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

Yes, that is the simplest answer. But, as Einstein said, any hypothesis should be as simple as possible but not simpler.
Timeltel, Are you preferring the Signet over the Acutex, or just taking a break from the latter cartridge?
Thanks for your candor, Weseixas.
Timeltel, Yes, the distortion I was hearing back then almost certainly had to do with the incipient problem in my amplifier. It is the R channel amplifier that is now on my operating table since the early summer. Things came to a head when Brian Walsh, a dealer from Chicago who was visiting my audiophile friend up the street, came down to my house to have a listen. He was too polite to say anything, but I myself was appalled at the distortion, so I cut short the audition. The PS in the amp was oscillating fiercely, and it was not easy to find and cure the problem.

Back to the Azden. Raul ranked it at "8", about where he also places some of the better known and expensive MC cartridges. I just cannot agree with that. My Urushi and Colibri are in another higher league. However, since so much else was going on with my system at that time, I have to withhold final judgement on the Azden for now. I have since also acquired a Technics EPA500 tonearm with low mass arm wand, for auditioning these MM cartridges. We'll see what that does. In the end, we can always think that my sample is more negatively affected by the ravages of time than Raul's.
I guess I am guilty of pushing the thread in an OT direction. I was just continuing to point out how widely we differ in our listening preferences, which has a lot to do with our judgements of audio equipment, including phono cartridges. Why Raul and DU can both be correct.
Halcro, That's an Aussie solution to hum that I never had thought of. It did occur to me to apply the same treatment to my recalcitrant amplifier, but it's too large to be crushed into dust. I never had any hum problem with the Azden, but I just could not make it sound any way but slightly harsh and nearly strident. (Note my use of the terms "slightly" and "nearly", so as not to offend anyone.) But I was trying to make it sound good on a Dynavector DV505 tonearm with about an 8-gram headshell. Maybe the EPA500 will do better with it.

Did you try grounding the tonearm body to the preamp chassis?
I can see it now, a series of horror movies - "Halcro". There would be sequels, a la "Saw". In Halcro V, he finally stomps an Ortofon MC A90, after torturing several different Technics throughout the early parts of the movie. The cartridges are so ill at ease, screwed cruelly into their boxes, that they cannot stop humming.
Halcro, do you guys celebrate Halloween? Tonight is Halloween Night here in the US, and the TV stations are running all horror movies all the time, so I could not help but think of the "Saw" analogy. Actually, I have never had the guts to watch movies of that extreme genre. This afternoon, I have to carve up a pumpkin and buy a mask and candy for kids that come by our house demanding "trick or treat".
Dean man (Jim), Thanks for your comments. I say that because my system "broke down" last July due to a problem with one of my amplifiers. It was oscillating, and the cause was very difficult to find and cure, especially given a concurrent illness in my family and the plain fact that I am otherwise very busy. Just in the last week, I think I have finally cured the amplifier problem. I hope to put it back in service this week. This all started at about the same time that I had amassed a good selection of Acutex products for audition, thanks also to Timeltel, including a 315, a 320 with two NOS styli, and a 412. Plus I acquired a Saturn V headshell. Thus I have never yet heard an Acutex in my system. I can hardly wait.
And since he has the Mk4 version, as he keeps reminding us, he can also lord it over anyone who owns the Mk3 and older versions. Shameless. Nice dig about the bass response, DU.

(Just kidding, Dgob.)
Raul, Given that DU is the owner of a very fine audio system, including a top quality subwoofer, don't you think it is a bit presumptuous for you to dismiss his opinion of the Technics in the particular way that you did? He could be hearing exactly what you and Dgob are hearing but simply have a different opinion of it, "IMHO". Each pair of ears and each brain is different.
Dgob, Neither disappointed nor angry. (Why on earth would I be angry?) Please re-read it if you don't get it. Trying to say we should not take ourselves or this discourse too seriously. Trying for a bit of humor.

