Who needs a MM cartridge type when we have MC?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

we need a decent TT and decent tonearm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
rauliruegas

Showing 50 responses by rauliruegas

Dear nandric: I think there are no secrects here but only that DIGITAL is a way different " history " and if in some way we like to study we like to learn learning " history " can improves our overall culture. Don't you think?

Why refuse to do it just from the start with out even " thinking "?

Regards and enjoy the music,
R,
Dear Dgarretson: Even that IMHO my Velodynes are " right there " with the last change of those SR20 fuses I had to re-set one subs parameter: SPL.

The change was so dramatic lowering self subs distortions and as consecuence room self ditortions that now that the subs perfromance are really clean my ears perception noted that as a lower SPL but in reality there was not lower SPL but that now the before subs/room generated added distortions disappeared ( in part. I think that always we have to live with some distortions levels. ) and ears are extremely sensitive ( because our bass brain/ears perception is the one that suffers more from our aged life. ) and I heard lower distortions but lower SPL too so I adjusted the SPL owns subs cobntrol and that's and now with this fixed SPL parameter the quality improved more.

We don't know how much information exist in the bass frequency range because those bass generated distortions and because even with out those distortions is not an easy indentify the bass ( low bass. ) fundamentals in cleAR/CLEAN WAY WITH ABSOLUTE DEFINITION IN EACH BASS NOTE. Today I'm almost totally aware of that bass information.

IMHO we can't do it with out a right subs integration to the audio system. It is impossible to achieve it because the THD and IMD preclude it.

All what is generated my the subs/speakers suffer normaly added distotions due to the room interactions so my first target is to lower any kind of distortions in the audio system to facilitate a better system/room integartion with lower problems and more easy to fix those problems.

+++++ " Star Sound SP-1 rack. The solid coupling of the SP-1 is a big improvement over the soft coupling of a prior Auralex foam platform. I have a sack of micro-bearing steel on top----- "+++++++

a solid platform is a must to have as is the height subs position, this was my experience about ( btw, I use a " weight " a top my subs too. You can read almost everything on my set up in my Agon virtual system. ):

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1117893153&openflup&196&4#196

here other interesting Agon posts on subs:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1117893153&openflup&4&4#4

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1117893153&openflup&47&4#47

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1117893153&openflup&158&4#158

+++++ " When it's done right --- " +++++

this is the nanme of the game, period.

Btw, thank's for the hint on that internal sub painting because this is what I did it with my ADS main speakers and never did it with my subs. Thank's to remember me about!!!.

This is too a: must on subs.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Giffithds: Shibata, Stereohedron and several other cartridge manufacturer stylus as the analog6 from AKG and the like at the end was not eliptical but more as line contact with " superior "/wide contact groove.
There are several manufacturer " line contact " versions. It's right the name " line contact for them ? well is IMHO not important what is important is that as the Shibata or the analog-6 or even the MR the Stereohedron has a wider groove contact.

What is more complicated is that some manufacturers had 2-3 versions of the same stylus shape where some of them disclosed it but other noprmally did not.

Btw, I already bought a DTL-4S in NOS condition for the non-Pmount Pickering cartridge version. I think could be a difference aginst my XV5000/981 or the 7500 that are S2 versions on the stylus shape.

Could be a quality performance diffrence in between the S2 and the S stylus versions?, we will see when I have on hand but you already own all those stylus shape versions, could you share with us the differences that you experienced on the 981 ( H ) with the TL4S against the 981 native one stylus?, thank you in advance.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Fleib: Before I bought the Precept 440 I heard the Precept 220 but was a dissapoint I don't like it in any way.

The Precept 110 and 220 you can find out every day on ebay but as you pointed out the Precept 440 is hard to find with 440 original stylus and in good condition, I think I was lucky about.

As with some AT cartridges we can use with the 440 the stylus replacement as the one of the AT 440ML.

I bought a 550 stylus replacement and an original AT 440ML to check about but exist one build design diferencen between these stylus replacements and the original P440: the cantilever of the Precept 440 was made from beryllium where the 550 ( even that the seller of the 550 said it it is an improvement over the original P440 and even that owners of those 550 stylus replacements said the same: I disagree with them. The original cantilever per se make a differences. ) and the AT 440 did not.

That single difference makes a huge difference, at least this is what I'm experienced on my tests. Obviously that the stylus shape is not exactly the same shape and this is a diference too but the cantilever one is more " substantial ".

I'm finishing my tests on the Precept 440 and will share those experiences.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Griffithds: I understand what happened there. With cartridge manufacturers like Empire/Stanton/Pickering/AT/Signet/AKG/Acutex and the like there are always some kind of mix-up. In this same thread almost all of us time to time made it mistakes because so many different cartridge models of those vintage manufacturers and no one knows everything of everything especially with this " new " vintage cartridges.
I remember " problems with the Empire series 1000 and 900, with the AKG too and we all know the confusion with those flat nose/long nose Acutex.

My first Acutex was a flat nose one and before arrived I bought a stylus replacement that when I received was for the long nose version but both cartridges has the same model so whom can imagine Acutex designed the same model description in two versions????

After some errors from my part I took the task to research always before take action but this time I did it but maybe even with that research could be happened the same.

As I said I'm not angry with you or really worried about because now a new journey started to me : the TL-3 cartridge body.

To fix the VE cartridge data errors I think you have to put in contact with them and in specific with the persons that mantain that data bases.

I don't receive yet my TL4S stylus replacements but I saw at the picture is the flat Pickering version.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear friends: Speaking of our audio/music hobby and now that the 2012 is just at the end and looking for what happened about I can tell that with out doubt this one was and is my best audio year I can remember. Of course because I " walked " throught with the best persons I could that where all and each one of you. I learned a lot and enjoyed any single post in this thread and other threads from you Agoner's.

In the other side I never imagine when this 2012 started that I could ( trhotugh it. ) achieve the quality level performance that I'm enjoying in my audio system, I just can't even dream that this could and can happen because at the begin of this year the system performance level was IMHO really good and IMHO too nearest to the top as ever.

Right now, I enjoy the music at other level and today I know for sure that exist a lot more information in those grooves that what we normally think.

To appreciate that we only have to work in the whole audio system and I mean in each one and all the links that conforms the complex audio system chain with out forget the room/system relationship and with out forget that the live music is always an excellent reference point to any audio system evaluations.

I'm sure that the kind of experiences I had and have this year were and are similar of what you had and have too.

We have to be congratulated for that!!!°!°!!

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lharasim: First than all: have a good audio/music time in 2013.!

Now, it is obvious that you and me are wide different, especially our each one specific home system audio item evaluation method and something extremely important: the years of training in that SEM.

Till today and trough the years that SEM suffer only small changes, mainly on the LP tracks/grooves added or deleted. It does not matters what I'm evaluating always the evaluation pass through the SEM that's is almost unalterable.

I don't care about the kind of music ( obviously I care, but???? ) what I care is how those 10 seconds of sound/music sounded.

