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 lewm

Dear Raul, As I wrote further up the page, I have bypassed two out of the four mechanical connectors that normally exist when one is using a P-mount adapter in a removable headshell. It is impossible to do away with the mechanical connection between headshell and arm wand, and it is a bit impractical to do away with the mechanical connection between the cartridge and the adapter, once one has soldered the adapter to the headshell wires, as I have done. I also treated the remaining mechanical connections with Pro-Gold cleaner and Walker Audio Extreme Silver contact enhancer. Those products really work well in all my other experiences.

Yes, I take your point on the Ayre. Funnily enough, if you go to their website they speak directly to the issue by stating that the P5Xe was designed for high output MM cartridges as well as LOMC ones. I also have great respect for Charles Hansen as a designer, even if I do not agree with his flippant dismissal of MM cartridges, in the context of his email to me. So, in sum I do not know what to think about that aspect. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, I guess. My personal opinion is that I may just need more break-in, OR there is some incompatibility between the Denon headshell and the Azden that is affecting trackability, OR......
Dear Headsnappin, Raul, et al,
Last night I listened again to the Azden set up as per my original. It was evident to me half way thru the first side of the first LP that the objectionable qualities were still present. ("Grainy and harsh" are very accurate descriptors for me, too.) So I dropped the VTA down to nearly horizontal (headshell parallel to LP surface) with just maybe one degree of positive angle, and I also added a smidgeon of anti-skate force, since I perceived that most of the distortion seemed to be in the right channel. Voila'! Holy cow! All of a sudden I had possibly the best vinyl reproduction I have ever heard from my system, using LPs I know pretty well. What a huge improvement! So, one of two things happened; either those two tweaks made a huge difference or the cartridge was about ready to settle down anyway, or both. If I could describe the changes associated with the tweaks, I would say that the bass got even better than it was, and the treble simply calmed down, was less shrill with more detail and much much better definition. This change in tonal balance is normally associated with dropping VTA, so it was to be hoped for. Also, no more harshness. This IS an "in your face" product, but now in a good way. Could not be more pleased with the Ayre as well.
I am using 28g 5N silver solid core, cotton-insulated wire, available from M Percy in the US for a couple of bucks per foot, and it is spectacular. I use it in my interconnects as well. IMO, it is a good move to get rid of the mechanical connectors at the rear end of the headshell, by removing the connectors and directly soldering headshell wires to the pins there. A very few headshells come that way, so no further effort is needed; most don't.
The styli are different. The M20E has an elliptical stylus. I think the FL has a line contact stylus. Those who have heard both apparently like the M20E better than the M20FL. I own the M20FL and like it very much. Also, they can be interconverted if you buy both styli from Thakker. (The FL stylus fits the E body and vice-versa.)
Did not know there was anyone out there who still preferred the FL to the E. Thanks for the post. I still like it, too.
In the wake of the brouhaha about the Technics EPC P100C, has anyone tried the Technics EPC P550, available NOS from Thakker? I know that Raul commented it was a mid-level cartridge back in the day, but that does not mean it is not also a "contender" in the here and now.
What that guy is doing with his ohmmeter (to demonstrate the internal resistance of the cartridge) is a bit dangerous for an MC. The current put out by certain meters can fry the coils of a delicate MC. Probably it's OK in this case, since the observed R is rather high for an MC, indicating a fair mount of coil winding.
By "neutral" VTA, do you mean tonearm parallel to LP surface? As I noted somewhere above, I was having a real problem liking the Azden until I reduced the amount of positive VTA from "a lot" to "less than a lot". This eliminated a lot of the edginess and inability to separate musical lines that was bugging me. Perhaps based on your experience, I should go even more toward "neutral", if that means tonearm parallel to LP. I think I have read elsewhere that line contact styli are particularly sensitive to VTA.

As for setting azimuth in the way that you did it, I suppose you know that the mirror method is only going to give you optimal azimuth if the working parts inside the cartridge body are exactly aligned with the external boundaries of the body. Bottom line is you liked the result, so whatever is going on it worked for that cartridge.
Dear George,
Maybe I am lucky or just live in a place with very low ambient RFI, but I never had a problem with RF pick-up that was traceable to a phono cartridge. Usually, I would blame unshielded wiring before I would blame a cartridge. Grados are known to give off induced hum, if they come too close to turntable motors. If that is what you really have experienced, I see no reason why the Ortofon would be subject to that phenomenon. The Grados are said to be pretty unique in that respect, along with certain older Decca cartridges.

