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

One tonearm I bought just for looks is a Grace 714, the wooden one. I found a mint one with box and accessory parts. I don't really think it could compete with my two or three best, but I like having it. I also think that with a few tweaks it might indeed come up several notches in performance. (Based only on reputation; I have not heard mine in my system.) The joint between headshell and arm wand could be stiffened easily, and I would like to put outrigger weights at the unipivot to both stabilize the pivot (weights on either side hanging below the pivot point) and to add mass in the horizontal plane. My very positive experience with the Reed 2A has led me to wonder whether wood is the way to go as a material for tonearm wands.
Ughhh! I actually wrote that. Who knew? I guess you did. Are you archiving my wisdom or lack of same? The term is still rather oxymoronic, even if I wrote it first.

While there are good practical theoretical reasons to eschew wood for a tonearm, I admit I like the Reed a lot. And my one audition of the Talea in someone else's system, but one that is very similar to my own, suggests it is also very fine.

When I look at the Grace 714 and then at the new Durand Telos, I see a lot of similarities, except the Telos obviously is a more sophisticated approach that pays attention to azimuth and VTA adjustment, and the Telos is the subject of cult worship. This makes me wonder whether one could squeeze a lot more performance out of the Grace, if one were to tweak it here and there.
But the point is whether shape can spread out or smooth the resonant peak of a homogeneous material. It is easy to see that shape can shift the resonant frequency per se. I suppose it can also spread out the energy so that several adjacent frequencies are excited each to a much lesser extent, and it makes sense that an irregularly shaped object could behave in such a manner, but I wanted to see the math/physics that describes and explains that. But if it's true, then Clearaudio was once on the right track that they have since abandoned in favor of CLD.
Does anyone recall some earlier Clearaudio turntable designs, where the plinth was made of solid acrylic cast in a "curly" shape, something like that of the top of a baby grand piano? They said it was to control resonance, but I was dubious, because in the first place if you use solid acrylic, it's going to resonate at the frequency of that particular mass of acrylic, no matter what the shape, or so my off the cuff thinking told me. I then searched the internet to find out how and if the shape of a solid object, independent of its mass, of homogeneous material content could affect resonance. I really never found a good treatment of that subject.

At any rate, I notice that the most recent Clearaudio turntables use layers of several different materials to effect CLD, but nothing exotic about their shape.
I am quite familiar with the Soundfountain site. It's a nice site but full of one man's opinion and no real science, does not address my simpler question.

Merry Xmas and Happy New Year and thanks the earth did not explode on 12/21. (I had planned to take all my tt's with me, anyway.)
Timel, Where are you located? Indiana? We had snow this morning and then torrential cold rain ever since. Yuk. But my wife and I just went out and had a fabulous French dinner in Georgetown to celebrate our anniversary. Hooray for us.

The pages you cite do not address the issue of shape, except to say that panel thickness of a given material affects resonant frequency, inversely. But the assumption is that the shape is that of a homogeneously flat panel. Shape is what I am interested in.
I would never do a plinth in acrylic. The genesis of my interest in this arcane subject is that Clearaudio once made the claim that their pure acrylic plinth had favorable resonance characteristics (the definition of which could be almost anything any audiophile wants it to be), because of its piano-like shape per se.
And, as I noted, they have since abandoned this selling point entirely in that their most recent generation plinths are in essence rectangular and use materials of several different types in order to achieve CLD. I always wondered whether their earlier claim for their pure acrylic plinth had any merit. It does seem to me that a highly irregular 3D shaped object made of a single pure material might (or might not) ameliorate resonant peaks just due to shape, but I know of no theory that treats this subject.
Dover, Frogman, others. Thanks for your thoughtful and informative remarks about shape. I think it is a given that shape (and mass) affects resonant frequency. Now the question is whether there is some shape for a given homogeneous composition that will have a flatter/broader resonant peak when excited, as compared to some other shape? For example, I can envision that an irregular polygon might do better than a sphere in such a test, because the waves of energy will be more randomly be dissipated as they reach boundaries (in this case, the boundary between the acrylic object and air), for the latter shape vs the former. I just want to know whether Clearaudio's claim for their former acrylic plinths could have any merit.

And no no no no, I never want to build another plinth in this lifetime.

