Dear Nandric: I don't like what I heard trhough my 550 sample and posted in that time. Fleib told us that needs more time but I already gave it with no great success. Maybe I have to try harder. I was a bet " confused " as you more than all because the colors choosed in the 550 whole stylus/cantilever holder. I really like to find out a Precept PC550 to see it and check that NOS stylus replacementg realloy is a Precept original one. I'm more curious that any other thing because my Precept 440LC is a winner! and it is not " asking " for its " brother ".
About the 180 what I'm saying is that my ANV remember me the 180 perfromance quality but I don't heard the 180 for a long time and as with the 180 I need to make several cartridge re-evaluations.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Nandric: I forgot, ++++ " my second best MM'. End? " ++++
I was a little in a hurry when I posted but there are no secrets there.
The cartridge is the JVC-X1MK1 that's behing the MK2 version I had the lucky to found out.
Here happened to me what other AT builded or designed cartridges did it. I'm refering to cartridge tracking habilities where the MK2 is way better than the MK1 average own habilities. This is the same that I experienced through four different Precepts stylus shapes and the same that experienced in the Stanton top of the line 981 against its down step Pickering XSV 5000 where this one beats easily the 981.
All these experiences makes think that that: " vintage suspension in my cartridges is no issue " that some of us are thinking is totally unreal and that cartridge vintage suspension some times is ok but normally is a real " issue " but because performs good we are unaware of it till we compare it.
That happened to me not only with those cartridges but with Empire and other samples too. Is obvious that 30 years already made it its works on that cartridge suspension.
The JVC MK1 version is really good. I wish that that person that bought that JVC X-1MK1 NOS on ebay could comes here and shares his experiences because is my take that that person knew exactly what he doing when he bought it in BIN auction for 700.00. I think no one invest 700.00 for a vintage MM with out knowing its " credentials ".
Anyway, my second today best was and is worth fully.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Tubed1: +++++ " Enjoy even more of the Acutex sound. " +++++
I assume you took all those kind of work and shared with us ( appreciated. ) because it's worth to do it: right? and I could assume that you +++ " compare the potted stylus to a non-potted stylus " ++++ ( both original ones. ) and the rewards are worth that work: right?
Regards and enjoy the muisc, R. |
Dear harold-no-the-barrel: ++++++ " somehow I "feel" (technically) that the AT is better, in my system " +++++
I wonder why you " feel " that because both cartridges are so different not only in design but on specs, example: the X-1 is 1.5grs lower in weight than the 180 and in both the compliance is different too and several other " technical " specs.
Could you tell me for example why you think that a higher weight cartridge can performs better in your system/tonearm than a lighther one or one with lower compliance?
seems to me that in any case is the current 150ANV model the one nearer to the 180.
In the other side, either : the X-1 and 180 are hard to find out so you have nothing to lose, let me explain: in theory if you buy ( lucky enough. ) both cartridges then you can test it in your system to decide which one match it in better way and put on sale the other one where you will take money the same day you put on sale and maybe more money that the one you paid it for.
Just an opinion,}
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Halcro: Your experience with the Axel Garrot re-tip , IMHO , is not because Axel. I already had the same kind of experiences in more than one cartridge model where I asked Axel that " terrible ": pressure-fitted into an aluminium cantilever.. This is the real trouble and obviously that the cartridge was not voiced in that way.
All my " pressure-fitted " ....cartridges changes its performance for the bad, even I had to re-tip it again. Obviously is part of our learning proccess.
Btw, I own that Jico/SAS for my P77 but I never mounted because of time. Right now I'm immerse in the Astatic MF-2500.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear 550 stylus " fake "?? owners: LPGear gives me an answer and now I'm negotiating with them, seems to me that next week I could have a good news for us ( I hope? good news. ).
I will post at once I have on hand the final solution.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: From yesterday I'm listening the R.Waters " The Wall " recording. This was recorded in 1990 and I have both versions: digital/LPs.
The LPs version is good if you like that kind of music but when you hear/heard the digital one ( trough latest DACs. ) even if you don't like you will " like " it.
R.Waters needs no presentation: a Master, period.
Both CDs are very good with great compositions/music that you can heard at 10dbs SPL with out any compliant and at 80 dbs SPL the whole recording is just delicious.
Obviously that the three parts of " Another Brick in the WALL " could be the recording star composition but even that I'm not a Scorpions's fanatic their " In The Flesh " track is extremely good if not great but I want to sharesomething that " impress " me in the dis recording and this is that in the Part 2 ( Side one track 5. ) and after C.Lauper gorgeous " presentation " we have three Solo performances, Solo 1 is a Rick Di Fonzo guitar, Solo 2 is another guitar performance by Snowy White guitarist and Solo 3 a combination of keyboard solo and guitar solo by: Peter Wood and Thomas Dolby in the guitar.
Well, all these performances are a playing art where we can " feel " the player not only great skills but the mood deepest emotional mood where all of them were " living " that memorable 1990 live concert in Berlin, just: astonish and overwhelming performances.
