The Grado XTZ was intended to be a more refined sounding version of the TLZ. I owned both (as well as the 8MZ) years ago. Both are fine cartridges, but while the XTZ was indeed a bit more refined sounding, it was also more polite sounding. The TLZ was noticeably more alive and dynamic sounding while sounding a bit brighter and very slightly unrefined by comparison. In my system at that time the TLZ was a better choice. Output for both was 1.5 mv vs 5 mv for the 8 series. If memory serves, the only difference between the TLZ and XTZ was a better dampened cantilever for the XTZ which, contrary to the "rigidity at all costs" school of thought, was comprised of different sections of tube of different diameters to create the taper of the tube. Again, if memory serves, the XTZ's cantilever was made up of three different sections vs the TLZ's two. Both had excellent sound staging, fine generous bass, and very natural timbre (especially the XTZ).
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.
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.
Showing 50 responses by frogman
Dear Nikola and Dover, after 20+ years using and enjoying the ET2, and more cartridges than I can remember, it did not take very long to hear that there was something special happening with the Acutex 420 STR mounted in that arm. My impressions of this were pretty immediate; no more than one LP side. Not that everything was perfect by any means as there was also present a roughness and dynamic "tightness" to the upper frequencies that, had they not mitigated with breakin would have been a "deal breaker". As way of background, I should point out that the area of playback that I am always most sensitive to is the area of microdynamics; that which gives music it's natural sense of rhythm, feeling, groove, whatever one wants to call it. To my ears some components sanitize the music dynamically so that those very fine rhythmic gradations are reduced and the music sounds bland, or they impart an unnatural or "too tight" sense of the rhythm. Of course, the relationship between perceived dynamics and tonality is an interesting one, and one can't entirely seperate the two, as one always affects the perception of the other. Still, I can live with tonal problems much more easily than rhythmic ones. The synergy between the ET and the Acutex was immediately apparent to me, but I did not at first attribute that to the ET being a linear tracker. I have mounted cartridges of every persuasion on the ET (all manner of low compliance MC's, Grado's, Shure, Empire, and even two Decca's) and I must say that the best technical (tracking) results were with low compliance MC's. I have gotten excellent results with some MM's as well; particularly the Acutex. The Empire 4000D is also very good, but not as naturally dynamic and direct. It wasn't until later that based on other users' (Chris, Nandric's buyer Vic, Dgarretson) equally positive results with the Acutex in their ET or other linear trackers that a pattern began to emerge. |
Dear Nandric, I agree that it is difficult "how to explain the performance of some cart without reference to some technological aspects". However, I personally am comfortable with and accept the fact (for me) that there is much about these interactions/synergies that we don't understand (yet?). Some claim that we can fully explain aural observations by looking at technical parameters like compliance, mass, etc. I don't buy it; I've been proven wrong too many times. Besides, and maybe it's the romantic in me, but I like the mystery of it all. My ears are the final arbiter. |
What the Acutex does correctly, and better than many other cartridges in my experience, is make sense of the dynamics-related aspects of a musical performance. In my prior comments about this cartridge (in another thread) I did not once make any reference to that cartridge's handling of "inner detail". The focus of my comments has been it's handling of dynamics overall, and ability to present the musical content in the bass range with a level of truthfulness that is usually reserved for the midrange and (less so) the highs. In my experience even the best gear/ systems gloss over musical detail in the bass range, and I think we are so accustomed to this that we routinely handicap that aspect of performance when we assess equipment. Think about just how often we are aware of the musical contribution of the bass "voice" in a composition or improvisation as a melody. Well that is what it is, but is heard (more times than not) as simply bass "weight", "extension", etc. Can we clearly hear that the bass note is the root of a chord in the music and identify it as such? I made the point that the cartridge "is not a beautiful sounding cartridge" because it has a sense of what I like to call "directness" that will sound somewhat unrefined to some in the quest for ultimate "refinement". The problem is that music doesn't always sound refined; it can sound pretty nasty sometimes. And if we think that the gulf between what even the best rigs are capable of and the incredible complexity and variability of the sound of real music has been narrowed to the point that we can use terms like "accurate" to describe it, I think we are kidding ourselves. I have never heard the Acutex 320, and based on Raul's and others' comments I am sure that it is a terrific cartridge, and very well be a "better" cartridge than the 420. I do own and have listened with (at length) to the Andante P76, Azden PVL50, Empire 4000IIID Gold, and the AT 170MLOCC (or something like that) among other MM's, and more MC's than I can remember. I mention those MM's because they are (or were) considered "contenders" (particularly the latter three) at various points in the life of this thread, and I can safely say that overall the Acutex sounds more like what music sounds like to me than any of the others. IMO, the heart of a musical performance lies in it's expressive qualities, and this is connected to dynamics. It is a very complex issue since oftentimes equipment is not consistent in it's dynamic ability at various frequency ranges. The end result is that a performance can sound confused, tense, or simply boring. When a component can separate musical lines with similar dynamic expression, while at the same time make sense of how those lines are intended to interact, then I think there is something special going on. This cartridge has been described as "addictive". Personally I have never known "tonal refinement" to be addictive; the ability to let me feel the deepest groove of the music certainly is. |