And it's fair to say that the subject is OT. I apologize to anyone who finds it distracting or beside the point. By now, I feel like we are all old friends; we can sit around and shoot the shit about anything related to audio without busting a gasket.
Dear Richard, Your research in the area of plinth design and construction dwarfs my own very limited experiences. It seems that I am doomed to be misunderstood here; I meant no slur on acrylic in my previous post. I only meant to say that it is not acrylic per se that I wonder about but merely what is the effect of shape, assuming a plinth made of any homogeneous material. Since acrylic lends itself to shaping perhaps better than most other commonly used materials (wood, slate, lead, granite, etc), and since Clearaudio in fact used acrylic, the discussion happens to center on the use of acrylic.

As to your other experience, I often wonder whether tapping on the plinth tells us anything at all about its goodness as a plinth. But I have very firmly come to think, like you, that combining two or more materials in layers, so as to affect CLD, is the way to go. I was very happy with my all-slate plinths for a long time until I had a carpenter make me a baltic birch and cherry base for my Mk3 slate plinth. I then affixed the wood base firmly to the bottom of the slate, using 5 or 6 large diameter bolts threaded into inserts that I epoxy'd into the bottom of the slate, after drilling holes for the inserts. I then bolted the Mk3 chassis thru both layers, using very long metric screws (the total plinth is now nearly 6 inches thick). The result is a huge improvement vs slate alone, in terms of total "neutrality" (the holy grail). (Using also Albert's idea of the bolt that engages the bottom of the bearing housing so to transmit vibrational energy to a large brass block mounted below the chassis. Albert uses brass bolt/iron block. I use brass with brass.)

As to what materials sound good, I only know that MDF sucks.
Lawrence, Do you refer to the English pressings? London ffrr LPs that were sold here in the US were not so loved back in the 80s by me and my close audiophile friend. They sounded flat and stale compared to a bona fide English Decca LP. I will have to resurrect some of mine to re-evaluate. (I am not saying you are wrong, just that I have not held them [the US pressings] in such high esteem.)

Nicola, It does not "bother" me that Raul prefers the HZS to the LZS. I wrote this before; I've never heard an HZS, so I have no basis for arguing Raul's position. However, I like my LZS enough not to worry about it. A look at Raul's vs my systems would tell anyone that we have radically different preferences, anyway. (Yet, surprisingly, we do agree on some things, as well.) I own both the 980LZS and the 981LZS. I was not aware there was any difference at all between them except that the 981 was "selected", as you say. But after 30 years, who is to say that the parameters that governed the selection process would still hold up, i.e., a given 980 may now be superior to a given sample of a 981. If there was an "actual" difference between the two, I would be interested to know.
Nandric, I think Halcro is indicating his agreement with Fleib, as regards the idea that both MMs and MCs can have merit, and cartridges should be evaluated on an individual basis, not based on their mechanism of action. I agree with Fleib, too
Typical MC inductance = ~50 microHenries.
Don, I hope you don't think I was saying you were "wrong" in your opinion of the LZS. Your opinion is as valid as mine or anyone else's. However, I would never call my 980 version even slightly, even occasionally, "bright".
Fleib, Are you backing off your description of the LZS as very neutral? "Dull" is not neutral in my view. "Dull" sounds more like what Dave and Raul said.

