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 @invictus005: There are better quality performer cartridges than the ATML 170/180. These are really good but IMHO not at the very top .

Regards and enjoy the Music Not Distortions,
R.
Dear @lewm : I think there is a mix-up down the Clearaudio cartridges.

In those time I " fall in love " with the Virtuoso black wood body that was and is manufactured by Audio Technica.

Today is it a good performer?, yes it's a good one but several vintage MM cartridges and LOMC ones are very good too inside that " context " you are talking about.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear @chakster : As @lewm pointed out all depends on the " context " we listen and in that context is critical the real validity that has each one of us test comparison process.

I had at the same time the CS, 981LZ, 981HZ and the best quality performer cartridge was and is the 981HZ with the Pickering latest stereohedron stylus ( in theory the same as in the 981 top ones. ). I sold the CS100, it's not at top level and not only that Stanton is superior but other cartridges too.
I think that it's more the " glamour " that surrounded in its time on the CS100 that its real quality level performance.

As always and for you the important subject is your ownn opinion. Don't you think?


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
That's not the issue but which one has better quality performance levels and this is the JVC one.

R.
Dear @jessica_severin: Even that in the thread was discussed in a wide way seems to me that today gentlemans like chaster enthusiast still has a misunderstood on the X1MK2.

The top of the line and the best quality performer certainly is not the Victor model but the one with the JVC denomination  that comes in the cartridge top plateBoth cartridges, JVC/Victor made it by JVC and the one to look for is the: JVC X1MK2 that due that you are in Japan sooner or latter maybe you can put your hands on.


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear chakster: " This is just my opinion. "

Problem with your opinion is that you can’t attest ( first hand ) on the quality level performance of the Victor against the JVC because you did not test both in your system as I did it.

Btw, I tested too the Z1 with JICO SAS and certainly is not in the same league.

Anyway, good history information.

regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear chakster: If I remember ( too many years. ) David posted somewhere the differences in specs on those models. Maybe you can check with what you have for a coincidence ( he found out differences when you stated are the same. ) but at the end what’s important is to make tests in between.

Btw, jessica@severin: griffithds posted on those times talking on the same subject:

" They are btw all mounted on magnesium head shells and I have no intentions of un-mounting them only to see whether they are labeled JVC or Victor. "" and he never attested it. Was there where he said that were differences in those cartridge performance. He posted these after what you read it.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear @lewm : Good point. I don't have any more the 981LZS sample but for me the adding gain stage needs for the LZS makes a difference against the HZS and that's all.

I own the 981HZS that I use with the original Pickering stylus ( same as the 981. ) and this one is better quality performer than either: the LZS and the HZS with Stanton stylus. Is something to listen and to have/own.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear @chakster :  The JVC I speak is the one labeled X-1 at the top cartridge plate, the model is: JVC X-1 MK2 and is different on what you are attesting. The side labeled is different.

X1 JVC model is the top in the JVC series where the X2 is one step down and not as what @jessica_severin posted.

In your information the X1 has lower output and this means lower inductance too that's always better for a better quality performance level.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.







Dear @chakster :  Yeras ago I explain it in wide way and I don't have the time to get back again.

The JVC X-1 MK2  is different and at the front of the stylus holder statest is for 4-channels, even the stylus holder is different and larger than the normal one.

You don't own the JVC X-1 MK2, sorry.

Enough.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear @jls001: First than all and before you try to make the fine tunning that great MF200 needs at least 30-40 hours for the carrtridge sette down and from here use 100k-100pf and start to play with tiny changes in SRA/VTF and when be near of what you want then make tiny changes only in capacitance.

That cartridge is a reference level one. Congratulations.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.


Dear @fourwnds : There are several MM/MI good alternatives going from B&O to Acutex, Astatic, Empire, Van den Hul, Sumiko, etc, etc

Regards and enjioy tyhe MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.



Dear @steverino @jessica_severin: Audio Technica was a not so small corporation where Signet was one of its independent divisions.

Over the years AT was developed new MM/LOMC cartridges, tonearms, microphones, headphones, analog and digital acccesories and many other audio items inclusive TT, LP records, analog test items, etc., etc.designs.

For many years nothing can touched the 20SS ( in the MM " land ". ) and even today very hard to beat.
A new generation of MM cartridges appeared when appeared  the OCC ( magical wire " and then the AT ML180 with different stylus shape to the Shibata 20SS.

As @chakster  I was secure that the 180 was the best of the best in AT history ( I had the same enthusiasm have chakster but over time things " change " and I understand everything in better way with a better audio system quality performance levels. )  but from some time now ceratinly it's not that way not only that it can't outperform the 20SS ( it's almost at the same level. ) and the problem with the 170/180 ML is that ceramic top plate in the cartridge body that unfortunatelly is way resonant. I respect the chakster opinion but I'm in disagreement in this specific regards.

In it's never end research for better cartridge performers AT arrived to the AT24/25 ( 24 a stand alone version and the 25 with integrated headshell. ) that is a cartridge to own and to listen it.

The AT 24 comes with a totally different cartridge body as what was been " normal " for AT but not only that but the cantilever/stylus assembly was made it in metal and screwed in the cartridge body where this alone characteristics was a real huge improvement for quality cartridge performance over the normal cartridge cantilever/stylus plastic assemblies everywhere.

