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 35 responses by jcarr

If you like the FR-6, you may want to try the FR-5E (elliptical stylus). To my ears at least, it's a more convincing performer than the FR-6.
Halcro:

Why should it be strange for me to try to contribute something useful to this thread? I have design experience with both fixed-coil and moving-coil cartridges, and I have used and own fixed-coil cartridges like the EPC205, EPC100MkIV, AT24, Glanz G-7, FR-5 etc. for many, many years. Probably for longer than nearly anyone else on this thread.

Your other question about the subjective preferences of readers of this thread is a trickier one, in no small part because when it comes to subjective preference there is no right or wrong.

I do feel that modern high-end sound per se has a somewhat different sensibility from vintage sound, and this is true for MCs as well as for MMs, headamps, phono stages, preamp and power amplifiers et al. Examples of either camp can be quite enjoyable, while periodical changes can be refreshing (and on occasion, insightful), and component interactions can all too easily outweigh the strengths or weaknesses of individual components.

But as audiophiles, at the end of the day you are free to enjoy anything that you want to.

diplomatically yours (grin), jonathan
Why don't you try replacing the headshell gasket with a thin sheet of lead, or a short piece of wire solder (not of the lead-free type) formed into a ring of suitable dimensions. Likewise worthwhile is a short piece of copper wire (not of the tough-pitch type, and preferably soft-annealed). In fact, audiophiles in Japan during the late 70s ~ early 80s could buy replacement gaskets which (AFAIR) were a three-layer laminate of lead-copper-lead.

Another weak point to address with universal headshells is the electrical contact between headshell and tonearm. Since these contacts are non-wiping, oxides and contamination can and will build up on the contact surfaces. Periodically lightly buffing the contact points on both the headshell and inside the tonearm (Supex used to sell a tool specifically for the purpose) will give the sound more vividness, dynamic contrast and resolution.

You don't want to buff the contacts of your vintage tonearm/headshell too hard, however, since the vast majority are plated with gold (at best), rather than harder and more durable materials like rhodium or platinum.

IME, however, degraded contact quality affects cartridges with high output voltages less than cartridges with low output voltages (the same can be said about multiple contacts in series, like those in universal headshell tonearms).

hth, jonathan carr
Yo Travis:

>The literature I have seen says the MC-1S (and X) had an air core.

Yes, with a coil shape is a bit reminiscent of lollipops or Micky Mouse ears (really!). No yokes (polepieces), either.

>Were there any others besides the Victor and the MC-1S (and -X) which had similar printed coil construction?

JVC MC-1 in 1977, then the MC-2E, MC-L10, and MC-L1000. All were quite nice-sounding cartridges (particularly the MC-L10 and MC-L1000). In fact, it may be interesting for you to compare your MC-L1000 with the EPC-100MkIV, using the Pioneer headamp (smile).

BTW, tracking force is quite critical with these JVCs. Although it's been a while since I last used an MC-L1000, my memory is that you could clearly hear 0.05g variations in the tracking force.

Then Yamaha's MC-1S, MC-1X (1978). It's been too long since I last heard one to comment meaningfully on the sound.

m-a-y-b-e some of Satin's M-21 series.

These Satins used what were described as "spiral planar coils" which were made of aluminum ribbon 10microns (0.01mm) thick. I don't know if these coils were wound or photo-etched. Never took one apart.

http://www2.masashi.ne.jp/ohta/satin/m2/m2.html

"Page 4" has all of the numerical data and specifications. 0.6mV output from a 12-ohm, air-core coil is pretty impressive efficiency, and the under 10-gram weight proves that no gargantuan magnet was used here (smile).

(check out http://www2.masashi.ne.jp/ohta/satin/satin.html if you want to learn more about Satin)

FIWW, rumor is that after JVC ceased production of the MC-1000, they tried to bring it back into production once, but had to cancel these plans because the production yield was unacceptably poor. They apparently couldn't get the production right twice, such was the difficulty of the design.

Apart from production difficulties, I would be hesitant of launching a printed-circuit coil MC along the lines of the JVCs, due to the likelihood for accumulated metal fatigue of the coil leadouts and eventual loss of signal. A real shame because the concept has obvious potential for even greater performance (than the MC-L1000).

hth, jonathan carr
Siny:

Unusual indeed! I don't know of anything else like it. Yamaha's own later designs were nothing like the MC-1S/1X.

Good link that you provided (horrible translation, however!), with various useful information and insights to be extracted and analyzed.

Undoubtedly to reduce mass, the coils were made from vapor-deposited aluminum, less than 10 microns thick, two layers deep. I imagine that Yamaha used a silicon IC wafer, deposited an aluminum metal layer on it, and photo-etched the coils (Yamaha is a known semiconductor manufacturer). Probably thousands of coils were made from one wafer (at least hundreds).

However, aluminum work-hardens at a much more pronounced rate than copper or gold (for example), and is consequently far more likely to suffer from metal fatigue and eventual failure. The coil leadouts would be subjected to continuous flexing, due to the movement of the cantilever. That's why we see the comment about the coil leadouts being made of gold, and with silicon-rubber stress-reliefs.

Beryllium, as we know from the 1000M and its relatives, was something of a Yamaha specialty. Great material, but fell out of favor due to increasingly strict environmental regulations, and the increasing unwillingness of craftsmen to work with the nasty stuff. I don't think that the manufacture of beryllium would be looked upon too favorably in Japan today. Maybe you could get some processed in an environmentally lax country, or at a manufacturer with military exemptions.

With a straight beryllium cantilever, you could make the beryllium as a continuous rod or wire in one go, then shut down the processing line as soon as you had something of sufficient length (which wouldn't take a long time). Tapered beryllium cantilevers, OTOH, means that each cantilever was fabricated one by one through vacuum vapor deposition methods, which would take a lot more time, and be a lot more unfriendly to the environment.

The magnetic circuit is a repulsion type, rather than the far more common attraction type. The other cartridge manufacturer who used repulsion-type magnetic circuits and became well-known for them was Sony.

The suspension is piano wire, which suggests that Yamaha at this time had not yet gotten aboard the high-compliance band-wagon which was being espoused by Denon. In the early 1980s, Yamaha incorporated high-compliance suspensions in a major way, and you can see it in their use of multi-strand soft-annealed metal suspensions, or in extreme cases, non-metal fiber suspensions. IIRC, Yamaha then reverted to a more medium-compliance suspension in their MC-100 (1985).

The comment about not needing grease is particularly interesting. It's a shot fired en passant against the Satins, which were known to use grease as part of their damping. This grease attracted dirt, which could foul up the movement of the coils, and the blob of grease was also known to change shape due to gravity. If you were a veteran Satin owner, you kept two cartridges, and moved one into storage upside-down so that gravity would move the grease back where it was supposed to be!

hope this was of interest, jonathan carr
Siniy, most MCs use both a wire suspension and rubber donut (one-way, two-way, even three-way dampers have been used).

Some MMs used both a wire suspension and rubber donut (one-way in every case that I am aware of), but many didn't use any suspension wire. Only the rubber donut.

Most cartridge designers that I have spoken with (including some retired as well as some still active) seem to agree that leaving out the suspension wire tends to assist tracking and stresses the tonearm less (high compliance feeds less mechanical energy into the tonearm), at the cost of inferior transduction accuracy (due to a less well defined pivot point).

Regarding the effects of the mass of the moving coil or moving magnet, the effects are not so pronounced compared to tip mass, because the coil or magnet mass is located very close to the suspension pivot.

Also, there were substantial variations in coil or magnet mass, particularly with the MCs.

The moving coil part (MCs) consists of wire wrapped around a core, while the moving magnet part (MMs) should consist of an Alnico (usually) or a rare-earth (seldom) magnet. And in either case we need to consider the materials and their specific densities.

Among magnets for MMs, Alnico has a specific density of about 7.3, SmCo about 8.3, NdFeB about 7.5. The common way to reduce magnet mass is simply to make it smaller, and accept whatever reduction in output voltage this would cause.

Among core materials for MCs, iron has a specific density of around 7.8, ruby 4, aluminum 2.6, most plastics under 2, carbon fiber 1.75. Quite a variety.

