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 halcro

David,
Thank you for taking the time to pen that wonderful post.
An intelligent, comprehensive and learned summation of sometimes forgotten 'history'.
The story of Wagner and his 'orchestra in the pit' of course is singularly pertinent is relation to '3D sound' and 'pinpoint imaging'? :^)
It also bears mentioning that Wagner designed his own hall and orchestra pit to project his Ring Cycle in the manner for which he composed it?
Regards
Henry
I received back from Axel my Clearaudio Virtuoso (Black) and Fidelity Research FR-7f.....both with the 'Nandric-approved' nude Line Contact stylus in aluminium cantilever.
After a long break-in for the Virtuoso (during which it sounded quite awful)....it suddenly developed into a far better cartridge than the original.
A transparency and 3D air to the image combined with a deep and well-defined bass balanced with delicate and realistic highs.
This cartridge surely breaks firmly into my top five :^)

The FR-7f originally had a conical stylus which......mounted in the FR-66s tonearm on the Raven AC-2......gave a rather special yet neutral performance ranking it above the XV-1s but just behind the UNIverse in sonic virtues. Not bad for a 30 year old cartridge :^)
With the line-contact stylus...it really is no longer a 7f.
Maybe it's a 7Fz although there appears to be slight differences in output voltage and other technical parameters according to the information on Vinyl Engine?
Let's call it a 'mongrel'........but a 'mongrel' which explodes out of the LOMC family like a 'bat-out-of-hell'!!!
Straight out of the box.......this cartridge dug details out of the vinyl that I seriously had never heard before? Cliched though that sounds......it is blindingly true.
It left the UNIverse in its wake and even made the Olympos sound like a retarded mute.
This was simply not possible?!!!
Does it alter my previous impassioned rant on MC cartridges and their faults as I perceive them?
On the contrary......it reinforces it.
The 'quest for detail' has now reached its zenith with the resulting sound bearing less relationship to 'reality' than ever?

A switch back to the Virtuoso is like 'smelling the roses'.
Thank you Nikola for bringing Axel to our attention. He turned around my two cartridges within 10 days of receiving them and the workmanship and sonic results......not to mention the reasonable pricing.......are spectacular.
Cheers
Henry
It is not my intention to convert or convince anyone to ‘switch’ from LOMCs to MM/MI cartridges.
My efforts over the last five months…….were an attempt to resolve (for my own benefit)……the ‘generally’ accepted notion of the superiority of LOMCs with my ‘subjective’ preference for MMs?
As I predicted……Dover resorts to a personal dismantling of my system and phono-stage?
Were I however, to tout the ‘party line’ and praise some new (or old) LOMC as ‘the bees knees’……..no questioning of my phono-stage would ever occur?
In terms of SS phono-stages and their valve counterparts……there are many ‘tube’ aficionados who have welcomed a SS phono-stage into their otherwise purely valve amplification due to the higher noise propensity of a valve stage trying to cope with the lower outputs of LOMCs?
And in terms of matching phono-stages to cartridges…….MMs are more sensitive to both loading and capacitance than are MCs generally (please read J Carr’s extensive explanation of these facts).
Perhaps Dover…….your inability to adjust these parameters is affecting the ultimate performance of MMs in your system?

In any case….the choice of equipment is rendered ‘mute’ because of the millions of permutations in the field still resulting in the general ‘preference’ for MC cartridges for mid to high-end systems?

My statements regarding the ‘Quest for Detail’ were perhaps poorly explained?
I did not mean to imply that there was in fact MORE detail rendered by LOMCs…….but that the PRESENTATION of detail differed to that of MMs.
I agree with Fleib that increased detail retrieval and volume or harmonics are NOT mutually exclusive?
There are variations in the detail retrieval ability of differing MM cartridges just as there are with LOMCs…..and some of the best MMs I have, actually retrieve MORE detail than even the best LOMCs I have.
Dover’s description of MMs as….”soft, turgid, nice to listen to, but doesn't challenge the senses, not too much detail.”….shows how limited his listening experiences have been?

But back to the PRESENTATION of ‘detail’….which is the real issue here I believe?
With MMs…….the detail presented is simply a part of the DNA of the particular cartridge.
With LOMCs however……it seems to me that the ‘details’ have been ‘highlighted’…..almost like a yellow highlighter picking out words in an extract of prose?
In doing so……the value and meaning of the prose have been corrupted and the details…in themselves…..become the ‘meaning’?

How this relates to the perceived ‘stripping’ or dilution of ‘body’, ‘air’, ‘volume’ or ‘harmonics’….I have no idea?
I would love to be technically qualified to try an explanation….but I am not.
I can merely report what I hear and what Lew, Raul, Mike and others also seem to hear?

Regards
Like David......I would be most interested in further elaboration on the 'voicing' of cartridges which you mention Jonathan?
How does this relate to 'flat' frequency response?

Regards
Dover,
A good analogy.......I know what you mean as I have heard this effect myself between copper and silver wiring.
I'm not sure though that the presentation I am hearing with LOMCs is identical because as I said......there is an immediate 'impressive' nature to hearing a good LOMC cartridge AFTER listening to a MM whilst with the silver wiring.......there is often a 'bleached' affect compared to the subjective 'fullness' of the copper?
In other words....my experience with the silver vs copper wiring usually comes down in favour of the copper in a direct comparison.
Interestingly.......many of my trusted audiophile friends with valve based equipment......usually come out strongly in favour of the silver wiring?
System synergy perhaps?.......believe it!
That's strange Mike,
When my cartridges were ready.......Axel sent me an Email with the Tracking No of the postal service together with the Invoice for the work.
In other words.......he sent the completed cartridges before I had even paid him? And I was a new customer...a total stranger!
That is 'trust'......I don't know if it's necessarily good business practice? :^)
My cartridges arrived in little over a week so something seems amiss with your job?
As Nandric says......Axel gets a little snowed under these days and does not respond immediately to Emails.
Have you tried phoning?
A discussion in the 'Glanz' thread on integrated headshell design more fittingly belongs here!
Raul set forth his arguments against the concept:-
Dear Henry: +++++ " It would seem impertinent to assume that the manufacturers did not conduct a thorough testing procedure to determine the best possible results in their integrated designs... " +++++

I'm not assumming that. Now, even that suppose I was " impertinent " , seems to me extremely stupid ( for say the least ) assume that 30-40 years old cartridge designs manufactured with the way of thinking of 40 years ago can be today justified as the best way to go against its stand alone counterpart.
All the integrated headshell designs came from the same times, was a trend with the those days way of thinking that a dedicated headshell was the better for a cartridge can shows at its best.