If you don't own this R.Waters THE WALL recording you are missing an important and memorable ( again. ) part of the recorded music history and if you own it maybe it's time to give it a listen again ! . Have fun.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: This is part of what LPGear emailed to me, a good sign is that they gave me an answer that permit a negotiation. What do you think on this answer:
++++++ "++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Raul,
We have similar audio-technica cartridges (for example the ATN20SS) that use berrylium canrtulver. It looks like aluminum. We purchased these from a reputable vendor that has been supplying us for years. Some of the Precepts that we have came from audio-technica when we purchases all their new old stock.
Moreover, there hasn't been a stylus manufacturer that makes replacements for Precepts - it's a special stylus that was limited in production hence not worth the investment to make a mould and copy. In our years of selling styli, we have never encountered a fake Precept and neither have our suppliers.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear nandric: This is your first and last time, with out excuse, that I permit you with out back insulting you that I'm a liar, period.
This is the ebay confirmation of the auction I winned last December where stated that Glanz cartridge. My ebay moniker is: silviajulieta.
The original ebay email is at disposal of any one in this thread but you:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here's your order confirmation
Hi silviajulieta,
Here is a summary of your recent order. You can also view your updated order details in My eBay.
Thank you for shopping on eBay!
Go to order details Order details You completed checkout on Dec-10-12 Ship to: Payment details: Total: Celeste Bermúdez. PayPal GBP 265.00 642 Palomar St Ste 406-149 Chula Vista, CA 91911-2626 US Item title Price Shipping price Qty Item total GLANZ MFG-71L - TOP CARTRIDGE - STUNNING SOUND!! ( 390507274513 ) Paid on Dec-10-12 GBP 255.00 GBP 10.00 1 GBP 255.00
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I posted about and posted on the Glanz comparison against MFs.
Rgeards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Stonedagainagain: ++++ " Sounds infact very close to a VdH Colibri platinum " +++++
this is the greatest compliment I heard on reference to the Astatic MF-200, that Colibri Platinum not only is the top VDH of all Colibri's but a pricey and top cartridge performer but any today standards, good.
I'm sure that your B&O MMC1 will gives you high pleasure level on playback as could gives you your MC2000. On this one I hope Axel could leave it as " original " and if yes then the challenge with this Ortofon is its very low output level that if you has the right high gain phono stage you will be surprised on its quality performance.
Regards and enjoy the music, R |
Dear nandric: I understand your " mix-up " but I think that that mix-up could be only in your mind. Let me explain it:
Do you tested in the same tonearm combination in the same session the: MF-200, MF-100 and Glanz 71L?, if you did it then perhaps you could be right and my 71/100 are not up to specs and if you did not then you can't understand that and that's where your mix-up came.
My both MF-100 against the 200 on the tracking hability subject were beat it as was and is the 71.
Why the top of the line are beated by its little brother?, well I posted this kind of experiences with different cartridge lines.
In the other side remember that your home audio system music reproduction priorities are different from mine.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Vetterone: Finally a " light " down there, thank you: appreciated.
That's the same kind of double box where I received one of my Precepts, I think the 220 in original box.
So, there is no doubt of the 550 cartridge existence and the issue is " only " about that 550ML original stylus replacements that some of us bought.
Btw, what do you think on that 550 stylus issue?
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dgob: What did you mean or try to say to me with your post and that " as always? could you explain it?. Thank's.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Halcro/friends: All of us are or could be under scrutiny time to time, this is an Agon " policy ".
I just was under moderation, why? who knows.
This is my fouth time under Agon scrutiny and perhaps not the last one.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: No doubt, the JVC X-1MK1 is not anymore the second best MM/MI but the third best.
I tested the Astatic MF-2500 and compare it against the MF-200 both JVC X-1s, the ANV, the Precept 440LC and Pioneer PC550 and the MF-2500 outperforms all them in almost any single cartridge performnace characteristics.
IMHO the MF-2500 puts a new standards level. No one of those cartridges can even the MF-2500 frequency extremes performance. The kind of bass management handle by the 2500 is the nearest one I heard on any cartridge to the latest digital experince and at the other frequency extreme the word " definition " took a new dimension. Please name any cartridge characteristic you like and the 2500 has on spare and to spread it. For the first time I really enjoy and give a real value to the cartridge characteristic name it: soundstage and this happened thank's to those both great frequency extreme kind of performance where definition, transparency , endless presentation, reality, dynamics, natural agresiveness and balanced tone along " light speed " on transients gave the cartridge performance a " rythmum to die for " like no other MM/MI transducer.
It is the very first cartridge that runned all and each single Telarc 1812 with out any single distortion: is the one cartridge and only one that can negociate the last cannon shot, it's my first time I heard it in all its glory: really a hard task that through the 2500 " feels " easy as the flow of music with no obstacles.
The MF-2500 was an early model than the MF-200/100 series. Well, all of us read it the review of the MF-200 posted here where said was a tracker winner cartridge but can't even the magnificence of the MF-2500 and this is one of the reasons why the cartridge is so good against any other cartridge MM/MI I know. certainly the best Moving Flux cartridge design, Astatic improved with the 2500 that patented cartridge design.
If you have the Hotel California version I name it somewhere, side two track 2, at the begining of the track we can hear an acoustic guitar at the right speaker side where through the MF-2500 the fingers over the chords you listen as if where " pizzicatos " m like in a violin: I can't hear this definition level in no other cartridge and I can tell you some other examples of its great quality performance level that's so unique.