I do plead guilty to going OT about subwoofers, but the genesis of that digression was to point out how two experienced audiophiles with superb but very different audio systems could come to different conclusions about the Technics cartridge (or any other cartridge, tonearm, etc), while at the same time both seem to agree that the 100C is the best of the best in most other ways.

Downunder, "Gold, Jerry. Pure gold!"

I'll reserve further comment until we reach 6000 posts.
Dear Raul, No offense meant, and I know you are sincere at all times.

You also wrote: "IMHO ( and white papers you can read on HK, Vandersteen or Harman Group on subwoofers. You can read something here too:forum.audiogon#27 ) no one bass reinforcement subwoofer ( as the REL in DU system ) ) can perform at the same quality level than two subwoofers in true stereo fashion audio system."

Does it surprise you that companies that sell subwoofers recommend you buy a stereo pair, rather than a single? The fact is that frequencies below about 80Hz are not well localized by the ear/brain, so all you should get from stereo subwoofers, unless you crossover at a frequency above 100Hz, is more sound pressure. As you also know, the frequencies responsible for one's impression of "bass response" of a cartridge are more like 100 to 300Hz and have nothing to do with subwoofers. I don't think DU was referring to the absolute lowest frequencies possible to obtain from vinyl (i.e., subwoof frequencies), but rather to his sense of the "bass".
Here is where more may be more: All rooms have nodes that especially bother the reproduction of extreme low frequencies. With two subwoofs, you can place them so that nodes or null points resulting from the output of one are cancelled by the second. This is a technique used by Duke LeJeune in his woofer systems, where he recommends as many as 5 to achieve a smooth in-room response.

Anyway, why am I defending Downunder? He does not need it. But I do believe that when he characterized the bass response of the Technics cartridge, he was speaking of its reproduction of frequencies well above subwoofer territory, 100Hz to 300Hz-ish.

Now I did a little research on Raul's main speakers, the ADC L2030. These have TWO 14-inch woofers per speaker, PLUS he uses an 18-inch Velodyne subwoofer. This is a man who likes bass. Obviously, Raul can compensate for bass deficiency of anything upstream from his speakers. (I am not saying I agree with DU's characterization of the Technics, just making a point.) This is all in contrast to someone like me who refuses to use a subwoofer, because no such device in my experience can keep up with the speed and definition of my Sound Labs ESLs. If I could afford it, I would consider the gigantic ESL subwoofer panel made by Sound Labs. It would blot out the sun in my living room, however.
The Cardas test LP has a band or two that are supposed to demagnetize an MC cartridge. I wonder whether that might help or hurt your stylus assembly, if indeed your hypothesis is correct. (Although you might think it would be bad for an MM cartridge, I have not seen any caveat against playing the band with an MM.) Agree that messing around with magnetizing can be hazardous, but mostly to your new stylus assembly, which might therefore make it un-returnable to the vendor. If they will exchange it, you probably should take the easy way out and do that.

George and Bubble-boy were playing Trivial Pursuit. The argument was over whether the answer card read "Moops" or "Moors". But then again, we always have Shun Mook.
Truth be told, I have never allowed myself to think about the real top of the line subwoofer systems, because I don't want to pay the price. The JL subs do have a great reputation but do cost a fortune, AFAIK. I have considered the top of the line REL products that appear occasionally for sale on this site. Funnily enough, I would go for two of them, but buy one at a time.