The Signet division started to make the same with those models all of you name it and where the real " deal " is the TK10ML MK2, this one and the AT  24 has very similar designs.

It's a good cartridge the TK7Lc? yes it's but exist the 9 and the 10 and the 10MK2 that are superior designs and as I said the AT 24.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear @harold-not-the-barrel  @chakster : The AT 20SS is almost the same AT20SLa, difference is that the 20SS is hand selected and its quality level performance is a better one. Btw, in AT line dos not exist that super shibata stylus but just Shibata. 

"""  For Audio-Technica engineers this is ANTI-RESONANCE CERAMIC BASE !  """

Years ago I was totally convinced that ceramic was a great material for cartridges, tonearms and headshells . As a fact I mounted my 20SS in the SAEC ceramic headshell and I was really exited by this combination till over the time I learned was not in that way. I mounted too the 170/180 in that ceramic headshells thinking will be a good match but it was not.

Maybe you can remember that Graham puts its money on ceramic material for its arm wands and disappeared  in a short time. ceramic is " attractive " as material but nothing more than that.
The only cartridge I know where ceramic makes almost no harm to the audio signal is the Ortofon designs where all cartridge body came from ceramic in a very special body shape that contributes to leave the resonances almost out of the " equation ". Unfortunatelly that does not happens with the 170/180.

In the other side @timeltel : In those old times Audio Technica had 5 big facilities out side Japan: one in USA, two in Germany ( Dusseldorf/Frankfurt ), one in England and one in México.

In all its facilites the name was: Audio Technica and in the case of USA was inside those AT facilities where was the Signet Division and Precept but all cartridges were made in Japan.

In those out side Japan facilities AT manufactured very specific products of is very wide catalogue. Example here in México ( that was the only country/place where the name was not AT but: Autec Mexico. ) they started to manufacturer microphones where the 95% of the production was for export and same way of work in the other countries with its different builded products.

Even in USA they ( in different times. ) where installed in two different places: Fairlawn AND sTOW IN oHIO.

Why I'm so sure about, well and I think that in this thread ( I can't remember where. ) I posted that here in México ( the only facility where happened. ) Audio Technica started its business/production not alone but in a join venture with a partner Mr. Guajardo that by huge coincidence I knew for other matters and one time I want it to say Hola! was when he told me his new enterprise joining AT and was Mr. Guajardo the gentleman that gave me the whole support to have access to all AT/Signet/Telarc catalogue.
I was in contact with him for at least one time each week for years, was in those AT facilities where I knew top Japanese Directors that came time to time to suvervise the business/production.

I really had the opportunity to know AT because of that because in those times no single AT cartridge was on sale in México and not only from AT but for other manufacturers.

Btw, TK9 uses berylium cantilever where the TK10 came with Boron and MK2 with the " new " AT Micro-Line stylus shape against the LC one.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.


Dear @chakster : Yes, I know very well the information in that link, as a fact the very first time here in Agon was me whom posted.

Now, I respect KA opinion ( who pass on. ) but it was only that and his system and priorities way different from mines. That information was many years ago and today almost all of us have better audio systems.

On the AT/Signet subject even in something so " simple " as can be the small cartridge operation manual it was  printed in Japan and you can read it at the Signet manuals.

Anyway, impórtant issue is not the " history " but that all of we discovery all those gems and we are still enjoying !

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC  NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear @harold-not-the-barrel : I tested my 170/180 cartridges with several headshell types and where I found out the best performance in my system was with the Audio Technica MS-10 that is a magnesium one with damping rubber in the top plate.

@chakster , in those times some one in AT was in love with ceramic that was the material they used in a pretty all ceramic TT mat, even they made it for Audio Craft too.
Obviously I bougth the AT and was satisfied till I learned about.


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear @lewm : """ as the TK1Ea and TK3Ea used to have the regular stereo generator of the initial AT120 family models (780 Ohm/490 mH), while the TK5Ea, TK7Ea and TK7LCa used to sport a higher inductance variant with 800 Ohm/550 mH). """

this information comes from one of the VE gurus and is confirmed for and AA guru:

""" as the TK1Ea and TK3Ea used to have the regular stereo generator of the initial AT120 family models (780 Ohm/490 mH), while the TK5Ea, TK7Ea and TK7LCa used to sport a higher inductance variant with 550 mH).............................................................................................................................. The 350mH motor is the lowest inductance MM offered by AT. In the past the Signet TK9, 10 series and the AT22 through 25 were 85mH. I had a TK10ML II back in the day. It is an exceptional cart, but as you might imagine could be a nightmare mated with an old phono section stuck at 47K/225pF. """

""" The 7V was a modernized version of the Signet TK7LCa (Ea). """



and from the manual specs the 7v has 500 mH and is confirmed in this guru post in AC:


""" Unlike the Signet TK7LCa (550mH) the 7V is 500mH ... """



So, seems to me that that 50mH in that brochure could has a print " mistake ".

Other than the AT 24 series I don’t know any other MM with, not even in the AT line, inductance lower than 85 mH and this was achieved by Audio Technica. Btw, coil AC resistance in the 24 is 240 ohms.

Moving iron and moving flux cartridge designs normally comes with lower inductance than the MMs.
For example, the Astatic MF-200 has 90mH that's even lower than Glanz.
AKG 25 comes with 170 mH.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.