It may be that my 980LZS is a complementary match with the incredibly lively and driving presentation of my SP10 Mk3. Thus, I hear no "dull"-ness whatever.
Bear in mind that my 980 is a well-used cartridge I purchased off eBay. I have removed the brush assembly, and I use a small elastic band to bind the stylus assembly hard against the cartridge body. This mitigates the shortcomings of the Stanton mounting system to at least some degree. Perhaps this "dull"ness is more a property of the NOS 981LZSs that some of us acquired recently, a sign that break-in is important.
Yeah, I don't hear anything dull about it, or bright, for that matter. Back when Dave mentioned the adjective "dark", I countered with "rich". I do think it has a rich coloration, but I also think that's because it really is excellent at "hearing" all the instrumental and vocal voices on the track; it does not highlight anything in particular. (This is sounding like promotional literature; I don't mean it that way. It's just a very nice cartridge that I am happily living with these days.)
Dear Raul, Of course, no cartridge is "worth" $15K. It amazes me that any are sold at that price, but they are sold, in fact. Why was my post on the Magic Diamond so provocative to you and Nicola? I did not say it was a bad cartridge. I did not say that it was not better than its forebear, the DL103. I only said what I said. It's just a fact that it derives from the DL103. I think the news was greeted with anger at the time, because the maker was not forthright about the source of his product. Just as Lexicon took a lot of criticism in the audio press when it was shown that they did not do much except to re-package an Oppo. But could the Lexicon be superior in sound to the Oppo, perhaps because of a more sturdy chassis, better shielding, more damping, etc.... Yes, it could.
Aaarghhh! My dear Nikola, I am quite fond of you but you refuse to get the point. You are taking, once again, my statement of a simple fact, which is identical to what Raul says, as an opinion. For the last time, I fully agree with Raul; the fact that the MD was derived from the DL103 makes absolutely no difference to its merits or demerits. Moreover, I am not in the least bit offended by this fact in any way. I think I will have to buy a Magic Diamond in order to prove my point to you. (Well, maybe I won't go that far.) OTHERS, not me, in the audio community were at one time offended by this connection, because of the vast price differential between the two. I only reported this fact. Can we guess that the offended individuals are most likely to have been those who shelled out $5000 for the MD? Yes, we can guess that. I am not one of those persons.
I wish one could edit one's posts on Audiogon. I forgot to mention the 4th fact point I wanted to make with Mr. Dover: In my post of January 9, I actually withdrew the assertion that there is any relationship between the two cartridges, based on my interpretation of an old thread that was entirely devoted to the subject.
Dover, I feel like a politician. You quoted me out of context and from a post I wrote two days AFTER I retracted the putative assertion that there was a relationship between the two cartridges. (I say "putative" because I never intended to present the connection as something I personally knew to be a fact.) But I see that you can find something to damn in the way I worded that sentence, which you unfairly did not quote in its entirety. Altho it seems counter-intuitive, I want Nicola as my lawyer to represent me in this matter.
Nandric et al, I own not only a used P8 ES but also a van den Hul version. Have you auditioned the latter in your system? Does it have a hope of competing with the creme de la creme? If not, can Axel make it sing?

I have just had the revelation (after a great restaurant meal, several glasses of a good Pinot followed by vodka, and an evening of live jazz in downtown Washington, DC) that this thread is like the Seinfeld TV show. It's about nothing; yet it's compelling. Happy Birthday to my dear wife.
Dear Raul, Based on Dover's informative post, it would seem that the Karat Nova is that rare beast, a low output MC with rather decent compliance. There is the resemblance to your other (former?) favorite LOMC, the Ortofon 2000. When you first expressed your admiration for the 2000, I had a hunch that it might indeed be good because of its high-ish compliance. Perhaps we should all start beating the bushes for high compliance LOMCs.

I never in my audio life had heard of the existence of the Karat Nova. Shame on me. BTW, the Karat 17D3 is a nice cartridge too, but evidently not in this league.
DV Karat is good; I know it. But I think the current version is "17D3". Before that there was the 17D2, etc. There is also the Karat "23R", with a Ruby cantilever. (R is for Ruby.) I have never heard the latter, but I am an admirer of the former.

But what is a "Karat Nova 13D"? Inquiring minds want to know.
I would like to ask the question of some of our cognoscenti, why is it that by far the majority of LOMC cartridges tend to be low in compliance? Compliance should have a lot to do with moving mass. MM carts tend to have higher moving mass than MCs, yet the former are much higher in compliance, in general. On the other hand, MI carts tend to have lower moving mass than MC carts and frequently do exhibit high compliance. I guess it has something to do with differences in the design of the suspension systems that are used with MCs vs the other two.

I do think it's not coincidental that Raul has found two of his favorite LOMC carts to be relatively high in compliance compared to their brethren of the same type. We should seek out and audition more of such LOMCs.
Dear Raul,
I had totally forgotten that post and the Precept 440 along with it. Good work on your part to quote me.

If I may say so, the fact that you saw and heard a DP100 in Laredo, TX, in whatever year does not mean that they are not scarce in the US and Europe. You were just in the right place at the right time. I used to haunt the high end audio salons of New York City, and I never saw a DP100 (or an Exclusive P3 or a Kenwood L07D or etc) in all that time.
Raul, I did not mean to reproach you for your behavior. You are just being you, the Casanova of phono cartridges. Love 'em and leave 'em. It's cool, and I agree it's fun.

