Dear @dimitry @travbrow and friends: What is a phono cartridge, I mean its main function?: it's a transducer.
All the cartridge motors ( generators as vetterone and you named. ) are transducers.
Which its differences in those cartridge motors. Main difference is the principle that the designer/manufacturer choosed for its cartridge motors: MC, MM, MI, IM, MF, VF, electrostatic, Starin Gauge and the like.
"""
Glanz and Astatic Mitachi variants is very little reason to assert major generator differences """
first no one is talking of " major " differences , that word came from you D. Now Where exist the main differences with top of the line LOMC cartridges? because almost all comes with boron cantilevers and the best stylus shape builded quality and inside a more or lees similar cartridge body but if you listen to VDH against Dynavector or Lyra or Koetsu or Ortofon or Benz Micro or My Sonic Labs Or any you can choose you will find out that all sounds " different " even that shares the same cartridge motor.
The differences came/comes by tiny or not so tinned changes in the cartridge motors even with cartridges with the same output level specs.
That means not only the main importance of the cartridge motor design in any cartridge and more important than cantilever build material or stylus shape ( I'm not saying that cantilever/stylus are not so important because are not only important but critical. ) but that those " tiny " cartridge motor makes always a difference.
Around two years now no body cares or at least no one speaks about " cartridge motors " and its crucial importance in the overall quality cartridges level performance. So the concept seems to me a little " new " at least for me and maybe some of us have to think more in deep about.
At the end we listen MUSIC through our speakers that comes from the transducer/cartridge motor with any cartridge motor princeple choosed.
Everything in the manufacture of a cartridge design is important because a cartridge is the sum of its parts.
In the case of Glanz/Astatic even that works with the same cartridge motor principle exist differences in those motors with what Astatic ask for to Mitachi.
Btw, Micro Seiki was in the market with something similar principle Moving Flux but I don't think was manufactured by Mitachi because MS named: Variable Flux and in its manual the description is same as MF principle.
Normally we are accustomed to give " extreme " importance to cantilever/stylus when talking of cartridge quality performance and that attitude comes because we almost never think on that main/principal role that has the transducer/motor it self.
Anyway, is only my opinion that through the last years already made it changes in my mind from what I was accustom to.
For me still is a learning lesson but this's me.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R.
|
Dear @dimitry : The obvious can be for some one a " wise " opinion but for other that obvious could be just ignorance or even worse: a stupid opinion ( an stupid is an ignorant that just can't learn no matters what and that likes to shows-up always his stupidity. ). In this thread we have totally confirmed two stupid persons. I'm not alluding you. Look, over the time I listened/tested hundreds of cartridges in the same room/audio system and when I started this thread almost all the cartridges I listened and posted here my experiences with were for many gentlemans the very first time they " hear " something on those cartridges and from my posts about they bougth it many of those cartridges and by coincidence almost all were and are truly satisfied with. So I own hundreds of cartridges with system synergy and you could think that the ADC is the more synergistic but it's not that way. My room/system goes beyond that " synergistic " you mentioned. In the ADC review thread you will find out that no one ADC 26/27 owner posted is " ordinary or worse " and do you know why you can't find out all over the internet that kind of post?: easy, because is truly outstanding:
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/adc-26-best-pritchard-cartridge-ever-or-best-cartridge-ever
Btw, it makes no sense to post something as what you posted with out listen ( in the last six months. ) the astonishing ADC 26/27. But the ADC cartridge is not the " big deal " in reference to the cartridge motor that's the main subject in this discussion, the Lyra is other example and exist many more that confirms the critical importance of the cartridge motor quality design levels. This is the subject. Why not try to enhance the cartridge motor dialogue instead of that kind of post that helps no one. R. |
Dear @dimitry : " What is it? ".
What I can tell you is this: Pritchard ( that pass away. ) patented his Induced Magnet cartridge invention principle in 1960 and from that year all the ADC cartridge models came with the IM principle .
Pritchar sold ADC to BSR and founded Sonus Co. where his top of the line and latest cartridge design was the very good performer ( I owned two samples. ) Sonus Dimension 5.
Well, no single ADC/BSR or Sonus model comes near the very high quality performance levels of the ADC 26/25. Not even Pritchard him self took success to outperformed the 26/27.
Why? is something I have not a precise explanation and I think no other person could have either.
What was happened down " there " against the other Pritchard cartridge models gone with pritchard for ever.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
@dimitry : My " cartridge olympics " gradation is omething that one way or other all persons do including you even that yo do not like to " advertasing " and your attitude is ok.
Obviously that the main subject is really enjoy the listening home audio listening sessions, agree with you. At the end all is about enjoy of MUSIC no matters how.