With MCs we have to add the coil material, since this will also affect the moving mass. Platinum 21.5, gold 19.3, silver 10.5, copper 8.92. All quite massy.

The notable exception is aluminum, but the only cartridge to use this was Denon's DL-1000. Unfortunately, Denon quickly took the DL-1000 off the market when they discovered fatigue cracking of the aluminum and subsequent coil failures. They reintroduced it as the copper-coiled DL-1000a. Incidentally, the designer was the same person as with your Highphonic MC-R5 (low-mass Ogura PA line-contact stylus, ruby cantilever, copper coils, nylon core).

Your MC-1S used a printed-circuit coil, suggesting a low-mass plastic core with a copper conductor that was ultra-thin.

hope this was of some interest, jonathan carr
One aspect of cantilevers that has received no mention so far is the relation between the cantilever material and how the stylus may be affixed to the cantilever.

Ductile cantilever materials such as aluminum or various grades of duraluminum allow for a certain degree of pressure-fitting to take place, that is, the hole in the cantilever is made slightly undersized, the stylus is press-fit into the cantilever, and glue is added as surrounding reinforcement. The appeal of this approach is that it allows direct contact between cantilever and stylus. If I am not mistaken, titanium allows the same approach to be used.

More exotic cantilever materials like beryllium, boron, ruby-sapphire may have superior mechanical properties when viewed in isolation, but are more brittle, and therefore do not allow direct contact between stylus and cantilever. Inevitably a layer of adhesive needs to be interposed between stylus and cantilever, and this acts as a lossy filter that limits the amount of vibrational information that the stylus can convey to the cantilever.

The exception is that if the designer elects to use a cantilever made of diamond, it is possible to carve the stylus and cantilever out of a single piece of diamond, a method which was used by Sony in their XL88D, XL88D Custom and XL88D "Custom" cartridge models.

Also, I will point out that Denon used aluminum alloy cantilevers for a number of cartridges that offered wide-bandwidth playback. The 103S was designed for Quad-4 playback, and offered a playback bandwidth that extended out to 60kHz. With the 103D, Denon claimed a playback bandwidth out to 65kHz. The 301 claimed a bandwidth of out to 60kHz. And so on.

I no longer use aluminum alloy cantilevers for my own cartridge designs, but I have no doubt that it remains possible to design a fairly good-sounding, fairly nice-measuring cartridge using an aluminum alloy cantilever.

hth, jonathan carr
Hi Dgob:

If you ever find a Highphonic MC-D15 for sale, I think that you will find it reminiscent of the Denon DL-1000A, but more beautiful-sounding.

cheers, jonathan
Hi David:

Your question is complex and would take quite some time and effort to answer properly, since using permeable materials in magnetic fields involves multiple forms of distortion. I will therefore confine myself to a few, "low-hanging" topics.

When a piece of permeable material is placed in an external, alternating magnetic field, it takes on varying degrees of magnetism and alternates polarity (to follow the field), but that magnetization follows a lagging, hysteresis curve (which is therefore non-linear). Also, the curve that the permeable piece follows for increasing magnetism and the curve for decreasing magnetism are not the same, and are offset (remanence).

Even when testing inductors, which don't move and are therefore simpler in their behavior than the moving cores, magnets or iron in cartridges, if you have a sensitive measurement setup, you should be able to measure intermodulation distortion with a permeable-core coil and not so (or much less so) with an air-core coil, and probably a certain degree of hysteresis losses as well.

For non-permeable materials, the ratio of magnetic field strength to flux density (in a cartridge this means the material's ability to attract magnetic flux lines to itself, and is therefore tied to conversion efficiency and output) is constant and linear. With permeable materials, the ratio of magnetic field strength to flux density, varies with flux density.

When the cores, magnets or irons move, as in a cartridge, the closer a piece of permeable material approaches a magnet, the more strongly it is attracted (but again following a non-linear curve), and therefore requires comparatively more energy for the piece of permeable material to change direction. With this, we start to see that there can be interactions between the electromagnetic and the physical behaviors of the cartridge.

As an aside, I devised "The New Angle" technology as used in our Delos and Kleos cartridge models largely because I wanted to break or at least significantly reduce these undesirable interactions.

The Barkhausen effect tells us that a permeable object takes on greater or lesser degrees of magnetism when subjected to an external magnetic field, but does so in distinct steps rather than smoothly. It also tells us that the difference in energy between steps is subsequently released as noise bursts.

And so on.

>When I measure a cartridges response, what patterns could I look for that would identify or be associated with permeability?

All MMs and MIs use moving permeable materials. Most MCs do as well.

>How do I identify a non-permeable core cartridge?

If you see an MC that shows very low signal output in comparison to the internal impedance, chances are that it uses an air-core coil, although it is possible that the magnets are simply old and weak.. Again, you could search for Benz-Micro Ruby and others, Denon DL-1000A, DL-S1 and others, Fidelity Research FR-7 and others, Highphonic MC-D15 and others, Jan Allearts MC2 (not MC1), JVC L-1000 and others, Nagaoka / Jeweltone JT-RII and JT-RIII, Satin M-21P and others, Ortofon MC-3000 and others, Sony Soundtec XL88, XL-MC9 and others, Yamaha MC-1000 and others,.

hth, jonathan carr
Dear Nandric:

>from your explanation why aluminum is still a good choice for cantilevers (the direct contact with the stylus) it seems to logicaly folow that boron is 'suboptimal' in this sense.

Regarding this specific sense, you are right. The exotic cantilever materials may look good on paper, but somewhat less so when the question of how to affix the stylus needs answering.

However, a designer doesn't choose a cantilever based on one parameter alone. Transmission velocity, internal loss, affinity for other structural materials, ductility - all of these need to be considered and the benefits and demerits weighed against each other.

>However there is still this 'naggish question' in my mind: 'Why is Carr using boron for his cantilevers?

It is because even when I subtract points for the adhesives required to affix the stylus (a failing that boron shares with every other cantilever material except aluminum, magnesium or titanium), the strengths of boron, including lower mass and superior transmission velocity, win out overall.

A designer needs to know his poisons, and his priorities.

cheers, jonathan
Dear Fleib:

A "forgiving" phono stage is not what I would recommend for the DL-S1, nor for that matter, any other LOMC. The obviously desirable properties for a good MC phono stage are high gain, low noise, high immunity to RF, high overload margins (which implies high maximum output levels), and minimal deviation from the RIAA curve. Low capacity within the input stage benefits resolution and sound quality, but this partly conflicts with the requirement for low noise, so the phono stage designer must keep a sense of balance and tradeoffs.

One more critical requirement IMO is low capacitance between cartridge and phono stage, with the tonearm cable being the biggest contributor. The signal coils of the cartridge possess inductance, and this will react with any capacitance between the cartridge and phono stage to create a big resonant peak at ultrasonic frequencies (frequently in the RF range). This peak is much higher in frequency than any human can hear, but it can upset the circuitry of a phono stage that hasn't been designed with adequate consideration to RF or high-frequency overloading. This is eminently capable of of causing IMD at a much lower frequency, and this you can hear. This kind of IMD is quite obnoxious to the ear, since it is non-harmonically related to the LP signal, and therefore can sound outright dissonant.

Reducing the input impedance at the phono stage helps squash the RF resonant peak and thereby can reduce the phono stage's IMD that the ear finds so grating, but in return such heavy loading throttles the dynamics, transients and low-level resolution of the cartridge. Far more advantageous, IMO, to use a phono stage that doesn't need for the cartridge to be throttled down to make it listenable.

A phono stage designed according to this philosophy should have the side-effect of making records sound more quiet, because ticks and pops and tracking distortions will simply be treated as normal signals, and will not trigger circuit misbehavior.

FWIW, I have never had the need to load down any cartridge to under 100 ohms, for any phono stage that I have designed, and believe that I could afford considerably higher loading than 100 ohms with the DL-S1.

The loading situation with LOMCs is very different from MMs and MIs, where capacitance is needed to properly tailor the frequency response.