In those old times the subject of cartridge headshell comparisons for a better performance was not only the trend but almost no body cares about. Today we learn and cares about: that's why ( according to Nandric ) you own 30+ headshells and 100+ by my self.

Try to find out the P100CMK4 stand alone cartridge and compare it against your integrated headshel counterpart you own.

Now, I have no single doubt ( because I'm not stupid ) that the FR7 in stand alone fashion outperforms easily the integrated model.

Today we know that the same cartridge in the same tonearm mounted in two diffrent headshells performs different. If not why every one of us are looking for " new " headshells?

Today we have several options on headshells, several options on mount screws, several options on headshell wires, several options on headshell wire connectors, several options to align the cartridge. Even some of us like to tame the cartridge " color " through the mount screws using different pressure on the screws/cartridge mounting to the headshell.

Many of these " severals" was almost unexistent on those old times, example: almost all the japanese tonearms use the Stevenson cartridge/tonearm alignment, no options and no one cares about. One of the reasons on those integrated cartridge headshell designs were because were almost " plug and play " and suppose more user friendly.

Today we have a lot lot better cartridge wires against those 30-40+ years old internal wires that came with those old integrated headshells..

All we know the critical and paramount difference that those headshell wires can and makes on favor to quality performance level, this " sole " parameter makes huge differences between any integrated headshell cartridge design and its stand alone counterpart.

Glanz is no diffrent to Astatic, Astatic bought the patent of that design but were clever than Glanz and even that Astatic cartridges came along a headshell this is not integrated one but an univeral headshell where you decide if mount the Astatic there or in other headshell and of course with headshell wires of your choice,

Anyway, my point is that any stand alone vintage cartridge design beats its integrated headshell counterpart.

The last integarted cartridge design I remember was the Nightingale ( I think that was the model. ) for the Graham tonearm and has no success on the market, today IMHO that kind of cartridge designs is a huge mistake/error for any cartridge manufacturer.

Audio and most important the understanding on the " fine tunning " audio parameters today are far away on the way of thinkinh of 40+ years ago. Everything grows up.
Vintage cartridge designs are really great ones with very very good " motors " but as you and many of us already experienced every single vintage cartridge that we send to any cartridge fixing source for an up date outperforms the sound quality level of that cartridge in stock condition.

For me there is no way to support the most critical subject in the cartridge quality level performance: cartridge/headshell/headshell wires saying that the 30-40+ years old cartridge with integarted headshell are better that its stand alone versions with todays " technology ".
Today IMHO that a cartridge manufacturer said 30-40 years ago that's its integrated design is better means almost nothing.

Other subject with those integarted designs are to know : how the designers voiced those cartridges, which tonearm, phono stage, speakers, electronics, ewtc, etc? because as you pointed out the " manufacturers made and had testing procedure ".

The only integrated headshell design that IMHO was a wise design was and is the Dynavector Karat Nova 13/17D that came with a dedicated headshell but you can use it in stand alone fashion too!!!

Things change over time, after those monolitic cartridge designs the trend for the top cartridge models was that with the cartridges came a dedicated headshell ( separate ): this is the case of the AT100, AT700, Ortofon MC2000/3000/5000 and many more.

Monolitic cartridge designs today are a wrong cartridge design and if you support it then why you own not only several headshells but several removable headshel tonearm designs?

I respect you opinion but disagree with.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
As I mulled over my response....I awoke this morning to find that both Lewm and Nandric (especially Lew).....had presented similar arguments to the ones I intended to present today.

When I first became interested in audio in 1978.......the days of the 'J' or 'S' shaped tonearms with detacheable headshells were already over with straight-arm designs with fixed headshells being regarded as 'de rigeur' in the high-end community.
That is the primary reason...I believe...that manufacturers ceased their development of integrated headshells.
That...and of course the costs involved.
Don't forget that in 1980-81 with the introduction of CD......it seemed that vinyl was a doomed technology...so the persistence of Fidelity Research and Ortofon with their SPUs was indicative of a strongly held conviction.

The tide had also turned against MM/MI cartridges in favour of MCs so the development of 'high-end' MM cartridges dwindled.

I also respect your opinion Raul.....but for you to state that 'modern' development of materials and knowledge has improved the art of cartridge design is....as Lew points out.....contrary to everything this thread of yours has propagated over the last 5 or 6 years?
I have found very few modern cartridges to be the equal of the great MMs of the 70s and 80s.
And in terms of LOMCs.......the FR-7f I owned with its conical stylus, was, IMHO, better than the dozen top of the line modern LOMCs I have had in my system except perhaps for the ZYX UNIverse?

Re-tipped by Axel with a nude Line Contact diamond pressure-fitted into an aluminium cantilever........my FR-7f now leaves every other LOMC I have heard far behind.

