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.
Ag insider logo xs@2xrauliruegas

Showing 50 responses by dgob

T_bone,

Your system (isolation included) and the music you must be getting through it sounds fantastic and I am myself now a convert to pneumatic suspension - at least under TT's which is where I have tried it. The funny thing is that popular reasoning is that such isolation suffers the effects of air-borne vibrations but that just does not seem true to real experience. Marvellous!

Happy listening
T-bone,

I tried the Technics with and without a plinth and with various makes of armboard. I also tried the footers on my Acoustic Signature Mambo (here I used another, smaller set of AT pneumatic footers). However, I did not try the footers on the plinthed deck as it had a complex system of isolation.

On all instances the footers made a 'dramatic' difference to the performance of the TT's. I'm certain it is due to resonance reduction. I'd just say that the sound seems freed when the bare Technics is sat on the footers and the 3D quality of the musicians and the sense of air between performers is very obviously improved. Given the high charges that currently affect the acquistion of a decent plinth for the Technics, I think this is a great option to achieve amazing results with very little outlay - maybe in keeping with one of the earlier themes of this thread.

Are you using this or a similar approach?
T_bone,

On the perceptions of pitch, it is too hard to say. I know that A,J,M, Houtsma's 'Pitch and Timbre: Definition, Meaning and Use' paper sets out the grounds for the following conclusions:

"The main conclusions from the material presented in this paper are:

"1. Because of their subjective nature, the parameters pitch and timbre should never be presented as independent variables in perception studies. Doing so would amount to describing one unknown in terms of other unknowns.

"2. The roles of the attributes pitch and timbre in the perception of speech, music and environment sounds are very similar.

"3. In music, any study of pros and cons of certain temperaments or tone scales should include a consideration of the spectral composition of the sounds used to realize the music.

"Linking timbre perception too exclusively with auditory object recognition would be asking for repeating the history of categorical perception in speech."

However, the frequency consistencies that occur due to better isolation should obviously impact on both pitch and timbre and maybe that is why, as you suggest, I perceive a noted improvement.
Halcro,

Please feed back on the performance of the Yamamoto once you've fully familiarised yourself with it. I have always avoided wooden headshells (and equipment in general) due to fears about potential natural and climate induced anomalies.
Lewm,

"I am quite happy trying to maximize with my biases and preferences always in mind." I think that is absolutely understandable.

Raul,

I think your points about SLFL are intriguing and well put. Maybe your levels of obsession are beyond most of us but - regardless of one's personal opinions - your commitment and experience-gained knowledge seem beyond repute.
I supose this points to the approaching decrepitude of many of us on this thread but I also use the Feickert with my reading glasses on and magnifying glass firmly in hand. It works fine with these aids!

I doubt that ultra alignment variations make an audible and consistent difference: considering degrees of arc variations on cantilever straightness, centring of holes in our records etc. However, if I did not have the Feickert then Dertonarm's protractor would sound a wise bet.
Timeltel,

Does your interpretation of the categorical imperative (vis, Totalitarianism) hold and, if so, how does that sit with its role in Kant's critique of the Wolffians?

I would imagine that that form of political atemporal rationalism is rather anti-Kant! Not sure.
Timeltel,

Sorry to place my own uncertainties here but I feel that a statement such as: "universal claims can 'never' be verified" would form a starting point for the exploration that Kant develops across the three Critiques and associated writings.

Just thought I might follow out of context for a final time to share my uncertainties here.
Timeltel,

"There are those who would presume to ignore Kant's position".

Without a doubt true and Kant would maintain that these presumptions hold no sway as universal - his Groundwork clearly set against such presumptions.
Henry,

I know what you mean about the Barenboim. Have you tried the Gould (1981) recording of the Goldberg Variations? Also sublime and part of a response (along with reference to Milstein's (1975) recording of the Partita's) that I'm considering making on your 'nude' thread when I get a chance.
Pryso,

I really empathise with your friend. You are correct about the associated frustration and even though I now have a beatiful but useless P100c Mk4 sitting in its box I would reiterate that it was/is the best performing cartridge that I have ever owned or heard. Worse yet, in the current economic and hifi climate I probably couldn't afford to pay for a new one even should that rare event occur!
Raul,

I've had problems with attaining the correct overhang when trying the AT headshell on my AC3300 LB (same on my Grace G-660P and Ikeda IT-407). None of the four holes seem to bring me closer than 2mm from the ideal overhang. Can you advise?

Thanks
Downunder,

I'm using a modified Mark Levinson 32.5 to great effect. When it comes to what I believe is called 'bang for the buck', it is unbelievable. Quietness, in comparison with various models of tube amplification that I h ave previously owned, is definitely one of its advantages.