Dear @dlcockrum : Yes, I still think that the Empire 4000D/III is a great performer and now that you mentioned MicroAcoustics design are really good but people just did not take in count and this could be a " mistake " for audiophiles because other that the model you own the 630 is a must to listen.

Seems to me that today almost all people are around the JVC cartridges when still exist many " gems " that was discussed in this thread as: MicroAcoustics 630, B&O MMC 1/2, Azden P50 ( Nippon Azden was the builder of Acutex cartridges. ) , Acutex flat nose and many more. All these cartridges outperform the Signet TK7LC as it does the TK10MK2.

Anyway, good to see that you like the Empire. Btw, Nippon Azden builded cartridges for Empire too. ). I don't know how many of you own the Azden 50 and if already gave it a good opportunity to shows at its best. Maybe , time to test it again.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear @lewm : Where do you leave the AT achivement in its great MM AT 24 with 85mH?

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear @fsellet: I think that what other people try to say it’s not that the Grace are not worth seeking but that there are other better options. As a fact is very dificult to fine out vintage or today cartridges that really can sound bad.

Agree with you, Grace carttridges are very good performers.

Now, the 9L is different in its output level that instead to be 3.5mv is 5.5 mv, that’s why the difference in the measures.

100k is the best way to load the F9 and that hf rising is welcomed because when the audio signal pass trhough the pho0no stage inverse RIAA eq the high frequencies goes down around 18-20 db to the infinite and this means that the eq. does not stops at 20khz but in theory goes over the RIAA eq. curve and this very high equalization makes that the high frequencies lost the airy and transparency and definition that in some ways it will be recovored by the high rising the 100k load shows at that chart. So, it’s not something wrong but as I said: welcomed.

As a fact and for that same reason non flat cartridges but with hf rising over 20khz always ( every thing the same. ) sounds better and nothing wrong with that but an advantage.

Many years ago Ortofon made several tests with their " golden ears " groups of audiophiles/musician and non-audiophiles gentlemans looking for the best frequency response in their cartridges and its conclusion was that over several of those controled tests all those gentlemans prefers the 3.5db hf rising in Ortofon models that the same cartridges with flat response. Till then that’s the way Ortofon designed and design its cartridges.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.


Dear @fsellet: """   Besides, the curve which appears on the manual is RIAA equalized and still rises in the upper frequencies... """


that's exactly why that rising in the hf are welcomed.

When the inverse RIAA is applicated the eq. goes down/fall to infinite in those hf and this makes that hf and harmonics can't shows it at its best because that eq. The raising in hf is a good thing for any audiophile with a decent audio room/system.

Anyway, good luck with your Grace's.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear @chakster : I don't think the Ruby is overpriced against that Grace aluminum cantilever used in the other models.

In the other side we have to think that in all those time diamond/ruby/saphire cantilever materials was almost " exclusive for the very top models that came with a high tag on it.

@lewm , the SS Ruby work in the Grace means is a different cartridge design because the compliance on the SS is not exactly the same as in the original Ruby, the SS comes with new suspension/dampers, the ruby cantilever overall dimensions are not exactly as in the original and the SS comes with different stylus tip. So, from the point of view of cartridge design both are way different cartridges and can't performs the same.

Regards and enjoy the Music NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear @chakster  @fsellet: Today conical stylus tip and aluminum in cantilevers is only an anachronism.

Conical stylus shape is a way inferior to latest years line contact type stylus shapes. probably the only advantage on conical shape is that's less sensitive to SRA/VTA changes or other changes in the cartridge set up.

Conical was the standard in the old times but that does not means is rigth. Things are that in those times line contact shapes was not appeared yet.

Denon 103 was the cartridge that I think gave more popularity to the conical shape but we have to think that that Denon design was  builded for broadcasting use not for audiophiles, even that some designers followed with out good reasons.

Same with aluminum, today nothing justify the use of aluminum cantilever but only to have lower price tag.

I know that some designers swears for conical and aluminum and for me is only because their ignorance levels on what are the cartridge needs and the why's of.

The Ortofon SPU design is a design for the japanese market ( mainly ) where audiophiles have a very special and different idiosyncracy than many of us. Way of thinking very different.


Dear @lewm : Any good cartridge design will performs good, as I said for vintage ( but valid too for any today design. ) cartridges: is really dificult to find out one that sounds bad.

It's not weird for me that even today exist cartridge designs with conical stylus shape or aluminum cantilevers designed because they want a low price tag or because ignorance level of designers.
What is weird for me is that exist " stupid " persons that today bougth it, obviously by ignorance so maybe not so stupid but very high ignorance levels.

Now, what is true is that those vintage MM cartridges was and even today very good overall designs where some of those cartridges can compete with today LOMC cartridges and this is an achievement.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear @harold-not-the-barrel : You are safe at 1.5gr. where almost all F14 works. Only the F14BR ask for 1.3grs as ideal but even this one we can use 1.5grs. because is inside its VTF range. The other with different to ideal 1.5grs. is the F14-M-SP that works at 2.0 grs.

Now, the optimum VTF will be defined by you and your room/audio system but will stay around 1.5grs.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear @fsellet: ""  There is much misinformation in this thread.."""

Could be, I can't detect it yet.  You posted that enjoyed reading the thread, I wonder why if is " much misinformation " here.

If in reality exist that misinformation level that can be normal because in the thread is reflected each one of us ignorance levels.

