Fleib, I and Dave Garretson both own Atma-sphere MP1 preamplifiers. He and I have modified the phono gain stage, which uses a dual-differential cascode topology, such that the "bottom" element in the cascode is a dual-section bipolar transistor, an MAT02. I got this idea from Allen Wright and passed it on to Dave. I also changed the top tube in this stage; Atma-sphere uses 12AT7, and I use an ECC99 because it is higher in transconductance than a 12AT7. The result of this mod is dead silent gain and oodles of gain for even the lowest gain imaginable MC cartridge. In fact, my only problem with this set-up is too much gain for any MM. I've had to build a separate MM dedicated phono stage. Dave's purchased an XP25, I guess, but I don't know whether it totally replaces his MP1. Ralph Karsten would probably be very upset with you for referring to the MP1 as a "preamplifier with an added phono section" (or whatever similar description you wrote above). The MP1 is his pride and joy for its performance on phono, and rightfully so, IMO.
If Raul can "confess" that MCs are superior to MMs, may I also confess that I don't agree with him? I still take cartridges as they come, MC or MM. And does my confession have as much of a shattering effect as his?
I always wondered whether Raul's original tendency to favor MMs over MCs was at least in part due to some failing of the high-gain input of his own Phonolinepreamp. Perhaps he late in the thread made some changes that brought its performance up to that of the MM section. Some supporting evidence for that is his other "revelation", that SUTs, against which he railed for years, were really good in fact, and we should all love them. I guessed that perhaps running a SUT though his MM phono stage sounded better than his flawed MC high gain stage. And suddenly, MCs could sound good. |
Fleib, You wrote, "maybe any tube on the input would have far too much capacitance for a MM anyway". Can you amplify (no pun intended) on that statement? Sure, tubes present a capacitive input because of the Miller effect, but since the beginning of analog time, some of the greatest (and in my opinion, most of the greatest) MM stages use tubes in their RIAA phono section. If one knows what the input capacitance will be, one can design around that parameter to make the tube work with MM cartridges. But in fact, one of the virtues of a cascode, as used in the MP1, is the cancellation of the Miller effect. Transistors have input capacitance too, by the way, and it's more problematic for the designer but for reasons I no longer recall. So, in sum, Ralph's preamp in stock form will not have an issue with capacitance, because the input voltage amplifier stage is a cascode. But you're right, it is designed with medium output MCs in mind. (Around 0.4 to 0.6mV, I think.) Mine now has much more gain than stock. Wish I could find an Ortofon MC2000.
My MM phono is a much modified Silvaweld SWH550. I made no changes to the power supply, which is tube-rectified and choke-loaded and tube-regulated, out of the box. I made changes in the RIAA section but only to maximize the sonics, not to change the RIAA filters. I also own a Klyne 6LX/P. Stan Klyne upgraded the phono section in it, but not to his highest spec. At this point, I would say that the Silvaweld has an edge over the Klyne for MM cartridges. The Klyne is serving as linestage for the Silvaweld on MMs.
Nandric, I modified my MP1 about 5 years ago, have not tinkered with it since. In fact, I have reached where I want to be in audio; I am very happy with what I have and don't want anything more or "better". I just want more time to listen. |
Fleib, Your revelations re-enforce my belief in subjective judgement.
I have an issue for the group: About 6 months ago, I had a Grace Ruby re-tipped by SS using their top of the line LC stylus/ruby cantilever. I only started to audition it about a month or two ago. Initially, my impression was that it lacked some of the endearing qualities of my other Grace Ruby sample, which still bears its original elliptical stylus. At that stage, the Grace LC seemed to "highlight" treble detail a bit excessively, whereas the original Ruby has excellent tonal balance. But the initial listening to the Ruby LC was otherwise promising, in that I figured the very slight tendency to sound shrill would abate with further break-in. Sadly, that has not been the case; it's gotten much worse, to the point where I wondered whether something else in my system might be to blame for "the problem". So, two days ago, I replaced the Ruby LC with my Acutex LPM320, the sound of which I know quite well. The Acutex sounds wonderful in the same system, better than the Ruby LC in every way. This is all done in a Dynavector DV505 tonearm with DV headshell, which I fully admit might be too high in mass for the Grace, but it does not seem too high in mass for the Acutex. I am wondering whether the Grace just needs further break-in (it has about 20-30 hours on it), or the tonearm is a mismatch for the SS LC compliance, or the VTF is not good for the modified Grace. (I am running both cartridges at 1.6gm.)
Any thoughts or comments are appreciated. Has anyone else had any experience with the SS Ruby LC re-tip? This is in no way to cast any aspersions on SS. We need them. Most people gush over their re-tips, as well. If you're wondering, it is my best recollection that SS recommended VTF = 1.5gm for this cantilever/stylus. I do mean to check that to be sure.
