sax is "louder", all other things being equal, which they were not.

But the fact is also that in the particular venue I was describing, the vocalist and the sax player, altho standing side by side, were using different microphones. It stands to reason that those two microphones were feeding two different channels of the multi-channel mixer. Thus at least some of the apparent difference in fidelity and sound pressure between the vocals and the sax could have been due to ill advised trimming being done at the mixer level. Last night I spoke to a pianist who has performed there; it was not news to him that the amplification was subpar.

A good headshell with a glass of fine cognac is very nourishing, however.
Raul, What is the cost of those fuses? Have you compared them to Acme? Have you compared them to "no fuse" (i.e., a silver wire bypassing the fuse holder)? Do you use a contact enhancer, like the Walker SST? Stock fuse-holders?

If you could perform the following experiment, it would help me/us: Listen to them for a few weeks, then change back to your old fuses for a week or so. Then change back to the SR20s and listen again. This type of ABA comparison can sometimes remove the inevitable bias of an unblinded evaluation of a new and expensive tweak. If you still are ecstatic after an ABA, then maybe I'll buy some.

I find that when a "black" background gets blacker, it means that the apparent lowering of the noise floor is either due to hearing more low level information or less. Like early digital; it sounded dead quiet, but it was really dead in that it dropped out low level musical cues. But the reverse can also be true, I think. When low level signals are revealed without added noise, the subjective impression is of lowering the noise, even when there was no audible "noise" to begin with and maybe no real change in S/N ratio.
That last sentence was a bit looney, I admit. Digital seemed capable of eliminating low level audio signal while not adding noise. I don't know that this would apply to analog, as I think it had most to do with digital processing.
Thanks for your detailed response, Raul. I understand perfectly why you would be reluctant to do the ABA comparison and especially why you would not want to bypass the fuses with wire. However, I am not as sanguine as you are about our capacity to make rapid objective judgements in situations such as this. (I include myself and the others, and I do not mean it as criticism; it's just a fact. Anyway, I also know you don't accept that notion.)

On the AC side, my OTL amplifiers, which pull 6-10 Amps from the wall socket, have huge fuses (two per monoblock for a total of 4), maybe 2.5-inches long and 0.7 inches in diameter. I shudder to think what would be the cost of replacing those with SR20s, if the latter are even made in that size and amperage rating. Also, was it here or on Audio Asylum that one major equipment manufacturer wrote he had determined that one or another boutique "audiophile" fuse was of inferior construction, not approved by UL, not acceptable for use in his gear, etc? I will try to find the post.
Dear Raul, I am not disputing that the Spectral MCR may be a great cartridge. I am only disputing your hypothesis regarding the cause of the difference in opinion between you and Dover. Tubes, for those who believe that tube gear cannot be absolutely accurate, certainly do not color the sound in the way that Dover has perceived the Spectral to be colored. That's all I meant.

How about that Madrigal Carnegie One; it certainly has been well regarded for a very long time?
Raul, Whatever you may imagine to be the "limitations of tubes", it cannot be that they take a cartridge that is (initially) "too warm and lacking in dynamics" (your words) and make it sound like it's "white, bright, opaque, lacked transparency" (Dover's words). The cause for the difference between your and Dover's experience of the Spectral MCR must lie elsewhere. "Tubes" per se don't do what you infer they do do. Yes, it's doodoo in my book.
I admit that I read both S'phile and TAS, but just for laughs and for something to read when there's nothing else to read, I swear. In the latest issue of TAS, I note mention of an entirely "new" line of Clearaudio MM cartridges, replacing, respectively, all the models that we have discussed in the past. Has anyone heard any of these new versions of the Virtuoso and Maestro, not to mention the lesser ones? Apparently Peter Suchy figured out that there is money to be made by pushing MM cartridges once again.
JB, I have been wresting with your issue about censorship. You keep posting successfully your complaint about the fact that your posts are subject to "Moderator Approval". But what has been the negative effect of the Moderator's unwanted attention? So far as I can tell, you are posting here with regularity, only to complain about your being censored or to discuss censorship with others who have had similar experiences. Have you actually made a substantive comment, relevant to the topic, that got deleted? Seems the Moderator is allowing you to complain about his attentions, freely. I would have thought that such complaints would have been deleted, if anything. I suggest you ignore the Moderator and carry on as if he or she were not there.
The "new" Clearaudio line of MM cartridges is not "old news" to me. But thanks for the information; it's much like what is written in Stereophile or TAS or wherever I saw the notice of the existence of these cartridges. I never went for a Virtuoso in the first place; I am a Clearaudio virgin in fact.

Is "Suchy" an Alsatian name, Nandric?
Harold, I doubt that the sibilance is related to the imperfect cantilever alignment.
Obviously, story boy and I cannot both be correct. His only comment was that i am wrong. I do not see why a deviated cantilever would cause sibilance. I would rather expect it to cause distortions of other types, in one channel vs the other, or a channel imbalance, or both. I have no idea what sb really thinks.
Dear SB, You wrote, "If the cantilever's azimuth is twisted, i.e. not 90 degrees, then a more complicated diamond profile may indeed show peculiar mistracking distortions, sibilance being #1."

