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 dover

Harold, Fleib et al -
This saga is a guessing game to no avail.
We need Harold to describe what he is hearing in order to identify possible causes. If he has sibilance but the cartridge tracks fine then .... . If he has mistracking as well as sibilance, then it is more likely the cartridge is rooted.
In my vocabulary sibilance is the accentuation of SSSSSSS's. It may or may not be accompanied by missttttttttracking, which is a separate issue.
It never ceases to amaze me how people will shag around with rooted cartridges.
As far as I know, once missttttttttttracking has occurred once ( the first time ), then the record has been permanently damaged.
OMG down goes another $400 Lyrita pressing I cant get any more.
No worries, I'll throw on the only copy I've got of Manoug Parikian/LSO/Vernon Handley "Elizabeth Maconchy" TAS Lyrita SRCS 116 and see if I can screw that one too.
Harold - sorry I posted at the same time as you. I would expect a cracked diamond to misstrack - probably on one channel only. This is not sibilance.
Brightness is not sibilance either. You can have sibilance ( my definition SSSSSS's ) without brightness. You can have brightness ( sharp, unnatural or rising upper frequencies in my language ) without sibilance. Most records have been cut with non standard cutting angles, and most records have RIAA errors in them. Virtually all cutting heads dont conform to RIAA, but some were corrected by compensation in the cutterhead amplifiers, some not. I have access to a phono amplifier that has a flat mid ( no RIAA through the midrange ) and it sounds more harmonically complete than most RIAA phonos. RIAA's of +-0.1db etc dont mean jack really. It's a bit like those fancy direct drives with an accuracy of 33+-0.0000**1% - because if you are running a pivot arm with an overhang then rotational speed needs to be adjusted for the changing overhang as the arm transverses the record. Now if they were really smart they could program this into the speed controller.
Hallo, ist es Eva hier. Ich bin Axel Sekretärin und ich habe damit beschäftigt meine vchristmas Einkaufen in den letzten Tagen.
Timeltel - you forgot the most common distortion - OMG. This is particular to audiophile systems and usually occurs when one has spent the food money on more important things like new fuses. It is also known to have been used by audiophile widows, upon discovering that the mortgage hasn't been paid.
The problem with most subwoofers is that unless they have been designed as part of the main speaker and are using identical amplifiers & cabling, then the phase and timing will be at odds with the main speaker, thus destroying timing and coherency. Given that harmonics and overtones of a bass note extend right through to the high frequencies ( giving us more information - for example on how hard/fast the drum was hit ) , then a mini-monitor can have a more correct and informative base, even if the fundamental is several db down, than a full range system with phase and timing issues. Even with those parameters in place, the best subwoofer implementations I've heard have nothing above 40-50hz and cant be heard until turned off..
No you dont want to stiffen the headshell, that will destroy the euphonic hyperclarity that attracted Lewm to this arm. Based on the latest studies of the Guarnerie's it would be advisable to take to the arm with hammer and chisel, pop a few chips and dents, maybe a nice neat fracture that you can glue up, and you too will get that lovely sound of a Guarnerie in full stride. The best one I heard had the headshell dampened with bluetack, horsehair & nicotine - sounded wonderful.
The Guarnerie suggestion is pukka. Recent studies have indicated that the imperfections, variations in wood thickness, irregular holes, patched wood panels & tweaks to the original instrument are generating that unique sound. The headshell tweaks are a matter of taste.
Lewm/Timeltel -
You may be interested in reading up on the materials used in my Final Audio Parthenon VTT1. Both the platter and tonearm pod are bolted directly to a 40kg slab of superplastic zinc alloy ( SPZ ).
The TT was designed to have a rigid loop from cartridge to platter and defined energy paths for getting rid of unwanted energy to ground.
The main plinth that the bearing and tonearm pod are directly bolted to is a 40kg 35mm slab of SPZ – superplastic Zinc Alloy.
This "metal" even though it is incredibly rigid and strong, actually self damps at a molecular level due to it's superplasticity – from 10-100hz it behaves like a HIDAMET at room temperature.
Check out p30-35 in the following link -
http://www.interzinc.org/pdf/zinc6.pdf
