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 dover

Nandric - be patient - "they cling to their own point of view, as though everything depended on it. Yet their opinions have no permanence; like autumn and winter, they gradually pass away..."
Nandric, you are so modest, I thought you left Yugoslavia to distribute peace and goodwill..
I owned the Denon DL1000 along with the ebony bodied Dynavector Karat Nova 13D many years ago. On both the matched Denon carbon fiber tonearm and other arms it sounded very refined but was thin, lacked body, detail and dynamics. It was blown away by the Dynavector ( in its own arm ) - the Mardigal Carnegie's and Koetsu's, particularly the Onyx Gold simply blew it away. If you want an outstanding moving coil cartridge of that era try and find the Sony X88D which pulled more information than either the Denon or Dynavector.

With regard to Reto Andreoli he also designs amplifiers which go under the name Blue Audio Systems Design. I own a moving coil head amp that he built, it is very good, particularly after I replaced the Auricap coupling caps with cheaper MIT Multicaps - less glare, more transparency and speed.

I'm not qualified to comment on the spherical stylus debate, but I do remember when working the the Garrot Bros many years ago they were of the view that due to the inherent design of the basic Denon 103 the optimum stylus profile was the Weinz Parabolic/Boron cantilever. They refused to put microscanner profiles on that cartridge. My 103D which has an eliptical diamond and slightly higher compliance than the standard 103 is more transparent and quicker.

Lew - Reto lives in Switzerland. Switzerland is made up of people of German, French & Italian descent. Main spoken language is German. However people speak whatever language works - I've sat in Tuscany many times listening to Italians starting a sentence or joke in Italian and finishing it in German.
T-bone - twas the X88D I heard - it had quite a long cantilever. The stylus and cantilever are cut from one diamond, whereas the Dynavector Nova 13D has a diamond cantilever with a Y shaped yoke into which the stylus diamond is glued.

Lewm, your comments on Dynavector arm are thought provoking. I always disregarded the Stevenson when setting up my Dynavector 501, preferring minimum tracking error using the original Garrot Bros protractor ( Baerwald ) and adjusting overhang to minimise "twist". I always recheck alignment after VTA and tracking force have been dialled in. I wonder whether the ultra short cantilevers of the Dynavector cartridges come into play here. It does occur to me that stylus profile is also going to factor in - maybe an argument for spherical stylus on this arm ??

