Who needs a MM cartridge type when we have MC?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

we need a decent TT and decent tonearm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
rauliruegas

Showing 50 responses by rauliruegas

Dear Birdliver: Good to know it. Congratulations!

regards and enjoy the music,
raul.
Dear friends: I just receive a NOS ( thak you Siniy123 ) Technics epc-p100c mk4 cartridge. For the people that knows about this Technics is the best ever quality performance cartridge.

Knowing its top quality I delayed the AKG P-100LE cartridge review till I test this Technics baby and compare between, this comparison ( I hope ) will come in that review.

Only a pre-view from its manual, the frequency range is : 5hz to 120,000hz and the frequency response deviation from 20hz-20khz is only 0.3db!!!: in the graphic/diagram sheet I can see only a flat line with out any deviation, certainly the best I saw ever.

Very promising, we will see.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Siniy123: I know what you mean but I can't stay " calm " till I have and hear this Technics best ever made cartridge. This is a statement of product by any standards, beautiful made: full of quality everywhere in the cartridge build.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Phaser: Yes, interesting. As I posted and as all we know the load impedance/capacitance subject is a main factor on any cartridge set up and the MM/MI ones are no exception.

It is very dificult to have a single absolute answer ( values ) for all cartridges ( is the same with LOMC cartridges. ) but 47K/100K ( and 100pf on C. ) are two values to start.

In theory an according each one cartridge internal electrical characteristics there is one single values on impedance/capacitance that make that the cartridge shows a flat frequency response and those values are the ideal ones in theory.

But as important is that flat frequency response as important is the cartridge relationship with all the other audio links in the audio chain and this very complex relationship is what in practice makes that those impedance/capacitance values be system/ears dependent.

IMHO the best we can do is try/test different values till we find what we are looking for.
In my case and due that I'm testing several cartridges I decide to have average values that works fine overall.

There is nothing " write " about, the Technics 100cMK4 that I just receive in its manual you can read on the subject: 10K to 1000K!!

Hearing is believing.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Driveman: The Azden YM-P50VL is a standard P-mount and already comes with a universal mount adaptor.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Phaser: That P-77 is very nice cartridge. Now, you are enjoying at that load impedance and this is an important subject, I don't see that you are in a " hurry " to modified the phono stage but in the future could be a good alternative to try.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Siniy123: Sorry, I don't have any info other that the one you have that I think is by different model, I can't be sure due that Audio technica made its commercial work in different countries with similar cartridges but with little changes in the name of the models ( maybe with little changes in the design too. ).

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Derekmur: I almost don't have that kind of problem with my cartridges, either LOMC or MM/MI ones, other than with the MP-50 Super and the AT-155LC ( that I'm testing right ow. ) but I have the noise only when I touch the headshell and this is a bad ground connection that in my case is because I don't use the tonearm ground wire in the DIN pin-5 connector.

A MM is more sensitive than a LOMC cartridge against " noise pollution " in the air.
If you are sure that your system ground connection is a good one ( a ground connection at one and only one point: the phonolinepreamp, every single audio link " floating ". ) then try to modified the tonearm cables position, sometimes this help or even try with different cables.
Somewhere in the system is a problem of bad shield, many times is at the phono stage design that does not takes in count the especial needs in a MM cartridge.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Lewm: Both cartridges are similar with two main differences: as you point out the E comes for elliptical stylus against the FL that comes with a linear contact type, the other difference is on compliance: E has 40cu against the 20cu for the FL.

I know for the last time I test both that are really great cartridges and I posted somewhere ( if I remember Siniy123 like in especial manner too. ) in the thread. In this moment I can't be precise on its quality performance differences but its whole performance is very near each other, maybe it is more a tonearm match subject with each model.

Anyway, I concur with you about its high quality performance that for that ridiculous price seems to me a must to have bargain.

