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.
rauliruegas

Showing 50 responses by dgarretson

My favorite Goethe (in youth) was "The Sorrows of Young Werther." This was a double-edged critique of a poet/philosopher's romantic self-absorption. Goethe later recanted the book in light of a large readership of educated German youth failing to detect his irony, with a few even fulfilling the plot line of a romantic suicide pact. As German philosophers are popular around here, a note of caution lest the romanticism of the MM phenomenon consume us all.
I have not personally tried IRC resistors, but someone whose judgment I trust reports that IRC Tantalum Nitride SMD resistors are the best that he has heard. From the IRC data sheets and web site product info it is unclear if the RC55 uses this substrate.
Lewm, after several comparisons of these resistors in analog and digital sections of SS CDP, tube preamp, and tube amp, I accord with your top-down ranking of TX2575, TF020, and MK132. On a price-adjusted basis TF020 shines and is less fragile to install than TX2575. The MK132 is warmer and less revealing than the others. I currently have TX2575 on order for comparison to TF020 in a volume control-- which should be as revealing a test as the phono load application.

The IRC TaNtFilm PFC-series SMDs look interesting. To minimize wiring and connector interfaces, perhaps these could be soldered directly to the pins of a dip switch array, in turn soldered directly to inputs inside of phono stage.

Raul, the Duelund graphite resistor is indeed superlative in crossover-- clearly surpassing Mills and cryoed Caddock MP power resistors IME. Even at current steep price of 25 simoleons the Duelund resistor is good value relative to the improvement in performance.
Raul, the balanced volume control that I use has just three fixed resistors per channel, plus a Silonex light dependent variable shunt resistor. Comparisons between resistor types are simple and cheap with this minimalist set-up. I will order up several IRC models for test. BTW naked TX2575 is a Texas Components product. Vishay rebrands a similar "Z-foil" product as Z201 and Charcroft as CAR. IME TX2575 surpasses naked Vishay TX2352.
To expand on Lewm's remarks about shunt attenuators: when planning the shunt attenuator for my tube preamp I used the on-line Neville calculator to determine the range of shunt values needed to obtain an acceptable range of attenuation in the volume control. As it turned out-- and as has been the case for every active preamp I've owned-- I always need at least -30db attenuation at the volume control, regardless of digital source or phono stage/cartridge output. At this level of attenuation the shunt resistance never goes higher than 3K2. Within this operating range the 100K shunt attenuator offers a stable input impedance.

Another nuance of a balanced attenuator is whether to shunt to ground, or to shunt between phase and anti-phase of the balanced signal and float from ground. I took the latter approach-- using a variable light-dependent resistor to shunt between the signal phases. This is a very simple and clean sounding volume control, with just six resistors for two balanced channels. Everything is hard soldered in and there are no switch points in the signal path.

Back to cartridges...
Raul, for a long while I have been on an apostatic diversion with Denon DL-S1 MC. I have been lazy about repairing my low-gain phono stage, but am missing MM/MI and hope to return to the fold shortly.
Hello Raul, I've been on the sidelines of the DL-S1 discussion, running my DL-S1 for a while now (sans step-up) into a modified Atma-Sphere MP-1 with high-gain hybrid cascode at input. I've had good results at 400R loading, and have not yet experimented below 100R. This set-up at least equals the best MM/MIs that I tried in terms of resolution and warm inviting character, and is very lively and dynamic. I'm not hearing distortions or hepped-up forwardness as described by others. Admittedly the DL-S1 has been somewhat finicky, wanting very close to 1.3gm VTF, a level armwand, and sensitive to small additions of vertical effective mass to bring out the right balance between detail and embodiment. I have no RF or noise problems-- perhaps owing to use of uninterrupted shielded wires from cartridge pins to phono stage. In any case this one is a keeper.
I finally got off the couch and repaired my very modified ARC PH-2 balanced MM phono stage. Time to get back to the high life of MM/MIs after a long and satisfying side-bar with a DL-S1. John, it is certainly worth the $600. Given renewed discussion of the Astatics, the first to bat is the venerable MF-100. Even with a casual initial set-up, it's instantly apparent that this is a top performer. Big warm presentation with lots of detail, nuance, and immediacy. There is a trace of sibilance that will doubtless resolve with refinements to set-up.
There is a NOS Empire 2000Z in the mail to me. Does anyone have experience with this model or have a sense of where its performance stands within the Empire hierarchy?
Ct0517, FWIW, AVShowrooms.com, which produced those videos, recently filmed a video tour of me and my system of all-modified components. I don't know if/when this will appear on the site. At the time I had no idea who they were, but there is indeed some interesting material on that site and I will be in good company should video ever sees the light of day. Unfortunately I had no MM/MI mounted for that show.
Dear lewm,

"At first, I taught him a thing or two, but he has been flying on his own for some time..."