On this subject Raul.......You and I agree to differ :-)

Regards
Henry
Dear Professor and Danny,
For some reason beyond conventional wisdom.......both Thuchan and I have found that the Empire 4000D/III really loves a high mass arm like the FR-66s and sounds positively euphoric in my Continuum Copperhead.
I'm just saying.........
Cheers
Henry
Shane,
You complain of not achieving the great performance traits with your MMs ....that others on this Forum appear to be accomplishing?
Without attacking any of your associated equipment.....I try to explain perhaps a reason for this that is easily rectified?
For some strange reason.....you appear to take this suggestion as a personal attack on you and your two mentioned MM cartridges.....and then proceed to defend them to the death?
Yes.....you're right.
Your two MM cartridges are the best ever produced and the reason you prefer LOMCs is because they are intrinsically better.
Enjoy the music.
Perhaps you could work with the coupling and eliminate it or reduce it, and see/hear if it sounds any different.
Hi Fleib,
Isn't that precisely what I do every day by listening to a rigid tonearm with fixed headshell (DaVinci) and a rigid (structurally the MOST rigid) tonearm with no headshell whatsoever (Copperhead) alongside the four other tonearms with detachable headshells?
Perhaps you should try this listening test to see which works better?
Regards
You're right Chris......the 4000D/III is hard to upset.
I have two of them.......one in permanent attachment to my Copperhead whilst the other resides in an FR-3 headshell able to be inserted into the FR-66s or FR-64s at a moments notice.
By listening side by side to it on the Copperhead and FR-66s on the Raven AC-2......the one in the FR-66s sounds happy and content whilst that in the Copperhead sounds even happier....euphoric even :-)

When I first listened to my FR-5E MM cartridge (on J. Carr's recommendation and Nandric's help in finding it).....it sounded positively euphonic though not quite euphoric?
I discovered that the two piece plastic mounting base to the cartridge was moving thus accounting for the euphonics.
A quick dab of glue restored this fine cartridge to a state of euphoria without the extra euphonics.
So I know exactly what you mean?

Cheers
Henry
Regards Professor,
My cartridges both have a gold body with an integral black coloured attachment base which could be metal or even plastic as it is on the 1000ZE/X.
On the side of the gold body is black printing (half of which has disappeared).....4000DIII/GOLD.
The stylus assembly is white plastic with the stylus guard having the lettering in gold bas-relief...EMPIRE with I underneath.
Is that any help?

Regards
Dear Nikola,
I cannot believe that a fine Balkan who is educated and civilised and resides in a truly flat landscape cannot imagine admiring a beautiful redhead passing in the street and a moment later.......swivelling at the stunning sultry brunette who walks by?
Only to later....at lunch......gaze wistfully into the eyes of a ravishing blonde beauty across the table?

You see here....Downunder......beauty is not exclusive and unitary.
That is why the Professor and I regularly rotate our collection of cartridges.
So much beauty......so little time?

Regards
Specifically, the vibrational energy transmitted from the cart and resonance of the arm that effects the electrical output.
If there is any "vibrational energy" transmitted from the cartridge......I would suggest you have more serious problems than 'resonance'?
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.
If there is any energy transmitted from the cartridge to the arm.....then that is information lost.
In fact.....if any energy escapes the stylus/cantilever/magnet/coil/pole pieces motor assembly and enters the cartridge body.....it must be information lost IMHO?
Can you explain how this may not be the case?
Regards
I have little doubt that removing the stylus guard will benefit every cartridge.....just as you say Raul.
My problem is psychological and practical.
Ay any one time I am likely to have at least four cartridges with swing-down guards, sitting in four different arms on my two turntables. At least once a month I dust and vacuum around my turntables and the guards provide a modicum of protection against accidental stylus damage?
As I play records and clean and remove them from the turntables.....there is also a slight chance of accidental damage?
And finally........when I remove the headshells attached to the cartridges and interchange them and place them in their storage cases......there is an even greater chance of accidental dropping or damage incurred in that process.
So I have not been able to overcome these practical fears and remove these damn (but useful) stylus guards?
Hi Lew,
The physics suggest that the problem would be worse for low compliance (MC) cartridges than for high compliance (MM or MI) ones, because the former type get a hard ride through the grooves, sending more in the way of shock waves up the cantilever and into the motor and cartridge body.
Please show me how the 'shock waves' travel into the cartridge body?
And what ARE the 'shock waves'?
I would appreciate you both pointing me to 'white papers' or scientifically published vector diagrams of these forces?
Repeating meaningless phrases from marketing blurb or relying on the dubious fallback....."it is generally accepted".....is neither convincing nor scientific.
Sometimes we can be captivated so profoundly with the beauty of analogue that it feels like young love?
Even after 35 years?
11pm on a soggy Saturday night.........and I'm playing Tom Waits-Foreign Affairs on the TT-101 with the Empire 1000ZE/X on the FR-64s.
This was the first Empire cartridge I ever heard and it was the beginning of a love affair that still continues.
Not having quite the refinement or accuracy of the 4000D/III Gold, the 1000ZE/X has a character and warmth that is addictive.
Liking a loading of 60K Ohms and a fair bit of Capacitance......it provides a connection to the music which simply eludes most modern LOMCs.
As I sit here mesmerised......I wonder if most audiophiles addicted to the shining etch of their MCs would actually recognise this presentation....let alone appreciate it?
This is a much under-appreciated cartridge....able to be picked up for a pittance.
Professor........I believe you would really dig the midrange gravitas of this shining beauty?
I've heard of many things Dover.....but I'm still awaiting some proof on the subject at hand?
Have you heard of Santa Claus?
And yes, it can represent lost information…
Interesting……..and yet compared to master tape, we seem to have lost little information?
And compared to digital….we appear to have gained additional information?!

The scale of microscopic movement involved with the electro-mechanical process of the magnetic phono cartridge is bordering on molecular.
Do you realize the scale of mechanics involved in transmitting energy into the mass of a tonearm in comparison?
It would be like the effect of a spider’s movement on the steel girders of the Brooklyn Bridge?
And just supposing that it did occur?…….it would be logical then to assume that the maximum excursions of the stylus assembly would be the largest to be transmitted into the cartridge body and thence into the tonearm?
These excursions occur with the bass frequencies so one would expect a much greater loss of bass in all cartridges?
And ‘heat’ is the first indication of energy dissipation and is easily measurable. Please show me the evidence?
Any studies?……any data?…..any?….any?

