WRT the AKG cart link in my previous post, keep in mind that there is 5% sales tax which needs to be added onto that dealer's prices.
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.
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.
Showing 50 responses by t_bone
Raul, What are your thoughts on the Technics 100C and 101C? Has anyone else tried one? I haven't read the bulk of this thread for a while, and I just did a brief search on Audiogon and find no reference to either. I seem to remember a reference earlier in the thread but don't remember if it was a mention or if anyone had tried one. I first tried a 205C Mk3, which I very much liked, and then I tried a Garrott P77, and a Grace F9 ruby, and then I went back to the Technics 205CMk3 and I found it to be different but still quite competitive (the Garrott has a wonderful tight bass which makes listening to string bass a wonder). Then I tried the Technics 100c Mk4 and found it to be quite a bit better at the transients than the others I had tried. I am still trying to figure out whether I like the bass better than the 205C Mk3 and Mk4, but the treble has been better on the 100c, and the midrange is clear like I have not heard any other MM cart... wondering if it is the setup on which I got lucky or whether I have a real prize on my hands. I have to say it is a shockingly good cartridge. Interestingly enough, I find myself comparing the MM carts I try with the FR-7f and the Sony XL-55s which I have discovered in the last 6mos. Many have the same combination of liquidity and attention to transient detail that the FR-7f has. |
Raul, The 101c was introduced the same year as the 100c Mk2; it had a titanium cantilever where the 100c had a boron cantilever. It also had a substantially higher VTF (2g vs the 1.25g of the 100c). Both were integrated headshell cartridges. I'll try to report back on the 100c vs MCs when I am back where they are... |
Lharasim, You are presenting everyone with a dilemna. What about selling one of the "few more"? :^) Not having a P-76, I cannot venture real-world experience but I based on my experience with other light-ish low VTF MM carts and these two arms (the MA-505 in a few different guises), I would probably keep the EPA-100. This offends my aesthetic sensibilities because I love the machined look of the Micro/SAECs of the era (aside from being a fantastic arm), but I think the EPA is a more flexible arm which sounds very good with my MM carts. That said, the real problem with the EPA-100 in its normal configuration is that it cannot take heavy carts the way the Micro can (with an added c/w) unless you happen to have the sold-optionally heavy-weight end-piece for the EPA-100. |
Raul, Let me know what you think about the 100c after you have spent some time with it. I heard one, and found it to be the best MM I have heard, so starting looking for more. I don't have an AKG or an AT180/170, or several of the others on this thread. I have the Empire 999Z/EX, the Grace F9, the Garrott P77, the Technics 205CMk2/3/4, and a few others, and end up liking the Garrott and the Technics 100C . I have not yet figured out how to explain the difference between the 100C and 101C in writing. I'll have to do an all-afternoon shootout at some point. The one thing noone mentions is that because it has a built-in headshell, it is structurally quite sound. AND, it has an overhang adjustment feature in the cartridge mount itself. Very convenient - much more so than many other integrated headshell carts. |
Siniy123, I think the Yahoo Auction in question is here. By going through that dealer's online storefront, they have a 10% off sale for the next couple of weeks but I do not know if it applies to items on consignment like this one. |
Raul, On Technics 205C models... As far as I can tell, the first 205C was introduced just after the SP10 was introduced in the early 1970s. It had a titanium cantilever. The 205C-II was released a few years later. The 205C-IIS, -IIL, and -IIH were released around 1976, along with the first 100C and 101C, around when the SP-10Mk2 was released (the 205CMk3 released a few years later). In the 205-II later series where they started adding letters at the end of the model names, the S is the standard model (3.5mV), the H is High impedance/output (7mV), the L is Low impedance (and low output - 2mV). Out of those three, in my opinion the L is the nicest-sounding one, but that's just me. There is also a 205C-IIX but I have never figured out whether it was a replacement stylus or actually offered for sale as a cartridge. I have had a couple of those in and out of the system and they also sound nice. |
Raul, I don't know how different the 205CMk4 is from the 205CMk3, but between the 205CMk3 and the 100C there are several differences (despite use of similar materials in places): cantilever structure is different, and coil structure is completely different - the 205Cmk3 uses relatively bulkier coils, and the 100C has wisps of coils. FWIW, even in 1984, the price of the 205CMk4 was half that of the 100C version of the same period. |
