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 dgob

On the Shure lineage,

I had a dear friend who was wholly familiar with the entire range (meaning he owned and lived with...). He swore blind that the Ultra 500 out performed everything else that they ever produced.

I never found his opinion to have been too far off the mark. For what that's worth.
Hi All,

IMPORTANT NOTICE

Just to let those lucky, unfortunate few know that you need not despair if your suspension has gone on your beloved Technics EPC P100 MK4 cartridge. I have just had mine mended by Axel Schurholz (he can be contacted at info@schallplattennadeln.de) and received a 'good-as-new' cartridge back from Germany. It's so like brand new that it has taken 30 hours to run in and still seems to be improving.

Boy am I pleased that Raul suggested I try him! Some might recall that he's the technician that B&O have authorized for the repair of their gems and was mentioned by Raul earlier in this thread.

I've been living on a diet of various cartridges (including the Astatic MF100, Andante P76 and others) but generally settling for my Empire 1000 ZE/X. Well, if music does indeed nourish the soul, the return of my Technics has me full to bursting. It's not so much that the Empire is not (ful)filling. It is a great cartridge at its level of performance. It would be easier to say (extending this metaphor somewhat) that if the Empire is a cod and chips supper, the renewed Technics is more like a Dover sole and dauphinois potatoes alternative.

A MUST for any Technics owner in a similar position.
Hi Chris [Ct0517],

Thank you for sharing my joy. I am truly happy again and am sure others will be too.

Axel offers a service that some of the most notable of cartridge repairers have admitted they cannot. My repaired Technics has 'never' performed better.
I therefore hope that other Technics owners who find themselves with a similar problem do avail themselves of his services.

Good luck to those affected
Hi Chris (and ALL),

Just to add. Any Mk4 owner who has an opportunity to do so, I would strongly recommend the combination of your Technics and a 'Morch DP6 red spot precision' tonearm. I have never found a match like this before.

Joyous
Jcarr,

I was impressed by your clarification and just wondered if you could offer similar regarding the Glanz G7 cartridge?

Thanks, just in case
Hi Raul,

When I actually think about it, my question need not really apply to armboards as it is difficult to say that one size fits all here or that a secured wooden armboard has to produce any more colourations than a metalic one. My own experiences also testify to that fact. I suppose I was just thinking aloud.

Thanks for the response
Hi Raul,

I got the relevant supplied information directly from Clearaudio. Sadly, I'm personally still in the 'research' stage and yet to buy or try one.

If I do have the opportunity to audition them before buying one, I will definitely let you have my impression concerning performances and any differences.

As always...
Hi Raul,

Thanks for your interest and, as promised, I will let you have my impressions once I've had a chance to actually listen to one. In the meantime, I hope that the information that Clearaudio provided will help clarify some issues and encourage others to try either of the wood (MkII) options with a little more confidence.

I'm also really looking forward to hearing Griffithds' feedback on his experience with them and to trying one myself.

As always
Hi Raul,

"Arm board build material resonances has an influence in what we heard/hear in any audio system but due to the multiple inter-relationship between so many different factros with influence in the quality performance of TT/tonearm/cartidge is not easy to indentify with no place to doubt which arm board material is the best one."

Would that not mean that we are trying to use other materials/components to "equalize" the sound of the critical part of the chain: the 'cartridge'?
Just a quick tip for anyone using the Moerch DP6. The best protractor is the cheap and cheerful Geodisc. You can then fine check with the DB Protractor - assuming a square sided cartridge (for the latter). This really brings the best out of the tonearm, and surpasses other more renowned and/or expensive protractors such as the DB, Feikert etc on this particular application, IME.

Highly recommended.
Hi John_gordon,

We all seem to agree that its not so much what you've got as how you use it! I'm not really affected by the armboard debate as I'm now using an independent arm tower but it does make for interesting discussion.

Thanks for your thoughts and advice.
Hi Raul/John_gordon,

I just has another quick thought on the materials and sympathetic resonances issue.