Maybe you already heard this kind of adjectives/words from my part to other cartridges but with the MF-2500 those words have a new dimension a new up level.
Why Llarashim put on sale this unique really unique performer? is out of my mind because it is not only unique but almost imposible to find out, I never seen on ebay: never a single one.
The line has four models: 2500/01/02/03, all are low inductance design and with lower output that the other Astatic models with 3.0mv as manufacturer spec. The 2500 comes with a line contact stylus shape and runs at 1.5grs on VTF, I mounted in my Grace G-840FB with my especial self design headshell: tremendous cartridge/tonearm match, running with positive VTA/SRA .
I just started my hunting for a second sample ora third if I can get it!!! this is the today real: Holly Grail!!!!, go for it and Grow up.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dgarretson: I will do as soon is possible because right now I'm hooked by the glorious Astatic MF-2500.
The high frequency extreme in this cartridge is similar if not even better than the one I heard through the very low output Colibri's I own. The Colibri is the only other cartridge ( along the MC2000 but I don't touch it for many months that I need to be sure about. ) I know with that pure definition and precission in the high end frequency range. Even the X-1MK2 that's very good stays short.
The kind of cartridge quality performance in that range I'm talking about is shared by no other cartridge out there so we are talking of something very especial and unique that if for no other cartridge characteristic that one justify to own that MF-2500.
Maybe the cartridge could be even better because right now I'm listening it with not yet the fine tunning step but its today performance level is so remarkable that even does not ask for a fine tunning!!! Where are all the manufactured/builded MF-2500?, I think that sooner or latter will appears through ebay. We have to stay alert on.
In the other side and because the MF-2500 deserve it I have to test it mounted in my tonearm design where right now is mounted the JVC X-1MK2.
Btw, I will keep the 550 even that LPGEAR give me its RMA. I heard too that high frequency roll-off: did you work " hard " on VTA/SRA to improve in that regards performance?
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lharasim: +++++ " yes the MF2500 as i said is in a league all by itself...you wont find anymore very very rare cartridge!! " ++++
no doubt, is my today reference. Whom/which next: could exist that next to MF-2500?, seems to me that with this Astatic cartridge we can say for " sure " that we achieve the " last analog MM/MI frontier "!!!!!!!
The differences for the better against the JVC X-1MK2 are not tiny ones.
Thank you to brought this cartridge/" lose link" to us.
Thank's again and enjoy those Fulton: I know very well what you are talking about. I wish some of the persons here that still like the LOMC could hear the Fulton sound.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: As good the Astatic MF-100 or MF-200 are Astatic made " something " a little different with the early MF-2500 that does not repeated with its newest cartridge models and I wonder why.
Why instead to go up the " newest " cartridges goes down on its quality performance level????, could be that they were not aware of the 2500 high quality performance level?, this can be an answer butit does not makes me " click " in my mind.
What all of you think about?, some one can enlight us?
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Griffithds: I agree, our today system improved a lot but the subject is that Astatic modified " something " in their newest MF-100/200 that IMHO were in detriment of these cartridges quality level performance against its " old " 2500 brother and that " degradation " was not a tiny one as I already posted.
Subject is: WHY that happened, What could heppened there?
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Fleib: ++++ " I'm beginning to wonder if there was ever a "real" PC550 ....." +++++
that's exactly what I posted weeks ago but certainly existed and maybe was at the end marketed time of the Precept line, you can read it here:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&10261&4&&st10250
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Woodchamber: According with your Dual specs its tonearm accept cartridges with a weight in the 2grs-9grs range and with high compliance spec.
I recommend the B&O MMC2 with saphire cantilever that fulfill the Dual needs. This little gem outperforms many of the top cartridges touted/trumpeted in this thread, here it's:
http://app.audiogon.com/listings/cartridges-bang-olufsen-mmc2-moving-phono-cartridge-new-rare-2013-06-28-analog-34241-sarasota-fl
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Bang-Olufsen-B-O-MMC-2-PICK-UP-New-Sealed-/261236411556?pt=US_Record_Player_Turntable_Parts&hash=item3cd2e74ca4
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Griffithds: Seems to me that that is " failure " in the preamp design. The unit I used is fully balanced input to output and I can use it through XLR or RCA connectors and does not shows that kind of problem. The Lewm unit performs fine too.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dlcockrum: ++++ " but maybe it was just another short-lived favorite. " ++++
IMHO the Empire 4000D3 ( not the Gold. ) as the one you own is not and was not a " short lived favorite ". I'm sure that any one of us that listen to it today will still in love with.
This Empire is a standard/reference MM cartridge.
I would like to have time to give a listen again and not only to this Empire but to other " short lived favorite " standard/reference cartridges but unfortunatelly I have not enough time to re-listen so many gems down there.
Right now between the Astatic MF-2500, the JVC X1MK2, the ?, several top LOMC and our self tonearm design final tests I have not time for more.
Sooner or later I will do but I can be sure when. Sorry I can't help you.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear J.Carr: +++++ " propagation velocity - how rapidly it transmits sound... " +++++
maybe I'm wrong but I understand that the cantilever transmit no sound but the stylus " movements ".
Now, the length of the cantilever maybe is other important issue on cartridge performance. In the other side cantilever material is only one part of several ones in the cartridge design and that's why exist cartridges with beryllium or aluminum cantilevers that outperform the boron ones.