There are two other reasons why I don't do a subwoof (other than cost and ability to blend with the Sound Labs): (1) I decided long ago that I never met an electronic crossover that did not introduce objectionable coloration into the midrange (that judgement was made decades ago and may no longer be accurate), and (2) I don't feel I need it. The Sound Labs are rated to go down to 28Hz. I don't know whether that is true in my room, but the bass response is quite full and deep feeling as is. In addition, I listen to a lot of jazz, where the bass notes are really in that region better characterized as "mid-bass", in audiophile terms. I would never claim that my system can do the 1812 Overture in grand fashion, but I don't give a darn.
Those of us who have lived in the US for the past 20 years cannot have entirely escaped the Seinfeld show on network TV. It was what we call a sitcom, but a very unconventional one that I enjoyed immensely. In the context of the show, Jerry Seinfeld played Jerry Seinfeld as a struggling young comedian living in NYC. In one famous episode, he and his fictional friend George were asked to come up with a premise for a sitcom by NBC, probably mimicking what may have happened in real life. But the two characters in the context of the show could not come up with a viable idea despite many funny brainstorming sessions. In the end, they met with the NBC execs and proposed to do a show about "nothing". Congrats to us; we have written over 3000 posts about nothing, and we are not done yet. I have enjoyed it immensely, and it has cost me a couple of thousand bucks (= US dollars, also known archaically as greenbacks and simoleons).
Halcro, If Shane had written "Moops" the first time, we could have been further along. What's a "Mook"? I thought it might be another one of those uniquely Australian marsupials.

Timeltel, Would it be possible to attempt to restore the magnet by placing just the stylus assembly in a magnetic field, i.e., the same way permanent magnets are made in the first place? Worth a try before you send it back, maybe. There may be some technical info on how to do that, via the internet. I am a DIY guy, so this is the way I think, crazy as it sounds.
I have never done anything like this, save to observe (as a child) that after you mess around with paper clips and a magnet, the paper clips become weakly magnetic themselves. So my experience is comparable to that of a cave man with fire. On the internet, they speak of very powerful magnets used to generate new magnets, so the first thing you need to do, if you are really going to try it, is to find a way to fasten down the stylus assembly so it does not go flying into or away from the magnet and thereby crush itself. One thing you might check, I may have read somewhere that a tape head demagnetizer can also be used to magnetize. A guy like Mark Kelly would know whether this is a foolish idea or a real possibility.

But I thought you wrote earlier that Stereoneedles was going to make the exchange with no problems. You could mention to them that you are a member of this gaggle of MM enthusiasts who probably give them a lot of business and that your dissatisfaction could cost them in the long run.
Timeltel, I am maybe a week away from getting my system up and running. I solved a mysterious problem with one of my amplifier monoblocks and then decided to revise the entire output stage. It will take another week to burn in the new tubes before I can listen. Perhaps this is why I am easily distracted from the verbal descriptions of how this or that cartridge sounds. I have no sounds. But I wasn't the only one who wrote about subwoofers, and Raul brought it up, so I feel only partially to blame. I do apologize.
Dear Raul, In principle, I do not argue with your opinion on the need or the usefulness of a subwoofer. My problem is that in practice, I have never heard an electronic crossover that did not add objectionable colorations right up into the midrange and above, and I have never heard a built-in subwoofer amplifer that delivered bass response that sounded "real". The amps or the subwoofer usually sound hi-fi-ish at best or muffled and synthetic at worst. So I have heretofore chosen to do without. But I have an open mind. As regards your opinion of the superiority of the Velodynes, I respect that, but as far as I know opinions widely differ as to how those stack up against other candidates. In fact, there are some who think that the HGS are not even the best sounding among the Velodyne choices. I was always told that the DD series was best, but I have no worthwhile opinion.
DU, I think the HGS series, owned by Raul, has been discontinued. If you visit the Velodyne website, as I did last night, it is no longer mentioned. The DD series (15- and 18-inch versions) are still listed. The DDs are also servo controlled, so I don't know how they differ from the HGS series, but I thought that the DDs were/are more expensive (= better?). Perhaps R will enlighten us. Your question to Raul re using full-range spkrs with such a massive woofer complement in his maine spkrs (2 X 14-inch woofers per side), also went thru my mind. I suspect Raul would say those are necessary to fill in the 80-Hz and above frequencies perhaps better than can be done by a 2-way monitor. But as you suggest, there are some fabulous 2-way spkrs out there, if you are going to use a subwoof. I went through a period where I read a lot about subwoofers on the AV Forum. I think those guys preferred the DD to the HGS, but they have different fish to fry compared to pure audiophiles. I bought a 15-inch Revel subwoof for my minimalist home theater. It's OK, I guess. I don't think much about it.
Halcro, Just be careful that the bulging midrange doesn't push you right out of your listening room and into the hallway. Your obvious problem of course is that you do not yet have an EPC 100C Mk4. If and when you do get one, you will see the light (at the end of the tunnel).
Dear Raul, I have no basis to critique subwoofers, so I take your word for the goodness of the HGS. Now that you tell me that the DD series take the signal in the digital domain, I would tend to agree that this is more of a home theater approach than a perfectionist audio one. And I do agree that paper-based woofers are thought these days to be most musical. I apologize to anyone else for pursuing this OT topic.
Downunder, Based on comments from others, I would suggest the REL, if you cannot get a Velodyne HGS (that's if you want a Velodyne HGS). The JL subwoofers and I think the Martin Logan subwoofers (the best ones, not the lower end stuff) are also said to be "musical". (How I love that term.) I was intrigued at one time by the James subwoofers, which employ an internal passive slave woofer to mitigate the problems associated with small cabinets. But I think I would go REL at this point in time.