If you really are picking up RFI, maybe you could stick some tiny pieces of TI Shield to the sides of the cartridge body, at the unavoidable expense of increasing cartridge mass. Don't know whether that has been tried. You can find out a lot about shielding against RFI on the Tweakers Asylum over at AA.
Hats off to your visual acuity. But still, the inner workings of the cartridge, hidden from direct view inside the body, play a role in selecting optimal azimuth. Perhaps this is much less of an issue with MM/MI types, because the works are partly self-contained with the stylus assembly and are less likely to be askew with respect to the stylus tip.
In an MC cartridge, the stylus tip could be well aligned with the groove walls, but if the coils and magnets inside are not square to each other, I think you still could have an imbalance in cross-talk. This is a real problem, because if it occurs, one has to choose between abnormal wear on the stylus and suboptimal azimuth. I actually had this with my Koetsu; the stylus had to be canted to the left for best crosstalk readings using my Signet Cartridge Analyzer. This bothered me, and I even think there was some added distortion due to tracking errors that resulted from adopting the electrically optimal azimuth. I ended up with a compromise position that put the stylus as square in the groove as possible while giving decent cross-talk numbers in each channel. If I am all wet, please throw me a towel, but that's what I think was happening.
Dear Swampy, Too late. That happened at least 5 years ago, and since I had purchased the cartridge in Tokyo, and since also it was not grossly defective, it never occurred to me to return it. (I am listening to it tonight, in fact. Sounds lovely as ever, ever since I decided to make do with less than the best attainable crosstalk numbers, which are only numbers after all.) I would contend that the situation I described is not at all uncommon for MC cartridges and that most of the time optimizing for azimuth alone will put the stylus tip at a less than perfect angle with respect to the groove walls, unless the cartridge was perfectly put together in the first place. If there is a manufacturer reading this, perhaps you can comment on the accuracy of my statement. I am happy to be corrected.
Travbrow, I've thought about that too (comparison between 2M Black and M20FL), just as I have also thought about comparing modern TOTL MM and MI cartridges from Clearaudio, Grado, and Sound Smith to the vintage ones that are the subject of this thread. Problem is at least for the latter ones that they are rather too expensive to buy just for this purpose. The 2M Black is more affordable, I guess. Also, I've got too much else on my audio plate just to compare the cartridges I already own.
Dear Travbrow, I have my Azden in a Dynavector DV505 on a Lenco/PTP/slate setup like yours. I am using a lightweight headshell, not the stock Dyna one. Can you tell me where you set VTA with the Azden? You apparently like it very much. I am still wavering, altho it got a lot better since I lowered VTA from VERY positive to only a little positive (i.e., pivot end up). Currently I am comparing it to a Koetsu Urushi mounted on my newly resurrected Kenwood L07D.
I agree, "Maybe the arm is not a good match for it?" But there are about a half dozen other possibiities, including that my sample has suffered from the aging process more than most or that my sample is not yet broken in, etc, etc. I still find it a bit "edgy". Much less so lately. Also, the Urushi is the antithesis of "edgy" so perhaps I am contrasting it too much with the Urushi. The Dyna DV505 is a fine tonearm, and I am reluctant to blame it, per se. Before going that far, I might experiment with a different, heavier, headshell. I made a guess that a lightweight headshell (8.5g) would be best for the Azden, assuming high compliance. After 30 years (or whatever), the compliance of that suspension may be far less than it was originally. Ergo a heavier headshell might help. I did not have this kind of problem with the Ortofon M20FL Super or with the Grado TLZ. Of course, in other ways the Azden is superior to those.
Aging should most effect the elastomers in the suspension, due to longterm exposure to various atmospheric gaseous contaminants. I would therefore expect that years of storage would have the biggest effect on compliance of all other parameters, unless the magnet were to "die". With use, some of the compliance, if not all, could return. It would be very interesting to measure the compliance of some of these golden oldies, to see if what I say has any merit.
Dear Raul, Why is it worth having, if it is "a little reticent in the highs"? Do you have a contrasting criticism of the line contact stylus on the P50VL that is mitigated by the elliptical stylus? Otherwise, unless one is a collector of MM cartridges and all their variants, why buy it? The benefits are not stated.
Halcro or Raul, I have an NOS Empire 1000ZE. As I recall there were several sources for the X stylus assembly. Some of them were reproduction styli. What is the preferred type to buy, if I should choose to upgrade my 1000ZE and from whom should I buy it.