R. |
Dear @edgewear: " 'stupid' and/or 'ignorant """ Ignorant is a person that in a specific subject has no know-how. Are you and expert in every MUSIC/audio subjects?, I think you are not and exactly like me you and me are ignorants in several MUSIC/audio subjects. Of course that there are different igbnorance levels depending of that know-how levels in a specific issue. Why is a big deal for you the ignorant word when no one in the world is " expert " in all subjects? Here what means that word that I certainly not " invented ":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ignorant
If something has the white color then we have to say has the white color why any one could try to put/say a different color when is white. Makes no sense. Stupid/stupidity is the same:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupidity
you can read / between other things. ) : " lack of understanding ". If some one read 4-6 times ( what ever. ) the same " explanation " on one or more specific subjects and 4-6 times that person just does not change its way of thinking because he just does not understand the premises then belongs to that link definition. Please help me and share here how you call to a stupid person. Which is the word you use to? I normally use the words I have in my vocabulary, I have no others ! Ignorant and stupidity/stupid is not an insult, is something that to some one is " happening "/living it. R. |
Dear @frogman : ""
a new language should be to understand the differences in the nuances of the meaning of certain words to those of a different nationality. ""
but I think that must be " both ways " between the interlocutors.
Now, I don't use stupid against all interlocutors but only a few that I can count with the fingers of one hand, few of them and exist good reasons to do it because : it's what they are showing through their posts again and again in different threads and with some specific audio/MUSIC subjects.
Some of those persons really insulting me several times ( no, it's not a " revenge ". I'm not that way. In the past I meet several gentlemans in USA and they can confirm who I'm. ) and are just looking how to " hit " me one way or the other. Obviously that because theirs very high grade of stupidity never can and then their frustration goes higher and higher.
Even in threads where I don't posted try to " hit " me some way or the other and even that said more than once time that they don't care about me in the real life is not that way. They " like " to mention my name or related subjects opinions coming from me.
Like you I participate in different threads to learn and always learn even from rookies and always too try to share my first hand experiences through my posts that sometimes help people and sometimes did not.
In the last two page we have one of those " stupid " persons, confirmed one. Why should I look for other word when I can prove it?, not only ignorant, stupid but dishonest too. It's so " insignificant " that is useless to name " it ".
Btw, a person with very low know-how is not a stupid one. Both words are different.
I never use that word with you or @lewm or other " thousands " of gentlemans/Agoners that as you are only trying to learn or confirm their " takes ". In reality I don't like to use that terms but those people already winned the " trophy ".
Each one attitude against other persons and his know-how is what defines their posts and meaning of those posts.I posted several times that no one is " expert " in all audio/MUSIC subjects, no one.
Btw, I'm not affected by other persons insults or that try to hit me.
Your post was and is really appreciated as your threads contributions. Thank's.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R.
|
Dear @dimitry : ""
you consider people who disagree with you to have low intellect..."""
wrong, that's not the main issue. I posted :
"""
I don't use stupid against all interlocutors but only a few that I can count with the fingers of one hand, few of them and exist good reasons to do it because : it's what they are showing through their posts again and again in different threads and with some specific audio/MUSIC subjects. """
the issue it's not if disagree with me. As a fact exist several gentlemans that disagree with me and they are not stupid people or I nemed stupid. Only those 3-4-5 that's useless to write their names here because that's not my attitude and because they already knew that fact.
People can't agree or disagree in between for different reasons and certainly not because one of them is stupid necessary
Different point of views is what mantain our day by day learning up dates.
Ignorance/low level knowledge in some specific regards always gives us the opportunity to learn the opportunity to grow up and that ignorance levels will tend to improve if we are not stupid persons and normally we are not.
Why do you think that I always am learning?, yes because my high ignorance levels in some specific MUSIC/audio subjects. Tha's all.
If you or any other audiophile disagree with ceratinly is not a stupid gentleman and we can have a civilized dialogue where both can improve our ignorance levels.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Dear friends: Yesterday I mounted the Micro Seiki Variable Flux cartridge that comes with an output level: 3.2mv and runs at 1.3 grs. and has an elliptical 0.3 x 0.7 stylus tip.
First than all it's a great tracker with very good tonal balance all over the wide frequency range.
I'm not surprised of its very good quality performance because MS normally did not put on sale bad audio items under its MS name.
In the past MS put on sale MM nd LOMC cartridges along this Variable Flux cartridge design.
I own too the LC80 LOMC cartridge that's great MC one but with very low output, so not easy to handle it.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Deasr @dimitry : Wrong again. Disagree with any opinion coming from me or from everywhere is not the main reason why a person is stupid.
Could be " stupid " to think in the way the statement you posted and I know that you or geoffkait are not stupid.
Stupid goes well beyond to disagree with any opinion and certainly for me is not the main reason about.
