Dear Chakster, For the second time, I did not say, and I have no basis to believe, that the CS100 is "not good". I said that some (others) don't rate it as highly as you do. This is not to say that you are not correct in your judgement, either. I have no way to know. I actually hope it is as good as you say, since I own one.
Raul entered his post 10 minutes before mine, but it was not showing up on my computer as of the time I clicked the "Post Your Response" button. Raul did say it's not top caliber, but you should indeed trust your own ears. Raul's favorite Astatic, and possibly when all is said and done his favorite MM, is the MF2500. Unfortunately, his professed admiration for that cartridge has raised its cost into the high end, too.
I really really like my Acutex LPM320STRIII and my SS re-tipped Grace Ruby. |
Raul, Not to be a nitpicker, but the Stanton 980LZS has about 10- to 100-fold lower inductance than does the typical MM cartridge, along with much less signal gain. Yet you've always maintained that you prefer the HZS (high output) version, with its higher inductance. Maybe you shouldn't generalize. But maybe also your statement reflects your recent espousal of MC cartridges "uber alles".
|
Jessica, Re sibilance with your "new" AT15Sa, maybe a smidgeon more VTF would cure or at least ameliorate the sibilance on forte passages.
|
Chakster, As Raul and I discussed further up the thread, a low output MM will tend to have lower inductance compared to a typical high output MM. Look up the specs for any typical HOMM and compare the inductance to that of a Stanton 980LZS, for example. Also, keep in mind that many of us conflate "low output MM" with cartridges that are actually MI types. MI types tend to have "low output" compared to a typical HOMM, as well. And they also tend to have low inductance. Without looking it up, I think I recall that the 980LZS has at least 10-fold less inductance than its HO brother, the 980HZS. Classic HOMMs are in the 500mH (milli-Henry) range of inductance. Classic LOMCs are in the low micro-Henry range, for another example. (More than a 1000-fold difference.) |
Jessica, Tell us how you feel after 100 hours with your new stylus. After only 4 hours, speaking for myself only, I am usually still in love with anything new, if I've taken pains in advance with my purchasing decision. Subconscious bias is always a major factor in first impressions.
|
Timeltel, Thanks for publishing the specs for the TK7LCa. I note (as you apparently did too) the very low inductance for such a high output cartridge. Normally, one would expect inductance and output voltage to go up in parallel, but in this case the inductance of the TK7LCa is about one-tenth that of a typical MM and yet the output is right up there with the high output group that typically measures around 500mH inductance, give or take. Do you have any idea how Signet seems to have side-stepped a law of physics? |
Thanks, Raul and Timeltel, for confirming that the data on inductance for the TK7LCa is a misprint. Just to remind, there ARE some LOMM cartridges with low inductance, e.g., the Stanton 980/981LZS, which is listed in a Stanton brochure that I found on-line as having inductance of 1.0 mH. That's about 20 times more than a typical LOMC and 500 times less than a typical HOMM. But of course the price for the low inductance of the 981LZS is low output (0.35mV, probably at 3.54 cm/sec). So the Stanton is not violating any law of physics. Yet, when you think about it, the Stanton reduces inductance by 500X and output by only about 10X, compared to a more typical MM. Good trade-off. Good magnet, too.
|
Did not know about the "AT24". In fact, I had never heard of such a model name before now. Can you say more about it? How do you rank it? Thx.
By the way, I was not asserting that the 981LZS is a world beater, because I know you don't care for it as much as you care for the HZS version. As you also know, I do like the LZS, a lot. It's one of my top 3 or 4.
|
Chakster, "Overpriced Ruby" is a dear friend of mine, and she is worth every penny. |
I am amused at the certainty with which Chakster and Clearthink dole out advice to those willing to absorb it. Since no two of us own the exact same system, and since (thankfully) we all have different brains, it is probably best to make one's own evaluations, using the gossip printed here only as a guideline. If 3 guys say the same thing, I might take that seriously.