But the best argument against your ‘lost information’ claim is not scientific.
It is strangely enough….’Marketing’.
Each manufacturer would have released new cartridges over the last 50 or so years with the claim of .………..’Less Information Lost’!!!
But I have never seen it?
How can I prove to your satisfaction that the tracing of a record groove by a stylus attached to a cantilever would impart energy into the cantilever and hence into structures to which the cantilever is attached, ultimately to the cartridge body?
Please don’t worry about my ‘satisfaction’…..just attempt a proof….any scientific proof…..of your claim?
Calm down gentlemen.
I think you're all confusing several phenomena without addressing the issue I've raised?

The tonearm is....in structural terms....a propped cantilever.
It comes in different shapes and sizes and is constructed of varying materials.
As a propped cantilever, it is subjected to known stresses all of which can be quantified. Every material has its own 'resonant' frequency depending on shape, material, Moment of Inertia etc and that resonant frequency is modified by the stresses induced.
The tonearm is 'led' by the stylus/cantilever in tracking the vinyl disc and the compliance of the cantilever as it 'moves' the arm forms a relationship with the resonant frequency of the tonearm.

This has little to do with the micro side to side and up and down information retrieval movements of the stylus/magnet/coil interface.
If there is ANY transmission of these movements into the cartridge body instead of between the magnets/pole pieces......it is information which is not sent to the phono stage and is lost forever.

I maintain that there is no information lost from this stylus movement in any competent modern cartridge. If information was lost in the way you are claiming, vinyl playback as it has existed for 70 years would be impossible?
If you believe that there is information lost......please provide the evidence?
In this world of Google and the Internet......this information should be readily available?
But please do not flail and muddle about with seemingly related phenomena.......because it simply reveals the lack of relevant education and qualifications in a field which requires precisely that!

You are all creating a model which I believe has no basis in fact,
In other words....you have created a myth and your 'faith' requires a defence of this myth.
I am easily destroyed.
Supply the evidence?
So you're saying that there is NO transmission??? So that the elastomer suspension does a PERFECT job of isolating the cartridge body from the vibrating cantilever???
Errr......yes. Why, do you have other information?
You're not nasty Lespier. I also enjoy the discussions.
We can all imagine various scenarios and models of the analogue playback system.......but from what I've read here and elsewhere.....there is very little science behind these models?
With the nature of the Internet.......all these printed 'models' become dangerously accepted by some who propogate them into 'fact'.
Enough is enough. Back up your models or please keep them to yourselves.
I think that's fair enough?

Regards
A phono cartridge is a transducer. It converts energy from one form to another. In this case it converts mechanical energy to electrical energy. In order for there to be no excess mechanical energy, this conversion would have to be 100% efficient, or all the excess energy converted to another form of energy. That is not the case here.
Maybe not quite 100%.....but pretty close?
What's your exact figure?
Regards
Thanks Fleib,
I'm happy to call a truce :-)
I always enjoy your posts. Informative and interesting.
Kind Regards
Henry
Hi Lew,
As Fleib and I have called a truce....I won't go on with it...except to address your last point.
I have never said resonance doesn't exist. It exists in all materials and I would expect to see a resonant 'hump' at the junction between a FIXED headshell of a differing material to the armtube as well as where there is a detachable headshell.
Resonance per se is not bad....it is something we need to control. The resonant frequency of the stylus cantilever is dependent on its compliance.
Because the tonearm is a 'propped cantilever' structurally....its effective mass will excite the stylus cantilever into resonance. The frequency at which that occurs is determined by the formulae (more or less).
And it is not 'spurious' energy which excites this resonance nor is it the cartridge itself.
It is indeed the very energy of the stylus doing its job of tracking the groove and extracting the information.

As the good Professor is want to say...
Peace?
Another excellent post from Banquo.
How refreshing to hear qualitative descriptions which actually contain a modicum of sensibility?
Compare these subjective/objective analyses to the cliched, meaningless jargon usually proffered by the erstwhile audio press?
"...instruments I had never heard before..."
"...as if Quasimodo was actually standing between my speakers...."

I, similarly tend to focus on the 'lack of distortion' in particular passages, as an indication of the quality/worth of a individual cartridges...and apart from 'timing'....there is a 'je ne sais quoi' about a really great cartridge which usually defies description.....at least for me?

Although having had a rather differing experience with the AT 20ss to Banquo.....his lucid and enthusiastic commentary on the Astatic.....is enticing me to return to EBay?

Well done.
Henry
Hi Shane,
I would like to think that the choice of electronics was not the defining characteristic in extracting the worth of either cartridge technology.......but I'm not sure that it may be of some influence?

Having said that however.......I have never been a great fan of the EPC-100Mk3.....and I know Raul will say that it doesn't compare to the Mk4..... But having now completed a comprehensive study of many of my finest cartridges.....both MMs and LOMCs.......the Mk3 shows deficiencies in many areas not the least being the most important.........it lacks a soul.
There is precious little emotion emanating therefrom...and that to me.....condemns it?
I have no experience with the AT 25 but my experiences with the AT-22s was even more desultory than the Mk3.
It may be that you really haven't experienced the very best MMs that we regularly speak about here?
The Empires, the Astatic, the Signets (TK-3,5,7) and even the Virtuoso?
A phono stage which allows a loading of at least 60K Ohms and variable capacitance values is also important for MMs.
Finally the arm is very important for high-compliance MMs as I found out to my chagrin?
The famous Phantom II just about destroyed every MM I tried with it...so much so that I was forced to sell it.
And if you ever do obtain one of the great MMs........remember that switching from it to a LOMC will always sound initially impressive.
It's switching back the other way that the truth is revealed IMHO?
I have noticed in the last two years or so.....that almost all the new high-end phono stages which have been introduced.....feature adjustable impedance and adjustable capacitance as well as MC and MM inputs?
And even some of the new mid-range phono stages come so equipped?