Furthermore the profile of the 20kg solid aluminium/copper platter has a "curved" bottom profile from the centre out designed to squeeze or deal with energy deflection.
There is an explosiveness, density of tone and lack of smear from the sound of this deck that I have not heard in any other including the much vaunted heavily modded SP10mk3's. The industrial sized AC motor that came standard back in the 70's with a split phase sine/cosine wave generator and torque controller and driven by an 80wpc power amp probably helps too.
The only homogeneous material in your list is slate. Bronze, brass, stainless steel, panzerholz & acrylic are all alloys or compounds that may be homogeneous or heterogeneous in their grain structure. If you assume for the purpose of this exercise that they are homogeneous then SPZ is in that group. It is an alloy of aluminium, copper, magnesium, lead, cadmium & zinc.
It's not easy to bash the record, hold the strobe and camera with 2 hands.
I have to borrow the timeline again - none in country - local audio shop has the only one which I borrowed last time.
Well then the answer to Lewm's question is yes - shape will affect resonance.
You can mathematically model a proposed shape using fourier analysis, but the traditional method of measuring resonance is the use of accelerometers to measure the resonances induced by applying a frequency sweep to the item to be measured at multiple points. The pencil & ear test does not really do much here as I would surmise that it is checking the dampening behaviour at 1 frequency point only for the particular mass, size and shape of both the pencil and the sample material tested. The "sound" of the tap will vary with the positioning of the "tap" on an irregular structure as well. Of course if you add feet - 3 or 4 - then you have built a trampoline and the resonances induced will be quite different to no feet, or varying the location of the feet.
The more complex the shape the more nodes there will be that need to be factored into the calculations. A concave plinth will have more nodes and the maths will be more complex than a flat plinth for example.
Halcro - thanks and best wishes. Agree with Raul, but there have been seminal TT designs putting forward their goals clearly in terms of the record/cartridge interface. The Final's design was based on
"Kitamura's believes that energy cannot be ignored. As the stylus is driven by the groove, it develops a very substantial amount of energy, only a little of which is required to drive the coils. Unless the balance of energy is cleanly drained away and absorbed, it rebounds and resonates in the turntable, arm and cartridge, interfering with the playback quality".
This requirement precipitated the design, the use of record clamping and defined energy paths record/copper/aluminum/bronze/SPZ to ground for both cartridge/arm and record/platter, along with maintaining a closed rigid loop & OTT power supply.
There have been a number of other turntable manufacturers with clear goals on the requirements in addition to speed stability, which is a given, but with different solutions.
Kenwood - championed their closed loop/energy drain/record interface with the L07D
Goldmund brought focus on single point energy grounding and record mat interface.
Roksan were always quite adamant - we are measuring the groove.
If we look at the superdecks from the late 70's, particularly from Japan, their design goals were articulated quite clearly. There's not a lot that is new really, but we have the technology to better execute some of the solutions..
Raul -
I think everyone does think about what you say, but many do not try suggestions out. If I was a turntable designer I'd call it inertia. If I was a cynic I'd call it laziness.
The main issue I have with the nude TT approach is that I believe there must be absolutely zero movement between the turntable bearing/platter position and the tonearm mount in order to measure the groove accurately. The removal of the motor drive from a common plinth can very often reduce this rigidity. I'm sure there are instances where nude will sound better than a poorly designed plinth, but be aware that the shelf then becomes the common junction and the way you mount the motor drive and armpod to the shelf becomes critical. Any differential movement between the motor drive and tonearm pod will result in loss of resolution and articulation.
Halcro - I agree with you, but would also add that you dont need the Timeline to tell you the speed is out on the Transrotor. The piano sounds awful - slow, turgid. Its not a good example of a high inertia deck, I suspect inadequate power supply/motor.
Hey Halcro - wanna try this on your Victor 101 ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwugFlbCOww

I've recorded the KAB speed strobe on my Final Audio Parthenon VTT1 thread drive TT while I bash the record with my knuckle.

Anyone else want to have a go - I used a Carol Kidd record.... from Linn.
Timeltel -
I have a good friend who has worked through several plinths. Slate rings, panzerholz was dead and lifeless. His latest trials are going lighter, using a sheet of ceramic insulation ( rigid, easy to cut and no energy storage ) with an aluminium top and bottom plate ).
His experiments have suggested you need multiple materials even in a light plinth to cancel any fundamental resonances of a given material.
I've often thought for the DIYer the Cotter approach looks worthwhile - alternate layers of aluminium and very hard plastic. This means you are only cutting 3-5mm sheets at a time, then gluing them up.
For best dampening you should use materials that are similar in density and speed - this gives a smooth energy movement from one to the other and minimizes reflection back.
What about a cotter type construction but minimise the plinth and put some sexy asymmetric curves in it - sort of minimal plinth approach - .
My main issue with wood is not the sound, its the dimensional stability. I worry about warpage or movement over the years after spending all that time making it.
What you could do is rout some squiggly lines underneath and fill them with hotglue, lead or whatever, then just make up a story that one of your fellow professors who consults to NASA on chaos theory and energy dispersion in nuclear submarines has designed the optimum geometry for creating energy dispersion channels in stratified timber. I'm pretty sure thats what most reputable TT manufacturers do. Maybe use the golden ration for width to depth ratio just for good measure.
Another option might be to drill random holes of different diameters and depths on the underside to break up the fundamental resonance of the slab.
Raul - I did similar mods to a Denon AU320, and to be honest it didn't help much. There are much better transformers than those. The best I have is a pair of matched Altec 4629 microphone input transformers strapped for maximum gain, cartridge sees about 30/50ohms. They have wider bandwidth and 50% better noise rejection than the Altec 4722 ( which is very good with the Denon 103D ). The 4629 is the same as the 4665 but has leadout wires for hardwiring and eliminates the need for octal sockets. I wouldn't give any time to any of your list apart from maybe the Expressive.
Raul - if you would like to send me the Glanz & Astatic, I would be happy to arbitrate in this matter and give a fair and balanced review.
The mouse and the elephant :
Nandric due to the size of the contact of the stylus, the record groove is about 1/6th the size of a human hair, 1.5g tracking force equates to roughly 340lbs/square inch.
Nandric - I'm surprised you have time to post given the number of cartridges awaiting your attention. I have a Reto Andreoli moving coil preamp sitting on the shelf, but alas no cartridge. Will be interested to see what you hear. My old Denon 103 Garrott still has fond memories for me. Are you going to go for the Vertere tonearm for the Shiraz ??
The issue I have with the Magic Diamond saga is that people are presuming it is a reworked Denon 103 but there is no proof. Even if it was, we have no idea of how much rework is done and at what cost.
As far as I recall the original Van den Hul Grasshoppers started life as a Dynavector cartridge - does this mean the Grasshopper should be US$299.
As to the value proposition, some people spend $50-60k on amplifiers that look like power stations and sound like dentist drills. If they like them so what. I know someone here locally that changed to monoblocks - he told me they sounded worse than the stereo amp, but he liked the look better. His money, his choice.
Nandric - I picked up the "Magic Diamond" moving coil preamp from Germany when I was trying to optimise my very low output Ikeda. For a solid state device it is very good, saw off the Klyne 7, but I prefer tubes for phono. My gut feel is that the Magic Diamond cartridge will be very very good. If I was retipping it I would keep within the original design intent. The Garrott Bros were adamant that fine profile tips such as the microscanner were unsuited to the Denon 103 design - they recommended the weinz parabolic. Same with cantilever. I might have made Walker an offer on their one for sale, but the ruby cantilever puts me off.
Nandric - I'm a bit like Lewm. I dont believe Walker would be pushing the Magic Diamond if he didn't think that it gave justice to his turntable. Same with Raul, he's hard to please, and yet he regards it as a very good cartridge.