I have had very good results by having SoundSmith re-tip a Grace Ruby using their top of the line LC stylus (OCL, I think is their acronym) and the sapphire/ruby cantilever. Just a suggestion; you could probably do the same with any F9 series for a very similar excellent result. I have another Grace Ruby still with its original stylus, so I have been able to compare the two configurations; the SS version sounds better in most ways, to me, on my Beveridge-based system. This is on a highly tweaked Lenco using a Dynavector DV505 tonearm and lightweight headshell. On the same system, using a different turntable and tonearm, the Acutex LPM320 has become a habit. Phono and line stage is Manley Steelhead.
|
Dear Raul, I take your point, but keep in mind that I did not purchase the pre-fabricated ruby/OCL stylus assembly from SS. Rather, I had them rebuild my original stylus assembly. Therefore, it may be that my sample retains the original suspension; I don't really know for sure. I bought the cartridge on eBay with NO cantilever and stylus. It was as if someone had taken a tweezers and neatly plucked out the cantilever; the rest of the cartridge, including the rubber sleeve into which the cantilever fits, looked like new. I then sent it to SS for the re-tip.
Speaking of conical or spherical styli, I remember when elliptical styli hit the market and everyone moved in that direction. Somewhere around that time, Harry Pearson declared his love for the Decca 4RC (spherical tip) cartridge. He was very influential at that time, and he turned many back to conical/spherical, for a while. One of my friends had a 4RC; it was darn good in the midrange.
|
Chakster, If you want to debate the issue, I will take the opposing view. I have owned Sumiko Blue Point, Benz Glider (two versions), and Transfiguration Esprit. All in the HOMC category. I found none of these cartridges to be musically satisfying. They all sounded a bit "synthetic" or mechanical to me. As a result of my prior experience with HOMC, I will always choose the LO version, if an MC cartridge is made in LO and HO versions. In my hierarchy, LOMC, MM, and MI types will always supersede HOMC types. I am sure you would say that my problem is I have not heard the HOMCs that you prefer. |
Nandric, "Acerbic" means "No Serbs" or "Without Serbs", obviously. I am glad that I lined up with Dertonearm in thinking that possibly the MC2000 might benefit synergistically (means 1+1=3) from being matched with its dedicated SUT, the T2000. I'd like to try it (even though I do not need it) but the SUT is as hard to find as is the cartridge.
I think the genius of the MC2000 is its rather high compliance for an MC. If there is any way in which I think MM and MI cartridges outperform MCs consistently, it is with piano music. The MC2000 does very well with piano, compared to others, possibly owing to its compliance.
|
I find that I am now unable to get past page 1 of this thread, which is now about 254 pages long. Is anyone else having difficulty? This post is inserted in the box at the bottom of page 1. I don't know whether it will show up on p. 254 or p. 1. Thanks for any help, Audiogon.
|
Aha! Creating my post above has taken me to p. 254. Bueno.
|
Raul, Thank you for your response. I know for sure that you have heard the MC2000 "both ways". Therefore I take it seriously that you say the dedicated SUT for it is not a sine qua non. (Nandric will translate; he is a scholar and a lawyer.)
By the way, with all due respect to Syntax, I use the term "acerbic" to indicate his critical comments are generally brief and cut directly to his point with no ambiguity. For me, this is a compliment. I note that some synonyms for acerbic, listed on-line, suggest cruelty or meanness; that was not my intended meaning when I used the word "acerbic". |
Nothing. I have to post to get to this page.
|
Dear Nandric, I hope you know that my original definition of "acerbic" was only meant in good fun. I want all the Serbs I can get, especially based on what happened with the Croates (Croatians?) Also, there are some good looking female Serbs out there.
I never said I would buy a T2000 at any price; I said I was interested in how it would affect the sound of the MC2000 on the premise that maybe the two products were meant to be used together for best performance of the MC2000. Raul says no, and I believe him. So now I don't want to buy a T2000.
Now that I already bought the MC2000 from you, you can be honest: Do you think Axel's re-tip preserved the original sound of the MC2000? I am certainly not complaining; I like it. Just curious about the "before" vs the "after". I would even buy another cartridge from you. |
Very interesting post, Chakster. Perhaps Nandric can tell us what Axel used to do with MC2000s. I certainly do not know, but your point (that re-tipping would probably change the cartridge) is well taken and one of which I am not unaware. (This latter is an English test for Nandric; two negatives make a positive.) If you did not notice, my MC2000 has been re-tipped by Axel under the auspices of Nandric. But you must listen to your MC2000; don't let it go to waste. If you want to sell it, let me know.