I note that some designers of MC cartridges and phono stages use quite massive amounts of capacitance to roll-off any ultrasonic peak from the coil inductance-cable capacitance resonant peak, but personally I have found this approach to take away more than it gives.

kind regards, jonathan carr
Raul:

When it comes to the "Neumann" modification to the RIAA curve, have you given consideration to LPs cut at half-speed?

jonathan
What causes skating forces is the fact that, with offset-angle tonearms, the LP groove pulls the stylus in two vectors at once. One vector is from the stylus to the tonearm pivot. The second vector is along the offset angle.

These two vectors synthesize to produce a third vector that pulls the stylus inwards, toward the platter bearing. It is this third, synthesized vector that we call "skating force" or "side force".

Since skating forces are comprised of the drag on the stylus from the LP groove, they vary depending on stylus profile and groove cutting levels, and from what I have seen, the skating forces also vary according to the instantaneous groove radius. (If you can find an Orsonic SG-1 "Tonearm Side Force Checker" it will allow you to plot the curves).

If I recall correctly, if you can manage to cancel out the groove amplitude-dependency component (by using a constant-amplitude test LP), the side force curve ends up looking fairly similar to the tracking error curve for the particular tonearm alignment that you have chosen.

hth, jonathan carr (cartridge designer)
A couple of caveats:

The frequency response of a cartridge changes according to the ambient temperature, humidity, and the groove diameter. It will also change to some extent with setup. Somewhere in my technical library I have charts published by Denon showing this.

Distortion also changes with groove radius, ambient temperature, setup and environmental considerations like that. However, IME distortion is a better guide to how the top end of a cartridge will sound than the frequency response, probably because distortion means that new high(er) frequencies are created when none existed. Even if the LP only extends out to 5kHz, distortion can "create" 10kHz, 15kHz, 20kHz and so on.

Frequency response is easier to understand if we think of it as frequency sensitivity - the cartridge is responding to whatever signals are already present on the LP. If the LP only contains frequency content out to 5kHz, that is what you will get. Unlike distortion, frequency response will not give you "new" high frequencies.

Again IME, frequency response deviations in a transducer and frequency response deviations in an amplifier (or phono stage) do not sound the same. Frequency response deviations are easier to hear in an amplifier (although through component choice and circuit design, it is possible to create the impression of a rising top end when none exist, and it is also possible to make an amplifier sound dull when in reality it it has a measurably rising top end). Some cables sound like they have a non-flat frequency response (and I know a number of studio engineers who keep a pile of different cables in the studio to use as "equalizers" for their recordings), but in reality, nearly every cable that I have measured has been completely flat throughout the audible band.

Although I keep the RIAA deviations well-within +/-0.1dB in the phono stages that I design, I am not completely convinced about the criticality of a super-flat RIAA curve in the phono stage. In my conversations with veteran LP recording and cutting engineers (in Japan and Europe as well as the US), I have not heard one person say that the encoding RIAA networks feeding the LP cutting lathes, or for that matter the encoding NAB or IEC networks in the tape recorders, used 0.5% capacitors or 0.1% resistors. The component tolerances that I have heard mentioned for vintage recording equipment are +/-5% for the capacitors (although some gear was rebuilt in later years for higher accuracy). If carbon resistors (2% for the better ones) were used, keep in mind that carbon changes resistance according to heat, while carbon comp resistors (5% for the better ones) change value according to both heat and humidity. Some recording engineers tell me that they hand-selected their network components for tighter tolerances, but I do not get the impression that these were the exhaustive kind of efforts that would be required to get the component values down to +/-0.5% or +/-0.1%.

I will also point out that, for a time in the late 1970s and early 1980s, there were a number of MC cartridges that were developed for high compliance and high tracking ability at low VTF. The Highphonics, some of the Denons (DL-1000), Dynavector DV-50A, Pioneer (PC-70MC), Coral (777-EX), Sonys, and a fair bit more. If tracking ability is the key performance issue, one would expect that these cartridges would have been huge successes and gone down in history as truly memorable-sounding cartridges. What happened in reality is that the audio market (Japan as well other countries) seems to have concluded that the high-compliance pendulum had swung too far, and cartridges gradually reverted to medium-compliance.

Personally my experience has been closer to Dover's - that the main advantage of MMs is that they make phono stage design much easier - that extra 20dB (or more) of low-noise gain required in a top-notch MC phono stage doesn't come easily. Also, the front-end design is more critical for MC cartridges than it is with MMs, since record ticks and pops (which can extend out to 300kHz, and can be much higher in level than the sonic information in the LP grooves) will not be attenuated by the high inductance of an MM's signal coils and cable capacitances. Instead, cable capacitances will react with the low inductances and low resistances of an MC cartridge's compact signal coils to create ultrasonic peaks which can cause high-frequency overload of an MC phono stage's front end and slew distortion unless the phono stage designer considers all of these things and takes appropriate countermeasures.

One other characteristic of many MMs mentioned on this thread is that they are voiced differently from most of today's cartridges. This is fine for personal listening preferences, but it not a technically valid reason, as the technical design of a cartridge and its voicing are completely separate entities.

Note that I have and will limit myself to discussing technical issues, and will not seek to belittle anyone's listening preferences. My view is that, when it comes to personal listening likes and dislikes, there is no correct or incorrect - everyone has the right to choose the sound that they like the most.

kind regards, jonathan
From the perspective of a cartridge designer, the most commonly used figure-of-merit for a given material is propagation velocity - how rapidly it transmits sound. And this is determined by the material's specific gravity (lower is better), and Young's modulus (higher is better).

With this target in mind, the best material is diamond. Although its specific gravity is a bit high at 3.52, it is so stiff that its 16,770m/s propagation velocity is the greatest among known materials.

Second best is boron. Its 2.3 specific gravity is lower than aluminum, and it is quite stiff as well, giving a propagation velocity of 13,500m/s.

Third is beryllium. Although a specific gravity of 1.8 makes it the lightest among typical cantilever materials, it is also considerably less stiff than boron, which brings its propagation velocity to 12,300m/s.

Fourth is ruby / sapphire. Its 4.0 specific gravity is high, but it is saved by having a Young's modulus which is higher than beryllium but poorer than boron. Its propagation velocity drops down to 9400m/s.

5th is aluminum. A 2.7 specific gravity is reasonably low, but its Young's modulus is also low, resulting in a propagation velocity of 5200m/s.

6th is titanium. Specific gravity of 4.5 is very high, and Young's modulus is not so high, which in concert reduce the propagation velocity to 5160m/s.

However, the last two materials are ductile and not brittle, which means that the joint between stylus and cantilever is less reliant on glue. Any glue that I am aware of has a slower propagation velocity than even hardened aluminum, so to be able to have a thinner layer of glue between the stylus and cantilever, or no layer, is a distinct advantage which partially counteracts the other limitations of aluminum and titanium.

Also, I am reasonably sure that beryllium production in Japan has either stopped or at best is much smaller than it was in the 1970s and 80s. Since beryllium is poisonous and producing it results in environmentally hazardous wastes; regulations have become more strict, and public opposition more vocal. Various cartridge designers including myself have avoided beryllium because of the environmetal impact.

hth
Hi all, Raul:

>I understand that the cantilever transmit no sound but the stylus " movements ".

Ideally the cantilever will only transmit the stylus movements, but in reality a cantilever will have its own resonances and eigenmodes, which will be added or subtracted to the signal. In my experience, each cantilever material has its own sound.

>the length of the cantilever maybe is other important issue on cartridge performance.

Pragmatically the length of the cantilever from stylus to sensor (magnet or coils) will be in the vicinity of 6mm. Since the cartridge designer needs to keep some clearance between the LP and the cartridge body, in order to shorten the cantilever, he must increase the cantilever VTA (smaller VTA --> longer cantilever, bigger VTA --> shorter cantilever), truncate part of the cartridge structure, or something similar which will have side effects. No free lunch.

>cantilever material is only one part of several ones in the cartridge design and that's why exist cartridges with beryllium or aluminum cantilevers that outperform the boron ones.

The biggest issue the matching of the damper and suspension to the cantilever. The cantilever will have a sound and a mass, which the designer must control by means of the suspension and dampers. The higher performance dampers in particular are a closely guarded secret - every designer has his own range of damper shapes and rubber formulations which are unique to him. Part of what determines whether a cartridge sounds good or not is whether the designer possesses dampers and suspensions which are a close match to the cantilever material that he wants to use.