Raul, Now that I understand that you too understood the perils of electronic crossovers and that you dealt with it in the manner you describe, I am with you. As to the use of more than two subwoofers, Duke LeJeune of Audiokinesis first brought that to my attention. He makes the Swarm subwoofer system which includes five (yes, 5) subwoofers (but they may extend up into the "woofer" zone frequency-wise) to combat room acoustic problems. But who wants to deal with 5 large-ish boxes? I am not that crazy as an audiophile. Anyway, Duke is a very smart guy, one of the nicest in the business, and his idea is a good one in principle.
Sorry for my factual errors, Pryso et al. Could have sworn Duke uses 5, not 4. Did you really mean to write that Duke did NOT develop the multi-sub concept for smooth response?

I concede also that the REL in typical set-up does not provide a low-pass filter for the amp running the rest of the spectrum. (The latest products, however, can be run via a line level input, so that problem can be avoided.) The top line RELs have been recommended to me repeatedly by folks I trust, just purely for the quality of the response, over a period of many years, so I just passed that on.
Sorry to beat an OT horse, but here is a quote from Duke's website:
"The main obstacles to natural-sounding bass reproduction are the inevitable room interactions - which impose large peaks and dips on the bass response. By using multiple subs spread asymmetrically around the room, each sub will produce a unique peak-and-dip pattern at the listening position. The combined average of these unique peak-and-dip patterns is much smoother than any one of them would be, resulting in more natural-sounding bass with excellent pitch definition."

This would seem to support my original statement, ne c'est pas?
Dear Pryso, I understand now that you were not disputing the rationale behind the use of multiple subwoofers but merely the notion that the idea originated with Duke. Gotcha. All credit to Earl Geddes, I guess. Duke is a great guy and would be the first to credit the other guy, which in fact appears to be what he did do. OK, NOWWWWW back to MMs. But this was for me an educational diversion.
Dear Raul, Your posts here about good stuff on eBay have the unintended consequence of both raising the price and causing the item to be gone before I can even find the auction. (I don't know whether anyone else has had this experience.) I know you mean well, but.... Jeez. The Technics is gone gone gone. Of course, there is every possibility that the lucky buyer never saw your post above.

While we're at it, have you or anyone else rated the earlier versions of the 100C? I have found a few Mk2's and Mk3's, but I hesitated to purchase, because I am not sure how they stack up against the Mk4, and the prices are not too different from the Mk4 prices. Opinions appreciated.

Timeltel, I felt no offense, and the 320 is first on my list when at last I have music again. I considered buying a back-up amplifier to avoid future down time, but so far I have not done so.
Dlaloum, Could you be channeling the Golem from Lord of the Rings? My kids and I loved that character as he was depicted in the movie. "And what does it have in its pocketses, my precious? A Sussuro?"
Dear Raul,
I apologize if I offended you with my remark about your posts citing items for sale in eBay. It was something that I have noticed for a long time, and I knew it might offend you to mention it, so I held back until this last bit about the 100C Mk4. In truth, I felt like some of the others, that I would not have paid that much for a "pig in a poke" (a very homely US metaphor meaning something one knows nothing about that could be below par, due to age in this case). Anyway, I know that you do this out of your own enthusiasm for the hobby, so no real criticism of you was intended. I meant it as light-hearted fun.

