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 fleib

Lawrence, **Please have a good read this is very important and what i have been trying to say
www.audioasylum
we need to get back to the music people enough with the audiophile BS**

The argument makes two assumptions which are not a given.
1) The goal is to sound like acoustic instruments, as in a live performance.
2) What's on the recording actually sounds like live instruments and accurately reproducing that yields a live facsimile.

I'm not taking a position here one way or the other, merely saying that if the premise is not accepted, the argument is moot. The second point is, if the recording isn't completely accurate, do you strive to accurately reproduce the recording or go beyond by introducing colorations that sound more live?
Regards,
If tracking is responsible for more detail, then a great tracking MM would be superior in that respect to a MC. My intent here isn't to tout one or the other, rather to point out inconsistencies in generalizations. I have no doubt about what was heard, I just doubt if it is universal. Like loading - this is, at least to some extent, dependant on equipment.

David, the Ortofon article only subjectively tested for imaging. They said that the 5 MMs were more heavily damped and that's why they had inferior phase linearity and imaging. As damping was added to the MC, response got flatter but imaging suffered.

It's been postulated (w/o directly stating) that detail and harmonics/dynamics are somewhat mutually exclusive. Could this be the limitations, the mechanical aspects of the medium?
I don't know if this applies to all LOMCs, but some will sound super dynamic - larger than life, if loaded at 47K/high gain. Detail and focus suffer somewhat until that load is brought down to a lower value. For awhile the reviewers at TAS were using 47K, so I tried it on my Genesis 1000.

Maybe this has something to do with the electromechanical aspect, and it might not be a limitation at all.

Lew, I use something like 300 ohms on my 980LZ. I'll have to try it again in my AHT. I've been using in another system.
Yes, 980 cu is 30. VTF is .75 to 1.5
There is some stuff called Re Grip. It's made for pinch rollers and such. Not recommended for carts. It could make the cu even higher or ruin the suspension. Even very old carts use synthetic rubber that normally doesn't deteriorate. I'd only try it as a last ditch effort.
Regards,
One of the problems with buying items off sites like this, is reliability of feedback. It's often unreliable. Ripped off buyers don't leave neg feedback for a variety of reasons. If you leave neg feedback it diminishes the chances that you'll get your money back. The feedback system is designed to promote sales and equitable solutions, but when you read two very different versions of the same story, what do you believe? You usually think that the best story is probably right, rather than the just a better story or the last word read. I don't know all the new rules. Can the seller also leave neg feedback? Although rare, buyers can also be cheats. What to believe?

Nandric, you do us all a disservice with your tribunal BS. No, this isn't a court of law and any information we get about these kind of matters helps us all get what we pay for. Do you think those people were making up stories about being ripped off for tens of thousands of dollars? We have the opportunity of buying an alignment protractor for nearly $800, right now. Perhaps someone not as knowledgeable as you, thinking it's the best, might go for it. After receiving said protractor, that person would be a prime candidate for a major rip - private sale. This isn't a court of law and your efforts are interfering with the court of public opinion, on which we all rely.

Raul, I think you did the right thing in posting that. I trust everything worked out equitably with that cartridge matter.
Regards,
Dear Nandric, The problem with your argument is, I'm not looking for justice. I'm looking to be informed about honest or dishonest sellers. You must admit that the myriad stories on that thread are compelling. The fact is, a private transaction can be risky, especially an international transaction. If the legal system is needed to rectify, it's expensive, time consuming and can take years to settle, if at all. Even if you get a judgement you might not be able to collect and you still have to pay the legal fees. What a monumental waste of time. My point is, knowledge is preventative medicine. Life is too short to waste it on unnecessary BS.
Regards,
Hi Lew, all those points could be valid depending on the individual design. I think wood would tend to dampen and not efficiently transmit. On the other hand a single connection between a headshell plate and arm, could be beneficial for energy dissipation. Energy could have one clear path to travel from plate to arm tube. I base much of this on the work of Pierre Lurne. There are several interviews on the web. Over the yrs his principals seem to work for me. BTW, he has a degree in physics.

The question arises of how much of this is practical, audible, or just theoretical. I would say, it depends. I think a flexing or resonance just behind the headshell only complicates things and would tend to compromise performance.
Regards,
Effective mass and moment of inertia seem to be expressions of the same thing. Using a heavier counterweight closer to the pivot will reduce eff mass. Calculating MOI includes distance.