I've tried a host of clamps and mats on different tt's and spent much time experimenting with these. It turns out that I can get the best performance (neutrality and detail) when using a SAEC SS300 metalic mat with a Michell record clamp - whose vinyl material is said to be very similar to that employed in producing LPs. However, the clamp only gives of its best when I replaced its original foam o-ring with a self made composite of industrial viscoelastic sheeting and glued two of the same sized rings (cut out from the two distinct sheets of foam inserts that are provided by Ringmat for use with their cork mat on the Xerxes tt). I had to cut the three sheets to the same diameter as the original Michell foam ring and bore the spindle hole through the centre of the assembly but on replacing them and fitting everything together, the sum of the parts are far exceeded by the whole. It means that 'any' record is pressed completely flat against the inert SAEC mat and vibration and colouration is completely managed. Marvellous!!

Just in keeping with your useful points and to reiterate my agreement.
Timeltel,

I've heard that the Black Widow with the original (ridiculously high compliance)ADC XLM 1/supra is sublime: assuming the vtf can be set accurately (and, of course, the sun is at the equinox.)
Hi Raul,

Almost forgot, but one additional useful bit of information here is that the ebony black Virtuoso is only build by Clearaudio (OEM) for Marantz. Purchases of this one therefore have to be made through Marantz: whereas the satinee brown Virtuoso can be purchased from Clearaudio retailers.

Hope this also helps
Jcarr,

I once heard the Denon 1000A on a now departed friend's system and recall his love for that item. The memory of the impact of first hearing that level of sound is still with me. Of course, it is difficult to really assess that performance or impact as my own experience of sound and hifi have been greatly changed over the decades. Still, it remains the one MC (of those I have already owned and heard) that I would still love acquire. Maybe one day!

As always...
Hi Griffithds and Raul,

Just to confirm that there are absolutely no performance differences between the black ebony Virtuoso and the brown Satinee Virtuoso - apart from the colour of the wood. There is however a difference between both of these options and the metal version. As Raul suggested, the Wood versions would appear the better option concerning performance.

Hope others find this information as useful as I have
Hi Griffithds,

It would be interesting to hear your feedback after you have soundsmith make the same cantilever and stylus changes. Maybe the earlier respondent who suggested that this would be where perceived differences lie had a point.

I'm eager to hear: although others can now rest assured that it is fairly easy to obtain the ebony version through their national Marantz retailer.

Many thanks for your informative feedback
Hi Dlaloum,

Having said what I just did (assuming that that one is posted before this latest one), I agree with your views regarding euphony and hifi targets. I do also believe that the justifying use of science that you are suggesting is the only way to go. Yet, the combinations of components and environments that produce the end product (high fidelity musical reproduction) seem so varied and complex that I obviously tend to err on the side of caution.
Hi Nandric,

I use the term 'dialectic' in its Platonic/Socratic sense. There was no intended 'showing off' here. For others, it simply means the striving for truth in/through open dialogue and that is where it tied into the conversation that I was holding with Dlaloum.

As always...
Fleib,

"Who was king a month ago? Any crusader will tell you that the holy grail has yet to be found, if indeed it exists."

I think you have eloquently raised an important point here.

Personally, I still find most admiration for the Technics Mk4 and the Glanz G5. Are they 'the best'? I'm not sure but they consistently (although not on all days or recordings) impress me the most - across a variety or performance and expectation levels - of those that I have heard so far.

Were I to go the route of Raul ( a route that he understandably took in order to clarify his assessments for an expectatnt audience) and award scores to cartridges, maybe I would follow Martin Colloms' practice of awarding marks out of 100 and across a set range of clear performance parameters. Here, my favoured cartridges would probably score around 90-93/100.
Dlaloum,

While I find your behavioural explorations interesting I am confused by your statement that: "making something artificially different from the original, does not reflect the intent of the artist(s)."

