Dear friends: Interesting !!!!!?:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?6502-Refund-problem
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Timeltel: For several years and till today there is no single cartridge that does not benefit when we take out its stylus guard.
Your experiences with your 4000/D3 confirm about as the Ct0517 experience too. I think that today every one take out that stylus guard from every cartridge when on playback condition. This really works in favor of better quality performance level.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear nandric: I read that you own an Alpha Genesis 1000 by Monster Cable and I can't remember if your sample is already with Axel for re-tip. Could you confirm about?
I just send to him my sample along my Accuphase AC-2 for re-tip ( cantilever/stylus. ) but I don't decide yet with kind of re-tip. Which do you choosed?
Thank you.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Fleib: Today Axel received my Genesis 1000 and we will see if he can make the up date. I mean " if he can " because you told me that seems that the cartridge " maybe " can't be opened.
Anyway, Axel will tell us about.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear nandric: Now that you mentioned, I bought the Sony XL44L that now is with Axel to an up-date. This cartridge was still made by Sony and its design ( motor ) is similar to the 88 that's a top performer, at least that's what I read on the 88.
What were your expweriences with your Sony XL88 D?
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Nandric: The 88D was along the AT 1000 ( that shares same diamond cantilever/stylus. ) onew of the more expensive cartridges in Japan too, 150K yens in 1980.
The Sony XL44L came with elipthical stylus and I ask Axel to go with nude line contact. Btw, this 44 has lower output than the 88D: 0.3mv against 0.4mv on the 88D.
I just received up dated by Axel a Clearaudio Virtuoso Black Wood, the Goldring G800 and the Ortofon MC 3000MK2. I can't test it because my system still down but I think that in the next two weeks everything comes out again. I can't hear either my Dyna Karat Nova 13D and other " new " cartridges I have up dated.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Halcro: ++++ " Dear nandric: I repeat, those integrated headshell designs were a fashion on those old times and in many ways more marketing that a scientific achievment.
Almost all the cartridge manufacturers of this kind of designs were tonearm manufacturers too: Technics, Audio Technica, FR/Ikeda, Yamaha, Sony, ADC, etc, etc.
Wonder where those integrated headshell designs performs the " better "?, you are right!: with its tonearm counterpart designed by the same cartridge manufacturer.
I owned several of those integrated headshell designs on those old times and I remember the USA distributors/sellers how they push to the integrated designs against its stand alone brothers, curios was that normally first appears the stand alone one and suddenly after that the integrated headshell design arrived and some " stupid " people like me goes through the integrated designs too!. At the end we owned two same model cartridges that means profits$$$ for the manufacturers: who cares?????
Japanese manufacturers does not cares about those " high end " tonearms with non removable headshell designs ( the Lewm argument. ) because almost all of them have on sale their own tonearm designs that were the " best " tonearm match. The integrated cartridge designs were on sale mainly in Asia, then Europe and in lesser way in America.
Marketing always has an important " weight " on audio item designs and in many cases with no clear audio quality parameters/factors as its foundation.
Btw, 80% of the sales on Ortofon/EMT integrated cartridge designs goes to Asia where today still exist a " cult " for that kind of sound.
I don't see that you and the other " proponents " of integrated headshell designs have wide experiences with this kind of cartridges.
Regards and enjoy the music, R.
+++++++++++++++++
in the other side I don't posted nothing about" ++++++ but for you to state that 'modern' development of materials and knowledge has improved the art of cartridge design " +++++++
by the contarry I supported that the vintage designs are have great motors that improve with a today " touch ". One example on this was with my long nose Acutex where I own an original ones with only a " touched " VDH suspension , same model with a cantilever/stylus/suspension up grade and one in stock fashion. Well the best performer is the one with the up dated cantilever/stylus against the stock one and the suspension refreshed one. What I support came from my experiences and certaibnly I'm not contradictory on what I was and am supported in this thread. Now, as you and other people like me we are learning all the time and with this " learning " our each one way of thinking could change a bit. I'm hard sticky on the vintage cartridge motor designs.
