Who needs a MM cartridge type when we have MC?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

we need a decent TT and decent tonearm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
Ag insider logo xs@2xrauliruegas

Showing 50 responses by lewm

Dear Raul,
Prior to this craziness with turntable, cartridges, and tonearms, I only owned one tonearm, the Triplanar. I also only owned one protractor, the Turntable Basics (TTB). Well, in fact I also have owned a metal Dennesen protractor for about 20 years, but I don't tend to use it because I can barely see the tiny little dimple in the aluminum, for citing the stylus tip. The TTB protractor is designed for Baerwald geometry (I think) and so is the Triplanar. When I used the TTB to align the DV505, it works, but the cartridge ends up twisted inwards to the long axis of the DV505 headshell, in order to make the cartridge body align with the grid on the TTB surface. In other words, one has to make a choice between headshell and grid; you can't have it both ways. I never considered this a problem, once done, and when Seb published his article in Vinyl Engine showing that tracing distortion is best minimized by adhering to the protractor, even if it does mean twisting the cartridge in the headshell, I felt that I had done the right thing. But then I started thinking about the problem with respect to the DV505, which has the short distance from stylus tip to vertical pivot. It seems to me that twisting the cartridge in such an arm could generate vertical forces that are not symmetrical on the cantilever and could therefore cause distortions of some other kind (other than tracing distortion). Plus I had observed that the R channel was very prominent in the DV505 tonearm; even high amounts of anti-skate were not helping the situation. So, I downloaded the free Stevenson protractor from VE and re-set the DV505 using that geometry. This allows the cartridge to align with the long axis of the headshell and reduces overhang by a few mm. It also completely cured the R channel prominence, and I now get a much better stereo image from the DV505. Also, the overall presentation is more relaxed, less "grainy", for want of a better term, perhaps less distortion. Sorry for the long post, but you asked.
Dear R, I never knew there was a specific template for the DV505. I will definitely give it a try. Thanks for the information. I used Stevenson not because I had any reason to think it was "the best", but because from what I have read the DV505 headshell offset angle was closest to the Stevenson norm, which would allow for proper alignment of the cartridge in the headshell.
Whoops!
Dear Raul, You are referring to the mounting template on Vinyl Engine? I used that precisely to mount my tonearm. But that only tells you that the sylus overhang needs to be 15mm. Dynavector originally supplied a tool to establish that exact offset. Unfortunately, I don't own one and cannot find one via the internet. Without their tool it is very difficult to establish the overhang distance with any precision (e.g., to +/-1.0mm), because the spindle gets in the way of the cartridge body. So I am back to needing a protractor. Which is why I used the Stevenson protractor on VE.
Raul, I mounted my tonearm exactly according to that template from the owners manual, using the recommended pivot to stylus distance per Dynavector. If memory serves me, that would be 226mm, spindle to pivot distance. Yes, there will be some tiny error in cartridge alignment using Stevenson, due to the discrepancy you note, but the important thing is that the cartridge sits very nearly square in the headshell, instead of at a significant angle, as with Baerwald alignment. I take your point that if I used the DV template (which is NOT a protractor, just a template for mounting the tonearm), then I ought to aim for 15mm overhang. If I had a really good protractor built for the DV geometry, I would try to correct for that 0.173mm error, but without it, it would be ludicrous to try. There is at least that much error built in to any cartridge alignment procedure done by any normal human, probably more.
Technics EPC-P100c Mk4 sucks.
However, as a magnanimous gesture, I am willing to unburden one lucky owner of his sample.
Dear Raul and Downunder, Your cruelty re my lack of a Technics 100C is duly noted. I might have expected it from an Australian but not from a fellow Americano. Raul, if you throw in a new 3160 Phonolinepreamp, the price is right. Little do you guys know that I have a secret source that is eventually going to come thru for me. (But it might not be a P-mount version.)
Thanks, Acman. I just went ahead and bought it. The price was commensurate with your estimate of the cost from the vendor. In fact, I may have bought it from that very same guy. I've definitely got to sell off some of my others.
I need a 12-inch tonearm, or at least a 10.5-inch one, and I would like it to be compatible with these relatively high compliance cartridges, which means that the tonearm needs to be relatively low effective mass. (Agreed?) Long length and low effective mass are not easy to find in a single tonearm. Candidates are the Reed L, Moerch DP6, SME 312S, Schick, etc. Has anyone had any direct experience with tonearms on my list, using the MM/MI cartridges under discussion? (I read the contretemps between Raul and Dgob, so I am aware that the Moerch has potential.) Perhaps I should not be so obsessed with low effective mass, based on some of Raul's reports.
Thanks, Raul. I hold your opinion in high regard. The Denons are not my cup of tea, because on a theoretical basis I do not much care for that flexible joint that they insert between the pivot point and the cartridge. I think a tonearm should be totally rigid between cartridge and pivot. I have seen a lot of those 12-inch Ortofon tonearms for sale. Do you refer to the 309, which oddly enough is 12 inches in length?
Thanks, Montepilot. I am well aware of Steve Dobbins' expertise and his superb results, via my acquaintance with Mike Lavigne, one of Steve's customers. If memory serves, the Azden has a relatively low compliance compared to some of the others we have been discussing, at least the 50VL version. That may account for his success, in small part. Also, the Reed tonearms can have very different effective masses depending upon the type of wood you choose for the arm wand. I am pretty sure Steve would recommend a Reed tonearm, and if I decide to buy one, I will definitely head his way. At the moment, I would like to hear from end-users. I kind of get the idea that the goodness ranking would go Reed>SME312S=Moerch>etc., with no regard for effective mass.
Thanks, Raul. You are da man, but omigod, 299 Euros for a stylus? Sheesh.
First impressions of the Stanton 980LZS. I am running it into a 1000R load at the moment, have also tried 100R. (Output Z of the 980 is 3 ohms.) This thing has low output, lower than my Koetsu Urushi. At first it sounded awful, with distortion on transients, which was what led me to inquire about a new stylus. Then I ran it on the Cardas test LP, bands 2a thru c, several times over. This brought it back to life, so there is some life left in the stylus after all. The cartridge tracks well at 1 gm, throws a wide and deep soundstage. It is remarkably good at retrieval of inner detail and individual musical lines. Right now it tends to congeal the sound on massed instruments and has a slight mid-treble peak (that may be on the Columbia LP I listened to last night), but that may go away with use and further tweaks. It is a contender among the group Orto M20FL Super, Azden YP50VL, and Grado TLZ. It may be the best of that bunch, IMO and in my system. But I have to listen for more than one session before going that far. Since the stylus is hardly a virgin, I have to wonder what the cartridge could do with a new stylus. I am running it on the Kenwood L07D.