Now, even if it's true what you posted here I'm sure that every single post by each one gentleman that posted in the thread posted information to help all of us and thinking he had a good information and not misinformation. I think no one wants to " hit " here with misinformation.

As I told you, if you have other internet forums where we can learn about all those misinformation please share with us because we want  to be less and less ignorant in many audio subjects.
I know some other net forums where Agon is the reference, maybe it's not according to you.

Btw, I think that even if you do not give us the links of other " correct " forums will be apprecaited that you be specific by subjects where you found out all that " much misinformation ".

Is time to learn and leave ignorance behind us.

Will wait for it.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear @indieroehre  and friends : With any doubt a high lost for we analogphiles, he re-tipped several of my cartridges MM/MI/LOMC samples.
Rest in peace.

Sincerely,
R.
Dear @chakster : I owned a beauty item by Luxman and was the C 5000A. Champaigne color with wood top/below/sides wood, just a beautiful audio item.

Things are that the " baby " came with both SUT's: 8020 and 8030 that were connected at the rear plate and very easy to change it depending of the gain we need it.
For what I remember was very good phonolinepreamp that unfortunatelly gone  several years ago.

I can't say how it compares as a SUT against the Cotter MK2 one and is no surprise to me that " the guy " said is better than Cotter. Btw, Cotter SUT has more fame that true, is a good SUT ( almost all are. ) but nothing outstanding.

Here you can see the C 5000A:

http://audio-database.com/LUXMANALPINE-LUXMAN/amp/c-5000a-e.html

http://liquidaudio.com.au/luxman-c-5000a-preamplifier-repair-restoration/


@lewm , the MC 2000 quality level performance is a result of the whole Ortofon care at designed it and its excecution and of course that its very high compliance is reflected in its excellent tracking abilities to pick up almost all the recorded information.

Now, in those old times Ortofon as many other LOMC proponents manufacturers and with their top models almost always manufactured too ( at the same time. ) the SUT to match the cartridge gain with very low noise. That's the way how FR or Audio Technica or Dynavector or Koetsu or Audio Note did it.

In the case of Ortofon the matched SUT was a necessity due to the cartridge so low output level that with out the rigth SUT the noise levels gone to high . One of the first Ortofon SUT's was for the MC 30 cartridge and then followed for the one for the MC 2000 but other that its high gain and that's silver wired has nothing special. We have to remember that LOMC cartridges are non sensitive to impedance loads. Yes, the best way to go with these kind of LOMC cartridges is through a well designed active high gain phonolinepreamp.

I'm not saying that we can't admire the MC 2000 through a good SUT but we are " losting " something " down there.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.




Dear @lewm : Yes, that SUT was a necessity in those old times ( not today. ) to have decent phono stage noise levels.

The MC 2000 with the rigth active high gain phonolinepreamp is very hard to beat even for today Ortofon designs. Its very low output impedes that the cartridge been owned by higher audiophiles that's why in a short time Ortofon designed the MC 2000 MK2 with higher output level. I owned too and just does not compare to the 2000, hands down.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.


Dear @lewm : """  Axel's re-tip preserved the original sound of the MC2000? """, no re-tipper but the original manufacturer can leave in original shape a cartridge so special like the MC 2000.

I owned 3 MC 2000, two originals and one re-tipped by van den Hul and this one sounds different even that this manufacturer has premium parts where a re-tipper just have not access to it.

Regrads and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear @chakster : """  talking about refurbishg of this cartridge i assume retippers use different cantilever (probably boron?), because the original alluminum cantilever of the MC2000 looks very unique in its conical shape. """

As any one knows cartridge manufacturers almost always gives you a new cartridge sample in exchange for the cartridge damaged. That's why always is more expensive to fix the cartridge through the original manufacturer but with the advantage that the new cartridge sample has its latest up-dates.
Btw, the 20 cu in compliance is what Ortofon stated but through a cartridge review where they took measures the compliance is around 30 cu.

@lewm I think that even Ortofon can't make the " perfect " MC 2000 fix to its original status.  In the other side what they can do could be the refurbished work that they did it and offers on vintage Ortofon cartridges like the Rohman, Jubilee, MC 3000 and other models. You can contact Ortofon to find out if that's posible.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear @chakster : If you own the original Telarc 1812 and listen through the MC 2000 you will know not only its excellent tracking abilities but all the grooves information that pick-up and that you can't detect with some other cartridges.

Btw, the MC 2000 was one of the first cartridges builded with pure silver coils.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear @lewm : Just from the begining I attested that the MM is an alternative and not in place LOMC cartridge alternative. It does not substitute the MC's but it's a very good alternative.

Problem with alternatives evaluations and posts about those evaluations were made it by us audiophiles whom almost all are founded on what each gentleman likes  in his room/audio system and not on how the home audio experiences really SHOULD BE .

I already explain the " should be " concept in other threads and I don't want to repeat it here.

In the latest years I learned what that " should be " means  almost all still are sticked to that infamous " I like it " and has no idea on that " should be ". and I'm still learning about. This is self/personal excersice.

So today I speak in a lower manner of  differences in what other people listen and what I'm listening because we are talking of different things.

I'm sure that some audiophiles, sooner or latter, will learn about that " should be " and of course many audiophiles never can arrive there.

lewm, one out of question  condition to arrives to that " should be " is that the digital alternative outperforms the analog experience ( including R2R. ) in each one audio system. If this does not happens then we have to work on fine tunning the system to that digital direction, This has nothing to do even if we don't " like " the digital alternative, it's only part of a test evaluation that our system sounds as SHOULD BE.