"Dear Avid Fan: inherit my mantle and surpass my achievements"

--Coded message from Hannibal Lecter to his protege Francis Dolarhyde(aka Tooth Fairy)

Each the master of his hobby/obsession.

http://nativeaudiogrrrl.blogspot.com/2011/02/character-of-week-francis-dolarhyde.html

Dave
Dear Nandric, I agree with you that casual modification invites a natural tendency toward confirmation bias. This can be ammeliorated somewhat if one spends long enough inside a particular component(sometime longer than the original development cycle of the stock unit.) After several dozen experiments freed of the cost constraints that may have limited the OEM, enough confidence may be gained to become a reasonably reliable judge of one's work.

Add to this the more recent multiplier effect of knowledge obtainable from DIY forums and virtual associations-- absorbing the collective consciousness both of professionals and talented amateurs-- discounted, of course, with a healthy skepticism about many such virtual acquaintences and anecdotes.

Now rather than celebrate mods unconditionally, here is the perspective of a part-time sales agent of premium piece parts to high-end audio OEMs-- based on a book of around 100 OEM contacts.

A minority of OEMs in high-end audio have the resources, time, and inclination to conduct consistent evaluations of piece parts or to perform design exercises very far afield from established practices and supplier relationships. This is of course true of many industries, but particularly true in our cottage industry. Most OEM designers concentrate on the areas that they deem important. For example, in loudspeaker manufacture drivers and cabinets tend to get more attention than crossover components. And very few OEM designs are unconditioned by cost constraints.
Dear Nandric, I'm late to the party at your aunt & uncle's, but a closer investigation of the iconography of the Rocky & Bulwinkle cartoon will reveal the western corollary to your social realism. Please investigate particularly Mr. Big, who is sighted occasionally on this forum.
Cr0517, Nine letters is about right. It must be noted that the diminutive Mister Big was rarely sighted apart from association with Fearless Leader. Boris Badenov(whose qualifications included a degree in Scoundrelship from USC(University of Safecracking), seemed to report to Fearless Leader, the dictator of the rogue country of Pottsylvannia. Fearless Leader's germanic colloquialisms suggested Nazi credentials channeled through post-war GDR. Fearless Leader in turn either consulted with or reported directly to Mr. Big, whose russian mien suggested the role of soviet party chairman.

The forum analogue to Mr. Big is known to surface infrequently, with or without entourage en croute, but more frequently by proxy through factotums.
Dear Nandric, for some American youth of our generation Dostoyevski's underground man (and in general the Russian flavors of alienation) resonated more than Sartre. (To this day when it's a struggle to get off the couch I think of Goncharov.) The underground man is in a rough line with Salinger's Holden Caufield and Heller's Yossarian(who like the underground man begins the story with metaphorical liver pain.)

Lite punning on Godanov above took me back to the pop art of Rocky & Bullwinkle. This adult cartoon put a clever spin on american idealism vs. cold war peril as exemplified by Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale(perhaps distant relatives of your Aunt N and Uncle B.) as slavic spys for the mastermind Mr. Big(who always appears as a tiny midget with a flashlight aimed at himself to cast a giant shadow on the wall. Perhaps the web presents such a flashlight...
The original manual for the 980/981LZS specs an output of .06 mv-- quite a bit lower than the .3 mv range quoted above and found on the forum references I've been able to excavate. So perhaps there are differences between implementations of the "LZS technology" in the various Stanton/Pickering bodies.

Specifications for the 980/981LZS:

Stylus Type: Nude Stereohedron
Tip Dimensions:
Contact Radii: .0028" (71u)
Scanning Radii: .0003"(8u)
Stylus Tracking Force: .75 - 1.5gm
Setting with Brush: 1.75 - 2.5gm
Resulting operational tracking: .75 - 1.5
Frequency Response l0Hz to 50kHz+
Output: .06 mv/cm/sec
Channel Balance: Within 1dB @ 1kHz
Channel Separation: 35dB @ 1kHz
Cartridge D.C. Resistance: 3 ohms
Cartridge Inductance: 1 mH
Cartridge Color: Chrome
Cartridge Weight: 5.5 gm
Load Resistance: 100 ohms or greater
Load Capacitance: Up to 1000 pF
(includes arm leads, cables, and amplifier)
Lew, thanks to Albert's referral I have a 981LZS in the mail. The high-gain MP-1 would likely work well with a .06mV cartridge by any definition, but .3mV is a safer bet.
Lew, I'm quite happy with separate high-gain and low-gain balanced phono stages to accomodate LOMC and MM/MI cartridges. I ordered the 98lLZS to have at least one MM type that will work with the high-gain MP-1.

