Who needs a MM cartridge type when we have MC?


Dear friends: who really needs an MM type phono cartridge?, well I will try to share/explain with you what are my experiences about and I hope too that many of you could enrich the topic/subject with your own experiences.

For some years ( in this forum ) and time to time I posted that the MM type cartridge quality sound is better than we know or that we think and like four months ago I start a thread about: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1173550723&openusid&zzRauliruegas&4&5#Rauliruegas where we analyse some MM type cartridges.

Well, in the last 10-12 months I buy something like 30+ different MM type phono cartridges ( you can read in my virtual system which ones. ) and I’m still doing it. The purpose of this fact ( “ buy it “ ) is for one way to confirm or not if really those MM type cartridges are good for us ( music lovers ) and at the same time learn about MM vs MC cartridges, as a fact I learn many things other than MM/MC cartridge subject.

If we take a look to the Agon analog members at least 90% of them use ( only ) MC phono cartridges, if we take a look to the “ professional reviewers “ ( TAS, Stereophile, Positive Feedback, Enjoy the Music, etc, etc, ) 95% ( at least ) of them use only MC cartridges ( well I know that for example: REG and NG of TAS and RJR of Stereophile use only MM type cartridges!!!!!!!! ) , if we take a look to the phono cartridge manufacturers more than 90% of them build/design for MC cartridges and if you speak with audio dealers almost all will tell you that the MC cartridges is the way to go.

So, who are wrong/right, the few ( like me ) that speak that the MM type is a very good alternative or the “ whole “ cartridge industry that think and support the MC cartridge only valid alternative?

IMHO I think that both groups are not totally wrong/right and that the subject is not who is wrong/right but that the subject is : KNOW-HOW or NON KNOW-HOW about.

Many years ago when I was introduced to the “ high end “ the cartridges were almost MM type ones: Shure, Stanton, Pickering, Empire, etc, etc. In those time I remember that one dealer told me that if I really want to be nearest to the music I have to buy the Empire 4000 D ( they say for 4-channel reproduction as well. ) and this was truly my first encounter with a “ high end cartridge “, I buy the 4000D I for 70.00 dls ( I can’t pay 150.00 for the D III. ), btw the specs of these Empire cartridges were impressive even today, look: frequency response: 5-50,000Hz, channel separation: 35db, tracking force range: 0.25grs to 1.25grs!!!!!!!!, just impressive, but there are some cartridges which frequency response goes to 100,000Hz!!!!!!!!!!

I start to learn about and I follow to buying other MM type cartridges ( in those times I never imagine nothing about MC cartridges: I don’t imagine of its existence!!!. ) like AKG, Micro Acoustics, ADC, B&O, Audio Technica, Sonus, etc, etc.

Years latter the same dealer told me about the MC marvelous cartridges and he introduce me to the Denon-103 following with the 103-D and the Fulton High performance, so I start to buy and hear MC cartridges. I start to read audio magazines about either cartridge type: MM and Mc ones.

I have to make changes in my audio system ( because of the low output of the MC cartridges and because I was learning how to improve the performance of my audio system ) and I follow what the reviewers/audio dealers “ speak “ about, I was un-experienced !!!!!!!, I was learning ( well I’m yet. ).

I can tell you many good/bad histories about but I don’t want that the thread was/is boring for you, so please let me tell you what I learn and where I’m standing today about:

over the years I invested thousands of dollars on several top “ high end “ MC cartridges, from the Sumiko Celebration passing for Lyras, Koetsu, Van denHul, to Allaerts ones ( just name it and I can tell that I own or owned. ), what I already invest on MC cartridges represent almost 70-80% price of my audio system.

Suddenly I stop buying MC cartridges and decide to start again with some of the MM type cartridges that I already own and what I heard motivate me to start the search for more of those “ hidden jewels “ that are ( here and now ) the MM phono cartridges and learn why are so good and how to obtain its best quality sound reproduction ( as a fact I learn many things other than MM cartridge about. ).

I don’t start this “ finding “ like a contest between MC and MM type cartridges.
The MC cartridges are as good as we already know and this is not the subject here, the subject is about MM type quality performance and how achieve the best with those cartridges.

First than all I try to identify and understand the most important characteristics ( and what they “ means “. ) of the MM type cartridges ( something that in part I already have it because our phonolinepreamp design needs. ) and its differences with the MC ones.

Well, first than all is that are high output cartridges, very high compliance ones ( 50cu is not rare. ), low or very low tracking force ones, likes 47kOhms and up, susceptible to some capacitance changes, user stylus replacement, sometimes we can use a different replacement stylus making an improvement with out the necessity to buy the next top model in the cartridge line , low and very low weight cartridges, almost all of them are build of plastic material with aluminum cantilever and with eliptical or “ old “ line contact stylus ( shibata ) ( here we don’t find: Jade/Coral/Titanium/etc, bodies or sophisticated build material cantilevers and sophisticated stylus shape. ), very very… what I say? Extremely low prices from 40.00 to 300.00 dls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, well one of my cartridges I buy it for 8.99 dls ( one month ago ): WOW!!!!!!, so any one of you can/could have/buy ten to twenty MM cartridges for the price of one of the MC cartridge you own today and the good notice is that is a chance that those 10-20 MM type cartridges even the quality performance of your MC cartridge or beat it.

Other characteristics is that the builders show how proud they were/are on its MM type cartridges design, almost all those cartridges comes with a first rate box, comes with charts/diagrams of its frequency response and cartridge channel separation ( where they tell us which test recording use it, with which VTF, at which temperature, etc, etc. ), comes with a very wide explanation of the why’s and how’s of its design and the usual explanation to mount the cartridge along with a very wide list of specifications ( that were the envy of any of today MC ones where sometimes we really don’t know nothing about. ), comes with a set of screws/nuts, comes with a stylus brush and even with stylus cleaning fluid!!!!!!!!!, my GOD. Well, there are cartridges like the Supex SM 100MK2 that comes with two different stylus!!!! One with spherical and one with elliptical/shibata shape and dear friends all those in the same low low price!!!!!!!!!!!

Almost all the cartridges I own you can find it through Ebay and Agon and through cartridge dealers and don’t worry if you loose/broke the stylus cartridge or you find the cartridge but with out stylus, you always can/could find the stylus replacement, no problem about there are some stylus and cartridge sources.

When I’m talking about MM type cartridges I’m refer to different types: moving magnet, moving iron, moving flux, electret, variable reluctance, induced magnet, etc, etc. ( here is not the place to explain the differences on all those MM type cartridges. Maybe on other future thread. ).

I made all my very long ( time consuming ) cartridge tests using four different TT’s: Acoustic Signature Analog One MK2, Micro Seiki RX-5000, Luxman PD 310 and Technics SP-10 MK2, I use only removable headshell S and J shape tonearms with 15mm on overhang, I use different material build/ shape design /weight headshells. I test each cartridge in at least three different tonearms and some times in 3-4 different headshells till I find the “ right “ match where the cartridge perform the best, no I’m not saying that I already finish or that I already find the “ perfect “ match: cartridge/headshell/tonearm but I think I’m near that ideal target.

Through my testing experience I learn/ confirm that trying to find the right tonearm/headshell for any cartridge is well worth the effort and more important that be changing the TT. When I switch from a TT to another different one the changes on the quality cartridge performance were/are minimal in comparison to a change in the tonearm/headshell, this fact was consistent with any of those cartridges including MC ones.

So after the Phonolinepreamplifier IMHO the tonearm/headshell match for any cartridge is the more important subject, it is so important and complex that in the same tonearm ( with the same headshell wires ) but with different headshell ( even when the headshell weight were the same ) shape or build material headshell the quality cartridge performance can/could be way different.

All those experiences told me that chances are that the cartridge that you own ( MC or MM ) is not performing at its best because chances are that the tonearm you own is not the best match for that cartridge!!!!!!, so imagine what do you can/could hear when your cartridge is or will be on the right tonearm???!!!!!!!!, IMHO there are ( till today ) no single ( any type at any price ) perfect universal tonearm. IMHO there is no “ the best tonearm “, what exist or could exist is a “ best tonearm match for “ that “ cartridge “, but that’s all. Of course that are “ lucky “ tonearms that are very good match for more than one cartridge but don’t for every single cartridge.

I posted several times that I’m not a tonearm collector, that I own all those tonearms to have alternatives for my cartridges and with removable headshells my 15 tonearms are really like 100+ tonearms : a very wide options/alternatives for almost any cartridge!!!!!!

You can find several of these MM type cartridges new brand or NOS like: Ortofon, Nagaoka, Audio Technica, Astatic, B&O, Rega, Empire, Sonus Reson,Goldring,Clearaudio, Grado, Shelter, Garrot, etc. and all of them second hand in very good operational condition. As a fact I buy two and even three cartridges of the same model in some of the cartridges ( so right now I have some samples that I think I don’t use any more. ) to prevent that one of them arrive in non operational condition but I’m glad to say that all them arrive in very fine conditions. I buy one or two of the cartridges with no stylus or with the stylus out of work but I don’t have any trouble because I could find the stylus replacement on different sources and in some case the original new replacement.

All these buy/find cartridges was very time consuming and we have to have a lot of patience and a little lucky to obtain what we are looking for but I can asure you that is worth of it.

Ok, I think it is time to share my performance cartridge findings:

first we have to have a Phonolinepreamplifier with a very good MM phono stage ( at least at the same level that the MC stage. ). I’m lucky because my Phonolinepreamplifier has two independent phono stages, one for the MM and one for MC: both were designed for the specifics needs of each cartridge type, MM or MC that have different needs.

we need a decent TT and decent tonearm.

we have to load the MM cartridges not at 47K but at 100K ( at least 75K not less. ).

I find that using 47K ( a standard manufacture recommendation ) prevent to obtain the best quality performance, 100K make the difference. I try this with all those MM type cartridges and in all of them I achieve the best performance with 100K load impedance.

I find too that using the manufacturer capacitance advise not always is for the better, till “ the end of the day “ I find that between 100-150pf ( total capacitance including cable capacitance. ) all the cartridges performs at its best.

I start to change the load impedance on MM cartridges like a synonymous that what many of us made with MC cartridges where we try with different load impedance values, latter I read on the Empire 4000 DIII that the precise load impedance must be 100kOhms and in a white paper of some Grace F9 tests the used impedance value was 100kOhms, the same that I read on other operational MM cartridge manual and my ears tell/told me that 100kOhms is “ the value “.

Before I go on I want to remember you that several of those MM type cartridges ( almost all ) were build more than 30+ years ago!!!!!!!! and today performs at the same top quality level than today MC/MM top quality cartridges!!!!!, any brand at any price and in some ways beat it.

I use 4-5 recordings that I know very well and that give me the right answers to know that any cartridge is performing at its best or near it. Many times what I heard through those recordings were fine: everything were on target however the music don’t come “ alive “ don’t “ tell me “ nothing, I was not feeling the emotion that the music can communicate. In those cartridge cases I have to try it in other tonearm and/or with a different headshell till the “ feelings comes “ and only when this was achieved I then was satisfied.