Some comments from the designer himself on the new Altair with reference to some other cartridges and their design -
http://www.analog-forum.de/wbboard/index.php?page=Thread&postID=960000

Swiss vendor of Bluelectric products, which include cartridges, amps, speakers - check out Luilui/Micromagic Bluelectric/MC systemebluelectric
http://www.dietiker-humbel.ch/index.php?id=26&tx_commerce_pi1%5BcatUid%5D=54&cHash=fe5cc110a9

I think you will find this gentleman is an artisan who builds complete bespoke systems of quite diverse construct. I suspect producing the same product twice is too boring for him. He clearly has an in depth knowledge of the record cutting process and is attempting to reverse engineer the cutting head with his cartridge design - in other words can I get out of my cartridge what went into the cutting head. In order to do that I need to account for the construct of the cutting head and its various distortions.
LEWM -

There is NO PROOF that the MD is a 103 or based on it.

You keep presenting the assertion "that the MD is based on a 103" as a fact, again and again, but it is unproven.
Speculative discussion on a forum does not constitute proof.
Do you have proof outside of forum gossip ?
Why do you repeatedly misrepresent this product ?
Lewm
I acknowledged that the relationship between the DL103 and the MD was "rumored"

Your last post on the subject on the 11th included the words -
the fact that the MD was derived from the DL103

This is what I objected to.
Now you change tack again on the 13th -
Second, I have no proof up or down that there is any relationship between the two cartridges, and I don't give a s**t one way or the other.

You should be more careful with your English.
Ecir38 - no - I'm right.
The step up ratio's are 1:10 ( 40ohm input ) and 1:33 ( 3 ohm input ).
You divide the preamp input impedance by the square of the step up ratio to calculate the load seen by the cartridge.
There is no 4k resistor as Raul said - this is just the output impedance of the transformer itself.
The published spec is for a 50k input which just means that the specs are as tested for a 50k preamp input resistance.
8 Reasons not to load a MC transformer -
Loading the secondary of a transformer can induce ringing.
Loading the secondary of a transformer will move the transformer out of its intended operating parameters. For example Rauls AU340 has been designed to run into a 50k load. By altering this you are now putting a load in front of the transformer that it is not designed for.
It could be introducing more distortion ( from ringing )
Loss of information from the added resistance
Introduction of phase anomalies
Increase risk of noise from the reduced output ( voltage )
Unless you have the appropriate measuring equipment, you have no idea what altering the intended loading is doing to the signal.
According to Jonathan Carr, a respected cartridge designer, modern moving coil cartridges do not need to be loaded down.

My advice - get a decent phono stage that doesn't overload at high frequencies. As for the rising high frequencies on MC's - try one of these :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_QgHfUgWQw
Lewm/Raul
I'm in the same boat as Raul. I never used to like SUT's much - too coloured and unpredictable. I have always preferred high gain full tube preamps with no loading for MC's ( 47k ) . But since I had the Dynavector Nova 13 rebuilt and bought new Koetsu and Fidelity Research cartridges last year, and decided to have a clear out of surplus gear, I went through everything again including Klyne 7/3 tube head amps/Blueaudio solid state mc preamp ( Magic Diamond ), couple of other phono's & preamps - lo and behold where the Blueaudio used to better everything else as far as step up's go, I'm getting more speed and dynamics with no loss of information from a couple of the transformers, and much less colouration than I used to. I put this down to other system improvements. Careful attention to wiring to minimise losses and preserve signal integrity are vital. Unfortunately the downside of SUT's is like anything you have to buy the best and there is still a certain amount of trial and error involved as Thucan has indicated. Sometimes what you dont expect to work does and vice versa.
Nandric -
MC's generate current not voltage.
Most phono stages amplify voltage ( there are some current devices ).
MC transformers convert high current/low voltage from the cartridge to a low current/high voltage output.
Due to the low current of the signal coming out of the transformer, the cable interface between transformer and preamp is prone to signal loss and noise intrusion.
MC's are balanced, and MC transformers can be wired in balanced mode at the input side - this can have some advantages.
Downsides of MC transformers are the same as output transformers on tube amps - limited bandwidth, phase anomalies ( the signal phase can be skewed at different frequencies ) and insertion losses.