I don't believe this is a co-incidence but decidedly inspired by the influence of this long running thread?
And for this.....I congratulate Raul for his maverick courage and stubborn perseverance.....and all the contributors who have kept this thread alive and created a groundswell of change in the perception of the 'old' MM technology.
It was not so long ago that phono stages were being sold with 'MC only' inputs?
Viva Le Republic!
Hi Shane,
I lived with the Kebschull valve preamp with full valve phono stage......6 valves in total.......for 20 years.
I think I have a handle on valve beauty?
Measuring ruler flat is not necessarily a recipe for greatness?
I've heard cartridges, preamps, amps and speakers which....supposedly...measured that way and a toss-up between boredom and agony was the net result :^(
Certainly your fellow countrymen, the Garrot Brothers, were of the view that MC's go with tubes, MM's go with solid state.
I visited John and Brian Garrott on several occasions and spoke with them on the phone many times and they conveyed no such philosophies to me.
Their disdain for MC cartridges was palpable and they loved nothing more than playing the top Supex MC with Entec head amp through their stacked quads and then switching (with an interchangeable headshell no less) to their P77 MM and watching your expression.
They played with full valve amplification at their house at Mona Vale and never played MCs other than to display the differences.
Here is an interesting memory from the man who 'bank-rolled' the Garrot Bros. it contains some insights into the properties of styli and cantilevers:-
elroyvomlacheren -- Sat, 12/18/2010 - 06:01
The missing link
I stumbled over some posts about the late Garrott bros, and though I usually never blog nor use any forums, I thought it adequate to clear some of the thoughts, feelings and obscure history of the Garrott Bros. Some posts were right and brought warm and hurting memories and some were dead wrong. The ones who remember the Garrott family well remember them as living in an enclosed space, very isolated from the world around them. They concentrated on their work and left the world pass by. In the quietness and peacefullness of their living they mastered cartridge repairing, retipping and building never achieved by anyone in the past nor up today. I had first contact with the Garrott brothers at the age of fifeteen, which was over 30 years back from now. Half a child but most enthusiastic about HiFi I digged out their address to make first contact. At that time, there was no net - we had telex, letterpost ans later faxmachines. I still remember the day to have Johns voice on my phoneanswering machine. I was too scared to called back - I was still at school learning English as my fourth foreign language amd it took me two days to find the courage calling him. Finally made it and he was surprised that I wanted to meet them in Oz. It was very exceptional back the to fly to Oz amd back to Europe - Oz was a one way destination and at that age it really must have been exceptional. We immediately became friends. In fact, as they did not have children they kind of adopted me to their family, and as it was the way they lived, all in secrecy. Over the years the did teach me all of their secrets and they remain in my hands still. After my frist degree I entered university and  studied design, architectury and engineering and I addem my knowledge to the projects we had. I was working in secrecy in  OZ over the Euro winter I brought my findings to Oz. While we had the retipping service for all cartridges around the world (except for Linn, which John thought was a non honest company and refused to work on any Linn cartridge) there was the P66 and P77 cartridge. HiFi circles all seem to need a topic to dial in, they did on the diamond. In fact, the diamond is an essential part of the whole component, but only one. The same importance goes to the allingment, the mounting , the rake, the length of the cantilever, the material, the magnetic construction, the damping, the coil assembly, the field arrangemet, the inductance and much more. As usual, the hifi comunity reduced it to the A&E with Garrott stylus, which was fine for us and still makes me smile by today. It did't change much when I added the leaflet where the cartridges were named "dynamic coil". It should at least make people think that the dynamic change from the A&E to a P66/77 did NOT come from the diamond. I did have a good free lance job for Lamorghini Spa. then and it was partly about suspension and damping, which makes the difference for a car going fast or slow, but customers thinking about the horsepower. Same with cartridges. The secret really lay in the dynamic balance of the moving parts. As the P66 and P77 were for Brian and John Garrott, we made a set of 3 cartridges, the K1/K2/K3 to represent or 3 party, as I became a full Garrott family member and the K series came from my idea to make a lower cost series to give more people the chance to enjoy vinyl. By that time CD was in the wake and I thought it best to fight it in the beginning. The K series were fixture mounted diamonds, which were less expensive to make, but still had the exceptional polis all our diamonds had - exceptional. to say the least. The were round/eliptic/parabolic.shape. They were fully balanced, as were the P66(elliptic)P77(parabolic MScanner). They were differently balanced, as the tip mass was different from the K to the P series. I then initiated the making of a series of MC cartridges. 3 for us all - the blackP87 elliptical, the red P88 parabolic and the goldenP89 MScanner. We made the housings, printings anodisations here in Switzerland and used parts from our watchmaking industry. I did read that somewhere that they were affraid of the Cd and dwindling sales. This is dead wrong. The company was fully backed by my finances of 2Mio$US at Westpackbank. I wanted to give them their love back so I gave them the possibility to live the way they were used to and made their work excell. They never had any financial problems, and all they ever produced was bought by myself or backed by myself untill they got payed by their customers. We made batches of the P87/88/89 in the size of 400/400/200pcs. over the years. I was running a repairstation for ProHifi for Radio and TV servicing EMT's and Ortofons. While the MC-type P series were made for the then used mid mass arms which needed mid compliance cartridges, I had to service the tractors style types over here. I made retippings with Garrott round and elliptical styli for SPU's and the made a pro cartridge available in Switzerland only called the True Blue. 30pcs. batch, low compliance cross coil Garrott suspension style, aluminum cantilever with a Weintz parabolic. This was a wonderfull cartridge, but for heavy mass arms only. So we had two chains - I was on the pro heavy mass work and the Garrotts were on the HiFi medium mass. It was the time of the so called sharp needles - the then S-nadel was made by Gyger over here and marketed by VdH. He later renamed it VdH, but actually is a Gyger S. Friend of the Garrotts remember they did not dring alcohol. They still had fun getting a booze. After watching Roos around Cox's river road, we mounted a Gyger on a P89 and really got the booze - phasey and not natural. I should mention the importance of balanced weights. We have had around 100 types of diamonds, some with same shape but different weight, which is very important. We had multiple types of cantilever, aluminum, boron rods and tubes, with and without drill, Berillium strights, conicals, flat tops, flat tops with slits, ruby and so on. The magic always layed in the balance, not in the individual part. It is a very common missunderstanding that the stiffer the cantilever the better the sound because of lower transmission loss. Most cantilevers do not allow a mechanical rigid mounting of the diamond mechanically except for the glue. In this case aluminum is the best fixture possible with the lowest loss. Then the cantilever does NOT end at the coil armature. In fact, it ends within the backside polepiece, and the suspension wire is part of the cantilever, so the ultra rigid boron rod cantilever transferes the energy to the supple suspension wire which resonates much more than it would with an aluminum one. I will not discuss on cartridge building but would like to focus the reader on the real work we did at Garrott bros. If you would have sent the lets say a working Kiseki, you would have received a much better balanced Kiseki back without changing the stylus nor the cantilever. We did have the very best years all the way untill John got ill. It was a hard time as it was not sure if his sickness could be treated or not. As they were living as a party of 4 their very long live, isolated in the blue mountains, in the bushes behind Merimbula it was hard to immagine for Brian to go on without his brother. He took his time of from their house way behind Bega and headed for Merimbula again and think about the future. It was difficult to get in cintact with all of them. John was at his hous with Normita Gerrott and Brian away with Teresita and looking back they tried out how life would be parted in two. Tears run over my face when remembering those difficult times, which I thought would be more easy to remember after 20 years have passed now, but it is still too hurting. I got my last call from Brian after his turning back 3 weeks before they commited suicide, which they did in secrecy, as thethe distributor chain, which seems to be y could not immagine to ever part from each other. I excuse for not beeing able to think nor write about it. I was informed about the tragedy by the local police and then  had to arrange according to their wills. I was not able to lay my hands on any cartridge for years as the memories were to hard. I only kept the proparts I was involved with anyway, and the rest was auctioned. The company was bought by Philippe Luder of Melbourne who was well known to John and Brian and they felt that their name would be in good hands and stayed in OZ. I incognito visited the company to see if they follow the will and ideal of the Garrott bros and I was very pleased that they really do their best to live up to the Garrott bros name. Though the current P88 is different to the late P88, it still uses the same body and some identical design features, and it is fair to make the best out of the currently availeable parts, which I very much believe they do. I warmly would recommend a try. I am not in any way anymore related to Garrott bros, but remember my family each and every miunte of my life. Thank you
Dear Nikola,
This is too much of a coincidence?
Could your Andreoli be the actual author of that article?
Glad you enjoyed it.
Regard
Thanks Don,
I appreciate your comments.
I'm sojourning in London at the present.....enjoying the cold and rain in the middle of summer?
Sydney is sunny and warmer in the middle of winter but hey......we don't have any Cezannes there whilst London has a goodly number.
Not as many as the Met in NYC.......but the Yanks have always had more money than the Brits?
Saturday will see me in Naples and then a week in Puglia ending in 3 days on the Amalfi Coast before 3 days in Singapore and then home.
Well.....someone has to do it ? :^)
I will try some more comments on various cartridges then if you are really interested?......it is all really sooooo subjective though?
Regards
Henry
Good luck Bigerik,
Our beloved leader appears to have crossed to the 'Dark' side?
Thanks Professor,
Even I can understand most of the concepts contained in your excellent information.
I admire the way that you have analysed the 'properties' of cartridges and their resultant effects on the 'voicing'?
We both share a high regard for the Signet sound and it's fascinating to follow the technical developments from AT through to the Signet line.