I know for sure exactly what to look for on each single trcak/groove, I know exactly how every single tick/pop and the like sounds in each single of the tracks that are on the SEM and I could by the differences on the sound on those clicks how that item could performs: believe or not.

Not only I know what to look for during the playback evaluation but against my references/targets.

Maybe your SEM is a lot better than mine but I can tell you something: my training an aware SEM level of what hapen down there is almost " perfect " and in this regards at least at the same level than your if not over you.

My SEM is an infalible one? certainly not but in the last 10 years it never fails, not a single time.
Could be and exist a better SEM ( maybe the one from you )?, certainly yes but the one I use is the one that I trust and that I know with my " ears/eyes " close.

All the time and over time my " first impressions " are confirmed through the months coming and through tests against what was changed ( fuses or whatever. ).

I have a so high command on my SEM ( thak's to my in deep training on it. ) that I can tell you if the " error/problem " we are hearing ( in an evaluation. ) comes from a 0.2mm of erron on overhang against .5mm on VTA. Maybe you could be more accurate but for me its ok with what I have.

I can tell you that through the time my SEM is a great and the best tool I found out to evaluate audio systems items, not only in my system but in any system.
Some of the persons that I meet at their places in USA are witness of what I'm telling here. I can name it if you want and I can give you their phone for you can talk about.

P.Barber?, whom cares: this is not the reason why those grooves are part of my SEM but hwta those grooves telling me about: accuracy, distortion level, tracking habilities, colorations, dynamics, inner detail, music power, music presentation, tone color, neutrality and the like.

++++ " but IMO you will never get anywhere.... " ++++++

maybe not but: whom really knows but me?

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear nandric: If it is true that lower inductance values as resistance could help IMHO it is true that the differences on the values we are talking here are not so big for some of us could hear differences on performance ( of course some of us could hear it. ) because our ears or because not enough system resolution.
Anyway, you already know: those inductance/resistance values have nothing to " see " with the cartridge stylus. When we are talking about: " hand selected " this means not only the best stylus finished but the best motor too.

Regarding SRA this set up is system dependent: cartridge/tonearm/TT/phono stage/etc/etc.

Now, it is extremely more easy to change SRA through the tonearm self mechanism that at the headshell becuase here tiny changes could make to big SRA changes.

My AKG P100 has SRA set up mechanism in the cartridge it self and you know what?: I prefer to use it at the tonearm, is more " user friendly " but is up to you.

Nandric, enjoy your 981, you are already prepared to achieve the best from that cartridge.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Fleib: +++++ " In the unlikely event that you rise above preconceptions and recognise the superiority of the LZ, a..." +++++

in this thread and years before came the justified Stanton/Pickering today " fever " I posted ( and if I remember years even before in other thread. ) not only my preference for the 981 H against the L version but why. Today an after I bought ( again ) both versions that opinion is confirmed ( by a tiny tiny hair. I can live happy with either. ) but I would like that you can share with us your first hand today experiences with both cartridges and the differences you appreciated that makes your preference on the L version, I'm really interested about because maybe I'm missing something about.

Thank you in advance.

Btw, believe it or not when I gave/give/express an opinion always was and is determined by performance only. Expectations are almost always part of the pre-test/before test evaluation and is part of the " fun " but in my case never determine my final opinion. You can be sure about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear In_shore: +++++ " however no one from the nude thread went as far as trying their table into a panzerholz plinth,....no one. " ++++

me neither but let me to share other plinth experiences with Denons and SP10s:

several years ago ( way before any one talked about naked TT. ) I made some tests on my Denons ( DP80/75. ) that originally came in the Denon wood plinths: I use it both, the solid wood one and the wood/fragments ( I can't remember the name in english. ).

After this I use it a natural marble and onyx stones as a TT plinth seated on AT pneumatic footers. Quality sound performance improves by a wide margin.

After this I seated ( a top the marble and onyx plinths. ) both Denons on three tiptoes like. So the TT was " anchored " by the tip toes to the plint. Here the whole plinth in fact fuctioned like a " gigant " ( 40kgs. ) arm board.

Again, the reward was a significant improvement. Then I gone " naked " sitting the Denons directly to pneumatic footers but still using the stone arm boards.

The reward this time was again an improvement over the plinthed " versions ".

Same happened with the SP10s.

In both cases, Denon/Technics, the quality performance level is extremely sensitive of in which kind footers ( the ones where the TTs are seated directly. ) the TT is directly seated.

I made several tests about with stand alone footers and with blended/combination of more than one kind of footers and in my case with my TTs nothing I test outperformed and outperforms the TT seated directly on those AT pneumatic footers.

Tip toes like are not very good for that job but those were my experiences where other persons could have different experiences.

An example of one experice I had is this:

my two belt drive Acoustic Signature TTs are seated directly on inverted tip toes that are seated directly to AT pneumatic footers. With this TTs that solution works marvelous and because of that I tested with the DD TTs and guess what?: it does not works at all, very deficient. Why? I don't care but does not works.

Of course that in audio does not exist " absolute " and exist the posibilities that a plinthed TT at its best could beats a naked one at its best. By this time and with my DD TT I think that the naked fashion is extremely hard to beat with a today " technology " used on plinths.

The plinth issue per se is not only a complex one but an " enterprise " a serious one for any one that want to go in deep with a " perfect " design.

Certainly I'm not ready to do it not even the knowledge level to do it so in the meantime that appears that " perfect " plinth I have to stay with the DD TT naked version: IMHO makes less harm.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Stanton's friends: Tes, I remember that when Dgarretson ( I think ) posted that the 981LZ was on the dark side I agree with him.
Now what means " dark " to each one of us?, maybe different things.

For me a cartridge with a " dark " sound/presentation could be a very good quality performer because " dark " for me does not means dull or cold or anlitycal or with out soundstage or with out dynamics and so on.

Dark for me is a different tone color in a cartridge performance in the same way that one violin can have a dark sound against other that's more " alive ". Which one is right?: both, with different tone color. No two violins sounds the same with the same tone color as no two pianos sound exactly the same.

So, for me dark is not an atribute that diminish an audio item in any way.

Said it and IMHO both calibrated 981s: the LZ and HZ, are neutral cartridges and both very good performers ( better than the non-calibrated ones?, maybe. ).

Why I prefer the HZ version?: the HZ has not only a litle better definition on the first attack/transients that permit to hear the fundamental and harmonics with " life-like " sound where we are aware of the precise sound of the instrument and how been " touched " by the player.

This characterisitc gives the HZ a better feeling of dynamics with a more alive tone color nearest to the natural agresiveness that has the live instrument/music where the LZ diminish a litle this regards.
This gives the HZ the feeling to be more transparent and with more aplomb at the high frequencies but at the other end of the frequency that little more " transparent and transients handling and dynamics " gives a better frame to the bass where you can hear better definition here too.