Raul, In my statement about prices, I mean nothing other than what Technics meant by pricing them the way they did. It is a fact that their prices were different. Price does not always correlate to quality. I have a lot of cheap carts which are better than some more expensive carts. It happens less often within a given line, and the fact that some people somewhere prefer a lower cart in a line does not prove that two carts produced at the top of their respective model lines are even close to the same (which also does not prove that the less expensive one does not sound better). Perhaps Technics did not intend for the 100C to be a better cartridge with better sound when they used a more difficult/finer cantilever, and a different coil system, and a fairly significantly different electrical characteristics, matching it with their top of the line tables, and putting a price tag to match. Perhaps they did intend it, and were not successful. Perhaps they did intend it to be better, and for many people it is better, just not for you. In my statement about their construction, I only meant exactly what I said. They have the same materials but different construction. You could probably make an HO MC cart with the same materials and almost the same specs and it would not necessarily sound the same. As to specs being the same, I note that every single Koetsu made (according to a Koetsu retailer's spec sheet I have seen) has the same frequency response and compliance, and same channel separation and channel balance specs. Most of the materials are in the same ballpark. That does not mean that they all sound the same. I have, at home (and have listened to) a 205C-IIS, 205C-IIL, 205C-IIH, 205C-IIX, 205CMk3, 205CMk4, 100C, 101C, 100CMk2, 100CMk3, and now a 100CMk4 (not to mention a 207C, 270C, 305C, and others). All of them are non P-mount carts. I have listened to all of them on a Technics table with a Technics arm. The 205CMk3/4 are quite good. There is also a 'house sound' to some extent. Personally, I prefer the 100C and even 101C to the 205C series and note the difference, as does my wife in a blind test, strongly preferring the 100C. That is perhaps just us and YMMV. As an afterthought... among specs, the few that Technics published to my knowledge include one showing that the 205CMk4 has more than double the output of the 100CMk3 (and to my knowledge, 100CMk4 output was even slightly lower than the 100CMk3). The electrical properties which allowed for that would indicate a different level of sensitivity, and probably a different reaction to capacitance. It would also warrant a different loading level. Again, YMMV. |
Dgob, Thanks for pointing that out. I had not seen that. It may be useful. I think it would be great to strike while the iron is hot and allow professionals to disclose their affiliations with an "affiliations/disclosures" link as well. It would allow professionals to disclose the brands they sell/distribute/have a vested interest in, would allow non-professionals to observe the professional affiliations without someone (Bill) calling them out on it and the thread in order to make it clear. It would allow professionals to speak about their expertise in good conscience, without fear of appearing underhanded. End of rant. |
On the Technics 100C, my 100C carts (of varying "marks") are usually happiest at just over 1g up to 1.25g. Only one of mine has ever been "happy" at over 1.25g, and then after a while it settled down to be happiest at around 1.20g. Some of this (being happiest below the middle range) could be due to age as none of mine have been rebuilt or 'refreshed'. |
Raul and all, The Grace F-8F and F-9F had Shibata stylii and blue clamps, and were oriented for playback of quadrophonic records. The F-8/9E were the "normal" version which used the same super-light cantilever. The "Level II" stylii were the later/redux series of stylii for the F-8 body. The "14s" were for the F-9. Personally I like the Es with the elliptical stylii. FWIW, there was a "60th Anniversary" stylus series with a "US-" model appellation which was released last year. It was offered only to people who had been registered with Shinagawa Musen as owners of Grace carts (i.e. people who had sent in those little cards which came in the box with the cart (i.e. very few), and who hadn't moved in the interim (even fewer)). They were re-dos fitting most of the extant bodies, with the possible exception of the lowest-cost F-8H and the broadcast-model F-8D. Most of them were quite wide bandwidth and had 'super luminal trace', 'special elliptical', or 'micro-ridge' stylii. I'm still trying to find one... |
My apologies to all for not having read the description in sufficient detail. It is there for all in gory detail. It all makes perfect sense now. Now I'm curious about the 'more benefits not apparent on first sight'... :^) It certainly looks like a really top-notch design, especially useful for someone who has a boatload of arms. |