+++++ " the days of the 'J' or 'S' shaped tonearms with detacheable headshells were already over with straight-arm designs with fixed headshells being regarded as 'de rigeur' in the high-end community..+++++++++++++""""
where in the high end community?, certainly not Asia. Even today Dynavector and Ikeda still build removable headshel tonearm designs and the best Japanese tonearms are/were on this kind of designs. Btw, japanese people are not greatly influenced on what happen in other/different high end communities.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear nandric/Lewm/Henry: All of you posted that I'm contradictory, well I appreciate that you were more specifics because maybe I did not understand yet in specific in which subjects I'm trhough your posts.
Now, if in true I'm contradictory I can and have to accept it after I can analize what moves me what brings me to been contradictory.
I'm willing as always to accept critics about my " foundations " except when one person post that I'm lying.
The integrated headshell cartridge design subject is controversial as many other audio subjects and my take there is only that the same vintage cartridge model in stand alone fashion outperforms its integrated counterpart. In my " take " the only possibility I " see " that the integrated one could beats the stand alone " sister " is to change the integrated internal wires and after that find out the tonearm ideal match and even here the challenge could be strong because the stand alone one will be on similar whole set up conditions. I had this kind of experiences in the old times, especialy with AT cartridges. Unfortunately in those times I owned a different system and more important I did not care about tonearm/headshell/cartridge matching.
One of the cartridges I owned were the AT24 and its integrated counterpart AT25 and I can't remember big differences on it because the AT24 was mated with AT headshell and AT wires. The problem today is that in those vintage integrated designs we can't change nothing on the internal construction when its counterpart ( stand alone ) be mated with firt rate headshell wires and tested with several headshells till we find out the best match, the stand alone vintage cartridge design has many advantages over its integrated " sister ".
I would like to know if there are some contradictions here or why I'm wrong.
Yes, I have a strong foundation against integrated designs, I don't like its monolitic status: IMHO we all need and in specific the cartridge needs and ask for " alternatives " to shows at its best alternatives to be perfectly matched.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
I think I forgot at least one resonance circuit stage: where the TT is seated.
R. |
Dear friends: IMHO we can't takea tonearm like a stand alone audio item, tonearms are only a part of a very complex resonator circuit where that circuit is full of interrelationships between the different circuit stages, this makes very complicated the tonearm designs.
The intrinsic tonearm resonances/distortions are in " touch " with the other resonator stages just from start:
I think that all begin with the LP, turntable platter plate and the clamp ( when in use ) resonances in at least these ways: amplitud, level, main frequency and harmonics. Next stage belongs to the cartridge it self along cantilever/stylus/suspension/cartridge body/LP. From here goes to the headshell ( integrated design or not ) removable or fixed headshell. Independent on the tonearm/cartridge resonances due to the cartridge compliance and the tonearm effective mass exist a resonance stage in the circuit between the cartridge body/headshell/mount screws/mount level's torque. Then what Fleib posted between the removable headshell and the tonearm arm wand connector and from here goes through the stage between the arm wand resonances and the tonearm main bearing. Then to the bearing/arm pillar and from here to the tonearm arm mount mechanism and from here to the tonearm/TT arm mount.
All those circuit stages can change its relationship " levels " depending on build materials all through the audio items involved in the circuit and even additional or not damping at each stage by whole design.
So IMHO we can't attribute the whole " thing " only to one or two of those resonator circuit stages.
What makes more complex a tonearm design is that the designers do not know how their tonearms will be mated overall.
The analog " cross/croix " are those mechanical resonances/distortions: terrible for say the least.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Fleib: +++++ " that implies a less than rigid headshell/armtube " ++++
++++++ " Using a removable headshell you're much more likely to have vibrations remain in the headshell as they hit the headshell coupling. I have some arms with removable headshells, and I think this is true. IMO it's better to avoid additional resonance, retain greater arm rigidity, and allow the arm to dissipate mechanical energy. " +++++
the kind of resonances and its frequency level depnds mainly not only on how rigid is the coupling but the headshell build material and how resonate and how can dissipate it and not only through the tonearm.
This is something that we worked in deep through the whole design of our tonearm that now is finished. Our tonearm, even that is removable headshell ) does not shows what you states and that can happen with other tonearms that use different build material than our propietary one
Overall build material on tonearms are the main factors on that resonance issue, obviously along other design parameters but build materials makes a paramount and critical differences.