Dear Nandric, I agree with you. But defensive? Not at all. Merely striving for clarity. Interesting, the parallel between how we each hear differently as well as how we each interpret the written word differently; no? Yes, part of my comment is in response to Raul's "inner detail" comment, but only as a "launching pad" for the general comment about a subject that I feel is often overlooked. Tonal quality is usually given much more attention than rhythmic quality, IMO. Besides, this is only electronic gear after all; certainly not worth getting defensive over. Regards. |
Dear Nandric, I agree with you. But defensive? Not at all. Merely striving for clarity. Interesting, the parallel between how we each hear differently as well as how we each interpret the written word differently; no? Yes, part of my comment is in response to Raul's "inner detail" comment, but only as a "launching pad" for the general comment about a subject that I feel is often overlooked. Tonal quality is usually given much more attention than rhythmic quality, IMO. Besides, this is only electronic gear after all; certainly not worth getting defensive over. Regards. |
My feelings about the sound of the Acutex 420 have not changed. I find it to be a very realistically alive sounding cartridge, and refreshing in it's unwillingness to sound "pleasant" at all times. I have never listened to any other Acutex cartridge, but based on some of the comments of some it's obvious that I should. It is my firm belief that audiophiles, in their quest for "refinement" in the sound of their setups, sometimes "miss the forest for the trees". Tonal subtleties are usually given much more weight and introspection than dynamic subtleties in the priorities hierarchy. Very seldom is the subject of dynamics discussed with the same type of fine detail and insight as is the subject of tonality. I believe that this is the result of insufficient or limited exposure to the sound of live music. I am reminded of a discussion in the Single Malt Scotch thread where I made the comment that the Macallan 18 yr old Scotch was superior to the 25 yr old. The 25 yr old is incredibly smooth (for a Scotch) and "refined", while the 18 yr old improves on the 12 yr old's roughness, while retaining the characteristic earthiness that I consider to be an intrinsically Scotch trait without being so "refined" that it is reminiscent of a good brandy. One can't argue with personal priorities or taste; it is clear that these differ from listener to listener. But I find it interesting and actually very telling that a cartridge like the 420, for me, gives me more of that wonderful "coiled spring, ready to bounce" quality that live music has in spades, ability to play tunes in the bass, as well as the ability to sound gritty when appropriate, than cartridges that very recently were considered to be at the top-of-the-heap (ATML170OCC, Azden, Empire 4000). Please don't misunderstand, I have no interest in playing "the best" games; there are too many variables, and these are all good cartridges which push various and different "reality buttons" for me. The 420 pushes more of the right buttons for me than a lot of the others. And for $100? Cmon, you guys! |
Acman3, I just picked up a (supposedly) mint copy of "Pictures". I will listen to it with the 412 and report back. I have not mounted the 412 since buying it. A Dejonette recording is as good a reason to do so as any that I think of; my favorite drummer with the possible exception of Tony Williams. Regards. |
Halcro, I think you are talking about two different things. The fact that music is live does not necessarily make it a good performance; that is obvious. I will gladly mention the live music events that fail to convince; I have heard many and been part just as many. It should not be surprising that a flute trio comprised of less than top players will leave much to be desired. A recording of Rampal or Bennett playing the same music would definitely be more desirable. But Rampal or Bennett in that same room would knock you socks off, and would be superior to their own recordings. BTW, the NY Phil is notorious for not giving their best when performing with solo artists who are not top notch, or that they simply don't like. Bocelli, in the scheme of the operatic tenor world, is not a great tenor. So, it is not surprising that the orchestra did not sound it's best that evening. ****the 'Absolute Sound'. It is a myth **** I respectfully disagree. |