Some designers prefer aluminum over boron or beryllium, others prefer sapphire. Theoretically boron should be better than sapphire or beryllium, but practically speaking, sapphire or aluminum with a well-matched set of dampers and suspension may deliver better results than boron or beryllium with a not-so-well matched set.

BTW, with MMs and MIs, the damper and suspension are usually embedded in the plastic knob that carries the cantilever assembly, so when you swap out an A-T (for example) MM or MI cantilever from aluminum to beryllium, you should be getting the right suspension and dampers. With MCs, however, the suspension and dampers are mounted to the cartridge body, and the coils need to be removed to get at the suspension and dampers. This is why I usually recommend that, if you want to use a non-original retipping company to retip an MC rather than having the original manufacturer provide a complete rebuild, at least try to keep the cantilever material and dimensions the same. This should help to minimize mismatching between the cantilever and suspension / dampers.

>In terms of both strength ( Young's Modulus ) and " stifness to mass ratio " sapphire is superior to almost any available material.

First time that I have heard anyone claim that.

I did a quick websearch for "specific gravity" and various cantilever materials, and I came up with:

3.52 for diamond

Corundum (ruby, sapphire) 3.95~4.05

Boron 2.34

Beryllium 1.85

Titanium 4.54

Aluminum 2.70

Ruby is quite heavy, which negates much of its stiffness, so it would not be my first choice in a cantilever material. Yes, I have built sapphire and ruby-cantilevered cartridges, and heard any number of such cartridges by other manufacturers, so I am not only going by theory. But my ears and your ears are not the same, and you are free to like whatever you want to.

>I re-tip a Virtuoso cartridge with aluminum cantilever stylus pressure fitted and does not like me but when that same cartridge was re-tipped with boron cantilever " lights glow really shiny ".

It could simply be that you, Raul, didn't like the sound of the aluminum cantilever with pressure-fitted stylus. This is no guarantee that other listeners would agree. Or disagree, for that matter. Personal likes and dislikes are important to that listener and that audio system, but they are not universal and therefore ill-suited to base engineering decisions on.

>My error was to thing only in the cantilever matewrial and not on the whole cartridge design that's is more important. The cantilever material is choosed as part of that cartridge overall design according what the designer wants to be achieved.

This is completely correct. The cantilever has its own sound, the stylus has its own sound, the coils have their own sound, the yoke material has its own sound, the suspension has its own sound, the dampers have their own sound, the body structure has its own sound, the output pins have their own sound... Designing a phono cartridge, IME, is a combination of engineering and subjectivity. And by subjectivity, I mean similar to painting, or cooking, or playing improvisational music.

Although the biggest part of the job (by far) is to get the engineering right or improving it, when it comes to matching the various components (which may all be excellent in isolation), it is the designer and builder's subjective decision to match X cantilever to Y dampers, to T yokes, D body, and so on.

Having spoken with many of the designers, I know that even for many of the audio components designed by big companies like Panasonic, Pioneer, Sony and so on, the designer's subjective likes and dislikes played a key role in determining the final product.

hth,
Fleib: The joint pipe is usually made from aluminum or duraluminum, which although at 2.7g per cubic cm is heavier than beryllium (1.85g) or boron (2.46g), is certainly lighter than diamond (3.5g) or sapphire (4g). Keep in mind that a component that is closer in to the pivot (such as the armature and coils of an MC or the magnet of an MM) will affect the effective mass less than another component farther away from the pivot. The joint pipe must extend all the way back to the pivot, and in many cases it is what the magnet or armature are secured to.

Counter-intuitively, increasing the joint pipe length can raise the resonant frequency rather than lowering it, and this is because a shorter and lighter joint pipe can allow the cantilever rod to flop around at its root, while a longer and heavier joint pipe will result in less overall flexing.

Even among AT MMs, those that use a thin rod cantilever will most likely have the joint pipe, while those that use an aluminum pipe cantilever may be able to do without. This is because the suspension components (wire, dampers) come in specific sizes that need a stepped interface to mate with the significantly smaller diameter of a rod cantilever (a boron rod is 0.28mm in diameter). I don't think that the issue is company practice (AT vs. Jico).

Depending on how you calculate things, cantilever length has a more significant effect on HF resonance than tip mass. And while there are other equations that relate tip mass to HF resonance, these are only relevant if all other things are equal, which usually they are not.

For example, a designer can use a longer diamond tip (with higher self-mass) to extend the vertical reach of the cantilever and reduce the overall cantilever length, and this may increase the HF resonance. On the other hand, doing so will probably result in poorer crosstalk characteristics at high frequencies, as the longer stylus will start to allow torsional twisting in addition to horizontal and vertical movement. IOW there is no free lunch, but if a designer is simply interested in raising the HF resonance point, there are various tricks and tradeoffs available.

Also, HF resonance is affected by the overall cantilever stiffness (as can be seen in the longer joint pipe example above), and by damping. On the surface of things, using more damping to flatten things may appear better, but in practice doing so usually triggers more distortion. Experience shows that a rising HF response is less offensive to the ear (as it is a simple boosting of whatever is already present on the LP, which, given the 1/f spectral distribution of most music, may not be much) than distortion, which synthesizes new HF components that do not exist on the LP, and in the case of IMD will result in inharmonic distortion at lower frequencies that are particularly grating to the ear.

I find that cartridges sound better when the designer puts in a honest effort to increase cantilever stiffness while reducing moving masses, but does not try to steamroller the last few dBs into total submission.

kind regards, jonathan
Dover: I expect that the X88D was a typo for XL-88D. It could have also been a prototype, but XL-88D production started in either 1979 or 1980, so probably a typo rather than a proto (smile).

BTW, Mori-san is now doing a cartridge project with Takai-san of Final Audio. The cartridge features Mori's hallmark figure-8 coil, and I assume that the armature is non-permeable. I know that both Mori-san and cartridge were in the Final Audio room at Munich this year. I'd have loved to listen to Mori's latest, but unfortunately this year I decided to stay at home because I wanted to make more progress on design and development work.

Fleib: Before going further, I think that it is better if you first gain a basic understanding of what cantilever design is, next an understanding of the various issues that influence cantilever design (which may not be obvious to someone who doesn't design cantilevers). Talking about numbers without understanding what they mean and why will confuse rather than enlighten.

Please take a look at the following illustration of a cantilever cross-section. I wanted to find a better drawing, but thise was the best that I could come up with on short notice.

http://www7a.biglobe.ne.jp/~yosh/images/4209669.jpg

#1. cantilever
#1a. joint (or joint pipe)
#2. stylus
#3. armature (probably magnet for this particular cartridge)
#3', 3". suspension wire sleeve
#6. damper
#7. suspension wire
#8a, 8b. suspension wire holder (or stopper pipe)

The movement of the cantilever is accomplished by pivoting around the free section of the suspension wire (visible in the center-left section of the damper). But since the suspension wire is being pulled constantly by VTF and the drag of the LP groove on the stylus, it needs to be glued and crimped in place. There will be four such crimp / glue sections, at the heads and tails of the suspension wire sleeve and the stopper pipe, respectively.

Since a pipe cantilever is hollow inside, it is feasible to extend the pipe all the way back to the rear face of the armature, as we see in the linked drawing. But with solid rod cantilevers, the designer is forced to end the cantilever before the suspension wire sleeve (due to the presence of the suspension wire and the crimp), and use the joint pipe to connect the two elements together.

To envision what a solid rod cantilever would be constructed like, imagine that the outer diameter of the suspension wire sleeve is made equivalent to the outer diameter of the cantilever, with the tail of the cantilever rod touching the head of the suspension wire sleeve (more accurately it would be the crimped end of the suspension wire). The inner diameter of the joint pipe is made equivalent to the outer diameters of the cantilever rod and suspension wire sleeve.

The length of the joint pipe is up to the designer, which confers an additional measure of control over rigidity by setting the distance over which the joint pipe overlaps the cantilever (thereby creating a double-walled structure). Extending the joint pipe forward adds mass as well as rigidity, and it is up to the designer to make his choices, and to ponder why.