I appreciated your explanation about because I'm not an expert as you are ( I wish Iim. ).
Looking to the ADC Astrion ( sapphire cantilever. ) manual here is what we can read it:
++++ In terms of both strength ( Young's Modulus ) and " stifness to mass ratio " sapphire is superior to almost any available material.
sapphire 490 dynes/cm2 where boron is 408, beryllium 303 and aluminum 72. +++++++
About the aluminum/titanium materials that permit the stylus be bot glued I have a bad experience following what you posted here and following the experiences of a non expert person here: I re-tip a Virtuoso cartridge with aluminum cantilever stylus pressure fitted and does not like me but when that same cartridge was re-tipped with boron cantilever " lights glow really shiny ".
My error was to thing only in the cantilever matewrial and not on the whole cartridge design that's is more important. The cantilever material is choosed as part of that cartridge overall design according what the designer wants to be achieved.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Stonedagainagain: MMC6000 and MMC1/2 are different in design and size and needs different adapters.
The B&O that are adapter compatible are the 6000 and the MMC20CL.
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear J.carr: +++++ " However, the last two materials are ductile and not brittle, which means that the joint between stylus and cantilever is less reliant on glue. Any glue that I am aware of has a slower propagation velocity than even hardened aluminum, so to be able to have a thinner layer of glue between the stylus and cantilever, or no layer, is a distinct advantage which partially counteracts the other limitations of aluminum and titanium. " +++++
you speak of an " advantage " with aluminum where the stylus can be fixed with no glue but pressure fit.
I'm thinking in " high voice " and I can be totally wrong, let me explain and you as an expert could share your knowledge for we can learn about:
the stylus tip works is the hardest one of the cartridge ( at microscopic level. ): it must be in touch with the grooves at any single " second " and stay in touch always following the recorded grooves throught its own tracking abilities.
At stylus tip " level " this " tracker " has no compliance that can help to ride in " confortable " way those recorded grooves ( a toutuose road. ), yes the cartridge suspension provide compliance but provide compliance as a whole/cartridge and not at the tip directly: SEEMS TO ME THAT FAR AWAY THAT THE STYLUS GLUE BE A DISADVANTAGE COULD BE A REAL ADVANTAGE BECAUSE THAT GLUE CAN PROVIDE SOME KIND OF DAMPING/COMPLIANCE THAT HELP THE STYLUS TIP TO STAY IN BETTER WAY IN TOUCH WITH THE GROOVES THAT WHEN THE STYLUS TIP IS NOT GLUED.
So, I think ( with out any prove of that ) that a stylus glued design is an advantage.
J.carr, what do you think on what I'm thinking on that important cartridge subject?
and in the other side I appreciate that you could put some " light " on what I posted to you: that the cantilever transmit movements instead sound ( as I said I can be wrong and is very important for all of us your expert clarification. ) and from this point of view how is that propagation velocity is the main key to choose a cantilever build material.
Thank you in advance for your time and kidness.
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Harold-not-the-barrel: Thank's for the link. My Talisman following in its quality performance improvement.
I was not expecting additional improvements after those 30-40 hours but it's still in that " road ". Of course that my smile is going bigger and almost out of my face.
I wonder why Sumiko took a different road ( I think ) with his today cartridges when they already had on hand a superlative performer, yes even better than the LOMC Palo Santos. Same kind of manufacturer behavior happened with Ortofon realted to the MC2000 performer and with some other top cartridge manufacturers.
Btw, D.Fletcher said that they choosed a " second generation " of samarium cobalt magnet. I understand almost nothing about and I don't know what that really means because this is the first time I read something like that. Any one of you that can put some " light " in that regards?, appreciated.
Dear friends, try to buy this Alchemist IIIS. You can't die with out listening it!
Btw, other that that " long " breaking time the cartridge likes that its stylus be perfectly cleaned during playback on each LP. Yes, I know that this fact/characteristic could be the same for any cartridge but the point is that with the Alchemist IIIS that is a must, any single/tiny dust at the tip degraded in heavy way the cartridge performance as I never experienced with any other cartridge.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: +++++ " The problem is that I don't trust those who regarded them highly. " +++++
I wonder other than you in whom you trust because T.Cordesman was ( IMHO ) a real trusty reviewer that on those vintage times he and other reviewers were no0t " touched " yet by the AHEE " corruption ".
This gentleman as Gordon Holt or B.King or HP were the persons that started and promoted the real high-end. With out them and with out trusted in them you and me never could imagine the today plearure to enjoy MUSIC at so high level in our homes. Those guys used TT/tonearms/cartridges that today you are proudly to own in as the Denon DP-80 or Technics SP10s and used with even better tonearms you own today and with even better cartridges you own today.
So, your post has no real sense to me. In the other side trhough my experiences with vintage cartridges ( any ): MM/MI/LOMC/HOMC almost all of them showed and shows first rate quality performance by any standards.
Why speak on HOMC vintage cartridges?: first because we can run directly in the MM stage, second because we can find out at very nice price and third because performs a lot better that many today top cartridges for a fraction of $$$$$.
++++++ " I regard it as unlikely that either of these two is transcendent. " ++++++
with all respect and knowing who you are that statement has no sense because you have not today first hand experiences with those cartridges. Make sense to you your statement?