Lew, can't say I completely understand it or can do the math. Energy propagation gets into mechanical impedance. Vibrations travel both ways. There are other forms of mechanical energy like sound pressure waves that impact on the table/arm. I think you might find these interesting:
http://www.stereophile.com/interviews/pierre_lurne_audiomecas_turntable_designer/index.html

http://www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/belladonna2_e.html

Regards,
Hi Dover, that sounds reasonable to me. I think much of it depends on the materials and execution. **At any junction or join some energy will transmit through and some will reflect backwards towards the cartridge. Therefore no join ensures no backward reflected energy towards the cartridge.** It also would ensure maximum rigidity and tend to eliminate additional resonance problems caused by a joint. It seems like a good case against removable headshells.

In the real world it seems like best performance often comes from a combination of dissipation and damping. If you have a rigid pivot(s) wouldn't considerations be somewhat different with strings or a golf ball suspended in silicone? Rather than forcing the cart to follow a rigid pivot 9 to 12" away, you're putting the cart before the pivot and making the arm follow the cartridge. On the other hand, VTA adjusters that have the arm pillar only sitting on spikes are said to have lots of extra bass. No wonder, the arm isn't coupled, it's decoupled.
Think I'll play a Memorial Day record. Lee Morgan vol 3, I Remember Clifford is on there - Blue Note 1557. I'll have to dig out a Benny Golson rendition too. What the hey, he wrote the tune.
Regards,
Hi Raul, I never owned an Accuphase cart so I'm not positive, but pretty sure the cantilever was boron. The AC-3 that came after had hollow boron w/beryllium rod for strength, rigidity. The generator specs for the Accuphase and Monster are virtually identical. All the LOMC are 4 ohms. I think beryllium would be a good choice. It's slightly heavier than boron, perhaps more rigid. It's more brittle though. My impression of the AC-2 was a little more relaxed and musical, maybe slightly less accurate than than the Genesis 1000.
Regards,
Hello Henry, I'm afraid we still have a basic problem. Blind listening tests on unfamiliar systems are near useless for anything but gross differences. Despite our references to live music, most systems fall far short and hi-fi stereo listening is a medium unto itself, mimicking that of live music and "exceeding" it in certain areas. I've conducted blind tests. Depending on what the test is about, I could pretty much make them come out any way I wanted, with careful selection of components. Using test instruments is sometimes a useful way of identifying what's going on and training our ears to discern.

All of us try various things to get a more accurate or pleasing sound. If there is a mechanical resonance impacting the electrical output, we automatically take appropriate action depending on our opinion of the affect. However, being locked into one approach would tend to limit our ability to identify coloration and consider a different approach. The S and J shaped arms were developed to incorporate offset angle into the headshell and maintain a more rigid (straight) coupling. So, this brings up the questions, is it better if using a removable headshell and, is it better vs a fixed headshell?
Back to square 1.
Regards,

Hi Halcro, **I’m not a great proponent of blind listening tests either…..however when a statement is made that a principle in audio is superior to another, that statement should be demonstrable in some scientific manner?
If it is claimed that a rigid headshell is better than a detachable one….this should be audible on any system…..not just one’s own?
It cannot be logically valid that a statement is true but cannot be proved to be true?**

I see your point, but isn't a resonance that shows up in the electrical output on test equipment, more scientific than people listening on an unfamiliar system and being put on the spot? On the one hand it's hard to argue with an oscilloscope or RTA, whatever, on the other hand we really don't know if this is a universal attribute of all removable headshell systems. I think perhaps it is, at least to some extent. We often hear these things and don't identify exactly what they are, or the cause; nevertheless we would select the headshell and tweak the mounting system to achieve the sound we are looking for. Do you have an extensive headshell collection? Why, exactly is it necessary, perhaps to tune an imperfect system? Don't take that as an insult or proclamation of superiority, nothing's perfect.
Regards,
Hi Halcro,
**I think you are missing my point here Fleib.......if I cannot hear the effects of this 'resonance' you are measuring compared directly to my tonearms with fixed headshells......why do you assume it is important or even more illuminating.....why do you assume it is 'bad' rather than 'good'?**