As to the contretemps between Nandric and Fleib, don't fight guys. IMO it is impossible to "prove" by empiric argument that MC is better than MM or vice-versa. |
Dear Nandric, This particular Grace Ruby I bought from someone on eBay for a low price. The price was low, because it was completely lacking ANY cantilever, and of course therefore it lacked any stylus. By inspection, it appeared as if someone had taken a tweezers and simply yanked the cantilever out of the red carrier that inserts into the main body of the cartridge. However, the cartridge body itself was in brand new condition, as was the red removable assembly. It seemed as if this vandalism was performed neatly and before the cartridge had ever been used. I can only wonder whether the virtues of the Grace elliptical cartridges (the Ruby, the F9E) hinge upon the use of an elliptical stylus. So far, I cannot recommend an LC stylus for this guy.
Fleib, can you think of a reason for my finding, i.e., do the electrical characteristics of a particular MM determine in any way its particular suitability for stylus shape? We do know that the cartridges made for quadraphonic tend to use Shibata or closely related stylus shapes. Perhaps it was a bad idea in the first place to put an LC stylus onto an "elliptical" cartridge. |
FWIW, I did play with VTA/SRA, to no obvious avail. There were slight differences but no real "cure" to the problem.
The sound quality is a bit reminiscent of what happens with low VTF. So it might be worthwhile to try raising up to 2.0g. |
Dear Storyboy, Which two did you have in mind?
Dear Nandric, Perhaps you don't understand what was done to my second of two Grace Ruby's. I bought it off eBay with NO stylus and NO cantilever. It was in "like new" condition otherwise, and I actually wonder whether it was so mortally damaged by its first purchaser. The cartridge body looks NOS, and the carrier device that plugs into the cartridge (with the red plastic shades) also looked like new; the rubberized sleeve that accepts the cantilever was still intact. SS replaced the cantilever and stylus using my original stylus carrier. Also, please forgive me if I don't remember your last lecture on my problem; feel free to repeat yourself. Did it have to do with the string, of which you are so fond?
I am still working full time, so I fully admit that I am slow in dealing with audio problems such as this. When free time does become available, I always seem to choose to listen, rather than to fiddle with malfunctioning devices. On the other hand, and in my defense, I have in essence rebuilt my own OTL amplifiers and preamplifier, repaired those difficult Beveridge amplifiers, made some very effective upgrades to a Silvaweld phono stage, etc, in the last two years. In addition, I am restoring an old Alfa Romeo. I am a little more productive with my hobbies during winter. I just got back from a meeting in Brazil, where I acquired some interesting LPs at an outdoor market. |
I first got interested in MM cartridges several months BEFORE I ever saw this thread. I was at the nearby home of a friend who posts once in a while on VA. He was running a Pickering MM, I think the TL4S (does that make sense?) on his Lenco. I went there to hear the Lenco for the first time, and I was just blown away by the quality of his phono reproduction chain, which must suggest that the Pickering was very good. It was then available on eBay for only about $45. At the time, I thought it was ridiculous to think a $45 cartridge could produce such musical accuracy, so I refrained from making the purchase. Like everyone else, I then harbored a bias in favor of MC and based on the idea that cost correlated with quality. So, when I then encountered this thread, I was primed to re-examine my prejudices. Yet, no one, not even Raul, has ever mentioned this particular Pickering. To look at it, you might conclude that it is cheap, plastic, junk. But listen to it, if you can find one these days. Other than anomalies like that, I think Raul (and many others who don't get credit) covered the gamut of vintage MM and MI cartridges over the course of these ~11,500 postings. In the end, didn't Raul "betray" us all,when he ended up declaring first that he liked SUTs (against which he consistently railed for several years) and finally that he preferred MC cartridges after all?
Here is what I think happened over time: I think there was some longstanding problem with the high gain phono section of his Phonolinepreamp that caused him to prefer the sound via the low gain phono section and thus to prefer MM cartridges. (His preamp has two discrete phono circuits, one for low output MC and one for high output MM.) Toward the end, I think he "fixed" the sonic problem with his high gain phono section and thus came to an epiphany regarding MC cartridges. In other words, it was all sound and fury signifying nothing but Raul's own personal Odyssey.
For Nandric's sake, I will now mention "Newton". He was a great guy.
Dear Geoffkait, I have no interest, and never had any interest, in latter day Alfa Romeo's. Collectible vintage cars are all that interest me, up to about 1965. The post WW2 Alfa's up to around 1962 still reflected the racing heritage and the pre-eminence of Alfa Romeo as it was prior to WW2, in both design genius and appearance. The late 50s Alfa Romeo's were way ahead of Porsches of that era in terms of engine and braking, and I can say this with authority, since I owned about 30 pre-1965 Porsches in my lifetime, up to and including a 550RS Spyder. Of course, I could shoot myself for ever selling the Spyder, but that is another story. |
Fleib, As noted, I was running my re-tipped Ruby into a 100K load (not 47K) with no added capacitance (meaning capacitance due to cable and Miller effect is probably in the 100 to 150pF range). Also as noted previously, I did try both raising and lower the tonearm. Actually, to my surprise, these maneuvers had only subtle effects on the problem I perceived. The OEM Grace Ruby that I also own sounds wonderful under these same conditions. I need to consult with Peter Ledermann; perhaps he will want to have the OCL-tipped Ruby go back to him for a check-up, or perhaps he will be able to tell me that I need to use a different load R and C. Another parameter to consider is headshell mass; maybe I need a lighter mass headshell.