So can anyone say how the Mk2 and Mk3 versions of the 100C compare to the Mk4? You implied that the earlier versions also have merit. And where do the various 205Cs fit into the hierarchy in terms of their ultimate performance?

Thank you, Nicola, for the words in my defense. I wish we could all get together and have a beer or whatever anyone likes to drink (in my case, a good French wine). Downunder could have a Foster's, but I think his tastes are more sophisticated than that.
I think the success of these seeming anomalies of tonearm/cartridge matching simply show us that the data (for compliance and tonearm effective mass) we are given to plug into the equation are crap. Garbage in; garbage out.
Timeltel, I think you are channeling the great Ricky Nelson who famously sang,
"Ya can't please ev'ry-one
so ya... got to pleeze your-self."

Nandric will recognize Ricky Nelson's lament in relation to Kant's categorical imperative.

Raul, Could be I misjudged the Azden due to lack of capacitance. I will re-visit it with my "new" old pre-amp. But I am still quite happy with Acutex and Stanton.
Well, I just bought a solid state amplifier to use until I get my tube amps up and running. I decided that the revisions I want to make will take too long to tolerate the further delay in gratification. Should have the amp by Friday or before. Then you will here from me.

I am more and more amazed by the sheer number and variety of phono cartridges made by Audio Technica, both past and present. Today I came across one that is quite interesting, the Precept PC440. It appears to use the dual magnet structure of the 20SS types, has a medium output of 2.7mV and a very wide claimed bandwidth. Shibata stylus. Looks like it could be a winner. Do any of you guys know about it?
Yes, it is an aberration, my purchasing my first solid state amp since 1970. I wanted deliberately to have an amp that I could not screw with, so as to be sure I will henceforth have music. I have even been shopping for used subwoofers. The comment re the 100C Mk3 vs the Mk4, was offered in jest. I have no knowledge of either.

Now about that AT cartridge, is there no one here with a comment? Even Raul and Timel?

By the way, an Aussie in a Stetson? That does not compute.
Timeltel, Re "just buy it". No thanks. I am on a strict cartridge diet until I have had a chance to evaluate the ones I already own. I could only be tempted by a Technics 100C at this point.

Re the Shibata stylus/beryllium cantilever. It's a bit confusing, because I saw that info too, and it is tempting. But then LPGear sells an "authentic" AT replacement stylus that is elliptical with an alu cantilever. I have a feeling that what LPGear is selling is "authentic" only in that it is currently being made by AT, but it is not identical to the OEM stylus for that cartridge (the Precept PC440, or something like that), which is apparently out of production. You have to be Sherlock Holmes in order to play this game, unfortunately.
Raul, Your reference to LP Gear is interesting. Right now on eBay there are several Precept PC220 and PC440 cartridges for sale or on auction, and it was those that drew my attention, because I had never heard of this line of AT cartridges. But then again, this is a subject that had never caught my attention before, because I was completely taken with MC cartridges.
Halcro, As you know, those FR tonearms are at the opposite extreme of tonearm mass from what one would expect to work well with the Empire cartridges. (I might never have thought even to try the FR/Empire combination.) Have you taken any measurements of the bass resonant frequency? The formula would probably predict that it would be either too high or too low (don't know the formula offhand so cannot decide which way it would go). If the resonance moved up in Hz, perhaps the combo is giving you a bass boost that works to your advantage. This is the kind of fortuitous effect that Raul mentioned and that defies the conventional wisdom about tonearm/cartridge matching. Has anyone else (besides Raul) had such a paradoxical experience?

Today I get the Parasound amp I ordered for use as back-up. There will be music.
Dertonearm, Thanks for the reference to the Klyne review. The pertinent information is all on page 5. In a nutshell, Klyne favors loading LOMCs with no less than 1000 ohms and up to 47K ohms. He compensates for the possible resulting resonant peak by some sort of attenuation network that is built into his phono stage but which is defeatable by the end-user. The idea is that typical loads of much less than 1000R get in the way of accuracy and ease, I guess. That is a school of thought among other theoreticians, not just Klyne, but this is the first I have heard about using an inbuilt network to compensate for undamped resonant peaks. This (review) contains way more information about the circuit than one can get from the Klyne website.
Listener614, You have (or had?) a nice vintage audio system from front to back, so it is rather surprising that you reject the notion that vintage MM and MI cartridges have merit. I personally take no absolutist position as regards the different technologies of phono cartridges; I am just happy to have been made aware of the capabilities of the vintage products we have been talking about for two years or more. While your system is very nice, you should be aware that several of the regular contributors to this thread also own modern megabuck state of the art components and yet are able to see some unique virtues in these old cartridges. Your cited experiments (without any specifics) prove nothing, of course. That's the beauty of it. God, the JC-1! I remember that from about 1975; it put Mark Levinson on the map.
Interesting point. I myself have been wondering whether there was a correlation between solid state electronics and favorable impressions of MM/MI cartridges vs MC ones, and vice-versa for tubes.
Dertonearm, I think it was you who programmed Axel. You both may be correct, but a LOMC has a vanishingly low inductance, orders of magnitude lower than any MM cartridge. Can one actually find SUTs with such low inductance that still give enough gain? And by saying that the "source impedance likes to see a matching impedance at the phono input", how do you define "matching impedance"? Do you mean an identical impedance or an impedance that can easily be driven by the output Z of the cartridge? If the former, then you would favor placing the load R in front of the SUT, on the primary side rather than on the secondary side, as was also Axel's preference. That way you can use a very low value resistor that is nearly the same in value as the internal resistance of the LOMC.