I runned both cartridges in the Sony PUA-237 seated in my naked Denon DP-75 and as almost always the HZ seen 100kohms along 350pf additional to the cable capacitance, the LZ 100 ohms that was where I feel and hear that in my system performs the better.

Btw, I tested both cartridges in other tonearms and the best match ( other that my own design. ) was and is the Sony PUA-237, very good tonearm indeed.

Lewm, both cartridges already " broken ". Other consideration here is that my HZ runs with the Pickering XSV 5000 MK2 stylus replacement that between other things fits ( stay in place with out loose. ) better than the original one.

As I already posted I can live with both but if I have to choose then I take the calibrated HZ version and over both the: Precept 440, my experiences on it latter on.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Acman3: Yes, there are differences in between the 981s.

Now, what really means " calibrated " for Stanton:

the cartridges ( 981s calibrated. ) comes with a chart od calibration values on a few cartridge parameters and what at the end means that calibrated cartridge is that Stanton guarentee that if we follow exactly the set up parameters in that calibratioon chart we can achieve the frequncy response and frequency response deviations at 5k,10k,15k and 20khz and its tracking habilities at the VTF value in the chart as the channel separation.

With a non-calibrated cartridge the specs are only that " desired " specs but Stanton can't guarantee that those specs can be achieved when in the calibrated one are achieved.
Of course that at random a non-calibrated one could achieve those Stanton specs but we can't be sure.

In the other side the cartridge specs performance depends not only on that calibration but on our each one habilities to set up in precise way the cartridge. The other thing is that Stanton say nothing about how the make that calibration, I mean: which test record, which tonearm, VTA/SRA, etc, etc.

What really we have to do is to listed, enjoy and have fun with.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Nandric: I don't know what you mean with " measurements ". For what I know no one has a complete analysis with specific measurements on that regard.

I already posted in other thread ( I can't remember if I posted in thios thread too. Maybe????) that I made " measurements " on that stylus drag in an empiric way where I tested 5-6 different cartridges with 4-5 different LP tracks and choosing those tracks at the outer grooves, center and inner grooves and with 2-3 different tonearms.

Those cartridges differ mainly on VTF and stylus shape.

I found out that not only the grooves recorded velocity has an influence but stylus shape/VTF and the place/point where the stylus is running.

I have all what I measured somewhere. I did it with the TT motor ( I use it BD one. ) off. What mean I?:
with the TT switched on I switched off and read the time that took the platter to stop.

I took several days of tests only to be sure that the switch off been exactly at the time the stylus is in the groove and to stop the wtaxch exactly when the platter stop ( when swith the motor off this must be matched to the watch start to run. ).

Now, on dynamic basis and either DD and BD TTs I own I can't detected any single sound performance deviation even with three stylus in the grooves at the same time.
Maybe my ears are not so sensitive as other people ears or I'm unaware on what to hear.

The stylus drag issue is already analized for many of us " amateurs " in different threads ( right now is happening in other thread. ) with no useful conclusions. I know that in the future there will be another threads where could be analyzed once again and for me that I'm not a TT designer is a useless exercise that help me in anything other than " curiosity ".

As with other analog subjects the stylus drag always was discussed with out take all the factors/parameters involved and this fact makes more useless any discusion about.

IMHO the TT designers are the ones that could come here and express their proved and measured ( if any ) experiences on that subject.
Seems to me that no one TT designer ever made/makes an in deep scientific research about. So why we " amateurs " have to do it with out the knowledge and skills level asked for that complicated task. Makes no sense to me.

Example: how can be useful for you to know more on the subject when you can't change your TT characteristics to deal or improve about? and even if you can: which kind of improvement can you achieve and if you or any one could hear that improvement?

Useless.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear nandric/Halcro/Dover: Stylus drag exist, period.

Now, about that Transrotor TT an its platter inertia we have to remember that the platter moves around a TT bearing so here could be a problem too.

To really evaluate in numbers the consequences on that stylus drag on an ideal TT we have to take not only all the factors/parameters involved that we mentioned here and in other threads but I know exist other additional ones tha have to take in count as LP warps ( for example. ) because this warps makes changes in VTF changes even that are of different level depending not only the tonearm used but if the tonearm is running in static balances or dynamic balanced fashion. In the other side and everything the same we have to consider too the onw cartridge tracking habilities.

Yes, this is not rocket science but IMHO involve several parameters that has influence in the whole subject and first than all we have to identify.

Now, at the end and if we can get scientific/math answers we need something additional: how those " numbers " affect what we are hearing? can we hear something? which the reference to compare? and so on.

I think that right now even the " best " guys as Tonywinsc,Richardkrebs, Mosin or our Dover have on hand only part of the " subject " and I think with no reference to compare at the end because I think that till today does not exist the ideal/perfect TT that is immune to stylus drag.

As I said: how can we be aware of that stylus drag on what we are hearing?, I posted that even with three cartridges at the same time I can't discern nothing on the perceived sound against only one stylus drag cartridge.
Obviously I have no training on this subject and maybe I have to search about and maybe a good point to start to know more or less that stylus drag sound is to make several tests ( with a method according to. ) comparing one cartridge against three cartridges and against two cartridges looking for clear and precise differences .
I don't know I'm only thinking on " high voice ".

Maybe I could try or not because in reality that could be a time consuming and can't help me to improve my system quality performance. As I said that is main target for TT designers.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Griffithds: I forgot. What I posted has to take it as an opinion based on precise experiences and that's all. It is not a rule.

What if I was owner of the Lyra Atlas or the Ortofon Anna or other new top dog? Will I send it to any of the existen re-tippers?, maybe not.

A today premium cartridge invlove not only the designer in deep effort to achieve pre-determined targets but those targets were and are achieved b by the design, parts selections and execution to taht design as the very especial cartridge voicing to match that designer targets.

With vintage cartridges or not so " today " top ones I will look to a re-tipper.

Btw, froma few months now I'm buying LOMC cartridges and for some of them I'm buying a second cartridge sample.

For example, my original Spectral cartridge that performs so great I bought a second sample that I send to Axel to re-tip for compare it to the original one. I already made it this with other LOMC cartridges that es exactly what I did and I styll do with MM/MI cartridges where IMHO is worth to do it.

About the Goldring G800 your experiences with is exactly what the UK re-tipper told me and that's why I bought 3-4 samples on it and why I higly recomend it.

About the 981HZSMK2 maybe you missed my post about. Yes, I compare the Stanton original stylus against the Pickering 5000MK2 and I posted that this Pickering stylus replacement was and is better by a not so small margin especially on tracking distortion/habilities.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear nandric: Appreciated. Now, that Magic Diamond: well in the past in a few Agon threads the Magic Diamond was under " deep " scrutiny. I had the opportunity to heard it in one of my trips to great Agon friends home places in USA ( J.Galbraith. whom own a top system: Walker TT between other items. ).

Sounds very good. Things happen that the Magic Diamomnd used the Denon-103 " platform " and from there born the cartridge with several designer modifications.