I didn't measure the resonance and I didn't make those assumptions except its possible importance. An arm resonance is identified and attributed to the headshell. Should we ignore it? Lets devise an elaborate subjective test with 12 arms etc etc. This is really no different than what you do all the time and you haven't been able to identify it. So it doesn't exist or is unimportant if you can't hear it? How do you know you can't hear it, do all those arms sound alike? Why don't you measure the output and identify it? Perhaps you could work with the coupling and eliminate it or reduce it, and see/hear if it sounds any different.
Our subjective impressions might be the final arbiter, but progress is made by using measurements and learning what works or works better.
Regards,
Hi Frogman, **I have always felt that the notion that an audio component can be "over damped" is a bit curious. I don't believe that it is possible for an audio component to be "over damped"; in absolute terms.**
Over damped, in this case refers to a mechanical situation that negatively impacts transient response. A resonance circuit usually refers to an LC or LCR electrical circuit. Interaction with mechanical resonance certainly is what we're talking about. Specifically, the vibrational energy transmitted from the cart and resonance of the arm that effects the electrical output. Dissipation of mechanical energy is an attempt to drain it and convert it to heat minimizing affect on electrical output. Arm resonance that shows up in the output is best eliminated if possible IMO.
Regards,
Halcro, **If there is any "vibrational energy" transmitted from the cartridge......I would suggest you have more serious problems than 'resonance'?**

There's always vibrational energy at/from the cartridge. It's mechanical movements of the cantilever that trigger the electrical output of the generator. Those movements are severe, considering how the body is suspended and the weight stabilizing the tracking system. Hence the use of constrained layer damping coupling systems or exotic materials and/or potting used to isolate. New offerings like the Ortofon Anna or Lyra Atlas use titanium bodies and vibrational analysis to optimize performance. This extremely hard/rigid material and construction isolating the generator would tend to transmit even more mechanical energy to the arm, I would think. Transmission of vibrations to the arm is a widely accepted phenomenon.
Regards,
**Maybe not quite 100%.....but pretty close?
What's your exact figure?**

Close to 100%, is that a joke?
If vibrations can be detected in a tonearm, and they certainly have, then they come from one of two directions. Either they are going down the armtube from the cartridge or the other direction being transmitted from the base of the arm. Vibration has acceleration, velocity and displacement. Other characteristics are amplitude and frequency. Direction can be determined by observation of the vibration(s). Although analysis can be complex, direction and nature of the vibrations is proof of their existence.

There can be no one figure that represents the efficiency of different phono carts. Lewm had it right in the first place. It's not our job to prove the world is round. Prove that it's flat.
Regards,
Why would I want to prove there is no Santa Clause, when I have evidence there is? He's all over the place every year in December. Santa Clause exists as a concept, if not as a individual person. On the other hand, you misrepresent my position. **Perhaps we should just listen to the armtube and forget the cartridge?
There's precious little information left there according to you?**
I never said or implied that.
Your post on the Empire 1000ZE/X was interesting, informative and well written. In keeping with the topic of this thread, I won't continue this discussion of vibration.
Regards,
Hi Nandric, I hope Axel is able to cope with the Genesis body & cantilever. I think VdH, Gyger S might be a better choice if you want to replicate the sound of a Microridge? which is virtually identical to AT Microline. The shape is supposed to replicate the cutterhead and wear evenly for no record damage. Hard to separate fact from hype, although it's one that might last 1 - 2K hrs. I think diamond quality/polish comes into play, clear gem-like vs industrial dk grey. When I say micro I'm referring to those types in general. The Optimised Contour Contact Line is Soundsmith top diamond and costs $450 on existing cantilever. Perhaps Axel can advise better.
Regards,
Hi Raul, My memory was faulty concerning the AC2. As I mentioned, I never owned one. Sapphire tube + line contact it is, thanks to Lespier. The Genesis 1000 is diamond coated boron tube + Microridge. Nakatsuka developed cartridges using what he thought, the best materials available at that time.