I think I have to play again with these Ortofon's and enjoy its great performance.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Jim: I don't have the time at the moment ( sorry. ) for a precise explanation/comparison but IMHO the FL/E are something to hear and a must addition to your " powerful cartridge arsenal ", no doubt about: buy it while it last.
Let me tell you that I own three model E and two model FL and that today I just buy one additional FL from that ebay link

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Timeltel: Siniy123 makes that I was aware on that Shure cartridge but I don't try to find it hard yet.

Stay tunned for the Empire 4000DIII.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear cashcamp: Yes that is exactly what I'm hearing but like I posted that is system/ears dependent as is dependent those 6mm , do you already try 8mm or 10mm? why not?

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Phaser: Not been at your place I can't say where is the problem in what you are hearing, I only can speculate about.

I'm with Dgarretson. I already heard the Bill Evans recording with tree-four cartridges ) including the 1080. ) and what I experienced are nothing but first rate quality performances.

The cartridge set-up ( starting with using a matched toneam and no less important the cartridge impedance/capacitance loading. ) always makes a difference as a difference always makes the phono stage.

I don't think that your ears differ too many from Dgarretson or mines or other thread contributors and that's why I speculate on what I posted.

The other side, due that these MM/MI cartridges are very old, is that your samples were not overall in good shape and this could be.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Axel/Lew: Today it is very dificult to me continue to hear LOMC cartridges, more and more the MM/MI experience tell me that today this is IMHO the right analog source. I have to say that I don't have the 100% control on the MM/MI alternative due that is a " new " experience for me against 25+ years with the MC alternative, this fact could tell me that when we can have more " control/know-how " on the MM/MI alternative things will comes better still.

I know that different materials conduct the sound at different velocities what I don't know is if at the cartridge overall level the sound transmission velocity can be hear it ( the differences in velocity. ) and discerned by us like a precise velocity difference, at the end the cartridge " road/distance " where the signal pass is so small.

The differences in cartridge tonal balance ( especialy in the highs. ), brigtness, sparkle, etc, etc many times we can take it like a " faster /velocity " characteristic of one or other cartridge, so I can't be sure about : fast cartridges.

On the other side and talking of continuty the MM/MI alternative has the supremacy here and between other things I think that the fact that the MM/MI are better trackers that permit that the stylus always and I mean always stay in touch with the LP track surface help a lot against the MC that maybe and due that are not so good trackers lose contact at microscopic level.

These are only thoughts and nothing where we can be sure.

Btw, the 20FL is an " aristocrat " cartridge against the lot less refined Shure performance.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Lewm: Well, yes I understand but because almost all are out of production cartridges maybe we can't find it in the near future.

Anyway, the choice to buy or not is a very personal decision.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Axel: Good for you, I'm sure you will like it and like always: your posts about is welcome.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Selfdivider: I don't have experience other than 47K/100K but the cartridge loading subject is always something to try, listening and decide.

Maybe other member can comment in specific of your needs.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear friends: I can't remember whom was the person that ask the performance of the AT-155LC against the AT-ML160-LC/OCC.

Well I receive my 155LC and I can confirm that the AT-ML160 is a better performer in any way.

The 155 remember me the LOMC performance with less than excellent quality performance at both frequency extremes where the AT-ML160-LC/OCC excel. No, I'm not saying is not a good cartridge because it is but in a different " league " that its oldest 160 " brother ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Kristian: Yes some other contributor in this thread already posted, thank you for do it your self.

I hope that you can enjoy your M20FL in the same manner many of us are enjoying it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Phaser: You are right. Maybe I have to be more specific and certainly not the A-90 that is very good in those frequency ranges.

What I mean is the " average " LOMC sound. As you can read I'm not saying that the 155LC is a bad cartridge no it is a good cartridge but ( like in LOMC cartridges ) in a different quality performance level.

I prefer the A-90 or Xv-1s over the PC-1 or Orpheus ( original ), IMHO the formers are in different " league " than the other two.

Now the 155LC ( in my system and loaded at 100K/100pf ) music presentation is near a LOMC sound than the top MM/MIs like its " old " brother ML160-LC/OCC.

This is not an insult to the LOMC carrtridges but only a comparison.