You are dimishing " something " unknow for you.
Anyway, the subject is that I share my experiences in this thread when I found out " something " that's worth to test it.
Certainly it's your privilege to think whatever you want.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Timeltel: I think I will hire you as my " poet/writer " at home. Very good post.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dgarretson: Yes, give it a try. The Alchemist as the DTi are low impedance/inductance so 100k is just fine. Of course that 47k is what the orthodox rules said it but this is what said it for the MM too and in practice 100k normally works great.
There is almost nothing " writed " in audio, we have to test it especially with vintage cartridges because the today audio systems are way different than 30-40 years ago.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Jbthree: With the Goldring happened something like with the B&O first rate MMC cartridges: almost none were " interested " and unfortunatelly they are loosing a great audio experience.
Other that its top quality performance the Goldring it's not only easy available but perhaps the less unexpensive gem today.
As you I recomend it high.
Btw, don't give up we appreciated your contributions here.
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Fleib and friends: I found out this interesting cartridge comparison made it by M.Colloms in the 80's. I own, owned or heard all those cartridges but the Kiadea and VDH ( click on the DOWNLOAD . ):
http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=23658
We can note here that the Talisman Alchemist IIIS was choosed in the top preference group ( MC said that adding capacitance flattened the response. My Talisman sample works just wonderful with its today set up showing no " light " sound: a winner. ) and our touted AT 160 appears " only " in the third prefered group.
Of course that that comparison is an old one with an old audio system and if I agree that the Talisman performs a little better than the AT I disagree that the AT was down other cartridges that certainly are not up to the AT quality performance.
Btw, the AT was the top cartridges at measurements this is the AT/Signet mark with all its designs.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: Last weekend I had the opportunity to listen one of the latest speaker technology quality performance.
A friend of mine call me to meet him to help to make the set up of his new speakers inside his new ( second room/system. ) listening room. He don't told me more so I gone to his place with no precise expectation.
He bought a pair of Raidho C 1.1 bookshelf monitors, small ones.
These are very expensive monitors, around 18K including its dedicated stands.
The speakers are designed and manufacturer in Denmark and are beautiful made at the " eyes " and " hands " when touched.
I was not prepared for what I heard. The speakers were runned around 60 hours before my listening.
Well, small as the C 1.1 are the sound is everything but small, you can't say that the sound is coming for that " tiny " monitor: big sound.
That was the first characteristic in the speaker and the second one is the very low distortion of its flat tweeter that " refuse " to sonds bright or with false spark distorted high frequencies ( the two way design crossover at 3khz. ) very common in high end top speakers.
We made it the set up trhough digital software and the speakers are surrounded by Levinson electronics.
In some ways I was impressed by the Magico " small " monitors but these Raidho ( inside its frequency range, the Magico goes deeper in the bass. ) are way better with less coloration and lower distortions especially the frequency range handled by the Raidho tweeter.
No, the C 1.1 can't " resolve " nothing down from around 45hz that's why my friend bought too two Rel subwoofers but even with out the subs ( this was how we made the C 1.1 set up. ) when I play the CD The Wall side-1 3-4-5 tracks the performance was and is just great and unexpected.
At the end of our set up session ( 5-6 hours. ) we started to integrate the subs but we really can't finish it.
Do you think that your are in the " glory " with your today set up? just listen to those Raidho C 1.1 , could be a special experience and a learning one.
http://www.raidho.dk/SEEEMS.asp?id=1141
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Harold-not-the-barrel: +++++ " It has always been dull and compressed and lacks the dynamics that music in real life is. " +++++
well, analog neither has " the dynamics that music in real life is ".
Today 32/192 or 32/384 lates DACs digital technology inside any decent digital player outperforms analog LP.
That we like more the distortions/colorations and non-accurate analog sound does not means latest digital experience is wrong as you said: " just pseudo science and still the biggest lie in audio. "
You can read sveral posts in this thread and other where I and other persons explain why what you posted is a misunderstood for say the least.
In the other side I don't read in your post any single/reason/foundation that support your statements. Could you elaborate on that?
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: I think that the rightness on the music reproduction in the FR MCX-5 is that the cartridge not only gives you " more " information but more important is the way that music information is reproduced, that sonority I talked about.
The MCX-5 does something in superlative way that I can't remember in any other cartridge at the MCX-5 level of quality and that " something is: the precise " weight " on the instrument music reproduction and more important the precise weight on each note inside that music instrument. You can detect it in the reproduction of an acoustic guitar or a violin or piano or any other instrument or even blend of instruments because the cartridge has a very high abilitie to separate " sounds " as no other cartridge I heard.
Is that precise and defined weight what gives the cartridge quality performance its rightness and sonority telling you that you are hearing the " real thing ".
Both characteristics are in intimate relationship: weight and sonority, that gives a " tremendous " ryhtmum to what we are listening. What you heard trhough the FR MCX-5, even if it's not your prefered kind of music, moves you inmediatly and makes to forget about the audio hardware and makes that your whole body be enjoying the music emotions deeply.
I know that many of us already had experiences like that but IMHO never at this level of greatness.
As more I listen through this cartridge as more I'm aware of those analog reproduction last boundaries I'm looking for.