When I tried experimentally to remove the stylus assembly, it pulls forward about a quarter of an inch to expose the round contact shaft, but then it is stuck in the cartridge body, will not pull out any further. I was afraid of destroying the whole deal, so I pushed the stylus back in and auditioned the cartridge as per above. I saw on an old internet post that some other owner had this problem. (In fact, I wonder whether I now own the very same cartridge.) Has any Stanton owner had such a problem with the 881 or 980/981? If so, what's up? Thanks.
Dear Raul, What bothers me is that there is some looseness in the fit of the stylus assembly, up until you pull it out as far as it is willing to go. I fear that the looseness is not good. I read where one user actually epoxied the stylus onto the body, not a good idea for future stylus swaps. I guess one could use blutac or the like. I am thinking of placing a very small elastic band around the cartridge body/stylus assembly, to firm up the association of the two and to dampen any independent vibration of the stylus assembly.
Sorry, Tim. The Cardas test LP tracks 2a thru 2c (frequency sweeps on side A) are very good, IME, for breaking in a new cartridge or loosening up the suspension of cartridges that have been in storage for a long time. I think repeated playing of those bands with the 980LZS had a salutatory effect on the suspension. There was a lot of distortion right out of the box. It all or mostly all went away after this quickie break-in process. However, I need to get a magnifier to really know what is going on or what might be going on with the stylus itself. It could still be a limiting factor in the performance of the cartridge, as I have no way of knowing the hours of use. Initially I blamed the problem on the stylus moreso than on the suspension. Turns out it was largely at least a problem with the suspension. Is that more clear? In any case, I no longer feel that I need to throw down more bucks right away for an expensive NOS stylus assembly.