The caveat about changing VTA is that the cartridge is mounted in a DV505 tonearm. Thus, when one raises or lowers the arm with respect to "level", the vertical portion of the tonearm creates an angle with the horizontally pivoting part. In their instruction manual DV intimates that this is not a good idea as far as tonearm geometry; I am not really sure why, and I wonder why they warn against essentially doing what it takes to maximize VTA. The English translation of the original is not helpful on this issue. However, I can imagine that Euclid might know why not to do it. |
While I would be really pissed off if anyone deleted this thread, I am not sure that all 235 pages would be recommended reading for a novice, which Abrew19 may be, if he is 19 years old. To get the most out of most of these posts, it's best to have a little knowledge and a lot of experience, so as to have developed a "point of view". The central theme for me is that every one of these cartridges that you guys are still discussing was once recommended by Raul, for at least a week until his attention was diverted to some other cartridge. (Well, maybe he never got to the JVCs.) Don mentions his impulse to discard his very expensive MCs. Meanwhile, I was lucky enough to acquire an Ortofon MC2000 (Raul's favorite MC) from one of our brethren, and it is a gem that I would not discard. I probably mentioned this above. I've got to compare it to my more modern MCs to determine whether I can agree with Raul. The key to MC2000 excellence may lie in its relatively high compliance, which allows it to track piano and other percussive instruments in a manner that seems superior to that of the typical low compliance MC. Piano sounds like a real piano, not like a kid's toy piano or a cheap electric keyboard. |
Seems I started another brouhaha. I am the gringo version of Raul.
Don, Forgive my pedantry, but the cartridge "drives" the SUT, not vice-versa. In any case, my Atma-sphere MP1 phono section has more than enough gain and input sensitivity that my system is driven to ear-shattering sound pressure levels by the MC2000 with no SUT in the signal path, which is why I was able to load it at 47K, at first accidentally and now deliberately. However, I do admit that at extremely high volume the noise floor becomes just barely audible. At that point, my volume control is at about 10 o'clock, only. I have yet to own any SUT in my audio life. In the old days, I had a Counterpoint SA2 "pre-preamplifier" which supplied gain between cartridge and phono stage, as an active device, in lieu of a SUT.
One of the cartridge brands that Raul mentioned I think only in his long opening rant and then only now and then after that was AKG. As a result, I've got 2 or 3 of the various top end models, not all of which have 2 good channels. But what do we think about those, these days (P8E, P8E w vandenHul stylus, etc)? Was going through my cartridge drawer last night and came across these.
Also, apart form the apparently unobtainable MF2500, what is the preferred Astatic, MF100, 200, or 300? I want to hunt down one of those.
Thanks. |
Can't no one say nothin' about Astatic for my benefit.
Abrew19, The secret of most of us is that we don't have to read these 235 pages of posts, because most of us were on the thread from the beginning and read the posts at a leisurely pace as they accumulated during the past few years. We've got a "feel" for the contents, but the details do fade over time. Glad you've got a job, though. And glad you have no objection to this geezer cracker-barrel discussion of old things. |
Dear Raul,
I have no idea whether the Glanz mf31L and Astatic MF200 are brothers from another mother, or not. But one could take the specifications you quote for each as a way of proving they are not the same and turn the data around to use as evidence that they are or may be the same. None of the numbers you mention are likely to be statistically significantly different from one to the other, could all be due to sample to sample variation, especially the difference in inductance, which by another way of looking at it is not different. Anyway, this is not so important; even if any two cartridges do start out "the same" in design concept, they could still end up sounding quite different, as you say also.
As a bystander in the discussion of Glanz vs Astatic, because I own no examples of either brand, can someone remind me which of the Astatic MF series was finally judged to be the best, after the MF2500? Was it the MF100 or MF200? I gather that the MF300 is a pretender.
In a completely unrelated question, I was recently going through my stash and came upon an NOS Stanton CS100, still in its presentation case. I am a big fan of the 981LZS, but I had come to believe that the CS100 was not so beloved on this thread. Can someone enlighten me? Otherwise, it's a candidate for re-sale, in order to raise funds for the purchase of a mono cartridge.
|
Chakster, In fairness to Raul, he was comparing the MF100 to the MF200, to answer my specific question. He is not saying that either is superior to the MF2500.
Raul, Can you clarify what you say about the two Stantons. I know you do not share my fondness for the 981LZS, but I cannot be sure here whether you are saying that the CS100 tops the 981LZS or that there are "other" cartridges that top the 981LZS. My admiration for it remains undiminished. However, I would not venture to claim it is "the best".
|
Raul, Thank you for your response.