Downunder, I knew that someone on this thread had made the remark about synergy between solid state and MMs way before I did. I could not remember who it was.
Travbrow, Forget cost. What two cartridges are you talking about and what electronics do you use downstream? (By the way, it seems that "messing with loading" is not the sole province of the MC user.)
Dear Dertonearm, My questions were not meant as a form of interrogation or to indicate disagreement. I was just trying to understand your original post. What you have written above in response (your earliest post of 12-18-10) is gibberish, frankly. I know what determines the inductance of the SUT. What I wanted to know is whether in fact the typical SUT should (in your mind) have an inductance similar to that of an MC cartridge coil, which is quite low, usually microHenries. Or, if that is not what you meant when you said that the inductance of the SUT should "match" that of the MC, a further clarification would be in order. If you are going to refer me to previously published works, a specific reference would be greatly appreciated. Of course, this is all fun and games, so you are not obligated even to respond. Similarly, with regard to my other question about your definition of a "match" of the load R and the internal R of the MC... Why not just a straight answer to the question? I respect your depth of knowledge and just want to take advantage of the opportunity to learn something.
Travbrow, I've got virtually the same Lenco tt (in slate plinth with PTP), and I just bought an EPA500 to go with it. I hope to have some good fun with that. Great minds think alike.
Well, yesterday I finally started again to listen to LPs with everything repaired in my system. (There were quite a few unrelated problems, most of which were my own fault. Such are the perils of DIY.) Anyway, my first revelation is regarding the Azden. I had come to the conclusion that my Azden was faulty or all of you who like it were wrong or that there was something inherently poor about the match between my DV505 tonearm and the Azden. Not so. The same old Azden in the same set-up now sounds great. (DV505 on Lenco slate tt.) I compared the Azden to the Colibri in my Triplanar on the Denon DP80. On balance, I think I still prefer the Colibri, but at least now it's a matter of taste, not gross malfunction. The Azden does do a few things slightly better; for example, it gives a bit more vivid presentation compared to Colibri. I have dialed in a bit of positive VTA; with that, the Azden is a bit edgy sounding compared to Colibri. Perhaps that quality would be ameliorated if I reduce VTA. Anyway, now I have a reliable platform on which to start auditioning all those other potentially wonderful MM/MI cartridges.
Raul, Just so you know, when I remarked that the experiences of our group with MM/MI cartridges vs MC ones has led me to wonder whether there was an association between solid state electronics and favorable impressions of MM cartridges, I in no way meant to disparage SS electronics or those who use them. On the other hand, I get the impression that you do mean to disparage tube electronics whenever possible, and from that you infer that those of us who use tubes primarily are somehow lacking in experience or judgement. This does not really bother me (as a tube lover) at all, because I have a fair amount of technical knowledge, 35 years as a listener, and enough self-confidence not to be shaken by anyone else's opinion. I do also try to retain an open mind about SS devices in the signal path. I think that in the last 10 years or so there has been a dramatic improvement in SS amplifiers and preamps, such that there are several I could now live with, if I had to. But I don't choose to, because for me tubes still give a little "je ne c'est quoi" (sorry, don't know the Spanish equivalent for that French phrase, unless it's "yo no se' que") that I don't get any other way.
Dear Raul, I am sorry I brought up the subject of tubes vs transistors, but in my defense, I was only following on to your preceding remarks. In any case, the controversy has taken on a near religious quality, so best left alone. I will only say that the "distortions" to which you refer are I assume the higher amounts of harmonic distortions which are often measured when tube equipment (mostly amplifiers, not necessarily true of tube preamplifiers) are measured using a sine wave or square wave input and a THD meter. Lots of work done and published in the better audio magazines that still existed in the 80s and 90s demonstrates over and over again that those measurements are near to meaningless when it comes to perceived accuracy at conveying the truth of music. And there are solid engineering principles to support the notion that THD, or anything else we can typically measure in the lab so far, does not correlate well with the art of amplifying a music signal. Were this not so (1) the tube audio industry would be long dead, and (2) all amplifier development could have ceased with the advent of the Phase Linear amplifier, which had .0001% THD and put out 400W or thereabouts, back in the 70s. But I guess you would say you are talking about distortions you can hear, rather than distortions you can measure. To which I would reply that you may have a point, but only in the worst case scenarios of the lesser tube gear. Now I will shut up.

Dertonearm, FYI, Atma-sphere preamps use all tubes in their phono sections and everywhere else. There is no hybrid circuit.
Dertonearm, "Cascaded tube/JFET phono-input"? I am guessing that was a typo and you meant to write "cascOded". I am not aware that Atma-sphere ever used anything but a cascode and all-tubes in the phono input stage (a dual-differential cascode), but it is possible I guess. I personally modified my MP1 to use a hybrid cascode input, with an MAT02 transistor on the bottom and an ECC99 on top. So someone else might have done the same to the unit(s) you owned. Sorry for OT remarks.

FWIW, further comparison of Azden to Colibri leads me to favor the Colibri most of the time. But I find that Colibri needs to "warm up" during each listening session before sounding its best. Having started with marked positive VTA on the Azden, I have gradually reduced VTA toward neutral (tonearm level with LP). This did not help; I think the Azden is best with at least a little positive VTA. I would appreciate hearing about others' experiences in that regard. This is confounding me a bit, because in the DV505 owners manual they explicitly advise against using non-level VTA for the tonearm, but no explanation is given. There is a drawing showing that they recommend that the horizontal part of the arm and the vertically pivoting part must be in the same plane. Then there is Raul's remark that suggested the Dynavector may have too high bearing friction to work optimally with MMs.
Don't worry, DU, I am truly delusional. I favor the Urushi over either. Go figure that one. But no one is saying that the Azden is the best of the MM/MI bunch, so I am fully prepared to be more impressed by some of the others I have not yet heard but own. I have Friday off from work and plan to do some more auditioning then.