The AC2 was developed in late '70s when shibata and line contact were best available, I believe. The AC3 was early '80s and had micro type. The Monsters were mid/late '80s and both the 1000 and 2000 have boron tube/Microridge. This seemed to carry on to ZYX, also Nakatsuka. I believe one ZYX had boron tube, but now discontinued? I think now they either have solid boron or diamond cantilever with Microridge.
Regards,

Tracing this history of his LOMC, it seems all the generators are similar, as I mentioned. Sapphire or boron tube are unavailable, perhaps Axel will know what's best.
Regards J Carr, Concerning MC carts with non-permeable cores, can you tell me how the magnetic field is configured w/air core?
Specifically, does the DLS1 have a field magnet? Assuming there is no piezo element or electrostatic generation, isn't some kind of magnet necessary?
Thanks,
In the past there were problems with US ebay sellers not getting paid on some European transactions. I thought ebay fixed this, but I really don't know. Also, European buyers often ask sellers to lie on customs forms. This can result in product being held and buyer never receives it, hence seller doesn't get paid. Because US is by far the largest market, some US sellers won't deal with foreign transactions.
Hi Lew, **I tend to side with Raul; if the cartridge is capable of an extended frequency response, why knowingly attenuate it unless the extended response is per se a resonant peak? Can't that peak be tamed with capacitance, Timel?**

Sometimes a cartridge is too bright and you might want to attenuate HF response w/o rolling off extreme high end. Adding capacitance will lower (in frequency) the resonant peak, but not lower its amplitude. The frequency of the high end roll off will also be lowered.
http://www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/load_the_magnets_e.html

Regards,
Nandric, I was surprised when I read your post that Axel fitted an aluminum/shibata without consulting you. That seems like a far cry from tubular boron/micro ridge. Maybe he felt that it needed to be toned down or romanticised, but response is very flat, as you can see from the print-out. IMO the strength of the 1000 is in it's speed, accuracy and detail. It just seems very honest, reflecting the sound of the record. I can only guess how much original performance is compromised, introducing alum cantilever resonances and curved contact area of a shibata. Imagine taking a ZYX with boron and using alum/shibata replacement. I don't mean to vilify Axel, you still might prefer others, but IMO you've only had a glimpse of the cartridge capability.
Regards,
Bigerik, The Monster 1000 and 2000 are identical except for the gold coils. Even the impedance is the same. I owned a 500, 1000, and 1000 improved, as they came out. I didn't get the 2000 because I didn't like it as much. It's slower, rounder and slightly romantic. No, I don't think the Earth is flat, etc. Your analogy is insulting. That was obviously intentional, as I previously stated my preference. I happen to disagree with Raul about ranking of carts. But you sir, equating money with performance, then writing that drivel, clearly goes against the spirit of this thread.
Regards,

Hi Nandric, You speak in generalizations about different carts, as if this is universal. Didn't we read about the ruby/LC seemingly changing the nature of the Virtuoso? You have a boron and alum, but with different tips, still not a direct comparison. Perhaps if you had a Maestro stylus assembly (boron/micro), you'd hear a difference? Unknown.

Aluminum isn't dismissed as inferior, it's different, just as ruby is different. They all have different weight and rigidity; they flex and resonate differently. Since it's the movements of the cantilever that drive the generator, wouldn't you think they might sound different? The Miyabi was voiced with aluminum. The Lyra Atlas is diamond coated boron rod and some ZYX are diamond. You can't make universal generalizations about cantilevers from one design to another. You might prefer the Miyabi or Ruby 3 S to the 1000. I'm not making any claims about this. I'm saying, you're not hearing the original cartridge. My example has orig cantilever (diamond coated boron tube) with new optimised contour LC.
I don't know exactly how the sound of yours differs from mine or the original, but I'm sure it does.
Regards,
Hi Nandric, It's still difficult to make generalizations. A shorter alum cantilever could be more rigid than a longer exotic. It might make sense to use alum to optimise dynamics. For a given length it is less rigid than an exotic and might exhibit greater movement in response to stylus/groove excursions. But I don't think this can be considered in isolation. What about output, tip mass, damping, frequency response/extension and resonance(s)? All these things plus more, interact to define cart performance.

A friend gave me a DL-304 with broken cantilever. Like the DLS1, this cart has non permeable core and very low output. It has an alum cantilever and special elliptical. I had it re-tipped with ruby/LC. The cart was amazing. I haven't heard more detail from VDH, Ortofon, etc. But the cart was relentless. Minute changes in VTA/SRA made a difference between amazing and unlistenable. Perhaps this can work the other way. J Carr told us a little something about cantilevers, but that was the tip of the iceberg. Why do you think he uses boron? Perhaps response to 50K has something to do with it. The Genesis 1000 has more extended response, to 80K. I doubt if your example does. But more importantly, you've changed the voicing.
Regards,
Hi Nandric, I must admit I fail to see your point. Lyra carts are designed by Carr but made in Japan. I'd think they can buy cantilevers/tips from anyone they want. I got the impression that he would use something else if he wanted, and that boron was part of the design.