Raul, Sorry for my probing questions (regarding the elliptical stylus for the Azden). I appreciate your research, and I figured you would have a good answer, and so you did. Did you have your Azden P50VL massaged by van den Hul prior to your review of it?
Dave, Yes, I think this whole thread has neglected the top line Stanton/Pickering cartridges. Their best ones had surprisingly low internal resistance and lower than normal voltage output, which would indicate a lower than average internal moving mass (a good thing), I think I saw that eBay add for the XVS3000 but did not bid on it. I would be interested to know what you think of it.
re Pickering. Anyone know the difference between the "XSV" and the "XUV" models? Seems as though most of their high end or quadraphonic cartridges were available under either acronym.
Thanks, Dean. That's a considerable savings vs Bluz Broz, assuming the product is identical. I ordered one. In for a dime, in for many many dimes.
Dave, At least you got a good deal on your 1000ZE/X stylus, and I am sure you can find a used body for it. It will work on the 1000ZE body for sure; that's what I bought originally. Seems like I bought one of the last of Garage a Records X type styli, so now the price will jump to that of Turntable Needles'; still a bargain. Raul, are you sure yours has a square male piece that mates with a square female receptacle on your 1000 body? That would be an oddity.
Thanks for reminding me about that vendor, Raul. I ordered mine from Garage a Records (2 days ago) and evidently got one of their last NOS ones at their low price. When I wrote my post above, I had forgotten about Needle Depot as another source for the stylus at a reasonable price. Considering what happened when I hesitated at the opportunity to purchase the NOS Technics EPC100C, perhaps I need two 1000ZE/X stylus assemblies, to last me up to Valhalla.

I found out that my slight dissatisfaction with the Azden P50VL may have been due to misaligning it in my DV505 tonearm. (The story is too boring to relate here, but it has to do with incompatibility between my protractor and the DV505 tonearm.) I fixed the problem last night, and everything got better. Also, I may have mentioned this before, but I continue to be blown away by the Kenwood L07D turntable. (Well, it's vintage, like the cartridges we are talking about.)
Now that I have cleared up a problem aligning cartridges in my Dynavector tonearm, I need to return to all the MM/MIs I have thus far evaluated in it, because all of them were negatively affected by my previous method of alignment. (I used a Baerwald protractor; the DV505 is built for Stevenson geometry. Therefore, I was twisting the cartridges in the headshell to make the alignment conform to Baerwald. In the DV tonearms, because of the short, vertically pivoted arm, twisting the cartridge results in generation of distortions and a decided R channel imbalance, I finally figured out, even though the "geometry" per se was correct for Baerwald. I obtained a Stevenson protractor yesterday thanks to Vinyl Engine.)

I started to re-evaluate the Azden after making this correction in alignment. The sound is much more relaxed, and the decided R channel bias is cured. Soundstage and imaging are better, too. Now I need to know how you guys are setting it up to get that "9" rating. I am guessing 100K load, positive VTA. Question is how positive is the VTA, compared to the Ortofon M20FL which seems to benefit from a lot of positive VTA, and what VTF? I dialed in about 1.3gm last night, and VTA is just barely positive, nearly neutral (level). Right now the loading is 47K ohms; is there significant improvement at 100K ohms? Thanks.
Yep. Nearly all the vintage Japanese tonearms and/or turntables with dedicated tonearms do use the Stevenson geometry. However, I am not sure that using the Baerwald or Lofgren geometries with these tonearms will bring on the problems I experienced, just because of the unique design of the Dynavector tonearms. I had read an article on VE about the desireability of twisting the cartridge in the headshell, if that is needed for proper alignment, and I very smugly said to myself, "I knew that". That's what I've been doing all along with the DV505 (which I have owned for about a year and which is the test bench for these vintage cartridges), because the TTB protractor is Baerwald. But then I started thinking about what happens at the stylus tip when a twisted cartridge encounters a warp or just tries to track a complex musical passage. When stylus and cantilever are at an angle to the vertical pivot, there are new forces generated that are not in the vertical plane. This could screw up the reading function of the cartridge. Indeed, I had been tolerating this problem of channel imbalance, and once in a while on some LPs I was hearing some odd distortions that were not present when I played the same LPs with an MC cartridge mounted in my Triplanar (i.e., Baerwald to Baerwald). These phenomena occurred with all 3 MM/MI cartridges that I have thus far auditioned, so it could not have been due to a cartridge defect. I then glommed on to the concept that when I twist the cartridge, I am also increasing the offset angle which gives more skating force which could account for the R channel dominance (and in retrospect, that's where I heard the distortion). If I had not read the article on VE, I might never have made the connection. I contacted the author, and he agreed that "twisting" is not a good idea for the Dynavector, because of that short arm tube in the vertical plane. With a "normal" pivoted tonearm, the nasty forces would be less and probably less noticeable. Paradoxically, in his article he was recommending the "twist" (only if your protractor and your tonearm are designed for dissimilar geometries, of course), because it reduces tracing distortion.