'Artistic intent', is (IMO) too complex an issue to relate to accuracy of reproduction. And accuracy of reproduction also allows for variants according to our desire either to produce a facsimile of live performances with which we are familiar (here I refer to a facsimile because of the innate variations afforded by different venues and acoustics) or an (even more challenging) guess at what the 'original recording' was like. I know some argue that R2R and original mastertape is the answer but if you examine the sonic variance and options on R2R playback you will find that we have simply shifted the domain of the challenge about "accuracy". For these and similar reasons, I think things will remain very complex beyoond mere behavioural analysis.

Maybe my belief is misplaced!

As always...
Dlaloum,

As I tried to say, 'I agree'. And I suppose I sit within the dialectic between objective/archivist/scientific proofs and subjective/euphonistic/scientific verifications.

The former criteria allow for the formation of a less biased value system (component quality, aeshetics, law, ethics, etc). The latter allowing for evolving challenges to such value systems (hifi commentary and/or journalism, art appreciation, democracy, etc).

No arguments here.
Hi Timeltel,

Yes, during my time in the Academy, a friend who was completing his doctorate conducted an interesting test concering community and communication. It is a test that I repeated while working as an academic myself.

Have the students provided with a variety of instruments (drums, tamborines, mouth pipes and similar instruments that need not talent to produce a rhythm with). Give them a few moments to decide on an individual rhythm that they could play repititively but which did not match anyone else that they could hear rehearsing. The aim here is to produce dissonance.

Then have them all start playing their piece at the same time and a cacophonous dissonance is instant. Then time them and at some point they all start to play in a singly recognisable rhythm.

Given the current site and interests, I thought that might be an interesting experiment to share.

As always...
Hi Nandric,

You amuse me. Others should have their own perspectives here and maybe that is where the truth of this matter must reside.

As always...
Hi Dgob,

I must confess that I have no idea what you are talking about! Some of this might just be down to language (or where you 'reside,' regarding 'philosophy'). However, your (interpretations of Frege's) arguments still amuse and clearly stand for themselves. Given space and time, 'others' might share the humour.

For me, I am sorry but I simply cannot continue to afford your every comment a response. Maybe when you make a useful statement concerning hifi (or given the location, even on cartridges) we will have something of value to discuss. Maybe?

As always...
Hi Nandric,

I was refering to the Dgob to whom you oft make reference. He who is implicated in: "The phylosophy of science should be abolished because Dgob solved the problem about the truth..." The same Dgob who appears in your comment in various guises: fool and prophet. The fact that this person resides in your thinking is fine, to me.

As for your view of linguistic truth, I was there when Derrida was a rage in continental Europe - maybe not so much in Germany (but no ground, IMO, to go to war over). I came after Russell pointed the acknowledged flaw in Frege's original arithmetised logic; after Kant pointed the weakness in Wolff; Hegel pointed a weakness in Kant; Heidegger pointed a flaw in ontologicial assumption; Marx pointed the weakness in Hegel etc. I know some that argue that Husserl (of Caretesian Meditations) and his reworking of the cogito presents a radical break with post Platonic western philosophy and I dare say I will be here long after the 'new radical break with all that went before' emerges.

I am not dismissive but it could appear that to stand outside and above past thinkers has an uncanny habit of reducing the thought of those thinkers. Straw men often burn better and apart from illuminating the face of the torch bearer serves mankind little purpose. But, as I have said, I could be wrong.

As always...
Nandric,

Btw, I do not seek to merely disagree with you and do find somethings of interest in your response to Timeltel (09-14-11) concerning a sense of language, translation and mathematics.

As always...
Hi Raul,

Yes, I did smile with the description in his first paragraph concerning the requirements for a phone(line)preamplifier and recognised the fit with my Essential. Of course, this only confirms what my ears have been telling me for some time but it is good to hear another highly valued clarification of its impact.

Thanks all

As always...
Hi Raul,

"Dear Dgob: Maybe is time that you give a in-deep listening test to the Neumann option."