Raul, I'm not much of a "collector" either. Having had an excellent experience with a Pickering XSV3000/D3000, I felt that the small difference in price between the NOS 981LZS as compared to refurb/upgrade of another motor, is inconsequential. Most of the better MM/MI cartridges left in my drawer will justify eventual retipping services.
Dear Nadric, so to combine your post with Raul's and Timeltel's: Axel's Euro 160-350 rebuild of a customer-suppied Stanton 881/Pickering XVS3000 stylus assembly will surpass NOS stock 981 motor/stylus assembly? Has anybody around here actually made this comparison? This is an experiment I may try.
Dear Nandric, This thread is mostly about discovering the best of the best MM/MI. As the market price for top NOS cartridges like Stanton 981LZS, Empire 4000D/III, Astatic MF-100, has escalated to USD$500+, the question is whether cantilever and stylus replacement by artisans like Axel can raise the performance of more affordable mid-line bodies to surpass those $500 exotics. And if so, which ones?
Halcro, My general experience mirrors yours, though limited to the comparison of a wide range of MM/MI to a smaller sample of MC. Linking your remarks to a review in today's newspaper of the lyrical experimental filmmaker Nathaniel Dorsky, I lean toward an alternative to the usual dichotomy of objective vs. subjective interpretation of recording and playback:

"Interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art...transparency in art(and criticism)...means experiencing the luminence of the thing in itself, of things being as they are." From Against Interpretation, Susan Sontag

It is "necessary to see objects by moonlight--as well as sunlight-- to get a complete notion of them." Thoreau
Dear Nandric, I scratch my head in doubt that the arts(musical or otherwise, together with the educated critical faculties necessary to assay the arts) will be understood or appreciated by a viewpoint so strictly based on scientific rationalism and technical linguistic analysis. What rationalist construction do you apply to Buber's I and Thou? I believe that you earlier alluded to a generation of russian philo-scientific materialistic youth yearning to become Dostoyevski? In my reading, this dilettante mind-set is precisely what Dostoyevsky the artist was rebelling against in intellectuals of his day. Perhaps this is why you found madness in the underground man and perhaps the author. Anyway, you seem to accord with Plato in his suspicion of the arts and little can be said or done to change that.
A question about Technics EPC-100C mk2: This cartridge is photographed as fully contained inside an integral headshell. Can the cartridge be removed from the headshell and mounted to a one-piece tonearm via 1/2" holes?
There is most certainly holography-- depending on the recording, of course. This requires a system capable of revealing small variations in volume as depth cues. It's a function of superior electronics, not room variables or speaker placement.
Sltrains, I get where you're coming from, however I don't see well recorded R&R as less demanding than good classical. On a good system there's not so much difference between Bernie Grundman's Lp master of Foo Fighters Skin & Bones and Classic Records's 45RPM of Heifetz doing Sebelius Violin Concerto in D Minor, Op 47-- particularly on a Saturday night.
A half day of setting up and break-in NOS 981LZS is slowly yeilding results. It prefers 47K to a 500R load and a light 1-1.1 gm VTF to open up and alleviate an initially dark & recessed presention. Tracking is flawless. Too early to tell what it's capable of. Albert, why did you put yours up for sale after one hour of use?
Regards Timeltel, there will be more listening, dial-in, and break-in to come, but my initial reaction to 981LZS is similar to yours. I have a collection of wands and weights to adjust inertial mass over a wide range; I will try lowering mass. The owner's manual doesn't spec the cartridge's compliance. I believe this has been reported as 30?