Always exist resonances/distortions on many kind and the success on any design IMHO is try to leave those resonances/distortions away of the frequency range our brain is more sensitive and where could cause more problems.
Tonearm as a whole audio item has a " pre-historic " status and there is a lot of land to improve its main functions. The tonearm as a whole IMHO is just a " kid " and needs to grow up faster in benefit of our hobby. IMHO there is no " last word " or do not writed yet that last word in tonearms so it is exciting to know that the best is forthcoming about.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Audiopulse: My G800 was up dated with nude line contact on aluminum cantilever. I know that Dominic use the Ruby cantilever , when Axel received my Goldring I was tempted to order the ruby/saphyre cantilever but I decided to check before with the aluminum one and hear it to evaluate its quality performance level and from here decide to go or not for the ruby/saphyre one.
I ask Axel to up date the XL44L in the same way than the G800.
After test both carrtridges I will report here. To decide to go to a " better " up grade I want to know first if the carrtridge motor deserve it. I have high expectations on that can happen because both cartridges are very well regarded.
Orinaly I was decided to send the G800 to Dominic but due that I never heard the Goldring I prefered to " wait " and see how good in reality is the cartridge motor.
Now, if the Sony is as good as some persons experienced then I will go latter with the berylium/Gyger2 up date. Btw, now I'm trying to decide if I go with this top up date for my Astatic MF-300due that the 200 is IMHO an stellar performer: I really like the Astatic motor.
I can't help you about what I experienced with the G800 or the Sony because my system is still down.
I bought my G800 trusting on Dominic opinion so I'm waiting that even with the aluminum cantilever the cartridge can performs very good. I can't imagine why the G800 could not perform good with aluminum cantilever, we will see.
Regard and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: IMHO we can't takea tonearm like a stand alone audio item, tonearms are only a part of a very complex resonator circuit where that circuit is full of interrelationships between the different circuit stages, this makes very complicated the tonearm designs.
The intrinsic tonearm resonances/distortions are in " touch " with the other resonator stages just from start:
I think that all begin with the LP, turntable platter plate and the clamp ( when in use ) resonances in at least these ways: amplitud, level, main frequency and harmonics. Next stage belongs to the cartridge it self along cantilever/stylus/suspension/cartridge body/LP. From here goes to the headshell ( integrated design or not ) removable or fixed headshell. Independent on the tonearm/cartridge resonances due to the cartridge compliance and the tonearm effective mass exist a resonance stage in the circuit between the cartridge body/headshell/mount screws/mount level's torque. Then what Fleib posted between the removable headshell and the tonearm arm wand connector and from here goes through the stage between the arm wand resonances and the tonearm main bearing. Then to the bearing/arm pillar and from here to the tonearm arm mount mechanism and from here to the tonearm/TT arm mount.
All those circuit stages can change its relationship " levels " depending on build materials all through the audio items involved in the circuit and even additional or not damping at each stage by whole design.
So IMHO we can't attribute the whole " thing " only to one or two of those resonator circuit stages.
What makes more complex a tonearm design is that the designers do not know how their tonearms will be mated overall.
The analog " cross " are those mechanical resonances/distortions: terrible for say the least.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: Only that people like more the resonances/distortions on the new " toys ", that's all.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Fleib: +++++ " that implies a less than rigid headshell/armtube " ++++
++++++ " Using a removable headshell you're much more likely to have vibrations remain in the headshell as they hit the headshell coupling. I have some arms with removable headshells, and I think this is true. IMO it's better to avoid additional resonance, retain greater arm rigidity, and allow the arm to dissipate mechanical energy. " +++++
the kind of resonances and its frequency level depnds mainly not only on how rigid is the coupling but the headshell build material and how resonate and how can dissipate it and not only through the tonearm.
This is something that we worked in deep through the whole design of our tonearm that now is finished. Our tonearm, even that is removable headshell ) does not shows what you states and that can happen with other tonearms that use different build material than our propietary one
Overall build material on tonearms are the main factors on that resonance issue, obviously along other design parameters but build materials makes a paramount and critical differences.