Chakster, I gather you at least prefer the CS100 to the Shure V15 Type whatever. That still leaves some wiggle room for the CS100 to be bested by many others, such as the Glanz/Astatics. I never thought much of the V15, even when it was au courant back in the 60s. Nevertheless it may behoove me to take the CS100 out of its luxurious case and listen to it. I've also got an NOS Stanton 881S Mk II, which I figure would not be quite as good as the 981LZS.
|
Apropos of nothing, I spent today listening to the Ortofon MC2000 on my Kenwood L07D directly driving my modified Atma-sphere MP1, which has plenty of gain for it with no need for a SUT. Wow, what a great cartridge! Of all the tips I ever took from Raul, this is surely numero uno. Detail and musicality all rolled into one lovely device. Muchas gracias, mi amigo. I would never have guessed it was so noteworthy without Raul's mentioning it here.
|
Hi guys, I am trying to figure out what is the current controversy in which Raul and others are embroiled, so I can post my own equally subjective opinion. Since I am not exactly sure about the argument (using this term in a legal way and not to demean it), I will say all of my relevant opinions:
(1) The idea of any benefit from aging silver wire or, as I think Kondo-san put it, just plain "silver", is ludicrous to me, since all silver available to us was probably created along with the earth itself, several billion years ago, unless Kondo-san had secretly mastered the art of alchemy. However, one could make a case, because there is no way to obtain contrary evidence, that aging of silver wire (silver, once it has been drawn into wire shape) is beneficial to the "sound" of the wire for some unknowable reason. I don't buy that, either, but I have no factual way to deny it. Beyond this, there is the very real claim of some DIYers that old transformers, obtainable by parting out high quality vintage amplifiers, like Acrosound, Marantz, etc, do sound superior to newly wound transformers, when used as output devices. None of these are wound with silver wire, however.
(2) The supposed superiority of vintage electronics. If you define "vintage" as Dynaco, McIntosh, Marantz, Harman Kardon, I don't subscribe to it. First, you've got to replace all the electrolytics before you even fire it up, which arguably changes the sound from what it was back in the good old days. And the good old days were not that good, compared to the modern era where the passive parts available to us and the solid state devices are far superior to even 20 years ago, albeit we're still using the same tubes. Fifty years ago, no one used teflon or polystyrene film capacitors we have today, for just one item. Still, a few things do stand up to time: Quad speakers, my Beveridge speakers, KLH ESLs (my bias is showing, I know), and probably many of the finest electromagnetic driver-based speakers of yore, such as Altec, JB Lansing, etc. Vintage cartridges can still be wonderful and do challenge modern ones for greatness, I believe. Turntables too. Electronics, not so much.
(3) I do think there is a "difference" between the sonic effects of wires coiled in a transducer (cartridge) or transformer or inductor vs wires used to connect parts within a circuit or to connect the circuit to input and output devices. I think coiled wire has less impact but is still audible; I base this on the reports of others who use ZYX cartridges in which one has a choice of copper vs silver coils and on SUTs I have heard from the same maker that are wound with either copper or silver. The consensus with which I agree is that silver is not always the better sounding choice but that the metals are distinguishable, nevertheless. (Copper ZYX cartridges are preferred by a vast majority of the cognoscenti; silver SUTs were preferred in the one instance where I was present at the audition of copper vs silver SUTs from the same maker.)
|
Dover, For once, we don't really disagree. I did not mean to infer that I don't "hear" differences among wires; I do. I was only pointing out that there is also evidence that the nature of the coiled wires in a transducer can make an audible difference, based on the ZYX cartridge example and perhaps on the Kondo silver transformer example, if the Audio Note worshipers are to be believed. This is in a way counter-intuitive. I agree that the excellence of vintage (output) transformers could well be due to the superior "art" put into them, as compared to what is being made today for tube audio. And finally, in poo-poo-ing vintage electronics, I thought later that I should have excepted the Marantz 7 when properly re-furbished and perhaps also modified and also the HK Citation amplifiers, by the way; those latter Citation output transformers may be some of the best ever made anywhere. The Marantz 8B and 9 amplifiers probably have superb output transformers and could be made to sound great with some modern parts. (All these devices typically use the 12AU7 tube of which I am not fond. However, there are a few excellent replacements with near identical electrical characteristics that could be used if one were to do a little work on the chassis' or wiring, the 6CG7 and the 6SN7 octal.)
|
Florence, What is your source of information that says the F14 is a "major improvement" over the F9, and which version of the F9?
The F9 Ruby is a damn fine cartridge by any standard. If the F14 is really superior, I would want to know about it.