Btw, that " should be " always will like us and will outperforms the today experience.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear @enginedr1960:  """  I had upgraded my digital front end to a point where it sounded better the my analog rig .After upgrading to a better TT ,tone arm , cartridge & phono pre I am getting closer to the quality of my digital front end. """

To understand by listening the superior digital alternative we have to have  a good digital rig and that the systemstay tunned to that digital rig instead to the analog imperfections.

Several analog lovers have not a first rate digital rig in their room system.

As I said, I explein it in deep several times through this forum in the last 2-3 years.
Even I posted that any one that really wants to experice by it self the superiority of the digital over analog technology whwat has to do is:

to own a first rate digital rig and day by day only listen to it with out LP sessions and do this by 3 moths in a row and then comeback to analog and compare it and please forgeret all what we learned on analog and all our biased opinions about because our brain is already conditioned to what we listen through LPs.

Digital is the only alternative that puts us nearer to the recording and is obvious the reasons why.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.


Dear @lewm and friends: """  I've never made much of an effort to maximize my digital experience. So, I am open-minded as to its ultimate potential,... """

That is the main and critical subject with analog lovers.  No real efforts in their own systems with the best digital.

With out true and real digital experiences by our self we have no facts to analize today digital vs analog.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear @enginedr1960: """  I know when my analog play back is sounding closer to my digital front end I am heading in the right direction . """

Yes, you are rigth because you really understand the why's about and other audiophiles just can't.

Lewm said is openmind to the digital potential but makes no single effort that confirm his " openmind ".

@chakster speaks on many things in his last post that only reflect he just does not understand the main subject. Where is the MUSIC.

Almost everyone is ready to post opinions against digital but with out a real and deep experiences in the continuous time with this format.

This analog forum is the rigth forum to speak about digital because it's, other than live music, the reference to fine tunning any audio system.
When digital is rigth in the listening system experiences then everrything is fine and obviously analog will shines better than ever.

Of course that exist " audiophiles " that never will learn about, just their brain can't understand.
This kind of scenario is the same when people just can't understand why tubes are not for audio or unipivots for analog. It's incredible that even today  and even that some subjects already were analized really in deep exist ignorants ( for say the least ). that still speaks of load impedance with LOMC cartridges when this kind of cartriodge is no sensitive to load impedance ! !. Such is life, stupidity is all over the world in the day by day.


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear @frogman : """ "there are no ’shoulds’ in life". Not every listener wants the same things from recorded sound... """

well not only in audio but in other different day by day " scenarios " many times we use " something " not in the rigth way the manufacturer recomend: this is the " should be ", but we used as we " understand " how to use it or as we like when this is possible but the " should be " always exist.

Each audiophile can have their own system targets . My target is to stay truer to the recording truer as the recording microphones pick up the MUSIC information and each time that I talk on that " should be " my opinion is based/founded on this target/premise.

You said: """ the expression and musicality of the musicians and this is the area that still separates analog and digital """. and coninue telling:

"" the often cited "warmth" in analog sound as compared to digital has more to do with the more accurate rendition of the human element (expression) than with frequency response related qualities and is the reason so many listeners react so positively to analog in spite of whatever technical "distortions" it may have compared to digital. """

The microphones takes that expression and musicallity that players gave it along its rythm.

Now, that " warmth " is something that almost does not exit in the real life and almost never by microphones that can’t pick up what does not exist.

I like to listen an audio system in a near field position because that’s the way things happen in real life and where the recording microphones were set up at the venue.

Microphones are not " seated " at 30-40 m. from the overall MUSIC source as the people that attends to a concert hall.

Live MUSIC has no " warmth ", not even an essemble. You can take the instrument you like and at 2m. just does not exist that characteristic. Even a violin at that distance sounds agressive and we can " feel " the friction of the bow with the violin chords but if we take a trumpet even a 3 m. it’s just extremely agressive and " overbrigth " for say the least. A piano is no exception.

I know several players and two orchestra Directors that accept they has an anormal lost of auditive sensitivity because to many hours and years listening to those so high SPL. some are almost " deaf ".

I have several first hand experiences learning/listening near field live music, including full symphonic orchestra. No warmth.

People like warmth in the analog experience because they are accustom to by all its audio life but that does not means are rigth because the true all are wrong including your player friends that prefers analog.

From where comes that analog warmth you like that does not exist at the same level in digital and that does not exist when the microphones tooks the information? 

You said that the digital " distortion " is the worst but with out explanation about as no explanation of your non-existent " warmth ". Well as a fact you said that the warmth comes from a more accurate ...... Let me tell you something: between digital and analog and everything the same the more non-accurate and for a wide margin is analog.

We all belongs to the AHEE and trained by its corrupted leaders and since we strated in audio we were and still are FOLLOWERS that’s the " easy " road.


A few years ago when I began to think " out of the box/out of the AHEE " was really when I discovery first that several MUSIC/AUDIO subjects I learned were totally wrong and second was when I really understand where MUSIC belongs in my room/audio system and since then working to stay truer to the recording. I’m not today a follower, enough is enough on that AHEE.

As you I’m a MUSIC lover and own thousands of LPs but I recognize the digital superior system source.


Regrads and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

@chakster I understand your " romanticism " but I’m not talking of that but the MUSIC experience and what this really means .