Btw, talking of weight the FR MCX-5 weight is: 6.2 grs. and as I said with a humble looking.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Fleib: You was right when posted that with the Monster Alpha Genesis 1000 any action to " improve " it trhough changes in cantilever/stilus was not an improvement but the other way around.
The cartridge very high quality performance level belongs to its original design that change for the bad with a re-tipping.
We are in the last self design tonearm refinements and I have mounted two last prototypes and last week I mounted, fine tunned and tested again the Genesis 1000 and my first words were: WOW WOW WOW !!!!
Was so high that " expression " that I gave a call to my friend that own a ZYX Universe ( same designer for the Genesis 1000 and the ZYX Universe. ) he bought this year and yesterday we mounted the Universe for a " fast comparison " ( 6 hours. ). Both cartridges mounted in similar tonearms, everything the same.
It's not surprising that cartridges sounds more alike than different with some trade-offs on each side and if I have to choose in between probably I will go for the Genesis 1000 for its " better " tonal balance.
The distortion levels in both cartridges are really low and the sound reflect that with a dynamic level that almost no one MM/MI I heard can compete ( maybe the Astatic 2500 ).
If any one of you can put the hands on the Genesis 1000 in original status please do it, is very good experience and IMHO an additional confirmation of what J.Carr years ago posted here when he said LOMC has lower distoritons than MM/MI designs. In those times my take was the other way around, maybe for the excitement of the new ( for me ) discovery of the MM/MI alternative but today with more calm and more overall experience I can say that LOMC still has the node with out diminish the MM/MI alternative.
Regards and enjoy the music, R |
Dear Ecir38: Maybe you are right maybe not, let me give you my comments about:
when we were talking on the naked TT subject we just never mentioned nothing about measurements because even today does not exist. In those times Lewm had the opportunity to do it and that's why I said that if he did not experienced can't give an opinion: no aviability of measurements in between and if I remember the disagreement there was because the stand alone tonearm base where ( again ) no single measures exist.
About the THD amplifier figures Lewm was talking of old japanese items with " fenomenal " specs that where not reflected as good quality performance and I agree: SS on those times were almost " terrible " but that changed overtime for the better.
I respect your opinion but I think there is no real controversy for my self down there, at least I can't see it.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear harold-not-the-barrel: About the Ultra 500 you posted:
++++ " The best Shure Bros. ever did. " +++++
I heard it several years ago. Maybe you can tell me how the Ultra compares against the 140 HE that I own. I understand that both share the same cantilever/stylus assembly: is it a difference in design on both cartridges other than its cartridge body? because share it similar specs. Years/months? ago Timeltel posted on specs but I can't remember if he mentioned about design differences.
The 140 HE is very good performer and for what you posted the Ultra/Jico " even better " ?.
The question is for everyone with that experiences in those cartridges. Tahnk's.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Harold-not-the-barrel: I really appreciate your wide Shure top cartridges explanation.
Certainly you are " married " with the ULTRA 500 and I think for good reasons. I will try to test the 500.
Now, the ML HE140 was a cartridge that never had the Shure promotion as the V or the 500 and in reality only a " few " owners really appreciated. As you I can't compare it against the 500 but IMHO the 140 performs better than the VMR.
You posted: ++++ " cart´s mass of 9.3 g, all other models are much lighter. This heavy mass adds stiffness and controls vibrations very well .... " +++++
maybe this cartridge body characteristic is the " culprit " for better quality performance. We have to remember that in a cartridge our enemy are: unwanted resonances and vibrations and the cartridge body build material and dampening construction is critical on its quality performance level.
Seems to me that right now only Acman could help about because he owns the 140 and the 500, we will wait for his experiences about.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: I'm following testing MM/MILOMC cartridges in my new set up ( as Fleib named, he is right it's a new set up. ) and till now all the cartridges quality performance improved a not for a short margin.
Trhough this set up tests the MM/MI cartridges are nearer to the LOMC cartridges, seems to me that now the analog system is handling in better way the resonances/vibrations and accuracy that means in many ways lower distortions, the MM/MI quality performance today especially in the bass management is way better with less overhang more precision and with the natural tightness, grip and power that gives the right foundation to the LP music reproduction.
Yes, I'm exited because of that that IMHO is a new discover, I think I'm discovering the " real " quality performance level of each cartridge.
The turn was/is for the Wilson Benesh that I reported is a good cartridge but today I can say for sure that's not good but excellent one.
The other cartridge I'm testing is my long away LOMC cartridge reference Ortofon MC2000 and it's an overwhelming experience as ever where you don't want to sleep but to enjoy 24 hours this kind of quality MUSIC sound reproduction. As with the MM/MI ones the major improvement is in the bass management that before this new set up could be ( if any ) its weak side, today all the bass frequency range is a real reference and this characteristic makes that all the frequency range improved.
Not easy to explain all these experiences I'm experienced because are " new " for me and I could think that for every one so even that I have to use the same words that in the past those words/adjectives have a completely new meaning.
Btw, with this level of quality performance the " perfect " VTA/SRA cartridge set up is more " difficult " to find out because the range of position where the cartridges sounds best is wider and now I appreciated the testing proccess I have for years and that now I'm refine it because I need to do it.