Look at ZYX, much closer to home in this case. The R-50 Bloom has an alum cantilever and response to 40K. The R-100 through 1000 all have boron. Response is to at least 80K. All the LO ones have 4 ohm impedance, but with a variety of coil material. It certainly looks like cantilevers have something to do with it.

Your AT-180, Virtuoso, and MF-200 are all different designs. So what if you prefer the later two? If you had a 150MLX, do you think it would sound the same with an ATN440MLa, ATN120E, or ATN-ANV? What about your Virtuoso, does it sound the same as stock compared to your versions? Raul said that Soundsmith level 1 was better than stock.

**As in any 'composition' it is not the parts but the whole composition which make the difference. BTW there are indefinite many particulars and that is why we need some generality. Those are only meant for our orientation. Otherwise we will be lost among particulars, like in a (huge)forest.**

The whole composition is made of particular parts. You can't divorce one from the other. Sometimes you change cantilever material and it's an improvement. Other times it's a disaster. All we can do is take a guess and try. With most MM we have an advantage with replaceable stylus. Put an ATN152ML on a 440, and it's a dramatic improvement. Isn't that why we read this thread, to find out about others' results? If you get a DLS1 or 304 with a busted cantilever, I'd recommend tapered aluminum/hyperelliptical replacement.
Regards,
Hi Tubed1, With a statically balanced arm and pivot above the plane of the record, an under-slung counterweight gives a mechanical advantage when tracking warps. As a needle tracks the up side of a warp VTF is reduced. Needle is accelerating upward. Lowering the center of gravity (pivot) closer to the plane of the record, will increase VTF under these circumstances.
Increasing mass of the counterweight will put it closer to the pivot and slightly reduce eff arm mass, even when counterweight is increased.
Regards,
Apparently there were 3 versions of the G800, the 800E and the G800 Super E.

http://www.saturn-sound.com/images%20-%20reviews/review%20-%20goldring%20g800%20super%20e%20-%20hi-fi%20news%20-%20may%201969%20-%20pt%201.jpg

http://www.saturn-sound.com/images%20-%20reviews/review%20-%20goldring%20g800%20super%20e%20-%20hi-fi%20news%20-%20may%201969%20-%20pt%202.jpg

Regards,
Halcro, I never heard an AM10, merely making an observation. My experience with Signets is limited to TK-3, 5, 7s and a TK10MLII. Assuming that Timeltel's post is accurate and 780 is DC resistance, not impedance, then the motors seem close, if not identical. 812 is within 5% of 780.
Unlike the Clearaudio MMs, there is the possibility of different wire resistance as there were 2 diff types of OCC, and possibly even different magnet strengths. It seems that the generators are the same on the 440ML and MLa, yet output is .5mV lower on MLa.
It was ATs practice on occasion have counterparts in the Signet and AT lines. I don't know if this is the case here. From your description, I think they sound somewhat different, but this is to be expected with a different stylus/cantilever. BTW, AT first used PCOCC wire in '86 with the AT33ML/OCC.
Regards,
Nandric, The stylus/cantilever makes a very large contribution to the sound of each particular cartridge. Although there are generalizations we can make about cantilever material or stylus profile, the application is by no means universal to all generators. Part of cart design is manipulating parameters to achieve desired voicing. If that voicing is changed by using a different cantilever material, it may or may not be an improvement.

It's unfortunate that your alum/boron experience via Axel was unproductive in illustrating cantilever differences. I think the experience gave you an erroneous notion about implications. Axel combined tip and cantilever to give you similar sound. A maestro uses a boron/micro ridge and increased wood body to give a different sound. That is the only difference between the carts. I suspect that a maestro stylus on a virtuoso would be an improvement, but does it need the additional wood? While I might prefer the detail and exactness, someone else might prefer warmth.

Alas, it's not so simple. Different materials have varying mass and rigidity so they resonate and flex differently. This combines with the voice of the particular generator and results could be unexpected. For instance, a high inductance cart might use cantilever resonance to augment treble. Eliminate that resonance and FR suffers.
Regards,
Nandric, Namiki Jewel is the manufacturer of microridge. They also make single crystal sapphire cantilevers. That's what SS has. The exact type of his micro stylus is unknown (to me). You can find Namiki on the web, with contact numbers.

Grbluen2, ATN150MLX can not be used on a CA cart. The plug that holds the stylus is a different shape and the cantilever angle is also slightly different.
Regards,
Some news about Clearaudio MMs - Apparently they have new bodies and are designated V2. These aren't on CA web site yet; I saw them at NeedleDr. If the specs are to be believed, they are identical. Dr says the magnets are stronger for greater output, but that doesn't agree with the specs. It looks like the bodies have a more extensive wood (ebony) jacket, and that's it.

Grbluen2, I suspect your cantilever is twisted in the mount, as Timeltel suggests. Boron is rather brittle and would tend to break if the whole thing didn't twist. You can examine this rather easily by removing the stylus assembly. Carefully pry up the plastic piece holding the stylus to the bottom of the cart. That plastic piece has a lip around the edges. You'll see an AT stylus assembly with the V configured magnets. See if they're straight.

If they are off center, I suggest you buy a cheap aftermarket AT-95 stylus, for the plug (plastic piece). This plug will have a screw (compliance screw) to facilitate cantilever replacement. The CA plug does not have this screw, it has a fitting. Stylus assembly will have to be transplanted, because you need the screw to make the adjustments for perfect alignment.

If your stylus is damaged, the only aftermarket stylus available are straight aluminum cantilevers with various bonded styli. Some of these are pretty good, but if you want boron/microline like orig, then I suggest sending to a re-tipper. I believe CA charges something like $600 for what is essentially a $300 AT-150MLX equivalent replacement. If you'd like to see pics or post pics, or have further questions, look at the first and last pages of this thread.
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=88878.0
Regards,
Hello Timeltel, I'm not sure what you're saying here, please explain.
"The EPC-U25 has real potential. It can be heard with the SAS but then there's that annoying 12k bump. If you've noticed the same exists at the 8k range with carts having more than (+-) 1200 ohm output inductance, at 22-2300 ohm every defect of your, no, my vinyl is magnified."

You're talking about carts with around 1200 mH inductance and 22-2300 ohms impedance? The EPC-U25 has less inductance because of 12K bump rather than 8K, or this is strictly from cantilever resonance? I just wanted to clarify what you're saying. That seems like an excessive amount of inductance and I'm not sure that's what you meant.
Regards,
Hi Timeltel, Interesting to read your correlation of response vs impedance. Many people put much more emphasis on inductance. It is the presence of inductance at the output, combined with shunt capacitance, that lowers the high frequency resonance of the cart. All of the Nagaoka carts, which are said to be not overly bright, have an impedance of 3800-4900 ohms. The Stanton 681 is 930mH/1300 ohms. The 881 is 450mH/900 ohms. The natural response of virtually all carts, exhibits a rising high end. It is mostly mechanical damping that tames it. No argument about your examples, I just think you have to look at more parameters.
Regards,
Hi Lew, In general yes, but an air core coil also has inductance. If you look at speaker x-over coils, an 18GA, 2.5mH air core inductor has around .88 ohms DCR. For the same value of inductance in 14GA, DCR is around .36. With a 16GA iron core inductor you get around 10mH for .36 DCR. So you can see how adding a magnet to the mix increases inductance.

Many think that inductance is the Achilles heel of HO carts. Lowering the primary high frequency resonance of the cart has implications beyond amplitude voicing. There is a 180 degree phase shift at primary HF resonance, that usually exhibits phase non-linearity at least 2 to 3 octaves on either side of that point.
Regards,
Lew, I don't think you can judge a cart by one parameter, unless it's outrageous. If a cart has 1100mH.....
Perhaps there's a mechanical factor with HOMC, with the coils connected directly to the cantilever? Some have low tip mass but still aren't contenders. My experience is similar to yours I think, pretty good but no cigar.

In general Timeltel may be right about too high impedance. It would be interesting to correlate the electrical parameters of the top MM/MI carts and see if there is an ideal relationship, or one that tends to be indicative of the better ones. I suspect that's why the Virtuoso shines. It seems to be an AT-95 with PC-OCC wire and a wood top to damp vibrations. Whatever, the difference drops the impedance to 660 ohms. The AT-95 is 2800 ohms, I think, but w/o the wire it's nice, but doesn't have the resolution. I'm quite sure the CA would be a killer w beryllium cant and a Geyger or micro tip. I'm just not prepared to do it at this time. I'm thinking of downsizing.
Regards,
Regards Raul, What cantilever does your Virtuoso with Gyger 2 have? I was thinking, probably aluminum, but I shouldn't assume.
Thanks,
Hi Raul, Very interesting. You now have what is essentially a Maestro stylus on a Virtuoso. The tip is a Gyger 2 instead of the microline (microridge). I suspect that gives you the best of both, the good stylus w/o the overdamped body. I say this based on your comments about the sound of the Maestro. Now that CA has increased the amount of wood, it might be an opportune time for some, to pick up an older wood CA that needs retipping.

I don't know what kind of agreement AT has as an OEM, but I would imagine there would be some kind of exclusivity. It would be smart for them to make a CA generator in a deluxe body to offer as an alternative to the 150MLX, but I doubt if it will happen. Phono carts are now more of a secondary business for AT. Microphones and headphones seem to be their main products. They'll probably keep making carts, and occasionally come out with a new model as long as there is demand. They must be aware of the CA performance quality with all the recommendations etc. Maybe contractual obligations limit them, and maybe if they came out with the same product it wouldn't have the appeal as that same product coming from a company that makes a $15K cart.

I think you'll find a few carts that are better with an aluminum cantilever. This probably doesn't include the vast majority. Sometimes cantilever resonance is built into the voicing and might enhance frequency response or lend a warmer or more forgiving nature. The DL-304 and DL-S1 come to mind. Perhaps Miyabi is another.
Regards,
Hi Lespier, In the '80s the LP12 got its PRAT by running almost 1% fast. It was rather addictive, making other tables sound dull in comparison. I had one of those but eventually tired of it's changing the pace, and the price of upgrading its electronics. I replaced it with a Goldmund direct drive. It ran 0% fast/slow.
Regards,
Hi Lew,
"My OTL amplifiers require a fuse on each output tube. In other words, the fuse and fuse-holder are in the signal path, so I have no doubt that there is a rationale for using the best possible."

That's one of the most ridiculous things I ever read. I wasn't going to say anything, but... I had mono OTLs direct driving electrostats at 50KV w/o such fuses. With 4 big cap tubes each and a ton of storage, they could play louder than the panels could. Maybe you could bypass the fuses, but if the amp is so stupidly designed in the first place, you're probably better off dumping them. You should get in touch with Roger Modjeski. I doubt if he would put a crummy fuse on the output of each tube. You could probably improve the sound and pocket the difference after you sell the other amps.
Regards,
Lew, I didn't say it's ridiculous not to bypass the fuse. It seems ridiculous to go for an OTL and then have a fuse in line with each output tube. These are OTL and not direct drive so you have transformers on the panels? You have Sound Lab spks?

I don't know the capacitance/power requirements of of your spks, but Roger does make a electrostatic system with direct drive amps. I think it's Acoustat panels. I had Acoustat panels in a biamp configuration with ribbon tweeters. Mine were Acoustat amps, rebuilt by Dan Fanny, formerly of AHT. He had to gut the entire amp except the power transformer. DD is the way to go with electrostats IMO. I know that Roger is currently making these amps and might be able to use it on your spks. Here he discusses the requirements of some diff brands:
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=107869.0

Tuning fuses:
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=105425.0

Sorry to come off so outspoken, but in truth, I think we're all nuts. (Sometimes I miss those amps though)
Regards,
Lew, Roger says he can build amps that work at any voltage. You should read the first link (above). Current/impedance requirements are also a major consideration.
"Here is the run-down on what my direct drive amp can do. It can be made at any output voltage and I have a high and low current version because some ESLs draw very high currents due to high capacitance and some don't. This is just the same as the fact that speakers can be 2,4,8,16 ohms and anywhere in between. ESL speakers can be low capacitance, mine are just 100 pf. Beveridge model 2's are 4500 pF. That's a 45 to 1 difference, a much larger range than we see in cone speakers. In addition being capacitive the impedance varies inversely with frequency being lower at higher frequencies. When Beveridge went to transformer drive the result was a speaker that went from 100 ohms at 100 HZ to 1 ohm at 16 KHz. We had to find amplifiers that would deliver over 40 amps of current. These speakers were not suitable for most conventional amps tube or transistor. Roger Sanders makes a solid state mono amp that delivers 2000 watts at a cost of $8000 per pair."

"Thanks for report on an excellent comparison. Here are a few contributing factors. If played loud the Futtermans have not the current needed to drive Acoustats, especially ones 3 panels or larger. The impedance of any large, full range panel speaker is going to approach 1 or 2 ohms at high frequencies and Futterman amps put out nothing into 1 ohm nor do the tubes appreciate the task.

It is a long standing myth that OTL amps and ESL speakers were made for each other. This is true in one combination, the Futterman OTL and the KLH-9 which was a 16 ohm speaker that stayed pretty constant over the range. I have a copy of Julius Futterman's impedance measurements in my "Futterman File". He was certainly interested in driving this speaker as he measured its impedance at over 20 different frequencies. The advantage of his amp over others was it had lots of voltage which the KLH-9 needed. I am told that one of the classic listening tests was to compare the Futterman vs the Marantz 9 driving the KLH, particularly on Saturdays at Lyric Hi FI, NYC.

A Futterman can drive the QUADs or the Stax that airhead has but one has to be very careful not to exceed the maximum voltage which is 35 volts peak for the QUAD 57's and about 40 volts peak (100 watts from a 8 ohm amp) for the 63's. I do not know what the peak is for the Stax. I do know that most Futterman amps can put out 150 volts peak and therein lies the danger.

When Acoustat gave up on making their "Servo Amplifier" they went to a two transformer system, a system that is flawed in its very nature,. There is really no way to drive a single panel ESL with two transformers one being for the lows and one for the highs. One can split the band on the input side but they have to re-combine the bands on the output side and that causes the high frequency transformer to "see" enough of the low frequency information to cause saturation at higher levels and significant 3rd harmonic distortion at moderate levels. Although I don't have my measurements of the Acoustat Magnetic Interface handy, I do recall it is not easy to drive. It needs lots of voltage and lots of current.

Although rarely mentioned, the transformers in ESL speakers often eat up 25 to 50% of the drive energy due to their capacitance at the high end and saturation at the low end. When we eliminate them and the output transformer in a traditional amp and connect the tubes directly to the panels there is a great relief of work that the tube have to perform.

As you can see, from both a safety and sonic perspective, direct drive makes a lot of sense. When you can go directly to the panels, an ESL is actually easier to drive than a magnetic speaker."

Did you ever talk to him about Sound Labs? From his post, I got the impression that a Beverdige rebuild would include the complete amps, hence the price.
With your OTL I don't know if the high voltage speaker transformer would protect your amp if a tube or capacitor failed.
Regards,
Gentlemen, I'd like to point out that Modjeski's post (which is the one I linked to above) is an indictment of one brand of boutique fuses that don't meet industry standards. It would be illogical to draw any greater conclusions from this, even though it may be implied.
Regards,
Hi Nandric, If it has a needle you could always hook up the cart and try it on an unimportant record. If you want to test the generator with a meter, only use a digital meter, put it in the appropriate resistance range, and only test it long enough to get a stable reading. You'll be measuring DC resistance, not impedance, so the value will be lower than published impedance.
Regards,
RE: New CA MMs. I haven't heard any but I suspect they may be slightly worse?
New Virtuoso has 4.0mV out, 680 ohm impedance and 400mH inductance. The body type and stylus appear to be the same. More extensive use of wood puts weight at 8.4g and recommended VTF is a clunky 2.4g (1.8 - 2.6).

Body looks like Maestro, which Raul thought was overdamped. Reminds me of orig AT-440 OCC vs the 440MLa. The OCC had stronger magnets and a higher output, otherwise identical. With the same cheap stylus assembly as before, the magnets are like garish lipstick? Don't see how it could be more extended unless the diamond was upgraded. It could be smoother with additional wood.
http://www.clearaudio.de/_de/tan_Virtuoso%20V2.php
Regards,
Yesterday I attempted to post some further conjecture about the degradation of CA MMs, how higher output and increased impedance is worse with greater distortion, and how increased wood mass was prob responsible for overdamped sound and increased VTF to maintain 90 micron tracking. I guess that was too controversial. Perhaps it's my mention of AT as being the OEM (an obvious fact) that relegated my post to obscurity?
This is disturbing.
On another note, happy Thanksgiving to those who celebrate today.
Regards,