As you know, I don't always love the same ones you love, so that is another factor I have to consider when choosing to follow after you. Mostly, we have disagreed on relative rankings, not on what's very good and what's not.
Clearaudio question:
I wasn't paying much attention during the weeks of Virtuoso adulation. Sorry. I just gritted my teeth, knowing it would pass. So which version was beloved, the wood or the other? I realize an Axel or other "refresh" is de rigeur for max delight. Thx.
Thanks, Raul, for sharing your experience with the MC3000. I certainly did not assume that it would be better than the MC2000, as the seller (2juki) implies. His written description on this item displays a much better command of English than does his usual eBay auction. Perhaps he had someone else do the writing.
Dear Raul,
Saw an Ortofon MC3000 for sale on eBay. It is said to be an "improvement" on the MC2000, because it has slightly higher output and lower compliance (but still, higher compliance than most very LOMCs). The asking price is sufficiently high that this would be no casual purchase. Have you heard it? Thx.
Dear Raul,
It does seem that in "the modern era", cartridge output is more often given at the stylus velocity of 5cm/sec, as opposed to 3.54cm/sec. Worse yet, many manufacturers do not tell the reference velocity at all. I think they want you to assume that they measured at 3.54, when actually it is now "kosher" to measure at 5.0. Makes the cartridge appear to have a higher output.

I have seen arguments about whether the Koetsu makes 4 or 6mV output. I think the argument is really about 3.54cm/sec vs 5cm/sec.
That's the thing with mats. There are schools of thought, just as for drive systems, etc. Some like to elevate the LP away from the platter, a la the old Transcriptors tt. Some like to use a mat that approximates the characteristics of a vinyl LP. Some like big heavy metal mats. And some like something that is none of those 3. But elevating the LP using multiple small contact points that hold the LP away from the platter must surely give a profoundly different sound compared to any of the other options. I used to own a Transcriptors, but I cannot recall its sonic character.
Acman, The main reason why I bought the Mat2 was its weight; it is more nearly the same weight as the original rubber mat used on the SP10 Mk3, and I wanted to be sure not to compromise the servo feedback system on the Mk3. However, now that I have it, I do think it may be more neutral than is the Mat1, which I had been using regularly on the Lenco. The Mat1 is a huge upgrade from the stock Lenco mat. But then, I never have tried the Mat2 on the Lenco. Horses for courses, I think.

I confess that I too succumbed and bought a Precept 220XE and a 550ML stylus. Now I will have to have a listen for sure.
Dear Sarcher,
Have you tried listening to the SP10 Mk2A in the GTO? What year is that, 64, 65, or 66? I don't think it's a 64.

Yes, I like your system, too, and the fact that the ANV works well with it would suggest it will work well in mine.
I recall riding in a 64, the first year, and the almost unbelievable effortlessness of the acceleration. I tend to like the 64-65 for their smaller size and possibly lower weight.

Some time in the foreseeable future I will be visiting my son in Tokyo, may pick up an ANV at that time.
I'll still wait to hear from some of you who can compare the ANV to the other flavors of the month, before spending $1200. I've got the Precept 220XE/550ML in-house for much less money.
Dear Nicola and Timeltel,
Please lighten up on Raul for using the word "crap" with respect to any cartridge or headamp or SUT. Don't you realize what that means? That means that none of us has to buy it. Do you know what a (financial) relief that is?
Dear Raul,
Carry on with your harsh judgements.

Kidding around, as usual.
Kant! Oy!
Dover, Have you, or has anyone here, ever heard the Pioneer Exclusive line of amplifiers? I was for a long time especially tempted by their model 5A (I think it was) which affords balanced operation. Hifido occasionally has a pair to sell but for rather big bucks. The thing one has to keep in mind is that any and all such vintage amplifiers (and preamplifiers) are just as much in need of servicing, to include replacement of electrolytic capacitors, as is any vintage direct-drive turntable. Maybe even moreso. It would be unfair to judge their performance without careful attention to functionality of their separate components. Further, there are better transistors available these days, which accounts also for the relative parity between solid state and tubes, these days. Although I hasten to add that I still prefer (my) tubes.
Raul, I particularly am interested in the Luxman tube gear. They made an OTL that looks very interesting, among many other efforts of theirs from the 70s. I still own a (solid state) Luxman T110 tuner that I bought new in the 70s. It is not quite as nice sounding as my old Marantz 10B once was, but very good nevertheless. The T110 has very low THD, very good selectivity and sensitivity.
Raul, Believe me, I am amazed at the amount of listening and judging that you are able to do. My own "listening day" is about 2 hours long, if I am very lucky, except sometimes on weekends. During the week nights, my wife is usually wanting to get some sleep just when I am revving up for some high power listening (typically around 10:30; I am a night owl). Since the listening room is right under our bedroom, this is a problem. I am even thinking of moving the system to our basement, or perhaps setting up a second system in the basement. (The Beveridge 2SWs are sitting there, and if only Bill Thalmann would work on their direct-drive amplifiers, I would have a basement system.)
Dear Nandric, Sixteen orgasms in a row is not poetry, but you do need a license for it.