I will follow testing MM/MI/LOMC/HOMC cartridges. I want to hear the Technics EPC 100MK4 and the JVC " Holly grail " and the FR MCX-5 as the Astatic MC 2500. Well I want to test every single cartridge I reported in the thread. Yes, I need a lot of time for I can do it. We will see.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: AT 150ANV AT 150ANV AT 150ANV !!!!!!!
whom said that today cartridge MM/MI designs are not as good or better than the vintage ones?
between other persons I think I did it.
A few months ago I bought this latest Audio technica MM/MI top of the line design and I like it what I heard through my brief listening time. Certainly I did not gave enough time to have a more precise opinion on it but that already happened in the last 10 days.
I tested again in my new set up and compare it against other top AT/Signet vinatge cartridges: AT 20SS, 180 OCC, 160/155, Precept 440/LC, TK10MLMK2 and MF-2500.
No one disappoint me but today the AT 150ANV seats appart even you can't say is an AT/Signet cartridge and for good reasons: cartridge body build material, cantilever build material and some especial motor characteristics.
The AT 150ANV performs nearer to today top LOMC cartridges with the lower colorations I know from any MM/MI I experienced, especially in the kind of bass management. This is a welcomed characteristic because permit that all other frequency range shine with applomb/true, perfect tonal balance, precision, rythmum and that elusive natural agresiveness and power/dynamics that only the live music has.
From those bunch of cartridges only the Astatic ( 440LC/TK10MLMK2 a step behind. ) shares some AT150ANV characteristics but can't even it.
The AT150ANV is not as good tracker as the 20SS or the MF-2500 or the Precept but a decent tracker.
One unique characteristic is that the different reproduced sounds coming from different instruments or group of instruments and from different positions/place/layers in the audio system stage has not only clear and precise definition but an astonishing palpability as if you were " there ". The kind of level of this experience is shared but no other cartridge I heard.
Other welcomed characteristics is the almost unexistent noise floor due that the usual cliks/pops and the like are reproduced at very low level against other cartridges.
There is no frequency range that call your attention over others but only the MUSIC enjoyment only the easy flows of MUSIC when everything is just " right " when you don't want anything else but following the enjoyment. This happens with any kind of music and at any SPL.
Listening throught this AT 150ANV you could think that distortions already evaporated/gone.
It's clear to me that with this kind of cartridge design the audio system quality performance level is limited only by the audio system owns/self limitations not because the AT 150ANV. So, as better nthe audio system as greatest the MUSIC enjoyment.
If you are not " impressed " with your 150ANV then maybe is time to " change "/rethink your audio system.
If you can do it a favor: buying it.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Sarcher30: So, now you own not two but three 150ANV, I understand very clear why you did it.
Yes, seems to me that if we own the AT 150ANV we will need " nothing " in the future and we could " die " happy with.
+++++ " is the clearest sounding cart I have heard. To my ears it is less colored than most MC's or MM's I've heard. " ++++
with different words but your experiences with the cartridge are similar of mine. I talked of low very low distortions ( even to the level of " disappeared ". ) .
The SS rebuilded: more 3 dimensional?. Well, the original 0ne impressed me because that palpable characteristic level it has so: something better than that could be an exponential " orgasm " ( if this exist. ) !.
I really appreciated you shared those great experiences with this top top cartridge winner. IMHO a Reference for say the least.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: One of those cartridges that I have to test was the Linn Akiva and I started past weekend. I'm astonished with its quality performance level.
I bought it in mint condition and the owner told me that it came from the latest ( the last because now is superseded by the Kandid one. ) production ( 2010-2011?? ). The Akiva was the top of the Linn line.
As Lyra and Audioquest cartridges Linn is manufactured by Scan-Tech under Linn specs/design ( btw, the today Linn MM designs comes from AT. ), so I was waiting to hear some resemblance in the sound with Lyra/Audioquest but the Akiva performs different. Obviously that the Akiva was ( I assume. ) voiced with an overall LINN rig and that's why its differences.
Here you can read the Akiva specs:
http://overture-audio.com/product_lines/linn/html/akiva.html
If I have to characterize the Akiva performance I can say that has a wide DYNAMIC/POWERFUL/BALANCED/ and great rythm with a broaden out soundstage.
It refused to sound bright under any SPL and with any kind of music.
It has a fore front presentation ( as live music. ) with very good layering. Powerful, tight, defined and no overhang in the bass range with a grip that almost any other cartridge could envy.
I'm running it at 1.75 grs. with positive VTA/SRA. The Akiva performs very well after 1/2 an hour of playback.
I have to destroy a Stanton cartridge because I need its cartridge pin connectors for I can connect to my system. The Akiva has dedicated headshell wires/connectors ( female ) and my tonearm comes with female connectors too: so I have to solder to the cartridge male pin connectors instead of the original females.
Been a LOMC cartridge the Akiva surprised because is the first cartridge ( MM/MI/LOMC/HOMC. ) that not only reproduced the 16 cannon shots in the Telarc 1812 but is the one that can reproduce with out any mistraking hint the last cannon shot at the very inner grooves.
As a fact, this is the very first time I can heard in all its glorious that last cannon shot. Other top trackers as the Ortofon MC 2000, Satin, Sumiko ( HOMC. ), 20SS, Astatic's and the like can't play with the Akiva applomb and quality performance: all of them ( even that are very good trackers. ) mistrack down there in a tiny way while the Akiva made it in " perfect " shape!!!