Firstly, apologies for my tardiness in responding. I have been away and am still attempting to catch up on my most important correspondence. In response, I have now flicked the switch in my Essential and tried it with the Neumann correction option turned on.

Yes, it does improve the sound by giving a more integrated presentation. I suppose the most obvious cliched analogy for the change I hear is that of having a layer of dust wiped off your glasses. Everything sounds clearer and detail across the frequency range is more firmly linked together. That would mean that the strike of a bell, its midrange tone and high range ringing all occur in closer proximity to each other and make the image and sound firmer/clearer (what I think you referred to as 'integrated').

I therefore strongly share your view that I would not now live without this option. Definitely worth a try by anyone with that option.

Thanks

As always...
Hi Raul,

Just one quick question on the Neumann correction option. Does the apparent integration of the frequency range suggest that additional/connecting detail is being provided here or is there some other explanation for the increased clarity and focus?

As always...
Hi Griffithds,

"I spent a full day swapping 2 Graham arm wands each one loaded with 1, a stock Red Virtuoso, and 2, the Black Virtuoso. The Voiceing of the 2 are very, very close to each other. Only the going back and forth, back and forth, can I even comment that their might be any difference at all. "

This is really helpful and goes some way towards answering the question that I had posed on Raul's Vituoso review.

Thanks

As always...
Hi Raul,

Thanks very much for raising awareness around the Clearaudio and for posting Jwglista's comments:

"In the end, I chose to drop back to the standard aluminum cantilever with elliptical stylus... Upon remounting the new rebuild, I immediately heard the original romantic sound of the Viruoso Wood. It's hard for me to say if Peter's rebuild sounded better than stock because it had been so long since I first heard it."

Following this and Griffithds's (and the manufacturer and retailers) comments, it seems that you cannot go far wrong with any Virtuoso wood bearing its aluminium cantilever and elliptical stylus. I am therefore nearing a position where I feel safe to buy - assuming I find time to audition my still untested cartridges and to be in one place long enough to begin seeking a good deal.

Thanks again

As always...
Hi Raul,

On the Technics 100Mk4 and its suspension, when Alex mended mine (as I possibly clumsily tried to explain on this thread) I definitely noticed an improvement. And an improvement at this level of performance is no mean feat.

Just to affirm your finding and revoice my gratitude to Alex.

As always...
Hi Raul,

I intend to follow your path and have the suspension on the best of my other vintage MM/MI cartridges addressed when I can afford to. The difference I've heard with the Technics speaks for itself.

As always
Hi All,

The Acutex 420STR surely is great at imaging and separation. However, I'd like to hear others' feedback on their experience and perception of its performance in the lower-midrange.

I'm still not certain but the impact on inner detail seems to be noticeable. I track at 1.5g VTF, parallel on a Denon PC14 headshell, AC3300 LB tonearm.

Any/all views welcome.
Hi Griffithds,

I'm following your lead and giving it more running time. It definitely deserves perseverance I feel. Maybe someone will chance upon a set up that brings the missing x-factor to the 420, or maybe a wave of Alex's wand can transform good to great (as I've declared loudly, it certainly did so with my Technics! That's admittedly probably part of my problem with hearing other cartridges at the moment).

I'll keep an eye on developments here and hope for a positive outcome.

Good luck
Hi Griffithds/Timeltel,

I have now given the 420 around 35 hours run in and varied VTF. It has improved noticeably. However, the lower-mid still lacks the inner detail that I enjoy with my Technics 100 Mk4. I don't think this is a feature of IM's.

Nevertheless, as with my original 'Empire 4000D/III LAC', its performance is great in its own right but just not (thus far) to the level of my Alex-ified Technics.

I will keep an eye on developments around headshell and SRA selections etc, to see if there is even more to be obtained from this cartridge. I do hope so.

As always
Hi Mab33,

I'm not certain what arrangement you are running your renewed Technics in. However, I think that if you can try it with a Morch DP6 red point Precision tonearm, it will reward beyond expectation. Failing that, it seems to appreciate an aluminium (11-14g) headshell on a medium mass tonearm.