The debate about was " serious " because the MD owners refused to belive that Denon procedence. At the end was proved that in fact the original procedence was Denon even that what we read on the net by the designer it self could tell something different.

Anyway, Denon procedence ( I think there is nothing wrong with this. ) or not the MD is very good performer and I know you will be satisfied with.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Nandric: +++++ " Raul is not willing to actually share carts but only his opinion about them. ... " +++++

you are right but there are some reasons about that I would like to explain:

- first almost all those cartridges are vintage ones.
- the more valuable are very and some extremely hard to find out.
- I live in México that's far away from almost all of you. Shipping both ways has an inherent risck.

in the other side and even that all of us really take care about the cartridge fragility even on cartridge set up/handling time to time some of us have " accidents ".

My latest one was two weeks ago with my NOS Stanton 981HZSMK2!!!!!! and in the past I can remember: Grace Ruby, four times ( yes, four times. ) one of my Colibris, one of the AKG P100, At 160, At 180, Technics P100CMK4 and I can go on and on.

It is a " pain in the ass " to work in the middle of ten tonearms/cartridges where your body is surrounded by those delicate items: when is not one finger is your arm or the sweter you dress or even your head.
I take care a lot on each one of the cartridges but almost all days I'm doing something around the analog rig system so the probabilities of an accident are higher that when you have only one-two tonearm/cartridges at the same time.

Not only you offer me to send me one of your value treasures but other Agoners too and in all cases I refuse to accept not only because is a critical responsability for my self but to protect those vintage treasures.

If I remember was you whom posted something like this: " a cartridge is like my wife, I don't borrow she to any one ".

Many times and even if we can find out again one sample of a vintage cartridge maybe its quality performance ( due to its vintage status. ) been poorer than the first sample. I experienced this more than once.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Astatic/Glanz's friends: Well, I think I finished with the Astatic/Glanz " tiny shoot out ".

Btw, Griffithds that Glanz MFG 71L that you saw on ebay is the one I bought and according with my experiences with IMHO you was right when decided not bid in that auction.

The Glanz is similar to the Astatic one ( it is obvious: Glanz the former and then Astatic bought the patents to build its cartridges. ). The MF-100 is in this cartridge series the top of the line and the MFG 71L the top of Glanz series line.

If we see it both phisically are identical in cartridge body shape and its stylus are compatible each to the other even with the Astatic MF-200.

My take with these cartridges is that if exist any design/build differences that came as an improvement in the Astatic that was the latter cartridge design. I don't want to go inside that because could be only speculations.

The Glanz performs almost the same as the MF-100 but you can heard ( at the begin when you are listening for the first time the Glanz. ) more " transparency " on its performance but along my test method I took in count that is not only no more transparent but that transparent characteristic is only due that the bass management is non adequate against the MF-100. In the Glanz the bass is " slim " with no weight and precision as in the MF-100/200.
Both cartridges are more alike than different but I can't found out no single sign where the Glanz beats the Astatic ones: 100/200.

I use it the MF-100 stylus on the Glanz ( as a fact I did all the interchanges of stylus in between those cartridges. ) and things does not improve but with the MF-100/Glanz stylus things improved. So my take here is that the Astatic's were designed with a " better " motor than the Glanz.

What I paid for the Glanz is not justified against the other cartridges I own. I bought it more for curiosity and my curiosity had a price.

Of course that if some of you don't own the MF-100 or the MF-200 then the Glanz is an option in that direction but these Astatic/Glanz cartridge are not easy to find out, especialy the Glanz in stand alone version.

Well enough on the Glanz because I want to return to my Precept PC440 and my VandenHul MM3 that for me are a new vintage cartridge generation that I did not encounter before due to its incredible quality top performance that is different from other " yesterday " top performers.

In some way what I call " new generation " for whatever reasons is really a cartridge vintage " new generation ".I think there are 2-3 additional cartridges ( Goldring800, one of them. ) I own that belongs to this " new generation ".

As time permit I will return with the Precept and the MM3.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Nandric: I have nothing more to add to the Glanz experiences. As I posted I prefer the Astatic.

I think now is a better idea to focus in the vinatge " new generation ".

Btw, the Signet TK10 MLMK2 could be in that NG niche. On this cartridge I have to clarify a mistake from my part on what I was thinking was the Signet TK10 MK2 when in reality was only the TK10ML ( MK1. Sorry Griffithds I was unaware about. ): things are that I bought two samples of that Signet where the sellers stated the cartridge was the MK2 version but like three months ago I seen and bought on ebay the real Signet MK2 version that's an improved performer over the TK10ML and not for a short margin.
The Signet MK2 we can recognize because we can read at its top gold plate the model that states MK2 and at the side of the black cartridge body , in white color, we can read Microline. Well, this true MK2 TK10ML version is IMHO the best ever AT/Signet cartridge even over the famous AT 180. Against this MK2 the other AT/Signet top model versions seems to me as " average " performers.

Nandric, if you see it then take my advise and buy it. This week appears one on ebay with out stylus but I think that the MK2 motor is the " key " on its top " different " performance level.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Desmond: I don't want to start in this thread the same polemic with you. I stated very clear that in that series the G71L is the top of the line and a stand alone version.

If you like it more that 7 you own that's fine with me and my advise is that try to find out a new MF-100 because maybe the one you owns is out of specs or the other reason ( between others ) could be that the " kind distortions " of your 7 are the ones you like it more against the 100. Tha's all.

I forgot, the Glanz cartridge denomination in the stand alone and integrated headshell ( as yours ) are: G7, G1 and the like in the integrated versions and in thye stand alone thel call it the MF series: MFG71, 51 and the like. The G7 IMHO is the same as the G71L and the only spec " difference " ( that could be an error???? on its advertasind. )is the output level where in the integrated headshell is 4.2mv against the 3.5mv in the stand alone version but that difference IMHO is not an advantage because could means too higher inductance against the G71L.

You can go on and on in the same topic but has nothing in hand that can tell us the G7 ( integrated headshell ) was the top of the line against the G71L ( stand alone version. ) other than your opinion where you never heard the MFG71L.

Sometimes I think that your " life " goes with the Glanz topic if your G/ , for whatever reason, was or is beated!!!!! You can be sure that no one will die for that fact.

Btw, bass management in your system is different from mine and IMHO you can't took it as foundation on your opinion.

Anyway, nice to confirm your enjoyment on the Glanz. I like mine too.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Harold-not-the-barrel: I like both, the 20SS and the ML170. What the ML170/OCC gave in addition is better detail/transparency due to a little better definiton in the high frequency range this characteristic gives a different soundstage presentation where the ML170/OCC has a better layering than the 20SS.

Yes, the original cantilever is gold plated boron. Worth to rettiping?, this depends, if the 170 stylus needs then go a head but if that stylus still has a " long live " then why to retip it other that you want it to hear a different cartridge performance.