Actually, I am in the habit of goosing up all of my cartridges on the Cardas LP, prior to listening, if the cartridge has been out of use for a long time.
Thanks, D. The question was probably too specific for this thread, so I apologize to others who may have found it trivial. Last night I did try the elastic band trick. To firm up the association of the stylus assembly with the body of the 980LZS (which seemed a bit loose), I placed a small elastic band with a fairly tight fit around both. Naturally, I was terrified that the elastic would slip and take out the entire cantilever, but that did not happen (yet). Whether it is my imagination or not, I think there was an improvement in sonics. Comparing it to the Azden, the Azden is more "in your face" and spotlights the main performer. The 980LZS is a bit more laid back but with a lot of inner and peripheral detail. In fact, I would say the main performer is set back from the edge of the stage a bit with the 980, with more emphasis on the side men. There was still a bit of tizziness on some but not all treble transients, possibly due to mistracking or other. I will raise VTF a bit up from 1 gm to see if that issue is ameliorated. For some reason, last night the Azden sounded fabulous. Maybe I crossed that line of break-in that some of you guys have mentioned.
Best to use Dave' suggestion to solder one end of the adapter clip directly to the headshell wires in place of standard cartridge clips, then use the female end to mate with the smaller diameter Pmount cartridge pins. That way you have only one pressure-fit connection instead of two. Sorry to butt in. Dave, you are a great finder of odd but needed parts.
There hasn't been a post here for a couple of days, which makes me wonder whether we have talked about and/or evaluated every possible worthwhile vintage MM or MI cartridge. Will there be no new revelations from here on out? I personally cannot think of a brand or top-line model that has not been mentioned at least once. Yet I am way slow to evaluate the cartridges I have purchased as a result of this thread.
One thing I think is true, Raul. When you do find your new dimension audio world, it will be YOUR world. Nirvana will be slightly different for each of us. Just think of the wide differences among the speakers and amplifiers we use, for starters. This is not to mention differences in our ability to hear and differences in bias due to brain function.
I am not sure that anyone really answered Franklin's question. He wanted to know whether the Azden in its adapter would lose some of its magic (compared to the M20FL Super) if the end-user did not take some of the measures recommended by Raul and me to reduce the number of physical contacts in the signal pathway. (Is that correct, Franklin?) My opinion is that because of the relatively high output signal voltage, the Azden in its adapter mount will suffer less signal degradation than might be expected for a very low voltage signal, such as that obtained from an MC cartridge. So, try it. And by the way, nearly all of us ARE listening to the Azden (and I suspect the Andante, which is also a P-mount) via use of an adapter in a standard headshell. Just clean the contacts with Pro-Gold or something similar and use a contact enhancer, which IMO will help a lot. When a physical contact cannot be eliminated, I use Walker Audio SST to great effect.
Dear Raul, Two nights ago, I took my system "down". Everything was sounding lousy. I have a problem somewhere. Thankfully, I have the knowledge to find and cure the problem myself. The Azden did begin to sound great just before it and every other cartridge I own started to turn sour. But now I don't blame the Azden. I was planning to send my Sound Lab M1s back to the factory for a long overdue replacement of the mylar diaphragms. Perhaps I waited a bit too long. The screens have many tears and imperfections. Possibly that is/was the problem. They will go back to Utah while I take apart my preamp. But so far I can find nothing at all wrong with my MP1, Next comes the very heavy Atma-sphere amplifiers. But it is unlikely that both monoblocks would go off at the same time. (The problem is in both channels.) I will be out of commission for a couple of months, sadly. Unless of course I buy another pair of speakers in the interim.
I'm sure the Nighthawk is an excellent phono stage, but I doubt that the difference between a 300R and a 500R load was responsible for what was apparently a less than ecstatic review of it. First, what Denon cartridge requires a 300R load? I know some load the Denon MCs as low as 30R, but I am not aware of a 300R optimum for any MC. (Personally, I would never go below 100R for any cartridge.) Second, there is just no accounting for another person's listener bias, and if you like the unit, fuggeddabout that reviewer's opinion. You've already done the in-home test. As to the Azden, I am not as crazy about it as some others, but I do see why people like it, and I do agree it produces great bass response.