Dear Raul et al, You may recall my dire prediction that Raul would prefer the original 440 to the 550, after many of us had rushed to buy the few remaining 550s. I am gratified to learn that the 550 is in fact up to snuff and even beyond the original 440. OK, so there is one other that may be superior; I can live with that. There only so many orgasms left in me.
"16 orgasms in a row"!!! You could have stopped there. But it might kill me.
Pinging Dave Garretson or anyone who has had a cartridge rebuild by SS.
I saw a post on VA tonight where a guy reports that the required VTF for his FR cartridge, after rebuild by SS with the OC-CL stylus installed, was way different (nearly 2X) from the originally recommended VTF. I wonder whether Dave had the same experience with his Grace Ruby.

Or has anyone else noticed a similar phenomenon after a rebuild by Axel or anyone else?
Thanks, Fleib. Had forgotten about the Dynavectors. The Karat Ruby is a very nice cartridge in fact. And I believe the 23R was a flavor of one week of this thread or one of those old unobtainium Dynavectors was at any rate.

You're thinking of a "field coil" type cartridge. Way cool idea. I think it was done once or twice.

Nandric, From Rubens to Kate Upton is not such a leap in terms of shape.
I saw a piece on TV the other day about Liz Taylor's jewelry collection. It may have been on display locally or up for auction or something. She had some of the biggest sapphires in the world. (OK, no cracks; I'm hip.) Imagine how many cantilevers could be made from those.

Nandric, Along the lines of the above double entendre, what I had in mind in comparing Kate to the ideal female as envisioned by Rubens is that Kate is a taller slightly slimmer version of the latter ideal. But the general theme is consistent. Whereas in recent decades the ideal for female beauty has/had been drifting toward skinny, in a rather off-putting way, IMO.
FYI, I think the most expensive re-tip from Peter is $350, for the ruby cantilever and selected line contour stylus. For $250, you can have ruby and LC, too. I am not exactly clear why one LC stylus is $100 more than the other. Peter has my second of two Grace Ruby's for the full-house upgrade. (This one had no cantilever when I bought it, so something had to be done. I felt that putting a Ruby cantilever on the Grace Ruby was an imperative. LC should be an upgrade over the already great elliptical version I use. Dave G has had the same work done to his Grace and is very happy.)
If that is so, we can move our whole discussion to the aforementioned website. (I am not taking any chances; Big Brother is listening.)

I am reading a novel about life in Russia under Stalin, so this is timely, not to mention Timeltel. Comrades, we must stick together.
Timel, Don't go away! Your post is so cryptic that you need to stay and explain it. I don't know why your posts are delayed, if that is the case. Mine are all too distressingly immediate.

When you guys discuss the sound of an AT20SS, are you talking about a complete cartridge or one of the lesser body types with the 20SS stylus assembly mounted on it, or does it make a difference? Can I expect my bastardized AT20SS to sound as good as a completely "20SS" cartridge? (I've got an NOS 20SS stylus and a well used AT15Sa or AT12Sa body.)
One hour of Wagner would do it for me. Also, 15 minutes of Rap. I am weaker.
Dear Raul, I was reading above your remarks about the B&O MMC1 and 2. I own an MMC1. I am deep in thought about ways in which to strengthen its structure, especially when used in a conventional headshell. I think we are only able retrieve 60% to 80% of what those cartridges (and the MMC20CL) could really do, were it not for the contraptions used to mount them in a headshell. Too many connectors, too little rigidity. Do you have any ideas?
Henry, Sad to say, you've got it wrong. Anonymous censorship without explanation or notification (or other consequences) is now as American as apple pie. It's also emblematic of the computer age in which we live.