IMHO, the 180 and 170 cartridge generators are not exactly the same. Its electrical internal characteristics are a little different ( I thought were similar but I learned are not. ) and the stylus shape dimensions too.

Where the 180/OCC measure 0.08 m/m the 170ML/OCC 0.1m/m. Even the stylus angle is different: 23° for the former and 20° for the 170/OCC. Exist a difference in weight too: 7.5grs against 7.0grs in the 170/OCC.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Dover/friends: Maybe any one could ask: why me that always is against SUTs wants to test it again?.

Well, the at random finding at my place of those SUTs give me the opportunity to test it and to make something that I never try it: the SUT up to date.

I owned and heard a lot of SUTs in my system and in other systems.

I can remember some of them. From Audio Technica: At630, AT7000, AT1000, etc. from Ortofon: T30, T2000,T3000,T5000,etc. Luxman 8020/8030. Denon 320,HA1000, Pionner headamp. Two different Audio Note Kondo's. Expressive Technologies. Highphonic. Dynavector DV6 ( or something. Classe NIL3 headamp. I owned 2-3 vintage SUT's by USA designers that I can´t remember. Bent Audio and many many more.

In no one but the NIL3 I made any single up date.

I don't know what I will hear when the Denon AU-340 be finished. I know will be an improvement, question is: how much improvement over the stock one and if it could be competitive against my active phonolinepreamp? maybe a good surprise/discovery?

As always, is time to learn!

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Harold-not-the-barrel: +++++ " Evolution is gaining speed, 2013 will be a fantastic year. " +++++

agree and as I posted some of these " new " discoveries seems to me belongs to a " new cartridge generation ".

I wish that today I already tested all the cartridges I own but unfortunatelly it is not in that way. I have easily 20+ cartridges that I never touch it and I'm still buying new contenders. In the other side I know that I need to re-test some of the " old " top performers to compare it today that my audio system is better than ever due to up dates.

Take a look, yesterday for the first time I tested a GLORIOUS performer ( Nandric, fortunatelly you own it. ) the Dynavector Karat Nova 13D LOMC that I bought almost one year ago ( at least. ) and for all that time I was privated of its unique quality performance level.

Btw, I just bought a second sample of that Dyna. In the next days I will report on it. Yes, this belongs to that " new cartridge generation " that means a different quality performance " league ", not marginally.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lewm: Nandric is right, months ago and due to his doubts/mix up/confussions on the AKG series and models we gone on some research that you can read here:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&6258&4#6258

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&6269&4#6269

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&6282&4#6282

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&6287&4#6287

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&6301&4#6301

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&6307&4#6307

and you can go on in the tread reading the posts of the other gentlemans.

Lewm, problem with the nomenclature with AKG was that they took the P8 designation for two different cartridge lines and models.

The P8ES you own was the earlier model and the VDH was a latter design that came in the AKG original P25MD cartridge where difference is only the VDH stylus against the " analog 6 " by AKG.

I think that AKG wanted to put a difference on the VDHs models against the P25MDs and named P8 as its predecesor P8E and ES but the VDH ones are totally different designs than the P8E and ES.

I have samples of all of them and the P8ES are really good and at least my samples came with out any single " problem " on suspension or coils as the VDHs ones. Where I had a problem was with one of my P25MDs that shares the body with the VDH cartridge designation models.

Yes, confusing but that was AKG.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Dover: Right. My phonolinepreamp is a current device.

On tubes electronics designers knows very well what you posted and that's why appeared the OTL designs trying to aliviate that trouble but OTL designs has other problems too.

At the end what I want to know is: at the top of a SUT quality performance level which trade offs exist against the active high gain phono stages owns trade offs and then achieve some conclusions in the whole subject.

Fortunatelly IMHO I have the " ideal " reference/standards in very precise and clear way to make the evaluation/comparison. Of course will be one person opinion.

For me this research is nothing less than exciting!

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear nandric: Till you live the Precept PC440 experiences you can't imagine what I'm talking about.

Try to find out and I'm sure that you will speak on it with " superlative " words.

With the Precept PC440 the quality differences are not marginally as you said.

Now, for your good " health " just try to forget the name: Precept PC440 and my " superlatives " about. Easy.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Dover: Whom told you that the headshell wires are detachable in my cartridge sample?.
In both samples I bought the wires are hard wired and this was one of de reasons why I don't tested before: I can't use it that way because my tonearm/phono cable is an external one that needs to connect directly to the cartridge pin connectors and happen that my 13D has no pin connectors but female connectors.

For I can connect my 13D first I have to destroy one of my lesser cartridges to take its pin connectors and then hard wired these pin connectors to the hard wired 13 wires and this is exactly what I did: the only choice I had to test and enjoy my Dyna.

Btw, according to the japanese bible the 13D specs are the ones you posted with these differences: channel separation 20db instead 25db and R= 19 ohms instead the 10 ohms you posted. The cartridge appeared in 1983 for the first time.

The Karat Nova 17D2 appeared in 1984 and was a stand alone cartridge version ( no headshell. ) and its price was: 64K yens against the huge 150K yens for the 13D.
Where the stylus replacement price for the 17D2 was 44.8K yens against the 75K yens for the 13D.

Looking to the 1984 Dyna designed Karat 17D2 model ( 38K yens. ) the Karat Nova 17D2 is the same cartridge/specs but instead metal body this one came with wood body. So seems to me that the 13D is way different to the Karat Nova 17D2.

My 13D is mounted in my self headshell design riding in the AT 1503 tonearm with Löfgren alignment as usual.

About Denon SUTs an according to the Stereo buying guide ( USA magazine. ) the AU-320 you owned had a price of 160.00 dollars when my now modified AU-340 had a price of 425.00 dollars that for a SUT was very expensive. The very well regarded Denon head-amp HA-1000 was: 440.00

Btw, in the Audio magazine bible of 1983 the 13D frequency response posted: 20hz to 100khz. and the price in USA: 1.5K dollars.

Btw, I have several cartridge frequency response charts ( 50+ ) as the one you showed where almost all are exactly the same: dead flat 20hz to 20khz and no one of all those cartridges sounds alike each to other!!!

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Nandric: +++++ " retipped the cart with an aluminum cantilever and nude line stylus " +++++

++++ " I was not impressed and sold the cart for much less than the cart cost me... " ++++

of course you was not impressed when not only changed the cantilever lenght and stylus but the cantilever build material: diamond for aluminum!!!!! God, help me.

My advise is that you have to take care alittle more when you are working with that kind of unique top cartridges. This is not your G800 or an AT/Acutex ones. We have to have more respect for that kind of cartridges.

Anyway, no you did not offend me because Dover already posted that ( at least seems what I understand. ) he heard and listening today to the 13D and not the 17D even he posted that he has an opportunity to put his hands on anew and original 13D.
No, I'm not offended. In the other side we are and ask audio subjects in this kind of thread to learn and I'm always willing to learn from every one.