All the tests were made with a volume level ( SPL ) where the recording “ shines “ and comes alive like in a live event. Sometimes changing the volume level by 1-1.5 db fixed everything.

Of course that the people that in a regular manner attend to hear/heard live music it will be more easy to know when something is right or wrong.

Well, Raul go on!!: one characteristic on the MM cartridges set-up was that almost all them likes to ride with a positive ( little/small ) VTA only the Grace Ruby and F9E and Sonus Gold Blue likes a negative VTA , on the other hand with the Nagaoka MP 50 Super and the Ortofon’s I use a flat VTA.

Regarding the VTF I use the manufacturer advise and sometimes 0.1+grs.
Of course that I made fine tuning through moderate changes in the Azymuth and for anti-skate I use between half/third VTF value.

I use different material build headshells: aluminum, composite aluminum, magnesium, composite magnesium, ceramic, wood and non magnetic stainless steel, these cartridges comes from Audio Technica, Denon, SAEC, Technics, Fidelity Research, Belldream, Grace, Nagaoka, Koetsu, Dynavector and Audiocraft.
All of them but the wood made ( the wood does not likes to any cartridge. ) very good job . It is here where a cartridge could seems good or very good depending of the headshell where is mounted and the tonearm.
Example, I have hard time with some of those cartridge like the Audio Technica AT 20SS where its performance was on the bright sound that sometimes was harsh till I find that the ceramic headshell was/is the right match now this cartridge perform beautiful, something similar happen with the Nagaoka ( Jeweltone in Japan ), Shelter , Grace, Garrot , AKG and B&O but when were mounted in the right headshell/tonearm all them performs great.

Other things that you have to know: I use two different cooper headshell wires, both very neutral and with similar “ sound “ and I use three different phono cables, all three very neutral too with some differences on the sound performance but nothing that “ makes the difference “ on the quality sound of any of my cartridges, either MM or MC, btw I know extremely well those phono cables: Analysis Plus, Harmonic Technologies and Kimber Kable ( all three the silver models. ), finally and don’t less important is that those phono cables were wired in balanced way to take advantage of my Phonolinepreamp fully balanced design.

What do you note the first time you put your MM cartridge on the record?, well a total absence of noise/hum or the like that you have through your MC cartridges ( and that is not a cartridge problem but a Phonolinepreamp problem due to the low output of the MC cartridges. ), a dead silent black ( beautiful ) soundstage where appear the MUSIC performance, this experience alone is worth it.

The second and maybe the most important MM cartridge characteristic is that you hear/heard the MUSIC flow/run extremely “ easy “ with no distracting sound distortions/artifacts ( I can’t explain exactly this very important subject but it is wonderful ) even you can hear/heard “ sounds/notes “ that you never before heard it and you even don’t know exist on the recording: what a experience!!!!!!!!!!!

IMHO I think that the MUSIC run so easily through a MM cartridge due ( between other facts ) to its very high compliance characteristic on almost any MM cartridge.

This very high compliance permit ( between other things like be less sensitive to out-center hole records. ) to these cartridges stay always in contact with the groove and never loose that groove contact not even on the grooves that were recorded at very high velocity, something that a low/medium cartridge compliance can’t achieve, due to this low/medium compliance characteristic the MC cartridges loose ( time to time and depending of the recorded velocity ) groove contact ( minute extremely minute loose contact, but exist. ) and the quality sound performance suffer about and we can hear it, the same pass with the MC cartridges when are playing the inner grooves on a record instead the very high compliance MM cartridges because has better tracking drive perform better than the MC ones at inner record grooves and here too we can hear it.

Btw, some Agoners ask very worried ( on more than one Agon thread ) that its cartridge can’t track ( clean ) the cannons on the 1812 Telarc recording and usually the answers that different people posted were something like this: “””” don’t worry about other than that Telarc recording no other commercial recording comes recorded at that so high velocity, if you don’t have trouble with other of your LP’s then stay calm. “””””

Well, this standard answer have some “ sense “ but the people ( like me ) that already has/have the experience to hear/heard a MM or MC ( like the Ortofon MC 2000 or the Denon DS1, high compliance Mc cartridges. ) cartridge that pass easily the 1812 Telarc test can tell us that those cartridges make a huge difference in the quality sound reproduction of any “ normal “ recording, so it is more important that what we think to have a better cartridge tracking groove drive!!!!

There are many facts around the MM cartridge subject but till we try it in the right set-up it will be ( for some people ) difficult to understand “ those beauties “. Something that I admire on the MM cartridges is how ( almost all of them ) they handle the frequency extremes: the low bass with the right pitch/heft/tight/vivid with no colorations of the kind “ organic !!” that many non know-how people speak about, the highs neutral/open/transparent/airy believable like the live music, these frequency extremes handle make that the MUSIC flow in our minds to wake up our feelings/emotions that at “ the end of the day “ is all what a music lover is looking for.
These not means that these cartridges don’t shine on the midrange because they do too and they have very good soundstage but here is more system/room dependent.

Well we have a very good alternative on the ( very low price ) MM type cartridges to achieve that music target and I’m not saying that you change your MC cartridge for a MM one: NO, what I’m trying to tell you is that it is worth to have ( as many you can buy/find ) the MM type cartridges along your MC ones

I want to tell you that I can live happy with any of those MM cartridges and I’m not saying with this that all of them perform at the same quality level NO!! what I’m saying is that all of them are very good performers, all of them approach you nearest to the music.

If you ask me which one is the best I can tell you that this will be a very hard “ call “ an almost impossible to decide, I think that I can make a difference between the very good ones and the stellar ones where IMHO the next cartridges belongs to this group:

Audio Technica ATML 170 and 180 OCC, Grado The Amber Tribute, Grace Ruby, Garrot P77, Nagaoka MP-50 Super, B&O MMC2 and MMC20CL, AKG P8ES SuperNova, Reson Reca ,Astatic MF-100 and Stanton LZS 981.

There are other ones that are really near this group: ADC Astrion, Supex MF-100 MK2, Micro Acoustics MA630/830, Empire 750 LTD and 600LAC, Sonus Dimension 5, Astatic MF-200 and 300 and the Acutex 320III.

The other ones are very good too but less refined ones.
I try too ( owned or borrowed for a friend ) the Shure IV and VMR, Music maker 2-3 and Clearaudio Virtuoso/Maestro, from these I could recommended only the Clearaudios the Shure’s and Music Maker are almost mediocre ones performers.
I forgot I try to the B&O Soundsmith versions, well this cartridges are good but are different from the original B&O ( that I prefer. ) due that the Sounsmith ones use ruby cantilevers instead the original B&O sapphire ones that for what I tested sounds more natural and less hi-fi like the ruby ones.

What I learn other that the importance on the quality sound reproduction through MM type cartridges?, well that unfortunately the advance in the design looking for a better quality cartridge performers advance almost nothing either on MM and MC cartridges.

Yes, today we have different/advanced body cartridge materials, different cantilever build materials, different stylus shape/profile, different, different,,,,different, but the quality sound reproduction is almost the same with cartridges build 30+ years ago and this is a fact. The same occur with TT’s and tonearms. Is sad to speak in this way but it is what we have today. Please, I’m not saying that some cartridges designs don’t grow up because they did it, example: Koetsu they today Koetsu’s are better performers that the old ones but against other cartridges the Koetsu ones don’t advance and many old and today cartridges MM/MC beat them easily.

Where I think the audio industry grow-up for the better are in electronic audio items ( like the Phonolinepreamps ), speakers and room treatment, but this is only my HO.

I know that there are many things that I forgot and many other things that we have to think about but what you can read here is IMHO a good point to start.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
rauliruegas

Showing 50 responses by dgarretson

Raul, Now I have the resistors in stock to test the DTi and will do so shortly.

Lew, Based on a conversation I had with a guy who tried both Marchand and Pass Labs active crossovers, I would lean toward Pass Labs. However it's difficult to be certain, as Marchand can be tweaked with improved parts.

BTW I very much like the SSG silver micas. I've used these in a Zobel and as small bypass to coupling caps in electronics.
Raul wrote: "Today 32/192 or 32/384 latest DACs digital technology inside any decent digital player outperforms analog LP."

This is a pretty controversial statement-- particularly the notion that "any decent" player can get you there relative to TOTL analog. I'm in process of upgrading my Buffalo IIISE dual-mono ESS Sabre DAC to hi-res, and will post what comes from that. RBCD through ESS Sabre DAC with a custom buffered transformer output stage gets within "shouting distance" of vinyl, but not quite there.

Based on observations of increased vinyl in top rooms at regional and national audio shows, I think it's fair to conclude that the consensus of OEM exhibitors is not convinced of the superiority of digital-- unless perhaps vinyl is simply more fun or more profitable in the selling.

BTW I've heard both Raidho models at several shows. It's a very exciting and clean presentation, if perhaps a tad brittle with some electronics.
Any experience or thoughts on the performance level of Fidelity Research MC-201? There is a stock of NOS examples available:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/FIDELITY-RESEARCH-MC-201-Stereo-Phono-Cartridge-Vintage-New-In-Box-/271246008816?pt=US_DJ_Turntable_Parts_Accs&hash=item3f2785a1f0

Its low output is intriguing. I recently remounted my .15mv Denon DLS1, now loaded at 30R as recommended by John Elison on AA. A very satisfying ride.
Revisiting the DLS1 psyched me up enough to order an Audio Technica ART7. This has a non-permeable MC core and low output similar to the DLS1 and FR7. The ART7 spec looks very close to last year's AT50ANV, except for lighter weight and a "newly developed LPC (Liquid Crystal Polymer) for wound coil frame providing high-strength and high-vibration absorption."

AT-ART7

Model Air-core MC type
Playback frequency range 15 ~ 50,000 Hz
Output voltage 0.12mV (1kHz, 5cm/sec.)
Channel separation 30dB (1kHz)
Output Balance 0.5dB (1kHz)
Needle pressure 1.6 ~ 2.0g (1.8g standard)
Coil impedance 12Ω (1kHz)
DC resistance 12Ω
Load resistance 100Ω or more (head amplifier is connected)
Coil inductance 8μH (1kHz)
A static compliance 35 × 10-6cm/dyne
Dynamic compliance 10 × 10-6cm/dyne (100Hz)
Needle tip shape Special line contact
Cantilever φ0.26mm solid boron
Vertical tracking angle 23 °
External dimensions H17.3 × W17.0 × D25.6mm
Mass 8.5g

Released: November 16, 2012
http://www.audio-technica.co.jp/atj/show_model.php?modelId=2260
Comparisons between cartridges has become easier on Terminator with a DIY pivot with integral SME-style receptacle for standard headshells.

http://cgim.audiogon.com/i/vs/i/f/1376645610.jpg

The wand has dual front and rear counterweights for continuously adjustable vertical effective mass.

Total horizontal mass of arm, cradle, and carbon fiber sled is 45gm, and can be increased by weighting the air sled.

Tonearm wiring bypasses the SME junction to the cartridge pins, eliminating several solder joints and electrical contacts.

A single arm for cartridges of all compliances.
Fleib, I agree that it is preferable to minimize the horizontal mass of a linear tonearm, considering that in all cases this mass is greater than that of a pivot arm. Nevertheless, since I have not yet tried any very low-compliance cartridges with Trans-Fi, I'm leaving open the possibility that increased horizontal mass may make sense for some cartridges. IIRC Poul Ladegaard, the inventor of the concept linear arm that spawned Trans-Fi, mathematically modeled that horizontal force operating on the cartridge cantilever on a linear arm of up to 300gm is still minute relative to a pivot arm of typical off-set and overhang. So in theory at least, there should be no damage done by experimenting with more horizontal mass.

The ability to separate the adjustment of vertical effective mass from horizontal mass has been helpful. While holding VTF constant I can hear significant changes in performance as the front and rear counterweights are spun out from the pivot point. Stubborn tracking and sibilance problems that cannot be eliminated by adjusting VTF can be resolved by varying vertical effective mass. The stock Trans-Fi short wand sounds good with all of the medium- and high- compliance cartridges I have tried. However, the variable- mass arm broadens the sonic palette of each cartridge and deals with the occasional seemingly intractable tracking problem.
Fleib, I gave the DLS1 a good run at 30R and 100R and need to return to it once more at 20R. This is straight into a modified AtmaSphere MP-1 with at least 75db gain. The DLS1 acquitted itself with honor, however as you suggest the ART7 is much more forgiving. At an initial 100R there is fine detail, holographic imaging, and tremendous jump factor. In a different league from DLS1.

The lateral/horizontal effective/inertial mass of a linear tonearm is the same as its weight on a scale. Depending on choice of wand and air sled this runs from 35gm-100gm in my set-up.

Thanks for your empirical approach to measuring vertical inertial mass. I'm mostly an empirical guy. I'll try that and add calculated inertial mass with counterweights placed at optimal distances from pivot as determined by ear.
Rsimms, the ART7 is still breaking in and so far I've tried only 100R loading. It shares the DLS1's low distortion and good tracking. It surpasses DLS1 in timbre and spatiality. I don't think there is any area where the DLS1 is quite its equal, though all in all they have similar traits. More to say after things run in.
Whatever Raul is up to, the AT ANV cartridges are not to be taken lightly. They are certainly excellent value relative to new-production alternatives at any price. After 50+ hrs. break-in my AT ART7(a derivative of the 50ANV) is still relaxing and opening up. It is among the top MC and MMs that I've heard, and an excellent value at around $1.2K. Consideration of TOTL new-production cartridges from mainstream manufacturers like AT and Denon is consistent with the democratic values and unorthodoxy of this NOS MM/MI thread. If I hadn't just spent precious Yankee dollars on an L07-D TT I would be compelled to jump into a 150ANV to compare to the ART7. Might do it anyway.
Hello all, a Technics SL-1000 MkII with original Obsidian plinth and EPA-100 tonearm is on the way to me. This may have come up earlier in the thread, but what is your opinion of the quality level of the EPA-100 relative to more modern tonearms, particularly in combination with our higher compliance MM/MIs? It is apparently a high mass arm.
Fleib, a brilliant allusion to the Marx bros, and perhaps an apt metaphor for a stylus in motion toward the finish line. As summarized by Wiki:

"The climax of the movie, often referenced as one of the greatest football-related scenes in movie history, includes the four protagonists winning the football game by taking the ball into the end zone in a horse-drawn garbage wagon that Pinky rides like a chariot."
Hello Lew, Peter sold me his finished, new-production assembly of extruded aluminum F9 holder, SS suspension, and SS ruby cantilever with OCL diamond-- it is not a re-tip. It is certainly close to the top of all MM/MI I have tried.
Indeed, Quo vadis, Raul? I'm pumped about receiving a Pass Labs XP-25 phono stage later this week. This unit spans the wide gain structure of 53db-76db, enabling comparison between MM/MI and LOMC through the same phono stage without the variable of a step-up. So far I've been using a modified 48db ARC PH-2 for MM/MI and a modified high-gain hybrid Atma-Sphere MP-1 for LOMC. So far the .12mv AT ART7 reigns supreme.
Hello Fleib, Sorry for the delayed response regarding Pass XP-25. It's been running in for around two weeks, and if attendant improvements continue, a light verse review may be in order.

So far(only tested at the 76db setting with the ART7) it is doing well indeed. The noise floor is incredibly low and jet black. All details are resolved and separated with suavity. No SS glare or grain whatsoever. Maybe a bit over-smooth-- initially a slightly recessed treble that is slowly opening up with break-in. Lots of dynamics and swing. Bass articulation surpasses the modified MP-1. No crass in Pass...
Hi Fleib, the ART7 owner's manual specifies coil inductance at 8uH(1 kHz). In recent years I've been using only Terminator. At some point I need to compare it to my Technics EPA-100 and Kenwood L07D tonearms-- however Terminator performance has been so good that there is no hurry.

BTW all resistive and capacitive loading functions on XP-25 are relay-controlled from the front panel. This is a welcome feature. Somewhat surprisingly, ART7 performance is quite consistent across all settings from 47K to 100R. This cartridge has few quiddities to be addressed with loading. It is certainly not peaky, as is sometimes generalized about AT cartridges.
Hi Fleib, Thanks for the info on Sonus. You've persuaded me to revisit the Sonus Blue/Gold after diminishing returns set in with ART7. My distant recollection is that with ARC PH-2 at 100K load, the Sonus Blue Gold had peerless timbre but lacked heft relative to others. This will be an opportunity to explore the cartridge at 47K through five detents of capacitive loading from 100pf to 750pf.

I've identified the 47K load resistors in XP-25. I may do a light modification to the unit to allow plug-in TX2575 resistors above 47K in this position. Too bad that with a plethora of stock loading options, Pass omitted values above 47K.
Hi Fleib, for me it's always been a modified 48db ARC PH-2 for all MM/MIs, which except for Stanton 981LZS, have too much output for the high gain structure of my modified Atma MP-1. It will be interesting to revisit the 981LZS in the context of the XP-25's wide range of capacitance adjustments.

I think I only heard the Sonus Blue/Gold loaded at 100K.

This morning I switched from ART7 to AT20SS, setting the XP-25 to 53db, 47.7K, 100-200pf. After accumulating a drawer full of MM/MIs courtesy of Raul's thread, this is my first opportunity to directly compare a MM/MI to a LOMC through the same phono stage, tonearm, and wires, without resorting to a SUT.

Still running in the AT20SS, but in spite of its obvious virtues the ART7 shows more refinement.
Sorry, after a couple hours of break-in and tweaking I'm eating meals of crow. The AT20SS is a great cartridge and a reminder of Raul's

Slap upside the head
By starting this thread.
Lew, a couple of hours into it the AT20SS really woke up and uncovered the XP-25's potential. It's possible that this is due to cartridge performance, or perhaps to a significant quantum of break-in of phono stage resulting from 20x greater output of AT20SS vs. ART7. I'll switch back to ART7 in a few days and find out. By then XA-160.8 monoblocks will have arrived...
I have SS's $500 turn-key F9 assembly that includes extruded alum holder, new-production suspension, ruby cantilever, and OCL stylus. It's been awhile since I've had it mounted, but I recall that it sounded great with no anomalies. Maybe this a good time to revisit it. SS recommended 1.5gm VTF.
I have a Lyra Helikon with him right now with a suspension issue. We'll see how that goes, however the situation is atypical insofar as he had earlier replaced its diamond with his OCL alternative.
I don't buy it. Raul trammeling Hispanics is an immolation of his heritage. Raul is the Ambrose Bierce of audio, a lost rebel for a lost cause, Viva Zapata!
I just took delivery of a very clean TOTL Luxman PD444 with a mounted pair of Signet XK50 arms and a mystery cartridge. It turns out to be a Signet TK100LC. It might have a ruby cantilever. Any knowledge of this model? I can find no specs or meaningful details.
Thanks. Yes, a gold and red body. The second arm has a TK10ML, unfortunately with a twisted cantilever. Pretty nice freebies with this TT from an estate sale.
Jmowbray, I wonder if Peter or some other servicer can straighten the suspension of the TK10ML? The TK has a rather soft suspension relative to the TK100LC, which may have made it more prone to take on a sideways set. Is it simplistic to think that it might be re-aligned? Has anyone had success in fixing this kind of issue with an AT or Signet cartridge?

I'm looking forward to trying the 6gm effective mass Signet XK50 tonearms with MM/MIs and comparing this to my MA-505 and EPA-100 on the same table.
I have a similar love/hate relationship with electronics in combination with the excellent MC-2000. Even +76db of Pass XP-25 is at the margin for normal and higher listening levels. It is a very quiet SS design, but still generates noticeable hiss with a .05mV source.

Griff, I never much cared for the sound of the SUTs used in VK-10. Admittedly mine was not an -SE. Maybe BAT improved their SUT in subsequent iterations?
That's interesting with the Jasmine. With XP-25 as input, my modified Atma MP-1 tube line stage is totally silent at about half of its range of attenuation. This is the position of the volume control that the MC-2000 requires when played loud. So the slightly noisy background is definitely traceable to the XP-25.

I need to move some equipment around to try the MC-2000 with the MP-1 hybrid phono section. It has the Lewm mods, yielding slightly more gain than the XP-25.
BTW, I'll admit to being candy-assed to let a little hiss get in the way of appreciation of top quality vinyl playback. Years ago at an audition at Sound by Singer in NYC a salesmen said as much to me while demoing a VDH Grasshopper through a somewhat noisy TOTL Quicksilver(?) tube phono stage with the volume control full up. This was humbling. TOTL vinyl entails compromise.
Hello Ottoman78, I have a NOS MF-100 that I haven't listened to in awhile, as well as an SME 3012 as referenced in your photographed OEM doc. I'll mount it shortly for comparison to my current reference Ortofon MC2000 and AT ART7 MCs.
After several hours comparing NOS Astatic MF-100 to NOS Andante P-76-- Yeah! At an average cost of just $100 for the two, clearly there is no reason to choose between these cartridges...but... as remarked by others, P-76 is alive, forward, & involving. MF-100 is subtler, more detailed, has better bass control, and throws a deeper soundstage. MF-100 splits the difference between classic MM and MC sound. MF-100 is objectively the better cartridge; P-76 works deeper into the emotions. Either of these retires my AQ7000 Fe5. Still awaiting a Soundsmith retipped Helikon for comparison.
This morning I for the first time added 100K loading to modded ARC PH-2, and compared P-76 at 47K and 100K. I used Caddock TF020 resistors each instance. This fully balanced SS PH-2 is stroked with resistor upgrades and around fifty teflon and other good film capacitors throughout. Except for lower gain it gets close to my modded hybrid Atma MP-1.

My impression of 100K loading is similar to timeltel above. With 100K the good character of P-76 is enhanced with improved inner detail & refinement in HF. These improvements are reminiscient of a good MC cartridge-- further diminishing any advantage that MC might have in the areas of resolution & spatiality. The difference is great enough to conclude that you need to try 100K to hear what MM can do. Raul, you were very creative in your investigation of resistive loads well outside the conventional wisdom of 47K.
Hi Raul & all: to rephrase my short recent experience with two MM cartridges and MM vs. MC, the question occurs whether the sense of embodiment and weight that one hears with MM is natural or additive as an artifact of the technology. If we were skiing, MC would feel like a carved turn and MM more like laying back on the tails in powder. With a heightened sense of embodiment, the experience becomes very enjoyable and as you say, each MM cartridge may seem better than the last. One needs only to check whether detail has been enhanced or obscured by embodiment. Similarly, when dynamics are as alive as with P-76, one needs only to check whether dynamic energy is carried by the music or presented artificially like a photograph with over-saturated colors. With P-76, I have the sense of a tighter more forward dynamic evelope. With MF-100 energy is liberated into a larger space. IMHO the latter sounds less forced and more revealing of detail and separation. However perhaps P-76 is still breaking in.
I've been breaking in an Empire 888E retipped with an NOS .2x.7 mil nude elliptical stylus. Like 1080LT the 888E seems to want an extremely positive VTA. The forum achives on AA remark mainly on the impressive bass & midrange of this vintage Empire, but Raul's recommended high tilt brings out a vivid HF without sacrificing the warm & seductive "Empire" sound. Thanks again Raul, as I would never myself have guessed to go so far from neutral on VTA.
For about 50 hours I've been breaking in an Empire 888E with the top NOS .2 x.7 mil stylus, and will shortly be moving on. Set up with positive VTA and 1.2g, it took a good 30-40 hours to open up and become detailed. Nevertheless, by strict high-end standards the 888 is an easy-listening, warm cartridge with somewhat imprecise LF and recessed HF. Excellent with vocals and natural acoustics like Dylan's Nashville Skyline & Rosanne Cash's new The List.

Rather than relegate it to a drawer, I covered the 888's large body with Uniko AVM anti-vibration paint. After several hours dry time(it takes days for the paint to fully cure), there is notable improvement in all areas. Much more neutral, extended, faster and less dark. Quite a transformation-- and something I would not have had the guts to try on a Koetsu.
Phaser, thanks for mentioning that Bill Evans. I have it in mono on ABC/Riverside and stereo on Japanese Victor/Riverside. This morning they both sounded quite vivid on lowly Empire 888E. BTW I just substituted a brass pedestal for delrin on my linear air arm. What a difference this made! These inexpensive MM cartridges are good enough to report well after subtle tweaks to arm & TT.
Hi Raul, You mention above that you are not adding any capacitance to your phono stage anymore. Would you suggest that I take the same approach with my combo of balanced ARC PH-2 and Hovland Music Groove IC? At input of PH-2 there is one fixed 220pf cap from each XLR signal phase to ground. The disconnected Hovland cable measures 218pf between phases. When testing my continuously variable cartridge load circuit to determine the best loading for each cartridge, I'm thinking that it would be nice to limit the variables by sticking to a "happy medium" of capacitance for the four MM/MI cartridges in my small collection(MF-100, P-76, Empire 888 & 999.) Any recommendations are appreciated.
For several weeks I’ve been listening to a Lyra Helikon retipped with Soundsmith’s best optimized line contour stylus, both through a modified 48db ARC PH-2 and a modified 75db hybrid Atma-Sphere MP-1. The retip is a clear improvement over where the cartridge was when returned for refurbishment, and possibly better than new. As a slow-learner with a mere half-dozen phono cartridges and two phono stages, I am now surprised how much a particular phono stage can affect the performance of a particular cartridge. Helikon heard through low-gain PH-2 easily surpasses my most recent listen (Empire 888 X/EX) through PH-2. The modded MP-1 with much greater gain takes Helikon to further heights of aliveness and dynamics. But subsequently remounted Astatic MF-100 through modded PH-2 is a mind blowing improvement over Helikon through MP-1. This MI is instantly convincing in terms of realistic embodiment and larger soundstage without loss of resolution.
Hi Raul, please repost the link to the replacement Azden stylus. The link that you posted points to your c: drive.

After around 75 hours of break-in Azden really got religion. Any perception of treble lift and diffuse LF has resolved into a neutral & concise presentation. It is hard to believe this much break-in is necessary, but I have no other explanation for the improvement.
Lew, Bluz Broz has NOS S1000ZE/X-ERD stylus. I was lucky to score one for far less on eBay, which I will soon fit to a 999 body.

As there is much on other forums about Stanton/Pickering, I thought it would be interesting to compare one to some of the better MI/MM in this thread. My newly acquired Pickering XSV-3000 with NOS D3000 Stereohedron stylus is similar or identical to Stanton 881S. From what I can gather from old reviews & recent posts by a retired Stanton exec, the Stanton/Pickering MM types beginning with 881/XSV-3000 were a step up from earlier MI types such as 681/XV-15. He also mentions that(in the 70s at least) Empire never had the prestige of Stanton/Pickering in the marketplace. We shall see.
Lewm, I did not review Acutex but only added an anecdote from a prospector who found one.

Perhaps JB0194(who has a good collection of Pickering/Stanton) will comment further, but yes I am enjoying Pickering XSV3000 retipped with NOS D3000SP stereohedron/quad stylus. XSV displaced Empire 999X/EX on Terminator linear arm. The stylus is still settling in with 75K loading, 1.2g(with brush removed), and slightly negative VTA. This is an energetic & resolving cartridge with excellect imaging and spatial characteristics-- possibly owing to a slight bump in mid-treble as noted by magazine reviews back in the day. It has better LF control than Empire, and is among the several great MM/MI cartridges that split the difference between MM sense of involvement and MC detail. HF is revealing, but I am hoping the treble relaxes a bit and develops refinement. In overall character this one may be closest to P-76, but with better separation & detail.

The quiddity is that my example has output well below spec and more like .5mV-1mV. This is not so bad, as it enables use both with MM and MC phono stages. I don't know if the lower output is related to the cartridge body or the D3000SP stylus.
Downunder, yes the following quote from that thread is germane and as identified by the dimple & discoloration, the tie-wire is a feature of my D3000SP stylus.

"In the replacement stylus for the 881-S, or the Pickering XSV-3000 from whence the 881-S came, there is an important element missing in all of the knock-offs, and that is an internal tie wire. The tie wire is affixed to the end of the cantilever, and is connected to the extreme end of the metal tube that fits into the cartridge body. Its purpose is to stabilize the movement of the cantilever, and to prolong the flexibility of the entire assembly, among other things. It is also a patented feature, that's time consuming to install during manufacturing, and has never been used in a knock off stylus.

In order to connect the tie wire to the end of the metal tube, a special clamp was used during assembly which did a few things: it held the assembly in place for accurate connection of the tie wire and did so by crimping the tube and leaving a characteristic "dimple." Since heat was applied to the tube, it also usually discolored slightly.. NO replacement was ever made in this manner, and the shiny appearance of the tube on the knockoffs is a dead giveaway it's not an original.

I knew the young engineer who designed the XSV-3000, and he was quite proud of the fact that the stylus assembly alone had a whopping total of 12 patents. The tie wire is a key element of the assembly, and without it, performance suffers."
Lew, The ground tab on some Empire and Pickering/Stanton cartridges is a foil that drains the cartridge body to one of the four cartridge pins. Severing this tab does not effect the coil connections. I have only done this with cartridges with all metal bodies and mounting brackets, where it is possible to reroute physical ground through the cartridge bolt.

The hum was associated with room lights and proximity to AC wall wiring, and also sometimes touching or merely approaching the arm or arm wiring. The hum varied somewhat from cartridge to cartridge. The new shielded harness entirely eliminates these effects. The new harness is wired same as the old harness, except for the addition of a shield around each strand that is floated at the cartridge and grounded at XLR.

I could write a very long & dirty limerick about the bedevilment of hum in phono. Suffice to say that it sucks.
Lew, what loading do you using on 980LZS? I'm close to mounting mine.

BTW I recall purchasing Abbey Road in '70 in the tiny music dept. at Korvettes dept. store-- an isle or two from the toy dept. where plastic guns & ammo had my close attention a few years earlier.
Lew & Timeltel, My 981LZS has improved considerably after lightening up on vertical mass, tweaking azimuth, and run-in to the five hour mark. I accord with Lew's assessment of a "richly" detailed performance-- a very detailed but smooth and refined treble, in contrast to the slightly nervous treble of the Pick XSV3000. Compared to my previous mount the MF-100, the Astatic is lit up with more saturated tonal colors, faster transients, and more forward presentation. The 981LZS has better depth of field and separation, is calmer, and perhaps more natural in communicating the wistfully disaffected nuances of Johnny Cash, Lucinda Williams, and Rob Callaghan. Further judgment will be reserved for the 50 hour mark, lest I be accused of never meeting an MM/MI that I didn't like.
John, this is a flat-nose M320. The repair was EUR 87 delivered-- an excellent value to get this cartridge back up on its hinds. I'm unsure but it looks like a new armature tab telescope/collar was fitted to the original tip. Next step is to send Axel a Technics EPC-300MC for rebuild.

A dilemma for Grace owners: I'm torn between repairing a Grace F9 with broken cantilever, or going for the Soundsmith Ruby OCL that comes complete with holder. My reason for considering the turn-key SS option is that the plastic holder with the broken stylus may not be a good foundation for a rebuild. Unlike other F9 stylus holders that I've seen photographed, this one is rectangular and projects forward of the stylus tip. The plastic tabs along the sides of the cartridge body are very short and don't hug the cartridge too well, allowing some rotational play in azimuth. Here it is:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/300762144739?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

It would be conceivable after retip to secure the holder to the cartridge with glue. Is anyone familiar with this style of holder? It is translucent green and marked with a gold "E" at top front center. Perhaps it's an aftermarket replacement.
Harold, Congratulations on your M320III STR Improved-- at a fair price to boot. The body of my example does not carry the "Improved" designation. Maybe yours is later and better production. Looking forward to your thoughts on its performance mounted to the mighty Terminator.
Raul & Fleib,

I posted some photos of the purported PCN550ML on AA at

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/vinyl/messages/104/1048687.html

Sorry for the mediocre quality of my digital microscope, but at least the photos do appear to reveal a facetted profile.
Don, I took a bunch of photos other than those posted to AA. Despite the weakness of the microscope, the photos reveal something more sophisticated than a conical or elliptical profile. As far as I'm concerned, based on sonic performance as much as the pictures, this "550ML" is a keeper despite ambiguity on whether the tube cantilever is beryllium or aluminum.
Hi Raul, I'm looking forward to your "revisit" of the PCN-550ML stylus. Similar to the impressions of Acman3, on some LPs I sense slight HF roll-off and less than commanding bass management--which softens dynamics. On other (better recorded) LPs, these minor failings are much less evident. In the latter cases the entire presentation is naturally convincing. This stylus is quite a chameleon--a good thing I think.

BTW, whether this cantilever is alum or beryllium, the 700x photos that I posted on AA don't reveal how unusually narrow the cantilever diameter is for a crimped tube type.