Among "planar" speakers, the Apogee (ribbon) and Maggie (quasi-ribbon) are way different from the Acoustat, ML, and Sound Lab (all ESLs), as I am sure you know. Not only do they sound different, but their respective electrical properties are very different. Among those 3 stats, the Acoustats might be the most reliable ESLs ever built but they don't do bass very well and the soundstage is narrow. The MLs are unique for their curved stators, but they present a horrendous low impedance for my OTL amplifiers, and I don't like hybrids. The Sound Labs are problematic, too, but represent the best compromise I have ever heard. I auditioned some Beveridge speakers recently. In some ways (soundstaging, depth, etc) they are fantastic, but this particular pair had a low midrange coloration that I could never live with. So, yes, I am stuck on the Sound Labs.
My long postponed plan is to have my present pair re-skinned and then maybe exchange them for a pair that use the PX technology. I presume that is what you heard, Raul. This way, I can sell mine, if I do sell them, with a clear conscience, knowing they are in first-rate condition. I don't really know whether the sudden deterioration in sound quality of my system was due to the Sound Labs, but I have pretty much eliminated the preamp and amps from blame, so it's quite possible, for example if one of the bias supplies in one panel crapped out. Sorry for the OT posts. I feel comfortable chatting with you guys. I will desist.
What is the right price? I saw a few months ago where Raul pointed out that one can still buy one from an internet vendor, but he did say whom. Does anyone know what that business was asking for an NOS 4000DIII? (I assume their supply is kaput.)
I have long experience with planars, since the early 1970s. Never owned an Apogee, because EXCEPT for the Scintilla, I never liked any of the other models. Plus, they really require a solid state amplifier, and I have never fallen in love with one of them, either. Along the way, I owned many Maggies and always felt they were "dead" sounding; no overtones and no or very little of the natural decay of instruments. Possibly the addition of a true ribbon tweeter in the late models has cured or ameliorated that problem. I have owned and heard every one of the great ESLs, and the Beveridge (just heard one for the first time in my life about two weeks ago) was a revelation in terms of its ability to stage. You can sit literally ANYWHERE in the room and still get a rock stable stereo image, which is definitely not the case for the Sound Labs or any other planar speaker IME. But I think there is some coloration from the cabinet itself. Plus, no way to fix them if they break; the attempt to re-start the Beveridge company has apparently resulted in failure.
Lharasim, How much do you wanna bet that inside the cabinet of every Beveridge ESL is a planar driver? ESLs are planar by nature. That's all I was saying. I have only heard the one pair of Model 3s, and as you can tell, I liked them very much. The Model 2s would be a bit more scary to own these days because of the direct-drive amplifiers that are said to be unreliable, but I bet they do sound fabulous. Do you still own Beveridge spkrs?
Siniy, What is your opinion of these high compliance cartridges in the L07D tonearm? I cannot find information regarding the effective mass of the tonearm itself, but the headshell weighs about 12gm, which is on the high side of average. Have you tried a light weight headshell or are you very pleased with the standard set-up?
I have a "take it or leave it" chance to buy an Empire 4000DIII, NOS. I just recently bought a used Acutex 312III off eBay and then bought an NOS 312STR stylus from Turntableneedles. So if I have the Acutex (and a passle of other of the best MM/MIs we have been discussing, including an Empire 1000ZE/X with NOS stylus), do I need/want the 4000DIII? I don't own a Technics EPC P100C. Inquiring minds and empty pockets want to know.
Lharasim, I have to admit there was something totally unique and thrilling about the Model 3s I heard, except for that low midrange coloration I may have mentioned above. I am trying to decide what to make of that "problem". It may have been due to a room resonance and not the speaker at all. There are a pair of 2SWs for sale here, from a Chicago area dealer I think. Are those the property of your friend? I too like to believe I have the skills to repair the Beveridge amps should a problem arise; I have done a lot of work on my Atma-sphere OTLs, both amps and preamp. But those high voltages are not to be trifled with.

On the 4000DIII. Thanks for your response, Raul. Are there any other voices out there? This is like the search for the Holy Grail. I feel like Indiana Jones, without a whip of course.
Under the right circumstances, it only takes 50mA to kill a human. I imagine the body mass of a horse is such that it would take a bit more, maybe 100mA. Still, any amplifier that any of us uses could kill a horse. But basically we are in agreement that the Beveridge amps are more dangerous than most. Have you personally heard the 2SWs that are for sale?

Still hoping for someone to reinforce Raul's opinion of the Empire 4000DIII. Thanks.
20 years from now, statistically speaking, my music will emanate from a harp, if you believe in that sort of thing. But perhaps my wife and sons can make a buck selling this stuff.

Actually, the cartridges are a drop in the bucket compared to what I've spent on turntables since I got MM Fever.

I keep thinking about those Beveridge speakers. That's the problemo.
Thanks, Montepilot, for taking the time to write your report. I am sure you did not mean it that way, but I would not grade cartridges based on Patricia Barber's breathing. The ability to detect such sounds would also depend upon the amplification, speaker efficiency, hearing acuity, etc. And besides, it has little to do with the beauty of music. But I (for one) do get the point.
Dear Siniy, Thank you for your response. What I wanted to know, specifically, is do you find that the sound of high compliance cartridges, like the MMs and MIs that are the subject of this thread, is improved if you use a light weight headshell vs the stock L07D headshell? You mention the brand names of the headshells you favor, but that conveys no information about their respective weights (in grams, preferably). So far, I have not actually tried a light weight headshell. With the stock L07D headshell (which weighs 12 gm, about average for a MC headshell), my Koetsu Urushi sounds fantastic, but I am wondering whether I should go to a lighter weight headshell for a Stanton, Pickering, Empire, etc. My Stanton 980LZS does not track so well in the stock headshell, for example, altho this could be due to cantilever/stylus age and wear.
Once upon a time I bought the Patricia Barber CD or SACD that I believe contains the same music as does the LP you are talking about. While I do like PB's vocals on standards (especially "You don't know what love is"), I do not particularly like the music she writes herself. (It's a little too "Joni Mitchell" for me.) Therefore, I never did buy the LP version. I do have a Carol Kidd album on both CD/SACD and LP, the one recorded on the Linn label. I first heard the digital version in Tokyo in an audio salon, using about 5 different megabuck digital source components including Meitner, Accuphase, Burmeister, etc. At home in my system, the LP so blows away the digital version(s),compared either to what I heard in Tokyo or to what I hear on my own tweaked Sony SCD777ES, that one does not need to count breaths to know it. Anyway, I am unable to count the breaths on the Patricia Barber LP, for lack of a copy of the LP. I have my own bunch of "test" LPs that give me similar information.
Absolutely no apology necessary, Montepilot. And I did not mean to offend you, Raul. My "test" LPs are generally LPs that I love/loved so much that I have listened to them dozens and dozens of times on my system. Thus I got to know how they sound and therefore how any change to my system has affected the inherent reproduction capabilities of my system. Since Patricia Barber's efforts do not float my boat so much, none of her LPs is relevant to me. Usually, the LPs I love best are sonically superb (but not necessarily "audiophile" prefect) AND artistically pleasing to me, according to my own musical taste. That's all I meant to convey. While we're at it, one cartridge that conveys a wealth of inner detail (e.g., breathing) is the aforementioned Stanton 980LZS, but it is mistracking a bit.

The Mel Torme' 2-LP set, "Live at Mr. Shorty's" (or something like that) really lets you hear Mel's breathing techniques, by the way.
I hope not. My best friends are those with whom it is comfortable to disagree once in a while.
It seems to be the general consensus, and I tend to agree, that running a cartridge in a blank band produces phenomena that have nothing to do with skating force or anti-skate. This would be because the stylus needs to be tracking an actual groove to generate actual skating force. With no grooves, I might expect that even the slightest bit of anti-skate could drag the tonearm outward. Perhaps because the VTF is set so low, this centrifugal force vector produces movement to the outside that is beyond what you are used to seeing. Other than that, I have no idea how to use the HFN test LP to check anti-skate. How does that work?
Sorry that I misunderstood your original post. What you describe does sound like strange behaviour. Perhaps someone else can explain it. But the others have been silent. According to the guy I bought my 4000DIII from, I should have it in a couple of days. Meantime, I am trying to "fix" my broken sounding audio system.
Problem with Acutex. I bought an Acutex M312E from an eBay seller. It came with a broken cantilever. The seller was very up front about that. However, he indicated I could get a new stylus assembly from Turntable Needles. I subsequently ordered the only NOS one they have, which is for the M312STR, but I assumed that the only difference between the two cartridges was in the shape of the stylus tip. Wrong!!! The STR stylus assembly is completely different from the E stylus assembly. Indeed, the two cartridge bodies must be different. Can any Acutex owner help me out here? Where did I go wrong, and is the situation salvageable? Thanks.
Thank you, Raul and Nandric.
Raul, I did recall that you had written something about the Acutex cartridges, but I did not recall that you mentioned the two different body types, probably because I had no particular interest in the subject at that time. Unfortunately, it is impossible to do a search for a particular topic within this longest of long threads, so I admit I made no great effort to find your posts on Acutex. Possibly if I had just done a search on "Acutex" within Analog Discussions, it would have turned up. I did not think of that until now. Thank you for re-stating the facts. It would appear that I have an M type body. (That's what my wife says, too.) I was rooting for Mexico, if that helps.

Nandric, The 320III-STR stylus assembly I bought from Turntableneedles is said to be an NOS product and does have the shibata stylus, according to the vendor. I spoke to them directly on the phone. Accordingly, I paid $137 for it, which seemed fair, until I found out per your and Raul's posts that it is an LPM type which does not fit my body. If you can use it, I would be willing to take a loss and sell you this one. BluzBroz has the correct looking assembly in the M style for my body, but I don't know yet whether it is NOS. In any case, at least the LPM type of NOS STR stylus can still be purchased in the US.
Wow! Raul, I just spoke to a guy at Bluz Broz, and he is going to call me back after he examines the stylus under a microscope to verify that it is a genuine and NOS shibata type. This sounds too much like the story you quoted above. He also said that they sell nearly all NOS styli, unless otherwise stated. What also did not feel right to me is that their (presumably) Acutex stylus bodies are black plastic, whereas all the 312STR stylus photos I saw (either M type or LPM type) show the red plastic structure. This does not smell good. Nandric, are your styli all red? I did not (yet) receive your email.
Dear Nandric, The guy from Bluz Broz called me back and confirmed that they are selling M versions of the 312 and 315 STR styli. On their site, they state that they have the 315E (elliptical) version. However, he tells me it is actually a Shibata. But the question in my mind, before I spend more money on this, is whether I can believe the story that all these styli are NOS. The quote from Raul above makes me very concerned about that, but I do not mean to cast any aspersions on Bluz Broz based only on this evidence. On the other hand, I don't want to be the guinea pig.
Nandric, You are the best. I rely on my son for Japanese translations and communication. Anyway, I agree with your central point: the Bluzbroz styli do not appear to be NOS, even though they claim that they are. Using Timeltel's cited Acutex brochure (see above), I compared the photos of the various models of cartridge to the photos on the Bluz broz website of their styli. In all cases, there are details that differ between their styli and the Acutex brochure. For one thing, as you say, only the M320IIISTR stylus should be black, but several of the lesser models sold by BB are also black. There are many other differences as well, including the lack of an inscription on the underside of the body of the stylus assembly, as you note. I will pass. Meantime, the LPM320IIISTR stylus assembly that I got from Turntableneedles does appear to be the real deal (NOS, in other words). I could keep it and hope to find an LPM body for it, or TN has graciously agreed to allow me to return it for full store credit or for 80% cash refund, which I think is quite fair. If anyone has an LPM type body with no or broken stylus that he or she would sell, let me know.
Correction. The stylus I got from Turntableneedles is an NOS LPM312 IIISTR (dark red plastic), not a 320, as erroneously stated above, in case anyone else wants one. I think they still have them in stock.
Now you guys are making me nervous. The supposed NOS Empire "X" stylus assembly that I bought for my NOS Empire 1000ZE cartridge, per the advice of a few on this forum, does not have any "EMPIRE" inscription. In fact the facing where the label would go is completely absent; there is an open space instead. Any thoughts appreciated.

I would also add that the Empire 4000DIII that I bought is a "Gold" type. The owner had 3 of them and was very reluctant to let even one of them go. He is a long time audiophile and is completely besotted by the 4000DIII Gold. So, even if it is different from the 4000DIII without the "Gold" appellation, it was held in very high esteem by the previous owner. We shall see.
Dear Raul, I bought from the vendor recommended by you and others here (in fact the URL for the source was posted here), and the stylus was not cheap, and the vendor himself swore the product was NOS. So if you are correct, he will be hearing from me, and he will eat the thing. (Was not BluzBroz.)
Whoops! I take it all back. The name EMPIRE is indeed engraved on the facing. It is stylus 236ZDE from Garage-a-Records. I did not see it when I first received the product and thought it was ok not to see it, until this latest discussion. Please forgive the misunderstanding. It is late, and I am tired.
Raul, Have you (or has anyone) tried the "Expert" stylus repair service in the UK? (The name consists of two words; the first word is "expert".) That business is said to be the supplier to SoundSmith for their ruby cantilevers, but they have a proprietary stylus that is said to be excellent.
Tim,
Raul has already done something like that, in a more brute force way. I also know of several folks who have drilled thru the tonearm/headshell connector so as to allow the wiring to go straight thru, thereby eliminating that junction. (Of course, in the process of doing that, you ought to re-wire the whole tonearm from cartridge to preamp.) I am going to try one or the other or both approaches.

In truth, though, with these high output cartridges and if one uses a very good quality contact enhancer after carefully cleaning the contacts to remove oxidation, it is my impression that very little is lost. (This is a position once held by Raul, if I recall correctly.) With MC cartridges, the bypass or elimination of all mechanical contacts is far more beneficial, IME.
Frogman, Your wiring system is pretty much what I had in mind as the quick and dirty way to achieve "direct coupling". I believe that is what Raul is doing, too. Have you, or has anyone, tried the silver "Ikeda" wire that one can purchase from an eBay vendor (in quotes, because I am dubious regarding the provenance)? I am tempted, but the price is high. What is your source for "Audionote" wire?

My Triplanar is and always has been direct-coupled using Cardas 33ga wire. I stood and watched as Herb Papier (creator of the Triplanar) installed it for me in his basement. In his hands, this took about 5 minutes. In my hands, it would have taken an hour, AND I would have damaged the fragile wires in the process. IMO, this (direct coupling) is one reason why the Triplanar sounds so good compared to other tonearms that use one or more gizmos in the signal path.
AN wire would be copper, I presume. Not that there is anything wrong with that.