****....but I am listening for something else in the music, call it visceral, and for another reason.**** - Lewm Visceral, that's it! How does one measure/quantify "visceral"? Can it be done? I don't think so. But, like Lewm, I sure as hell know it when I hear it; or, more correctly, when I feel it. We are talking about MUSIC; about art. Music is human expression and feeling. In our attempt to tickle our audiophile itch and quest for perfection we want to think that all that is relevant about music and it's reproduction can be quantified and reduced (?) to issues of distortions as we understand them. I don't think that it can be. What makes reproduced music feel visceral as it does live has very little to do with the position of the microphone, or the location of our ears in the concert hall. Why is it that a band rehearsing in a room with an open window, one block away, can be instantly recognized as live and not a recording? I believe that, more than anything, it has to do with dynamics. Not loudness, but the infectious energy of human musical interaction. Whatever that mysterious thing is that makes a subtle dynamic shading just as exciting as as the big bombastic one. The more time we spend around the sound of live, the more we understand just how much of that information gets destroyed by the recording process. For whatever reasons (at a certain point I personally stop caring what those reasons are) digital playback does more damage to that sense of visceral than does analog. |
Dear Raul, thank you for addressing my comments. I can't disagree with anything that you wrote. My comments about the seeking perfection are not meant to suggest that there is anything inherently wrong with wanting it, but rather an attempt at suggesting that the only way to really move closer to perfection is by having a very strong sense of the only valid standard; the sound of live music. Further, my comments have usually focused on the idea that we usually concern ourselves with tonal details, and don't give as much importance to rhythm (dynamics). When "distortions" are discussed, it is usually in reference to tonality, timbre, etc.; but distortion of rhythm/dynamics is even more harmful to the music's message. I know some will argue this point, but the most important element of music is rhythm; that is what, more than anything, conveys the feeling of music. El SABOR de la musica. Regards. |
****Supposed (?!) superiority of live sound to reproduced sound**** Wow! I don't really know where to start. Let me put it this way: No question that reproduced music can SOUND better than live at times. But, good live sound (and certainly, the best live sound) is so superior to the best reproduced sound that it is I that fails to see the argument. Part of the problem with these discussions is the emphasis on the SOUND of the music without taking into account that perceived SOUND is inextricably intertwined with the PERFORMANCE; the feeling. Halcro, you were, in fact, discussing the quality of the performance. You mentioned how the flute trio sounded "dead and unattractive"; how the NYP's sound was "insipid". Those are all performance traits that don't have much to do with frequency range, dimensionality, sound staging, or harmonic distortion. You can have a great flute trio in an acoustically unattractive performance space that sounds alive, attractive, and very tasteful because of great phrasing and great ensemble playing, regardless of wether the sound is bright, dark, or whatever. |
Nandric, Lewm's comments re loudness and how distortion affects perceived loudness are correct. Banquo wrote how dynamics connotes a relationship between peak and minimal db's. I would modify that to say that it is the relationship between peak and minimal db's AT ANY TWO POINTS IN TIME in the music, and not necessarily in the ppp to fff range only. This is, IMO, a key point in this discussion. A key element of musical expression is the constant and constantly changing dynamic swings in every micro-dynamic range (ppp to pp, p to mf, f to mf, ff to mf, etc.); those little musical dynamic pushes and releases that give music excitement and sense of aliveness. And it's even more subtle than that. In music, p or ff are not absolutes. Musicians, in the course of preparing the performance of a piece will establish a volume benchmark for each traditionally established dynamic marking (p, mf, f, ff, etc.) based on concensus on what is musically appropriate; but between any two benchmarks there are many even more subtle dynamic gradations. Listen to the Philadelphia Orchestra's string section making a tutti crescendo in a relatively narrow dynamic range such as mp to mf; it can take your breath away in it's seamlessness and rhythmic purpose. What is it that gives Sonny Rollins his unmatched rhythmic impetus? A great deal of it is his ability to control subtle dynamic changes from one note to the other; not just the notes he plays but how he arrives at each note. Most audio components distort this information just as much or more than distortions in timbre which is what we usually focus on. That information is what gives live music that indescribable quality that tells you immediately that it is live. |
There was a time when sound systems were not used in small clubs or even larger dance halls at all. Partly out of necessity (no mics), singers developed voices that could project in a way that eluded later generations of singers. The use of microphones was a "catch-22". It allowed a more intimate singing style (Crosby, Sinatra), but at the same time made the need to project almost irrelevant. In the instrumental music field, as Pryso points out, bands put a lot of emphasis on balance and blend, so that louder instruments did not overwhelm the softer ones. This allowed a subtlety and clarity of musical line that became more and more rare as bands started to use amplification more and more. Listen to Freddie Green playing rhythm on a hollow body acoustic guitar in the middle of Basie's thirteen horns, drums, bass and piano. His contribution be heard clearly and provides an essential rhythmic impetus to the arrangements. First they amplified the bass, and guitar, then the piano had to be amplified to be able to keep up volume-wise with the bass and guitar. Then the