Choosing less than maximum cantilever rigidity (either via cantilever or joint pipe), along with allowing a bit of excessive movement in the suspension pivot, tends to make for a cartridge that is both easier to voice and easier on the tonearm. Conversely, reducing cantilever transmission losses and shortening the free length of the suspension wire tend to create a more peaky cartridge, in many cases with a visibly rising peak at the top end. However, when it comes to picking up everything that is on the LP, there is no doubt that a more rigid cantilever and a more tightly defined pivot point are superior.

When it comes to this kind of choice, it is very much about the designer's philosophy regarding sound reproduction, and to some extent, his subjective sonic preferences. And maybe it also depends on how much importance he places on measurements. A designer (or cartridge builder) that likes a smooth and friendly sound or wants perfectly flat measurements is likely not going to choose a super-stiff cantilever and super-short suspension wire.

Eddy currents can also affect the frequency response, again with some measure of lossiness or high-frequency core losses being useful if a flat frequency response is a high priority for the designer.

Measurable frequency response is affected by stylus tip mass, cantilever resonant characteristics (material and dimensions), overall cantilever length, overlap between cantilever and joint pipe, tightness of suspension pivot point, damper characteristics, eddy losses in the magnetic system, etc.

Measurable frequency response is also affected by the room temperature, and the LP groove diameter.

The subjective frequency response is affected by the cartridge body construction (materials, shape, presence and locations of voids etc), coil and armature materials and processing, choice of glues and bonding lacquers, and so on. In addition to everything above.

Regarding the Atlas's stylus mounting platform, it is a reinforcing metal plate added specifically to make it much harder for users to shatter the diamond stylus block, or break the adhesive joint bonding the stylus to the cantilever.

Until around the year 2000 I was using Ogura PA stylii with blocks that measured 0.06Wx0.06Lx0.5mmD. This is a comparable size and mass to what was used inside the Denon DL-1000A. The stylii had nice performance, but more than a few of the cartridges were returned to us because the diamond block had shattered, or the glue joint had failed. In many cases the failure was visibly due to user abuse (or perhaps abuse inflicted by their tonearms), but we did eat the rebuild costs for some of these cartridges. Eventually we came to the regrettable conclusion that the 0.06Wx0.06Lx0.5mmD diamond block size was simply too delicate for the kind of treatment that our cartridges were being subjected to in the field.

For this reason, from the Clavis Evolve 99 onward we shifted to a somewhat larger diamond block that measures 0.08mmWx0.12mmLx0.5mmD, and this is the size that we still use today (with the exception of the Delos, which uses a Namiki stylus rather than Ogura). It has been more rugged than our older 0.06Wx0.06Lx0.5mmD size, but our service records still showed that more cartridges that we would have liked were being returned due to breakage of the glue joint or of the diamond block.

The additional metal plate that you saw in the Atlas photo is a means to further increase the ruggedness of the larger-size 0.08mmWx0.12mmLx0.5mmD and of its glue joint. Hopefully this time it will be enough.

You are welcome to calculate the stylus tip masses if you feel so inclined.

kind regards, jonathan
Hi Nandric: In every phono cartridge that I have seen, the cantilever rod is joined to the pivoting part of the cantilever assembly by means of a slightly larger tube called the "joint pipe". Joint pipes of different length make it possible to change the length of the cantilever rod, while keeping the same total length of the cantilever assembly.

Sony's XL-88D used this technique to good effect. The normal XL-88D was a "budget edition" that achieved its retail price of 150,000 JPY (in 1980) by using a longer-than-normal joint pipe to drastically shorten the length of the diamond section. The "real version" was called the XL-88D Custom, and this had a more normal-length joint pipe and consequently a much longer diamond section. The asking price (again in 1980) was 350,000 ~ 370,000 JPY, and you had to be a very good customer of Sony to even be told that this version existed. A total of 7 pieces were sold (smile).

Sony made another cartridge called the XL-88D Custom, but this was an SPU-style unit headshell design.

http://www.hifiwigwam.com/showthread.php?81546-One-the-best-cartridges-ever-made-Sony

In practice, no naming confusion occured because the most of the SPU-style XL-88D Custom owners were never aware of the "other woman", and there were only 7 owners of the "real" XL-88D Custom.

Information courtesy of Yoshihisa Mori, who headed Sony's cartridge division (and later Sony's SACD operations).

I think that we should continue this thread and keep it healthy, but it would be far more interesting and useful if it encompassed all kind of cartridge operating principles.

In addition to the various direct-scan cartridges by JVC and Neumann, what about FM cartridges?

Electret cartridges (Technics, Panasonic, Micro-Acoustics)?

Electrostatic cartridges (Stax)?

Optical cartridges?
www.ds-audio.biz

There are still many interesting cartridge designs that are worth sacrificing your wallets and credit cards for (grin).

kind regards, jonathan
Regarding the reinforcement plate that was previously discussed in connection with the Lyra Atlas, I should add that the plate was nominally conceived of primarily for mechanical reinforcement, but it does also improve stylus mounting precision.

Because of the benefits in durability and stylus mounting accuracy, everyone that uses Ogura-made boron cantilevers now uses this system (even though it results in a slight increase in tip mass). A Google image search reveals that this list includes My Sonic Labs / Air Tight, Dynavector, Lyra, Koetsu, and undoubtedly more.

The older cartridge models won't have this, but the newer ones do.

kind regards, jonathan
Fleib: Namiki still keeps stocks of tubular sapphire cantilevers, and possesses fabrication abilities for the raw sapphire material (I believe). OTOH they do not have any more tubular boron cantilevers, and I do not believe that Namiki were ever capable of making the raw boron material or fabricating it into tubular form. Studying the patent literature on tubular boron suitable for use in phono cartridges reveals that the majority are by Matsushita (Panasonic).

If you (or anybody else) knows of a material manufacturer who can fabricate tubular boron with an outer diameter of 0.3~0.5mm, or anyone possessing reasonable quantities of the same, please let me know. FWIW, the same applies for boron rod with an outer diameter of 0.3~0.4mm. It would be welcome news for Ogura and Namiki, and by extension all manufacturers who use their products.

OTOH, a tubular cantilever will have a larger outer diameter than a rod cantilever, and using a non-tapered tubular cantilever means that either the stylus must be longer (and therefore heavier), or that the stylus will be mounted to the cantilever only through one of the cantilever walls, which will compromise the mounting rigidity of the stylus and lessen the amount of recorded information that the stylus can pass on to the cantilever.

kind regards, jonathan

PS. The AC-2 is several decades out of production. Accuphase's current offering is the AC-5, which uses a Namiki-made boron rod cantilever and MicroRidge stylus.

http://www.accuphase.com/model/ac-5.html
Hi Fleib:

>it appears to be quite different from Technics' boron tube cantilevers and would seem to support the notion that there was more than just one source.

Could be. It also could be that the boron for Denon and the boron for Technics were both made at the same facility, and the differences that we are seeing in the cartridges is the result of different stylus mounting philosophies and techniques.

Comparing the stylus to the cantilever on the Technics suggests that the stylus is v-e-r-y long, and has an ample cross-section (at least 0.12mm by 0.12mm by the looks of it), both of which will add to tip mass. I would expect inferior high-frequency crosstalk performance from this design in comparison to Denon's DL-1000A, as the Technic's extra-long stylus will allow the LP groove to twist the generator torsionally in addition to the normal 45-45 motions.

Also, I don't see where the 305MC's stylus protrudes from the upper wall of the tubular cantilever, which means that either the stylus is only secured to the lower cantilever wall (compromising stylus mounting rigidity), or that Technics completely filled the forward part of the tubular cantilever with glue, and allowed the top surface of the stylus to contact and bond to the inner surface of the upper cantilever wall. The latter option would increase tip mass and worsen measured frequency response, but would probably sound better.

>The cantilever on the Monster cart seems different than both of these

Please locate a photo and I will try to analyze.

>makes me wonder why something like this could be manufactured 30 years ago, but is unobtainium today.