Now, maybe I'm a little biased right now because the latest cartridges that I'm hearing are the very top MM/MI like the 160 , AKG P100, Technics 100C, Technics 205MK4, etc, etc. IMHO all these cartridges ( overall ) are a little better than the top LOMC ones.
I don't know if you already have/had the opportunity to hear one of them in your system but if not try to do it, till you have that opportunity it will be very dificult to understand the MM/MI supremacy.

Many of the MM/MI cartridges named in this thread are good like: Garrot P-77, Andante P-76, Empire 1000 ZE/x, At 155 LC, At 20SS, Astatic MF-100 etc, etc but the excellence belongs to only a few ones like the ones I named in this post.

In other post I write that I don't have 100% control over the MM/MI alternative due that is " new " for me and maybe this is too what is happening with other people ( like you ) that till today does not have the in deep know how in this alternative like the in deep know how in the LOMC cartridge alternative that all of us are tryying for so many years in a row.

IMHO I think that many of us ( including me ) need more time on the MM/MI research alternative.

Today I know that I prefer it over the LOMC alternative and not because this one is bad but because the MM/MI one is nearest to the music.

Phaser try to find ( Asia. ) a Technics U205CMK4 and I'm sure that when you hear it your " vision " on the subject will change in many ways where you can understand what my posts means: hearing is believing!

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Phaser: I would like to understand what you mean. Could you tell me which recordings and tracks are you refering?

In the other side the 100K/100pf cartridge loading could help about.

Anyway, I can see that you don't dislike at all the MM/MI experience.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Phaser: Thank you. I have the Bill Evans one. I will try it and share my thoughts about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Birdliver: I don't hear the 50Super for some time but what I already experienced with IMHO it is somewhere between both performance levels.

I have to test it again.

Regards and enjoy the music,
raul.
Dear Sonofjim: Yes, the dynamic compliance on the E is 25cu. The latest time that I tested was in the EPA 100 and works really good. I don't thimg you can have trouble with your 500, yes maybe there are some other tonearms that could match in better way but remember that the tonearm/cartridge resonance frequency can't tell you its whole overall quality performance, that spec/value only tell you that the resonance frequency is inside/outside and ideal frequency range. Of course that this is important but through many years I had and I have still experiences where the frequency resonance is out of that range and the performance is very good: could it be better when the frequency response is right on target?, could be, yes.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Zhuwei1231: IMHO I don't think that any one already try the Jico M20FL because the Jico stylus has conical shape instead the line contact in the NOS.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Phaser/Downunder: Kristian bring here again that interesting link, please read it.

In the other side: do you know that Dr. Van denHul use the Technics EPC100CMK4 as his personal cartridge reference/standard?

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Phaser: +++++ " When you listened to the Bill Evans album did you do so with both MC and MM or just different MM's " +++++

good point and yes I heard it with both kind of cartridges but I don't do it with the Garrot.

+++++ " stress that I have spent as much time with each cartridge trying to optimize its performance and I cannot see that I would set up the MM better than the MC or vice versa " +++++

this is critical ( set-up ) to make a comparison especially with top audio systems like the one you own.

I'm sure that you like me made the right MC cartridge loading set-up and in your case the MM/MI loading set up was not ( IMHO ) the best for the cartridge shows its best.

This loading set up does not makes a night and day difference but give that detail and " recovery " information that you are talking about with the MC. I can remember that Dgarretson point out in precise manner this critical subject and I have to say that as better is the audio system as critical is this set up factor to make comparisons and to be more fair in that comparisons.

Now, that Garrot in my today opinion is a good performer but miss the ultimate quality to be at the top with other MM/MI cartridges.

I would like that Lewm could share his latest experiences with the Ortofon M20FL Super that IMHO is a little better than the P-77.

+++++ " What I can conclude from my own experience is that I concur with almost every Audio journalist in the world who contends that MC's offer more detail and higher resolution than MM's " +++++++

IMHO the trouble with them is almost the same that with other people ( like you ): they don't try it yet any of the top MM/MI performers with the precise cartridge set up.
Not only that but almost all of them maybe already listening 2-3 MM/MI cartridges ( with wrong set up ), they need to try 10-15 ones with the right set up.

But, you can read too that there are a few reviewers ( I name it in the thread ) that use the MM/MI alternative and their opinion on the subject is a little different over the reviewers that prefer the MC ones because in reality these reviewers have no precise MM/MI experiences for make a statement on the subject.

I can't find it but somewhere in this tread a person posted a link where we can read that not only some ( few ) reviewers likes the MM/MI alternative but recording producers made the monitoring of their recordings through MM/MI cartridges.

Phaser, IMHO I think that the most interesting subject in this thread is that the MM/MI alternative is still alive and is a good alternative.

My conclusions are a little different from yours ( mainly ) because I already test 40+ MM/MI cartridges with what in my audio system ( today ) is a good cartridge set up ( that could change in the future: who knows!. ). I have to add: with a dedicated phono stage for each cartridge design: MC and MM/MI that copes with its each one cartridge design specific needs.

You experiences about while are very good I think are/were a little limited till today.

For me the important subject is that you take the time to make a " research " on the MM/MI alternative and that, one way or the other, you like it too.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Rnadell: +++++ " I'm frustrated. " +++++

well I can tell for sure that any one of us were frustrated many times in different audio subjects over our audio life and all those frustrations were part important in our each one audio learning curve. We have to learn how to take/learn advantage on our frustrations and instead to be frustrated we have to think that we learn something.

I agree with what Siniy123 posted about: we are on our own, the whole high end audio industry does not care about because they normaly care about busine$$ ( like the MC cartridges. ) and the MM/MI alternative is no busine$$ for any one of them.

+++++ " I also notice that these mm are not compared directly to lomc's, have I missed something? " +++++

I think yes, you have to read over the thread: there are several LOMC cartridge comparison by different thread contributors.

About the headshells you buy the AT ones that I know comes with adjustment top the cartridge, example: the MG-10 for overhang ( no azymuth. ), the LS/T-12 overhang and azymuth, MS-8 the same as 12, etc, etc, I don't know wich model you get. The Grace one has no finger pick up?, no big deal I use every single headshell with out it because it is an additional distortion source.

Don't worry too much about effective mass and the like with these MM/MI alternative, I can tell you that till today and after more than 40+ test with these kind of cartridges all perform very good and probably many of the tonearm/cartridge combinations that I used were out of ideal resonance frequency range I can't say for sure because I never care about: I care for what I hear. Certainly many of those cartridges could perform a little better if I been/be more precise but till today I'm lucky about. I know this attitude is not an orthodox one but the life is to short and I have to use my time in my audio system hearing and enjoying music.

Go a head, we all are in learning MM/MI cartridge process where we have success and sometime bad experiences that makes we feel: frustrated.

Anyway, yes IMHO is worth to do it and this is the way it is!

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear friends: Worth to own it:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Bang-Olufsen-MMC-1-PHONO-CARTRIDGE-RARE-MMC1_W0QQitemZ290373706990QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item439b9f24ee#ht_1632wt_1165

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Toufu: Glad to hear that your re-tipped Ruby in on its " way " again.

Btw, for what you remember which are the differences ( is any ) between the original Ruby and this " new " re-tip that was not a true original re-tip?

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Downunder: ++++ " I would say that the total SS amplification chain you, Raul and others use may make the MM's sound better in your systems vc MC's which may be a bit too revealing. " +++++

this is at least the second time that you post in similar way and IMHO I think that some way or other you have a misunderstood or not a precise information on the subject, let me put my thoughts about:

first I don't want to create a controversy on SS against tubes or other electronic alternative designs, so I will speak in a " general " way:

IMHO as more accurate and neutral ( lower distortion/colorations/noise. ) is an audio design as more resolution and revealing performance on the source quality.

No, the MC are not more " revealing " but has a higher distortions ( due too many factors like tracking distortion where the MM/MI are a lot better or its high frequency ringing, additional gain stages, etc, etc. ) and in audio systems that are more accurate those high distortions comes out.
In a less accurate audio systems those distortions are hide through the less resolving and more " colored " system.

So, IMHO what Axelwhal, me and others are hearing is precisely that: are " nake " it the real LOMC quality performance where I agree the top MM/MI has one step a head.

Donwunder, for many many years the King ( LOMC cartridges ) was alone with no one and nothing that can/could challenge it. Ours audio systems and ears were totally equalized to LOMC ones, the audio system set up in all our home systems were made for an overall set up right on target for and only for: LOMC cartridges, even the phono stages almost all were designed to cope not the MM/MI needs but the specific ones for LOMC cartridges.

It is a huge merit that with all these big disadvantages the humble MM/MI cartridges performs so well.

Your system goes around LOMC cartridges, you don't made the system set up for MM/MI's.
What if your set up was made specific for MM/MI's? do you think that your MP-50 could performs better that what you are hearing? do you think that if your phono stage was designed to cope the specific eeds of your MM/MI cartridges what you are hearing can/could improve?

+++++ " Bottom line, there is clearly many ways to musical satisfaction and there is no best, only best for you. " ++++

I have to disagree with your statement. IMHO certainly is the best ( everything the same ) and in the case of MC and MM/MI these ones are a head ( the best. )

The fact that you are not hearing at its best the MM/MI cartridges you own does not means that these cartridges are not better of what you are hearing, it is only that these cartridges are showing ( through its performance level ) the limitations of your system due that your system overall set up don't match its specific needs: that's all.

Anyway, even in those not favorable conditions ( one way or the other ) you are enjoying the quality performance of these MM/MI cartridges

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Phaser: Not exactly, maybe I don't explain in the right way. I will try it again:

Downunder states for the second time that SS goes better with MM/MI cartridges and LOMC ones with tubes but not with SS because are more " revealing " and the SS are not up to the task ( at least this is what I understand from what he posted. ).
IMHO this kind of statement is a misunderstood and perhaps the right answer is at the inverse way.

+++++ " Everyone who doesn't hear what you hear or disagrees with you has a low resolution, highly colored system, doesn't know how to set up MM's or presumably anything else and so has to make do with highly distorted signals from ridiculously expensive MC's to trick themselves into thinking they are hearing something approximating real music. " +++++

not really again. What I'm saying is that for a carrtridge comparison was/is fair both cartridges under comparison must be under the same/similar circumstances, this means mated with the right matching tonearm and with the right overall set up according with each own cartridge specific needs. Don't you agree that this is a fair comparison? and this is what I'm trying to share.

Unfortunately only a few of us have the " tools " in the audio system to meet the overall characteristics need it for a fair comparison between LOMC and MM/MI cartridges.

Phaser, what do you do if you want to compare in your system two LOMC cartridges? do you make a near perfect overall set up on one of these cartridges and a " lightly " set up on the other one?, knowing you I assume that you will make the best overall set up for each cartridge because you want to know its real differences and only with the right set up on each one you can find it, right?. Well this is what I'm saying, I'm not saying or trying to imply that if any one disagree with what I'm hearing he is wrong. I always try to find or to explain me where are the differences in our each opinion and why of those differences: I need to learn inside those opinions and one of the best ways to do it is through specific facts.

Btw, do you already read the Stereophile MF reviews on two LOMC and one MM by Ortofon?, please tell me if that was fair, if the 2M Black had any chance to compare with anything when he mated with that 70.00 AT phono stage when the other LOMC were mated with 5K-7K dedicated phono stages?, even he states that the 2M Black compete with the SSMCC1 and the Sumiko Blackbird when these two cartridges were not mated with that AT phono stage: how he can conclude that?

All these mis-information is what put in my mouth the word " corruption ", maybe is a big word but I don't know, in my restricted English vocabolary, other more adequate word.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear friends: I already send an email to WT where I explain our findings on the M20FL Super and where I ask where he get these Ortofon ( his source. ) cartridges and if he can confirm that both different cartridge body/color are the same.

I let you know his answer when I receive it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Pryso: I ask to his right hand worker.

No it is not a stretch because I'm only refereing to a cartridge reference not source reference.

Regards and enjoy the music,
raul.
Dear Dgarretson: I never try over 100K but ( I can't remember whom. ) one person posted here that he was achieving great performance at 250K!

I agree with you, with this continuosly variable loading the performance gap between cartridges can be narrowed a lot and can give us the right tool to achieve in more easy way the best of each one cartridge, welcomed idea!!

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Kristian85: One trouble with a long thread is that the " new " people can't read it all.

I posted the same link you bring here about load impedance ( thank you to bring it again. )/capacitance and his importance.

What we read through the link is not what is happening it is only a very simple matemhatics/physics model that does not take in count all the factors that are involve in the cartridge frequency response.

There are many mechanical/electro-mechanical factors that affect the cartridge response: cartridge/LP feedback ( during tracking and due to the VTF applied and the friction on the disc ), the tonearm/cartridge frequency resonance frequency, the headshell own resonances and its response with an specific cartridge, the tonearm behavior that affect the cartridge response, the tonearm internal wiring, not ideal VTA/SRA set up, airborne feedback, TT own resonances/vibrations, etc, etc.. All these and many more factors affect the cartridge frequency response well not the cartridge frequency response but that alter the signal quality performance ( where the FR is one characteristic of that performance. ).

When you take in count all those related cartridge factors IMHO that model is useless or at least can't tell us the reality of what is happenning.

So, IMHO the 100K is a good option like could be 47K or 26K or 75K.

What is important to me is that using what any one is using on impedance/capacitance values the sound performance be nearer to the recording/live event.
If 15K or 47K or 100K works in your system that's fine.

Till today no one can prove for sure that 100K/100pf is wrong and many of the persons that already test these values are satisfied with, of course with the cartridge they own.

THere are cartridges that works very well at 47K in my system like the Nagaoka and one or two AT's.

Now, the 100K/100pf could do harm as the system has higher system distortion but as lower is the system overall distortion as better works the 100K figure.

Anyway, as I told Downunder I already posted more than three times that the impedance/capacitance subject is system dependent.

Kristian, at least these manufacturers recomended 100K: Empire, Grace, Technics, Stanton, Pickering,etc. and if you read somewhere the manufacturers that recomended 47K they do it along high capacitance and as you go high in capacitance as you put emphasis in the high frequency. With 100K you put emphasis in that frequency range but in some ways compensate with the low 100pf on total capacitance.

As I posted somewhere: it is not all writing on load impedance/capacitance and IMHO we are learning about in this " new " MM/MI analog source.

Kristian, after 20+ years with the MC alternative today we still have severe controversies on MC load impedance!!!, so the subject is not different on MM/MI's.

How do you know which is the right load impedance for a LOMC cartridge?, I think testing with different load impedance values and this is exactly what you have to do with MM/MI cartridges and here adding the capacitance factor too.

Again, that's why Dgarretson already have what seems a very good answer to.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Robert: Be sure that the tonearm wires ( color ) makes good connection to the cartridge pin connectors and that are right wired: red to red, blue to blue, etc. etc.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Downunder: +++++ " - our systems are colored and biased towards MC distortions ... " +++++

this is a fact because all of us for the last ten years only heard MC cartridges: our electronics, analog rig, cables, speaker set up, room treatment were a choose voicing MC cartridges not MM/MI ones.
Today we add a " new " source in this " MC environment ": the MM/MI alternative, making almost no other main change that switching the phono stage to MM position.

It is obvious that that system environment is biased towards what we normaly heard/hear: MC cartridges. You can disagree with but IMHO that fact is conclusive on that biased subject towards MC's.

IMHO it is of paramount importance to baware that even in that " hostile " environment the MM/MI cartridges performs so well: great merit, to say the least.

+++++ " last I noticed my system is setup towards my listening, which is a little warmth in the upper bass, a little laid back,tonal meat on the musical notes but still with good dynamics and transparency ... " +++++

maybe here is where reside our differences because IMHO either: live music and recorded music through microphones are not warmth or laid back per se, these two characteristics has nothing to see with live music/recorded music but whith what you like and this is not of what I'm talking about.
Remember?: truer to the recording ( with micros at 1-3m of source distance. ) trying to add and lose the less?
This kind of quality performance is what I'm talking about and it is truly different of what you like.
What you, me or other persons likes is totally a different subject against what the music/recording is or must be.

In a serious comaprison we can't talk of what likes each person because then there is no comparison conlusions when each one has a different opinion but when we are talking on how the music sounds this bring ( at least ) one critical characteristic: the knowledge level on the live music/recording subject.

Downunder, I'm talking of music not what you, me or other persons likes to hear in our systems.

+++++ " when listening to music. there is no absolut " +++++

maybe the only area where IMHO exist the absolute is precisely when listening music: live music.

+++++ " If anyone's tonal balance is ultra neutral (tube or SS, however generally it may be SS) using a highly detailed/transparent MC or MM would probably sound lean and bright on a lot of recordings. Your preference to MM's is totally understandable. " ++++++

I'm not against MC's and certainly not because are overbright or highly detailed, the subject is more in deep and is related with the MC overall presentation of the music against overall presentation of the MM/MI's where IMHO these ones are nearer to the live event, has the magic of the live music where the MC's already lose the music context.

I respect what you like but that is not what I'm talking about.

+++++ " - All MM phono stages MUST be loaded at 100k to sound at its best, otherwise you are intentially incorrectly loading your MM cart. " +++++

this is what I posted several times when start this thread but if you read between the last 4 pages you can find at least two post where I leave very clear that not necessary 100K is an " absolute value " and that we have to find the right value in our each one system. I posted there that due that I own so many cartridges and that I?m continue testing on it and that several of them prefer 100K I use this value as " average " because I don't have the time to be making a precise set up ( load impedance>/capacitance. ) with each single cartridge.

Dgarretsson that know about already take/design what is a very usefull tool on this load impedance subject that will help everyone of us about.

Why I made emphasis on the 100K ( between other things. )/100pf?, well many of you coment that the MC has more detail/transparency and the like: well when you load your MM/MI at 100K/100pf you improve the performance in those characteristics.

+++++ " - last time I looked, ALL MM manufacturers design and voice their cartridges at a standard load of 47K .." +++

this is only non-know how that you have because the higher number of vintage MM/MIs cartridge specs speaks of 100K, even Technics speaks on 100KK!!

+++++ " - Where are the facts that MC's have much higher distortions than MM? " +++++

here are some: needs additional gain stages where added distortions that in the MM's does not exist, additional cables for the SUT's, normally the MM/MI's are better trackers than the MC: here too the MC add distortions on the tracking, etc, etc.

Yes I heard the Soundsmith and the blue/black Ortofon's, the latest Clearaudio even I own one Clearaudio.
The subject with that review is that MF don't give the opportunity that the Black was handled/matched with a better phono stage like the MC's.

Maybe I'm too dogmatic when I speak about comparison but what I like is that comparisons have to be fair: oranges against oranges, I mean similar conditions for both oranges.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Downunder: Please read what Hickory posted in this thread:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1259375932

+++++ The biggest differentiation was only a modest level of retreiving detail for the Nagaoka ..." ++++

this is exactly what I'm refering in my last post to you and about the 100K subject.

Here the MM/MI was against two top LOMC performers.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Timeltel: By the moment I want to enjoy the LPM315 and after that follow testing other cartridges I want like: Signet TK10, AT 24, AT 160, AKG P100, Empire D4000, Nagatron 350, Elac 896, Grace F9 Ruby, Micro Acoustic 630. So it's a long road.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Downunder: For years you, some way or the other, do not like what normally I posted/post and don't like my answers to you.
When your arguments are exhausted/finishised then your attitude is ( like your last post to me. ) to attack personally.

I know that I'm not your " cup of tee " ( ever ) but even that you already attack me over the time I'm not against you and in some ways I try to understand your frustration and that's why I always give you an answer.

I don't want that the thread goes on with personal attacks/offense or the like but that goes on in the clear attitude to learn each one of us.

There is no " worst deaf that the one that does not want to hear ". My last post to you ( the long one. ) give you a very specific answer on almost all the subjects/question you ask or that bring in this thread.

I'm not flipping nothing but given you my honest knowledge about, you can like it or not ( maybe even you could not understand it. ) but if you don't like/understand it this fact can't give you the right to answer in the way you did.

In the future I will post to you if your posts are honest ones and with the mature that you don't show in your latest posts even to other thread contributors.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Jasper: From the same Robert's seller in Germany?

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Kristian85: Thanks to bring it here.

The cartridge degradation due to many years on " stock " and especially the cartridge suspension is a inetersting subject and not ( mainly ) because the vintage NOS/second hand cartridges comes with suspension problems because normally there are no issues about but because I just wonder which was or is the original quality performance of the MM/MIs named in this thread in " fresh " status: two-three months after cartridge building!

Even if we own these very old cartridges and that does not shows signs of deterioration/problems due to aging IMHO certainly through so many years ( one way or the other ) these cartrridges already " suffer " some degradation level ( some where. ) that preclude 100% performance as when the cartridge was new .

These thoughts means to me that these old cartridges ( MC/MM/MI ) were better that what we can hear today on it!!!!

So, my question is: why that very high performance cartridge quality level can't improve or at least not comes down over all these years?, I don't have a precise answer for it, do you? any one else?

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Vladimir: Yes the Soundsmith MI is a good option but if you read over this thread you can find other great alternatives that you can enjoy at least at the same levl than the SS ones and maybe with some other cartridges in best way.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Robert: Please let us know what the dealer say after checking the cartridge.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Axelwahl: The original P-77 is a good cartridge but IMHO the M20FL or E are better performers.

Anyway, I will wait to have the opportunity to hear this new cartridge version. Btw, good to know Garrot is on the road agin with the 77.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Phaser: make sense what you posted.

Btw, I appreciate what MCs do and appreciate its merits: the subject here is that my top MM/MIs put me ( in my system ) nearest to recording/live event: are " truer " than the best MCs, I'm not talking of " day and night " differences but tiny and important ones.

I have to say that through the Phonolinepreamp that I'm using either cartridge signal ( MC and MM/MI ) pass through two phono/gain stages, both carrtridges are even on this regard where in other electronic designs the MC signal pass at least for one additional gain stage.

Anyway, thank you for your answer.

regards and enjoy the music,
raul.
Dear Livemusic: I like the Celebration ( especially with the SME IV/V. ).

+++++ " But this luxury comes at some expense: string goups in the orchestra become indistinguishable, soundboard takes over strings on grand piano, cellos sound darker than life and bass notes generally sound less pronounced and somewhat boomy. " +++++

I can be wrong but IMHO this kind of cartridge performance seems to that it is more a tonearm/matching issue than a cartridge characteristic.
I don't know which of your tonearms you used with the Stanton: LT with wood arm wand can makes what you are talking about especially that " boomy " in the bass, in the other side if you mounted in your Acos then I think could be worth to try it again with a differnt headshell and in both cases with a more pronounce positive VTA/SRA.

If I recall the 881/981 Stanton series were designed for CD-4 too where Stanton recomended 100K on load impedance.

Anyway, nice to see that the 881 likes to you.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Dgarretson: I'm with you and Lewm on that " stereotypical views of SS phono ". IMHO, today is only a myth, a today misunderstood, a wrong way to inform the people and an unfair " road " to continue with that untrue myth.

Downunder, things on SS design already improve in the last five years enough to " kill " once and for ever that false " myth ".

regards and enjoy the music,
raul.
Dear Siniy123: The main differences are two: different cantilever build material ( saphire for the TX-2 instead the berylium on the Tx-1. ) and different stylus shape, same body.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.