I don't know if I agree with your assumption that sibilance would be the #1 result of a cantilever that is "twisted" wrt azimuth, but when Harold thus described his cantilever, I assumed he meant deviated to the left or right with respect to the long axis of the cartridge body, which has nothing to do with azimuth. In either case, I would expect the resulting distortions, even sibilance, to be asymmetrically expressed in one channel vs the other, assuming the internal mechanism of the cartridge is properly aligned. Has anyone asked Harold about VTA? Too high VTA can exaggerate treble and generate sibilance, as well.

What's remarkable to me is that almost none of our cartridges is "perfect" in construction, nearly none could withstand a careful inspection under a microscope, yet the great majority of them sound just fine to most listeners, shows us we are not so perspicacious as we like to think we are.
Dear Dover, You wrote, "rotational speed needs to be adjusted for the changing overhang as the arm transverses the record". I think what you refer to is the fact that the cutter head is like a straight-line tonearm. Thus when one is playing an LP with a pivoted tonearm, there is effectively a tiny speed error as the LP revolves and the stylus tip describes its arc across the LP, moving from one groove to the next inner one. But this error is VERY tiny from one groove to the next, is very regular in nature and so less likely to be disturbing to one's sense of pitch, and reaches its worst extreme in the central part of the record surface, gradually correcting itself as the stylus reaches the innermost grooves. I just cannot believe anyone can hear it. Do you really think you can? I think this effect is trivial compared to irregular speed variations due to stylus drag or turntable mechanism idiosyncracies.
Dave, You wrote, "Peter gets a poor grade for unresponsiveness to emails." This is exactly why SS does not (yet) have my broken Ruby stylus assembly for repair. As you know, on their website they advise communicating by email. Thus far, I have sent two, both last spring, about 6 months ago at least. As of this date, no response. I guess, when the mood strikes, I will use the phone.
Dear Raul and anyone else, In addition to my newly acquired NOS M320 (flat nose), I also own a used M312 of unknown provenance. Is the M312 body identical to the M320 one? Could I therefore hope to benefit from an Axel "refresh"? Here I define the term "benefit" to mean would the resulting cartridge be competitive with some of these other top ranked ones? Like someone else wrote here recently, I have no desire to acquire yet another "good" or "OK" also-ran; I am only interested in pushing the envelope.
But Don, between HZS and LZS, which do you prefer? The phono stage plays a role in this comparison, as the LZS requires a lot more gain, which got me to wondering whether Raul is listening to LZS via the hi-gain (LOMC) section of his phono stage and the HZS via the lo-gain (MM) one. (As I understand it Raul's Phonolinepreamp has two completely discrete phono circuits built in.)

Raul, Last year I passed up the chance to buy an NOS D98S stylus for one week after I found out about, because of cost. When I finally decided to buy it, it had been sold. I could not find another anywhere in the world, so I bought the XSV7500 stylus as soon as I saw it for sale. (Thanks, Don, for correcting my acronym.) Then later came the opportunity to buy the NOS 981LZS, and I grabbed it, as a few others here did. Now I own both XSV7500 stylus and NOS 981LZS cartridge, but I am still listening to the used 980LZS I originally bought cheaply off eBay. Obviously, and at my age, I am set for life.
Ac, I of course had to go right to eBay to check out Thakker. Seems he has a 980LZS, not HZS. Or did I miss something? Personally, I am sticking with the LZS. Z stands for impedance, I think. The LZS will have much lower inductance than the HZS version, which means impedance will be correspondingly lower at all frequencies. This is a good thing, one thing that MCs have over MMs as a general rule. Funny that Raul's fave cartridge is a LOMC with high compliance compared to others of that ilk, and one of my faves is this MM with low inductance compared to other MMs. (But the Grace Ruby is at least as good IMO and is more conventionally like other MMs.)
Dear Raul, I gotta love you. If someone has an opinion that differs from yours, it's always because the OTHER person "likes" distortion. I say this with all due respect, affection, and admiration, but you might try to be a bit more objective.

Dear Don, Apparently you have not been reading my posts all these months, which is understandable, since I am a bore. But you wrote, "I must admit I prefer the LZS over the HZS." This means that you are brilliant and perspicacious. I like the LZS, too, altho I confess, and have confessed, that I have not yet heard the HZS. I like the LZS so much that I own two, a 980 and an NOS 981 version. (In my case, my phono stage has gain up the wazoo, so my predilection for the LZS cannot be due to my "liking" the distortions of a SUT. I have never owned a SUT.)

