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 rauliruegas

Dear friends: Final stage/step on the SR20 fuses " film/picture ".

I changed the four ML fuses ( these ones in the internal power supply stages. ). To make this task I have to open the ML amplifiers ( take out two face plates. ) because there is no acess from the top of the ML.

This could be an " easy " task on normal system ampliifers set up but my ML's are hard wired input to output at both " sides ": signal and electrical, so it is not an easy task to do it and in the other side I have to make it by my self ( stand alone. ) when each monoblock has a weight over 40kgs.

Anyway, I made it and not a single doubt: worth that job, the rewards came inmmediatly.

This last step was the fourth step and in each one the audio system received benefits with unexpected improvements for the better: not different quality performance level but a better one, always.

What happened this time: well, overall distortions gone even lower given the whole system presentation a better accurate tonal balance, transparency, better dynamics and an unherad before music detail at micro and macro levels. Both extremes of the frequency range improves given the music the " immediacy " precense that only the live music has.

The whole experience in my today system is a really NEW experience that I never had before in any of several audio systems I heard.

The level of neutrality ( near cero distortions/degradations. ) of the system is just astonishing and if you are not accustom at this very REAL kind of audio system experience maybe you could think something is wrong down there.
I say this because that's what I experienced and I have to " investigate " more in deep ( through more listening tests. ) what was happening there.

I invite two of my nearest audio friends that have " difficult " ears to satisfy ( each one in different time. ). In both cases they were surprised why the quality system performance level was " degraded ", why my before system losted its " live " its sparkle performance level.

In fact nothing was losted but distortions, every music nuances are there but in a new dimension in a more real dimension in a more " live " dimension.

Today if you listen to the Nardis track on the P.Barber Cafe Blue where through the track the cymbals sound from the left side of the stage are really " busy " once and again there are times where what you heard on those cymbals grooves are a very alive smearing sound that impose to the music performance a grade of " dynamics " that we can take as " alive ".
Normaly through those cymbals sound you are hearing " sound " from the harmonics more than the fundamentals, sometimes because the speed of each and the next strokes ( one after one. )on those cymbals and some time because the kind of smearing sound.

Today I can hear any single stroke on those cymbals and I mean: any single stroke and now the harmonics tooks definition too, palpability and not only smear. Now you can " touch " that cymbals system sound.
I only heard this kind of music performance at live events.

That's only an example of what is happening. The system dynamic performance is today a lot lot better than before with lower " spark " but with higher neutral and accurate reality .

I made tests with both friends changing the fuses ( the ones that I can change fast. ) for they can take in count what was happening and to confirm what I'm relating here.

Today the natural agresiveness that has the live music is more real than ever because there is not only that agresiveness but a more neutral, precise and defined agresiveness and not only non precise defined " distorted sound ".

IMHO maybe all of you can't understand what I'm trying to explain because mayeb you never experienced but on live music events and translate that to a home system is something that I think we can't " imagine " till we hear it.

Anyway, lower distortions means more MUSIC and more MUSIC ENJOYMENT.

A lower distortions/neutral and accurate audio system permit to evaluate in a better way not only music but any single audio item as cartridges, tonearms and the like. You can have better and truer conclusions on audio item comparisons/evaluations.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Acman/Nandric: This is what I posted to Don in the page ( I think ) 178/177 about the 981s:

+++++++ " The 981 specs on the operation manual say that all the 981 came with this values: DC resistance 850 ohms and Inductance 450 mH. Well, my 981 calibrated cartridge comes with this values that are in the cartridge calibration chart signed by the man that made the cartridge calibration: DC resistance 616 ohms and Inductance 248 mH. Obviously that that cartridge calibration gives real advantages against no cartridge calibration. " ++++++ output: 0.92mv

in the other side my samples ( 981 and XVS5000 stylus replacement ), both are MK2 generation. Better than the MK1?, who knows.

Nandric, just enjoy it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lewm/Dover/Richardkrebs/Frogman/friends:

First than all I respect your opinions that I agree/disagree on the TT/plynt subject.

For months/years I posted several times that no one can design/build the " perfect " TT ( obviously plynt inclusive. ) till understand that the TT can't be designed as a stand alone unit.

IMHO the TT must be designed around the LP/cartridge needs. All the TT and after market plynths ( IMHO ) were and are designed with not only no scientifc foundations but with out precise and specific LP/cartridge targets.

The use of Fourier analysys or other maths tools means almost nothing till we not have that precise and specific LP/cartridge targets to from here start the TT design that can fulfil those specific targets.

IMHO till today I never read/see/heard or the like no one no site/place/designer that told us ( customers ) that his TT design fulfil the specific LP/cartridge needs: NO ONE.