The built-on tonearm of the Kenwood L07D must also be Stevenson type. You can get a clue about the geometry from the offset angle of your headshell. I believe this is discussed in the very same article on VE about twisting the cartridge. The Stevenson geometry requires the least headshell offset angle, I think. I was thinking of having MintLP make me one protractor each for the DV505 and for the Kenwood, but the free Stevenson protractor on VE seems to work fine for now. I printed out a 1:1 image and laminated it myself between two thin pieces of flexible plastic. And here I am a person who tries not to be anal about cartridge alignment.

So will some of you guys tell me how you are running the Azden to wring out its best performance? VTA, VTF, load resistance?
But the point of my long-winded post was that in this particular case, where a tonearm designed for Stevenson geometry was set up with a protractor designed for Baerwald, I had to twist the cartridge in the headshell in order to make it line up with the grid on the Baerwald protractor. I thought this was the correct thing to do. In the particular case of the DV505, it was not. In fact, in any situation where there is a significant deviation between the headshell offset angle for one geometry vs the other, the end user has to twist the cartridge (clockwise or anti-clockwise when viewed from above) so it does not align with the long axis of the headshell. I certainly was not trying to imply that the Stevenson geometry by itself was superior to any other. In fact, this is the very kind of controversy I seek to avoid in my desire not to be anal about cartridge alignment. But I guess you knew what I meant. Just to be careful about this factor. It's probably best to use a protractor designed for your particular tonearm, which is the point that MintLP and many others are trying to make. I was actually behind the learning curve, I now know.
Raul and Halcro, Some would say that the very excellence of these relatively inexpensive cartridges when inserted into your top quality tonearms on your top quality turntables proves the supremacy of the arm or the turntable in determining the quality of vinyl reproduction. It's a circular argument that could go on forever.

I quite agree with you both about "horror records". I have a couple of those that were out on my stack of LPs I am now playing, because I was thinking of discarding them completely. Without exception, I find that these sound at least tolerable with the Ortofon or the Azden, and in most cases the cartridge can bring out some good quality that was not at all evident with my high quality MC cartridges.

I would still like to know how you guys are running the Azden: VTA, VTF, load resistance. Perhaps no one else has an Azden in play.
Dave, To me "negative" VTA means that your tonearm pivot point is slightly lower with respect to the headshell. Do we agree on the jargon? Is this in your Trans-fi tonearm?

Halcro, Yes, my wife now regularly pops into the living room around midnight to give me that "do you know what time it is" look, because I am playing the music LOUD, and I love it. Her appearance usually means my listening session is over after "one more song".

IMO, the technology and the interest in measuring distortion from phono cartridges has not moved forward very much in 50 years. Plus we know we perceive distortions that have not been quantified or related in a linear way to common measurements of distortion. So one has to believe the instrument that resides between one's ears.
Thanks, Dave. Adjusting VTA to neutral gives an improvement in the sound of the Azden. The lower mids and mid-bass filled in quite nicely and edginess was ameliorated. Also the sound of a clapping audience became more "real". I don't quite have the guts to go to negative VTA just yet. In summary, aligning with Stevenson geometry appropriate to the DV505 plus neutral VTA sounds much better than Baerwald geometry with positive VTA. Next I will change the load resistance to 100K from 47K. I am currently comparing the Azden in the Lenco to my Koetsu Urushi in the Kenwood L07D. In the Kenwood, the Urushi sounds better than it ever did before and does compete with the Azden. However, bass detail with the Azden is superior, I believe at this point. Kenwood is special, I think.
I think "Amber" is the name of the Australian vendor who still apparently has some NOS Grado Tribute cartridges to sell. At least that is what I came up with after I did a search using your terminolgy, Raul.