By the way, I do not own a "whole" Pickering XSV7500, only the stylus assembly. But I do own an XSV4500, which I am guessing could be upgraded by the substitution of said stylus.
"Your system and mine have different resolution levels". Actually, I think that has nothing to do with it. There is no such thing as total neutrality in an audio system. It's an absolute that one can seek to reach (one's system can always get "better"), but one should not expect to reach it, because the source material is always flawed, and the method by which the source material is created is even more flawed. Thus one is left with one's own taste. No matter what you may think you are doing, there is no getting away from your (and my) built in listening biases. I am absolutely certain that my system can "resolve" every tiny detail that yours can resolve, yet they will always sound "different", because you and I are each unique. Same goes for any other two individuals here.
Raul, If you would define your terms better, we could have a better argument. What do you mean by "resolution"? What do you mean by "distortion"? It seems that you use one or the other term any time someone disagrees with you on the rating of a cartridge, tonearm, or whatever else, always to say that your system has better resolution and lower distortion, while you do charitably admit that even your system is not perfect. (No kidding.) You say you are trained to hear distortions. I once asked you to describe your training, but you never did. I fully realize I am wasting space even to try to get anywhere with this..
Raul, Guillermo owns a pair of 845PX Sound Labs? Nice. But has he modified (or better yet, removed entirely) the terrible crossover that lies therein? Has he dealt with the treble transformer that is crossed over right in the heart of the midrange? If not, then you don't know what my speakers sound like. Please don't hang me for choosing an adjective (thunderous) that you could play around with. You know my intended meaning.
The benefits of a subwoofer are obvious, but all too often the penalty is (1) an obvious discontinuity in the sound field, and (2) audible colorations/"distortions" introduced by the necessary crossover, active or passive. The trick is to avoid those two pitfalls. I have rarely heard it done successfully, and for me the issues raised by adding a subwoofer are more annoying than is the lack of a subwoofer. One commercial case in point: the Vandersteen Model 7 is an ikon among modern speakers; everybody seems to love them, at least every reviewer does. It uses an active woofer with built-in amplifier; the rest of the speaker is driven by one's external amplifier. I had the pleasure of listening to this speaker at R�MAF. All I could focus on was the crossover point between the active woofer and the rest of the speaker. There is a discontinuity big as the Grand Canyon, like two different speakers. (No comparison to your system is intended, Raul. I am sure you've done a better job of integrating your sub.)

Anyway, my huge ESLs have thunderous bass. (I know you will find fault with that; nothing is perfect.) Having NO crossover is better than having ANY crossover, for my particular set of likes and dislikes.
Raul, Guillermo owns a pair of 845PX Sound Labs? Nice. But has he modified (or better yet, removed entirely) the terrible crossover that lies therein? Has he dealt with the treble transformer that is crossed over right in the heart of the midrange? If not, then you don't know what my speakers sound like. Please don't hang me for choosing an adjective (thunderous) that you could play around with. You know my intended meaning.
I have now posted twice in vain. Neither post appears here.

To repeat:
Jim, You may well be correct, 2S, not 4S.
Timeltel, Have you really documented 170VAC at your wall socket? That's a real indictment of your power company, but it is not typical of the USA as you suggest. Living all my life in the NE corridor, I have never ever seen or heard of such high AC voltage. Nor has anyone else ever reported similarly high voltage. So I think the situation is location and power company dependent. The highest I have seen in my home is 125V. The lowest about 117V.
Raul, If you will supply Guillermo with my email address, I will be happy to discuss with him ways in which he can dramatically improve his 845PXs, some of them quite simple and cost-free.
Don, I think it was the Pickering TL-4S, or something close to that in name, that first aroused my curiosity to reconsider MM cartridges. Yes, even before this hoary thread was started by Raul. Dave Pogue, a regular contributor on VA, lives near me, and several years ago he invited me to visit his home to audition his Jean Nantais-Lenco. Not only did I like the Lenco, I was very impressed with the overall sound of his system, and when he told me that he was using that cheap Pickering, which he purchased off eBay for under $200, I was stunned. Still, I made no move to MMs until that experience was further re-enforced by this thread. Funnily enough, I have never purchased the TL4S; I doubt it's still available on eBay. But it's excellent. I was not aware that Timeltel was a devotee'.

Raul, There is no need for you to explain to me why your own system may sound great; I assume that it may, and I would never say otherwise unless or until I had actually visited your home and had a listen. I only advise you to extend the same consideration to me and others. Other than that, I have come to think our argument about speakers is childish, and I apologize to the group.
Timeltel: To quote Wikipedia: "Because of their usefulness in carrying out power calculations, listed voltages for power outlets, e.g. 120 V (USA) or 230 V (Europe), are almost always quoted in RMS values, and not peak values."

I know all about RMS. Breaking down the AC into maxima and minima is not really to the point, if you are worrying about over-voltage frying your gear. It's RMS that counts. If your RMS voltage goes well above 120V, it is a given that the positive going peak of the sinusoidal wave form will also have gone way up. I guess you know this; I do too. I think I just mis-read you original post on the subject.

By the way, you guys would get into a lot less trouble, if you would only stick to the stylus assembly that the audio gods intended for use with your particular cartridge.
Nandric, "Corpora", or "corpuses" will do. I think it's a second declension noun in Latin.
Timel, I love those car ads that tout a "500W" Bose stereo system. Of course, Mr. Bose or his heirs are laughing all the way to the bank. The lay public does think that the more "Watts" the better it must sound.
Yes, there was the use of the terms "IHF Power" or "Music Power", which meant a highly inflated number compared to steady state or "RMS" Watts, which leads us back to where we started. High Fidelity magazine was a culprit in the spreading of inflated power numbers for amplifiers.