Now, if you can get an original in good condition 13D seems to me that the 17D is a very good second option. So you can go a head for the one you already see it and please if needs the Axel touch forget about that aluminum material that seems to me you are still sticked to. Think on the word: evolution, can help you.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Daer Halcro: Yes, I got that and made a comment about.

In the other side I meet him when was already Dagogo reviewer. He has a good knoledge level ( as he showed in that review. ), in those times liked tubes and the 103 cartridge.

I don't trust in his " ears ", maybe today he improved about. Why am I expressing in that way of those " ears "?:

well it happen that in that home place audio meeting we were making some comparisons between phonolinepreamps. We were there around 6-7 persons listening to a very good audio system ( at least by the names of the audio item links. ) and happened something unexpected for that kind of audio system and unexpected for what I thought were the audiophile grade levl of all the persons in that meeting that including that reviewer and obviously the audio system home place owner.

Things were that the phonoline preamp of that system had a problem with the left channel: at least 1.5db lower SPL against the right channel when both channel volume selectors were at the same position. After around 20 minutes no one of those gentlemans even the system's owner detected absolutely nothing till I left to know about that " problem ". No one but me detected under comparison circumstances. We were listening digital and analog and no we were not relaxed as if that was a party no we were taking serious what we were doing.

Anyway, your message took it.

Btw, let me check my emails and let you know a bout the seller of that 13D.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Nandric: I think that all of us are in the same way about: what we belive has the rightness till something different/better can make my way of thinking.

I try every single advise/experiences all of you share here and in other threads to tame that " religion " and if I have to change I change. I repeat that I take " action " on other audiophile/music lover experiences and tested, I never test " words " but facts.

Btw, the Denon 3313 is inside your budget:

http://usa.denon.com/us/product/pages/productdetail.aspx?pcatid=avsolutions(denonna)&catid=bluerayplayers(denonna)&catalog=denonna_us&pid=dbt3313udci(denonna)

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lewm: Not really, my first encounter with the Denon DP-100 was at the show room of a " humble " Denon distributor in Laredo,TX, was here where I bought my DP-80 and DP-75.

I never had the money to buy the DP-100 even that the dealer offer me near its " cost ". I remember that he made a " show " with the DP-100 where he demoe that the TT was imperturbable by any internal/external " force/vibration ": what he did it is while a LP playback one of his employees seat/stand up in the metal platter surrounded area making some kind of " movements " and well the music goes on with no awareness disturbance!!!! can you believe it?

IMHO the DP-100 is second to none, in the mean time I'm satisfied with my 80/75 Denon's TTs.

As a fact there is a lot of fabolous audio items out there, name it and you could find out. Sometimes we need money, time and " land "/space to own more audio " toys ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Btw, I just bought the 550ML stylus replacement, maybe today will be shipped to my place.

The ones of you that take the Prcept unique opportunity will know what I mean when I said that these kind of cartridges belong to a " NEW CARTRIDGE GENERATION " ( NCG ).

R.
Dear friends: My SUT?s adventure made it try to find out the " best " out there and if I can try to improve it.

Well, I'm only at the begining of this adventure but the " rewards " that showed me the Denon AU-340 and the Audiocraft TS-26 told me that I'm on the " road " ( I don't know if in the right road but in a good road. ).

I just found out one of the best SUT ever and I'm refering to the Denon AU-1000 that I knew of its existence but that in the old times I never had the kind of money to buy it. In 1983 its Japan price was: 150,000 Yens, expensive.

If we take a look to its frequency response chart in the link we could know why that price and know the Denon high quality design.

The SUT is absolutely flat from: 9hz to 95khz, this is an evy for any tube amp or tube electronics and some SS electronics but the unit is only -3db at 5hz and 200khz !!, these figures in my experiences are outstanding by any standards for a SUT.

http://www.denon.jp/jp/museum/products/au1000.html

Of course that those figures don't tell me how it performs but gives me calm and tranquility that the unit is first rate and IMHO second to none.

We will see when I test it before and after my usual up-dates.

If any one of you have experiences with the Denon AU-1000 and wants to share with us that will be appreciated.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Indieroehre: When I discovered the Precept PC440 and read about the 550ML top stylus replacement there were two sources for it: Adelcom and Turntableneedles, I arrived late to the TN and when I put my order to Adelcom happened to me the same as you experienced in LPGear: already solded.

Weeks latter I " visited " LPGear looking for other item and been aware that they have it in stock and that's where I bought my 550ML sample.

I don't think you are " out of the game " because the 220 is very good performer too and in the future you always could have an up date through a re-tipping to that 220.

In the other side, as appeared a " new " 550ML source like LPGear that could be happen in the future.

Anyway you own in the Precept PC220 a " winner ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
I forgot, no I'm not speaking of speed on different build material cantilevers. As you well said the stylus/cantilever transmit movements and not music waves.

++++ " I think that would pertain more to plinths, than cantilevers " ++++

agree. Related to that plinth subject and its cartridge performance influence my experiences told me that the very first " link " that is in touch with the LP : TT mat, is IMHO even more critical that the plinth it self. An ideal plinth on TT playback most be innert protecting the cartridge/tonearm of internal/external vibrations/resonances/movements but this is the " ideal " one that unfortunately does not exist yet. That TT mat makes a huge diference for the better or bad.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Acman3: MY AS TTs have not the " silencers " on the latest AS model.

I can't be sure but seems to me that the ruber O-rings in those silencers are the ones that are in touch with the LP: it is in this way?, maybe that's why you like or use it with out mat.

I listened LPs with out mat in the AS and did not like me.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Sarcher30: Thank's for your post. I almost can't read nothing about the AT150ANV quality performance level so your experiences are appreciated. Now I'm confident that I took a good " move ". No one bought two samples of the same model cartridge especially in a current model and at its asking price.

I think I own or owned every single top of the line AT/Signet designed and till today never disapoint me and I'm sure that this one will follow on that excellent " road ".

Btw, really nice audio system you own, everything looks just great.: congratulations!.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Sarcher30: ++++ " I would not wait too long if you want an ANV. It is a limited edition and showing as discontinued on the US Audio Technica website....... When the dealers run out of stock that's it. " +++++

that's the problem with AT limited edition on models that were celebrating AT aniversary, for example in its 30th aniversary they builded a LOMC to celebrate it: AT OC30, these ones disappeared faster that you can read this and after that the posibility to achieve one is far away.

So, your advise to buy now while it last is a very good advise just in time. Good for me that I bought it.

Btw, probably the problem to not find out the ANV stylus replacement is that the ML stylus shape is an AT patent so no retip source handle it, sapphire is no problem at all.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Timeltel: I own the MC20 and the MK2 version too and IMHO I think your test was a little in the unfair side for the Ortofon LOMC cartridge and the " problem " is that HA-1000 that IMHO is a " crap " of headamp. The MC20 is a lot better than that headamp.