So far as I can find out, F14 is a late production F9, or is an export version of F9, or is a stylus assembly that Grace is currently producing that can be retro-fitted to F9 bodies. The internet is neither a consistent nor probably a reliable source.
|
Ditto for me regarding the M20FL. I own none of the cartridges otherwise preferred by Halcro, but in my system I prefer the Grace Ruby, either OEM or re-tipped by Sound Smith (I have one of each), the Acutex LPM320, and the Stanton 980LZS. |
If you have a Grace F9E or Ruby in need of a re-tip, I highly recommend the Sound Smith upgrades, either the LC stylus on ruby cantilever or OCL stylus on ruby cantilever for a little more money. I got the latter re-tip on my Grace Ruby, and I daresay that after about 30-40 hours of playing time, this combo is certainly one of the best I have ever heard in my system, if not THE best. I was a big fan of the Ruby with OEM stylus, but the SS mod makes it better for sure.
|
I've just read the last few months' worth of posts. As noted by Fleib, I think, I am one of those who found that my 980LZS sounded best loaded at at least 1000R and above. It sounded really dull at 100R. Do not judge it at that load resistance; I think it's even better at 47K than at 1000R, but not by much. I own both an NOS CS100 and an NOS 881S mk2, but I have never even taken either one out of OEM packaging, so I cannot say much about comparing the CS100 to the 980LZS. Alas, my 980LZS seems to have seen its better days, but I do own a second and NOS one (981LZS, actually) with which I can replace it. Right now, I went back to my Koetsu Urushi, which I had not heard in a few years since Raul put me on to these MM/MI types.
On the subject of loading MM cartridges at 100K, I have been doing that routinely for years. Thus I cannot say that ALL MMs sound better at that load vs 47K, but I am of the opinion that one can always add load capacitance to compensate for load R, up to a point. The only case where I did make a careful comparison was with my Grado TLZ, which definitely sounded best at 100K vs 47K, capacitance being equal and "low" (<150pF) in both cases. I was interested to read here that 100K is recommended for the Grace; I have been lately listening to my Ruby at 47K. Need to try that.
By the way, to obtain a 100K load on your phono stage, you need to understand the input circuit, locate the standard 47K load resistor, de-solder it, and then solder in a high quality 100K resistor to replace it. Because you ain't gonna find a commercial product that comes with 100K loading option. (Except maybe Raul's????)
I don't see how a Shure MM would be bothered much by "low impedance" phono cable. Are you sure you don't mean to say "low capacitance"? Because capacitance of the cable certainly can and does affect any MM. Furthermore, most phono cable makers like to let you know when they have achieved a low capacitance per foot of cable.
|
Thanks for the info on the ZYX. I was not even aware such a product existed these days. Neither the so-called "review" by Arthur Salvatore, nor the blurb on the Sorasound website say what is the value of the input resistance on the ZYX. If it's set at 100R, you might consider changing that resistor to 1000R, which I admit is a lot of trouble to go to for just one cartridge. But if it IS 100R, then you probably should not judge the 980LZS, especially if your reservations include the fact that it sounds relatively rolled-off and "dark", which is the effect of the 100R load, to my ears, in my system.
The stuff about using copper wire to build the resistor, mentioned by Sorasound, sounds to me like hype. It would take a huge coil to achieve 100 ohms of resistance, if made of copper. But I suppose it's possible. |
I went to the ZYX website, finally, to get more information. There they do say that the load R = 100 ohms. But I am confused a bit more, because on the ZYX website they give a spec for accuracy of the RIAA correction, which per se does not make sense unless the CPP-1 is a hi-gain phono stage. I had conceived that it was an external gain stage, adding 26db of gain, according to ZYX. Thus it should contain no RIAA filtering. I guess what they mean by that spec for RIAA is that the CPP itself is linear within the margins noted, so that it will not upset the RIAA correction applied downstream by the phono stage to which the CPP is to be connected.
|
Chakster, For a load resistor, I would choose the nude Vishay (best and cost the most), then the Audio Note tantalum type, then the Caddock TF020 (which can be purchased from M Percy and cost the least). The differences among them are small, but the nude Vishay is sublime for sure. Sitting here, I cannot recall the part number for the Vishays ("TX2---" is the closest I can come, where the last 3 digits are represented by dashes). Dave Garretson can help with both a part number and a source.
When it was really singing, the TLZ was among the best cartridges I have owned. I still have my original sample, purchased back in the late 70s or early 80s, and it seems to have suffered from the ravages of time in storage, more so than any of these other vintage cartridges we have been going ga-ga over.
While I don't dispute your comparative judgement of the 980LZS vs the CS100, I would urge you not to finalize your opinion unless or until you have auditioned the 980LZS running into at least a 1000R load, or higher in value. Furthermore, I am not sure what you meant above as regards your phono gain options, but by all means don't use a SUT with the 980LZS. If you used a pre-preamp which merely adds an active gain stage in front of the phono corrector, then you need to consider what that added device might be doing to the sound, for good or ill.