Hope this helps.

This is from my earlier post on the Dynavector Karat Nova's

There are 3 Karat Nova's - Karat Nova 13D, Karat Nova 17D and the reissue Karat Nova 17D. The original Karat Novas have Ebony bodies, the reissue 17D has a metal body.
If the serial number is in the format ## then it is a Karat Nova 13D.
If the serial number is in the format X### then it is a Karat Nova 17D.
My Karat Nova 13D is ##, ie 45.
143 is most likely a 17D.

Now the specs from Dynavector are as follows :
Nova 13D/Nova 17D2
Output 0.12/0.20 (1kHz/cm/sec )
Frequency response 20-40khz/20-30khz +-1db
Channel separation 25db for both
Compliance 18/15
Impedance R=10ohms/R=32ohms
Inductance L=52microH/90microH
Stylus PA Line Contact/Microridge
Cantilever 1.3mm/1.7mm

My Karat Nova 13D has been rebuilt by Dynavector and now has a Microridge stylus and higher output than the original. It is more resolving than the original. You can see the response here :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_QgHfUgWQw

Raul - the Dynavector Karat Nova's should suit your system as the Dynavector reference system back in the day when these cartridges were designed was flat to 13hz.
Raul - I forgot to mention the other reason I think yours is an original 17D is the detachable headshell leads. On the 13D the headshell leads are hardwired off the coils - one less connection. I've had mine for well over 20 years, and had 2 rebuilds, the last one, last year. They rebuild from the ground up, so you essentially get a new cartridge, along with updated test results etc. They dont do rebuilds anymore due to parts availability, so tread wearily.
PS Headshell is very resonant and loses information compared to both the Ikeda and Orsonic headshells. using normal headshells also means more accurate alignment as well - I run Baerwald. Ran superbly in my Naim Aro and am currently using the FR64S.
Hi Raul,
I was going off the picture you posted from Hifido - serial number R143.
I assumed this was the actual one you bought, which is a 17D, and has the detachable wires - see pic.
What serial number do you have ?
As regards the specs they were typed and faxed to me by Masaaki Sasa at Dynavector Japan - so there may be typo errors on his part.
I'm using the Altec/Peerless 4629 trnasformers for this cartridge. Masaaki recommended the Denon AU103.
I also have access to another one that is still original, originally mounted on a Kenwood L07D/Dynavector 501 but now mounted on an SME20/SMEV.
Well I guess I'm lucky, as I bought the NCG 25 years ago. 22 years ago the NCG was PCG for me as I acquired 2 OMG's.
I say to Raul keep on going, keep up the good work, so far I've saved $1000's.
I hope Raul can get to my OMG before I expire so I can RIP.
Timeltel -
I use the Naim grounding scheme, which essentially is only use 1 outlet ( to get grounds as close together as possible ), and sequence the components into the wall starting with power amp and concluding with source. This lowered the noise floor considerably, even eliminating some noise from a video player further down the mains line.
With regard to turntables, my preamp is star earthed and has a separate power supply. What I have done is put additional earth posts on the preamp power supply. This means I can star earth the turntable/motor/motor controller etc separately & directly back to the preamp power supply rather than through the front end of the preamp. This seemed to be beneficial. In my experience with TT's/arms/motors etc it is usually trial and error to get best results as many TT's have inconsistant grounding schemes between platter/motor/controller.
Timeltel - if you ran the Signet MM through the Denon HA1000 headamp, I assume you ran the MM bypass. I cant see how this could improve the sound unless there is an active buffer at 0db, or it is altering the loading that the cartridge sees, fortuitously. I would have expected a decline in transparency due to the extra cable and connectors, but possibly a change in spectral balance.
Timeltel - before you put the big S in front of the crap, I have found it can take several months for old gear that has not been used for a while to run in, caps to reform etc. For determination of best polarity, the Goldmund methodology was to measure all equipment, plugged in and turned on, but with interconnects removed. Start at the power amp and work back to source. Simply measure the voltage between signal chassis and ground, reverse the wall plug, remeasure and select the lowest voltage difference for the optimum orientation for each component. You correct each component as you go. As you have stated there is a big difference when all components have been optimised for polarity. I prefer to change the transformer inputs around inside the component, so that the mains fuse remains in the phase line.
Raul
re Japanese solid state design - considering the boards for laser guided missiles come out of Japan, I would assume they have some capability in designing competent electronics.
There have been many high end SS products built in Japan that have never been seen in the west. Examples are the Final Audio Grangust preamplifier, US25,000 in the early eighties, the Audio Devices AD-C1 preamp US$31,000 in the late eighties. There are many others, so we cannot really exclude these folk from the pantheons of high end audio design from what we have seen distributed outside of that country.
Nandric - I think you are right. The different cantilevers have different characteristics in terms of stiffness, natural dampening and resonance. I suspect that putting ruby cantilevers for example in a cartridge that hasn't been designed for it is courting disaster, at best a lucky dip.
Heaps of Ruby/diamond/Sapphire/Boron cantilevered cartridges available in the 80's, probably more than today.
Sumiko Talisman Boron, Sumiko Talisman Sapphire sold in the 1000's/Kiseki Sapphire/Zenn Ruby/Dynavector Ruby & Diamond to name a few.
Cartridge types - Stax electret condensor using fets, Toshiba - fet cartridge,
also remember listening to Peter Suchy's Clearaudio with the built in phono stage at the headshell in the late 80's.
Then there's the Audionote IO with the DC powered electromagnet's.
Strain guage - yep dozens of those