Chakster, by chance, I have been reading several works of literature that either take place in St Petersburg/Leningrad or refer to that city. One is "Ten Days that Shook the World", John Reed's report of the Bolshevik revolution, as he actually lived through it in Petrograd. Others are basically spy novels. I would very much like to visit your beautiful city. |
Nandric, If I am understanding your post correctly, you are saying that you have not heard the MC2000. Is that the case? Or do you mean that you never heard one with its original cantilever/stylus? |
Nandric, That is very kind of you. I am also interested to learn that you apparently rank the four named cartridges above the MC2000 and the Sony, especially since you once seemed to be a great fan of the Sony. I have a longstanding admiration for the top Transfiguration cartridges but have never actually owned one. I do recall that the Temper was a very neutral cartridge yet also capable of thrilling sound, so I don't doubt that the Phoenix is excellent. I am about to retire at the end of December. It would probably be best for me to wait until January to take you up on your offer. If there is something of mine that you would like to borrow in return, just let me know. But not the L07D. Shipping that beast is perilous because of its fragile plinth material.
Could it be that, with you and Raul leading the way, this thread could change its focus to MCs? "What do we need MM cartridges for, when we have MCs...."? |
I've never made much of an effort to maximize my digital experience. So, I am open-minded as to its ultimate potential, using my own amplifiers and my speakers as transducers. (Let us not forget that in the end, we are listening to speakers in real-world rooms, not cartridges or DACs or whatever.) I use an Ayre C5Xe-mp for all digital in one of my two systems, and a Sony in the other. Both are one box players; the Ayre is superior to the Sony. I own a Mac laptop computer that I once planned to make the core of a hi-rez digital source, but I never got around to it, and I don't feel deprived as a result, but I do realize that that's where Nirvana lies for digiphiles. I have heard very expensive state of the art digital reproduction in the home of my neighbor, and it is of interest to me that he listens to LPs when he really wants to concentrate on "music". If this forum was about digital, we could go on from there. My point is that I am happy for anyone who is happy with his or her system. I feel no need to be "right".
Anyway, I don't disagree with those that claim digital has lower "distortion", when the word is used in the conventional way, as would be used possibly by "enginedr1960" whose moniker suggests he is an EE. On the other hand, we love Raul, but we know he is a hopeless case on the issue of distortion. I know what Raul would say to anyone who prefers LPs to digital; you must love distortions. Nandric may be familiar with this as a form of legal argument. The joke in our country is around the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?" Impossible to answer without incriminating onesself.
On another issue, Raul, if one were to scan your posts on this thread, I don't think your contention that you only started the thread to point out that MM is an "alternative" to MC, not necessarily superior to MC in general, would hold up. But I won't do that. It's OK either way. The thread and my own subsequent explorations have now convinced me that MCs that exceed the best of MM or MI cartridges, or which can even play in the same ballpark, are the exception, rather than the rule. |
Raul, With reference only to the few times in your recent posts when you referred to me and my last post, I did mention several times therein that I have several hours listening to the system of my neighbor, who is less than a quarter of a mile from my front door. He owns a very elaborate expensive system for both digital and vinyl reproduction. His equipment is also high on any audiophile list of "approved" components, meaning it's stuff we would all agree is "good". He's got nearly $30,000 invested in two tonearms, alone, not including his turntable and cartridges. With that, his digital equipment is also very expensive and hi-rez. He does not source digital from discrete CDs and SACDs, as I do. It's all stored on hard drives at high bit rates and wide bandwidth. He upgrades the latter so often that I cannot tell you precisely what he is listening to at this moment, but I am sure you would say that the problem is he does not own what you like, because there IS a problem. He and I agree that vinyl on his system is far more involving and enjoyable, "real", emotion-conveying, lively, engrossing, etc, etc, than is digital reproduction on his system. He listens to digital when he has other work to do or when he wants to read a book. This is pretty much exactly how I regard digital in my much less ambitious system. To those who prefer digital, no problemo. Enjoy. I will stick with what I like. I'll even come over to your house and listen.