Regards as always
Henry
Hi Lew,
It is rather surprising when you think about it........the more our hearing deteriorates as we age......the better I think we can appreciate the nuances of the analogue signal?
That is surely 'thesis' material right there!!?
Fleib,
Not having heard the AT-440ML/OCC myself........are you saying that it shares the sonic signature of the AM10?
Eight months ago, a package arrived from a dear friend in Kentucky, which contained an unannounced……and unheralded phono cartridge, the Signet AM10s….but with an AM20 stylus ready to attach.
Sometime later….another package from the same source appeared but this time containing an Ortofon LH8000 wood headshell?

As I was then….and for some months after…..embroiled in a multiple upgrade of power conditioner, interconnect cables and speaker cables….I placed the cartridge in my ‘to do’ audio drawer whilst the empty headshell has sat forlornly in one of my Fidelity Research K5 cartridge cases.

Fast forward to last week when…….remembering this cartridge…..I mounted it in the LH8000 headshell attaching it to the Micro Seiki MA-505s on its own bronze pod surrounding the Victor TT-101 DD turntable.
Now I’m not about to proclaim this unassuming gem as ‘the best cartridge’.
It is not the Messiah…….it’s just a very naughty boy?!

I released the armrest, settled into my couch and pressed the ‘mute’ button on the remote to ‘off’.
Oh oh…..something is wrong here……there is no sound?
I pressed the ‘mute’ button and hastened to the nude Victor to raise the arm.
Checking that I had the correct phono cables plugged into the preamp…..I repeated the procedure.
No sound again!
As I leapt to again raise the arm….this time without pressing the ‘mute’ button……music suddenly erupted!?
The complete silence of this cartridge in the ‘run-in’ groove was startling!
Now I have heard several cartridges which have displayed low surface noise on ‘run-in’ and ‘run-out’ grooves……but nothing ever like this? And it’s currently winter in Australia with low humidity and plenty of static in the air!

So what was the sound like after the eerie silence?
Straight away….without any running in……this was a ‘voicing’ with which I was familiar.
This was….after all….a Signet cartridge and gee……I think I have….oh…maybe ten other Signets?
But all those others, are ‘top of the line’ Signets.
The AM10s is ‘bottom of the line’ (it is not even listed on Vinyl Engine and its replacement stylus is only $36.95 from LPGear).
And here’s the thing…….this cartridge does things, in my system, which no other cartridge yet has?

Before I elaborate……you should be aware that the ‘Signet Voicing’ for me in my system….is a preference.
I do love the ‘Empire Voicing’ (4000D/III & 1000ZE/X) as well as that of the Fidelity Research (FR-5 & FR-6).
But if I had to live with only three cartridges……they would all be Signets!

The first impression of the AM10s…is one of extreme high-frequency extension.
I have a guilty confession.
For nearly 30 years….to test the high-frequency capability of an entire system….and especially cartridges…..I play the last track on side 1 of George Michael’s ‘Faith’…‘One More Try’.
Behind the synthesiser/bass, guitar/drum-machine foundation and breathy vocals….there are the gentlest, softest cymbal ‘taps’ which with some cartridges, cannot even be heard? With others…..they are so faint that they appear to be illusionary whilst with only a handful that I have heard…..they are ‘clear’.
I was once startled when listening to this track on my friend’s Rockport Sirius III with Lyra Titan i through the 3 chassis tube Aesthetix io Signature phono stage and big Peak Consult speakers…..to hear the cymbal’s strike and shimmer with a clarity and prominence that I had never heard before…..or since!
But why should this be?
Is the cymbal such a high frequency that systems and cartridges which are flat past 20K Hz are not able to do it justice?
The fundamental frequency "clang" generated by most types of cymbals is actually in the midrange (under 6 kHz, sometimes as low as 500 Hz). However, because cymbals are about as close to an impulse as you get with musical instruments (and also because they exhibit a lot of ringing), there is an enormous amount of spectral content above the fundamental, all the way to ultrasonic frequencies. Some types of cymbals are only down -35dB at 25kHz.

In simpler terms, you'll hear the "clang" of a cymbal even on a cheap clock radio that can only play midrange frequencies, but all the shimmer and tone of the cymbal will be lost. Most of the tone of a cymbal is in the high frequencies.
Please indulge me for a moment whilst I explore this quixotic phenomenon which has plagued the ‘House of Henry’ for 3 decades?
Assuming that the cymbal fundamental is 4KHz (it’s probably lower)…..then its first harmonic would be 8Khz, second harmonic 12Khz and third harmonic 16Khz?
Surely there are few cartridges with boosted frequency responses from 4K to 16K Hz?
And surely the fundamental is the ‘driving’ frequency which should be heard equally clearly on all cartridges through all systems?
Why is it then…..that this peculiar delicate tap on a high-hat cymbal can vary in audibility through every cartridge I have ever played it through?

Now I’m not saying that this test ‘proves’ the worth of any cartridge or system….particularly as the aforementioned setup was painfully bright and unmusical to my ears?
And indeed…..some of my favourite cartridges do very poorly on this particular challenge. The FR-5E and FR-6SE as well as the Empires struggle to produce any decent sound of the metronomic cymbal taps.
Interestingly……almost all of the nine LOMCs I have had in my system also fail to impress?
And this has been constant through 3 turntables, 10 arms, 3 preamps and 4 amps?

What I can say though…..is that my 2 or 3 favourite cartridges all succeed in clearly portraying these ‘taps’.

So back to the AM-10s (with AM20 stylus) which started this diatribe.
The cymbal taps are loud and clear……..the best I have yet heard in my system!

Now usually with a cartridge ‘tilted’ to the upper frequencies…..the bass is often deficient in my experience?
Not with the AM-10s.
To match its excellence in the higher registers….the bass is stunning.
Powerful, solid, commanding and accurate. I have heard no LOMC cartridge to beat or even equal the AM-10s in this department.
Massive Attack’s ‘Protection’ delivers satisfying stomach thuds whilst Jennifer Warnes’ ‘The Hunter’ reveals much more than ‘single note’ bass throb.

So here’s the trade-off.
The midrange, whilst certainly not recessed or thin…….is not as full, rounded or satisfying as the top range Signets, Empires, Fidelity Researches or Garrott P77.
But then nor are any of the LOMCs I continue to listen to?
Could I live with the midrange of the AM-10s?
I think I could?

But there’s yet more to this ‘bottom-feeder’ cartridge…….
It imparts ‘excitement’ to every recording.
What is ‘excitement’ and how does one cartridge have it and another doesn’t?
Is it ‘rise time’? Is it ‘resonance’? Is it ‘colouration’? Is it ‘good’?
Having listened to a Koetsu Urishi and Technics EPC100Mk3 in my system……..I have to come out in favour of ‘excitement’.
Even my favourite Signets, the TK-7LCa and MR 5.0Lc sound slightly laid back and relaxed compared to the AM-10s whilst the Empires sound like Dean Martin on Valium…..or was Dean Martin always on Valium?

As I wrote at the beginning……the AM-10s is not the Messiah.
It is ‘coloured’ in that it sounds unlike every other cartridge I’ve heard….but here is its charm….its value….its raison d’etre.
The AM10s gives a presentation of your vinyl that you should hear….if only to put into perspective, everything you think you know about your favourite discs?