The tracking cartridge abilities makes the Akiva a world reference cartridge and ( yes ) my new standard.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Hntb: The Akiva top/great tracking abilities was a welcomed unexpected event, especially because in some ways is a " brother " of Lyra and Audioquest designs that I own and heard several times and none shares the Akiva abilities.
Now, for the Akiva overall is an unexpected performer. I never imagine its quality performance level, especially ( again ) coming from Scan-tech as Lyra/Audioquest and other cartridges I know very well.
Why outperforms other Scan-tech builded cartridges?, I don't know for sure but I can speculate that could be because the kind of cartridge voicing by Linn. What I mean with?: well, between other analog rigs is for sure that that voicing happened with own Linn audio items: LP12/Ekos and the like that for me ( with all respect to Linn and Linn owners ) are not the best items out there and not ease that a cartridge can shines on it: so the cartridge has to be extremely good to shines in Linn rigs. In the other side I read it ( by a UK Linn dealer. ) that the Akiva was mainly designed with Linn analog rig on mind.
So, when the Akiva shines in Linn system is just superlative in systems that beats the Linn analog rig. As I said that is only a wide speculation.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: About the AT 150ANV the answer is yes, I already posted:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&11025&4#11025
I can't say the same on the Ortofon 2M Black because I never tested in my system.
Something that " worried " me about the 150ANV is why with similar compliance than other AT vintage cartridges can't even other AT cartridges tracking abilities. I'm still using it looking that with more playback hours ( 200-300 ) its suspension can be more compliant and can improve its today tracking abilities. We will see.
Even that the 150ANV is not a champ on that regards its overall design is so good that its quality perrformance level put it in a different " league ".
No, it can't match ( which can????? ) my Linn Akiva sample but is really good.
Btw, I owned the RSA-1 and maybe I never gave a really good opportunity to shows it. Yes, is a surprise that match so good with the 7500, very good Ortofon performer.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Jmowbray: Even that the TK10ML is a very good cartridge the 100C is different and very especial and I think that deserve a better treatment.
What mean I with better treatment?: there are only a few souces of cantilever/stylus around the world ( maybe 4-5. ) where their main customers are tne cartridge manufacturers and are these ones whom have " preference ", preference with stylus and cantilever builded and choosed because stylus is better polished or the cantilevers in especial whole dimensions and even catilever that comes with blended ( coated material. ) materials.
The best of the source items goes to the cartridge manufacturers ( something as " hand selected ". ) and for the retippers goes " 2o. class " or even a totally " different " stylus/cantilever items.
VdH gives you that kind of advantage over rettipers. If Lyra or other cartridge manufacturer could take for retip any cartridge ( as VdH ) the fixed cartridge will take that " great " advantage that we can't have it with retippers.
That's why I always recomend that with today top cartridges the best way to do it is to fix it trough the original cartridge manufacturer and not with a retipper.
I know that as your Signet the 100C is not a today design but a vintage one but IMHO it deserve the same today cartridge treatment.
Of course is only an opinion and yes I believe you are really satisfied with the SS works.
Regards and enjoy the music , R. |
Dear Harold-not-the-barrel: I just kind find out my AR-77/SAS and now I'm " serious " worried because is really weird.
Looking for the 77 I found out the Entré EC-1 LOMC cartridge and this was and is a very good finding because its quality performanc level put it in the top competing with other top challengers.
The Entré cartridge shares some of the characteristics that I like it so much in the FR MCX-5 and the quality performance " coincidence " is not really a coincidence because Entré was the today My Sonic Labs whom was the responsible for the FR design.
This Entré EC1 is not hard to find out on ebay and any one of you can have it for very low price. It's humble looking does not say its very good quality performance level.
Oh yes!, outperforms several of our beloved MM/MI gems. Recomended.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: I can read that many of you are motivated enough for the JVC X1 cartridge.
lLewm posted that I never talk about but I did it years ago on this forum and what I posted was:
" I bought a JVC TT/tonearm that came with a JVC cartridge already mounted. When arrived and to my surprise that cartridge was/is the X! top of the line that sounds really good and that I was looking for for years and never get it. Was a surprise because cartridge when mounted we can read its model because it's in the cartridge top plate. Well, in those times I found out in Europe the last and only one in the world NOS MK2 stylus that Nandric made me the favor to bought it for me and this is the version I have.
The Z1 that I own too is really a very low level cartridge it does not matters that in theory both has same cartridge motor. Difference is night and day on quality performance. Same with the SAS stylus that I have.
Normally top/premium manufacturer cartridges ( same other model motors ) are truly different because its quality construction/materials and very tight tolerances even the stylus is different in quality because are hand selectd as the whole cartridg is, stylus is better polished than the other models.
My X1-MK2 is a serious challenge even to the Astatic 2500.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Halcro: Yours is not the XI.MK2 but the IIE that was not the latest version and top of the line . Different models for sure.
Maybe you could fine another NOS MK2 like mine but I try very hard to find out another sample with out luck. Try it and if you are lucky a get one you will see and heard the differences on both models.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Fleib: Problem with vintage and even today cartridges is something that I think you posted: there is no two exactly the same.
Through the years in this thread I posted many times the differences on two same model samples in my system.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |