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

Raul, I think this is the LPM series, but maybe not. Anyway, it's the one that fits the Saturn V, not the earlier fatter one. I also have a 412, which I don't expect to be as good as the 320. Do you or does anyone know about optimal loading for these? I do not assume that 47K is best, but it sure does sound fantastic with 47K.
Now I feel like Raul, having to respond to several different questions in a string of posts.
Dear Downunder, It is difficult to get good information re the differences among all the Urushi models. I tend to think they are all nearly the same. I once heard that the Vermillon used silver-coated copper coils. My own is either a Wajima or Tsugaru version. Anyway, it is black with the gold flecks in the paint. If I had it to do over, I might by the Blue, just because I like blue. At one point I read that the Blue has silver coils, but I am not at all sure that's true.

Dear Travbrow, I think I will have to mount the EPA500 on either the SP10 Mk3 or the Kenwood L07D. The Lenco has a solid slate plinth with no cut-out for any arm board; one can only use surface mount tonearms with it, like the DV505, Triplanar, RS Labs RS-A1, Reed, Talea, etc. (I don't own all of those, of course.) For MM/MI cartridges, I am not at all certain that the DV tonearm is superior to the EPA 500. I bought the latter for its potential to use very low effective mass arm wands and for its lower friction compared to DV.

Acman, I agree that the highs on the Azden are etched compared to the Colibri or any of the MCs with which I am familiar. Sometimes that difference is beneficial, sometimes not, IMO.

Dgob, You are so right about the many reasons why my assessment of the Azden could be off-base. Wish we could all go back in time and try these out again. Just as regards aging, I was thinking last night that my Grado TLZ has clearly gone down hill from what it once was 20 years or so ago when I bought it, and that is a cartridge that has been mine since new, was always stored in its original container, in a climate-controlled environment. The Azden was NOS when it got to me, but lord knows where it has been all the years before my purchase. This is also why Raul's experiences may be so different from any of ours, as regards cartridges he has had rebuilt by vdH.
To paraphrase my favorite rock 'n' roll performer, the very great Chuck Berry,

Roll over Urushi
And tell Colibri the news:

Acutex rules!!!! Piano, sax, and trumpet are to die for. But now I really hear a piano, most of all.

This morning I replaced the Azden with an Acutex using an NOS 320 STR III stylus assembly. I installed in 6-gm Denon headshell on Dynavector DV505 on Lenco, level VTA, 1.55 gm VTF, Stevenson alignment, 47K load on Ayre p5Xe set for lowest gain, feeding my MP1 linestage. I warmed up the Acutex using my Cardas test LP, tracks 2a, b, c, twice over. Then I started playing familiar LPs. Holy cow!!!
I am totally hooked. How much better could this thing get after real break-in? Or if I were to optimize the load R and C?

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Timeltel. Without your input, I never would have even heard of Acutex. I have the Saturn V headshell; is that worth trying?

Raul, You should make an MM-dedicated phono stage with front panel adjustments for capacitance load and resistive load. If you can keep the price at or below the $3K range, it would sell, I think. (I know it is not a purist approach to have switches in the signal path, but it could be done with relays, if one wanted to get really anal, and besides, it seems that these high output cartridges are less sensitive to switches and contacts in the signal path, compared to LOMCs.) The headshell wiring is the decades old stiff stuff that came with the used Denon headshell I bought off eBay; yet it is not an obstacle to listening pleasure.
Never a fan of Litz wire, myself. But wire is a mystery, and to each his own.
Timeltel, right now I do not want to change a thing, and I hope this cartridge does not change one bit with break-in. Since I am using the fixed load resistance of 47K in the Ayre p5Xe, and since the unadulterated capacitance of the phono cable plus stray capacitance at the Ayre input is probably just a tad less than 200pF, it would seem that fortuitously I am at your recommended optima for the 320.
Raul, Although I do also own an M series 312, this is an LPM 320 I am listening to. If I am not mistaken the Saturn V is only for the LPM series; the M body is too fat for the Saturn V. (I have an M312, a 412, and an LPM body with two LPM320 styli and one LPM315 stylus and Saturn V headshell.)
Dlaloum, that hf peak is due to resonance where the inductance of the cartridge and the capacitance of the system acting together create the peak. This is why increasing load R can have a paradoxical effect.
In reality, we have very little common ground even among our analog-happy selves. There is Halcro with high-end transistors and a 3-way electromagnetic speaker, me with all OTL tubes and an ESL, Raul, with his multi-amped system of selected different drivers, etc, etc. It is quite likely that sonic happiness is something different for each of us. So, it is difficult to know how to evaluate each others' opinions of MM/MI cartridges. One can only do the experiments in one's own space.

Timeltel, I am not sure I "get" the thesis of your long post above. Are you trying to say that by looking at a spec sheet we can to a degree pre-determine how a given cartridge will sound? Probably there is some truth to that, especially when it comes to the lesser quality types, but I would not let such an analysis get in the way of actually listening to any worthy candidate that comes highly recommended by members of this august thread. ("August" because now 3 years old.) Having said that, I read about Acutex 320, AFTER listening to it. It's actually a moving-iron or induced magnet type (I am sure you knew that, T), with very thin titanium cantilever and stereohedron/shibata type stylus. It also uses a 3rd rail to cancel cross-talk between L and R channels. The designation "LPM" stands for Lowest Possible Mass. This is very sophisticated stuff, so no wonder it sounds so good. I am unaware of any other cartridge that uses a titanium cantilever. Apparently also their styli were made by Ogaru (sp?) in Tokyo, who make/made styli for many other brands.

I am having great fun now switching back and forth between Acutex on Lenco and Stanton 981LZS on L07D. Two very different sounds, both very good. Obviously, I like "distortion", Raul. Actually the major difference is in how each treats the soundstage. The Acutex emphasizes the main performer; the Stanton gives a lot of peripheral detail and kind of melts the featured performer into the soundstage.
Dear Raul,
This is why a MM-only phono stage with front panel switches for capacitance and resistance would be invaluable. I have actually been looking at some vintage gear that had such adjustability for MM inputs. The Accuphase C200, C200X, and a few others from that era are of interest, but I fear their possible "vintage" sound quality, and they are not cheap to buy. The Krell KPA system had a lot of adjustability and so too did the Yamaha phono stages of yore. If anyone here can comment on the sonics of those products, it would be appreciated.
Frogman, Your comments are quite interesting, because to me, on my system, the one thing about MM/MI cartridges consistently is that they are very dynamic and very rhythmic, the latter because I think I perceive the leading and trailing edges of percussive tones better with these older cartridges. If I am correct, it would not be unlike the difference in musicality of a horn or other very efficient loudspeaker compared to a very inefficient multi-driver big-box array (that usually costs a fortune and requires gobs of amplifier power). Piano tones are just more real with a good MM and have begun to sound positively truncated when I listen now to any of my MC cartridges. I hesitate to generalize based on listening to a limited number of different samples of each type, but this is just my loose impression.

By the way, I earlier reported that my Stanton 981LZS sounded good but "broken", thought it needed a new stylus. Now that I have "fixed" some equipment problems, the 981LZS sounds superb, especially on the Kenwood L07D tonearm. I hesitate to judge between the 981LZS and the Acutex LPM320STR, because tt, tonearm, and phono stages are different, but they are competing at the same level, at least. So far, those two are "keepers".
You are definitely correct; when the phono or system gain is marginal, any MC is likely to suffer by comparison to any HO cartridge, This is definitely not the case in my system, so something else must account for it. And I say this with true uncertainty. I am just reporting what I do hear, for whatever reason. One thing is this: the MCs I have on hand do not appear to track percussive instrumental lines as well as the MM cartridges do. This difference seems to subtract from the ability of the MC types to convey the rhythm that is an inherent quality of the relevant instruments, especially piano. Or maybe because the two good MMs I described sound more "real" to me, my mind is freed up from thinking about the quality of the reproduction and can instead concentrate more on musical lines. I really must try to hear my low compliance MC cartridges in a tonearm of higher effective mass than the Triplanar (or maybe add a gob of bluetac to the headshell). Perhaps then they would track better. But the Triplanar is certainly no slouch and would be regarded in most ways as superior to the DV505 and L07D tonearms.
Timeltel, I want to listen to the 320 on a consistent basis in order to hear how or whether it changes character during break-in. My 315 is a used stylus assembly, so I don't know whether it will be 100% up to standard, anyway, so no rush with that. Acutex touted the Saturn V as the ultimate headshell for use with their cartridges, so I am also having more thoughts re inserting the LPM320 body and stylus into the Saturn V. Also, the 320 has very high compliance, 40X10E6 dyne.cm. I wonder whether a super-light tonearm, like the Black Widow et al, is in order. Right now, it's in the DV505 in a 6-gm Denon magnesium headshell. This would give very low mass in the vertical plane but the same old high mass in the horizontal plane, which is part of the design principle of the Dynavectors.

I read elsewhere that Halcro is using the Empire 4000D/III (presumably also high compliance) in a Fidelity Research FR66S, possibly the highest mass tonearm in the modern era. What's up with that, Halcro? And it sounds great.... Color me confused.
Dear Halcro, Laws of physics are supposed to govern the interaction of tonearms and cartridges, Dertonearm notwithstanding. And, apart from reputedly superb bearings, the 66S has no mechanism for ameliorating resonant peaks, etc, that are supposed to arise at all the wrong places in the audio spectrum, when compliance and effective mass are not in tune. But who can take issue with your happiness at these seeming mismatches? Not I, certainly. This all reminds me of a Cole Porter lyric, but I cannot quite put my finger on which song is lurking in the back of my brain this evening.

(Maybe its Rodgers and Hart, from "I wish I were in love again". Something about the fine mismating of a him and her, only in this case it's a tonearm and cartridge.)

I wondered, what is the effective mass of a Granezza 12-inch? One thing is clear to me now; the Triplanar is actually too light (mass = 11 gm) for really low compliance MCs, but that is not in violation of expectations. This I think is the reason my Koetsu sounds surprisingly better in the L07D tonearm than in the Triplanar, despite the fakachta wiring in the L07D. But I don't know what to make of your direct experience in the other direction.

Sorry, don't own any Signets and have not yet played with AT20SS. Perhaps Raul or Timel?
Dear Dgob, Did you try Expert Stylus Repair in England, as regards your Technics repair? The world does not end with SoundSmith, good as they are. It's certainly worth a shot. Also, did not Raul say he had one of his Technics rebuilt by van den Hul? I would try Expert Stylus first, though.
Dear Trav, Yes, the differences are only in effective length (9 vs 12), effective mass, and cost. And yes, I suppose that because the FR64S is shorter than the FR66S, and because of the resulting lower effective mass of the former, the FR64S would have a mathematical advantage vs the FR66S with high compliance cartridges. But there was another thread here comparing FR tonearms to Ikeda tonearms, in which the FR66S was touted uber alles. And FR tonearms in general were said by some to be superior to the Ikeda's. (Mr. Ikeda also designed the FR tonearms before he went on to form his own company.)

The "S" designation is said to be crucial; it means that the tonearm is made of stainless steel. The plain FR64 and FR66 are made of steel. There is a later and lighter, lower mass version made of alu, called FR64fx. Even the FR64fx has effective mass = 20gm, if used with FR headshell. So it is also in the category of a high mass tonearm.

Woofer pumping can be the result of tonearm/cartridge mismatch if the resulting resonance point is too low, below the desired 8 to 12 Hz range.
Raul, Thanks for that post. I take what you say very seriously, and I did take Halcro's critique very seriously also. So, what are we left with as a consequence of your, Halcro's, Dertonearm's, Syntax's, and several others who must be regarded with general respect, collective observation that the matching of tonearm and cartridge is apparently quite unpredictable. Maybe it is safe to say that "good" tonearms are a starting point to mate with "good" cartridges. But is there also a trend in favor of high mass tonearms vs any others? I am about to stick a nickel on the Triplanar headshell to get the mass up a bit.
Dear Halcro,
As I lay in bed last night, I realized that I need to know what headshell(s) you are using with these various cartridges. It's possible that a very light headshell (i.e., <8gm weight) would permit use of a high compliance cartridge on the 66S. The stock FR headshell is quite heavy, as you must know. Are you using different headshells with each of these very different cartridges? And the answer is......?
I agree. I don't think there is a single tonearm that combines all the qualities we might think of as desirable. So, ohmygod, this means we all have to own several different types of tonearms. So, when your wife or significant other says why do you have so many tonearms (Lew), you can say "I need them all" to get the best out of all those cartridges. Of course, that can lead to questions regarding why one might own 10 or 20 cartridges, so perhaps one should not go down that road with one's wife or significant other. But among ourselves, we know we are normal humans. We are the only ones who know it, however.
Is there any cartridge, save for a truly broken one, that cannot be made to sound decent or even good, if one has a large enough supply of tonearms and headshells and the patience to try them all? This is not a rhetorical question.

Raul, Given the favorable experiences of Halcro and some others here with the FR64S tonearm, have you reconsidered your opinion of it? Thanks.
That's a great idea, Trav, but the poster should qualify his statement by listing all the tonearms that were compared in order to arrive at the mystical Nirvana for a given phono cartridge.

Raul, I apologize if I put you on the spot regarding the FR64S. Feel free to ignore my open question, if you would rather not comment. One reason I myself discounted the FR64S was due to its rather imposing effective mass of 35gm, which would in theory be a hindrance with high compliance (but not according to Halcro), but I recently discovered that the FR headshell alone accounts for at least 20gm of that amount. So in fact the 64S can be made into even a medium mass tonearm by use of a very lightweight headshell.
Dgob, Oops. I see that you have touched all bases. Sorry for wasting everyone's time with my last post.
Thanks, Raul. Your candor is always appreciated, even, I hope, by those who do not always agree with you. I know it is from the heart. I did not know those threads were deleted. That is silly; I enjoyed the debate, and it was conducted in a civil fashion. It is sad that even in this venue that has no potential to harm anyone, one must fear censorship.
Dear Halcro,
I agree with your philosophy; it is best to run everything direct into one single phono stage or full function preamp (In the old days, the word "preamp" meant a linestage + phono stage; now we have to say it explicitly). However, my MP1 has no MM stage per se, only high gain for MC. I revised its input so I can switch between two different gain levels on phono, but even so the low level is still a bit much for most MMs. That plus the geographical limitations associated with having 3 tts up and running (5 tonearm cables won't all reach the MP1), have caused me also to own a second outboard phono stage, dedicated to MM. I chose the Ayre p5Xe, to maintain balanced circuitry throughout my system, but I am looking always for something better or "different". The Ayre then runs into the linestage section of the MP1. I have the distinct impression that the MP1 phono is inherently a bit superior to the Ayre, which makes me feel good, because I have made extensive mods to the MP1 circuit. To answer DU's question, I would like to see selectable capacitances of zero, 100pF, and 250pF, at a minimum. I would like to see selectable resistive loading for MMs of 28K or 33K, 47K, 68K, 100K. This is just based on reports here that the gaps between these Rs make a difference in some cases. One "problem" with the Ayre is that it was really built with MC cartridges in mind and has no easily accessible way to change load R and no way at all to change C, unless I start drilling holes and adding switches, which I am wont to do.
Dear Dlaloum, Can you provide a URL for your post on VE? Thanks, and thanks for sharing your work effort.
Thichan, It's those doubled-up smiley faces that follow your post that has me worried. Do you plan this for the "Tongue in Cheek" Forum?
Thanks, Thuchan. I think this hobby and the obsession with its crazy minutiae should be fun above all. The opinions can be intensely felt, however. The best part for me is the pleasure of getting to be in contact with interesting people (such as yourself and the others here) with widely varying backgrounds and preferences, from all over the world. Some day, when I am again in Munich...

LIke Dgob, I find your collection of phono gear to be jaw-dropping. I myself am overwhelmed with "only" 3 turntables and about 4 tonearms in play (so far). (Three more turntables and several tonearms await me.) This is thanks to Raul and this thread, and to my recently acquired fascination with vintage turntables and tonearms. I can only imagine what you go through just to figure out what to play with on any given day. It's a nice problem to have.
Halcro, I heard a ZYX UNIverse for the first time in my life the other day, in a system where I knew the speakers and amplifiers but not the tonearm and record player. However, both of the latter were present day state of the art quality. (I estimate over $20,000 total cost.) We played familiar LPs that I brought over to the audition. Needless to say I could not discern among the relative contributions of the three elements of the analogue system (cartridge, tonearm, turntable), but assuming tonearm and turntable should be neutral, my impression of the ZYX was that it is a bit "edgy" for my tastes. Prolonged listening became almost irritating, yet the detail in the low treble was incredible at times. Also, the bass response was sorely lacking, which could have been due to many other factors not under my control. But I agree with your basic premise: There are many interesting vintage MCs out there that would be fun to discuss. You could start another thread....

I remember back in the 70's listening to the Supex 900 when it first arrived on the scene, thru a Mark Levinson/John Curl pre-preamplifier. I was not amazed or overwhelmed and it took a decade or more after that before I adopted an MC cartridge into my system.
Dear Halcro,
The ZYX was set up by a consummate professional, but I am prepared to believe what you say, because the low midrange response on down to low bass was that sorely lacking. However, I am able to rule out the amplifiers and speakers as culprits, and I strongly doubt that a turntable can have that big an effect on tonal balance. Plus it was a very very fine turntable with an enormous heavy platter. Two possibilities: (1) The room is very small; we could have been sitting in a null point; and (2) Perhaps a little more negative VTA would have helped.

Thuchan, Your point is well taken; I/we should not be talking about an MC cartridge here, let alone a current (not vintage) one. How about this: I then went on home to my house where I was once again thrilled by the Acutex LPM320STRIII on a mere Lenco; the cartridge seems to be breaking in and getting even better.
Yeah, the Azden was never quite happy with me. I was about to sell it, in fact. My long term goal is to whittle down this "collection" of MM/MI cartridges to 3 or 4 that really float my boat the most.
Not to say that the cantilever material is not important, but isn't it unlikely to be important in terms of moving mass, since no matter what it is made of, it will constitute a very tiny fraction of the moving mass of any cartridge of any type? For example, or to illustrate my point, my Acutex has a titanium cantilever, deemed by Timeltel to be mediocre in terms of low mass, but the Acutex has very low moving mass by virtue of its other design parameters and the materials chosen and by the mere fact that MI cartridges have inherently lower moving mass than do MC ones, despite all the hype that would have us think otherwise. (I cite for my source Peter Lederman and others.) Plus, Acutex 320 has compliance = 40!!! That titanium cantilever is not hurting much in that regard. I am not saying that the choice of material for the cantilever does not affect "sound" but that it is a minor player in determining total moving mass. I guess Timeltel agrees(?)

On another topic, did you see where Robert E Green reviewed the new Townsend turntable in TAS using an AKG P8ES vdH II cartridge, which he loved and laments is NLA? Of course, he is a longstanding proponent of MM cartridges whom I used to think of as "quaint", not to say "antique". Now of course, he has become brilliant in my eyes, except he also liked the Amadeus and I am not much of a fan of Well Tempered tts. Lucky for me, I own one of those AKGs thanks to Raul. Thanks, R.
Dear Timeltel,
I guess my goals are different from yours and some others. Once I find something good, I tend to want to keep it in my system. I am not really in this for the adventure. So I will eventually try the 315, but with some reluctance. Also, my present MM phono stage does not have the capability to vary load R or load C, except with a soldering iron. I have been looking for weeks for such a flexible MM stage at an affordable price, and have yet to find it. I may build it, as mentioned elsewhere. I am not sure I meant to say that I KNOW that the cantilever has its own effect on sound; I did mean to say that it MUST have an effect, but far be it from me to ferret that out. In your previous treatise on cantilevers, I thought you ranked titanium somewhere in the middle among desirable cantilever materials, in terms of known physical properties. For me, there's too much else going on ever to do a controlled experiment on the sound of a cantilever.

The Parasound amp gives a quite different quality from the Atma-sphere. You would not think so, but actually the Atma-sphere gives a better more detailed bass response, because it is quite happy driving the very high impedance of the low end of an ESL. OTOH, transistor amps probably do not like driving the bass into a 50-60 ohm load at very low audio frequencies. From the low midrange up, the Parasound is excellent. It's a wonderful amplifier for its cost.
Dear Timeltel, You said a mouthful. I probably would not hear any of that nuance. I am more than willing to try the other cartridge, if one comes up. However, I am too cynical and perhaps hard of hearing to make such exact statements about any phono cartridge. I would just say X sounds better to me than Y. Bravo! But don't forget; the phono stage, the tonearm, and the turntable mat, not to mention even the cartridge screws and how tight they are, were determinants of your results, along with the cartridges themselves. Seriously though, you are obviously a well trained listener and a good writer as well. By the way, the bass response improved most in association with "break-in" of the Acutex. For the first several hours it was congested. Also with break-in came more bloom and air, which is to be expected.
Dear Timeltel, I tried to add this question in editing my post above, but somehow could not add the needed sentences: Have you (or has anyone) tried a Saturn V headshell with your Acutex's? Raul said he thought the cartridge sounded better in the standard headshell adapter vs in the Saturn V. I have been very pleased with 320 in its adapter, but I am very tempted to try out the Saturn V, in order to form my own opinion. The Acutex literature touts this as the optimal way to go. I am a little afraid of trying it, because my first LPM body came in a Saturn V. When I tried to separate the two, the LPM body fell apart, leaving half of itself inside the Saturn V and thus destroying the usefulness of both. Probably the two had been mated for decades such that they were bonded together by electrolysis. I had to buy another LPM off eBay and then found another Saturn V as well. This time I will use a little Walker Audio contact enhancer, the greasy-ness of which should allow easy separation of the LPM from the Saturn V, should I decide I do not like the latter.

The 320 is breaking in and getting even better than it was at first listen, as you correctly predicted.
Dear Jlin, You wrote, "Triode phono stages typically have 50-150 pf of Miller effect capacitance." That seems VERY high for Miller value for any small signal tube I know about. To check myself, I just looked up Miller capacitance of a 12AX7, a commonly used phono input tube. The sum of all input capacitances for 12AX7 is less than 10pF. Also, Miller is not an issue with pentodes, as you suggest, or with a cascode built from two triodes (which is one reason why many like the cascode as a phono input topology). Also, I would mildly take issue with your statement that "too high a capacitance can cause roll-off in the high frequencies". This is not always the case, because the load C interacts with the inductance of the cartridge itself and with load R. Due to resonance between that L and C, sometimes one can extend hf response by adding C and fiddling with R. It's counter-intuitive, I know, and something I just recently learned from one of the other guys lurking in this thread.
Jlin, Forgot to consider the gain factor. I think of "Miller" as a reference to the capacitance per se, not the product of Cm times gain. Thanks for pointing out my error in assessing the total capacitance at the input. As to the bit about increasing load C, I have a headache...

Timeltel, Like Halcro, I was LOL-ing. I found a place in the US that will sell you a brass cylinder in several different diameters and almost any length you desire. I would start with that. Maybe 3-4" diameter and whatever height is needed based on the height of the platter. Lets say 6 inches. Then I would drill and tap a threaded hole in the center of the cylinder, and I would fasten a flat piece of brass that was appropriately drilled out to accept my tonearm of choice, cantilevered out from the brass cylinder, so as to allow space for tonearms that must go below the surface of an armboard and so one could fine tune pivot to spindle distance without having to try to move the brass cylinder, once it was approximately correctly situated, also to allow one to use different tonearms. (Quick calculation says a 4" diameter by 6" high brass cylinder would weigh ~22 lbs or 10 kg) I would put some sort of feet on the bottom of the brass cylinder, which would be drilled and tapped to accept 3 such, maybe Stillpoints(?) Fortunately for me, I have my perfectionist semi-retired machinist friend who will no doubt be thrilled to do this with me using his incredible shop tools. I have not mounted the EPA500; none of my present plinths will accept it due to its huge diameter base (needs a 63mm hole). Perhaps that's the tonearm to mate with a no-plinth Denon DP80 using my brass tower. If tt and arm pod both sit on a really rock solid nonresonant shelf (go find that), it should work OK. Suffice to say it would make music.
Relax. You are not the one who gave the incorrect estimate of Miller effect. I have been stewing on that all day. It just goes to show that my own knowledge is a mile wide and an inch deep and tenuously retained in my brain. I hate giving out bad info on the internet; too much of that is done by others. Should have re-read about Miller before posting.
Halcro, Yeah, but you have to listen to Pines of Rome for the 10,000th time. That's too high a price to pay for unraveling anything.
Raul, That's very useful information, even to someone who might have a different opinion of those FR cartridges. (I am not one of those; I don't own one.) Thanks.

One wonders why the FR cartridges are not in fact perfectly suited to the FR tonearms, but maybe some of the other FR tonearms (other than the 64S and 66S) do have the lower mass that is more ideally suited, based on resonance theory.
I searched long and hard for that 980LZS, just out of curiosity and because of its exotic nature. I got this in very used condition off eBay. Sadly, I had a chance to buy an NOS D98S stylus for it, but I procrastinated due to the cost and lost it to someone else. The original stylus did not fit firmly to the cartridge body; it's only held in place by friction. So I took a small elastic band and slipped it over both the body and the stylus assembly, so the two are firmly held together, and I imagine this also dampens some resonances. Works great. Just found an NOS Pickering D7500S stylus for it, which will have to do. But now I feel no compulsion to change immediately to a new stylus. The original is good to go so far. I really like it; Raul is not so fond of LZS, prefers the HZS version, which I would love to try too.
by some weirdness the above post was posted twice. Dunno how I did that.
Elastic band is better because it is easily reversible and because it applies a steady pressure on the junction between cartridge body and stylus, whereas with tape I am not sure I could do it. There would be too much danger of fouling the stylus. But you're joking of course.

That's one thing that bugs me about all MM cartridges. The most important interface, between the stylus assembly and the body, is often a perilous contact point. Maybe I should market those small elastic bands under the Harmonix brand for $100 each.
Thanks, Nicola. It would appear based on your contribution that some of the other FR tonearms might indeed be more suitable for the FR cartridges that Raul and Halcro own. But now Halcro states that in fact the compliance of the cartridges is indeed rather low and probably suited in a technical sense for use in an FR64S. (I also think we have to include the "S" designation, because the S version of the 64 has higher effective mass than the other versions.) Anyway, here I am speculating about stuff I do not own and probably never will own.

Timeltel, You suggest that low output MM cartridges lack "texture", I think is what you wrote. But I am here to tell you that the 980LZS in the Kenwood L07J tonearm has remarkable ability to convey musical texture. In fact, that is its forte, IMO. I am listening alternately to the Acutex LPM320 in a Dynavector tonearm and the Stanton in the L07J. The former cartridge puts the spotlight front and center on the central performance. The latter one casts perhaps a wider soundstage and brings the collateral supporting artists into a wider, paler light. The feel is like that of lying down on a comfortable divan to enjoy music at leisure. This is all about texture, I think.
I searched long and hard for that 980LZS, just out of curiosity and because of its exotic nature. I got this in very used condition off eBay. Sadly, I had a chance to buy an NOS D98S stylus for it, but I procrastinated due to the cost and lost it to someone else. The original stylus did not fit firmly to the cartridge body; it's only held in place by friction. So I took a small elastic band and slipped it over both the body and the stylus assembly, so the two are firmly held together, and I imagine this also dampens some resonances. Works great. Just found an NOS Pickering D7500S stylus for it, which will have to do. But now I feel no compulsion to change immediately to a new stylus. The original is good to go so far. I really like it; Raul is not so fond of LZS, prefers the HZS version, which I would love to try too.
I am happy with the elastic band. I don't think twice about it. But I suppose silicon adhesive would work, albeit it would leave a permanent mess that a putative next owner might not like. If someone wants to try it, I would love to hear about it. Only a few cartridges, e.g., the Stantons and the Pickerings, are amenable to this precaution, I was thinking. You can't do it with my Acutex, for example, because there is neither a place to put the elastic band safely so it won't foul the stylus assembly (and tear it off), nor a mating surface where you could apply adhesive with no fear of collateral damage.
Dlaloum touches on an interesting point that I had never fully appreciated but is obvious. In an MM cartridge, the coils reside in the cartridge body and stay with that body no matter what stylus "upgrade" one might employ. Therefore, would it not be true that when one puts, for example, an AT20SS stylus on an AT14Sa body (just using a random example of a lesser AT cartridge), one might not be getting the full benefits of "AT20SS sound", because the coils in an AT14Sa (assuming it is higher in output; I don't know) would impart a higher inductance than what one might get when mating AT20SS body and an AT20SS stylus? I would be interested to know what Dlaloum and Timeltel think about this. Many of us seem to be randomly mating cartridge bodies and styli, as long as they will fit together; this might not have a predictable outcome.
Raul, Apropos of your remarks about system differences, I know full well that I have all my audio life been aiming for the accurate reproduction of Jazz, to include especially vocalists, small combos, and big bands. I never think twice about opera or classical orchestral music (altho big band jazz makes near similar demands as compared to orchestra). Plus, long ago I fell in love with planar speakers, especially ESLs, and OTL amplifiers to drive them. (OTL tube amps are actually a bad choice to drive Maggies or any full-range ribbon, actually.) I am quite happy trying to maximize with my biases and preferences always in mind.
Downunder, where is your post on the protractor?
It looks to be better than any that I own, price notwithstanding. The problem is that I do own 3 protractors already. The built-on magnifier is a neat idea, IMO.
Raul, You ask a great question. I had not auditioned a solid state amplifier in my own system for many years. After the Parasound A21 had broken in for a few days at my house, I was wondering about the exact same thing. Why would anyone pay more than the cost of the JC1s (assuming the JC1 is superior to the A21) for a solid state amplifier? And most dealers discount them in spite of the already relatively modest retail prices ("Relatively" is a relative term, obviously. I realize $8,000 retail for the JC1s is hardly cheap.) For example, how much better could the Soulution amplifiers be, at $120,000 per pair (if I have the price right)?
Raul, I have never heard your speakers, of course, but they are so different in every way from a Sound Lab ESL that I am very surprised to learn there is a similarity in sound. Re solid state amplifiers: I have been involved in an extensive revision of my OTLs for the past several months. Finally, I could not stand to be without music, so after much research I bought a Parasound A21 stereo amp. The A21 is baby brother of the JC1s, the differences being stereo on one chassis vs monoblocks, separate power supplies for driver stage and input stage in the JC1 vs A21. Otherwise, the actual ss devices used in the two amps are identical with fewer output transistors in the A21. I can only say that the A21 does a fantastic job driving my Sound Lab spkrs, and if I were going to continue to use a solid state amp, I would go for the JC1s in a heartbeat. Meantime, the A21 must be the bargain of the century for what it does as compared to its modest cost. Still, I am very anxious to get back to my OTLs.
Somewhere back in the middle of this thread, I recounted the experience I had with the Supex, when it hit the US and was "the rage" among audiophiles. Someone brought one to my house along with a Mark Levinson pre-preamp, and we listened to it on my system, which was probably magnepans at that time (heaven forfend). Anyway, I was very underwhelmed and continued with MM cartridges for at least a decade longer, whereupon I bought a Sumiko Bluepoint Special or something like that, and told myself that it was good. Not. But the Supex did not make good music to my ears. Actually, my first really good LOMC was the Urushi, purchased around 6-7 years ago, after enduring HOMCs (e.g. Benz Glider, Transfiguration Esprit) for many years and not even considering the MMs and MIs that were out there all the time. I now believe that HOMCs are the least good category of cartridge, after MM, MI, LOMC in no particular order.
Dear Nikola,
I do not bother to argue about amplifiers, big or small. I think of amplifiers as a means to an end, and that an amplifier has no importance except to drive the speaker properly. Hence to me the amplifier/speaker form a closed system, much like the tonearm/cartridge. If I owned a high efficiency horn system, I would certainly also own a low power SET, but I have yet to fall in love with a horn speaker that I could afford. For these big ESLs, like my Sound Labs, you just need a lot of power, and there is no getting around it. Once that is settled, then one can begin to apply one's own taste to making the choice of what amplifier. For me, the tube OTL has a certain synergy with an ESL. ESLs as a class are what I like, taken all in all, although the ESL idea is certainly not perfect or without faults. Not all solid state amps can do a good job on an ESL, because of the inherent reactance. (An ESL is a giant capacitor.) Some big boys (e.g., some of the older Krells) have been known to go crazy and shut down when hooked to a big ESL. Anyway, the Pass and John Curl-designed amps seem to do a great job on them. I am sure there are other good candidates. For that matter, If I had to do it, I could probably live a long time with this Parasound A21.
Dear Rich, Dertonearm's tool (you will pardon the expression): It looks VERY nice. It's expensive.

Dear Nikola, I think you might be right that when I wrote something about any audio gear being an "investment", I was making fun of myself. I do not seriously believe this. However, the vintage stuff does hold its value, at least. A friend of mine who is very well known in the business was just telling me last night that a Fidelity Research FR66S was available on eBay any time for $600, in 2005. They now regularly appear there for $6000 and much more.

As Raul implies, I too would never take any advice from Sam Tellig regarding an ultimate audio system or ultimate audio components. He does after all call himself the "audio cheapskate". These guys who write for the audio magazines are just like you and me, only they may write better and/or may have even a bigger addiction to audio gear. Only a few are technically knowledgeable and worth reading.