horns had to find ways to play louder and the players chose equipment that allowed it. I have no way of knowing what exactly was going on at the jazz club that Lew went to, but based on experience, I would guess that what happened was that the vocals were amplified with less than stellar equipment. The saxophone being capable of overpowering most contemporary jazz singers was probably amplified less than the vocals were. Consequently, more of it's natural, acoustic sound could be heard in relation to the acoustic sound of the instrument, compared to the more heavily amplified voice. That is probably what made the saxophone sound more "live". The live sound, everything else being equal, will always have more presence than the amplified sound. BTW, the saxophone is an instrument that is very rich in harmonics and considered to be closest to the sound of the human voice. In fact, the very first use of the instrument was to play along with a choir in order to help the singers maintain the correct intonation; it could blend very well with the voices. |
****If you say so**** Actually, anyone who knows anything about the instrument and it's history, or the history of singing styles, say so. Thank you, but no need to give me undue credit for bringing some potentially interesting information to the discussion. After all, man does not live by headshells alone. :-) |
****The main difference is " power precense " and this means not precisely lower bass or deepest bass but " power presence " as we can hear ( near of it ) only through live music. This " power precense " is not a bass coloration but a true power precense. At the other frequency extreme the main difference is " definition " a littlke different but this " definition " is a kind of " power presence " where this " power " seems to me a " delicate " power.**** - Raul I was going to comment on this observation in relation to my own comments about the Acutex 420, but decided to leave it alone as I did not want to resurrect the 420 debate (again). However, since Halcro did it for me.... BTW Halcro, your comments are exactly correct, the cartridge requires a very long break-in and only then shows it's attributes which, unfortunately, remain under-appreciated. Anyway, back to Raul's comment about "power presence": In my comments about the 420 I referred to the cartridge's ability to reveal well recorded music's dynamic presence; the quality in music that sounds like a "coiled spring" ready to unravel and explode. IMO, the ability to properly reproduce the tension/release aspect of music is THE most important issue in music playback and any component. Music is, first and foremost, about dynamics. Without accuracy in dynamics to convey human expression it is simply sound. It may be beautiful, tonally accurate sound; but, just sound. I think that the "power presence" that Raul refers to is exactly this quality. I have not experimented with exotic fuses, but to me it is not surprising that they (good ones) should make such an audible improvement. If we acknowledge that power cords make a difference, that good solid mechanical connections at every point of signal and power transfer are important, that loose cartridge clips cause distortion, that clean contacts make a difference etc., etc.; then, is it surprising that current that is suddenly forced to travel through a hair-thin steel wire in a generic fuse would degrade compared to one of higher quality construction? |
Terrific post, thanks. ****In fact, in an age of super-saturated networking, one may even take perverse pleasure in an eccentric hobby in which a service provider remains subbornly uncommunicative for months or years, only to resurface with something truly extraordinary. **** I like the way you think. As with music, how boring the hobby would be without the "characters". ------------- Zoot Sims, when asked what he thought about Stan Getz: "Stan, he's a great bunch of guys" |
Dgob, thanks for sharing your experiences with the revamped 420. It has been pointed out that the only difference between the 420 and it's "lesser" cousins, the 415/412, is the stylus/cantilever. Are you aware of anything that Axel did as part of the revamp that would preclude having him revamp a 415 or 412 and result with the exact same cartridge as a revamped 420? If he replaces the cantilever/stylus, unless the rubber suspension is different for the 420, I see no reason why this would not be the case. Regards. |
Happy New Year to all, y un "Feliz Ano Nuevo" para nuestro jefe! Dear Nandric, you asked the question: "Why are then so many cartridges mediocre" I think that you answered your own question earlier in the same paragraph: ****A good (professor) MANUFACTURER needs especialy patience because the most (students) CUSTOMERS are not very bright. Besides by (teaching) SELLING TO only the bright one he would not earn sufficient money to survive. It is in his own and , more in particular, in public interest to 'make something' from the majority of (students) CUSTOMERS**** BTW, I am glad that it worked out with sale of your Acutex 420. I hope that you did not mind that I suggested that he contact you. The commission continues to grow :-) Regards. |
Dgarretson, thanks for your comments re the Precept; I hope to find one for myself. But, I have a question about your most recent comments; and this is taking your comments at face value. How did you ascertain that your very positive reaction was not, at least in part, due to the replacement of tubes; which appears to have been done at the same time as your assessment of the Precept? |