Wayne, I do not have the experience with the "western" brand tonearms such as the Helius, Roksan, etc (even though they are probably made at the same factory as the Japanese tonearms). I have no experience with the JELCO arms. I like the long SME 3012R with some carts. Among "vintage" arms for less than your budget, I can highly recommend the Micro Seiki MA-505 (any version; the MkIII is most versatile, with different armpipes, but I personally prefer the regular 505 or the X with silver wire); the Audiocraft arms (also sold as "Ultracraft" in the US) such as the AC300/400 and AC3000/4000 (the 3000/4000 have variable damping and several different armwands making cart-matching a breeze across low to high compliance carts); some of the arms from Stax and SAEC; and the Technics EPA-100 arms (or the 500/250 arm/armwand arms) are great and occasionally show up at around that price (more usually a little more). Most of these will work well with all but the highest of compliance carts. The Audiocraft AC3000/4000 will even work with those, as will the EPA-100 and EPA 500/250. With most all of these, it is not too difficult to find someone to rewire them later if necessary. Disclosure: I have used and own a whole host of older Japanese tonearms (I live in Japan) both in the sub-$1000 range and above. I will probably be letting go of several arms in the not too distant future. I have previously owned/used/purchased/used at least one of most of the above, and may again. |
Raul, I generally use the "ears" guide. I am fine with the distortions in my speakers. However, I am also interested in learning the science behind sound. So far I have not run into a case where I could change the capacitance upwards AND doing so sounded better with an MM cart. Maybe I am missing out on life in the high capacitance lane... |
3s are sometimes available. 4s are quite rare. You usually have to wait until they come out on ebay or similar. JICO made a stylus specifically for the 3 but they too are rare, and out of production. JICO styli for the 205CIIX are available much more frequently. I have heard they will fit the 3 but have no experience and so would take that info with a big grain of salt. Separately, it is possible that a company such as Roundale Research (a Japanese retipper) or JICO themselves could retip/re-cantilever the stylus carriage you have. |
Lew, DU probably prefers a good bottle of Barossa Shiraz (or some of that lovely single vineyard grenache produced by Mr. Bratasiuk, of which I think I have now a decade-plus supply of :^). The 205CMk3 and the later Mk4 also used boron cantilevers, but a different coil system (both turns and, it would appear, wire). They are quite good but they lack the 'grace' of any of the 100Cs. I am not sure of the right descriptive words, but I find the 205 series more 'meaty' in the treble registers where the 100C is more 'wispy'. The biggest 'problem' with the 205CMk3/4 is that they have bigger brothers which are so good. The 205CMk3/4 are fine carts in their own right. The 100Cs get better as you go later, and perhaps more importantly, for 'pig-in-a-pokes', the TTDD dampers were implemented from Mk2 and beyond meaning they may last longer. Personally, I like all of them. I find them more alike than different, but they do sound a bit more MC-ey (in terms of presenting detail) as you go to the later models. If I had to choose just one, I'd choose a Mk4, but I have at least one of each and like them all. I also like the 101C (which as far as I know only had one generation) which seems to get no comment on these boards. |
The EPC-101C was introduced at the same time as the EPC-100CMk2 (1979) at the same price. The 101C has a titanium nitride cantilever. Like the 100C it has a 0.2x0.7mil elliptical stylus but has a slightly larger 'square-block' diamond tip on the stylus than the original 100C (and the Mk2). The Mk3 and Mk4 tips were even smaller. The 101C plays with a fair bit more VTF (2.0g if memory serves). I have never seen a compliance number. I have seen them in black and champagne-color one-piece headshells. I have never seen a P-mount 101C. Personally, I'd probably rather have a 100CMk4 than a 101C but I'd much rather have a 101C than a 205CMk3. The 101C is, if anything, more MM-ish in my mind than the 100C. I assume the 101C was seen as 'losing' to the 100C at the time so was not continued. It could have been marketing (because not long afterward, the label on the new EPA-100Mk2 was 'boron' rather than 'titanium nitride' even though the Mk2 armpipe is a boron-titanium mix) or it could have been that everyone preferred the boron - it IS lighter and probably performs better. Another possibility was a desire to make all the cantilevers for the top carts be the same - Technics must have had a serious 'boron farm' operating at the time. FWIW, the 101C is not very common, and I have seen almost nothing written about it. Raul may not have ever heard it. Also, 'foxtan' is out of Hong Kong I think. |