Over the years I owned several SUTs and headamps including the HA-500 and 1000 and almost all are in that niche " crap " units, perhaps only the Accuphase and the NIL-3 from Classe Audio are something to hear.

A head amp is IMHO the most critical design in audio electronics for any designer. In any today active high gain phonolinepreamps what exist in the design is a headamp and even with the today technologies the fingers of one of your hands are more than enough to find out something really good and all these are extremely expensive. The price on that Denon headamp and the SUT Denon I own was the samem in those time.

You posted that to " tamed " used in the past the AT670 SUT ( almost and AT entry level. ) and Ihcho is using an Ortofon T20 that was designed for the MC20. IMHO SUTs are a lot better than the headamps I know.

So for me your " clever " tests are no reference against the Ihcho experiences. IMHO what you are hearing is that HA-1000 and not the MC20.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Nandric: As always I respect your opinion but IMHO your post has no relation with what I posted.

Look, Ihcho posted that he really likes his Ortofon MC20 against other MM/MI cartridges and he said is using the Ortofon T20 SUT. Timeltel posted that overall is not exactly according with him because he tested the MC20 in his HA-1000 headamp ( as I posted IMHO a crap of item as almost all headamps out there. ) and I said that tests was " a little in the unfair side " because that headamp: the MC20 is a lot better ( I know that because I own it and its MK2 brother. ) than the headamp.

But this has nothing to do with Timeltel it self or money or whatever in Timeltel person, problem is the headamp it self that's IMHO the most dificult audio electronic item to design and that that design works better than a SUT and till today that headamp does not exist or at least I don't know it.

Why do you think that the majority of phonolinepreamps designers choosed to use internal SUTs as a gain stage against an active high gain one?: Nikola because an active high gain stage is a challenge for any designer and if you don't believe me then ask Atmasphere.

The NIL-3 by Classe Audio is perhaps the only " decent " headamp out there, Dave Reich was the designer ( he was the founder of Classé ), the circuit unit weights around 12kg and all the circuit board is not only encapsulated in a especial metal-blend but the circuit board is encapsulated in silicon-like material to avoid any single vibration to the delicated circuit, outside the metal capsule is the unit " body " by metal too: this elctronic unit is impressive by it self but has an external power supply that's more impressive and with bigger chasis: inside everything is first rate from transformers to filter capacitors, the capacitor reserve could be an envy for any 100 watts amplifier.

Well this NIL-3 headamp is no challenge to a top SUT and certainly both against a good active high gain design.

I repeat, Timeltel is not the subject of my post as the money either. You mentioned Thuchan because of money but money means nothing if you have not top knowledge and skills on the audio subjects.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Deal Timeltel: Those japanese SS design in the old times of the HA or yuour preamp were all about specs but a " crap " of sound because transistors in those times were sounding in that way and the japanese IMHO never been very good electronic designers. I owned the Sa-9800 ( Pioneer, I think that was the model and other Pioneers/Sansuis, Sony, Accuphase and the like. ) full of specs and controls but nothing to speak about. Full of ICs and the like.

I don't want to start again the same " discussion " we had years ago when I posted that your Pioneer is not the best reference, not match your better analog rig items. Please forget about those old japanese specs means NOTHING. Specs in today audio items means a lot.

I don't try to diminish your system of that HA-1000 but facts are fact and you can't change it it does not matters how many links/information/speca you post here.

I don't know why with your post you want we follow in this disagreement, it is almost useless. As I said : why to remember what I posted about your system and what you answer that always is the same: specs.

Please no ofense but things are the way are if you want it in other way then you have to change those " things ", that's all. I respect you, this ha nothing to do ( as I posted before. ) with Timeltel, I never analize persons but audio facts.

You like me and I like to read the information you always are willing to share but that's not the subject here but the HA-1000.

Btw, with all respect H.Pearson is almost reference of nothing. I respect him because he already helped to the high end culture and its develpment, thak's to person like him audiophile " exist " and that's why we are talking here on so many audio topics. Through the time I think many of us learned what to do or what not to do because those " underground " audio magazines but today some of us know that some of those reviewqers are not exactly " trusty " ones.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Nandric: You are right and obviously there are craps and craps at different levels.

Subject is something that almost all know: that at the " begening " the SS electronics and especially the full of specs japanese ones were not good enough but this happened with the CD too: was bad at the begining but today is prety decent. Everything improve in some way.

In the other side it is the electronic design skills it self: not all designers are good for everything and we have even today examples about.

Some examples that I already experienced about: M.Levinson IMHO is a top amplifier designer but on preamps has not the same level, this IMHO happen with other top SS desihner as N.Pass whom is really good on amps and only in its latest preamps has the same level but in the past its preamps were not at the same level than his amps designs. If I don't own my ML mpnpblocks the amplifier I choosed will be the Threshold S500e.
Other examples are: MBL very good with amps not so good with preamps and the same happen IMHO with almost any designer of amps/preamps.
For some reasons the amp designs are better than its counterpart the: phonolinepreamps.

SS electronic design is a real challenge for any designer that wants to achieve levels of excellence. Tube design IMHO is more easy, less complicated: transistor are hard to dominate, FET designs are a little more " friendly " and that's why more SS designs comes with FETs everywhere but for example in MC phono stages the bipolar are the right way to go when in the MM stage the FETs is the way to go.

Now, I use the word crap for the HA-1000 because for today standards is a crap, even in those times the SUT from Denon were superior. Problem was not Denon but the " vintage times " for SS designs in japan.

Nandric, take almost any japanese electronics of those times and its specs are an envy for today electronic audio items but its performance is a " crap ". I know because I bought several of them and in those times I bought electronic japanese because its specs and " lights/leds ".

Fortunatelly the world improves.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear nandric: All ones came from AT but the X-1 design is a propietary JVC builded by AT.

Signet is not Signet but an AT " subsidary ". The main " head " was and is AT.

Good that you are enjoying the 220. Are you saying that the 550 is a " lesser " stylus replacement?, if yes ( Don can't read it??? ): which are the experiences you already had that gives you the foundations for that statement?

Regards and enjoy the muisc,
R.
Dear Acman3: Somethings are weird with the Precept's. In one hand my Precept 440 is dressed with the original Shibata stylus and is nothing least than " letal " top to bottom showing a music natural flavor not in the warm side ( only when the recording was recorded that way ) not on the bright one, Fleib posted that for him the shibata stylus tend to smooth the high frequencies but in my 440 that does not showed.

In the other side my experiences with the AT Micro Line stylus assembly were a very open sound.

I posted that the Prcept was for me one of the more difficult cartridges to set up due that at almost any set up ( VTA/SRA/VTF ) " likes " to sound good. I'm almost sure that changing those parameters ( VTA/VTF ) you will find out the Precept " magic " over what the cartridge is already showing you: that warm has to disappear or at least goes lo lower that does not " disturb " in any way.

As you and Dgarretson posted the Precept is a top real winner and IMHO is a nice discovery for you.

There are not many information about the Precept cartridge line. Right now I bought five different original stylus shape for the Precept 220/440: the E origanl version, the XE original version, the Shibata original version , the LC original version and the 550ML.
I have on hand only the E and Shibata versions and waiting for the other ones.

Btw, ++++ " I prefer the 220 stylus, as the 550 stylus seems to take the edge off a little. " ++++
this was not what I experienced with the 220 stylus and the 440 one, the 440 does not lost not a single " hair " out there.

Now, perhaps and other issue than the ML550 set up maybe it needs more playback hours along the fine tunning set up.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R
Dear Dover: You are right, but that was not my intention, of course that are a lot of great electronic japanese designers in almost any electronic speciality.

Now, on the audio niche and as you pointed out several very expensive designs never touched America/Europe There are many examples as some amplifiers from Accuphase P-500 ( 600K Yens.), Kyocera B-910 ( 350K Yens. ), Linear Technology M-152 ( 750K Yens. ), Marants Sm1000 ( 950K Yens. ), Satin MA-1S ( 1200K Yens. ), Technics A1 ( 1000K Yens. ) .

All those SS designs from the early 80's. From those years came the Onkyo Integra M-510 ( 850K Yens. ) that I heard in USA and México and sincerely I have nothing important to remember about other that was impressive to look it.

Now, on Japan were or are? some manufacturers that are just expensive, everything they build are expensive. Final or Accuphase or Ruffel or Audio Note or Etone are good examples on it. Many times the quality performance level on those manufacturers are way lower than its prices , the mark on those japanese manufacturers has a name: expensive " per se ".
Figure it, Etone ( tubes. ) manufactured an amp with a price on those old times of: 3900K Yens!! Do you know or wonder which was the model?, nothing but: Excellent, this was the name.

I don't heard yet SS latest/today japanese electronics but I'm sure are way better than in the past and maybe competitive with today " new " audio/music reference performance levels.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Acman3: +++++ " Closest I can get to a 440 .." ++++, yes but remember the 440 beryllium cantilever.

+++ " I agree, it is surprising... " ++++, good.

I'm just waiting for the stylus replacements. I acn't wait!. In the mean time I'm ejoying another " surprising " champ the: Astatic MF-2500.

These latest cartridges has IMHO a lot of merit because after all these years full of great MM/MI experiences to found out these kind of " surprising " items is something not to exclaim:WOW but to stay: speechless/mouth-closed!

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Fleib: According with the info I have and that Griffithds confirm that came fromAT/Precepr directly the PC440 comes with nude Shibata stylus shape and the PC220 with 0.2x0.7 elliptical.

In all Precept cartrdige models the model designation ( that serve as stylus designation too. ) comes in the cartridge top plate. The 440 with Shibata stylus you can read PC440 but the one with LC stylus you can read 440LC and the 220 with XE stylus you can read 220XE and the 220 E you can read 220. My only doubt is to know which is the difference between the XE and E stylus maybe a refinement on the elliptical on one of them. Btw, that " consistent " fact inn the past about stylus designation on AT cartridges IMHO was broken with the Precept 440 with shibata stylus and not because Griffithds or me said but that's what is specified in the Precept cartridge specifications chart.

As Empire, Stanton, AKG and other MM/MI manufacturers AT never been the most " user friendly " on that subject and the Precept line is no exception.

Thanks for bring here that 330LCU model that at least for me was unknow model. Btw, where do you find out that Precept nomenclature? and your Precept experiences will be appreciated when you have it.

As Acman posted the 20SS does not fits the Precept cartridge body.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Audpulse: For the last 2-3 years I saw Precept cartridges on ebay almost daily and this tell me that there are a lot of Precept's out there that will appear sooner we can think.

Because I was not interested on the Precept I really never took a serious look at the specific models. In the last 2-3 months mine was the only LC I seen but certainly is not the only sample out there.

Btw, the 50o. Anniversary AT cartridge arrived and even that the " next " cartridge in the waiting row is the Astatic 2500 I will test first this current and latest MM AT promising cartridge. I have to say that looks wonderful.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Frogman: Good to read that you appreciate rythmum as an essential characteristic on music.

We can have as you said different colors in music as tonality or levels on focus and soundstage or inner detail at different levels but if the music has no rithmum then we only have sound and nothing more. It is the rythmum the one that comunicate the essence of the music it is the rythmum that " moves " our emotion and feelings it is the essence of the music the soul of the music.

You mentioned the Andante P76 that when appeared as the " week discovery " was a very nice discovery indeed. I have years with out touch it again I wish to have more time to re-evaluate so many cartridges that already pass on my hands/ears.
I hope you can get a Precept in the near future, a new experience is always something nice to have.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear friends: Through latest weeks I was " playing " with SUTs, with some good results and other not very good.

Every single SUT sounds different has its own color and my first task was to find out if those colors are " natural " music colors. From this point of view I decided to keep the Denon AU-340, Entré ET-100, Audiocraft T26 and the Denon AU-1000. I sold it the WE, the Perles/altec and the Patgridge that I don't like it.

The Denon AU-1000 is a statement of SUT if for no other thing because its size and weight. This SUT has 25cms deep and around 20cms wide and weights 12kg. I opened trying to make my usual changes ( internal wire, connectors and the like. ) but there is nothing to change, everything is shielded over shielded. It performs great and perhaps if I decided to stay with I will hard wired the IC input/output.

I owned the AT 1000T that came with four transformers ( two dedicated for the 3ohms AT MC1000 cartridge and the other two for 20ohms and 40ohms. ). This SUT was the heavy I knew with 8kg and for me this was unusual but the Denon in this regards is " something ".

With the changes I did in each SUT its performance level is " surprising " ( surprising for me. ) good and near the quality performance level og my active high gain phono stage.

Btw, when I received the Entré 100 and opened I was a little disapointed because this unit came with only one transformer to handle both channels. Anyway I make the internal changes and listen it against the other SUTs builded with two transformers looking for some kind of music degradation due to the use of only one transformer instead two as the other SUTs and I can tell you that I found out no degradation to the cartridge signal, very good SUT indeed.

This Entré experience gives me the opportunity to " build " a real two channel separate SUT running two Entré 100 units in mono fashion and this is exactly what I will do. I already bought a second Entré ET-100. Btw, this Entré and the Denon 340 gives the oportunity not only to choose cartridge load impedances and gain but handle 3 and 2 ( respectively ) cartridges/tonearms at the same time through a simple switch and of course with by-pass option too. Very user friendly I can say.

Now, that I'm in this new LOMC/SUT " game " I think that some of you that right now has no LOMC cartridges maybe is time to try it, there are several LOMC/SUT cartridges at very good/low prices that not only performs good but that outperform some of our beloved MM/MI ones.

I never left the LOMC alternative and in these times I'm listening more and more to LOMC cartridges, of course not only because its performance but because I have on test line over 20 LOMC waitng for.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.