****Raul performed a great service to the community by reawaking to the potential of HO carts. I doubt if he will show up on this thread once again, for obvious reasons. His contribution is noted.**** I know some will disagree (Raul?), and I may regret this comment a bit later after my first cup of Sumatra wakes me to reality; but, from my often overly-romantic vantage point, Raul has an obligation to show up on this thread again. I do hope he is well and that there are no extenuating reasons for his absence. Raul, donde estas? |
Thanks for the updates on Raul. I hope to see him back on this thread. To give credit where credit is due, I hope we can agree that this thread and Raul's opinions have been, at the very least, thought provoking and sometimes illuminating. ****I just wish that people will be more tolerant of him when he comes back because goggle translate sometimes creates a havoc with his intentions.**** - Audpulse Completely agree and as someone for whom English is likewise a second language, I pointed this out a while back. |
Nikola may be more than a semanticist. A canon in music is the repetition of a musical motif in a certain sequence and at specified times using strict imitation. Tchaikovsky used the cannon as a musical instrument with it's own voice and scored in a way that met the requirements for a canon as described above. ;-) |
****Transient Peaks are at the heart of the music**** ****No, sorry, this is misuided. The heart is soft, and it is loud**** Well, neither comment is quite correct. IMO, the heart of music is in how truthfully or seamlessly the dynamic swing from soft to loud and back is reproduced; not just wether it can get to loud without distortion. In my experience some cartridges can get to loud fully and without (much) distortion, but leave out the fine dynamic gradations in between. That is what gives music the excitement and it's swagger or rhythmic groove. This has been the big dilemma for me with the mm vs mc issue. In my setup, mm's tend to distort somewhat less at the musical peaks, but mc's tend to have a better sense of aliveness and dynamic surprise; more of music's rhythmic impetus is heard on the way to loud or soft while still being generally very acceptable, if not not quite as good, re distortion at the peaks. The tonal issues are a different matter that has a lot to do with system tuning. In most of my systems over the years, mm's have tended to produce a tonal fullness that is closer to real. |
****One can only hope for progress.**** How true! And an essential ingredient of "progress" is to always be conscious of our own individual preconceptions and biases when it comes to political and racial matters; which inevitably lurk about in our psyche coloring our opinions. EVERY race or peoples have been at both ends of the spectrum and been both the victims and perpetrators of atrocities. Seems to me that true progress will only come when we abandon the tendency towards a victim mentality and acknowledge our own role in the mess that the world is (incredibly) still in. As for cartridges and Raul: I miss Raul and wish him well. Whatever he is going through, I hope he does not lose his passion. But I must acknowledge the uncomfortable feeling that I have at the realization that, while parts of the world are still a horrible mess, we are able to indulge in the luxury of concern about phono cartridges. We are blessed. Is it progress? I hope so. |
Dear Raul, it's great to have more discussion about music and musicians; it helps to put discussion about audio gear in a better perspective, and gives it more meaning. Much to say about the previous posts when I have a little more time. For now, just want to share some music by the great Wynton Kelly (I too, am a fan) with two of the giants of the tenor saxophone, Coltrane and Getz. Interesting to hear two vastly different, but equally great players. Enjoy. http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=8egSzCBCie0 |
Dear Nikola, you sir (as they say here in the USA), are "on a roll"! Perhaps you have located a supply of my previously recommended "Bustelo" espresso roast bean, and are indulging in a bit too much brew. Although, and in spite of your previous references to an interest in the source of certain other stimulants, I suspect your boundless wit does not need any help. BTW: car·cass (kärks) n. 1. The dead body of an animal, especially one slaughtered for food. 2. The body of a human. 3. Remains from which the substance or character is gone: the carcass of a once glorious empire. 4. A framework or basic structure: the carcass of a burned-out building. [Middle English carcas, from Anglo-Norman carcais and Medieval Latin carcasium.] The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. carcass, carcase [ˈkɑːkəs] n 1. the dead body of an animal, esp one that has been slaughtered for food, with the head, limbs, and entrails removed 2. Informal, usually facetious or derogatory a person's body 3. the skeleton or framework of a structure 4. the remains of anything when its life or vitality is gone; shell [from Old French carcasse, of obscure origin] |
Lew, while I can't offer any commentary re how the shape of a material might affect it's sound (resonance characteristics) in a turntable plinth application, I can tell you that the shape of the material is an important consideration for musical instrument makers. I see no reason why some of the same principles would not apply. I am not talking about the shape of, for instance, the bore of wind instruments or the shape of the resonating cavity of string instruments. In those examples we have a case of a vibrating column of air and it is much easier to understand (and is well documented) how altering the shape of the cavity created by same materials of the same mass would affect it's resonance. Take the case of a clarinet barrel. The clarinet barrel is the small piece of tubing that is found between the mouthpiece and the upper of the two main, and larger, parts