Halcro, you may find Jcarr stays away from that line. There isn't much near-term upside for Beelzebub to get into a discussion on deism with the newly faithful... Or is it a case of trying to pull back the Proud, Envious, Wrathful (I am probably in the higher altitudes -Gluttonyville) from across waters where they perch on Mt Purgatory... Heck, you're from the southern hemisphere... |
Perhaps Jcarr can enlighten us, or those with period catalogs (from 1969 for the FR-5/FR-5E and the mid-1970s for the FR-6SE) might be able to add to this. I am not sure the FR-6 was meant to be an 'upgrade' vs the FR-5. From the drawings I remember, it is basically the same as the FR-5. It appears to have been meant to rectify an issue with the FR-5. IIRC, the prices of the two were not significantly different, despite the passage of time. From what I remember reading an interview with Ikeda-san from probably 18 months ago, he said the FR-6 was built because the F-5 toroidal core was too small. He explained that the replacement stylus assembly sleeve was super-narrow and dampers were sized to fit perfectly (no extra space) and to remedy that, he had made the FR-6; it had a larger coil, and larger magnet, and larger hole for the replacement stylus. A Stereo Sound reviewer noted that the FR-6SE "sounds like an MM made by a guy who makes MC carts"; another noted "if listening blind, lots of people would say it is an MC cart." |
Raul, The specific quote I mentioned was regarding a specific cartridge and was made by one reviewer to two more reviewers. I inferred he was talking about people who might normally have experience with both. I inferred from the article that the particular cart(s) in question had an MC-like sound partly because of their design and execution. After I wrote that, I dug out the magazine and checked what I wrote against what was in the article and see no reason to change what I wrote. I also would not use that quote in any other general sense. So far, in my personal experience, I have found that great carts sound great. I have heard lousy-sounding MCs and lousy-sounding MMs. Personally, I find that lousy-sounding MMs have a different way of sounding lousy than do most lousy-sounding MCs. As they get better and better, MMs and MCs start sounding similar. I do not find that MMs are better bang for buck than MCs when bought new. I do find that examples of great MMs from yesteryear can be found cheaper than great new MCs. This is not terribly surprising. However, I find that there are some great old MCs from yesteryear too which sound better than MCs which cost much more when bought new. There could be a whole long thread about those. It might not get to be quite as long as this thread but that wouldn't be for lack of merit, or number of great carts available. While I agree that there are several MM/MIs which are just plain great carts, I for one have not moved to MMs exclusive forsaking all MCs. I find some of my MCs to be preferable to any MM I have yet heard, and I have none of Raul's favorite MCs. It could be the phono stage and head amp I am using are better matched for MCs than the phono stages/SUTs/headamps used by people who find MMs better than their MCs. It could be difference in taste. I, for one, am curious to know whether there are inherent design issues which make high-end MMs more pleasing than high-end MCs to some people. I have my suspicions, but they are certainly speculative, so I will leave them to myself for now hoping that I can discover the reason for myself at some point. |
Lew, I agree that there is so much difference that getting to where we like is bound to involve different tools. FWIW, titanium cantilevers were, as far as I have read, made first by Technics in the very early 70s. The first generation 205C had a titanium cantilever, as did the later 101C (introduced somewhere between 100CMk2 and Mk3). I think the 205CII-X also did, which may be why some people actually prefer the IIX to the Mk3. I think Audio Technica had at least one or two carts with titanium cantilevers, and AudioNote (or whoever made theirs) had/has a few with titanium cantilevers, as did Pioneer in the 70s and I believe ADC as well. |
Dgob, I personally think it makes sense to keep one's TTs away from air-borne resonance in any case, but this could be one place where the mass-loading would help to overwhelm air-borne vibration if there was no way to avoid some influence. The Japanese engineers who designed tables in the late 70s and early 80s generally took airborne vibration into consideration (Denon and Exclusive in particular seem to have paid attention to that; and I think Micro's attention to that is obvious); their general method of combatting it was mass, special dustcovers (at the top end of the chain), and for Denon and others, work on mats and platter suspension (Denon's dual-platter construction on the DP80/75 and DP100 at a minimum, perhaps on others too) was meant to deal with airborne resonance influences). |