I think is more than enough to follow posting about when I posted over the internet that a person is stupid only in 3-4 times to 3-4 persons of thousands of thousands that posted and post over the net. Why still is a big deal for you? only 3-4 stupid, got it?
R. |
Dear @theophile : Thank's for your advise. I will do it.
Sometimes I engaged with them when are spreading MUSIC/Audio " liers "/false information that contaminates the people looking for good and true information or help.
Again I will take your advise. Thank's.
R. |
Dear friends: I was thinking to return to my Empire 4000D3 but decided give one more day to the Micro Seiki Variable Flux design and at least for the " moment " I'm so confortable listening it that I'm not in a hurry to change to other of my cartridges.
Yes, it's really good quality performer.
Btw, @travbrow I just bougth a sample of your 2000 and maybe next week I will have the opportunity to listen it.
How " things " goes with your sample?
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Dear @dimitry : If you are really interested in the LZ model then look not for the Stanton but for its twin ïckering XLZ 7500 that's exactly the same cartridge as the 981 LZ but the sttylus/cantilever holder and this " samll " change makes a difference for the better: better quality performance levels due that the Stanton cantilever/stylus holders is way resonant when the Pickering one is just not. It's a superior design in that specific regards.
I know for sure because I tested the Stanton 981 with the Pickering holder, as I said makes a difference for the better.
Btw, I prefer the HZ over the LZ, but this is me.
R. |
Dear @harold-not-the-barrel : Yes that hybrid design was unique. The internal electrical characteristics are similar to LOMC cartridges: resistance 3ohms and inductance 1mH that no MM can achieve. Different designs.
Yes, what a pity.
R. |
Dear @dimitry : Modern Nagaoka is the best way to go and with very good quality level performance. Really competitive with other modern and vintage cartridges.
R. |
|
and the MP 500 is even better. Nagaoka is something to listen for.
R. |
Dear friends @lewm : Due to several posts in other threads about the 100k loading exist something that I would like to explain on that important issue: in this thread OP I stated of the convienence to load MM cartridges at 100k along the need it capacitance. In those " old " times I stated that for me 100-150pf was " fine " but this was posted because my ignorance levels in that loading issue. Through the time I learned that a MM cartridge can be loaded in the 20k-150k impedance range along the " rigth " capacitance load. If we don't take care about the total capacitance loading ( including IC cable. ) could be that we are having frequency response limitations/aberrations or higher distortion levels. MM cartridge inductance along impedance/capacitance loads is what determines the cartridge frequency response behavior/deviations. In this thread @dlaloum posted around 4-6 posts with the calculations he did it for several different cartridge models loaded not only at 100k but with different impedance loads where those calculations stated the total capacitance need it for " that " frequency response behavior. So, impedance/capacitance loading with MM cartridges is not at " random ". We need to know the cartridge internal inductance and a phono stage with a " selector " impedance and capacitance facilities to find out the " rigth " combination. The first limitation to make that overall set up is that only a few cable/wire manufacturers states the cable/wire total capacitance and this cable/variable makes a difference that we can regret. Fortunatelly IM/MI cartridge designs have low cartridge internal inductance ( at least way lower than MM type. ) and are less sensitive to impedance/capacitance loading. Calculator:
http://www.hagtech.com/loading.html
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
|
Dear @sdrsdrsdr : Good that you try the MM alternative that's better that what we can imagine.
The MM loading issue is dependent of the cartridge it self ( inductance levels. ), room/system and each one of us MUSIC/sound priorities.
Exis no " rules " for MM loading.
First choice is the manufacturer specs on impedance ( normally 47k in the phono stages. ) and capacitance. Second choice could be to " play " a little with different capacitance values if the phono stage comes with a capacitance selector. Third choice is to change the normal 47k impedance adding resistor in parallel at the input but this needs a work for our self: now going from 47k to 75k or 100k does not means in automatic " better quality performance ". Certainly we will listen something different because the cartridge frequency response is altered by the impedance change but things could be that the " new " sound came as higher distortions/peaks and not true better quality. So we have to have a proved test/evaluation process through LP tracks that we really know as each one of our hand's fingers. In the other side the impedance changes must comes along capacitance changes to avoid higher distortion levels in the form of peaks/valleys of the frequency response. Please take the time to read the last loading issue links I posted, read it carefully.
The MM loading issue is not " plug and play " but a must to try it and then you can decide about.
Btw, you have a nice system and I like your speakers that I know very well and through it any loading MM cartridge changes will shows through. Fine.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R.
|
Dear @sdrsdrsdr : I posted that one problem with MM changes in loading is that normally the IC cable manufactuyrers do not states its total capacitance but it's not the only trouble we have about because the MM cartridge manufacturers almost never states the cartridge inductance.