Nandric, You need not worry that I am spending too much time soldering. I have one phono stage that I have modified for 100K load on MM cartridges. The other two that are in heavy use are still running 47K. I added a switch for loading my Atma MP1 so that I can choose 47K, 1000R, or 100R. Since I use the MP1 only with very LOMC cartridges, I am never wanting 100K loading on that device. But as I have noted probably too many times, 47K is often my favorite on even those LOMCs, e.g., the Ortofon MC2000 and the Ortofon MC7500. |
Nope. I was looking at the spec sheet for the CPP-1. However, I agree that the CPP-1 does not contain an RIAA correction filter. 125R would be little different from 100R when it comes to loading a phono cartridge. Specifically, I would expect that the 980LZS would not sound its best with either load. Another question: When you use the CPP-1, do you run it into an MM phono circuit, set up with a 47K load? (That's no problem; they could easily design the CPP-1 to drive that 47K load; I am just curious.) Thanks. |
Dear Chakster,
I once looked into how those phono stages work that are said to automatically adjust the cartridge load impedance, but I have now forgotten how it is done. However, the question now is whether the WLM, given the design of its input stage, reacts to seeing the output of the CPP-1 as its "load". You might want to ask the Phonata technical advisors about that. You are apparently satisfied, anyway, and that's what counts. |
Chakster, I am going ga-ga over my SoundSmith re-tipped Grace Ruby, with OCL stylus. At first it was rather clinical sounding, almost edgy, but after about 20 hours, it seems to have undergone a sea change. Competes with anything else I own. And I have yet to change the load resistor from 47K to 100K.
Raul, By the same token, I have been listening lately to your Ortofon MC7500, another really fine cartridge. I run it at 47K load, contrary to popular custom. With this load (or lack of a load), the MC7500 is very wide open sounding, presents a soundstage that goes outside the edges of my speakers and up fills the room. So far, I have not found an MC that does not sound excellent at 47K, slightly better, in fact, than at more typical load resistances. If you have sufficient inherent gain in your phono stage to obviate the need for a SUT, I urge anyone to try it.
As to the "Victor" vs "JVC" discussion. I have to hold with those who say the JVC designation is/was always seen in the USA for these products. Never Victor. I always thought of the Victor name in association with their products that were not exported from Japan but may also turn up elsewhere in Asia. For example, my Victor TT101 turntable. Most were made to run on 100V, as per the Eastern half of Japan. I have not seen a TT101 under the JVC label, but I would not be surprised if those also exist.
|
I am not at all saying that everyone else should do as I do, by the way. Just reporting a surprising observation. |
Sampsa, Thanks for the correction. I was under the impression that both current and voltage were different, East vs West, in Japan. |
Raul, Why an MC cartridge is not so sensitive to load resistance has to do with the fact that its resonant frequency is very very high, way outside the audio bandwidth, largely because its inductance is about 1000X lower than that of a typical MM cartridge. Why many persons find that loading down an MC cartridge makes the sound more pleasing has to do with the design of the phono stage, not with the cartridge. So, when you load a LOMC at 100 ohms, you are really loading the phono input. The fact that my phono sounds good with 47K loading the input from an LOMC is an indicator of its stability. Actually, in my case, there is very little difference, certainly no difference in tonal balance, between a typical load of 100R and 47K. I just prefer 47K for the very slight improvement in open-ness of the sound. Actually, more than once I have been fooled after changing cartridges and forgetting how I had set the R on my phono inputs. (I set my phono up so that I can switch among 100R, 1000R, and 47K loads.) This is how I came to find that I liked 47K loading the Ortofon MC2000. |
Chakster, Just so you know that life is not so simple, MM cartridges respond to load capacitance as well as to load resistance. Sometimes you can can compensate for the lack of one by using more of the other. Anyway, I don't recall where I picked up this tidbit of information, maybe on Vinyl Engine, but as I recall, the Grace cartridges like a low-ish resistance (47K or a little lower, not 100K) and a high-ish capacitance, maybe as much as 400pF. Most phono stages of routine construction will per se have about 100pF to 150pF of input capacitance due to the C of the interconnect and the Miller capacitance of the tube, if the phono stage is a tube type. Solid state phono stages will also have an inherent input capacitance but generally lower than that of a typical 12AX7 based phono. So, if you like the Grace at 100K, maybe you are compensating for C by adding a little R. |
Dear Chakster, Do you mean to say that the JLTi has an inherent input capacitance equal to zero? Even if it's solid state, I doubt that that is the case, but perhaps if it uses a differential cascode input topology, the capacitance can be very very low. Allen Wright liked that topology, so maybe that's what you've got there, because in a cascode the bottom device, which is driven, is shielded from the top device which outputs the amplified signal to the rest of the circuit. You can measure the capacitance of your cable if you have a very high quality VOM with a capacitance mode or if you have a dedicated capacitance meter. I have both, but I would recommend that you consult with the manufacturer of the cable to get a number. Also, the longer the cable, the higher will be its capacitance. If it's about one meter long, then the ballpark figure would be around 100pF or as little as 50pF for most well made cables. If it's a ribbon type where the two legs (hot and ground) are back to back, the C will be higher.