Dgob, and others who have used the systems, How much of the difference comes from the plinthlessness and how much from the use of the Audio Technica footers? Did you try the footers underneath the plinthed SP-10Mk2 as well against the unplinthed SP-10Mk2? Any thoughts as to why unplinthing it would make you feel as if pitch would become 'more perfect'? IME, I think that all of those things - composure, detail, timbre, etc all arise from the added detail of reduced resonance 'noise.' I personally believe that some kind of pneumatic isolation system is one of the easiest ways to make almost any turntable sound better. |
Dgob, A few of my TTs have the isolation built in (Denon DP100, Exclusive P3). The Technics SP-10Mk3 stock came with similar footers. I have a number of magnetic flotation footers from Yamamoto and Sony and have used those under many tables. Currently, one set is under an L-07D. I have also put lab-use air tables underneath TTs and think the world of them in terms of performance to cost ratio (I buy them used off auction from people who resell lab equipment). All in all, other than room treatment (the ugly kind), I think good pneumatic isolation is the best bang for buck upgrade anyone can make for an already decent analog sound reproduction system. The lower the resonant frequency the better (you can get very low through the structural attributes of the isolation system you use, or you can achieve something a bit similar by going to the heavy end of the loading range of your footers (i.e. if your footer does 3-6kg apiece, go for 5-6kg effective load). That said, I have not yet seen anyone come up with a test of a good plinthed table vs the same table unplinthed. Most of the commentary so far has been "unplinthed is great" (which I see no reason to deny). Philosophically, I am very sympathetic to the Micro/Kenwood/Exclusive/Sony(PS-X9) method of keeping the bearing-armmount relationship as rigid as possible, though as long as an outboard armpod were as immovable as possible, and mounted on the same base/plinth as the part supporting the bearing, and both were very heavy (armpod and the thing supporting the bearing), you'd be accomplishing pretty much the same thing. |
If it comes with all 23 templates, it would make sense for a few of us, but one thing with the Mint is that when you sell the arm, you can include the protractor with it. Wonder why the templates are also $65 apiece... Can't really use a template without the device and you seem to get all the templates with it in the first place... |
Timeltel, It is only the rest of us who have systems we actually choose and like, and compromise with the various distortions that Raul promises are everywhere in audio. It is obviously true that more than one road leads to Rome, but perhaps that is where the rest of us are lacking... We are all heading for Rome! It seems at least one of us claims to have found the road to Olympus so as to meet up with Apollo! And those who are careful with their mythology history will know where I am going with this... :^) |
Hi Timeltel, Welcome to the club. My system sucks too, and I cannot know that because I have not learned anything over the years, because if I had, I would only know that I don't know. I am, therefore, blissfully ignorant about being blissfully ignorant. Which is convenient... Because otherwise, being learned (or at least further up the Learning Curve), I would have to confirm, with authority, that I did not know whether I was ignorant or not. Yours in blissful ignorance, |
Banquo, Even when markets have price data widely/publicly available people 'overpay' (pay more than the last person). Given that the information can be completely asymmetric in auction purchasing (if I have purchased a used cart from Seller X before but the other participants have not, I may feel I have a better understanding of what 'looks really nice' means, which will enable me to pay more (or be willing to pay less) than what the 'last price' was. The way to make the data public might be for someone who tracks the data to post it once in a while. But again, sometimes more data is not really more useful because while a share of a stock is the same as the next, a used cart is decidedly not. I expect this is more a case of caveat emptor than anything else. |
Pryso, In a museum, with one arm, one chooses iconic. Once one starts building a "collection", one starts needing to make comparisons. With that in mind, the Triplanar is iconic as a 'complicated, industrial-looking arm.' But again, that's just me, and I am full of idiosyncrasies. If I start putting furniture in, Biedermeier is not first but it certainly belongs. But I think I've gone on enough with this so will stop here... |