If you have the opportunity and do try any of these combinations, I would love to hear (online or by private email) your views and hope this helps.

As always
Timeltel,

I really do appreciate your comments and accept your view of the time needed for acclimatisation to a typically BBC presentation: should that fact not have come across. However, I never thought these were features of IM's but could be wrong.

What I hear with the 420 is a lack of inner detail (when compared to the best I've heard). That means that when you hear keyboards played, for example, the ivory tinckle (or on strings the tonal colour, rasp and inner detail within each note; or tonal range and separation - steel or wood hitting/brushing skin or metal - within each note of brush and stick work on cymbals and drums) is diminished. I feel that you get a great amount of detail in other areas but just not to the same level in the lower-mid.

As I've suggested, I do suspect better performance might exist in this area also with different set up. For its openness, separation and phenomenal staging abilities, I remain convinced that better can be had from this cartridge which, as Griffithds noted, is an unbelievable bargain for its purchase price. I'll maintain my observations for revelations to this end.

Cheers

As always
Hi All,

One last comment on the 420. It does remarkably well at tracking: even on the torturous cannon shots of Tchaikovsky's '1812 Overture' (Kunzel/CSO, Telarc), which gives my Technics a real tough time.
Hi Timeltel,

"I keep five, now six, carts in rotation. Like Danny, I've yet to find the perfect cartridge but there's a lot to like about the Acutex."

I wholly agree but, as I've noted before, I think a lot depends on what one determines the word "perfect" to mean here (axiomatically or acroamatically).

As always
Hi Acam3,

Thank you for the kind words and I was definitely 'lucky' in finding my Technics and Alex's services (the latter with Raul's initial and recently renowned suggestion that I look into whether the technician could assist). I do think that inner detail is where the Technics excels, However, it cannot track or stage to the same degree of excellence that I get with the Acutex 420STR.

As Dean_man notes regarding "these top 'thoroughbred' cartridges", there is ground for many preferences.

As always

As always
If the body of your 420STR is grey then it is the correct model: body colours being the easiest way to distinguish.
Hi All,

Just tried the Acutex 420 on a Nagoaoka magnesium headshell. Early days but the performance is far better: lower-mid problems appear to have absconded.

Time to reassess while awaiting some suggestions on the ideal set up.
Hi,

When someone does not agree with you and yet you still believe you are right, you can show the good grace of letting their mistake stand.

Some interesting views on the 420 and some consensus. It clearly satisfies many and that is a great thing.

As always
Hi Timeltel,

"concerning the 415/420, much of this "splashy" character is diminished with extended use, bass overshoot tightens up too."

I wholly agree with this and with your noting that "some" of the detrimental effects will diminish with extended listening.

My finding after that extended listening was emailed in a private correspondence with another Agoner. They were:

"I was just hoping (due to its tracking ability and staging capacity) that its signature could be changed or improved. Bells, cymbals and drums still defeat it despite improvements in many other areas.

It still does not match the Technics, Empire 4000D/III LAC nor Glanz G5 although I was hoping. Maybe if someone comes up with a technical change in the future that works it can make a return among the elite."

The voicing issue not withstanding, it is still a magnificent beast for the things that it does well and at its purchase price, IMO. Maybe something for gatherings with friends around drinks and chatter: able to impress with its more overt virtues.

As always
Hi Griffithds/Timeltel/Lewm,

As my above statement suggests, my findings have not really changed since I first posted here regarding the 420 on 11.04.11. However, as I hope I have consistently made clear, I do admire the things that the Acutex 420STR does well. If it satisfies anyone's requirements then it should obviously be kept and listened to, IMO.
Hi All,

Just to note that there has been an ongoing case of dyslexia on this site. "Axel" Schurholz's name has been unwittingly changed so that he is often referred to as "Alex". Correction of this should hopefully help in contacting him etc.

Mia culpa: he is Axel and his technical magic can be viewed as sheer Axel-eration.