By the way, I credit Raul with addressing his audience as "Dear" so and so, and I think it is a nice custom, even if Raul would then go on to say some seemingly insulting things, also directed to his "dear" comrade. In Raul's case, I do not think there was (usually) any malice intended; it's more a matter of the language barrier.
|
Chakster, We may be talking past each other. There is a semantic difference between "no ADDED capacitance" and "no capacitance". The former term might imply that there is no actual capacitor placed across the input, to "add" to the capacitance seen by the cartridge as a load. The latter term implies that the load capacitance is zero, which I doubt. However, I would bet it is very low. With your cable (67pF) and your phono stage input, it is reasonable to think you have around 100pF total, which is low. If you really want to fine tune your Grace, you might consider trying to increase C by adding 300pF and reducing R to 47K or less, this is assuming that my faulty memory is correct about what I read on Vinyl Engine as regards loading of the Grace F9 cartridges. Yes, with no added C, your Grace might well sound better at 100K than it does at 47K, and perhaps that is good enough.
|
Dave and Chakster, In that case (optimal load = 100K and 80pF) , my memory of what I read in VE is indeed faulty. I’ve been listening to my Ruby at 47K with no added capacitance, lately through a Manley Steelhead, which I think has a hybrid cascode input stage and so also ought to have low input capacitance. I have yet to open up the Manley, but I do have some tweaks planned for it. Regardless, the Ruby is sounding superb, as is.
Thanks for the correction. |
bimista, I own both a Pickering XSV3000 and Stanton 881S mk2, also. I haven't looked at them in forever (in fact the 881S is NOS, and I've never opened the box since purchase), but as I recall, Stanton and Pickering stylus assemblies are not cross-compatible. Let us know. |
Forgot to mention that I agree with Fleib about loading an MM. It does not make sense to think that 100K would be optimal for all MMs, because there is variation in their inductance and other parameters, from one to the other. We know this just by looking at manufacturer's spec sheets and at their own recommendations for loading, which sometimes advocate <47K and adding capacitance, for examples. On the other hand, 100k was definitely better than 47K for my old Grado TLZ and I will try it with my Grace Ruby as well per the experiences of others. |
Fleib et al, My mistake regarding the compatibility of Pick and Stant styli.
I think Raul raises a great point about the relative lack of stability and damping between the stylus assembly and the body of the cartridge that uniquely plagues MM cartridges as compared to MC types. I think this is very important. What I did with my 981LZS was to place a very small elastic band around the cartridge and stylus, running from front to back, so as to "squeeze" the stylus assembly up against the body of the cartridge. This also does some damping. Unfortunately a similar strategy is not always possible because of how cartridges are constructed. Also, I immediately removed the brush, for whatever that's worth.
I own an NOS B&O MMC1 and have nearly sold it many times, because I consider it to be flawed in its physical structure: you have an adapter with an unstable linkage to the cartridge body which has an unstable linkage to the stylus assembly.
|
Dear Raul,
At this point in time, I cannot say what cartridges sound "better" at 47K than at 100K, which anyway is a subjective judgement. But also, as we have been saying, it's an equation with many variables, including load capacitance. A given cartridge that may sound better at 100K than at 47K with no added load C might change character if more load C were applied such that 47K for R would be superior. |
Raul, With my NOS B&O MMC1, in the same original box, there is an NOS B&O adapter which makes it possible to use the cartridge on non P-mount tonearms, like almost every tonearm except the ones made by B&O. The pins are very thin, which is good for good sound but not good for a solid interface between the cartridge and the adapter. So, if you think the signal, traveling via pins to the adapter then via the adapter to the arm wand then via a DIN connector or the like to the plugs at the phono input, and with 2 flexible joints in the path, is relatively unsullied nevertheless, I can only hope you are correct. It just doesn't appeal to me. |
Thanks for the tip, Raul. As you guessed, I have been so far reluctant to alter the B&O hardware, in case I want to sell. However, SS will make an adapter for ~$50. Maybe I'll buy one and mutilate that to get rid of connectors. I admit I am very curious about the MMC1, based on your testimony and that of many others as to its excellence.