My friend in Kentucky obviously knows his ‘onions’?
Now if only Signet was still a ‘brand’ and could bring back the AM10s with a price tag of $4590……..audiophiles would actually get to hear one?
As it is……I suspect no-one ever will?
Hi Acman,
Hopefully Quasimodo did not leave any lingering odours as he passed? :^)

After 10 days of Signet 'sound'.......I was inspired by your post to give the Acutex 420STR a spin.
You are so right........much more than just a 'touch' of the Acutex sound IMO.
In fact I prefer it to the 315 in my system at the moment.
The 315 is better than the 312 which in turn is better than the 310......however in my sample of the 300 series Acutex cartridge......the motor assembly or coils.....took so damn long to break-in (over 50 hours so far and counting).....that I never could warm to it.
The 420STR seems to be far more acquiescent and I share your enthusiasm.
Dear Nikola,
I have dealt with the Bluz Broz and without getting into details......I would not deal with them again.
Regards
Thank you Professor (Timeltel) for those kind words.
I will indeed try the 155Lc stylus in the AM10s. This is one of my favourite assemblies and it never occurred to me that it was compatible?

With the graphic descriptions of you in your 'shop'.........I think your title may be amended to 'Mad' Professor! :-)

Thanks for all your help and knowledge in guiding me through my MM adventures.

Regards
Henry
Dear (Mad) Professor,
Transplant is complete!
The AT155Lc stylus assembly is in place in the AM10s......and you were right!
The midrange is now THERE. In fact.....because the stylus is brand new....the midrange is almost 'shouting'? :^)
But this Sigmutt is now a serious contender?
I feel a little nervous remembering the parable......"Be careful what you wish for because you may get it?"
But how did you 'know' that this stylus would bring some depth to the mids?
What determines this factor?....and if you can predict and manipulate the sounds of various cartridges......hasten back to your 'bench' and invent another Sigmutt which I can try? :^)

Regards
Henry
Dear Raul,
As you, when this set up is " right " contribute a lot for the cartridge quality performance level be " right there " where we enjoy it the best.
I think you are right about this. I recall with my Rega Planar 3 and Hadcock 228 Unipivot when I was limited to just one tonearm and cartridge..........whenever the 'cymbal taps' on 'One More Try' became indistinct......a complete review of the Hadcock's set-up parameters (and they are many) would often restore the status quo?
But only up to a point! If the taps were indistinct with a brand new cartridge on its initial set-up......no amount of jigging would help?
Also.....the cymbal taps appeared to 'fade' as the cartridge aged in usage?
I also now try adding some capacitance to bring out these taps.....but again if they ain't there......it's not much use?

There also is something intrinsic about the cartridge's ability itself as you quite rightly agree.......otherwise this phenomena would not appear constant across 9 arms and 4 turntables?

Regards
Henry
Dear Nandric,
If the stylus holder is not original what
then?
I was facing the same problem with one of my Garrott P77 cartridges where I broke the cantilever and foolishly threw away the whole stylus assembly.
I sent Axel some photos and he replied that he could indeed fit a new stylus assembly to the body if I sent him the cartridge?
I am doing so next week :-)

So please ask Axel the question.....I think he can help you?
Regards
Henry
Dover,
I think one of the great losses in magazine reviews compared to 20-30 years ago is the comparison between competing components.
I couldn't agree more!
I think commercial pressures have rendered most reviews (and reviewers) to politically correct 'advertorials'?
On the other hand......I just don't think that reviewers today (with a few exceptions like Art Dudley) get to hear any vintage gear or equipment outside the mainstream of 'the new'?
And I don't think they have the ability or time to compare...crosscheck....and compare again....a multitude of cartridges in particular?
And really.......to hear the very subtle differences in cartridges......one needs to be able to change back and forth quickly between a number of them.
The time involved in dismantling one cartridge from an arm and installing and setting up another one correctly.....is simply too long to retain the correct memory of multiple sonic imprints IMHO?
Regards
Henry
Dear Raul,
I'm wondering what arm you're intending to run the FR-6SE on as it is rather low compliance for a MM and so sounds best in a heavy, controlled arm?
It sounds very much better in my FR-66s than any of my 'lesser' arms.....which should be no surprise given that Fidelity Research would have carefully matched its performance for their arms?
It will possibly sound better at your 100K Ohms loading than my 60K loading and a fair bit of capacitance helps with the highs?
I suspect that this cartridge will benefit greatly from Axel's 'touch'.....and look forward to your reports?
Regards
Henry
Timeltel how do you know I have a cat?
He is the Professor after all.........
Dear Raul,
I thought you were getting the FR-6SE?
I have the FR-5E and the FR-6SE so have not heard the 6E?
I find with both of mine that 1.3gm-1.5gm VTF seems the best with a positive VTA.
Loading of 100K Ohm should be good and a bit of added capacitance may help?
I'm sure with your experience......you'll dial in the best sound?
Good luck.
Henry
What are some of the favorite MM cartridges for the Fidelity Research tone-arms
Well...there are the obvious candidates such as the FR5E and FR6SE which are lower compliance than most MMs and are naturally designed to suit the FR range of tonearms.
Be aware though....that these two specific cartridges are not the most neutral of transducers (unlike the excellent FR-7f LOMC) having a 'warm' and 'full-blooded' character rather than a 'refined' and 'detailed' one?
They would also not suit so well valve phono or amplification stages which tend to reinforce some of these characteristics themselves?

On the other hand......most of my favourite MM cartridges sound surprisingly wonderful in these arms (especially the FR-66s) and I can recommend the Signets in particular....the TK-3Ea, TK-5Ea and TK-7Ea, TK-7SU, TK-7LCa.
The Empire D4000/III is another cartridge that performs well.
All these cartridges (except for the TK-7LCa) can be found regularly on EBay.

A current production cartridge which sounds well is the Clearaudio Virtuoso (Wood) which I think retails around $900 but can often be found used on HiFiDo for approx $500?
A 'used' one of these with an Axel 'transplant' is a fine introduction to the possibilities of MMs?
BTW there seems to be also an Trojan horse inside of the (new)Maginot line.
I thought I detected that also?