Not much new really over the past 30 years..
Raul - whilst I regard your cartridge comparisons as invaluable, I do wonder how well your analogue is running. I have a friend with a Technics SP10 will all the mods being touted around this forum, $15k arm/cartridge, and another with bog standard Micro RX5000 ( with air bearing )/$10k arm/cart - the Micro is in another league - particularly in terms of high frequency purity and extension. There is no loss of drive compared to the Technics. I also have another friend with both the Acoustic Plan and an SME20 - again the SME20 is a significant step up from the Acoustic Plan. The Denon DP100 compared to my Final Audio auditioned in the same system compresses dynamics and overloads with complex music - its coloured. So in my experience the Micro should be the best of what you have, but obviously you disagree.
I have an open mind, but I also have to ask why bother, since we have identified so many other wonderful cartridges already, and I regard it as unlikely that either of these two is transcendent.
An oxymoron if ever I saw. I too have an open mind, I live on the other side of the flat earth..
As regards the lack of trust on some reviewers, yes I could agree in some instances, you may be right, but my shrink told me to bury them at wounded knee and since then my system sounds much much better..
I think.
Raul et al - back in the late 80's I imported and sold the Talisman Alchemist, Virtuoso and Shinnon Red's. They are all quite good. I ran the Alchemist with a Syrinx arm for a couple of years and it sounded sharp, incisive and musical. The Virtuoso - there were 2 versions - a Boron and the Dti. These were both a cut above the Alchemist. They sound quick and lively with out usual gunge of high output MC's. The Sumiko Bluepoint are quite disappointing to my ears compared with these older designs. Actaully they are unlistenable - I put a hammer through my Bluepoint as I was not prepared to even give it away.
There are still some undiscovered nuggets to be found.
I would recommend a Shure M95ED. (If you have fat fingers the M95ED cartridge has the added bonus of the Side-Guard Stylus Protection System which responds to accidental side thrusts on the stylus by withdrawing the entire shank and tip safely into the stylus housing before damage can occur).
If you want something a little better try the GRADO DJ-200. This is a DJ cartridge based on the Prestige series and stylus replacement is $120/pr.
If you want to go more European, the latest buzz amongst the EMT fanatics is the Tonar Baktrak DJ Mix phono cartridge, a conventional mounting version of their famous Tonar Banana DJ Disco phono cartridge.
These are genuine giant killers that will annihilate any moving coil, moving magnet and moving iron up to $10k and beyond.
My personal favourite - the Tonar Baktrak with a nice new spherical stylus from the Expert Stylus Co - this will leave the Technics EPC100 Mk6 Revised in its berylium dust.
To match the excitement of a quality moving coil, load the MM's at 75k and put some extra capacitance on the phono input ( about 400pf should be enough ) - this will bring the top end up nicely as well as add a little sheen to the upper mid lower treble.
Now put some Dame Joan Sutherland on, believe me the moths and mosquitos wont come inside at night even if you leave the lights on and the doors open....
Trackability and MM vs MC
This discussion brings to mind the most common mistake I see in these forums.
How often do we see the question asked "whats the best cartridge under $2000 for my Rega/Project/...?"
The old maxim from the 80's analogue era "A $500 cartridge on a $2000 tonearm will invariably sound better than a $2000 cartridge on a $500 arm" seems to be largely forgotten or ignored today.
Back in the 80's I saw well respected tonearms come back with knackered bearings within 6 months after the owners fitted a low compliance LOMC.
I lost count of the number of times I saw folk try and run a Koetsu or similar on an Rega RB300 for example, and wonder why a cheapy MM on a Zeta, Alphason or SME will actually sound more musical and track better.
Nandric,
The Jasmine phono uses J-farts to amplify LOMC's, giving the MC input 70db of gain exclusive of line stage gain. I find them a little too coarse and noisy for my taste. With cartridges around 0.12mv unless you have very high gain, clean and noise free, in my experience dynamics are usually compromised, even if there is sufficient gain.