Dear @harold-not-the-barrel : Sorry, I " missed " your post.

The 13 D is not a weaker sample in its body wood presentation and is a very good performer if mounted in a different headshell that the one dedicated that comes with the cartridge.

Other important subject you have to check before buy it is that the cartridge connector wires to the headshell be original. This is that these four wires came from inside the cartridge, something as the Linn cartridges. The 13D cartridge output comes through those wires and not through cartridge output pin connectors.
It's not an easy cartridge to performs at its best, you have to try different headshells and different tonearms. For me it's not an user friendly cartridge and took several hours to performs at its best. 

I never tested against the 17D.

Regrads and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear @frogman : """ One cannot have both the live music experience (as you claim to have) and recorded music as the ultimate reference. You assume that a recording is an accurate representation of the original event. """

Recorded music never is not even close to the " ultimate reference " against live music that’s the ultimate reference. I’m not comparing it in any way. All what I post or posted in this and other forums is about audio home system experiences.

"" suggesting that it should apply to all listeners and you invalidate (ridicule) others’ system goals. """

I think a misunderstood by your part ( please re-read the begining of your last post. ) because I always states and stated which is my main target: stay truer to the recording. I don’t invalidate other listeners targets in any way.

In the other side because I was speaking of the home listening experiences I took that warmth in the audiophile home system terms/scenario.

MUSIC as poetry, sculpture or paint is a true and real ART and this kind of art is a deep expression of the composers with additional  expression of the players.

All of those diferent kind of ART wake up different type of feelings and emotions on each single human been and normally those feelings/emotions are singular/unique to each person. That’s the ART’s power/beauty.

MUSIC as an art has the " legacy " that it does not matters the MUSIC source ( a walkman, $$$ home system, car radio or live. ) always wake up some kind of feelings/emotions in each one of us.

Now, each orchestra director has its own interpretation of what was the composer whole expressions in the score and this director will try to shows us that self interpretation additional to what is the self orchestra individual players expressions.
All these is extremily and really the deepest subjectivity that in an orchestra with 80 players no one can detect the individual expressions. Even if any one of us attend in two concecutive days to listen the same score we will find out differences on both performances.
Even if instead of an orchestra we are listening to a single player: horn, piano or whatever instrument two concecutives player presentations are different and we can detect it.

Anyway, that warmth/expression is intrinsical on what pick up the venue recording microphones and what you said is that analog preservs it and is almost losted by digital or at least analog reflects better way.

How is that? can you explain it other than that " I like it more.." ?

I´m not a player as you are but at least one day by week I attend to listen live MUSIC and I do this for several years now.

I respect to all players and I can learn on each one of them when we are talking of live MUSIC but when we are talking of the audio home room/system experiences you and me are at almost the same level and I have respect for you too as an audiophile.

Well now I will wait for your answer on my questions, we can learn from you.


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.




Dear @chakster @harold-not-the-barrel : Whom tell you I'm in digital now. That's a misunderstood because I'm listening analog and digital.

Btw, I don't have the time yet to test several cartridges ( MM/MC ) I own and that no one " touched " in this thread, even some of them I had and do not have the time to listen for the first time.

Testing cartridges to evaluate them is really time consuming and I just have not any more.

I hope that time to time I can do that to report it here.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear @frogman : """   what does "understanding" have to do with any of this. Is it not about what we hear and what we feel when we listen to recorded music? I know very well what I hear and feel when I hear analog vs digital. """

yes, all is about what we hear and feel but when we are listening MUSIC in a home audio system  we can't be as a " robot " that just listen with out ask our slf nothing with out know why we are listening what we are listening and with out ask our self how to improve the listening experiences.

To improve those listening experiences we have to " understand " what is happening down there because if we do not know why we are listening " something " how can we improve it, don't yo think?

I don't think that you or any one else that's in home audio system and when started this hobby bougth and builded his first system and after that he never made any single changes/tweacks or up-grade steps .
What moves each one of us to look for up-grades? how can we now what needs an up-grade/date in our system if we do not understand what and why is happening?

Subwoofers are not used inside a symphonic orchestra with  Mahler scores but even with a more " simple " scores self powered subwoofers are a must in any home audio system that have passive loudspeakers.

Subwoofers are a necessity in a home audio system as is not to listen to unipivot tonearms or all metal build tonearmsor tubes or.... or.... or...I don't know you but I learned the why's about when I understand its really weak role in what I listening day by day trhotugh many years in my home system.

If your target or other people target is just listening then we don't need to think on up-grade/dates in our system.

How you or your friends or the ones that disagree witn me about today importance on digital alternative can disagree with out follow that 3 months test  listening exclusively to digital?
Some of you said that already heard digital but only for a 2-3 hours and not each single day, this kind of experiences is prove of nothing. We can't " desintoxicate " our brain in only a few hours when we have  20-30-40+ years accustomed to the analog experience ! ! ! We just can't, it does not happens that way.

Well, I hope you can understand my take and why I post here and elsewhere what I post. Every thing has a reason if we work to find out. Nothing comes by free in audio, evry day we have to learn but to learn we have to be willing to do it.


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear @chakster : I can't  be absolutely sure the 4-ch is a " sample " or not, that's what you think about.