Always exist resonances/distortions on many kind and the success on any design IMHO is try to leave those resonances/distortions away of the frequency range our brain is more sensitive and where could cause more problems.
Tonearm as a whole audio item has a " pre-historic " status and there is a lot of land to improve its main functions. The tonearm as a whole IMHO is just a " kid " and needs to grow up faster in benefit of our hobby. IMHO there is no " last word " or do not writed yet that last word in tonearms so it is exciting to know that the best is forthcoming about.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dover: +++++ " there is no way to support the most critical subject in the cartridge quality level performance: cartridge/headshell/headshell wires saying that the 30-40+ years old cartridge with integarted headshell are better that its stand alone versions with todays " technology " " ++++++
todays " technology " means: better cartridge/headshell wires, better wire connectors, better headshells and the posibility to choose the best match, etc, etc.
I think that maybe I don't make very precise my point: there is no generalization on that subject it is only on vintage samples against the stand alone vintage same model mounted with today " technology ".
About that additional joint to the tonearm in my case and as many other people we use direct wire/cable connection from the cartridge pin connectors to the Phonolinepreamp.
I posted:
+++++" Today we have several options on headshells, several options on mount screws, several options on headshell wires, several options on headshell wire connectors, several options to align the cartridge. Even some of us like to tame the cartridge " color " through the mount screws using different pressure on the screws/cartridge mounting to the headshell. " +++++
all this are advantages to the stand alone cartridge models due that help to attain the best that vintage cartridge can shows us.
++++++ " the only possibility I " see " that the integrated one could beats the stand alone " sister " is to change the integrated internal wires and after that find out the tonearm ideal match and even here the challenge could be strong because the stand alone one will be on similar whole set up conditions. " ++++
The theory behind that " rigidity " you bring on the subject maybe is more theory than a reality because if we can't hear it it is hard to know helps to detriment on sound quality. I made several experiments about with some of my tonearms: MS and Audiocraft and with my own tonearm self design and I can't say that rigidity makes a difference for the better.
Anyway, only an opinion/experiences.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Audiopulse: My G800 was up dated with nude line contact on aluminum cantilever. I know that Dominic use the Ruby cantilever , when Axel received my Goldring I was tempted to order the ruby/saphyre cantilever but I decided to check before with the aluminum one and hear it to evaluate its quality performance level and from here decide to go or not for the ruby/saphyre one.
I ask Axel to up date the XL44L in the same way than the G800.
After test both carrtridges I will report here. To decide to go to a " better " up grade I want to know first if the carrtridge motor deserve it. I have high expectations on that can happen because both cartridges are very well regarded.
Orinaly I was decided to send the G800 to Dominic but due that I never heard the Goldring I prefered to " wait " and see how good in reality is the cartridge motor.
Now, if the Sony is as good as some persons experienced then I will go latter with the berylium/Gyger2 up date. Btw, now I'm trying to decide if I go with this top up date for my Astatic MF-300due that the 200 is IMHO an stellar performer: I really like the Astatic motor.
I can't help you about what I experienced with the G800 or the Sony because my system is still down.
I bought my G800 trusting on Dominic opinion so I'm waiting that even with the aluminum cantilever the cartridge can performs very good. I can't imagine why the G800 could not perform good with aluminum cantilever, we will see.
Regard and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: I think " that " could be a huge contribution to the whole audio community and not only to satisfy each one of us.
R. |
Dear Halcro: +++++ " however when a statement is made that a principle in audio is superior to another, that statement should be demonstrable in some scientific manner? If it is claimed that a rigid headshell is better than a detachable one….this should be audible on any system…..not just one’s own? It cannot be logically valid that a statement is true but cannot be proved to be true? " +++++++
that's why many times is only theory but as I posted ( btw, I posted by 05-27-12 and because Agon does not posted I repeat it on 05-28. Something is happen there because if you read it is only today that Agon posted my post to Audiopulse that I writed and posted by 05-25-12!!! and to Dover on 05-26-12 ) the problem is that many times we are taking single theories for a single subject when as I pointed out the whole " thing " works as a resonator circuit where each stage on that resonator circuit has a direct and indirect relationship in between: any change in any of those stages ( inside the resonator circuit ) affect directly to the final " sound ".