My TLZ, which was the Grado top of the line prior to the XTZ, is due for a re-evaluation, now that I know how to align a cartridge in my DV505. Back when both cartridges were in production, I don't think there was thought to be much difference between TLZ and XTZ, and in fact the XTZ stylus will fit the TLZ body.
Re the Amber Tribute, your theory makes sense.
Please stop tempting me to buy that XTZ; I already have the TLZ, darnit.
Dear Raul, I am very sorry to learn of your recent illness. However, it is good to learn that you are recovering well enough to get back with us.
Dear Headsnappin' (sounds painful): I am in Switzerland at a meeting this week. First thing I will do when I return is to re-audition my TLZ using the Stevenson alignment I found to work best with my Dynavector (meaning cartridge is aligned geometrically AND cartridge is also aligned to the long axis of the headshell). I will let you know. I also need to give the Ortofon M20 FL Super another spin, for the same reason.

Raul, At one time you and others were really fond of the Audio Technika AT20SS. How does that one compare to these other AT cartridges you have been talking about lately?
Far as I recall, yes. Has plenty enough output for a typical MM phono stage, however.
So has any one of us yet tried one of the NOS Technics cartridges sold by Thakker? Will either of those accept a stylus assembly from a 100C? Interesting idea, eh what.
Dear Raul, A few posts ago I asked you to compare the AT20SS with the AT170 and AT180 cartridges that you most recently have been praising. Perhaps the question got lost in the shuffle, but if you would be so kind as to let me know your opinion (of how they compare), I would appreciate it. Thanks.
Dave and I communicate frequently. He is liking the Pickering XSV3000 quite a bit. I did not see his review of the Acutex.
Dear Timeltel, I have to disagree with you slightly, I think it is first of all important to choose a geometry that is best suited to the design of your tonearm. The offset angle of the headshell is a major determinant of what geometry would work best. Once you have made a good match between headshell offset, overhang, and geometry you are then able to align the cartridge with the long axis of the headshell while also setting overhang correctly. In contrast, if the cartridge is at an angle to the axis of the headshell, as does occur when the alignment geometry and the tonearm geometry are very different, then this puts forces on the cantilever that are not accounted for in the concept of a typical pivoted tonearm. (Think about it.) It is these aberrant forces that can cause the colorations of which you speak, IMO. In sum, I don't doubt that you hear the colorations you say you hear, but it is not due to the choice of Baerwald, Lofgren, or Stevenson per se. I hope I have made myself clear.
I was lucky enough (IMO) to win a Stanton 980LZS cartridge on eBay last night. The seller says the cantilever is "straight" and that the stylus looks to be in good shape, but I am prepared for the worst. Does anyone (Raul?) know anything about the following replacement stylus, which is for sale on LP Tunes?

http://www.lptunes.com/Replacement-for-Stanton-D-98S-D-98S-D98S-stylus-p/stad0098s.htm

If I need it, should I consider buying this non-original but expensive replacement stylus, or should I send the original stylus assembly off to van den Hul or some other shop for rebuild?

Funnily enough, this is NOT a cartridge you can feed into your MM phono stage; it has low output even for an MC. But I have a wonderful sounding MC phono stage, and I have been wanting to audition one of these "LOMM" cartridges ever since Raul started this thread and I became aware (again) of the virtues of MM/MI designs. This is my LAST cartridge purchase; I promised myself.
Dear Tt and Raul, Thanks for taking me seriously. I realized that my experience in these matters is very shallow. I heretofore only had to worry about my Triplanar, and it works fine with the Turntable Basics protractor, which is now very declasse' among the cognoscenti. I should have been a bit more emphatic in saying that my ideas are really "my opinion" based on a little experience. Surely the switch to Stevenson geometry from Baerwald did wonders to improve the sound from my Dynavector DV505 tonearm, regardless of the cartridge.
My insights, such as they are, into this question of tonearm geometry vs chosen alignment geometry, began with a thread on Vinyl Engine about twisting the cartridge in the headshell to align the cartridge body with a grid on any protractor. The person who started the thread, "Seb", is quite knowledgable about this subject, and he showed graphically that tracing distortion is reduced if one does twist the cartridge to conform with the protractor vs if one merely sets overhang correctly but then aligns the cartridge body with the headshell. At first reading, this thread made me feel OK about the fact that I had done exactly what Seb recommends with my DV505 when using the TTB protractor in Baerwald; all my cartridges ended up quite twisted toward the inner grooves. But then I started to think about how the vector directions of the forces on the cantilever that are in play when the cartridge encounters a warp or just heavy modulation are going to be at an angle to either the horizontal or the vertical pivot points, in this situation, and how that might NOT be a good thing and could introduce nasty distortions other than "tracing distortion". This led me to seek out a Stevenson protractor for the DV505, and the results of realignment are consistent with my hypothesis that such aberrant forces might not be desirable. Seb agreed and admitted he did not follow his own rule when he owned a Dynavector tonearm. I think this would apply to any pivoted tonearm but would be most noticeable with the DV tonearms because of the stubby vertically pivoted arm.
Headsnappin, I know you did not address your question to me, but I am going back to the M20FL to test my "feeling" that I might like the M20FL better than the Azden. Not sure yet.

Anyone know where I can find a D98S stylus for my Stanton 980LZS? Thx.
Raul, Do you have an opinion on the LP Tunes stylus assembly vs van den Hul rebuild? I guess you would favor vdH, because I know you do use them a lot, but if you know anything about the LP Tunes stylus, that would be of interest too.

The Acutex, like the best Glanz and the Astatic MF100, is a brand or type I have never seen for sale. Anyway it will take me a year or more to form opinions of what I already own.
Dear DU, Never heard that edginess you ascribe to the Orto M20FL Super. Mine is "like butta" in that frequency domain. Just goes to show how set-up and ancillary equipment can affect the outcome.
I plan to try it on my Kenwood L07D, which as a system ((turntable/platter/tonearm/plinth) is the best thing I've heard yet in my home.
The L07D is just the quiet-est turntable I have ever owned. This is not to say that there is any audible noise, rumble or other, to be heard with the Lenco or the SP10 Mk2. But when you listen to the L07D, you can sense the lowered noise floor in the form of a better sense of 3D, very slightly more articulate bass response, and airy high frequencies. The Lenco might give a very slightly bigger soundstage, but the L07D beats my other dd tables in that regard. I could easily live with the Lenco if I had to economize.

No insult intended, but the L07D is way out of the league of the SL1200, IMO of course. This is as it should be given the cost differential and the design goals. Kenwood was looking to build their ultimate product, whereas the SL1200 is a wonderful Chevrolet. It would be more fair to compare the L07D to the SP10 Mk3. The tonearm wiring from cartridge to preamp with the L07D is pretty much old school, with many mechanical junctions in the signal path. I look forward to even better results after I "fix" that.

Just to write something here that is actually on-topic, I have decided that the Azden is indeed a great cartridge. It definitely digs "more" out of an LP than does my Koetsu Urushi (but the KU has a certain je ne c'est quoi that the Azden misses), and I am going to guess the Azden will prove to be superior to the Ortofon M20FL Super, based on the testimony of most of you who have heard both. But I do need to re-visit the M20FL. Then I need to move on; I have amassed quite a collection of vintage cartridges, by my standards at least. (Can't compete with Raul in finding these things or buying them.)
I think you can get a male DIN plug made by Cardas from Michael Percy Audio in Nevada City, California, USA. I am sure there are many other sources for such a product, as well.
Ddriveman, Yes. I use "TI Shield", sold in sheets by Michael Percy. I bought a 12x12" piece and cut it in the shape of an LP, then inserted it between the platter and the platter sheet. I have listened to the table with and without the shield in place. IMO, there is a discernible difference; the sound is a bit "cleaner", and the soundstage is bigger, with the shield in place. I raised the question of whether this shield should be grounded, on Tweaker's Asylum, and got a plethora of conflicting responses. So I made no special attempt to ground it. The TI shield is coated with a clear glaze, so I assume it is electrically fairly isolated from the platter and platter sheet.
Dear Downunder, Best to go to M Percy website or to Texas Instrument website and search on "TI Shield". (The TI stands for Texas Instruments.) It's about as thick as the lid of a tin can, easy to work with. It is said to be superior to ERS cloth for soaking up RFI. it's a valid question whether such a shield is worthwhile for any and every DD turntable. The L07D has a platter mat (aka "platter sheet") that weighs over 5 lbs and is made of stainless steel, and it sits on an alu platter. You would think that this mat and platter would suffice to shield the cartridge, but there does seem to be a subtle improvement with the extra shield added. I haven't tried this with any of my other DD turntables.
I think you may find that with careful tweaking both or either one of the Ortofon and the Andante may do better on resolving massed orchestral strings. I found this to be true of the Azden after I dialed in the geometry and VTA, but not before. (For one thing, most folks found that a bit of positive VTA [pivot point up] helps with the Ortofon M20FL. Sounds like you've got the pivot down a bit with respect to the headshell.]The "problem" with these auditions is the never-ending need to worry about the variables that are affecting your listening experience, but it's also great fun and a hobby unto itself. Glad you like the FL version; I do too.