Not for stereo?, well all my listening tests were with stereo recordings and the cartridge is just outstanding. Thank's for the picture.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear @lewm : I read it and with all respect that you know I have for you: it's unimportant, you only need a today decent CD/SACD player. Obviously that when you can listen QUAD dsd it's just fenomenal.

I think that the important issue is to make that 3 months tests with digital, in a row.

Till we can do that test it's is impossible to " understand " my points about because you need a " frame " for we can talk in the same subject with similar listening experiences.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear @frogman : Than's for your wide answer, appreciated.

I'm still " reading " it because I think we are not alking of truly different things but more how each one of us " understand " the home and the live MUSIC experiences.

It's good that over your posts was in your last one when you refered to rhythm for the first time and if you re-read my first post to you I refered to as a main MUSIC characteristic. It's not only me, I think that some audiophiles knows the main importance of rhythm or not have it in our listening experiences.

Anyway, I will give you my overall take on your post.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONs,
R.
@lewm : I don't have opportunity to listen this recording but it's on what I'm refering to about top digital experiences:

http://store.acousticsounds.com/d/115913/Ilya_Itin_Debussy-Preludes_Book_1-DSD_Quad_Rate_112MHz256fs...

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Today is easy to find out CDP with 24/192 or 32/384 DAC's that can do justice to good digital recordings.

Digital is in advance day by day to improve it. DSD and PCm have its own public. Both formats are really good . I'm not a digital technical expert.

R.
Dear @frogman : """  Then it "guesses"  """, well we have to think that it's not the same to work with 16 bits than with 24 or 32 bits that makes that " " guessing " almost not existing and we have to think that today algorihtmics as so advanced as are the anti-aliasing filters and of course the advanced oversampling thecnics.
The today ADC/DAC devices are extremely more advanced and fastest with the latest digital technology than just 3 years ago and still developing each single day.
As I pointed out before the digital music reproduction is in continuous improvements just like the cell phones or computers. It's not static like analog that's so limited and we can't change this facts and that continuous improvements is not only on the digital domain but with the players it self and the transport units. Each " day " are better transports and reading lassers and the like. 

Digital still has some kind of signal loosing?, yes nothing is perfect in audio but the LP/analog recording/playback has higher loosing of the original signal pick it up by the microphones.:

the first major and I mean MAJOR signal lost in analog is in the bass range where even that the signal comes in stereo and in this way is digital recorded in analog the bass is recorded/changed to mono because the LP technology limitations when in a home system the bass range is where belongs the MUSIC not at midrange as some audiophiles could think.

The second heavy analog/lp lost/degradation  is the RIAA equalization hard process that generates a curve with eq. from - 18db to + 18db.  This is not a simple say: " the RIAA eq. ", NO it's a heavy degradation to the original signal and that the in a digital process does not happens.

Another problem with analog are the really higher noise levels that are generated not only during playback but at the whole recording process ( no, you can't think that the R2R where is recorded the signal is a perfect no noise device because it's not. In reality has high noise levels ( against digital recordedrs. ) and limited frequency range and this frequency range is not flat. ).

A digital CD is always an aoriginal master, all the copies of those CDs are original masters not a copy of other copies that puts a heavy degradation at each step.
You can attest this in analog very easy: but any test pressing of a LP and compare it vs the normal/comercial LP and you will hear the differences in detriment of the signal in the normal LPs. 
I know this because I have some different test pressings of my LPs. So, when of one LP are pressing 1K samples and you compare ( even with no test pressing. ) the first copy with the 1|,000 you will note the differences ! ! and this is what almost all likes. !  !  !

But things don't stop there because during playback that analog degraded signal must pass for the second RIAA equalization in inverse mode with an additional issue:there are not equalization process ( any ) with out no deviations and think that during the recording process the RIAA deviation was +,- 0.15db.
This is the figure we have but we dont know with out a chart where in the equalization RIAA curve are those +,- deviations. Why is important to know it?, because the inverse RIAA equalization deviation in the phono stage even if is the same: +,- 0.15db just can't mimic the recorded process RIAA deviations discrete points/frequencies.

It's suppose that the inverse RIAA in the phono stage is to mimic the de-emphasis RIAA eq. in the recording to have a even/flat signal: to recovery the signal and this just never happens and means more lost information.

But the " worst " at last ( and maybe not the worst and maybe not at last because the analog road is almost endless tortuoso one. Full of degradations at each single step. ).

What happens with that arcaic cartridge stylus tip/cantilever when hits/touch the LP grooves:

well it trys to follow with true fidelity the grooves modulations and this never happens because the tonearms ( pivoted ones the LT has other important problems too. ) has inherent tracking error ( we can't nothing about. ) that impedes to mimic the grooves but what sense the cartridge transducer?, the cantilever/stylus movements that came with a true lost of the already degraded signal with additional " signal " ( that's not in the recording. ) generated by the self cantilever vibrations generated for the stylus/tip friction with the vinyl.

I can follow explain itloosing steps that happens with analog and not in digital technology.
That for you and your friends and almost all analog lovers is what you like is not under analyzis but only that you can think again where is that " expression " in analog that according with you almost disappears in digital today/native recordings/playback.

Do you really think that that " expression " is untouchable or was untouchable by all those degradation steps in analog when that " expression " is inherent in the recorded signal?

For me has no sense to think in that way and I know it's it can't happens that way.