It is " fun " for all of us to talk on this subject but our conclusions could be useless in some ways if we don't take or work on the whole resonator circuit.
IMHO our conclusions are " unfinished " ones and extremely difficult to prove it as you said.
IMHO we must to have a " mathematic's model " of that resonator circuit where all the parameters/factor with influence been on that model. This sounds good but I think very complex if we take in count all the parameters/factors invloved and its combinations because that model must include audio item build materials.
Whom's of us say: I take that " bull by its horns " ?. Here we have very brave contributors that can do it and that maybe as a " contribution task " some of this brave stand alone contributors can works togetter to achieve that resonator circuit model.
I'm just thinking in " high voice ".
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Timeltel: The original 4000 D3 stylus description is: " miniature nude diamond with .1 mil tracing radius " 4 Dimensional ". " and with this cartridge the back plate is black, I own two of these cartridges.
The white back plate is the one with LAC stylus and is a newest " model/vintage " than the original. Empire LAC stylus was used on that D3 and further on the newer models as the 600 LAC and 750 Limited.
The latest D3 encarnation is the Gold one. Obviously all three models performs different and at least with my D3 sample I can't say is euphonic one, yes it is not an universal cartridge that performs the same on any tonearm but when well matched seems to me is near neutral. Set up is critical as with any other cartridge.
Anyway, in your cartridge sample: how can you know that the stylus is the LAC one and not the original one?.
Empire did so many changes through the time that is difficult to identify for sure about, even exist OEM ( " original " ) D3 stylus replacement but the question could be the same: LAC or original one?
I think that do that the cartridge motor was still the same the sound signature of the cartridge is near the same.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: I live this thread, better yet I love the people here.
There is no single subject no single question coming from everywhere where almost all of you have always a precise answer to help any one!!!! always are willing to give that help.
For my part I only can say: THANK YOU, ALWAYS APPRECIATED.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear banquo363: I understand you own the Astatic MF-200 but I can't remember if you posted your experiences with this cartridge.
I think that could be interesting for many of us to add/share those MF-200 experinces here. Could you?: thank's.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Fleib: Very good information from your last post, thank's.
I, mainly, started my interest in the Genesis 1000 when I read one of your posts about, then I made some search on the net and decided to buy one and " see " what happen. With your post you confirmed all what I read it on the net.
In the other side, I was unaware that my Accuphase AC-2 designed by the same Genesis designer. I know very well the AC-2 and as you say " is very nice too ".
I'm thinking to " re-build " my AC-2 with berylium cantilever, I want to try something different on what I'm accustom with that cartridge, my take here is that this cartridge motror is worth to try in that " direction " we will see.
The cartridges are in the " road " to Axel and I don't know what could be his advice on the Genesis 1000, I have to wait.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dlaloum: Axel handle exotic materials but in rod shape. I asked him about tube cantilevers because my XL-44L came with and I wanted to have the same kind of cantilever but he told me he can't do it: no suppliers.
Fleib, only to confirm that the cantilever on the AC-2 is boron.
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Fleib: Looking to the Acutex line maybe that 312 price could be a fair one, take a look to this Acutex brochure:
http://www.vinylengine.com/library/acutex/phono-cartridges.shtml
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear banquo363: Yes, I agree with you as Dean_man and other Astatic MF-200: nothing short as a marvelous performer.
+++++ " The Astatic is the first cart to play through it without distortion all the while conveying in full detail the drama of the musical climax. The instruments retain their tone throughout these difficult passages. The 20ss can play without any obvious distortion as well but also without the fullness and presence of the Astatic. " +++++
I posted almost the same, the tracking MF-200 habilities is second to none not even the 20SS can eve it. If it is true that the 20SS makes a great job running the Telarc 1812 overture the MF-200 makes not a great job but a seamless one that no other cartridge I remember shares.
I posted several tiemes the critical importance on cartridge own tracking habilities as a characteriostic that always makes a difference for the better or worst. That the stylus stay always in the grooves makes the difference a paromouint differences. Tone, timing, focus, flow of the music are some distinctive factors that we can aware on cartridge differences on tracking habilities and this sole characteristic put the MF-200 in a different quality performance level than any other cartridge.
Due to its greatness IMHO is a must to have at least two samples of the MF-200.
Sooner or latter I will make an official Agon review, this cartridge deserve it.
Good to know you " discovery " the greatness of this Astatic.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lespier: Maybe in some time the AC-2 came with sapphire cantilever but mine came with a non-sapphire one or at least not a " pure " sapphire ", I mean that could be a sapphire cantilever with a cover of " something " that preclude to see the " sapphire " build material: transparent/clear.
Thanks to bring your link here. I will ask Axel when he has in his hands, at the end Axel handle sapphire cantilevers.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Halcro: ++++++ " I would like to think that the choice of electronics was not the defining characteristic in extracting the worth of either cartridge technology... " +++++
I can't agree more with you. Downunder is stiucky to the idea of LOMC/tubes and MM/SS as its best couple. I discussed with him in the past about supporting what you posted.
I still support that the MM/MI tracking cartridge habilities makes a difference on quality performance for the better against its LOMC counterpart. Better tracking habilities means almost always lower a lot lower distortions that gives near neutral performance against more colored performance with higher distortions ina LOMC cartridge due to more problems on tracking cartridge habilities.
According to Downunder IMHO if one electronics kind of technology makes a better match to MM/MI or to LOMC then both electronics designs are wrong. A good electronics design must add the less and lose the less with absolutely accuracy to makes any cartridge kind to shows at its best and IMHO if one each kind of electronics can't do it then it is because failures somewhere in the electronics designs.
Seems to me there are no valid factros/parameters to say LOMC is matched better with tubes electronics but for the contary due to the very low output of MC cartridge the " natural " couple to a MC cartridge is the very low noise active high gain characteristic on the SS electronics, don't you think?
The other important part on what we think on the whole subject has to be with: how " euphonic " are biased our ears/brain?
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dover: ++++ " ome of us are quite sensitive to high frequency ringing and compression in solid state phono stages. " +++++
again, this depends on the SS electronics design. IMHO any SS good design plain and simple does not shows that " ringing and comprression... " and if did then there are somewhere failures in its design but not because is a SS design.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Halcro: +++++ " And if you ever do obtain one of the great MMs........remember that switching from it to a LOMC will always sound initially impressive. It's switching back the other way that the truth is revealed IMHO... " ++++
agree, but I think that Downunder really likes or likes more that what heposted the MM/MI alternative because he said here:
+++++ " however I have no desire to take these two mm's off the table. They sound superb. " ++++++
Btw, Downunder if you like the AT-25 then you have to find out the AT-24 that's its stand alone ( similar model. ) twin that gives you a better quality performance level. I'm with you on the greatness of the stand alone P100CMK4 really a must to have/experience. The problem with the Halcro MK3 is more on its headshell integrated design ( that degrade the cartridge signal. ) than on the MK3 version.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Banquo363: ++++" Due to its greatness IMHO is a must to have at least two samples of the MF-200. " ++++
my meaning there is to have the original MF-200 along a MF-300 ( same cartridge motor but lower price. ) where this one can be up-graded by Axel trying to achieve a next step level over the already great MF-200!!!!!
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Halcro: That " missing link " is really informative and in many ways confirm not only what J.Carr shared with us about aluminum cantilevers but what Fleib posted about Gyger stylus shape on an answer to Nandric.
Thank you to share with us this great " link ".
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dover: I think that maybe you can help me: as you know I bought a Dynavector Karat Nova 17D/13D? but now that I see it I can say for sure that the cantilever in my sample has not not only the 1.3mm length but neither 1.7mmm but a larger cantilever so my cartridge sample is not on original shape about.
I will send it to Axel to a modification and my question to you is what can I ask to Axel: to fix with a 1.7mm or 1.3mm cantilever or leave to Axel the choice about?
Thank you in advance.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: Yes, who cares about on a 60K audio item: he don't bought because of accuracy.
Was J.Atkinson whom made the measurements.
Again, yes there is noe xcuse for that $ 5.00 rubber-mat.
About the audio system owners that bought$$$$ mainly because status is one of the reasons why exist very expensive products that can't justify through quality performance level those very high prices.
When I started to bought " dozens " of LOMC cartridges my primary target is to have only the top ( high price ) cartridge models does not cares how good or not were. Then I learned but I invest a lot of money to learn.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends:That Altair cartridge bring me again something that in some ways I'm worried about, I read that the playback time of the stylus is around 15,000 hours along this in my Allaerts the designer support that the stylus can run for 10,000 hours.
First than all I don't understand how these cartridge builders can attest that long life for the cartridge stylus, I mean: how can they been so sure to write/guarantee that to their customers? how? because no one explained that.
But what really worried me is ( in those cartridges or in any other cartridge. ): for how many hours a cartridge can or coudl performs in similar way ( after settle down from new status. ) as when " new ". This is: when the stylus wear shows or are we aware that the quality performance level changed from its original performance level? and I dfon't mean when that stylus wear is obvious but when it is not.
My take here with non scientific facts is that due to how are recorded the signal in the LP grooves ( imperfections between other things. ) and the so " fragile " cartridge set up especialy that tiny stylus tip every single microscopic stylus tip wearing contribute to degrade the quality performance level through higher distortions of every type.
Many times we are not aware of that because our ears goes equalized " time to time " ( day by day ) and we don't noted the tiny quality performance changes till due to that wearing is obvious.
i WAS THINKING ABOUT BY SOME TIME NOW BECAUSE i THINK THAT THE UP DATE THAT i WAS DOING TO EACH ONE OF MY VINTAGE CARTRIDGES THROUGH Axel/VdH and the like and the improvement that I always achieved with all the cartridges was not only because suspension refresh or cantilever but due ( too ) to the new stylus tip against the wearing that any those vintage cartridges " shows " it that degraded the cartridge signal. Almost all those vintage cartridges we own are second hand that means ( even if the seller said the contray ) that stylus tip has some kind of wearing that affect the habilitie of what that stylus tip can " read " from the grooves.
I think that should be more important to have from the cartridge designers/builders not how many hours can play the stylus: 15K-10K or 2K, but how many hours can play before ( in a high resolution system. ) we can be aware of quality performance changes even if after that we can go on with that carrtridge having a " decent " performance.
Am I wrong? what do you think?
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Timeltel: That Grace is " unknow " because never riched America but in its times was its top of the line.
A little history here from the information I have:
1978 was launched the F8s, lattest the F8-V. 1979 came the MC SF-100 and integrated headshell design and then the F9s. Latter in 1984 came what Grace named Level II with 8 models and then in 1985 came the F14s series with 10 models.
I have some of its specs but is very long to writed here.
I don't think that one of our Grace F9s Axel's re-tipped can be beated by that F14 you are talking about, of course I can't be sure but I doubt seriously.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
and for the F14 asked price I can have two F9s Axel retipped!!!!
R. |
Dear Lewm: Certainly than Axel can help you, SS is to busy. You can ask with him for the sapphire ( ruby similar and he has in stock. ) cantilever with shibata or Gyger2 or superelliptical stylus shape, he can gives you a better advise that me.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Rlxl: Yes, to l-o-n-g fortunately as Dlaloum there are several persons that always are willing to help any one.
Axel is a friendly gentleman and " speaks " english better than me.
One of my F-9s, the Ruby, needs Axel's touch and I will send to him. As always I will share the playback experiences with and I hope you can share your F9 experiences when the cartridge come back.
Thank's to meet us.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Axel email: info@schallplattennadeln.de
R. |
Dear Timeltel: I own all those cartridges including the Jico stylus replacement what I don't " own " yet is the time to test it.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dgarretson: Good for you, I'm sure you will be " happy " with its quality performance level.
Btw, with all respect to that Acutex seller seems to me " stupid " that some one refuse to ship to Europe or other diffrent place than domestic because there is no single problem to any one when do that, the " effort " to ship domestic or international is the same ?????
Regrads and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear harold-not-the-barrel: Well I think the Ultra 500 is superb everywhere. If I remember Dlaloum agree with us about.
About Acutex: yes try to find out the 320 either flat or long nose models that IMHO are a lot better than the 400 series. Here we discuss about and >I think we agree on that.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: I only can give my experiences about: I run at 100K ( I tested before at 47k and sounds good but prefer 100K. ) and is important to have capacitance options to at least 400pf and in increment of 50pf.