It's not easy to have the certainty of the true frequency response we achieved with MM cartridge loading changes because exist at least 3 kind of resonances that exist and that contribute to the kind of quality level we are listening: loading electrical resonance frequency, resonance frequency between the stylus/cantilever/cartridge suspension and resonance frequency between tonearm/cartridge.
At the end the MM loading is a personal choice. The " rigth " loading can puts the MM alternative nearer to the LOMC cartridge quality levels.
Main differences between LOMC and MM/MI cartridges belongs to the transiente response speed at both frequency extremes where the LOMC cartridges are just superior. There are other differences but the main one is transient response. Yes, LOMC cartridges are overall better than the MM/MI alternative. As better your room/system as more easy to confirm it.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Dear @sdrsdrsdr : "
Trial and error is still the way, wouldn’t you agree? " certainly is an important part in the test/evaluation process and critical when we have not on hand all the information need to make the " rigth " set up that even if we could do it sometimes we don't like what we listen about.
"""
I’m new to mm cartridges so I’m undecided. I can appreciate that both have there strengths but am not ready to declare one is obviously more superior than the other. """
good statement with good foundation. I remember when started this thread/adventure where for several months maybe years? I declared the MM/MI superiority and even I had in the thread a dialogue with Lyra very well regarded J.Carr designer where I told him that the MM/MI alternative was superior one and with lower distortion levels and he posted that LOMC designs in reality are way lower in the distortion level issue and better alternative.
In those times I used the 95% of my listening time trhough MM/MI cartridges and sometimes I listened to MC ones, I was really exited about my " discovery " with the MM/MI alternative and buying/testing " hundreds " of cartridges ( I still am but in different way. ).
After time things came a little down and I gave more opportunity to the LOMC alternative because I owned several top cartridges and then started to understand and identify with my both ( MM/MI and LOMC. ) in deep experiences foundation the differences in between listening to the best cartridge performers in both alternatives that through the time gave me some " certainty " in what I posted here: LOMC cartridge is a superior alternative but to recognize that goes not in detriment of the very good MM/MI alternative because it's a very good alternative.
"""
My mc cartridges are in the modest price range of $2k - $4k range. """
I don't know the cartridge designs you own today but the Transfiguration Temper W you owned or still own is way better design that the price could means. I owned the Temper V, the Phoenix and listen in my system the Proteus and I can tell you that Transfiguration LOMC cartridge designs was at very top performance quality levels. Problem was that Transfiguration was a very low profile manufacturer that unfortunatelly today is out of production/market.
Btw, differences between both alternatives belongs at the frequency extremes and perhaps more in the bass range side where the LOMC performs nearer to the nearfield live MUSIC. That is my appretiation on that frequency range through several live MUSIC nearfield sessions.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R.
|
Dear @jaak : Great experiences and agree with you in your 3, 4 and 6 opinion about, in the other experieces it's not a disagreement with you but only to explain ( some other time. ) why you had those experiences that I know why.
The 981, ADC JVC are very good examples of the " power " of this MM/MI alternative.
Thank you for share your audio experiences with.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Dear @needlestein : In other thread you posted that the Ortofon Rplicant 100 stylus is the Gyger S.
Now, Goldring states that in its non-MC 1042 model the cartridge stylus is a Gyger S. This is a " surprise " for me and due that you are an expert about I ask if you can give us an explanation how an " inexpensive " cartridge can comes with that Gyger S similar to the top Ortofon MC models? ! ! do you think the Goldring statement is corecct?. Thank's in advance:
R.
|
Dear @dover : I noted that too but the trouble is what really means: Vital Line Contact and what Goldring says in its site:
" vital-shank, nude-diamond stylus. This polyhedral, line-contact profile was chosen because it has a very low tip-mass and a large contact area whilst being very narrow from front to back; even enabling the undistorted retrieval of ultrasonic frequencies in a recording. "
Which could be its cantilever/stylus source that could be Gyger too but no spec stylus tip shape measures,
In theory if I use Gyger S in other model the new top of the line cartridge should be using the Giger S and if not then it could be that the new VLC is " better " than the Gyger or that Gyger/Goldring relationship end it.
R
R.
|
Dear @tobes : The 2M Black was and is a success cartridge rigth from the time appeared in the market and came with the Shibata nude stylus.
The change of build material cantilever makes a huge difference especially with boron that's the choosed cantilever material by almost all top LOMC cartridge manufacturers.
J.Carr Lyra designer years ago posted here as and answer some one did it that a change of say aluminum cantilever or ruby one for boron cantilever makes a higher difference for the better that a change in any stylus shape profile.