Good luck
Hi Raul,

Thanks for that. I'm now wondering if this could probably also have implications for setting the overhang on my Glanz cartridges, which would seem to be in a similar predicament to those set in the discussed AT headshells!? I will definitely try your suggestion with a suitably adjusted effective length when/if I can get hold of the noted protractor.
Raul,

While you're re-valuating your favourite cartridges, do you think you'll have a chance to review the Astatic MF100 soon?

I'd like to see your retrospective here and any tips for getting the best out of it.

Cheers
Raul,

No problem and I look forward to reading your review of the MF100. Any findings regarding set up and optimising will be particularly welcomed. I've not tried mine in a long, long time and that might just be the spur I need to give it another whirl.

Just on the earlier point about the AT headshells. Would you suggest that we comply with the effective length but chose another overhang for the cartridges? If so, would you always be governed by the effective length in choosing that overhang?

If the answer to both questions above is "yes", then I suppose the Feikert protractor would be an obvious candidate for set up.
Banquo363,

Commiserations on the demise of your Empire. If it helps, and working on the old adage that "misery loves company", I would mention that I recently lost my Technics P100c Mk4 cartridge. This without any evident impact of any personal dyspraxia - as its cantilever simply collapsed. VdH and other experts say they cannot mend the relevant spring and that I must now consign it to the trash can of history.

The loss has come as a massive blow. Maybe worse so as I have sold a large range of highly rated MM/MI's on the basis of its performance: my intended cartridge for life!

As Acman3 say, not for the fainthearted.

Onwards and upwards
Acman3,

Sorry but the Empire 750Ltd was one of the cartridges that I sold on eBay.
Raul,

Given the fact that you have heard your Technics through the Essential 3160 and with full range (velodyne supported) speakers, I know that you fully appreciate what I am missing. Ironically, when I had the funds and opportunity to buy an AKG P100 LE for next to nothing, I already had the Technics and so forewent the opportunity and notified others on this forum. Oh the irony, oh the pain!!

Christmas is coming and I will be fifty in the next couple of months and so, if you feel generous and come across a worthy replacement, all gifts welcome:~)
Travbow,

Thanks for your kind words of sympathy. I was also surprised when VdH could not repair it: even more so as I had also had them refresh it originally. I even tried a specialist company over here (Expert Stylus & Cartridge Company) and they also said that it could not be repaired. However, they did clarify that a total rebuild might be possible but that the extent in time and technical challenge would make this something that they would not consider. I was/am gutted but move on in hope that some company/individual will in the future feel the urge to offer the required repair service. Until then, it sits on a shelf covered with a small cloth to prevent the constant taunt of its presence!
Siniy123,

I am not certain if you posted this before our last off line conversation? Or does the agent's suggestion that the new stylus would not cure the problem still stand?
Mab33,

Sorry, a similar question to the one I've asked Siniy123. However, your feedback from VdH is the same as mine and my further explorations have suggested that simply replacing the stylus assembly would not overcome the loss of the suspension spring. Are you certain that a new EPS-P100c stylus would in fact work and overcome the spring issue?
Mab33,

Sorry, just reflected on your line "Any existing company wishing to make a new replacement stylus assembly would likely make some sales, but at what cost?". Meaning you are not just talking about a new stylus but the entire assembly into the cartridge and it's magnet!?

It's still early over here and my brain is trying to catch up with my fingers!
Halcro,

I will definitely keep an eye out for a replacement Technics Mk4: although financial constraints might dictate at present.

I really empathise with your losses as I'm currently using an Empire 1000 ZE/X to great effect as one on my cartridges. Have you considered using a replacement for your 1000 and, if so, which ones are the favoured options (any commentators welcome to chip in here)?

My current MM/MI options are far from shoddy but (although I'm not able to seriously claim experiencing any degree of torture as a consequence) I do miss that next performance level that the Technics brought. I've obviously not tried all cartridges and I'm sure there are alternatives that will do similar and thus I suppose the joy(?) of hifi acquisition remains by necessity.
Raul,

I know I have been pressing you to retry the Astatic MF-100. However, I have done so because I was surprised by my own experimentation with it. Your response is brief and the quality of exploration is therefore obviously not as deep as it might have been.

If you get the opportunity/time, do try it with the lightest tonearm you can find. I think it might still surprise.

Happy listening

As always
Nandric,

Would that also mean that there is no way we can understand our feelings without reference to the other in that difficult dialectic between thought/feeling ('What is Orientation in Thinking')? Whether or not the answer to this lies in the unresolved element of judgement power or some form of Bataillean excess, I am clearly still much impressed by such acts of empathy.

Hence, your kind help and that of all those who have taken the time to communicate with me on this thread or directly by email is greatly appreciated and I still hope that others have the chance to try the Technics and see if my impressions find similar form with them.