In the other side:   """   and you promise to listen to music for three months without once concerning yourself with the technical and trying "understand" why things sound the way they do.   """


frogman, that does not happens every time I listen a CD or LP. When you really in a true way learned that " understanding " then you are " there " and you have almost never to think in that again but just enjoy what you are listening: MUSIC AS BETTER THAN EVER BEFORE  !   !

Sooner or latter some of us will learn but other never will do because so very high ignorance levels in the fundamental subjects.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.


Dear @frogman : """ because of the REDUCED amount of musically expressive detail in digital as compared to analog. """

where it comes that " musically expressive " characteristic?, certainly it comes in what the recording microphones pick-up.

Now, in LP analog recordings and as I already pointed out exist no " guessing " but something even worst: exist true losted information that can’t be recovered in any way and that lost is really significant and through that lost gone an important part of that music musicallity that in digital happens in lower way.
Btw, forgeret on that " almost " that in reality is not happening any more. To analize that we have to go in deep on thechnical/mathematics explanation. in the past the sampling rate was 44.2khz and today PCM sampling thousands of thousands times each second and in DSD even millions of times each second.
there is no land to " guessing " and all that follows a " patron " / series where mathemathics is infalible because gives certainnity.

In the other side timing is not a stand alone characteristics because per sé could not explain the whole subject that when you put in perspective along frequency response everything has a real meaning.
Frequency response always is in there and we can’t diminish it in any way because are those frequencies and overtones/harmonics what makes that those SPL vibrations been converted in music by our brain. Musicallity and expression is fundamental part of that and in analog we lost a lot of information that was pick-up by the microphones. Analog process can’t recovery that information in any way and I want to tell you that what I posted before about the analog losting information was not all the steps of analog losting information as you know there are other important losting information sources that are unique to analog but not in digital that’s a more simple recording/playback medium.

Do you know that our ears/brain has a sophisticated ADC?, please read:

https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/how-ear-works

you can read there:


""" With the hair cells, we come to the end of the audio path inside the ear. Hair cells are neurons, and the purpose of the outer hair cells is to convert the mechanical vibrations that come from their cilia into nerve signals. Such signals are binary (all or nothing), and seem to be completely decorrelated from the analogue signals to which they correspond. In other words, they’re digital signals, and the inner hair cells are analogue‑to‑digital converters. """

Has a meaning in the whole subject?, well maybe different meaning for each one of us but is interesting to know about.


About my statement that in a HOME SYSTEM music belong at the bass range the meaning was not explained and that’s why you posted that you tube link. Here I go:

the heavy music degradation in any room/system resides in how well that room/system handle the bass range and as better your bass range as better the music listen in home experiences.
Something that almost does not happens in live events where the music halls are really big and where are builded taking in count everything including the bass range resonances.

Bass frequencies develops harmonics and if the bass is " wrong "/distorted the harmonics too and will colored almost all the frequency range.
When the bass is rigth ( at home. ) the midrange shines as never before as the high frequencies too. That’s why is so important and critical to use a good pair of self powered subwoofers in any passive speakers.
Obviously that all we know that there are instruments that just never goes in the bass range as the flute you name it but this was not my idea.

When I speak of self powered subwoofers it’s not only the idea to have a pair of subs where we connect a pair of amplifiers we have somewhere. What I’m meaning is that the amplifiers been designed in specific to match the woofers needs, this is the main target for the subs really can helps to any passive speakers system.

I know that you prefer analog over digital as many many audiophiles but that fact does not means is better than digital at home.
Like you I like what I listen through my thousands of LPs even if the analog is an inferior medium at home experiences.

I don’t know where digital will follows to growing up, what I know is that nothing stop it in benefit of us: MUSIC LOVERS.
Digital is everywhere daily in our life, even today exist movie films that was filmed with an Ipod ! ! ! and when you see that picture  you can’t believe or imagine that was made it through an Ipod.

Again, to make that our system really shines with the LP analog experience we need that the set-up/fine tunning system be made it using digital medium. Period. In this regards digital is a useful tool even if you never use it day by day.

Fine tune any system with digital and that system will performs as better than ever, no exception. Try it !

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Dear @downunder : Very good finding. You will makes those comparison tests with the original vs de vdH re-tipped one.

I hope everything be ok. with the original replacement but if not you vdh can fine tunning it.

Please come back here to share that comparison. Good luck.

regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear @pryso : """  When you express such strong preferential feelings I can't believe they are based upon discoveries made in just the past few months.  """

I understand your concern about but in reality that did not happens that way.

Around the 2000 year that was almost when appeared the DVDA ( PCM ) and SACD ( DSD (1x). ) I bougth some DVDA and an all formats Denon player.

What I listened likes me for the first time as a digital alternative and at least was a " promise " that digital " thigs " were improving and will improves in the future and I was not in an error about.

Unfortunatelly I have many posts in Agon and not easy to look for posts where in those " old times " I posted that we all must try the DVDA alternative and latter I speaks the same for the SACD.

In more " modern " years, 3-5 years,  I posted several times that digital is a true serious music/sounds alternative for any home audio system. Even some of my posts wake-up very hot discussion against my digital points of view even that as today I left very clear that I still listen to LPs.

So, it's not " in the past few months " as you said. My discovery about digital came from many years now. As a fact I knew about digital advantages in the very early 80's through digital LP recordings.

Digital is not perfect and as with analog there are " horrible " recordings but not because the medium but because a bad recording producer/enginners choices during the recording process.


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.