I fully realize I am wasting my breath or needlessly wearing out my keyboard, in this case. |
By the way, Raul. I am more or less familiar with your analog equipment. Can you describe your digital reproduction system? Thanks.
|
Dear Raul, At the bottom of p. 255, I asked you to describe the components in your digital front end. I have skimmed your posts since then, on this page (256), and I do not see a response to that direct question. I doubt that you are being secretive; most likely you simply overlooked my question. But I really am curious. Please let us know. Thanks.
Most of us live in the gray area. Raul lives in the black or the white. Makes it simple.
|
Thanks, Raul. I am sure that is a GREAT recording..... of music that does not interest me. This is not to say I do not like classical music. This is only to say that Debussy leaves me cold. However, I will look more into this Quad DSD thing. What one-box players decode that format? (I also own an Oppo BDP105.) |
dc_bruce, If moving mass was the whole story, then MI cartridges would be king. They have lower moving mass than MCs. So do the optical and strain gauge cartridge types. (But many do say that those are "special".) |
Chakster, What is "sh***t"? I cannot think of an obscenity that starts with SH and then has 3 letters and ends in T, in English.
Nandric, The titanium spy plane to which you refer is the SR70, also known as "The Blackbird". I have seen one at the air and space museum outside Washington, DC. I don't know whether the US used Russian sourced titanium to build it, but the Russians never built anything that can go quite as high with quite as much velocity. They're all in mothballs now. The Blackbird is unhappy on the ground; the entire body sags at rest, because the titanium shell is so thin. The Blackbird was the successor to the U2 spy plane, famously flown by Francis Gary Powers who was shot down on his first mission in it, over the then Soviet Union (East Germany, I think). |
Nandric, The "spy plane" to which you refer is the SR71 "Blackbird". I have seen one at the Air and Space Museum here in Washington, DC. It's a beautiful piece of art. Perhaps the titanium came from Russia, but the Blackbird could fly higher and faster than anything the Russians ever built with their titanium. In fact, in some aspects of its performance, I think it has never been surpassed by any other airplane (that we know about).
Chakster, I own a U7045, as well. I am told that it has a low effective mass and is a good match for high compliance cartridges. Is that how you use it? My sample has a decided sag at the rear, due to a worn rubber bushing that supports the CW. I need to replace it some time.
I will not get into yet another argument with Raul about "tubes", but I do have an interest in and admiration for the First Watt series of ss amplifiers. I would love to hear one. I think Nelson Pass is one of the great designers. |
Nandric, Please give me a break. In recounting the history of the SR71, I was only intending to inform the group about this important piece of aviation history. I've had a fascination for the SR71 ever since I saw photos of it and read about it back in the 70s. I just like airplanes. Believe me, I am not entirely happy with everything my country has done, nor would I defend all of its actions, especially since January 20, 2017, during which time I have more often been embarrassed by US policy than not. On the other hand, I apologize for the two consecutive posts that are largely repetitive in respect to the SR71. My computer crashed in the middle of writing the first post, and I had assumed that it was lost to the ether.
Swampwalker, thanks for that addendum. I agree that everything you wrote about the SR71 is correct. I saw one on the deck of the WW2 aircraft carrier that is or was moored at one of the piers on the West side of Manhattan. The innards, including both massive engines, had been removed from that one, and the shell could hardly keep itself together. Daylight was showing through the hull at many junctions.
Some day, I hope Raul will learn to distinguish between the typical measurements of the output signal of a transformer-coupled tube amplifier and the actual performance of vacuum tubes per se in electrical circuits. But I am not holding my breath. |
Thanks for your response, Chakster. I know the AT-ML180 is beloved, but I am unfamiliar with its specifications. Is it high compliance? And is your carbon fiber headshell also lightweight? I acquired the UA7045 in the context of purchasing a QL-10, which is a TT101 and a UA7045 on a Victor plinth. As you may know, it took a few years to finally get the TT101 up and running, and I have never yet tried the UA7045. Love the TT101, however. It looks like the rubber bushing on the CW extension aft of the pivot is a simple O-ring. Have you or has anyone any experience replacing that rubber piece? Any info appreciated. I probably could use the tonearm as is; there is still some decoupling effect of the original bushing.