of the clarinet. It is a kind of interface between the mouthpiece and the main body of the instrument and is most directly affected by the reed's vibrations. There are two design parameters that have the most profound effect on the response/sound of the barrel, the shape of the bore and the shape of the barrel itself. The impact of these two parameters in design choice are at least as significant as the choice of material. You can have a barrel that looks like this: http://backunmusical.com/product/fatboy-barrels/ which has the exact bore taper and dimensions, and uses the exact amount of material as one that looks like this: http://backunmusical.com/product/moba-barrels/ and they will each have entirely different response characteristics and sound. Barrels are typically constructed of various types of wood such as cocobolo, rosewood or grenadilla, hard rubber, plastic, or metal. It is surprising how small the differences in sound are between the different materials compared to the differences due to the shape used. I think that it is entirely plausible that the shape of a piece of metal or acrylic (homogenous) would have a significant effect on the way that it resonates due to externally (ambient) and internally (motor) caused vibrations in a plinth application. |
Nandric, now that others have responded re the stylus-drag issue, perhaps you will forgive me for what is perhaps more "philosophy" than hard scientific data; although, for me, what my ears tell me supersedes any "scientific data". Stylus-drag and it's possible effects, and all else that we discuss in these forums, takes on the most meaning when discussed in the context of the music. It is my contention that speed stability (or lack of), which is something that has a profound effect on dynamic nuance, is often underestimated; and IMO is more important than timbre related issues. The importance of absolute speed stability takes on special meaning if viewed, not in the context of the music playback arena, but in the music PEFORMANCE arena. Rhythmic interplay between musicians during a performance, and the success of which is dependent on absolute control (flexibility) of rhythm by the players, determines the success of the performance. Of course, listeners will disagree about which performance vision is best, but I am talking about rhythmic sloppiness or ambiguity in the performance. These considerations come into play (pun intended) at a level that is more subtle and complex than anything that happens in the techno/scientific/gear realm. Proof? It is common for musicians to experience, during the course of a performance, performance related issues and disagreements with other players (or the conductor) that are very real; they are usually of a rhythmic nuance or intonation (a different discussion) nature. Each of those disagreements, on an individual basis, might be forgiven or overlooked by the players. However, the frequency (not hz) or relative severity of them shape the OVERALL success of the performance. What is my point? Upon listening to playback in the booth, and much more so on the final recorded product, many of those very subtle individual performance ambiguities and disagreements are often times completely inaudible. What may be left for the listener is simply a performance that is lackluster; the end result of all those little things that the record/playback cannot resolve. So, what does any of this have to do with stylus drag? IMO, if viewed in the above context, ANYTHING, no matter how seemingly insignificant from a "numbers" standpoint, that affects the rotational stability of a turntable will have an effect on the music. Wether that effect is audible or important enough to any one listener is another story. |
Dear Raul, ****how he heard/identified that stylus drag and how he knows/knew that what he heard was because stylus drag it self and no for other " factors ". How could he aisle the stylus drag " fact " from the whole playback environment?**** Excellent question and one that probably has no definitive answer, given the inevitable effects of record warps and off-center holes etc. But I have heard the effect enough times that I believe I have formed an answer for myself; if no one else. In addition to my previous comments, I would describe the effect this way; and it needs to, once again, be viewed in the context of musical nuance: Imagine that one is driving on the highway at 60 mph with the cruise-control engaged. The road is relatively smooth and the auto is performing comfortably. Suddenly one encounters a rough section of road. The speedometer will show a slight slowing of speed. That is what I hear when the stylus suddenly encounters a heavily modulated passage on an LP; particularly on heavily orchestrated symphonic music. It may not be perceived as an obvious slowing, but as a subtle decrease in the music's rhythmic forward impetus. A great symphony orchestra heard live can sail through a heavily orchestrated section of music with a thrilling sense of forward drive as powerful as that in a more lightly orchestrated section. The problem can be very subtle, but it is there nonetheless. Obviously, some turntables do much better than others with this. Ironically, while I find most digital playback to have less overall rhythmic nuance and excitement than a great LP, I don't hear the same loss of forward drive in the heavily modulated passages. |
****Music means many things and between them rythmum IMHO could be the most important atribute in a music sound performance**** Precisely the basis for many of my comments/arguments in the past. I would only qualify it by saying that it IS the most important attribute; if we are talking about music and not just it's tonality. It is relatively easy to discuss subtleties and differences in tonal color and timbre, soundstaging, etc. Rhythmic (dynamic) nuance is, IMO, the "missing (and most important) link" in audio discussions. Glad to see a strong reference to this. **and the LC has an amazing and marvelous feel of rythmum matched for almost no cartridge I know.**** If this is true (I don't doubt it) then I really am sorry I did not grab one of these. For whatever it may be worth, as far as getting this attribute closest to correct (in my tonearm) is concerned, my ranking of all the MM cartridges that I own that have been discussed in this thread is: Acutex 420 STR Empire 4000Diii Andante P76 (unfortunately, it is also way too far off the mark tonally) Acutex 412 STR AT AT-ML170OCC Azden YMP50VL Regards. |
****..........we definitely 'hear' differently when it comes to certain cartridges.**** - Halcro ****I have some friends from 'Concert Gebouw' in Amsterdam whom I try to impress with my best sounding records on my impressive nr. 1 or 'main system '. To my frustration those people are not at all interested in low, midd and high frequentis but listen cereful to the music and judge much more the artist and his interpretation of the composer than anything else. Do they hear differently? Of course they don't. They have other criterions which are, uh, of intellectul/ esthetical kind and those are used to judge what they hear. Or so I think.****- Nandric ****I however prefer to feel the 'emotion' contained in those grooves....and all the cartridges I rank highly....are capable of projecting those emotions.**** - Halcro Two seemingly different takes on "hearing"; but, with no real disagreement at all. Most importantly, an emphasis on what is (IMO, and as I have been saying for a long time) the audiophile's "last frontier": rhythmic nuance. Rhythmic nuance: emotion: music. The component that gets THAT right is the superior one; IMO. |
I am in complete agreement with Nandric re the subjects of nature vs. nurture and of how we hear; with some qualifications. I think that his use of Chinese Opera as an example of how nurture comes into play is a very good one; and one that I can relate to. Because of what I do for a living I have to (am forced to?) spend time listening to musical styles that would otherwise not interest me. In the case of Chinese Opera, and in spite of the fact that I am an avid opera fan in general, I had always found this music very difficult and, at best, grating to my aesthetic sensibilities. I would periodically have the opportunity to, reluctantly, listen to some of this music, and the only thing that kept me from running out of the room was the simple knowledge that there is value in all ethnic musics and that dislike of any one was usually a reflection of my lack of understanding of the culture. About ten years ago I had the opportunity to spend a few weeks in China. Well, after being immersed in the culture, eating the food food as it is meant to be, learning a little bit about its customs, and most importantly it's language (which has an important connection to the music of all cultures) the music suddenly took on a different meaning. I no longer feel the need to run out of the room. Re the mechanics of "hearing": obviously we all have somewhat individual hearing apparatus. Individual, from the standpoint of having somewhat unique physical characteristics which will necessarily affect things like frequency response perception. But, all of our hearing mechanisms are ESSENTIALLY the same; albeit, with somewhat different sensitivities in specific areas. Most importantly, as concerns how this relates to music listening and audiophilia in general, those differences are irrelevant; assuming a reasonable amount of functionality, of course. And this is why using live music as a reference is so important; and is unfortunate how often it is dismissed. If my hearing has a deficiency (dip) in it's response at around 10k (for example), then that same deficiency will be there wether we are listening to our stereo or to a live performance. It follows then that if we relate what we hear to the live music experience, then those differences become irrelevant. IMO, of course. |
Dear Dean_man, at first I was mystified by your, seemingly, contradictory comments. You seemed to be agreeing with my premise; then, in your second paragraph contradicted it. I realize now that you misinterpreted what I said. Please correct me if not the case. When I said that "those differences become irrelevant", I referred to the differences between the hearing capabilities or sensitivities of various listeners; not, the differences between the sound of our stereos and of live music. My point is simply that the more one relates what we hear from our stereos to the sound of live, the LESS subjective our auditory experiences become. I have said it many times, and IMO it is not a question of better/worse or have to/don't have to: It is fine to keep all of these discussions about the sound of our precious stereos to simply what it is we prefer and like the most. But, as soon as we open that huge can-o-worms by making comments about how this or that is better, is more or less accurate, etc., we have to follow it by asking "compared to what?". The sound of live is the only valid reference. Yes, not all live sound is the same. But, the gulf between the sound of live and that of the best stereos is so huge, and there are so many and important common threads within all the varieties of live sound that it remains the only reference. No, I don't believe it is subjective. Now, being able to express ourselves and describe in a way that others can relate to is another matter altogether. |
As with most descriptions of the sonic attributes of gear, for a description to be meaningful and complete it must relate to the music. While I am sure square wave response is an important consideration when discussing the speed of a cartridge, I suspect that it goes beyond that and that there are other considerations when assessing wether a cartridge is "fast". The reason I say that (and I admit that my technical knowledge pales in comparison to other contributors here) is that I have looked at test graphs of gear that show very good square wave response and still the gear does not allow the music to sound correctly "alive" and with that elusive sense of being a coiled spring ready to pounce at any moment. To me "fast" means more than just good transient response during the initial attack of a note or percussive sound, but also the ability of the cartridge (or any gear) to sustain that energy from point-in-time A to point-in-time B (micro-dynamics) in order to give music it's proper forward impetus and sense of "groove" and excitement; while at the same time unravelling the rhythmic interplay between musicians or rhythmic nuances of a solo performance. I think some do confuse leanness with this ability because some lean cartridges seem to get the leading edge of the note right; but, they can still sound rhythmically flat and uninvolving. As Lewm says "we know it when we hear it". Interesting that this should be the subject being discussed along with the subject of Raul and his absence. The very few times that I have had disagreement with Raul it has been over this very subject. It has been my impression that Raul has a very good sense of the subject of timbre and tonality in gear, but was a little late coming to the party as concerns ability of gear to correctly portray rhythm. After several debates on the subject he did take up the "correct rhythm" banner. One of the few times that I have disagreed with his assessment of a cartridge had to do with this very subject and the ATML170OCC; a cartridge with beautifully correct tonality but that to my ears sounds rhythmically uninvolving. Even his preferred Sumiko Celebration MC exhibits rhythmic politeness to my ears but with beautiful tonality. I think that very generally speaking a large part of the appeal of MM's (for me, anyway) has had to do with their resistance to sound lean and ability to portray a sense of tonal density. Also very broadly speaking, the downside has been their more sedate and rhythmically polite qualities compared to MC's. Of all the MM cartridges that I have purchased directly or indirectly as a result of this thread that does not exibit at least some degree of this rhythmic politeness is the Acutex 420 STR; hence my enthusiasm for it in spite of less than perfect (but still good) tonal qualities. Raul, donde estas? |
I suppose that the best way to answer nandric’s question (’what "should be" should mean’?) would be to quote what I frequently tell my sons: "there are no ’shoulds’ in life". Not every listener wants the same things from recorded sound, and I think that it would be disingenuous for any music listener to claim to be able to entirely suspend his own "likes" when trying to determine and proclaim which technology does a better job, OVERALL, of replicating the sound of music. For me, if there is no agreement that the comparison must be made to live unamplified music then the argument need go no further. Complicating the matter is the tendency to talk about the differences between the two technologies in terms of the "sound" as defined by frequency response related qualities with little consideration for the most important ingredient in music: expression and musicality. "Warmth" and the absence of frequency response related distortions is not musicality. Technology can’t have musicality; humans (musicians) can. The technology can, to varying degrees, convey the expression and musicality of the musicians and this is the area that still separates analog and digital. For me, the idea that analog playback should strive for the sound of digital seems misguided and points to how the focus stays on the "sound" more than the expression in music. Imo, the often cited "warmth" in analog sound as compared to digital has more to do with the more accurate rendition of the human element (expression) than with frequency response related qualities and is the reason so many listeners react so positively to analog in spite of whatever technical "distortions" it may have compared to digital. Only my opinion based on personal experience, but I can offer the perspective of someone who spends several hours each and every day around the sound of live unamplified acoustic instruments playing alone or in ensembles. Imo, and that of the majority of musicians in my professional circle, the differences between the two technologies still point to the superiority of the analog medium in capturing and reproducing the most important aspects of music making: timing, nuance of expression, instrumental blend and harmonic complexity in the tone. In fairness, it would be silly to suggest that digital destroys these aspects of music making since both technologies have gotten so good; but, analog is consistently heard to capture and reproduce a more accurate rendition of what the musicians intended in those regards. So, is a lesser rendition of these performance values not a "distortion" also? For me, that is a distortion of the worst kind; it may not be for another listener. |
nandric, you have a very good memory and I share your frustration with the state of contemporary music and the young. **** We in the West or rather Europe have an ubelievable welth of musical tradition which is in danger by American artificial amplified trash music which kids in the whole world use like fast food. **** Pretty decent English sentence, if you ask me; in more ways than one. Don't be so hard on yourself 🍷 |