With regard to cantilever materials, in my experience Boron cantilevers do tend to sound more natural than diamond cantilevers, however, one needs to consider the context in which the materials are used. The diamond cantilevered Dynavector Nova 13D that I have has balls down low so I am not sure how this fits your gender association model. The Dynavector reference system in Japan in the 80's on which the Dynavector cartridges of the day were developed was ruler flat to well below 20hz.

I do agree on the Kisekis. A friend had the entry level Bluespot, and despite being 7-8 years old at the time, it sounded better than many more modern MC's. It could be that the Sony X88D that you have is past it's sell by date as it was highly regarded by a friend of mine who reviewed it for TAS in the 80's along with the Highphonic MCR5, Denon DL1000, Stax ECP & Accuphase AC2 cartridges and concluded it was superior to these other cartridges by a considerable margin.

Dgob, fyi, at the time then SAEC 407/23 arm was very popular and recommended by Highphonic for the review. This combo sounded thin. However the Audiocraft MC3000 fleshed out the Highphonic. Use of dampening on the Audiocraft made the sound more diffuse and was eschewed. Adding mass around the Audiocraft pivot point to load it up enhanced the soundstage focus and dynamics.
Jcarr -
The Sony my friend Warwick Mickell reviewed for TAS in 1983 was described as X88D, not XL88D. Warwick, who was living in Japan, was loaned the cartridge directly from Mori. He describes a precariously long cantilever (diamond) that made him extremely nervous. Do you think the "X88D" was a typo ??
Lewm, why not try an EAR834 - cheap and cheerful and ripe for modification if you feel like it. In standard form it has a very easy sound - very musical.
Lewm et al,
I spent an evening listening to the Soundsmith strain gauge cartridge when Peter visited New Zealand. From memory we listened to the Voice, then the Sussuro and finally Peter put on the Strain Gauge.
My impression of the cartridges were quite positive - the moving irons were grain free and had a very easy sound. The strain gauge cartridge with the matching phono was even more grain free, almost eerily so. Peter stated that the strain gauge output approximated an inverse RIAA and that you could almost play it with a straight high gain input ( no RIAA ). However he did not not recommend this.
The only thing I found odd with the Soundsmith strain gauge was that when I asked him about stylus replacement, he demonstrated how to, and I was quite surprised that it seemed to be held in by magnetism, which left me wondering about what effect this has on the sound. Same with the blue led light - I would have thought this could affect sound quality from such a small signal.
My overall impression was a very grain free and pure sound, but from what I heard I did not get an impression that these had the speed of say a Decca, Ikeda or top flight MC..