Rigth now this new 2M Black is a top MM winner and with very good price tag ( as @bill_k posted. ) . Highly competitive even against some LOMC designs. Congratulations for you that pull the triger with.
R.
|
Dear @bill_k : Your Cadenza Bronze has a better stylud shape, nothing less than the stylus shape we can find out in the top Ortofon models but even that the Cadenza Black is a little better performer with its Shibata stylus shape and it's not only because boron is better than aluminum material for cartridge cantilevers but that the Black model has higher tracking abilities due that its compliance is higher than in the Bronze so it's a better tracker and can pick up " more " information and with lower " distortion " levels.
R.
|
Dear friends : Over the time on this thread and along the MM/MI vintage ( mainly. ) cartridges " discovery " came too the cartridge cantilevers/stylus shapes subjects that if we analize both cartridge parts we can " follow " its important role/history in the cartridge industry developed through the years. I would like to start talking about cantilevers and first than all is important to be aware that cartridge cantilever does not makes MUSIC but is an important part in the cartridge design because at the end it's whom hold the stylus tip and this is its main target but things are that the cartridge stylus LP grooves tracking modulations develops the movements of those groove modulations along other " movements " to the cantilever and the best cantilever is the one that does not develops any kind of additional resonances/vibrations by it self ( this is the ideal cantilever but just does not exist. ) . We all know that in reality all cantilevers ( it does not matters its build material/shape/lenght used. ) develops additional resonances/vibrations/movements that the transducer convert in " sound " and this " sound " unfortunatelly degrades what is recordedd on those LP grooves so in the cartridge manufacturers " hands " is the cantilever build material of choice for its different cartridge models and ceratinly to the market price point they want it. In our beloved vintage MM/MI cartridges the " rule " ( for whatever reasons. ) was aluminum material/aluminum alloy where its Young Modulus it's to lower as it's its value in the Mohs scale making aluminum more resonant that what could be desired for and obviously putting colorations in the final MUSIC reproduction by the transducer. Aluminum alloys normally could comes with choice of alternatives as: cooper, silicon, magnesium, manganeso, etc, etc and those kind of alloys helps for the self cantilever resonances can goes a little lower. Example: Sumiko Talisman uses magnesium in its cantilever alloy. The manufacturers due to the very high competence for the cartridge market really figth in between trying to get the higher part of that market t and we can see that some manufacturers used aluminum diamond coated cantilevers or aluminum gold plating cantilevers as Empire or as Empire whom used " aluminum with boron vapored internally inertial damped, tapered alloy cantilever ". In theory for the cantilever self resonances could goes lower. Then appeared beryllium cantilever material in the top cartridge models that been better than aluminum for that task but stilll was not the " ideal " one. Almost all of us like it a lot the beryllium colorations even that degrades the cartridge signal. Btw, Audio Technica used too ( as Empire ) the cantilever gold plating. In the task to lower the cantilever music/sound degradation came other technical better materials than beryllium like ruby ( Grace ), sapphire ( B&O, ADC ), titanium (ADC) and then technically the best cantilever material ( by a wide margin. ) boron ( Technics,AT,etc. ) that's in second place down diamond for that kind of cartridge task. There is no MM/MI with diamond cantilever and Boron had and has a wide success used in cantilevers by any kind of vintage and today cartridges: MM/MI/MC. In the other side the stylus shape " history " is way interesting and all of us are witness of that developed history. As aluminum was the rule for cantilevers spherical/conical was the " rule " for stylus shape till Grado patented the elliptical shape. Even in those times manufacturers had on sale cartridge ( Supex ) models that came with 2 different stylus shape ( this is that when a customer bougth the cartridge when the box was opened inside came two different stylus: conical and ellipthical. Other manufacturers gave the choice of stylus shape to their customers taking advantage of the cartridge replacement stylus. Elliptical stylus shape were manufactured with different dimensions , example>: 0.3x0.8, 0.2x0.7, etc, etc. Yes, normally cartridges with elliptical stylus shape performs not only with better quality performance but more important is that pick up LP grooves recorded information that conical shape can't do it. So, it puts us nearer to the recording. But what for me was an still is not only a " departure " in the cartridge industry that puts it at a way higher spot that maybe no one could imagined was the invent made by Noiro Shibata ( JVC. ) with the " outstanding " new Shibata stylus shape that with out that gentleman invent maybe the Replicant 100 does not existed today. For me the Shibata created a revolution in the cartridge industry followed for an evolutions that still continue.. What happened and followed the Shibata starting in the cartridge market and industry? well all manufacturers wanted that their models could been marketed with the Shibata stylus ( especially for the CD4 recordings. ) but using the true Shibata stylus means all those cartridge manufacturers must have to pay a Shibata fee to JVC and I think that other than Audio Technica no other manufacturer was willing to do it and then started to appers a lot of different " new stylus shapes " that all of them ( with little modification. ) try to mimic the original Shibata but no one had success about and original Shibata stylus stays as " the one ". Manufacturers wanted that Shibata shape in their stylus cartridges..So, customers started to buy cartridges thinking that they bougth a cartridge with a " better " stylus shape that even the Shibata one and that performs better when that was not true. As me you can remember some of those modified Shibata stylus shapes : AKG analog 6, Empire LAC and paralinear, Stanton stereohedron, Empire " 4 dimensional " ( series 4000. ), Azden Vital lineal ( Azden had the model with: conical, elliptical and Shibata like stylus shapes. ), Acutex STR, Astatic parabolic, Grace luminal trace and other with names as: fine line, hiperelliptical, micro point line contact, etc, etc. But no one of those modified stylus shapes had true success, Shibata was the only one that did not disappeared as all the other stylus shape and still today is used by very well regarded manufacturers as Ortofon in its top of the series model Cadenza Black and used too in the Jubilee. My " hat off " to Noiro Shibata great contribution to the cartridge industry where we all are part of it. A.J. van den Hul was and is important part of that stylus shape evolution that in those old times and other than the VDH own MM designs his stylus shape was present in the AKG Supernova VDH model and in the Goldring Electro. Ogura was and is too an important contributor to the evolution with his Line Contact. Next link is a wide research about the stylus shape history made it by a gentleman through VE forum and that maybe some of you already knew of its existence. From this forum I want to say to that gentleman: thank's for it really appreciated, it's the " bible " about and I hope be of interest for all of you as was and is for me: https://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=22894Btw and from the net: " Until 1977, diamond stylus tips used to be made from actual, natural, diamonds. After that, the industrial diamond made its entrance. Made in a lab and chemically identical in structure, artificial diamond is nevertheless said to be slightly less durable than real diamond. "" That could means that the Denon 103 or ADC 25/26 and maybe other before 1977 design cartridges used natural diamond ? I can't know. This is a photo of the FG S used in Allaerts cartridge. The photo came from an ex-Agoner that I find out in the net and the interesting issue is that Allaerts play time spec for this cartridge is: 10K hours ! ! : ( maybe Allaerts use natural diamond in its stylus tip? ) http://i586.photobucket.com/albums/ss301/jloveys/Afbeelding006Large.jpgRegards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R.
|
Dear @dover @halcro @edgewear and friends: Like 2 weeks ago we participated in the halcro diamond thread and had a discussion about the diamond cantilever as build material and we mentioned in reference to the cartridge cantilever diamond as : synthetic/industrial diamond not NATURAL diamond. All of us own or owned cartridges with cantilever diamond designs. The posted information regarding that specific regards said that after 1977 started the use of cartridge industrial/synthetic diamond but I found out the next link that says that in the 80's the Audio Technica AT1000 uses NATURAL diamond material in its cantilever: https://www.vinylengine.com/library/audio-technica/general.shtmlthen choose 82-83 catalogue and you can read in the page 9 that the AT1000 diamond cantilever was made with NATURAL diamond not synthetic. I don't have the AT1000 manual that gone when I sold this magnificent cartridge performer but I have a dedicated 4 pages AT1000MC " new products " brochure that AT gave me directly and in this brochure I confirm the information of that link, this is what it says: "" with a natural diamond measuring only......the AT1000 stylus is considerably smaller.............. The cantilever it self is made of natural diamond since diamond transmit....., both sides have been tapered-cut......" edgewear own the AT1000 and several other cantilever diamond vintage and today cartridges and probably he has all the cartridge manuals and maybe one or some can re-confirm about. Dover owns at least the Dynavector Karat Nova 13D and has good friends inside Dyna that maybe can re-confirm too and obviously Halcro too. In the other side here in Agon post 1-2 cartridge re-tippers that unfortunatelly I can't remember their agon moniker for they can chime about. A main direct source that can confirm about is @jcarr . I re-visited the Ortofon, Lyra and other web-sites with out luck on that regards. I think that for all of us could be interesting to know for sure what is happening down there not only in the old times but today. Your help/advise it's really appreciated. Thank's in advance. R. |
Dear @edgewear : Thanks and I understand that because it happened to me too.
I will follow making a research about to cover up that hole in my cartridge knowledge levels and in the mean time with the evidence we have my take is that all those vintage/80´s top of the line MC cartridges with diamond cantilever design came with natural diamond cantilever build material not synthetic one.
In the mean time perhaps some one could tell us what is happening about with today cartridges design.
R. |
|
Dear @dimitry : Could be but for cartridges boron rod it's a little better because its less resonant against pipe/hollow. Yes this one is lower in weigth but more resonant too and this " resonant " means that the transducer is adding non recorded signal information that degrades it.
If you take a piece of pipe/hollow and hit it with other metal you can hear a " clunk " sound and maybe eco and if you do the same with rod the sound is totally dulled and no eco.
All in audio is about trade-offs.
R. |
Dear @mijostyn : ""
If the definition of colored is "not having a perfectly flat frequency response curve," then all of our systems are colored to one degree or another. "
Well that's only at random definition and not precise one because other that FR what contributes more to " colored " are the every kind of distortions developed by each audio system that we can put at " minimum " in the best case but that we can´t avoid.
Live MUSIC has its own or natural " color " that's what shines every time we attend to live events, a way different " color " than reproduction of recordings in a system.
There are wrong/bad colorations and not so bad or even " good " colorations.
The best audio systems are those where the owner choosed the best trade-offs for the " color " during playback stay as near as " uncolored " and near to the real MUSIC COLOR..
Unfortunatelly almost all of us are heavy biased to what we like and full of subjectivity and our bias probably is what makes the greater system to system differences.
I consider my self inside that " almost " audiophiles that are not totally biased by subjectivity but more in equilibrium along be objective, not easy but I'm still learning about.
R. |
@mijostyn : ""
My system is dynamically colored because it automatically changes frequency response with volume..""
if I remember you posted in other thread that your speakers at 95db SPL is how it shines the most. Is it could means that at that SPL you have flat frequency?
Thank's in advance,
R. |
Dear friends: I'm testing seriously my LOMC Azden GM-P5L that's high compliance design ( around 24-25 cu. ) and that runs at only 1.25 grs on VTF with an output level of 0.2mv. I brought Azden to this forum for the first time ever ( as Acutex cartridges too. ) and I bougth it through ebay NOS several years ago when I was hunting every single day for MM/MI cartridges and My sample is not broken yet, has only 6 hours of play but very promised what I listened. I knew Azden almost at the same time that Acutex and both very good quality performers. Were in those times when I was aware ( I did not know it before. ) that Azden was the manufacturer of Acutex, some Empire models and other cartridges by other sellers. Here where I stated that through the Acutex review: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/review-acutex-lpm-315-iii-str-cartridgeThis is Azden and I owned and still own two of the YM-P50 cartridge line, Obviously I own the top of that line: https://www.vinylengine.com/library/azden/phono-cartridges.shtmlAzden is still today alive: https://www.azden.co.jp/en/about/#s01I will let you know all my opinion after around 50 hours and when I finish its fine tunning job/tests. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Dear friends : The Azden it is " opening " faster that though. I tested inside the VTF range. First at 1.5grs. to help its opening after a few hours I gone down to 1.25grs. ( manufacturer advise. ) and finally at the lower range of 1.0 grs.
What was a good " surprise is that even at 1.0grs. the GM P5L traked with no trouble the Telarc 1812. Good.
Looking to its manual you can read: " while for the stylus tip, a 0.1mm cube nude diamond that was polished to provide a line contact....". Inside the manual I found out a frequency response chart where stated that my sample has an output level of 0.19mv measured in both channels and measurements were made in 12.3 82 and appears the signature/seal of whom did it. Frequency is flat down to 3db at 20hz.
Today a friend of mine will comes to my place with his Etna SL and after our session he will goes with the Azden to test it in his system and tomorrow sunday he will come back to return the Azden that I need it this sunday because at the afternoon other friend will comes with his Koetsu diamond stone ( I think Blue Lace, not totally sure. ) for we can have a fully test session.
We will see what happens.
R.
|
Dear @dimitry : Which’s the primary resonant frequency in the boron type used in cartridges: pipe vs rod?
R. |
Dear @dimitry : Thank’s in advance. It’s really interesting for some of us to finally you can/couldput true " light " on the cantilever boron issue.
Appreciated,
R. |
Dear @dimitry : Finally we all have facts on the pipe vs rod boron cantilevers damping. Thanks’s for that, really appreciated.
Yes, small one benefit but this could speaks by it self why boron was and is the choosed cantilever build material for almost all cartridge manufacturers.
Btw, by my surprise the vintage Azden GM P5L LOMC cartridge that I’m listening came too with boron pipe cantilever and is stated in its manual.
Again, thank’s for your effort about.
R. |
|
|
|
Dear friends : I was and will follow sharing/posting those kind of Audio magazine cartridge reviews of top models that some or many of you owned or still own and the information could be interesting too for the newcomers.
In the other side the links not only gives us the cartridge review but shows all the pages of the magazine where we can read the way of thinking in those old times by reviewers, manufacturers, audiophiles and the kind of audio items advertasing.
In fact what we can read on each number of the Audio magazine is an important part of the audio industry history. I think is important for any true audiophile to have some kind of knowledge level about.
Btw, in those times the USA magazine that were " important " were: Stereo Review that when started its name was: HiFi Stereo Review, High Fidelity and Audio that when started its name was Audio Engeenering.
Of these ones Audio was considered by many audiophiles as the " high end " of the magazines. Those magazines were the non-underground and with excellent reviewers that really tooks seriously all what they did it and not only audio items reviews but many audio articles where many of them have even today not only usable information but information that was the today " foundation " of several audio subjects on analog, amplifiers, phono stages, music and the like.
Names that I remember like: B.King, Pisha, L.Feldman, A.Cordesman, B.Wyhte, et, etc.
Pisha as Baerwald,Stevenson and others developed too an alignment for tonearm/cartridge that coincide with Löfgren solution. Other example is B.King where Lamm industries today all products measurements,showed in its site, are made by B.King laboratories. Cordesman goes from Audio to one of the " underground " ST/TAS magazine.
I started to learn audio through those USA magazines. I think that the underground magazines people learned several issues from those USA and UK vintage magazines.
Through all those vintage magazines the audio industry history was writed.
Audio magazine started in the late 40’s and the other two in the 50’s.
For the ones interested there are " gold " down there. Keep in touch.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R.
|
Dear @lewm : Good that we are in agreement and as you everytime that re-read any of the Audio magazines I still own almost always reminded audio issues that through the years always helps me. The very high grade/levels of commitment of the Audio magazine and each one of its contributors showed number after number was unique. The reviews an articles showed that all of them were not " highly " compromised with the advertasers and audio items reviewed as is evident in today ( from some years now. ) STH or TAS magazines. Here an excellent whole review that confirm what we are talking about even in the review made it an ABX blind test and look what the reviewers stated that confirm their non-compromise with audio manufacturers. Try to read it all. Btw, these Mark Levinson monobloks still are a " gem ". Page 64: https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-Audio/80s/Audio-1987-08.pdfR. |
Dear @mijostyn : "" became more commercialized "" I’m not sure what you said in your last post. Anyway, you can compare the amplifier review 80 number and this one in the last year the magazyne appeared and seems to me very similar in its commitment and the normal advertasing. Page 59: https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-Audio/90s/Audio-1999-01.pdfBtw, many times I wanted to buy the Bag End subwoofers but unfortunatelly never did it. R. |
|
Dear @secretguy : You are rigth, the Pritchard designs were excellent ones and yes when he losted ADC he started Sonus and your Blue Gold is better that what people could think.
His latest cartridge design was the Sonus Dimension 5 I own it but even that is really good and a keeper model can't even the quality level performance of his way early ADC 26 design that for me it's the best Pritchard cartridge legacy.
Btw, in those times the ADC top of the line was the Astrion that was designed when Pritchard left ADC and in reality that cartridge was half design by him and the finished design was made for the new ADC owners.
Good that you are enjoying both cartridges.
R. |
Dear @lewm : B&O even in this thread was not " lucky " enough for its cartridges amkes audiophiles turn out their sigth and several of them really missed the opportunity.
Years ago and before I started this thread I owned and own my first B&O MI cartridge that was the MMC20CL that was its top of the B&O line ( very good performer. ) and predecesor of the MMC1 that has a little better quality performance levels and agree with you that the MMC1 is a keeper too
"
The MMC1 is good enough that Peter Ledermann based his business on repairing them initially and then on recreating the design. "
I think that through the years PL learned and improved his knowledge levels thank's to the B&O engineering but that " recreating " you named was away from the very high quality sound that we can listen through the original MMC1.
Maybe he did not try to mimic the B&O and certainly his SMMC1 specs are truly inferior to the original B&O. Things are that I sold my sample because I own too the MMC2 that gave us the 98% of MMC1 and when the PL SMMC1 appeared in the market I bougth ( at blind. ) it and sold it again due that I was really dissapointed with: the was MMC2 superior.
I think that due that B&O designed its cartridges mainly to mate B&O cartridge plug-in tonearms they probably never had the opportunity to know the cartridges real quality performance. Who knows, only thinking about.
R.
|
|
Dear @lewm : If in good condition it’s a cartridge to listen it and competitive even today and yes the MMC1/2 are a little better quality performers,
R. |
Dear @theophile : No PL did not works in the design or manufacture any of the B&O cartridges.
I posted that he made and still has for sale the SMMC1 that if he wanted to mimic the MMC1 he failed because the original MMC1 and even the MMC2 are superior cartridges quality level performance than the SMMC1. Maybe he only wanted to build something " similar ".
The Voice is very good but with different " color than the MMC1. You need to listen the MMC1 to figure out what I'm talking about.
Btw, I really like it your Yamaha GT2000.
R. |