One observation makes me wonder whether this NOS 981LZS from Pick-upnaalden is due for refreshment of suspension. As received the stylus assembly was stuck inside the cartridge body by a whiteish deposit all around the cantilever barrel. It was touch and go extricating the stylus. The deposit was easily removed with Deoxit, and insertion and removal is now smooth. Perhaps the rubber suspension is similarly affected? I am prepared for a long break-in to loosen it up. Has anyone tried a drop of Deoxit or some other product to refresh a rubber suspension?
Timeltel, extreme LF is articulate and authoritative. It could use a cleaner and more open window from mid-bass into midrange. Hopefully arriving with break-in. However thus far it is proven as a good spend.
I'll take the black 2002 360 Modena that plays an important role and provides soundtrack "music" in Sofia Cuppola's film "Somewhere." Certainly one of Ferrari's most beautiful recent models.
I'll fabricate for my Trans-Fi linear tonearm a two-point vertical needle bearing assembly that plugs directly into a standard SME headshell bayonet-- eliminating the tonearm tube entirely. This can be compared to several short wands of various compositions with integral headshells. This takes all variables out of the equation except for the extra mechanical joint and solder/clip terminations. The same wire will be used throughout the arm and the headshell. Is an old-stock Technics bayonet good enough to prove the point, or is there a better bayonet out there to extract optimal performance from a removeable headshell?
Dear Raul, For resistive loading I use a Silonex light-dependent variable resistor in parallel with a fixed 200K TX2575 resistor. At least one or two MM cartridges preferred loading above 100K, but the experiment was done a few years ago shortly before that phono stage broke down and was side-lined for a long time. Now that it is working again I need to revisit that experiment.

In this set-up the Silonex LDR allows infinitely variable loading from 50ohms to 200K. The implementation is as compact as can be inside the phono chassis, assuming that the 5V control power supply is located remotely via umbilical. It is a very straight-forward DIY job.

BTW, it looks like my Acutex M320III STR will be travelling to Axel or to SS for renovation. The cartridge came to me with the cantilever tilted to one side and low in output on one channel. Even so, it sounds great. Has anyone out there had a retip done on a 315 or 320? If so, what stylus was selected and how did it work out?
Lew, FWIW the Silonex variable LDR and the 200K fixed resistor are attached together on the phono PCB. There is no additional wiring in the signal path.
Dear Raul, that is a wonderful litany of options from Axel. I'll wait for his response to my email. Running in this old M320 on my linear tonearm has been an amusing exercise. By tilting the air manifold of the linear tonearm down toward the record spindle, the stylus tilts right, restoring channel balance at the cost of tracking problems on some transients. It's a sick puppy that still sings well through many tracks, like late Judy Garland. Well worth fixing.

Lew, above 30kohms even closely matched LDRs track poorly. This limits their useful range in a volume control, where 2-4 LDRs need to track in concert. However with a separate control pot for each channel, in the phono load application each LDR can be set precisely from 50R to 500K or higher. They drift a bit with temperature, but it is relatively simple to set them to obtain the correct resistance at the operating temp. of the chassis.
Acman3, I'm guessing that most differences between boutique headshells are attributable to variations in weight/inertial mass rather than material composition. A front counterweight will test this point. Since the removeable headshell will attach directly to a bayonet on the pivot bearing of this linear tonearm, at least the arm wand is removed from consideration. Ultimately it's about convenience-- the ability to make quick comparisons between cartridges. Otherwise I wouldn't bother with a removeable head shell.
I'm currently planning a custom wand/pivot assembly for Terminator that will accept standard removeable headshells. I want to accomodate the max width found among the various specialty headshells. Knowing the max width dimension is important to ensure adequate clearance between the headshell and a cantilevered front counterweight assembly that parallels the headshell. Advice regarding max width(not including the finger lifter) would be appreciated. The few headshells I have collected so far are 20mm wide.
Dear Nandric, I steered clear of Blues Bros's advertised M320 stylus after reading a poster who had bought one remark that despite assurances from BB he received a generic conical stylus. BB did the same thing to me with an Empire stylus. My 320 is with Axel now for repair and possible retip. Then I'll see how the 320 compares to the 420. The 420 has taken a long time to settle in, during which the treble has smoothed out and sibilances have diminished.
In the case of an M320 stylus, identification of a NOS example should be straight-forward: the plastic stylus holder is stamped "320 STR."
Lew, you and I are in similar situations, insofar as we have separate phono stages for high- and low-output cartridges. Like you, I have a modified Atma MP-1 with a hybrid cascode for low output cartridges like most MC and the rare low output MM like Stanton 980LZS. For high output MM/MI it's a modified ARC PH-2. Subject to its 48db gain limitation, this unit unexpectedly surpasses any stock ARC phono stage that I've heard including their current Ref. The more the system has improved, the harder it has become to ascertain which phono stage is more "colored." This is with all cartridges through the same tonearm, tonearm cable, and TT. Of recent mounts, I think I prefer the Acutex 420 STR through the PH-2 to the Stanton 980LZS through Atma. Despite its virtues, the Stanton signature is in the end darker and less alive. To futher assess the contribution of the phono stage I can resort to a few medium-output cartridges that will work with either phono stage(Lyra Helikon and Sumiko Virtuoso DTi). However, earlier comparisons between these two cartridges and some of the better MM/MIs leave me limp about remounting either of these MCs to satisfy an academic curiousity. I agree that proper test conditions for definitive comparisons between cartridges are a bear to set up and find time for.
Hello Harold, my M320 is still in the shop, so no comparison to M420 available as yet. It's been a long time since mounting the AT20SS. Unfortunately I didn't take notes and thus need to revisit it. I don't recall that my example sounded peaky(I used 100K loading and never tried adding capacitance). However somewhere along this thread I think there are posted impressions similar to yours.