Simply put, the amorphous boron materials are no longer available. Namiki and Ogura possess sapphire fabrication and processing capabilities, as both of these companies make low-loss precision optics (sapphire glass and crystal) for the telcom industry, and supply the watch industry and meter industry with jeweled (sapphire) bearings.

Now if there were wide-scale industrial demand for small-diameter amorphous boron rod or amorphous boron pipe, it would encourage the likes of Matsushita to invest the millions of dollars required to re-start amorphous boron production. But that isn't the case, and I sincerely doubt if any cartridge manufacturer today is profitable enough to finance such a project.

Perhaps there is a university laboratory somewhere that could make precision amorphous boron on a small scale (where the bill would be hundreds of thousands of dollars rather than millions), but otherwise I don't see much chance that amorphous boron suitable for use in cartridges will be manufactured again. I hope that I am wrong.

BTW, I should mention that laser cutting or laser drilling has been largely avoided for these boron cantilevers. These cantilevers were / are preferably made of amorphous boron, because amorphous is physically more rigid than the more common crystalline form. Laser cutting or laser drilling applies enough heat to the amorphous boron to convert it into the weaker crystalline form, thereby weakening the cantilever precisely at the stylus joint where it needs to be strongest.

kind regards, jonathan carr
Hi Fleib: Cartridge suspensions should only allow vertical, horizontal and 45-degree flexing modes, but in reality nearly all cartridge suspensions also allow twisting, and if a given suspension doesn't contain a tension wire, fore-aft motion as well.

If you measure crosstalk on an oscilloscope using a test LP, you will see that it causes the test signal waveform to break apart and spreads the sections over both channels rather than one. Breaking a waveform apart is never a good idea for sonics, since doing so generates high-order distortion products which are unpleasant to the ear. For this reason I consider cartridge crosstalk to be a type of distortion, rather than merely a channel separation problem.

No matter how rigid the cantilever and secure the the stylus tip mount, the flexible nature of the cantilever suspension allows the cantilever and stylus to rotate as a unit, leading to worsened crosstalk. As opposed to normal crosstalk which is due to misalignment of generator and stylus, crosstalk such as this is dynamic in nature, and increases and decreases as the LP groove modulations rise and fall.

Therefore, although a cartridge with a lurking dynamic crosstalk issue will probably measure OK and sound OK on simple music, on big orchestra peaks, congestion and imaging problems may occur.

The farther the stylus protrudes from the centerline of the cantilever, the more effective it is as a crank, making it easier for the LP groove to twist the cantilever and generator around (with the suspension acting as the pivot). A very short stylus reduces the level-dependent twisting effects by being less effective as a crank. At the other end of the cantilever, a large surface-area boss (typical of many MCs and the Audio-Technica MMs), combined with a large diameter damping system will act in a similar manner as a disc brake, reducing cantilever and generator twisting.

Although not much can be done with rigid cantilevers (sapphire, boron, diamond etc.) to reduce the twisting effects other than shortening the distance that the stylus protrudes from the cantilever centerline, it is possible to design an alloy tube cantilever to circumvent this effect - if the cantilever is made with a kink in it (corresponding to the VTA angle) which starts to bend a little farther back than is normal for alloy tube cantilevers, the patch where the stylus contacts the LP groove can be placed directly on the cantilever longitudinal axis. This avoids the dynamic crosstalk issue by removing the crank effect of the stylus.

In more ways than one, it is easier to make a high-quality phono cartridge when the cantilever is made from a ductile material rather than the rigid, brittle materials that are commonly viewed as "better". Rigid cantilever materials have no "give", meaning that the slot, hole or surface for the stylus mounting must be made larger than the stylus, and this necessary oversizing forces the mounting tolerances to be poorer. A ductile cantilever material can be fitted with an undersized mounting hole so that the stylus is press-fit into place, and this will help keep the position (front-to-back, side-to-side) and angle (azimuth, SRA) of the stylus closer to the intent of the cartridge designer. And since the ductile cantilever can be bent without damage during forming, it is possible to cancel out some of the geometrical effects that would otherwise occur (per the above paragraph).

Returning to rigid cantilevers, please look at this.

www.accuphase.com/cat/ac-3en.pdf

If you compare the photo of Technics cantilever to the cantilever cross-section drawing in the Accuphase AC-3 pdf, the Accuphase drawing suggests that the contact point between stylus and LP groove was kept closer to the center axis of the cantilever, and it also shows that the stylus block passes through both upper and lower cantilever walls, which should help keep consistent stylus mounting accuracy.

This doesn't mean that a long stylus only has downsides to - it confers advantages as well. A longer stylus makes it feasible to reduce the cantilever length (for a given cantilever rake angle), so if the designer's top priority is to reduce cantilever length, a longer stylus (and/or higher cantilever rake angle) will be effective.

Most notably, a longer stylus will be far more resistant to jamming due to dirt accumulation than a shorter stylus would be, and this is important for a volume-sales product that may see a fair amount of casual use. Back when Lyra was making cartridges with 0.06x0.06mm stylii (smaller than what is on the Technics, and up there with the Denon DL-1000A), we'd get back cartridges where the user claimed that the stylus was broken off. In many cases, the stylus was intact and perfectly fine - it was simply that the tiny stylus size made it prone to vanish in accumulated dirt, and once that happened, the cartridge wouldn't play - the cantilever would just slide across the LP as though the stylus was missing.

Here is also a link for the AC-1 pdf. You can see how it used an alloy tubular cantilever which was bent into shape (although for crosstalk purposes it would have been better if the bend started a little further back).

www.accuphase.com/cat/ac-1en.pdf

FWIW, tubular cantilevers are not more rigid than rod cantilevers of the same material, unless the outer diameter of the tubular cantilever is larger than the OD of the rod cantilever. But a larger OD will cause the stylus to protrude by a greater distance from the cantilever centerline, which we have seen is a disadvantage when it comes to crosstalk.

Finally, allow me to point out that most design choices in a phono cartridge bring side-effects. Very few design choices only confer advantages with no negatives. As one example, it is no accident that the great majority of phono cartridges ever made have converged on a cantilever length of around 6mm. Any designer can specify a shorter cantilever, but doing so brings direct and indirect performance penalties which need to be carefully considered, and doing so also inevitably forces design work-arounds in various areas which may upset the balance of the design as a whole.

On a different topic, here is an online simulation tool for RLC circuits.

http://sim.okawa-denshi.jp/en/RLCtool.php

It allows for the user to enter their own values for resistance, capacitance and inductance (thereby making it feasible to do a simple electrical modeling of an MM, MI or MC phono cartridge), and it can show the phase response, step response, overshoot and other parameters in addition to the frequency response. This is a nice tool to complement Jim Hagerman's cartridge loading page, to get a better idea of phono cartridge behavior in the electrical domain.

Hope this was of interest.

kind regards, jonathan
My experience with test LPs is that they often don't agree; sometimes the differences are minor, sometimes they are bigger. Use two different test records (of good quality) and you'll get two different frequency response curves. Likewise for crosstalk, distortion, IMD etc.

This could be because cutting lathe amplifiers almost never contain resistors that are accurate to 0.1%, or capacitors that are accurate to 0.5% (according to the LP cutting engineers that I have spoken with), this could be because the RIAA lookup tables (that an EE would use to help design phono stages or cutting-lathe electronics) in various engineering articles didn't always agree with each other. Whatever the reasons, differences between the RIAA EQ curve (as defined by equations rather than look-up tables) and what individual cutting lathes are wont to produce should be expected.

For example, two days ago I received a set of test measurements from a highly-regarded tonearm manufacturer. These were of the Etna, tested in his latest tonearm. Comparing his measurements to Stereoplay's Etna measurements, and you would think that a different cartridge was involved. This doesn't necessarily prove that either test is better, or less valid. But it is proof that test measurements do not always give the same (or even similar) results, and this is neither unique nor a surprise.

OTOH, the differences between cartridges tested at the same facility should be comparable (unless X cartridge was tested in January and Y cartridge was tested in August). For example, going back to the HiFi News group test, the lift in the presence band shown by the 17D3 does not appear with any of the other 6 cartridges tested, so that particular observation may be applicable to situations outside of the HFNRR test.