|
Raul or Dave, Can you send me a photo of your adapted B&O, via email? I am not sure I know exactly what you did. |
Dear Chakster, Your dissection of the lineage of Grace cartridges is very informative. Thank you for that. But you imply strongly that one can know how a cartridge will sound based on knowledge of its stylus shape. One would only wish this were true. It would make this disease of audiophilia much easier to treat,
|
As someone who had his Grace Ruby rebuilt by SS with their OCL tip, I can attest that indeed the new stylus shape (or something else attendant to the rebuild) has made for a very noticeable improvement in the performance of the cartridge. For a "control", I own a second Grace Ruby that still has its original elliptical stylus. I was a big fan of the OEM Ruby, until I listened to the OCL-retipped version. Be forewarned that it takes 20-40 hours before the re-tip starts to really sing, however. At first, within the first few hours, I really had my doubts. |
Chakster, My comment is to note that the units on those charts of FR are 0.1 db. None of us would ever hear 0.2 db (the rise in response seen in the R channel with 100K ohm loading), at those very high frequencies. Maybe this is not the right way to examine why the higher load sounds better to you; maybe there is another reason also based on the physics. |
JT, In memory of the late, great Johnny Carson, how "massive" is it? Which is to ask, what is the effective mass? Thanks. |
Chakster, Per your post of 6/21/17, I would take issue with some of the cartridges you chose to place on your "best ever" list. For example, many believe that the Stanton CS100 is not even the best vintage Stanton cartridge. But my point is that we should all keep in mind our own fallibility and biases as judges, the fact that there are probably many dozens of cartridges manufactured over the last 30-40 years that could legitimately lay claim to a place on a "best of" list, the effects of loading on the cartridge response, the interaction between the cartridge and headshell, tonearm, phono circuit, and the vital importance of context. In other words, none of us knows what we don't know. I follow the "love the one your with" philosophy. The cartridge I am listening to that week or that month is always "my favorite".
Is it true that Raul now favors modern Clearaudio MMs, when he even bothers to listen to an MM? I thought we/he clearly established a few years ago that at least one of their rather expensive MMs was nothing but a re-badged version of a rather cheap cartridge made by another company. I don't recall the vital details.
|
Chakster, Per your post of 6/21/17, I would take issue with some of the cartridges you chose to place on your "best ever" list. For example, many believe that the Stanton CS100 is not even the best vintage Stanton cartridge. But my point is that we should all keep in mind our own fallibility and biases as judges, the fact that there are probably many dozens of cartridges manufactured over the last 30-40 years that could legitimately lay claim to a place on a "best of" list, the effects of loading on the cartridge response, the interaction between the cartridge and headshell, tonearm, phono circuit, and the vital importance of context. In other words, none of us knows what we don't know. I follow the "love the one your with" philosophy. The cartridge I am listening to that week or that month is always "my favorite".
Is it true that Raul now favors modern Clearaudio MMs, when he even bothers to listen to an MM? I thought we/he clearly established a few years ago that at least one of their rather expensive MMs was nothing but a re-badged version of a rather cheap cartridge made by another company. I don't recall the vital details.
|
Chakster, Per your post of 6/21/17, I would take issue with some of the cartridges you chose to place on your "best ever" list. For example, many believe that the Stanton CS100 is not even the best vintage Stanton cartridge. But my point is that we should all keep in mind our own fallibility and biases as judges, the fact that there are probably many dozens of cartridges manufactured over the last 30-40 years that could legitimately lay claim to a place on a "best of" list, the effects of loading on the cartridge response, the interaction between the cartridge and headshell, tonearm, phono circuit, and the vital importance of context. In other words, none of us knows what we don't know. I follow the "love the one your with" philosophy. The cartridge I am listening to that week or that month is always "my favorite".
Is it true that Raul now favors modern Clearaudio MMs, when he even bothers to listen to an MM? I thought we/he clearly established a few years ago that at least one of their rather expensive MMs was nothing but a re-badged version of a rather cheap cartridge made by another company. I don't recall the vital details.
|
Chakster, Per your post of 6/21/17, I would take issue with some of the cartridges you chose to place on your "best ever" list. For example, many believe that the Stanton CS100 is not even the best vintage Stanton cartridge. But my point is that we should all keep in mind our own fallibility and biases as judges, the fact that there are probably many dozens of cartridges manufactured over the last 30-40 years that could legitimately lay claim to a place on a "best of" list, the effects of loading on the cartridge response, the interaction between the cartridge and headshell, tonearm, phono circuit, and the vital importance of context. In other words, none of us knows what we don't know. I follow the "love the one your with" philosophy. The cartridge I am listening to that week or that month is always "my favorite".
Is it true that Raul now favors modern Clearaudio MMs, when he even bothers to listen to an MM? I thought we/he clearly established a few years ago that at least one of their rather expensive MMs was nothing but a re-badged version of a rather cheap cartridge made by another company. I don't recall the vital details.
|
I too own an NOS 881S mk2, a used 980 LZS (pretty much used up by me), an NOS 981LZS, and an NOS CS100. The operative phrase is "NOS", which means that I have never even unpacked the cartridges in question. The vintage Stanton that I have listened to extensively is the 980LZS, and that cartridge is exhibiting signs of being worn out or at least past its peak. Thus I am not qualified to compare the 3, but what I wrote was that there are "some" who do not regard the CS100 as the best of the Stantons. One of those is Raul. When Raul wrote about the CS100 there were others who agreed with him. (I think Raul prefers the 980HZS, among the Stantons.) Thus, I defend my statement.
My only point in mentioning the CS100 specifically was that there are lots of us out here listening to these cartridges, and due to all the variables mentioned and more that I did not think of, each of us will have his or her own list of favorite vintage MM cartridges. I am fine with the fact that the CS100 is on your particular list. Maybe I should break down and listen to mine, based on your accolades. |