In the spirit of Raul's recent investigation of vintage MCs, I eBayed a Technics EPC-300 now en route from Oz. It's low output(described variously as .1mV or .14mV) should make for an interesting comparison to other low output types like Stanton 980LZS and Denon DL-S1.
Lew, you should be fine with your NOS M320III STR. My used example came with suspension damage that necessitated replacement of rubber that had been pinched by bent induction tabs that extend from the cantilever into the cartridge body. I suspect the damage was caused by careless insertion of the stylus assembly.
Dear Raul, As the Technics EPC-300 has an elliptical stylus(albeit on a titanium cantilever), I figured that a used example would be an interesting candidate a line contact retip by Axel. Perhaps this will take it to "better than new" performance level.
Dear Raul,

Gordon Holt really liked that MC2000:

http://www.stereophile.com/phonocartridges/ortofon_mc-2000_mc_phono_cartridge/index.html

However, in the mid-80s he considered it high praise that the MC2000 made LPs sound like CDs. How the ear has evolved since then!
While we're onto Acutexes again, I'll add that I'm running in an M415 after 100 hours with the M420. The 420 was very addictive. Like most addictions the stimulation may be due to an additive substance. In this case(rest assured for purpose of analogy only) the substance is more hydroponically organic than lysergically synthetic. The 415 is not too far off the 420. I'm using the 415 stylus in a 420 body. Oddly, in contrast to the 420, the 415 stylus likes the tonearm high up in back, at least during break-in. My M320 has been with Axel for about a month. Hopefully Raul's and my pieces will return soon for comparison.
Dear Tubed1, my used M320III STR came with an original stylus with a bent cantilever armature tab. If you have a M320, you know that the design is unconventional, with two armature tabs at the hinge of the cantilever that project perpendicularly down into the induction coils at the forward section of the cartridge body. A bent tab has the effect of canting the stylus and shifting channel balance. In the later 415/420, it appears that Acutex simplified the design by moving the induction coils from the front to the rear of the cartridge body and eliminating the armature tabs.

Since the diamond looked(and sounded) pretty good, I asked Axel to straighten the tab and do his best retip as appropriate. We'll see what comes back. This is my first go-round with Axel and I'm inclined to accept his judgment.
BTW, the unusual construction of the M320 stylus suggests that preserving the armature tabs requires slipping a tube cantilever retip over the existing armature sleeve. I can't imagine how an entirely new cantilever could be fitted to the stylus holder.
I agree with the last three posts. Just as important as reaching consensus on shared LPs for test purposes, the broad dissemination of Acutex 4XX cartridges from the italian seller into this group presents an opportunity to adjudge tonearms and ancillaries against the independent variable of a shared cartridge. Does the tail wag the dog or the dog wag the tail?
Today I received the repaired M320 from Axel. He straightened the armature tabs and replaced the suspension. No retip was needed. So it will be about comparing a refreshed M320 to NOS M420 and M415.
Dear Raul, FWIW for a few years I've been exchanging impressions with a number of Trans-Fi owners who have supplanted decent pivots such as top VPI, Graham, and SME. I've never found a soul who, once the set-up has been sorted, prefers a pivot arm. I believe the top version is around $1200 including uninterupted tonearm wire. The skepticism seems mostly to be rooted in experiences with other linear arms, solipsistic theorizing, and allergic reaction to the unorthodox aesthetics(somewhere between butt-ugly and techno chic.
The M320 III STR with original diamond and Axel's refreshed suspension is a killer. It has slam similar to M420 STR, but is more natural, nuanced, and refined all across FR. There is better front-to-back layering, and no sense of exaggeration as with M420/415. It is a blend of the best of MC and MM/MI characteristics.