To say that we need a well damped TT, a fast disipation build materials, a low resonance design and the like means nothing till we know for example:

which kind of resonances/distortions/vibrations ( generated through the whole TT design ), at which frequency range and amplitude have an influence in the /LP/cartridge signal degradation? which kind of degradation/coloration could we hear if we don't " tame " those r/d/v? how can we " tame "/disappear those r/d/v?

this simple/plain example has several alternatives/answers almost an infinite number where independent of maths modeling ( that can't tell me how can we hear it: music " color " presentation. )we ( the designers ) must to hear to confirm or not the maths modeling results and this means to have a work team where some of their members have to build TT protoype after TT prototype till we even what the math model said it with what we heard!!!!!

But ( always exist this: " but ". ) that: " we must to hear... " means that we need a " perfect " audio system to make all those tests, we need it along determinated references to make those comparisons.

Gentlemans, the answers and solution to that " perfect " TT certainly is not a stand alone one man task even if this man is " Newton " with top Universities below his " command ".

IMHO, to make/design that " perfect " TT we need a team work full of knowledge persons experts in different areas and obviously with different proved skills. We need experts in live music, experts in reproduced sound, experts on audio systems, experts on LP/cartridge relationship, experts on maths modeling and maths tools, experts on build materials, experts on vibration control/transmision, etc, etc, etc.

Who can do it?, please name it. With all respect: any one of the today and vintage TT designs or TT plynth designs as Lewm or Porter or any one of us?

I know that almost all of us want to improve the quality performance level of what we are hearing at home but almost all of us are doing that with out specific targets and many times we make changes almost at random where sometimes works and many times does not works. We have not a scientific method.

Today, I decided ( example ) to change fuses and maybe tomorrow I will change speakers position and latteron room treatment changes and we all did and do this with foundation in our each one experiences and what we like.
Yes, we have some range of advance but normally is not enough to be there.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lharasim: Do it a favor and make that your post be worth up. Right now you have nothing on hand " against " my SR20 fuse experienced statements I posted, so IMHO what you posted has no sense to me.

Make your work/job and test the SR20s in your system and then with your first hand experiences come back and post your experiences, I'm sure that you could be extremely happy to post here something like this:

++++ " Raul your SR20 statements are plain wrong and the worst fuses Itested, those SR fuses are a " piece of cheat " ++++++

and of course telling why the SR20s are that kind of " animal ".

Till you have a self SR20 experiences you have nothing on hand.

Anyway, your opinions are always welcomed.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear nandric: I think that whom can give you/us a " definitive " answers about the Stanton subject should be Richard the author of the Stanton's bible.

We all appreciated if you could contact him on the subject through the lencoheaven forum/site.

My " take " on what you own and what I own ( 981 calibrated ones. ) is that are the same or performs the same but can't be sure till we can compare it.

Btw, I agree with you about that " hand selected " as AT/Signet ones.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lewm: ++++++ " that we have radically different preferences, anyway. (Yet, surprisingly, we do agree on some things, as well.) " +++++

not really, we have more in common preferences than differences.

IMHO the speakers in an audio system always makes a difference: main differences on overall audio system quality performance level/system " colorations ".
Well, my friend Guillermo bought his big Sound Lab speakers because were the speakers that sounded " similar " to my system sound presentation. So, I know you and me are less diferent that what you think.

Regrads and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Indieroehre: Agree with you, that JVC 7045 is very good/nice tonearm that always respond to the asking needs of the cartridges with aplomb, accuracy and adding/losting the less.

Yes the JVC TT-71 is " promising ". I hope can achgieve yoyr targets.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Fleib: +++++ " Although I don't own an HZ, it didn't seem to have the same level of neutrality. I realize this answer isn't definitive,.... " +++++

if you resd my post I asked for a today first hand experiences with both 981 versions for we can compare each other experiences and try to think what I'm missing or what you are missing if we missed something at all.

The subject is not which one is right or has reason but try to be nearest a common answers that can help to other members.

So, I can't argue about in that regards comparison.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Dover: I agree and that's exactly what Lewm posted time ago.

In my set up I use the same footers for the TT and tonearm and same plattform even that I know it is not the ideal/perfect way but that's my alternative that till today worked fine for me.

Of course that I would like to have a good looking plinth that can works as good the naked fashion or even that beats it.

I'm not against the plinth per se, it is only that what exist around IMHO does not fulfil the targets I already achieved. No, I did not try all the plinths around and certainly I can't do it. I will wait for a better alternative.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Btw, when I propose the TT naked version people " laugh " of that idea/experience and no one took it in count.

Latter on Halcro and a few audiophiles given a try and they like it.

DD naked fashion is only an alternative that for some it works and for others like you does not works.

Anyway a different and " new " experience.

R.
Dear friends: If I remember some one of you ask in " desperate " way for this tonearm and here it is in new condition:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Audio-Technica-AT1010-Tonearm-NOS-/221164946666?_trksid=p5197.m1992&_trkparms=aid%3D111000%26algo%3DREC.CURRENT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D14%26meid%3D4675948822589863993%26pid%3D100015%26prg%3D1006%26rk%3D1%26sd%3D221164946666%26

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lewm: I repeat, my main target on sound reproduction is that the bass management be " spot on " and in my system at 100R that target is achieved in better way. That's all.

The darkness on the cartridge is only a different " color " or shade of color than the one in the HZ version.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Timeltel: Why do you need a plinth with the JVC TT71. I tested on naked way ( and with its own plint: wood participle board. ) and IMHO performs even better than his big brothers and tiny below the Denons. Of course is up to you, as always.

For the same money for the AT1010 you can get two tonearms that IMHO outperform the 1010: Sony PUA237 and JVC U245, in both cases you can find out versions of the same tonearms with longer effective lengt. I don't have any experiences with the longer tonearm versions but what these two tonearms are showing handling MM/MI/LOMC cartridges is just fine.

I own yout Technics and the EPA-100, today I'm in favor of the SONY and JVC.

Of course are only additional alternatives.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lewm: As you know load impedance with low output cartridges is critical. I tested values above 100R and yes ( as always happen with this kind of cartridge designs. ) we perceived a little less darkness but in my case I don't like it the trade-of at the other frequency extreme.

I like a " perfect " tonal balance ( that even I don't know if really exist in the recording. ) and for me the foundation of the music in a reproduction music in a home system belongs to the bass management and the calibrated 981LZ performs better in this regards at 100R with out sacrifice at the other end. As I said dark is only a " color " and there are different level/tones of that dark/color.

In the other side I hope that when you made it the impedance 981 comparisons you made it with even volume in both cases because the SPL at 100R is lower than at 1k and you know that our ears perceive small differenecs on SPL but here is very important because we are making comparisons.

Anyway, I think that we really agree in the main subject about along the other Stanton's lovers.

Btw, I want to find time to test my Pickering TL4S, could be interesting.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R
Dear Frogman: +++++ " Wether that effect is audible or important enough to any one listener is another story " ++++

that's the point. For me IF is AUDIBLE then is IMPORTANT but till today I never read anywhere a single " voice " that related how he heard/identified that stylus drag and how he knows/knew that what he heard was because stylus drag it self and no for other " factors ". How could he aisle the stylus drag " fact " from the whole playback environment?

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Stanton: Something curious: in the calibartion chart the numbers were achieved with a VTF: 1.0grs but on the traking capability number that states: 100 microns ( fabolous number. ) that number was achieved not at 1.0grs in VTF but at: 1.25grs.

I wonder if the other numbers could change at this higher VTF, on sound performance improved a little on detail/definition but something that I had to test again and again to be sure about.

My sample are MK2 ( even the Pickering stylus. ), which yours?

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear nandric: My mistake. My JVC is the UA-7045 and as you said a lovely looking " guy ":

http://www.vinylengine.com/library/jvc/ua-7045.shtml

the other JVC I'm aware is the UA-7082 that's a long version.

If you can try tp find the Sony PUA-237, very good and great with LOMC cartridges.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Griffithds: +++++ " states many times in that handbook NOT to mix styli with various bodies. He says you will get music, but it will not be what was intended by the disigner of the cartridge. " +++++

if you read trhough this thread and otehr threads that was exactly what I always supported, that was always my advise, but this always is not for ever.

Through the time and due to experiences on re-tipping my cartridges through VDH first and latter on Axel I changed my mind because I took in count that I could and can have serious improvements if I go against my way of thinking on this regard.
The time gives me the precise answer and confirms that I was wrong but not only I experienced about but several Agoners inside this thread and other threads already experienced the same that I experienced.

That's why exist SS or Axel and many other re-tippers.

That statement I learned through the AHEE but not all what the AHEE teach to us is right an unbiased.

Griffithds, as me all of you day by day are growing up and learning " things " for the better or bad and with this kind of learning all of us are enriching our audio/system knowledge in favor of MUSIC.

I just received from Axel my Lira Clavis DaCapo and it's a new formidable LOMC cartridge a lot lot better than the original. When time permit I will speak on this Lyra re-tipped one that confirm ( once again. ) that that statement, AHEE and me were wrong.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear friends: The Precept experiences have to wait because I just receive in amint condition a Glanz MFG-71L that was the top of the line and in theory " similar " to the Astatic MF-100 that is a well regarded cartridge by its owners including me.

In the Glanz thread and maybe in other thread too ( I can't remember if in this one either. ) I have a serious disagreement/controversy with the Glanz against the Astatic ones and against the integrated headshell Glanz versions against the stand alone version as the one I'm talking about.

That controversy was so serious that the other person involved in that controversy implied that I was lied.

So, time to leave clear the " old " Glanz/Astatic controversy by my self and no better way that with the top Glanz ( stand alone version ) " dog ". We will see, normally " the time always put things in the right place where belongs".

Btw, maybe not many of you are interested about and I say this because almost no one took in count seriously the Astatic similar cartridges that at least the MF-100 and the MF-200 IMHO are top performers.
I insist, if you look somewhere any of these Astatic cartridges my advise is: buy it with no ask.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Dover: Thank's for your offer but IMHO in all cases the best arbitrate almost always are each one of us.

Imagine that all the cartridge comparisons in this thread could needs an arbitrate!!!!!

Fortunately things in audio are not so complicated as to have an arbitrate, at least for now and at least with persons that are not audio " rockies ".

What I can do is to put on sale for you the cartridge that was outperformed after my comparison. Just tell me.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lharasim; You are right, your Astatic is the " losted link " and no one can find out. Lucky you are!

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Nandric: Dear Nandric: This is one of the MD threads I refered to:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1174270052&read&keyw&zzspu

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lewm: There were and are cartridge designers that supported and still support spherical stylus shape.

Fulton was one of them I own one of his models that's a LOMC that from its specs goes on frequency response up to 50khz and performs really good.

Stylus shape is very important in a cartridge designs but only a part in the whole design.

I own the Denon 103 and is an average performer, many persons said that for its price is a great performer.

I don't know what Andreoli made with that 103 platform but I heard it and is a lot better than the 103. IMHO those persons that affirm that the performance on both cartridges is similar I think ( with all respect ) their audio systems has no adequate resolution for or their ears are " closed ".

About the MD price: what do you think on the 15K+ Koetsu Coralstone or other " crazy " prices on cartridges that IMHO has no quality performance justification??

Regards and enjoy the music,
R
Dear Dover: Yes, L.Walker supported that MD cartridge. The time I heard it was at a meeting of an audio association in Philadelphia when I was invited ( Spencer Banks was the persons that I contacted, a very good Agon friend as JG and many others. ) to show our self design Essential 3160 phonolinepreamp.

In that meeting attended around 25 persons including L.Walker and the meeting was at J.Galbraith.
During the listening hours we were listening to the MD cartridge and no one had any single compliant about its quality sound performance level.

The MD was mounted in the Walker/tonearm rig, Essential 3160 and Kharma loudspeakers.
L.Walker used that MD in his system and my friend J.Galbraith bought it because the Lloyd advise.

After that thread I linked ( is the same that Lewm linked latter on. ) there were posts on other threads where in fact the MD platform came from the 103.
As I already told: what's wrong with? who cares?, the cartridge performance is very good. The merit of the MD is that Andreoli had very precise and specific targets on his design and I yhink he achieved with the MD.

IMHO,103 platform or not is not important.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lharasim: If you are willing to put on sale to me then I accept your offer, just email me: rauliruegas@hotmail.com

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lewm: No, I was not and certainly I'm not up set because any of you comments.

You already know me and sometimes through what I post persons could think I was upset/angry but really not.

Now, I don't know how that MD sounds today but with our today systems improved I think that the MD performance could be improved of what I heard the first time.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Nandric: Months or years ago I posted to Dgarretson something like this:

++++ " hey why you suddenly change what you was supporting " yesterday " and not today " +++++

and he gave me an answer like this:

+++ " Raul, I have the right to improve my self and improved..... " ++++

that explain per se what means our each one " audio learning curve " and where " I'm " today.

Things are that many of us read and hear and even discuss on many different audio subjects through different forums/threads. This exercise in theory gives us the opportunity to grow up the opportunity to learn and the opportunity to apply those audio learning lessons.

Unfortunatelly only a few of the persons really " learn ". " Really learn " means , IMHO , to take action or actions on what we learn to put on practice what we learn and to have an " audio attitude " according with that learning and according to that learning experiences.

Now, maybe 30-40 years ago when started the " fashion " for headshell integrated cartridge designs, the manufacturers/designers thinked that the cartridge/tonearm alignment was not so important like other factors/characteristics on cartridge set up to achieve the best of any cartridge.

My self not 30-40 years ago but 20 years ago I was unaware on the critical importance subject of cartridge/tonearm alignment and in those times I never took in count.

Even when I " arrived " to Audiogon I can't remember any one that talked/posted on the importance of cartridge/tonearm alignment through Baerwald, Löfgren, Stevenson, etc, etc. kind of alignments. Audio dealers and the " analog gurus " in the audio magazines normally never touched that alignment subject.

I was one of the first persons in Agon whom started to analize the importance of that cartridge/alignment set up. Latter on more and more persons been aware on the subject and appeared several threads in Agon where we discuss in deep the whole subject and the conclusions in every single thread was that we need to make the cartridge/tonearm set up according to any of those alignment/geometry alternatives.
The subject was and is so important that started to appear several cartridge/tonearm alignment protractors to make it in the " rith/precise " way because any tiny deviation on that set up increment the sounds/music distortions on what we are listening.

In all those scientific/math alignments the target is to find out the precise cartridge offset angle and overhang for the set up. We analize how tiny deviations on overhang and offset angle or in both take the distortions to higher levels we can imagine and that we can hear.

One of those protractors was the now famous MintLP that has a lot of owners where each one of them bless and blessed this protractor and its precission because in the very first day that they maade their cartridge/tonearm set up alignment through that protractor everything changed for the better and by a wide margin.
I can't remember no one that could tolld the that protractor did not improved his cartridge quality performance level.

Now, in a monolitic headshell integrated cartridge design as the Glanz and the FR ones we can't make a precise alignment and can't change an alignment according to what the carfridge/tonearm needs or according what we want.

Why is that?, plain and simple:

IN THE FR7GLANZ DESIGNS YOU CAN'T MAKE ANY SINGLE CHANGE IN THE OFFSET ANGLE AND OVERHANG ACCORDING TO THE SET UP NEEDS!!!!

in the best " scenario " with those monolitics exist ( at random ) only one kind of set up that could coincide with the cartridge needs.

Everytime that we need to change the VTA/SRA the overhang change and in those monolitics you can't change the overhang so you will have higher distortions and if you need to change the offset angle to align in precise way the cartridge cantilever in the MintLP protractor you can't do it either and this means that you have to stay in the way you are hearing/listening those higher distortions and are these " kind of distortions " what you, Desmond, Halcro and several other persons are enjoying!.

I think that all the Glanz/FR monolitic owners ( including me. ) read it or participated in those cartridge/tonearm alignment threads and learned ( as me ) on the whole subject but through the posts of many of those owners seems to me that almost no one learned about, even Halcro put his money in his monolitic retipping it: for what if those high distortions can't change because a retipping?

It is these kind of actions by several owners what makes no sense to me when I know that many of those persons ( including you ) want to improve the quality performance level on your system.

Let me to tell all of you cartridge monolitic owners: IMHO through those monolitics you can't ever improve nothing but to listen to higher distortions degrading and precluding any tiny single improvement you want to achieve.

This was happened just two days ago in other thread, please read it and LEARN:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1357321298&openflup&26&4#26

IMHO those Glanz/FR monolitics are the deepest aberration/error/mistake in analog, at least Audio Technica/Technics/ ( examples. ) designed its cartridge integrated designs with " systems " that permit changes in overhang and Azymuth but no offset angle.

Any one of you think that azymuth could be important for a cartridge can shows at its best?, yes?, well in the Glanz/FR you can't make any azymuth changes either!!!!!

As Dgarretson I learned on the subject and improved my self.

Nandric, I'm not a cartridge seller or a seller of any one like the ones that came years ago to this forum to gave their " teaching " to us " ignorant " people. Unfortunately some of you were so " ignorants " that today are in love with those monolitics and even with that kind of people. Nothing wrong with me, the real subject is that you monolitic owners be happy and if your monolitics are the cartridges that made the magic to put you happy then: good because this is what it matters and not my simple opinion.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Storyboy: I think I never posted that the MF-200 sounds like the MF-100 but both are more alike than different.

As Nandric said the stylus in the MF/Glanz line can be used in between the different cartridge models.

Good that you own the Astatic's that are very good performers. Could you share your experiences with and other MM/MI cartridges you own?, appreciated.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Sorry, must say: " this week appeared ... ". I was tempted to bid but at the end decided to let it gone.

R.
Dear Nandric: ++++ " this true MK2 TK10ML version is IMHO the best ever AT/Signet cartridge even over the famous AT 180.... " +++

well maybe not because I never heard the AT-50 anniversary and exist that great Precept PC-440!

Btw, the stylus in the TK10ML MK2 is an improvement too over the MK1 version.

So, my mistake on that statement.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Indieroehre: Grace builded a lot of F-8 different models that was on sale only to the japanese/Asia market.

These are some of them: F8L, F8M, F8D, F8L'10, F8C,F8V, etc, etc.

as theose ones exist several F14 models including the F14Ruby and several LevelII models.
No one of them where sold in America/Europe.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Desmond: I forgot, +++++ " or the other reason ( between others ) could be that the " kind distortions " of your 7 are the ones you like it more against the 100. Tha's all. " +++++

where came/comes those additional " kind distortions " on the G7 that the MF-100 or the G71L have not?

the G7 is a headshell integrated design: today, 30-40 years after the G7 design/build, exist several headshells that for sure match in better way the cartridge to performs at its best and that puts " on shame " the integrated one. Today too there are several headshell wires that are a lot better than the ones inside the Glanz that have 30-40 years old. Today too the headshell wire connectors are a lot better than the ones 30-40 years old in the Glanz G7.

All these per se, IMHO, makes that any single advantage ( that there is not any. ) that could have the G7 disappear as dust inside a hurricane. There is no way that the headshell integrated version can or could compete in any way against its stand alone similar " brother ". That you like it is important only to you.

This " brother " can be matched easily to any tonearm not only to the tonearm effective mass but in the alignment to Baerwald, Löfgren or Stevenson geometry set up.

I respect your opinion but I can't disagree more with. You can think whatever you want and of course you can follow enjoying your Glanz over other top cartridges and stay sticky with but that can't means is a superior performer than the Astati's, MFG71L or almost any other top stand alone MM/MI/LOMC cartridge. As I said: it is only the additional distortions you like it, Good!.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear griffithds: Agree, I was a little dramatic about that " average " reference.

I'm only posted in that way trying to explain that is better design and not for a tiny range/margin.

++++ " I don't feel Signet made any changes to the TK10 generator when they brought out the upgraded stylus MKII. " ++++

I can't be absolutely sure but what made it that I posted about is because I runned the MK2 cartridge with the MK1 stylus and performs better than with the MK1 cartridge motor.

Anyway, both are top performers as the 180 but the MK2 is a little different IMHO.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear friends: I just find out in a closet two step up transformers: Denon AU-340 and Audiocraft TS-26 ( this one in new condition. ).

I thought all my SUT's were sold but was not in that way. Well due that I have on hand I tested the Denon for a couple hours with no firm/precise conclusions yet.

Now, I post this because the specs say that the Denon should be connected to the MM stage and " see " 47kohms but I did not change the load impedance and runned the AU-340 at 100kohms:

question: is there any trouble to run it at 100k? advantages? disadvantages?

Your comments and advise will be appreciated. Thank's in advance.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Dover/friends: Thank you. I just tested the Denon AU-340 for only 2 hours with my Spectral ( 2ohm/0.2mv ) and the sound was " so so " ( I'm using the SUT 3ohm tap. ) against my active phonolinestage.

Looking to its specs this Denon SUT measure high, it has a wide frequency response ( a characteristic that IMHO is way important especially on SUTs. ): 10hz to 120khz +,- 0.5db/1.0db and its THD is only 0.05%.

It is very user friendly because we can choose between that 3ohm or 40ohm taps ( different gain. ) and has two inputs for two different cartridges. Obviously has a front panel selectror for those inputs and additional a " pass " position.

I already started modification in the AU-340: I'm rewiring right from the input/output transformers with Silver KCAG by KimberKable, I'm connecting directly the output cable ( no more RCA output connector. ) soldering from the SUT board with the Silver cable by Analysis Plus, I'm changing the two inputs RCA connectors with WBT Silver Gen and obviously rewiring the two input wires for that Silver KimberKable.

I think today the up date will be finished and then I will test it. I'm sure there will be a differences for the better because looking inside the wires Denon used was plain zip lamp cord and RCA connectors certainly are not the WBT kind and by-passing the output connectors means more music and less distortions.

We will see, I will share my experiences about.

In the other side the Audiocraft SUT ( new unit in box. ) is a beauty from inside out as everything any product with the Audiocraft " name ". That's what we expect from Audiocraft. Right now I will be in focus with the Denon.

Here you can read something about:

http://www.vinylengine.com/library/denon/au-340.shtml

Dover, additional to your kindness information I asked here is a good article on that subject:

http://www.vinylengine.com/step-ups-and-mc-cartridges.shtml

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Dover: I can't say nothing at all till I finish the up date and hear it.

I owned the 320 that was the Denon " entry level ", very different from the 340 look: the 320 weight was only 700grs and the 340 over 2.0kgs. Different transformer.

Altec?, well maybe you are right but I'm not looking for SUTs only that the opportunity came alone.

What's clear to me with the Denon AU-340 is that is dead silence with my Spectral 0.2mv and this is a good point in its favor. In two-three days I will have a more precise opinion on my mods.

If the 340 " works " maybe I will build a pair of " monoblock " SUTs, who knows: seems to me is not a " big deal " but care and choosed parts. Maybe I'm wrong??

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Ecir38: Thank's for your advise. Btw, the Denon has no resistors at all.

As you said I will " play " with the spreadsheet.

Thank you again.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Storyboy: I own that JVC but I never had the opportunity to hear it, yes in theory was made by AT for JVC.

On the SUT subject for me is the other way around on what you posted. We will see.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Dover and SUT friends: Well time to report my first experiences after the whole Denon AU-340 up date.

The overall quality performance level against stock condition was and is " night and day ".

Yes, it is a lot better that what I was " waiting ". I'm testing it with the Spectral and Lyra DaCapo ( Axel's retiped. ).

First thing is that there is no single noise of any kind even that these cartridges use the 31db of SUT gain position.

Has very good tonal balance top to bottom with a " surprising " very good handle at both extremes and with a dynamic response that was unexpected for me.

Sound is clear, pristine and with very good overall transparency, transientes too are really fast and the SUT has very good stage layering with solid focus.

I'm very pleased with what I'm experienced through this Denon SUT.

Am I losting something against my active phonolinepream?:

just after the Denon up date I heard higher distortions that after 10 hours fortunately vanished and right now I'm unaware of that because I can't hear it.

the quality performance is so good that two " golden ears " audio friends that know very well my system not noted that what they were listening was an audio signal coming from the SUT.
When I disclose it they were " surprised ".

well obviously that I know better my system than them, we made some tests with the SUT against the active unit and again here they concluded what I already did it:

even that the SUT both extremes frequency response are very good the active phonolinepreamp does a better job: the bass as the highs have more " air " and better and precise definition but you can note this only through a comparison against to what IMHO is a top top active phonolinepreamp performer.

obviously that this Denon SUT took has some advantages in my system: first is that the MM stage IMHO is second to none and second that the line stage IMHO is second to none too. Maybe in other audio systems this updated SUT can't shows the same performance level.

I'm a " rookie " with SUTs and SUTs mods. This first experience likes me and I will try to follow in this " road " to learn more about.

Thank you all for your learning posts ( please go on!. ), I can tell you that even if one of your advises goes against the " rules " I will try it anyway. I just want to learn trying to find out something " new ".

This starting experiences are very different to the one Dover had when he made it a " similar " ( his words . ) update to his AU-320 but this entry level unit is different from the 340 and in the other side I think that in those " updated old times " some items to the update not even exist as: WBT Nexgen Ag or Analisys Plus Silver Oval ICs. Maybe only the KCAG Silver KimberKable was in the market.
Btw, only one pair of those WBT Nexgen connectors has a higher price than the AU320 Dover talked..

Anyway, I think that I'm on " something " and I want to discovery how good is that " something ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear SUT's friends: Right now I already bought two other vintage second hand SUTs to help my started " research ".

I know that the transformer ( it self. ) quality is the main subject ( as the cartridge impedance match with those SDUT transformers. ) on a SUT but I want to know if really exist to much differences in quality performance between different transformers in SUTs because the transformers inside.

Right now I'm enjoying my modified 340 with other LOMC like the Dyna XV-1s and Colibri with very good results.

Maybe I can make an improvement on what I'm hearing if I go with the input cables/wires directly to the Denon switching board becaus ein this way I will bypass the SUT input connectors, the cable RCA connectors and the KCAG KK internal wires but due that I'm on the " whole " research I need flexibility/user friendly from my in test SUTs for I can make fast any changes I want it and if I go hard wired this could be a " problem " for.

Certainly that when I finish the SUT " journey " I will do it.

Btw, if one of you can be interested in a first rate/top SUT my Audiocraft T-26 ( extremely hard to find. ) that's in new condition ( boxed. ) is on sale.
I have no intentions to modify this beauty, as is is just great. I test it only to check everything is fine.

For the persons that does not knows about Audiocraft I only want to tell that Audiocraft belongs to very top hiend in Japan, not only on SUTs but its tonearms are second to none. Audiocraft builded some of the top AT tonearms and did it to other OEMs. In the japanese highend is at the same level than Accuphase ( for example. )

The T-26 has 26db of gain and works for cartridges on the 2 ohms and up.
Its price was: 80K yens, one of the highest prices on SUTs. Only for you can have an idea, the Denon-320 that Dover owned had a price ( in the same time. ) of 19K yens and you can see this right now on ebay for 300.00 dollars.

Anyway, if you are interested please email me before it gone: rauliruegas@hotmail.com

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear In_shore: With a TT as with almost any other audio item is very important to what they were coupled to and I think that with DD in nude fashion it is even more important, at least is what I experienced about.

I don't own your Kenwood but I agree that the Denons DP-80/75 " fumigates " the SP-10s or JVCs DD TTs.

Obviously that maybe with different audio systems things could change.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Dgarretson: Yes, seems that that 35K tonearm was something to " forget " at the CES. Here it is,browse at the middle of the page:

http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/index.php?/topic/7405-titillating-tonearms/page-16

the designer of this Vertere tonearm is the same Roksan's owner/designer.

I already ordered 3 samples!!

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lewm: +++++ " Are you trending toward SUT use? " +++++

not exactly. I'm still " sticky " to active high gain phono stages but when I found out ( at random ) those two SUTs at my place then I aked me: hey, why not? and then started today SUT journey.

This can give me the opportunity to confirm what for many years I was and am " entilted " with but I always said to other persons during a friendly " discussion ": " that it is not the same try to compare same item in the " old " system we own that in our today improved one " and that's why " I'm here ".

Lewm, what I'm hearing today on this first modified SUT is away from what I can remember. We will see when finish my comparisons adding experiences from the other SUTs I bought and that maybe in two weeks will arrive to my place.

Lewm, as we can see it IMHO: it is a learning experience, don't you think?

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear friends: PRECEPT PC440's time.

According with the information I have the Precept line was designed and builded by Audio Technica: for whom? that's something I don't know because was not marketed trhough the AT distributors.

Anyway the line started with three models: PC110,PC220 ( I own this one in NOS condition. ) and the PC-440. Differences in between are mainly stylus shape, cantilever and motor refinements on the top PC440 ( as usual. ).

Where the PC110 came with elliptical 0.4x0.7mil the PC220 came with 0.2x0.7mil and the PC440 with nude Shibata one.
The PC220/440 stylus replacement fits each to the other cartridge, I don't test it yet the 440 with the 220 stylus.

FR: 5hz-45khz, output: 4.2mv, channel separation: 33db at 1khz, weigth: 5.8grs.

Sems to me ( for internet info. ) that latter on appeared the PC550 where the main difference was that came with Micro Line stylus shape and same berylium cantilever as the 440. Btw, the stylus replacement of the AT ML400 fits the Precept series but unfortunately the AT has no berylium catilever.

It is the quality performance level of this Precept PC440 similar or near to the other top of the line AT/Signet cartridges?:

no way, the Precept PC440 has IMHO no resemblance with any other AT/Signet cartridge other than its similar building parts.

From 3-4 weeks now the Precept PC440 is with any single doubt my reference/standard MM/MI cartridge to judge any other one even with LOMC.

Has a cartridge signature sounds?, if it has I did not detected yet. Its sound is just RIGHT, you don't have to ask for a different tonal balance performance or a better frequency extremes range performance or better inner deatail or more transparency or better soundstage and focus or lower distortion or fastets transients or better dynamics or, or, or, or...... it is just RIGHT.

IMHO here and today the Precept PC440 needs nothing other that enjoy it hour after hour day after day.

Do you dreamed for an ideal cartridge performer or asked your self what could fulfil your music sound reproduction targets/priorities at your home audio system?, well IMHO the Precept PC440 could be that " ideal " cartridge.

Yes, it is that good.

Acutex, Astatic, Empire, AT, Signet, AKG, Stanton/Pickering, B&O, Micro Acoustics, ADC, Sonus, Grado Philips, Azden, Dynavector, Benz Micro, Lyra, Koetsu, etc, etc, you name it are not a real contenders against this Precept PC440.

I'm running it at VTF: 1.25grs, as usual 100kohm on impedance, 300pf additional capacitance and almost parallel to the LP.

It is mounted in my JVC tonearm using our self headshell build material design and obviously with out stylus guard.

Yes, you know that I'm very satisfied with even that is not a good looking " lady ".

Of course that there are several other " things " to comment on the Precept PC440 quality performance level but I have no time right now, I have to follow enjoying the PC440!!!!

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lewm: After both Dyna 13D versions follow the Karat Nova 17D2 but its motor is not the same because the internal Z on the 13D is 19 ohms against 39 ohms in the 17D2 and exist the cantilever lenght difference too: 1.3mm against 1.7mm

Anyway the 13D is a facinating performer.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lewm: The Karat Nova 13D was IMHO an " assault " to the perfect cartridge performer. Till today IMHO there is no single Dynavector cartridge that can perform not only similar but even near that unique design.

13D states because the cantilever measures 1.3mm made it of diamond manterial. It is the only Dyna with that so little cantilever length but the main differences between the 13D and any other LOMC cartridge is when you hear it just from the very first recording note then you know what I mean with that " assault " to the perfect cartridge.

This is the one I own nad is the same model of my second sample too and the same Dover owns:

http://www.hifido.co.jp/KW/G0308/J/0-10/C11-60830-14311-00/

There is another version where the only difference is that instead the cartridge wood body comes with a metal one. This was the first that appears in Japan and latter came the wood version.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Dover: I have the answer to my 13D question to you: 99 Karat Nova 13D samples.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear nandric: I don't have the opportunity yet to hear the Karat Nova 17D so I can't speak about.

What is a must to hear and IMHO a must to have is the 13D.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
I posted before read the Dover post.

The info I have comes from the Japanese Stereo bible of those times that comes in japanese language but numbers are the same in any language.

In that magazine states that the first model was the metal body version but Dover said he has the information directly from Dynavector so it has to be truer than a magazine one.

R.