From what I can find out by reading, the several models of the First Watt series of amplifiers are each dedicated to a particular use. At least one of them is built so that the output stage of the preceding device (a preamplifier or CDP, presumably) directly drives the output stage of the amplifier. In other words, the "amplifier" consists only of perhaps a driver stage plus an output stage. There is no conventional "input stage" on the amplifier chassis. Other models differ in power output, the number of output devices, etc. Anyway, there may be websites that help sort out the many versions of the First Watt. You can probably get more info from Nelson Pass’s website. |
Raul, What I did with my 981LZS was to take a very small elastic band and place it around the cartridge from front to rear, such that the stylus assembly is firmly pulled back against the cartridge body. I think I even wrapped the elastic band twice around to achieve the most possible tension. That did the trick; I totally agree with you on the flimsy connection between the stylus assembly and the body on those Stantons. The elastic band effectively dampened the resulting resonance. Plus, of course, I removed the brush first of all.
Also, now that you have testified to the wonderfulness of the Acutex 320 series, maybe my constant praising of them will gain some traction with someone like Chakster, who does not take the Acutex seriously.
|
The "problem" with the ADC XLMs, for me, was their very very high compliance. Unless you have a very light tonearm to go with, the suspension tends to bottom out at any slight provocation, like a minor warp or an underdamped cuing device. I was constantly worrying that I had broken mine. The Infinity Black Widow was a good companion tonearm for the XLMs. I think also M-S made a very light CF tonearm. And was there also an Audio Technica tonearm with very low effective mass? And while time does tend to shroud vintage gear in a romantic haze, I really would not put the XLMs up there with the best I have ever heard. Maybe if I ran one on my current system, I would re-assess.
|
NAndric, 160 parts for one tonearm or one part for 160 tonearms? If the former, it’s hard to imagine that the arm could have been produced for any less money than the new SAT tonearm.
|
So I would guess that if those are resistors in your photo, Chakster, they are probably 100 ohms, not 47K ohms. Have you measured the DCR across those coils? From their mounting near to the input jacks and now realizing that the ZYX is an active step-up device, I guess they could be resistors. (I was aware that ZYX makes this product, but I guess I thought it was some sort of SUT.) But if you can measure DCR across one of them, that would be fun. Also, since they are simply coils, I do not understand readily why they are not also inductive. To make a non-inductive resistor out of wire, the winding is the key.
|
Chakster, Are you sure about the diameter of .035mm (millimeters)? That is very very very tiny and would be very fragile. It's also thinner than even 40ga wire. I think there IS in fact copper wire that thin available from Japan; it is or was sold here in the US by Michael Percy Audio. I have to check my facts on that; I am going only on a dim memory of M Percy's catalog.
|
"People comment on stuff that they never heard, never tried. This is typical audiogon today, pretty sad" Chakster, what you say is true, but don't you realize that you are also often guilty of this foible? Read some of your own posts, if not. Nobody's perfect.
|
Well, I would only agree that the added ICs and connectors (input and output) in the signal path, when you use an outboard "head amplifier" or "pre-preamplifier" might degrade the signal a bit, but otherwise devices like the ZYX only are doing in another box what is done IN the box, when one is using many high-gain phono stages. (This is not true of my own MP1 or Raul's phonolinepreamp or for one more example, Allen Wright's RTP3C, because all 3 of those have one single very high gain stage right at the input; there are not two stages of gain needed to bring up the signal voltage of an LOMC before RIAA correction. I'm sure there are other examples of this approach.) But many other high gain phono stages suitable for LOMC have a built-in pure gain stage ahead of what is really an MM phono section that adds additional gain after the input gain stage and before RIAA correction. That's how those devices achieve compatibility with both MC and MM cartridges; if you choose MM, the signal bypasses that input gain stage. Not so different from having a built-in SUT vs having an outboard SUT; the advantage of the former is fewer connectors and wires.
|
I have a complete NOS Pickering ZSV7500, body and stylus.