On my mates Rega P9/P1000 Stevenson alignment has yielded cleaner top end across the whole record.
Hi Lewm, unfortunately my Dynavector is not mounted at the moment but I will try this at some stage. The Dynavector arm has a 2.5 degree error built in at the outer edge of the record to accommodate the Stevenson - ie straight in headshell, assuming you have the overhang as per Dynavector template, so that the error is nulled at the inner groove only. Are you saying the cartridge sounds better at the outer grooves with Stevenson than Baerwald even though the error is greater at this point. My thought was with the greater error is there potential groove damage from having a microscanner type stylus profile askew in the groove ( 2.5 degree out ) hence some might argue that a less severe stylus shape might be helpful when running Stevenson. I have been surprised by my Dynavector Nova 13 in that it will track severe warps in the Naim Aro ( ie 1/4 inch over a 2" distance ) without losing contact, discussion with Peter Lederman at Soundsmith suggested the Dynavector cartridges are quite compliant despite the short cantilevers, so in terms of your question on vector forces, maybe it depends on how much work is performed by the cantilever suspension rather than the vertical arm bearing.
fyi -Re Garrot P77 - I heard this cartridge in the Garrot Bros own system which was an old tt with a heavily modified Nad 3020 and home made electrostatics built by Brian, John's brother. The odd thing was that in their system the P77 sounded like a moving coil, and the moving coils we listened to sounded in their system dull and uninteresting. They were very much of the view that moving coils with that "nasty top end" were for "soft rolled off" valve preamps and their MM was for more accurate solid state preamps. But I have to say dinner with the Garrots was fish and chips with some herbal drink that was a bit suspect.
The reality is these cartridge manufacturers want to sell as many as possible, that means producing products that will sound great, even in suboptimal set ups ( which in my experience includes many audiophile's ). Look how many ways are there really to cut a cat in cartridge design - these guys are producing designs to a flavour that they think will sell, accuracy is not the primary goal.
If you want crazy, when I was in the audio business at customers requests we sent 90% of Koetsu's to Garrots for tuning and installation of microscanner stylus. We even had customers buy brand new Koetsu Rosewoods and have us send them straight to Garrots before using.
Why -
1. Microscanner tip pulled more info from Koetsu.
2. On the stone bodied Koetsu's the cartridge motor was held in with paper shims. We had some where the cartridge motor simply fell out while playing. Garrots used to glue down the generators.
Why didn't Sugano change - he didn't need to.
Lewm, a friend had a Grace 714 many years ago. Used a Garrot P77 with some success. The arm is not particularly rigid and gives a warm soft mellifluous presentation. I would not use a MC with it.
Lewm, - Grace 714 - I should have been clearer on "not particularly rigid". In the sample I've seen and set up there was a lack of rigidity around the headshell area.
Henry, now you might have a hint of what the Ikeda MC, which is Mr Ikeda's next generation cartriudge after the FR-7f, and has no cantilever, might sound like. I have owned 2 of them and believe me, if your arm/phono is up to it, and most aren't, nothing short of a Garrot Decca is anywhere near as quick. It is not for the fainthearted.
Lewm, lightweight headshell suggestion - buy a few Sumiko headshells ( they have azimuth adjustment ) 14g and drill holes in them to reduce weight. I have the low weight Orsonic - it's useless - not particularly rigid on the dynavector arm. It's very hard to find decent headshells with azimuth adj. Jelco do a version of the Sumiko as well which are cheaper.
DLAloum - Yes generators are of the same lineage from Mori. Sony XL-MC7, which became Carnegie 1 ( bodies the same ), then Mori colluded with Lubachek ( Benz ) and van den hul to produce Madrigal Carnegie 2, ven den hul MC1 and derivatives and Benz Silver and derivatives, all of which are related and have similar body.
Never buy a record collection off a Decca user, you will find that most of their inner grooves are rooted.
Lewm,
Your Pythagorean theorem explanation seems flawed to me. If the cartridge is twisted relative to the tonearm then this explanation is irrelevant. If we assume the diamond is correctly alligned in the body, and the cartridge is angled to provide no tracking error at one or two points then a "tangency" can exist at one or two points.
In other words you can achieve tangency at at least one point without a right angle triangle existing as long as you can draw a perpendicular line across the stylus and hit the centre of the spindle.
Nandric/Raul - Dynavector Nova 13D fyi

http://www.hifido.co.jp/KWdynavector+karat+nova/G1/E/0-50/C11-60830-14311-00/

My one is serial number 45, not sure how many made, but there was a "reissue" in the form of a Nova 17D with metal body a few years ago.
Nandric/Raul, re Dynavector Nova 13D
This cartridge was initially purchased/used many yrs ago, the sytem was at the time Final Audio Parthenon turntable/Dynavector 501/NYAL NCP II preamp with HTMPS tube regulated power supply and NYAL OTL1 monoblocks/Stax electrostatic full range speakers/Onkyo SL1 infinite baffle subwoofers ( very low base only ). Initial listening with a normal system was very transparent, but slightly lean and light bottom end. When the cartridge was auditioned in Dynavectors reference system in Japan which had flat response down to 15hz, then you realized the cartridge is dead neutral, it requires a true full range system to realise its potential. It is not a cartridge to impress with either lush midrange or fat bottom end, but if you have an extremely good system it will reveal nuances such as recording venues etc that other cartridges mask with colourations. I last used the Nova 13D in a Naim Aro and this was a very good combination, unleashing a bit more fluidity to the sound compared to the Dynavector arm. My own personal favourite MC though is still the Ikeda canterleverless MC. This is faster and less phasey than any MC I have heard but as stated in other posts requires a very good arm such as the FR64/66 and plenty of gain - output 0.15.
Raul - fyi the boys at Dynavector recommended the vintage Denon AU103 transformer over any headamp or transformer they made themselves for the Nova 13. With the NYAL it had enough gain straight in. Latterly I used Klyne 7 phono ( ok soundwise but not as good as my Marantz 7) and Blue Audio System's head amp/Marantz 7 (modded)(preferred combo).
Nandric - I would be wary at this stage as to whether it is as good as the best today. Unfortunately here in New Zealand I have cannot audition cartridges such as the Allaerts/Air Tight/top Lyra's etc. I have heard the van den hul grasshoppers, the Dynavector is very similar but again the Ikeda blitzes the Van den hul in my view.
Raul - the cartridge in the picture may be a Dynavector Nova 17D, not the 13D. I dug out my correspondence with Dynavector. The cartridges look identical. If the serial number is in the format X### then it is a 17D. My 13D is ##, ie 45.
Now the specs from Dynavector are as follows :
Nova 13D/Nova 17D2
Output 0.12/0.20 (1kHz/cm/sec )
Frequency response 20-40khz/20-30khz +-1db
Channel separation 25db for both
Compliance 18/15
Impedance R=10ohms/R=32ohms
Inductance L=52microH/90microH
Stylus PA Line Contact/Microridge
Cantilever 1.3mm/1.7mm

The Decca is very difficult to set up correctly and hypercritical on arm selection. Remember it has no compliance whatsoever, the diamond is mounted on the end of a verticle pipe that is tied back to prevent it pulling away when playing. Personally I have set up around a dozen or so on various arms etc. I have seen Decca's with less than optimal set up gouge the inner grooves, literally.
Halcro - I'm pretty sure that the original Garrot P77 contains many internal mods/tweaks compared to the A&R cartridge it was based on. So if you have one of the originals - do not throw the guts away. It was always much more lively than the equivalent A&R's, more speed and dynamics. I spent many hours listening to this cartridge at the Garrot Bros house in Sydney on their heavily tweaked NAD 3020 and home made electrostatics that Brian built.
3D or not to be...
What a load of codswallop.
Last time I was in San Francisco Amanda McBroom sang for me without a mike in one of the hotels private reception rooms. I could close my eyes and tell you that she was standing about 10ft out from the back wall and was not hanging upside down from the roof whilst singing.
Last time I was at Westminster Cathedral in London for an organ recital I could tell which pipes were behind me and which were in front.
Do I want this from my stereo - Yes.
Would I expect this from my stereo - Not necessarily.
Why - because the ultimate stereo would reproduce what the microphones captured which is quite different from what you hear live.
Can I hear space and room recording dimensions from my stereo - yes, on well recorded material.

For the naysayers above perhaps you should investigate the ultimate moving coil cartridge - the Audio Technica AT-MONO 3/SP Moving Coil 78rpm cartridge. Some of the contributors above may as well listen to mono and save your pennies.
Banquo363 - I couldn't disagree with you more on multimiking. Most of my classical music section is from the 50's/60's. My view is multimiking destroyed sense of reality, imaging and resolution because
- firstly in the real world we only have 2 ears
- a good system will lay bare the discombobulated sound of multimiking techniques, you can hear the localised volume adjustments on individual instruments. The classic outcome is for example on a violin solo where suddenly the violin shoots forward into your face, and when it is finished recedes back into the mix.
- in the old days conductors would listen to what was recorded in a soundroom at the back of the hall and do reruns and advise on spectral balance. My suspicion is that with the advent of multimiking, the mixing was left to the engineers, and that is what you get - an engineered sound.

I think Lewm makes a salient point about the preservation harmonic structure and overtones.

The other key for me is resolution. I had an interesting experience when I imported the 1st Martin Logans into the country, one died, and eager to listen I proceeded to listen for a few hours in mono. What fascinated me was that out of 1 speaker in mono I was still getting a layering of depth and sense of hall acoustics.

That last post is superfluous. Digital doesn't resolve anything. Digital is an approximation of a sine wave, nothing more. I think you are in the wrong post.
"I theorize that the sense of increased detail with LOMC cartridges is due to their lesser ability to re-create the harmonic envelope of a voice or instrument, compared to the best of the MM or MI types."
Totally presumptuous ironically from a harsh critic of any comment perceived to lack scientific rigour. What evidence do you have to substantiate that one form or another of cartridge can produce a greater harmonic envelope.
Hi all, I agree with Raul, in my experience there are situations where MM's are a better option.
Firstly average mid priced MC's, eg Audio Technica OC9, often sound slewed, phasy and non linear, I have demonstrated to customers that a humble Sumiko Andante can blitz many mid priced MC's.
Secondly - average or mismatched tonearms - there is more than just effective mass, compliance at stake here, armboards/tonearm combinations alone can impart colourations and resonances, then throw in a less than perfect MC and again a recipe for disaster.
Thirdly and one of the least considered - the phono stage - how many really good MC phono stages are there. Solid state very seldom makes music, it disaggregates it and that includes the Halcro/TEAD mentioned above. Transformer step up's - you are lucky if you get close - I have a stack of SUT's both modern and vintage and can easily demonstrate 2 transformers from the same manufacturer with the same turns ratio and input/output specs producing totally different sound - 1 coloured and edgy, one clean detailed and free from grain ( the less expensive one ) depending on cartridge. It's a lucky dip of complementary colorations. I still use a Marantz 7 ( with update Smith mods & external power supply ) and have not found a more complete phono that does timing, openness, soundstaging and can amplify a LOMC with no fets/SUT's etc. I have owned Jadis, Manley, ARC, CJ etc, listened to many including Shindo, Kondo, Burmester and they are all slow, slugged and are simply not musical compared to the modded Marantz. There may be some good ones out there, but they are very few and far between - again buying/matching an MC on spec or review is a lucky dip.
Then we get into personalities - audio systems are often a reflection of personalities - some people want a nice easy life, dont want to make decisions, they may want an audio system that does not challenge them - soft, turgid, nice to listen to, but doesn't challenge the senses, not too much detail.
Halcro - wasn't having a go at your system, more the point that you cant generalise make substantive statements such as Lewm's above one way or the other. I have heard great sound from many types of cartridges - MI's ( Grado/Soundsmith ), MC's, Strain Gauge, Stax Electrostatic, Decca Garrot and many others. I dont have a preference as long as I get musical pleasure from listening. My observations are that arm/TT compatibility can play more of a role in the determination of musical pleasure than whether a cartridge is a particular type and that very good, ie musical, phono stages are sadly few and far between stand. Sometimes less is more in a suboptimal system. I do think that if there are colorations, eg from mismatched componenets, our ears tend to close up. The removal of said colorations allows our ears to open up and perceive more detail/bloom etc whether it's real or not.
Integrated headshells - storm in a teacup.
Advantages - eliminates one mechanical connection if using a detachable headshell tonearm.
Disadvantages - can only align correctly if you are using the intended matching tonearm and alignment preferences. The integrated headshell will require a tonearm of very specific effective length, pivot to stylus distance and offset angle ( built into the J or S shape ) in order to be able to align it.
Example - Dynavector tonearms - if we assume for arguments sake that this arm is optimised for Stevenson, then for an integrated cartridge to work on this arm the stylus tip to arm distance must be precise enough to achieve the correct pivot to stylus distance and it can only be aligned to Stevenson.
To me the disadvantages are too large. As an Ikeda MC owner that has the choice of both integrated and non integrated I would choose the non integrated every time to give more tonearm and alignment options.
Raul - the issue is that you make sweeping generalisations - you imply that all integrated cartridges inferior to non integrated versions which is simply not correct.
Lewm, I think you've highlighted the folly of fashion - wooden arms and tonearm's hanging on a string. These are literally TONE arms, as in tone controls, providing little rigidity to ensure the stylus is measuring the groove modulations accurately. Images of a log randomly floating down a river as a little boy valiantly tries to steer the log from the rear come to mind when string arms are mentioned, eg Well Tempered, Schroeder. If that floats your boat, well and good. The main benefit of these types of arms is that they can sound warm, cuddly, vague, not too detailed to upset the system and can smooth over system imbalances and poor set up. To include these types of arms in a discussion on headshell/tonearm rigidity is spurious.
I do like the engineering of the Triplanar and ability to set up the cartrudge very accurately and easily, but I think one of the issues, and why I rejected it, is that the effective mass of 11g is a bit on the low side for the low compliance LOMC's that I use.
And of course the most rigid joint, between headshell and tonearm, is that where none exists, ceteris paribus.
According to AJ Conti changing to a heavier counterweight closer to the pivot point will lower the effective mass - it is counterintuitive. To increase EM you need to split the counterweight into multiples and distribute some weight further back behind the main counterweight. The maths becomes a nightmare. In some cases depending on where the original counterweight ends up you may in fact still end up with a lower EM putting additional weight behind the main. Therefore I prefer to start with an arm that is in the zone to start with. I did consider getting a Triplanar made to order with a higher effective mass, but put that in the too hard basket.
Fleib,
There are 2 schools of thought here - the wooden spoon and string brigade are trying to dampen energy, others such as Naim Aro, Dynavector are trying to encourage energy away from the cartridge and sink it to ground through the arm/armboard/plinth.
At any junction or join some energy will transmit through and some will reflect backwards towards the cartridge. Therefore no join ensures no backward reflected energy towards the cartridge.
Now if we have a join whats best ? There are probably 3 main types - bayonet, screw and clamp. The most rigid is the clamp eg Triplanar arm tube yoke effectively creating a wider pressure than either a bayonet or screw. This will be more rigid, but presumably will spread the resonance out over a wider range but with less amplitude. Materials used will also have a big impact on how energy moves/reflects, from my rusty memory if each succeeding material away from the cartridge is "quicker" than the preceding material, then that will minimise the reflected energy going back toward the cartridge.
The Kebschull preamp uses internal MC transformers for the MC input, and does not represent a high gain tube phono preamp. You may well have a skewed view of the tube world if this was your reference.
I suppose you've heard the "solders marching on a bridge" that is able to send it into a resonant mode of undulation, despite the mass differential.
Or is that an urban myth ?
Have you heard of Newton's Laws ? Kinetic energy ?
OK have a read of the Audio Feb 1987 review of ET2 on Vinyl Asylum.
Tests show cancellations of signal at 40hz and 150hz, their view was there were resonances in the arm cancelling the signal at these frequencies.
However they also state the air bearing is a barrier, but I recall clearly, since I owned one, that in Martin Colloms testing of the ET2 in Hifi News in the 80's he actually measured the resonances in the arm before and after the air bearing in order to analyze the energy transfer of the air bearing. He concluded that the resonance profile before and after the air bearing was negligible.
Where did the resonances come from. Of course you could argue that the resonances landed on the arm via Virgin Airways, or some flooby dust dropping from the heavens was upsetting the arm, but I think the balance of probability is that some came from nether the cartridge and dare I say it the tip of that nasty LOMC they used.
On the contrary, some of us are quite sensitive to high frequency ringing and compression in solid state phono stages. It is quite plausible that tube phono stages are more benign in dealing with high frequency resonances generated by MC's. Certainly your fellow countrymen, the Garrot Brothers, were of the view that MC's go with tubes, MM's go with solid state.
When I was in Germany a few years ago I looked at purchasing a Kebschull VV150 preamp. Was advised that it used internal MC transformers, located rear left inside. Relevance is not the gain, it is that as you know transformers are not universally applicable to all MC's. They require matching to the cartridge in terms of turns ratio and primary and secondary loading. To me a tube phono stage has no fets/transformers/opamps/transistors between the cartridge and the first tube. If you have a different all tube model then well and good.
Garrot Bros -= when I was working with them in the mid 80's they had a modified NAD 3020 running into Brian's home made electrostatics. They had a preference for MMs and yes they loved to put the P77 after a MC for shock value. However they also associated MC's with "soft flaccid" valve preamps. They were quite clear about this. You do realise that they later did produce their own moving coil.
Halcro/Nandric - back in the 80's I was sending about 10-15 cartridges per month to Garrots for retipping, both old and new - usually for a microscanner tip, mostly Koetsu's. I suspect that like any cartridge designer they could probably tell what a cartridge would sound like from the construction, not just cantilever, tip, but also coil configuration etc. Koetsu's were usually fettled internally as well, although they did not talk about it too much. I know one fix was to glue down the "guts" internally as the stone bodied Koetsu's internals were held in with paper shims. They considered Koetsu's poorly built and would remedy the issues as they saw them.
In terms of other cartridges they would usually come back to me with recommendations on tips and cantilevers. They refused to put microscanner tips on some cartridges.
One example I had was the Denon 103 - recommended weinz parabolic tip with a hybrid cantilever of boron & aluminium.
I do think that they were artisans that used their knowledge of cartridge construction to produce rebuilt cartridges to their preference, and they were fantastic - both MM and MC.
I have a MC head amp built by Rito Andreoli under his electronics brand Blue Audio Systems Design, called The Star, it's the best SS step up I've heard, way more transparent than the Klyne 7 I had.
MI

Moving iron and induced magnet types (ADC being a well known example) have a moving piece of iron or other ferrous alloy is coupled to the cantilever (instead of a magnet), while a permanent, bigger magnet is over the coils, providing the necessary magnetic flux.
Guys, remember that there are synthetic rubies and sapphire. All Rubies have faultlines. I note that Namiki Precision Jewel Company that used to make stylus tips, cantilevers and other cartridge components, also produces synthetic sapphire.
With regard to Nandric's post on inbred MC cartridges, I believe Namiki also manufactured complete cartridges OEM for some of the "boutique manufacturers".
The original Madrigal Carnegie 1 is a typical example of crossbreeding. Originally designed by Yoshihira Mori of Soundtech ( Sony cartridge company ), Mori trained at Grace, produced Sony XL-MC7, which became Carnegie 1, then Mori colluded with Lubachek ( Benz ) and van den hul to produce Madrigal Carnegie 2, ven den hul MC1 and derivatives and Benz Silver and derivatives, all of which are related.

If you go back to Japanese vintage gear from the 60's-70's from whence many of these MM's came, you will find that 33k,47k & 100k are common front panel loading options, and I have also seen 80k. Interestingly there are benefits here for some MC ( sorry to intrude ) users of vintage transformers where the secondaries are designed to run into higher loads than 47k, and I suspect many users of such ignore this. One of the beauties of a decent ALL tube phono stage is that you can set the input to 1meg and just load down from there as appropriate. Of course choice of loading resistors can be enlightening as well, use of nude vishays for loading in my experience may make more improvement than say changing from 47k to 100k, or may change your view on the optimum load.
Then we get into the wonderful world of Decca London cartridges - experiments with locating the loading resistors at the cartridge ( solder with expreme care ), at the tonearm base and the input to the preamp all yield different results both on solid state and tube phonos.
Lewm/Almarg, on the Marantz 7 circuit, it has a 1meg resistor/100pf cap ON the tube across grid/cathode and a 47k resistor/150pf cap paralelled at the input. I have read that the loading resistor should be on the tube to minimise parasitic issues ( I'm not an expert but I'm pretty sure the 150pf cap on the tube keeps everything settled in this respect. Given that in the standard Marantz the 47k loading is on the selector switch, this may be why they have the 1 meg on the tube as well. I did at one stage sit the 47k vishay on the tube as opposed to where I have it on the input RCA's now but could not hear any significant difference.
If you want total variablity that avoids switches one of the better solutions that I've seen was on the Counterpoint preamps where they had gas tight mini ring clamps soldered into the circuit boards - you just pushed the resistor legs in and the grip was pretty tight.
Haruo Takeda = Miyabi = Cello MLC1 = Krell KC100. Ironical that Krell should copy Levinson, when Agostino would not supply any dealer who stocked Levinson.
Yoshihisa Mori = Sony XL88 = Madrigal/Carnegie 1 & 2 = Benz ( various ) = Van den Hul MC1/2/Frog
Small world really, even before the internet.
Nandric,
Why would you go to Ogura to buy a micro ridge diamond. The microridge profile is patented by Namiki Precision Jewel Company, and as far as I know Namiki still manufacture this. Namiki also used to make cantilevers and complete cartridges as OEM for some of the smaller boutique "cartridge houses". They have offices in Germany and Switzerland.
Nandric,
I would question your comment about repairers replacing the cantilever and diamond rather than the diamond on its own. When I used Garrot's many years ago I witnessed with my own eyes under the electron microscope the removal of the diamond only and its replacement. My understanding is replacement of the diamond alone is much less work than replacing the cantilever..
Nandric, yes I can understand that if we are changing from a glue joint to a pressure joint then this would explain it. I note that Namiki use laser technology for their diamond cutting, so I guess advances in technology may have made it more practical to produce a complete cantiliver/stylus assembly if pressure fitting. This then begs the question of SRA, if the cantilevers are mounted at differing angles for different cartridges, then one would need to be able to order cantilever/stylus combinations with different diamond mounting angles to preserve the integrity of the original cartridge design as well as cantilever length. This I suspect would be a big ask for any manufacturer, the variations could be endless. Hmmmm.
Nandric,
Plaudits for the use of linear arms and high compliance MM's should go to Harvey Rosenberg of New York Audio Labs who demonstrated at an audio show about 30 years ago the following system - Linn Sondek, Eminent Technology ET2 air bearing arm, Shure V15 with NYAL preamp, NYAL OTL power amp directly driving a pair of Stax electrostatic panels ( no interface transformers required ).
In theory the matching of a high lateral mass linear arm with a high compliance cartridge shouldn't work, but it can. A few of the Absolute Sounds staff members started running Grado's with ET2's.
I myself ran a Sota Star/ET2 ( modded, stripped, lightened )/Shure V15V about 20 years ago for a while. The addition of electromagnetic damping to control lateral movement on eccentric records improved the sound considerably.
Nandric, I too enjoy and appreciate contribution and sharing of experiences from all, just put post up for general interest, cheers.
Lewm, I prefer people to describe what they hear, and ascribe characteristics, even if others disagree. To me if you read someones review in the context of their system, or other comments, then that is more useful than "like" or "prefer".
So let rip... .
I think one of the great losses in magazine reviews compared to 20-30 years ago is the comparison between competing components. It's often through comparison's that we gain a more in depth understanding of a component, its strengths and weaknesses.
Halcro's and Rauls comments on specific records are really useful in understanding where I am in my system development.