Gratefully
Nandric,

"We are supposed to know what it means to lose some rare stylus or cart".

I hope many don't know this now or in the future, although I agee that many do and/or will. Such is this interest. Of course, that wont remove the options of 'empathy' or 'schadenfreude' and I remain grateful that the former is often manifest through this forum.

Thanks again
Downunder,

Thanks for the suggestion and I will keep an eye out for one. I've used the 103D on a Grace G-660P tonearm (basically for the nostalgia of recreating the standard choice and set-up of the Japanese broadcasting compan to good effect. Sadly, the stylus broke on this baby. I'd imaging the DL-S1 would be an even better match. What do you think?
Raul/Thucan,

I am interested by your comments on "the path" to hifi perfection. I have been mulling over a point that you (Raul) made recently about the distinction between the recorded event (using close field microphones whose sensitivity exceeds our personal hearing abilities) in contrast to the experienced live event (where our seating positions and the acoustics of the venue play such a major role) with our limited hearing capacities.

I was wondering if this does not mean that there are two potential paths? The first would be to obtain the exact sound of the recording and would seem more difficult to be certain of on a record by record basis unless one was at the actual recording sessions or could reliably reproduce these as a control test using R2R and a suitably accurate music/hifi chain. Even this test is obviously subject to the intitial quality of each recording process.

The second (which is where I feel a lot of "audiophiles" take residence) would be to try to obtain the sound that is most reminiscent of a favourite live venue and/or personally experienced performance (or, as is often the case, an amalgamated memory of the various live venues at which the listener has become familiar and from which arises his/her perception of "a" live event and, consequently, of what is an accurate or good portrayal of a given recording).

If the latter is the objective, it would seem that the school of "whatever rocks your boat" would be as valid as the school of "this is accurate to the recording". No?

As I say, just some possbily pointless reflections on common concerns.
Raul,

Regarding the difference made by styli, I have found the same with the Empire 1000 ZE/X when using the original Empire stylus in contrast to the replacement 4236 DEZ, as supplied by Garage-A-Records.

They seem to be made of different materials and are of different sizes and (most importantly) they sound markedly different. The shorter replacement stylus is more rigid and their comparitive performances complies with your generalisations. I'd go so far as to say that they create two different (sounding) Empire 1000 ZE/X. I can see either being preferred according to the listener's preferences and system.

If anyone knows of another stylus that they would recommend for use with the 1000 ZE/X, I would love to hear from you.

Cheers
Raul,

I suspect Nandric (like myself on occassion!) was really only moaning about the fact that cartridges (that he might have been tracking for some time) go up in price once they are advertised on an Audiogon thread such as this. This can have the effect of elavating the prices and removing these MM/MI gems from the bargain counter which first attracted a lot of us: even though they arguably still remain real value for money when compared to their largely lower performing MC alternatives.

With the current economic dilemma biting, I have no doubt that this makes it impossible for many to then afford, sadly.
Raul,

"or Dgob in the subject"

You have misunderstood my post. I did not nor did I intend to criticise your practice of notifying people of worthy products. My intention was simply to explain the frustration that I felt Nandric ("like myself 'on occasion'.") was expressing. Indeed, how could I criticise when I have often been led to good products by such alerts!?

I hope that clarifies my position and I do think you are nevertheless to share your opinions and knowledge.
I owned the MMC2 and it does require elevated gain levels to fully appreciate its qualities. It provides excellent detail and a stable soundstage and imaging. A neutral and accurate performer is how I recall it: in my particular set up.

I sold mine (as with so many other gems!) under the influence of my Technics EPC 100 Mk4. Definitely worth a listen especially for those not yet convinced about the reputed limitations of most MC's.
Nandric/Banquo363/Timeltel,

Hegel is difficult (although the link through Kant is instructive in comprehension). It has been decades since I studied him but comprehension seems to be enhanced through contextualising his phenomenogical speculation through the Phenomenology of Spirit. A lovely novel that simply cannot be dismissed, IMO.
Nandric,

I wonder if a more non-critical form of criticism (see Hegel's letter to Niethammer, 17 Sept 1806) of his short-comings might not be better placed than

"Such is my hate of Hegel?"

In the light of Rene Descartes' assertion that:

"It is easy to hate and it is difficult to love. This is how the whole scheme of things works. All good things are difficult to achieve; and bad things are very easy to get"
Clarification,

I would not claim Agon the same import as Jena nor Raul that of Napoleon! Still, parallels arise for greater minds than mine.
Clarification,

I did not mean to divert this thread any further from its original path with my brief response on Hegel. It just seems to me that the issues raised have a direct parallel to the issue about cartridges.

To argue that something - Hegel - is difficult is one (acceptable) thing. However, to consequently suggest that difficulty means that we should or could not gain great truth from that thing - Hegel - is another (unacceptable) thing.

Similarly, to argue that evaluating the quality of a cartridge or other piece of hifi is difficult (as we all more or less accept) is not sufficient grounds for the increasingly presented argument that the search for such truth or value should be dismissed.
Nandric,

When charm accompanies wit... I do try to understand you and will continue to do so.

Such are the things of memory
Nandric,

You do seem keen on reducing things (be it to categories or assumptions): as is undoubtedly your right! That remains the point of our correspondence.
Nandric,

I have said that I do not think this thread is a suitable place but I must be wrong.

By way of conclusion, I have not aimed to claim status but simply tried to suggest a way into understanding Hegel's logic following your statements. He also acknowledged the difficulties of comprehending said logic - this also made explicit in his ongoing correspondence with Niethammer: "For as you know, it is easier to be unintelligible in a sublime way than intelligible in a down-to-earth way." (8 July 1807).

I therefore suggested the Phenomenology of Spirit as a way into his Science of Logic, which was intended for young gymnasium students. That was the approach that I undertook in my postgraduate studies in trying to make sense of his Science of Logic. The links and comprehension offered through this approach seem enhanced by the notes from his relevant lectures that are now available as the 'Encycopedia of the Philosophical Sciences in Outline and Critical Writings'(1990). An approach that can be extended across his Science(s) of Religion/History and Rights. Maybe a glorious failure in acknowledging the grounds of its own failure.

Burning straw men (Wittginstein's not having read Hegel etc) rarely helps and if we must leave past failures, we need to review that terrain critically or seem destined to tread those same swamps that we'd swear we had left.

I am not a philosopher but a simple man with interests. More I cannot claim.
Banquo363,

The Analysis Plus Silver sound as neutral as any cable I have tried. It does not emphasise the midranges (as many generations of the Siltech cables I tried did) nor produce the same sound as the Kubala Sosna Emotions did at astronomical prices. I know many question the value of square wave reproduction but the scientific claims of APS do seem to stand up in practise. My statements about their cost was in different times: they could easily be found second hand for less that we pay for our MM/MI cartridges (and the economic downturn had not hit me as it now has). Raul also assisted me in getting some cheap sets of them and online searches (say Used Cables for example) furnished the rest.

On Hegel and relativism, I would not seek to impose anything... but for those who are searching anyway I felt that he stands far more scrutiny than is often imposed through various reductive caricatures of his thinking. Granted, regarding relativist approaches, he did (for better and worse) seek universal groundings and oppose intellectual, cultural and political anarchy - while placing subjectivism at the heart of his thinking.
Lewm,

I respect your views. However, we do rank cartridges and (Timeltel) that poses problems for any relativism that does not seek grounding: such grounding seeming to pose the traditional challenges of truth/value (at an obvious remove - historically - from retreating into either side of some subjective/objective dichotomy). Maybe as difficult as Hegel's speculative proposition. I don't know but I try to keep an open mind to the explorations of other, more qualified researchers.
Timeltel,

Thanks for asking, there might be news on the Technics Mk4 and (fingers crossed) I'll get back if things move in a positive direction.

I do miss it so
Nandric,

You leave me with nothing to say except repetition and to acknowledge that you obviously hold a faith (concerning Kant, Hegel, Frege and logic) that I do not possess.

Not a pressing concern for me, I must confess! Maybe, time will bring new reflections for us all.
Dlaloum,

Real food for thought. I'll be keeping abreast of associated developments.

Gratefully
Thucan @ 06-13-11,

Just to ensure that I am not listed amongst those "audiophiles engaged in philosophy", I will clarify my contributions.

I have argued that the search for 'a truth' behind what we can call 'good' or (both discriminately and subsumingly) 'better' regarding any hifi component is a question of "vindicating our judgements".

In this endeavour, I have argued that methodological consideration of substantiating any such judgement is greatly enhanced by the critique of judgement power that was produced by Immanuel Kant. Others, such as Nandric, have offered views that I believe to fall well short of the problematic established therein and have opted for more convenient views.

This is not because I am engaging in philosophy to browbeat anyone into accepting my criteria of cartridge/hifi component evaluations. It is more a case of my pointing to the real complexity and historical web of scientific and philosophical reflection that points to the real difficulties (aporias) that we ALL face in substantiating any such evaluations.

Sorry to bring up a subject that I still maintain is done little to no service by willy-nilly dragging caricatures of it into the current discourse. I will of course attempt to be true to this view and avoid such acts of violence in the future.
Hi Nandric,

I have real faith in Alex (at least regarding rebuilding Technics EPC 100Mk4's). It would be great to hear how he does with your Clearaudio and I think you're right in leaving it to his own judgement.

I look forward to hearing and good luck

As always