I think”we” should refrain from assigning a cause to an audible effect, unless we have actual data to support the claimed relationships. For example, the relationship between the high inductance of an MM to how it sounds different from an MC. Pure speculation. (Raul and Robjerman) Moreover, it is my opinion, based only on listening that the best MMs are superior to good MCs precisely because they better convey the decay of musical instruments. The tendency to leap to conclusions with no data is more problematic even than having a negative opinion of something one has never heard.
|
Actually, I own both MMs and LOMCs that I like very much, and I don’t think one type is categorically better than the other. But I do hear the differences that you refer to. MI and IM types are also to be respected highly. It might be interesting to discuss cartridges that one does not like. And say why.
|
J2d2, what is effective mass of SME V, and what is phono gain of your Einstein? That’s pretty much all that constrains your choice. Even effective mass is a guide only, a rule that sometimes can be broken.
|
J2d2, keep in mind that when calculating the resonant frequency, you need to include the mass of the headshell the screws and the cartridge in the equation. However taking the SME by itself, it would fall into the category of low to medium mass. I assume the quoted effective mass of the SME would include the mass of its OEM headshell. So, if you use a different headshell just remember to add or subtract the difference in weight between your aftermarket headshell and that of the SME, in grams. Which means it is highly flexible. Because you can mount a low compliance cartridge and use a heavy headshell to Increase the effective mass if you want to. Likewise your phono stage has enough gain for just about any cartridge one would reasonably want to think about.
|
Good point that the Einstein may have too much gain for HO cartridges; I was assuming it has an MM input (low gain) option. |
GOT IT! DON’T OWN ONE AND NEVER PLAYED WITH ONE BUT AT LEAST THE OP KNOWS, now if not before.
|
Travbrow, sounds like Empire followed the Acutex program. The Acutex 300 series are induced magnet types (with titanium cantilevers and nude exotic styli); Whereas the later 400 series are MM. I’m still very fond of the 320 models; I own both an LPM and the earlier M type. I own a 400 series too; it’s not in the same league with the 300s.
I have an NOS 1000ZE/X and a 4000D/III as well. Guess I should give them a listen.
I would like it if folks would say what tonearms work well for them with these cartridges. Headshell makes a difference too. |
It amazes me that I can learn something new every time I visit this thread. I’d never heard of the 4000DV, but I have a real soft spot for MI or IM cartridges.
Travbrow, I like the 320s way better than the 420, but keep in mind that after 4-5 years of this madness, the 320 is still one of my top 3 favorites. (The other two are LOMC.) Also keep in mind that I have the following NOS cartridges never heard: 4000D3, 1000ZE/x, B&O MMC1, Stanton CS100, Pickering XSV7500, Stanton 881S mk2, Ortofon MMFL Super, AKG (something) and more. This is not to mention second hand cartridges that I’ve never heard.
|
I knew the highly regarded MM and MI would disappear from the market, back when we were in the “cartridge of the week” phase of this thread, so I was buying any that interested me back then, especially NOS. Spare NOS OEM styli too, when I found them.
|
Would like to have MF2500 Astatic
|
I think most of the online companies that sell Styli for what they consider to be low end MM cartridges are selling aftermarket reproductions with a completely clear conscience, because they think they are helping out people who are trying to make a low budget system work for them. And here we are, all of us perfectionists, wringing our hands about the reproduction styli they send us. I guess I am a cynic, but I always assumed the worst. After all, we are talking about cartridges that are long out of production, some that were made by companies that are now defunct. So where would a company like LP gear or Bluz Brothers get a hold of a stash of NOS styli for these ancient devices? Answer: nowhere.
|
Cantilevers have been made from aluminum, aluminum alloys, boron both hollow and solid, beryllium, titanium, sapphire or ruby, and diamond. That’s a nearly complete list, unless you want to include carbon fiber and cactus. What do you suppose is so special about beryllium in that list? Are there any metallurgical engineers among us?I also take seriously the point often made by Nandric that only for aluminum cantilevers can the diamond be actually mounted through the cantilever itself, without requiring much in the way of glue. That may afford a big advantage to aluminum over some others.
|