Then again, the important question is - how much of these measured differences are apparent to the ear? Based on my own experiences (including blind testing with various listening panels), I don't think that there is a single answer. What I can say is that cartridge body construction (materials, shapes, voids, densities etc.) and magnetics have a big impact on the subjectively perceived frequency response. A measured frequency response that sounds neutral with one body construction may not provide the same subjective response with a different body construction.

Conversely, the same measured frequency response (or very similar) may not sound the same at all if the body construction or magnetics are different.

Case in point - the Delos and Kleos have very similar frequency response measurements, but they sound strikingly different, and that includes the treble range. The Kleos has a very pure and quiet-sounding top end that is kind to worn records, while the Delos sounds more exuberant at the top, and is more likely to reveal that a given LP has seen better days.

So why the sonic differences from such similar FR measurements? First, the magnetics are different on the two - a permalloy armature on the Delos as opposed to a chemically purified iron armature on the Kleos. Second, the Kleos is machined from a harder alloy than the Delos, and adds internal resonance traps that have been strategically placed to prevent the spent mechanical energy (originating from the stylus and cantilever) from being reflected back into the coil region, and funnel that energy into the headshell and tonearm.

As another example of how materials and construction can affect the subjectively perceived sound, normal LPs are mastered on an lacquered disc, while DMM LPs are mastered on a copper disc. This change results in a very different sound for DMM (as compared to traditional lacquer-based LP masters), to such an extent that the choices taken during the mastering processed need to be changed (or at least should be changed) in order to produce acceptable sound quality.

Measurements are very useful, but due to differences in test LPs, LP groove diameter (of the test track), operating temperature, tonearm setup and whatnot, it can be misleading to read too much into the importance or validity of one particular test. My recommendation would be to perform multiple tests in multiple setups, and hope that the average of those multiple tests will provide some objective understanding.

And, there is much more to the sound of a cartridge than what test LPs are designed to measure.

kind regards, jonathan
In connection to the above, I should add that Audio-Technica has already implemented price increases earlier this year for other cartridge models, so the net result appears to be an across-the-board price increase.

Link to translation from Japanese.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ja&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.phileweb.com%2Fnews%2Faudio%2F201411%2F10%2F15185.html&edit-text=

kind regards, jonathan carr
Pasted the same link as before by mistake!

The correct link:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ja&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.phileweb.com%2Fnews%2Faudio%2F201406%2F02%2F14541.html&edit-text=

Sorry!
Hi Fleib:

>Maybe it's due to modern adhesives, but exotic cantilevers usually don't sound like the tip/cantilever interface presents much of a problem.

I'd say that the situation with adhesives is somewhat better than it used to be, but still not good enough. Even today. changing (or simply modifying) the adhesive is enough to alter the sound. I will also mention that carbon fiber, which inevitably contains a decent proportion of adhesive in its composition, has seldom been used as a cantilever material, despite measuring fairly well. The reason seems to be that most cartridge designers who have tried it, simply don't like the sound of it, particularly by itself.

>The current DL-304 and DL-S1 are somewhat unusual.

>They also have very low output and 30 or 40 ohm impedance!

That is because the coil former is non-permeable, and therefore, rather inefficient in terms of generating electrical output from physical motion. But in return for that inefficiency, they avoid the distortions that all permeable cores inflict. All MMs and MIs have this distortion. So do most MCs that offer relatively high output voltage in comparison to their impedance. So do Raul's beloved step-up transformers (^o^). But non-permeable core MC cartridges like the DL-S1, FR-7, JVC L-1000, Benz-Micro Ruby et al, don't.

>Results seem very system dependant.

A cartridge like the DL-S1 prefers to have as few electrical contacts between itself and the phono stage input as possible, and a v-e-r-y good phono stage. In this sense, their requirements are no different from any other low-output MC. A little bit more extreme in degree, that is all.

>They have relatively high compliance, low VTF and seem best in med/heavy arms.

I'd describe 14×10-6cm/dyne (100Hz test record measurement) as medium-compliance, rather than high. Hardly anyone describes Lyra as being high-compliance, but even we usually stay around 12~13 (again, 100Hz test record measurement).

If you study Denon's technical literature, you will see that although Denon spoke on multiple occasions of high-compliance and the calculated benefits on tracking ability, in reality they hardly ever ventured beyond 14 with their MCs. The DL-1000A, with 20×10-6cm/dyne (100Hz test record measurement), is perhaps the only time that Denon made a truly high-compliance MC.

hth, jonathan carr
Hi Raul:

>So, I think ( with out any prove of that ) that a stylus glued design is an advantage.

If you are only concerned with tracking performance, rather than hearing what the stylus is picking up from the LP groove, perhaps some kind of suspension mounted right at the stylus tip could be an advantage.

However, compliance (movement) at the stylus tip will absorb signal energy, and prevent this energy from being transmitted to the magnetic sensor (or transmit it after some delay). I wouldn't consider that an advantage, but my priorities and your priorities are not necessarily the same.

One of my most respected cartridges is the Sony Soundtech XL-88D Custom. According to the designer, only 7 pieces were ever made (and it cost JPY 350,000 or JPY 360,000 in the early 1980s), so I wouldn't bother searching for one. Its stylus and cantilever were made from a single piece of diamond - no glue joint between stylus and cantilever. At the time, its sound was head and shoulders above anything else that I had heard.

But to play the devil's advocate, linear transducers (including speakers and cartridges) are woefully inefficient at converting one form of energy into another.

Less than 10% of the mechanical energy picked up from the LP groove is converted into electrical energy. Given that inherant wastefulness, one could argue that it is not such a big problem to introduce some extra loss at the stylus.

If someone else wants to try this and document their results, I would be willing to read the research paper (grin).

>that the cantilever transmit movements instead sound.

I am not sure that I understand what you are trying to categorize, but the goal is to have the sensor (magnet, iron, coils) follow the LP groove, one-to-one. A perfectly stiff and massless cantilever would accomplish this, but no such thing exists. In reality, any lack of stiffness in the cantilever will cause flexing, and any mass means that it has more difficulty in transmitting higher frequencies than lower ones.

It is possible to build a cartridge based on a bending-wave cantilever (my understanding is that Grado's "telescoping cantilever" is based on this philosophy), or the designer can attempt to make the cantilever as stiff as ingenuity allows (such as the aforementioned XL-88D Custom).

hth
Hi Fleib: The Audio Technica pdf doesn't show the all-important cantilever internals, and the drawing itself requires additional notation before it makes sense.

The "flexible suspension filament" is only flexible across a very limited length between the forward end of the metal pipe enclosing it (the stopper pipe) and black molded piece that carries the magnets, a section that is hidden in the AT drawing. The free length of the suspension filament is very important for cartridge behaviour. The shorter this is, the more accurate the pivot but the peakier the top-end response and the bigger the stress on the tonearm becomes. The longer this is, the less accurate the pivot becomes, but the extra mechanical losses tend to make for a flatter frequency response, and less stress is imposed on the tonearm.

Also, the "compliance adjustment screw" doesn't set the compliance, but rather locks the suspension stopper pipe in place (and therefore the entire cantilever assembly) once the compliance has been set. The stopper pipe will be mounted inside some kind of tubular structure, and the compliance is set by sliding the stopper pipe (along with the entire cantilever assembly) back and forth inside the tubular structure. There will probably be a flat wall or ridge directly behind the 360 degree radial damping element, allowing the damper to be compressed to a greater or lesser degree by moving the stopper pipe. IOW, setting the compliance most likely simultaneously sets the damping.

And in the AT drawing, unless the cartridge has a separate mechanism for adjusting the magnetic pole-piece positioning, moving the stopper pipe will alter the position of the magnets within the pole-piece gap, thereby affecting magnetic linearity and possibly the output level. "Setting the compliance" in this case does far more than just setting the compliance.

Yes, I am familiar with Miyajima Labs. What I find most interesting about the designs is the pivot concept, which reminds me of the Glanz cartridges of yore. Although neither the design tradeoffs nor the style of sound are quite to my tastes, I can still respect these cartridges.

Also, it is important that many different philosophies of cartridge design and sonic taste exist in the market. To have just a limited range of design philosophies and sonic preferences would not be very interesting, and this would probably lead to early stagnation of the cartridge market. To have active and healthy competition between multiple manufacturers of rather different design philosophies is not only good for the customer, the increased level of interest is also better for the manufacturers.

kind regards, jonathan
Hi Fleib: Cantilever assemblies can be built completely by the cantilever manufacturer, but it is not unusual for the cartridge manufacturer to provide raw materials and/or prefabricated components so that the cantilever manufacturer can complete the cantilever assembly properly per the cartridge manufacturer's design.

If the cantilever manufacturer has stocks of the appropriate raw materials and is able to fabricate these properly, it is usually easiest for the cartridge manufacturer to ask the cantilever manufacturer to source and make everything. But if the cantilever manufacturer doesn't have the needed materials or capabilities, where the cantilever's internal components come from and how they are made is up to the ingenuity and resourcefulness of the cartridge manufacturer. In the latter situations, neither the cartridge manufacturer nor cantilever manufacturer may be willing to reveal where what internal component originates from.

Regarding tubular boron cantilevers, have a look at Denon's DL-1000A, which at 0.077mg had probably the lightest moving assembly ever used in an MC cartridge (and that includes the Monsters).

DL-1000A

visual comparison of Denon DL-305 and DL-1000A cantilever and coil systems

The DL-1000A's cantilever (on the right) measured an outer diameter of 0.3mm with a wall thickness of 0.023mm and a length of 4mm.

DL-1000A cantilever and coil detail

In this third link you can see that the stylus end of the tubular boron cantilever has been "flattened out" by shaving off one of the cantilever walls (due to amorphous boron's notable lack of ductility, I wouldn't expect much else). As spelled out in my previous post, processing a tubular cantilever like this causes the stylus to be mounted to only one of the cantilever walls, compromising stylus mounting rigidity and reducing the amount of LP groove information that the stylus can pass on to the cantilever. This is acceptable if the goal is to reduce effective tip mass and extend measured frequency response, but it is much less desireable if proper transients and dynamics are to be obtained. FWIW, the DL-1000A never had a reputation for realistic-sounded transients and powerful dynamics, but this could have been partly down to the 0.1mV@5cm/sec. output giving most phono stages a hard time.

Regarding diamond dust coatings, we supply diamond-clad boron rods to Ogura for inclusion in our upper-model cantilever assemblies. Our goal is to suppress out-of-band (ultrasonic) resonances and increase rigidity; I assume that Nakatsuka-san's goals were similar.

kind regards, jonathan carr
Hello Nandric:

>everyone who can check the data with measuring instruments should get the same result. That is why such data are considered to be objective.

This assumption may be suspect with phono cartridges, inasmuch as various measurable parameters such as frequency response, crosstalk, distortion, tracking etc. change with ambient temperature, humidity, even the LP groove radius (of the test track). Different test LPs will also show different things. Obviously loading will also alter the frequency response, if the cartridge has high inductance.

As an example, the following downloadable links show how different people can come up with different measurements for the same cartridges.

http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/index.php/vinyl-lp/25-cartridges/86-ortofon-cadenza-blue-a-bronze-mc.html?showall=1

http://www.bm.rs/Micro%20Benz/Benz%20Micro%20Ace%20-%20HiFi%20News%20July%202012.pdf

http://www.fastaudio.com/workspace/uploads/downloads/stp_08_10_sd_tonabnehmer.pdf

The Ortofon Cadenza Red is measured by Stereoplay and HiFi News, while the Ortofon Cadenza Blue is measured by Stereoplay and HiFi World, so these are the obvious models to compare.

HiFi News' measurements of the ultra-short-cantilevered Dynavector Karat 17D3 may also be interesting to some.

Special kudos to HiFi World for acknowledging that frequency response changes with LP groove radius. Wish that they would do the same with ambient temperature.

At the same time, keep in mind that various things that affect the sound of a cartridge are level-dependent (one of the things that I was alluding to previously when I pointed out the length of the Technics EPC-305MC's stylus), and may therefore not be easy to measure with most test LPs - although this does not reduce their audibility.

Regarding coil impedance, my general experience is that the fewer the components comprising the coil bobbin, and the fewer the number of coil layers, the more consistent the coil shape and impedance will be. Using more components for the coil bobbin (as in a laminated coil) increases the likelihood of bobbin mis-shaping and non-flat surfaces, while each coil layer added results in a less flat surface for the next coil layer to be wound onto.

kind regards,
Hi Fleib:

>The mechanical performance overwhelms the electrical and shunt capacitance combined with inductance serves to lower high frequency resonance.

Overwhelm is not the appropriate word. I have some experience designing MM cartridges (for other brands), and in a nutshell, what you do is counterpoise the electrical parameters against the mechanical performance. The client commissioning the design is not always open to a wide range of output voltages (or cantilever materials), so the designer may need to operate within a fairly limited range of inductances and moving masses, but the general idea is to manipulate the electrical parameters to counteract what goes on in the mechanical domain, and vice versa.

>Someone (not Hagerman) assumed there is a phase shift at electrical resonance, but this appears to not be the case.

Not sure why you think that electrical resonance won't cause a phase shift - normally it does. I see electrical phase shifts all the time in my work with amplifiers, and I see the same at ultrasonic frequencies with MC cartridge loading. Nevertheless, just to double-check the situation with MMs, I entered Werner Ogier's first schematic from the following page into my circuit simulator (which I use on a daily basis).

http://www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/load_the_magnets_e.html

I see a frequency peak at 8.05kHz, and at the same frequency the phase has shifted by about 50 degrees (compared to 20Hz). Incidentally, the phase shift starts occurring at a much lower frequency than the electrical resonance peak occurs at, which is again what I would expect (and have observed many times). At 4kHz the electrical phase has shifted by 21 degrees, at 2kHz the electrical phase has shifted by 10 degrees, and at 1kHz the electrical phase has shifted by 5 degrees.

>Just thought I'd mention it as there seems to be a lot of confusion about this.

I accept your word that there is confusion about this, but I honestly don't understand why this should be the case, as any well-practiced EE knows that both resonances and filter poles will normally have accompanying phase shifts.

The Oikawa RLC calculator limits the number of components that can be used to 3, and unfortunately 3 components won't allow you to resistively load the phono cartridge that you are simulating. A full-fledged circuit simulator is far more powerful and flexible, but the Oikawa simulator is considerably better than nothing (smile).

kind regards, jonathan
All: Audio-Technica has announced a price increase for several of its VM cartridges; AT5V, AT100E, AT100E/G, and AT150MLX. Prices for the associated replacement styli will also increase. The higher prices are for Japan, but may eventually include other markets.

Here is a link to a translation (from Japanese).

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ja&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.phileweb.com%2Fnews%2Faudio%2F201411%2F10%2F15185.html&edit-text=

Audio-Technica's price increase does not surprise me, as we (Lyra) have likewise received price increase notifications from our cantilever suppliers, which overlap with those used by Audio-Technica. We are told that the reasons for the price increases are the need to overhaul and replace worn-out and outdated facilities used to process cantilever materials and fabricate styli, and to hire and train new staff.

Although some of you may decry the price increase, I think this is not bad news, as it implies a willingness on the cantilever suppliers' part to continue to be involved in the cartridge market. No company will invest hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars in production line refurbishments and new hirings if they plan to subsequently let production dwindle and die.

It would be far more of a disaster if the cantilever suppliers had declared "our production equipment is worn-out and the production staff is getting old, the size of the cantilever market is pitiful compared to our revenue in other areas, and cantilever production brings no technological benefits to where we want to go as a company, so we will cease production."

At least we cartridge manufacturers can be reasonably confident that cantilever and styli supplies will not dry up.

If you wish to buy one of the aforementioned Audio-Technica VM cartridges, or a replacement stylus, and price is a strong issue for you, I suggest that you act sooner rather than later.

kind regards, jonathan carr
Here is a new MM cartridge that doesn't have any permeable core inside the coils; the same fundamental concept as air-core MC cartridges.

http://topwing.jp/RedSparrow-en.html
An earlier model from the same manufacturer, sharing the same design concept (air-core MM cartridge).

http://topwing.jp/BlueDragon-en.html