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: Yes, I have a constant 100K load impedance and vary the capacitance value. Till today I not found out any cartridge that " refuse " to perform at its best with that " treatment ".
As a " plus " in my Essential Phonolinepreamp I achieve 100K whit out a resistor in the signal path ( input ) and you know that the best resistor is no resistor!
Btw, Timeltel: +++ " hfs are spectacular at 100k but sometimes distracting.. " ++++
IMHO this depends on each audio system quality level performance. Fortunately I have not that " distracting " episode.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Timeltel: I posted about my cartridge experiences , I never heard that AT in my system.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dlaloum: ++" on occasion I have experimented with 150k R loads, but these were academic curiosities only.." ++++
if I remember Dgarretson already tested with load impedance values 0ver 200K what I can't remember is what he listened, I hope he can chime about. In those time I wanted to test some values higher than 100K but never did.
Lewm, IMHO the best is a single fix resistor. I experienced several tests on that subject with our phonolinepreamp in the RIAA stage and over the phono stages. In the other side as Dover posted the resistor's quality level is very important and makes a difference.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dgarretson: Thank's to chimed on the resistor subject.
In the other side, I re-tipped one of my 315 samples trhough VDH with great success obviously with VDH 1/2 ?? stylus shape and boron cantilever.
Axel has several options:
PRICE LIST for retipping MC Cartridges ( English )
with spherical diamond stylus and aluminium cantilever EUR. 89,00
with elliptical diamond stylus and aluminium cantilever EUR. 99,00
with nude line diamond stylus and aluminium cantilever EUR. 159,00
with hyper elliptical diamond stylus and aluminium cantilever EUR. 169,00
with rebuilt Shibata diamond and aluminium cantilever EUR. 179,00
with nude elliptical diamond and BORON cantilever EUR. 195,00
with nude elliptical diamond and aluminium cantilever EUR. 189,00
with original nude shibata stylus and CARBON cantilever EUR. 225,00
with original nude shibata stylus and aluminium cantilever EUR. 265,00
with original nude shibata stylus and BORON cantilever EUR. 265,00
with original GYGER II diamond stylus and aluminium cantilever EUR. 265,00
with original Nude Shibata diamond and BERYLLIUM cantilever EUR. 325,00
So you can choose almost what you want it.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Bigerik: I own and tested ( some only briefli. ) today Rega, Sumiko, Reson, Clearaudio Goldring, AT95, AT150MLX, etc, I would like to try the Ortofon 2M Black. At least the Virtuoso showed a very high quality performance compared with the best vintage ones.
To rank cartridges is really a hard task especially when exist so many top performers where you can live " happy " with either one. Today maybe I can rank my cartridges.
I know that the MF-200 is very hard to beat overall but the re-tipped Virtuoso too and the Technics P100CMK4 too and the AKG P100LE too and and the retipped Acutex too and the 20SS too..and....and...too!!!So as I said a hard task.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Halcro: Not really, I'm still hooked by all those MM/MI gems. Things are that " suddenly " came to my mind the " idea " to test vintage renowed ( at least by me. ) LOMC cartridges Axel re-tipped. I just bought around 8-10 LOMC ones that I want to test it. I'm thinking something that could be or not true: that vintage LOMC cartridges were a lot better that we can think and many of them ( re-tipped. ) can not only compete with the best today LOMC ones but even could beat one or two of them more easy that we can think.
I always " seen " the MM/MI as an alternative in the same way that the LOMC is an alternative too. I'm still own several modern LOMC cartridges and already heard almost all latest models and because these ones does not " impress " me as designs that outperform in clear way LOMC cartridges designed a few years ago came to me the idea to test vintage ones that I know were top ones: we will see how compares against the today ones and obviously against the MM/MI " creme of the creme ". Yes, one of my LOMC outperform overall the best MM/MI cartridges and I want to know if that is an exception or could exist more.
As with the vintage MM/MI the vintage LOMC we can buy for a lot less money than any today cartridges.
Halcro, you know me: I'm " married " with the music and only with the music, hardware is only a tool to enjoy it.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |