Who needs a MM cartridge type when we have MC?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

we need a decent TT and decent tonearm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
Ag insider logo xs@2xrauliruegas
Hi Raul!
Thanks a lot for your advices!
I had read all this post (extra long!) and i have learn a lot of thinks..
I enjoy very much the "analog side of the moon", with my two turntables. All my life i have a concealed desire: "to get a turntable"
I love his sound! It' "human"...
Thanks again for give me the opportunity to have the best solution for my turntable.

Best regards from Greece!!
Hi Griffithds,

I was the one that mentioned the Ultra400....
Shure's last gasp attempt at high end MM was the Ultra range, TOTL was the Ultra500 - which used the same stylus as the V15VMR - the generator was the same too but mounted in a different metal mounting block.

Perhaps the improvement was caused by the body mounting - much like the CA cartridges currently being discussed and their wood bodies.

Certainly the improvement was not in stylus or generator as these were unchanged!

In parallel Shure designed a new range of generators, which they perhaps hoped would replace the V15 series...

These were the ML120/140 which shipped with HyperEliptical styli on Beryllium tube cantilevers. Design objective was to sound as good as the V15V but to leverage more recent manufacturing tech to achieve a lower cost.
The designer of these cartridges posted on Audiokarma a while back. - He claims that in some ways it bettered the V15V design, but in other ways it came a close second.

Shure also released the "Ultra" versions of these cartridges as the Ultra300 and Ultra400 - the Ultra400's appear to have been hand selected Ultra300's they both have MicroRidge styli on Beryllium cantilevers.

Unfortunately they were released when CD was just getting into its stride.... they made little impact and were not a great commercial success.

When Shure decided to resurrect the V15 as the V15VxMR - they used a more economical version of the original V15, but remained with the V15 due to the (highly marketable) reputation it had built up over 20 years.... so the ML series did not live long.

I managed to find an Ultra300 body economically some months back - and only in the last week have I managed to find an economical NOS Ultra400 stylus for it. (they are still available at LPgear for quite a reasonable $150, and $130 for the Ultra300)
I hope to have the stylus sometime over the next 2 or 3 weeks (the joys of international shipping).

I will post my measurement and listening results in due course....

I believe the ML120/140 and Ultra300/400 are a possible bargain that can still be picked up at reasonable prices due to its relative obscurity. - and original NOS styli are still available at reasonable prices.

bye for now

David
Dear Dlaloum: Nice Shure history. I heard the Ultra 500 when I owned the V15-V and in those times ( what I remember. ) I like the 500 especially its different cartridge body. I was unaware of the Ultra 400/300 till you " touch " it here in the past.

Now, I own the 140 and in comparison with the V15-V the 140 outperform it. The 140 looks a little weird but it is top performer. Siniy123 was the person that let me know about.

The 140 is hard to find and its price is nothing near the bargains we are accustom to. My sample was a NOS that I bought in an ebay auction and I paid over 450.00 for it. There is original NOS stylus replacement for the 140 at around 185.00 through ebay, the 149.00 stylus rep´lacement that you mentioned say it is an Ultra300 that fits on the 140.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Hi Raul,

I'm torn between 2 options for my red Virtuoso. One is to have Peter of SS replaced just the stylus, using his "optimize contour line contact diamound", on the cantiliver that is currently on the cartridge. The 2nd option would be for him to install that stylus on his basic cantiliver and install the cantiliver/stylus assembly into my cartridge body. I'm leaning towards option 2, reasons being I would then be able to compare the new SS red Virtuoso with my SS black Virtuoso. They would both have the same bodies, same cantilivers, just different styluses. One being his basic eliptical stylus, and the other, his optimized line contact. I think we (those of us who are following this thread), would learn more as to what can be acomplished using the same basic cantilivers but using the 2 different levels of styluses. I on the other hand, would wind up with 2 absolutely amazing cartridges no matter which way I choose!
Hi Dlaloum,

Sorry for misdirecting my comments on this cartridge to Flieb. I see now that the thread was a comment you had wirtten to Flieb. Not the other way around.
Very interesting comments you have written concerning the Ultra line and Shure. I am very much looking forward to hearing your comments on your Ultra. I have seen a few of these show up on e/bay once in a while and have concidered checking them out based on my sometimes foggy recollections! Keep us posted and thank you for your comments in advance.
Hi Griffiths, I can't help feeling that putting a micro stylus on the aluminum cantilever is a mistake. You could wind up with the voicing of an AT-440 (alum/micro), slightly sweetened by the wood.

Raul indicated that the Maestro was over-damped with the extensive wood and boron/micro stylus. Maybe a wood Virtuoso is the perfect vehicle for the micro with a exotic stylus. I'm guessing that you would have the ultimate CA. It would be interesting to compare the Satin wood to ebony with that stylus. I've read reports of others who were extremely happy with SS ruby CAs. I'm thinking of sending my Virtuoso to him for the ruby/micro. I think you should reconsider.
Regards,
Dear Griffithds: I'm with you.

In the other side the Fleib ruby cantilever option is other alternative with way different targets. As J.Carr posted more than once: if you like your cartridge " signature " then re-tip with the same/similar cantilever. A change in the build material cantilever along stylus makes almost a different cartridge that could lose its main " signature ".
Through my years experiences about I'm with JC too.

Now, I'm not against the ruby cantilever option only that's more " different ". I have no doubt that this alternative is a good one.

On this subject IMHO almost all reside on what we want : on what are our targets about. Any option is good one nothing wrong here, we will go for the one that fulfil our targets in better way.
I can say that I would like to try the ruby option or the similar sapphire one ( through the german source. ) but then I need two Virtuoso samples and this tell me that I need to invest at least 650.00 for other cartridge sample that I prefer invest in an Ortofon 2M Black. In the other side I don't want or need to change the Virtuoso " signature ".

Why don't I change the boron cantiler on my Technics cartridges for a ruby one? or with each one of all other top cartridges I own or any one own: either LOMC or MM/MIs?, the alternative is there but then seems to me that in that way we are changing the reference to other cartridge owners.

Anyway, a very specific targets dependable option.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Hi Raul and Fleib,

Fleib, if I was to look at this project from a cost perspective, the smart thing to do would be to go with Peters TOTL ruby/micro option. But what I don't want to do as Raul has stated, is lose or change the signature of the Virtuoso. I really hope you do send yours into SS for the ruby/micro option because I would love to hear what the end results become. I would even be willing to send you my Virtuoso (after the micro stylus replacement), so that you could report on what differences the 2 cantilivers using the same styluses present.
Raul, this could become quite an interesting project for all of us to learn from. There is no doubt (in my opinion), that the Virtuoso in any configuration, is something special. To throw a couple hundred dollars to SS to raise this cartridge to something even greater than it already is, is something I want to do.
With all the talk of sending a Clearaudio Wood cartidge to Soundsmith for some of Peter's magic, why has no one considered comparing the Soundsmith Aida?? I know it is moving iron, and the discussion is moving magent. But if Peter is a miracle worker and I don't doubt he is, why not try a whole cartirdge system built by him instead of someone else's design modified by him. Or is the whole point of this recent discussion the pedigree and design superiority of the Clearaudio product?

Thanks,
Eric
Hi Folks,

All this talk of the CA's superiority...

Looking at this technically there is nothing extraordinary about the generator in use - what is interesting is that the vibration control applied by the external body around the generator appears to take things up a notch.

But there are other examples of this approach - the Signet TK1/2/3/5/7 series, The AT13/14/15/20..., the Shure Ultra500... and the many many woodies out there (MM or otherwise).

BUT: exploring and in trying to understand the aspects of performance, I observed the generic dip which happens with all my cartridges in the 5k to 12kHz range.... querying this led to being pointed to BAS Speaker Vol 8 #4 & 5 where the Boston Audio Society team did an extensive series of cartridge tests looking at everything from rimble through cartridge/arm resonances to arm resonances, table isolation, feedback etc...
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/pdf/bass/BASS-08-04-8001b.pdf
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/pdf/bass/BASS-08-05-8002.pdf
and also discussion in
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/pdf/bass/BASS-09-10-8106.pdf
(Thank you Snead for pointing me to these!)

Also the B&K white paper titled "Audible Effects of Mechanical Resonances in Turntables," (1977)

Particularly noteworthy was a Shure representatives comment that this dip is caused by cantilever flexion and twisting... designs that allow more of this show greater losses in this range, than stiffer ones...

A measure of cantilever quality?

This then points to the importance of using extremely rigid cantilever materials...

But also to the importance of keeping the cantilever very short...

This flexing would result in not only a drop in sensitivity but a subtle increase in various distortions... (where is the flexing energy going to?)

Should we be looking at designs using particularly short cantilevers? (or just focus on Ruby/Diamond cantilevers?)

The other things these extensive tests show is the actual measureable influence of arm resonances on the sound... and the importance of damping. (there is also limited discussion of overdamping - but this aspect is not developed)

Interestingly the arms/cartridges showing best results in terms of arm resonances are mounted on ultra light arms...
A reflection of engineering reality? or a reflection of the state of play in the late 70's / early 80's?

Getting back to the CA cartridges - the body mounting is directly impacting the arm resonant environment - apparently successfully so - it would be interesting to make these type of measurements comparing an AT95 or AT110 (similar AT family - basic plastic body surround) to the CA developed body surround... on the same arm obviously... I think this might uncover the "secret" of their vaunted sound.
And make that technique thereby available to all those of us willing to tinker with our cartridges/arms/setup.

Also if (as I suspect) that is "all" there is to the CA cartridges - then similar results should be achievable by varying headshells, using wooden "damper" shims, or other similar means... and with the flexibility of choosing any standard cartridge.

bye for now

David
Hi Tubetan, I think that's a great idea. Do you have an Aida? Have you ever heard one, or the Voice? I have no doubt that they're excellent cartridges. Unfortunately, neither one is feasible for me to get, at this time. Perhaps someone who has one can comment.
Regards,
Hi Raul, Griffiths, I already stated my opinion and read nothing to convince me otherwise. The only thing is, I haven't heard a Maestro so I don't have that experience on which to base my opinion. Because the generators of these cartridges are identical, and the Maestro is highly thought of, I don't think it would be a great leap of faith to read between the lines.

***I think we (those of us who are following this thread), would learn more as to what can be acomplished using the same basic cantilivers but using the 2 different levels of styluses. I on the other hand, would wind up with 2 absolutely amazing cartridges no matter which way I
choose!***

Correct me if I'm wrong. Doesn't the cart come with a straight (non-tapered) cantilever? If so, you've already changed the voicing of the cart. Maybe it's changed less than if you change cantilever material, but even changing the tip will effect voicing. An exotic cantilever is far superior in resonance characteristics, detail retrieval, and tonal nuance. The voicing with an exotic cantilever doesn't always compliment the generator, but I doubt if that is the case here. It seems to me that with a ruby/micro you will probably wind up with a cart superior to either the Virtuoso or the Maestro. This isn't new ground here. It's been successfully done before. Perhaps you should talk to Peter (SS) about it. I think that putting a micro tip on the stock cantilever is like pearls before swine.
Regards,
Dear Griffithds/Fleib: The alternative to find out how " long " could goes the Virtuoso with different cantilever/stylus approaches is a good one too especially because in stock status showed very good quality performance.

Of course that as Fleib point out any single change to the Virtuoso makes a voicing change but this is what " we " are trying to find out, we can't make it with out change the original voicing: even my sample is a little different from the original.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Tubetan: Talking for me. MM or MI does not really matters on the subject.

I already heard The Voice and the SMMC1/2 , these all SS cartridges.
The SMMC1/2 are B&O MI original designs modified by SS and marketed by SS.
Several times I posted ( and even you can read it on thhis thread somewhere or at the thread page: writed 4+ years ago. ) that IMHO the original B&O MMC1/2 designs were better quality performers than the similar SS ones that are a little on the hi-fi side with out the natural B&O original " signature ".

Even the B&O people has a test on SS rebuilds against other B&O authorized fixing source ( Germany ), this is what they found out:

http://www.beoworld.org/article_view.asp?id=203

+++++ " Moving onto the Soundsmith it was immediately obvious that the two pickups were very different in character. The SMMC20EN appears to have been retuned for the digital age, gone is the smoothness and niceness and in it’s place is a sharper, more aggressively detailed sound that is more akin to that of a CD player than a classic turntable. The SMMC20EN required slightly less down force (1.3 grams) to track correctly but because of its brighter sound the limits of the LP system were more audible, it was never sibilant but it certainly verged on it at times. Some recordings were also overlaid with a steely glare that could very occasionally blur the imaging. For highly produced, high energy music the SMMC20EN cut through the characteristic B&O sound and toughened up the 8000 system in general, if you want to rock and prefer LP to CD then it represents a very worthwhile audition. It was not a pickup that I found relaxing however. " +++++

these is part of that hi-fi side that SS shows and I talked about.

Seems to me that SS voicing is to that hi-fi side. They choosed to design the strain gauge cartridge with out RIAA standard and the cartridge share that hi-fi side.

I send to SS my Win ruby cantilever cartridge to fix it because they works with ruby material and my cartridge cantilever was bent. When I receive it I noted that the cantilever was shorter and after few hours broke and I re-send to SS aclaring that I want the original Win length in the cantilever because I don't like what I breiffly heard with the shorter one.

Seems to me that the SS " touch/magic " goes almost always to that hi-fi side because that's what like these guys.
Almost all the people that retip at SS are very satisfied because their cartridges now sounds better than ever: well all them are hearing a different cartridge voicing almost a different cartridge and nothing wrong with that.

When I send my Virtuoso to SS I was very clear to stay nearest to the original design, as a fact SS try to " push " me in different direction but does not convince me.

Some one told me that Ruby and sapphire has similar characteristics and if I was any of you ( Fleib. ) then I will take the Virtuoso and then send it to Alex in Germany ( whom use sapphire material. ) to fix it. I have to say that Alex not only shows to B&O people his high skills but this guy was the only cartridge fix source that take the Technics 100CMK4 from Dgob and fixed at great satisfactory level, not even VdH wants to take the cartridge to fix it, Dgob was really worried and sad about till we find out Axel.

Anyway, we always could buy SS cartridges if we like it ( not me, today. ) but if we want to find out where the Virtuoso could " arrive " then the Alex alternative IMHO could be the best option.

Btw, I don't have any relationship with Alex.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Regards Raul: I've been following the conversation and as there seem to be two different design philosophies I thought this might be of interest to some.

From "LesW", designer of the Shure ML140 HE: "The holy grail with things like carts and speakers is the transverse speed of sound of the material. It's a measure of specific stiffness. In the (Shure) III and the IV in order to get a low mass the cantilever first non rigid body resonance had to be in the audio range. In the III that made for a small sag and peak. In the IV it made for a lesser sag and two peaks. They were all well controlled.

But Beryllium... with it's speed of sound between two and three times higher than aluminum allowed us to get that cantelever resonance well out of the audio range without compromising mass. A high moving mass will just rip apart record groove modulation (!).

Another part is the geometry of the cantelever. Materials like boron and diamond have a speed of sound similar to Beryllium, but it's not so easy to make a geometry like the microwall tube so you can take advantage of the properties. An airplane could be made of the very best high strength aerospace alloys, but if it were a solid piece it would never get off the ground. That's the problem with many boron and ruby carts."

And, "OldADC", Peter (R.I.P) Pritchard's successor at ADC: "The Astrion was an evolution. The ZLM attempt to recapture the combined warmth and sparkle of the XLM II was only partially successful and the Astrion was conceived to solve the *perceived lack of stiffness in the ZLM's tapered tube cantilever*. The lawyers wouldn't let us use beryllium because of the toxicity hazard so I ended up going with a laser slotted single crystal sapphire with the modified elliptical diamond bonded in the laser slot.
I am of the "free the pivot" school. Those other beasts required a tie wire to assemble the stylus assemblies. A small wire was soldered in the back of the stylus tube and pulled toward the rear of the cartridge to a specific load and then soldered off to hold the assembly together. The load plane and the tension defined that center point of rotation for the assembly. All well and good until you consider a couple of factors.
1) That assembly is now by definition imbalanced in motional impedance fore and aft of the pressure defined pivot point. Constrained, held hostage, on a freaking leash!
*2) That tie wire has a resonance of its very own. Almost all of them, based on length and diameter of the wire ended up somewhere around 17kHz*. Many designs went to great lenght to dampen and tame that resonance but....and here is the big deal....even if you tame the amplitude resonance so flat you can't see it in a swept sine wave plot....you haven't done a dang thing for the 180 phase shift that must occur when that wire passes through its resonance, damped or not. I swear I could always hear a tie wire in the desperate confusion of attack on top hat symbols".

And, out of context: "too sharp a leading edge just isn't perceived as pleasant" (re. B&O/SSmith voicing).

Not forgetting about coil inductance/output impedance, if one's preference is for an unflinchingly accurate transducer, a Microsomething stylus on beryllium/ruby/crystal just might be your ticket.
For those with a more "romantic" sound in mind, tapered/thinwall alu. is to be considered. A long footprint Shibata or line contact stylus will give good detail retrieval while still treating your ears (and vinyl) with respect.
Neatly splitting the difference is titanium, mass/rigidity less than beryllium, resonance greater. Comparing Ti. to Alu., greater mass/rigidity, reduced resonance.

BTW, a mongrelized Signet TK7SU/Akai RS-180 (hand selected ATN14S nude Shibata) cantilever transplant is greatly improved on an 8.5gm Ortofon LH-8000 (Japaneese Oak) headshell. Low bass transients/soundstage is tightened up substantially. Good placement, easy mids and HF's are not noticably penalized, even at 47k res. After a week of close listening, two more LH-8000's on the way now for other carts with the somewhat rounded bass sometimes found with alu. cantilevers. For those who enjoy the TK7SU or similar pre-digital influence carts, prices for the LH-8000 seem to be going up. Just sayin'--

IMHO, EPA-250 (12gm eff. mass), antique rig & etc.,

Peace,
Dear Dlaloum: It appears that almost " float " around resonances/distortions that comes from different product inside/sources and in different kind of it.

The Virtuoso has some design characteristics that helps a lot, additional with what you posted there are:

+++++ " +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Cartridge Highlights External Design Characteristics:

The cartridge came with removable stylus guard which is a good point because we have not to be worried about cartridge stylus guard resonances/colorations/distortion that affect the cartridge signal quality performance level.

The cartridge fortunately came with non-removable stylus that is a good characteristic too due that here again the cartridge does not add didtortions/colorations because the normal plastic stylus removable assembly.

I'm not in love whith its " looking body design " but all in all it is not an important issue for me. What it is important is that the cartridge design body ( metal/wood. ) does not shows resonances/distortions I can detect.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

these characteristics are not shared at the same level for the Signets you name it but for the 9/10 and if you check the plastic stylus assembly of the 20 SS against the AT13 or TK5/7 you can " see " the difference and where came some resonances in the lesser products, we have to remember that all these cartridges are build in reference to a price point and as cartridge designs goes up on that price point as better control on those resonances not only by design but because better build materials.

In the last months your work that you are so gentle to share in this thread has a heavy weight on resonances/distortions because you know that's is in these resonances/distortions where performance differences belongs.

The cantilever is a critical subject about. The LPs were cut with a head with no-cantilever so things are that why not do the same with cartridges on playback.
Dynavector maybe has the shorter cantilever in a cantilevered cartridge and that was the 13D: 1.3cm and we have the non-cantilever designs as Ikeda/Decca or Victor.
If we know that cantilever maybe makes more " harm " than what it helps a solution is non-cantilever designs. But till today Ikeda/Decca had an average successful because it is not an easy task to design/build/execution the " perfect " non-cantilever cartridge that " works ". That's why the cantilever build material as the it self cantilever design is so critical and important.

++ " A reflection of engineering reality? or a reflection of the state of play in the late 70's / early 80's? " +++++

Both but I could think more oriented on what was happening in those days: MM/MI cartridges with high compliance was the " norm/rule ", tonearms designers made their designs for that kind of cartridges.
Take note something weird: the majority of the low mass tonearms were designs coming from USA/Europe and from Japan only Grace that did it in big " volume " sales with Stax and Technics with a lot lower sales.

Now, a matched mass tonearm with cartridge is not enough, you mentioned tonearm damping and I agree with you this subject is critical too to handle resonances/distortions and to avoid self resonances/distortions that's why for several years many of us are " supporting " tonearm removable headshell designs where we can choose different headshells with different build materials that modify resonances/distortions.

Now, it is not only that we know it all that but thet in each one audio system we can be aware of those resonances/distortions and on its changes when we try to damp it or simple we want to avoid those resonances/distortions in favor of accurate and neutral quality performance level.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Timeltel: +++++ " pre-digital influence carts, " +++++

I don't know what you mean with that but IMHO there are great cartridge designs before and after digital era.

Digital starts with many quality performance problems but if there is one area where I learn from digital and how a frequency range most performs that area was BASS-Low Bass. Till today IMHO there is no single analog system that can even the digital quality performance level in that frequency range area, so I learned from digital and as a fact I'm still learning on this medium as a MUSIC reproducer/tool.

Astrion, now that your " reference information " touched maybe it is time to hear it, I think I have not months but years that I don't " touch " my Astrion as the Shure 140.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Regards, Raul: Pre-digital influence and some relative events. Once, during a casual dinning affair, a young father at a nearby table placed a napkin on his head. His daughters, one amused and the other somewhat taken aback, asked why he did this. "Well, if enough people see me do this often enough, they'll think it's how it should be done". I believe he was a good father.

With vintage carts, there is the neutrality of Shure, the borderline euphonics of Empire and the attention to mid/upper definition frequently heard in AT carts. These are generalities. With the advent of the CD, a relative uniformity of playback was achieved and when enough people had heard this it came to be believed this was the way it should be done. I have no doubt the influence of digital sources and playback gear have influenced listener's expectations and manufacturors have correspondingly adjusted to listener expectations, as they have always done. From an AT pamplet of the late 70's: "--we remain convinced that subjective testing and evaluation are just as important as objective testing. Neither listening nor testing alone is enough, in determining the real performance of any cartridge". Current market demands will be served and CD's have definitely had an impact on the performance most listeners anticipate in a transducer. I expect you already know this?

Relative to comments made in a previous post: Some while ago an AT 150MLx was offered for sale with the qualification that the stylus, "for some reason", would not stay firmly on the cart. It's probable that the assembly had been removed repeatedly for stylus cleaning and it had worn to the extent it would no longer remain locked in position, AT carts will do that. A ATN15Xe stylus I recently acquired exibited significant microphonics and played with excessively grainy mids and excessive distortion. When the tonearm was touched at any point including the counterweight, an audible rasp was heard through the system. Examination of the stylus revealed an excess of white thread sealant applied to the compliance screw, the sealant had overflowed and prevented proper seating of the stylus asssembly. Removing this excess allowed the stylus carrier to seat and the problems were eliminated.

Microphonics and distortions were the faults found with the TK7 example you "tested". There is no doubt in my mind your example is defective and when it is said "-- TK5/7 you can " see " the difference and where came some resonances in the lesser products, we have to remember that all these cartridges are build in reference to a price point", there is blatant disregard for the fact that the TK7 "price point" was equivilent to the TOTL product from AT, at that time and with inflation adjustment, now.

The TK7 is not the pinacle of MM carts but it can be a very enjoyable performer. It is the equivilent of the AT20SLa and much better than the experience you had with your example. Stick some tape or blue-tack under the stylus carrier and try it again on a low/low med. mass TA, you might be surprised.

Peace,
Dear Timeltel: I'm sorry but IMHO you are wrong on the Signet subject: it is to easy to compare the 20SS plastic assembly and the Signet ones and " see " why the Signets have more resonances and no I don't think my Signets are " defective " but that my system has more resolution that's different.

My cartridge comparisons are not the type ( as yours. ) that tweaked " one cartrridge to see if is more competitive, normally I do nothing other than a near " right " set up and that's all. Try to tweak " every single cartridge is a " endless history " even with 3-4 cartridges but with 100+ is out of question.

The Sinet/AT subject is " old " hystory that I decide to forget because there is nothing more to learn when there are a lot of other cartridge alternatives looking for us. I touched in my last posts because some one else " touch " it and I'm only refereing to but not because I have more interest on those average/mediocre cartridges against other top top performers. I don't know why you don't want to advance and stay sticky over there IMHO you are better than that and deserve something better to speak for.

+++++ " I expect you already know this? " +++++

if you are refering of what AT stated: that's what I always supported and support and give advise about with out knowing what AT thought about. If you are refering to the CD influence sure it has an influence in the same way that tube sound had an influence in some SS electronic designs.

Timeltel, do you know that at recording studio level exist plug-inns to mimic the analog distortions/colorations that enginners on digital recordings use it to fulfil customer expectations?, " stupid audio world " we have.

Regrads and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Regards, Raul: Thanks for your comments. BUT: I'm firmly convinced there's a concern with your TK7 example. It takes a fairly vigorous thump directly on the headshell to get even a mild response through the rig here, microphonics as a problem simply dosn't exist with the one I have. If there is a concern with yours it's a shame. It really is a nice cart, mine compares very favorably with the rewarding Azden YM-P50VL and yes, there is some evidence of bass hangover but this can be (and should be) addressed with isolation/damping practices. Not the most defining cart but it does have an open character with a subtle but still powerful "organic" presence that invites continued listening. Analytical carts can easily become fatigueing and are not numerous on my list of daily drivers, critical listening qualities in a pickup and casual enjoyment are not always concurrent. Otherwise I do appreciate what you're expressing for the benefit of those who follow this thread.

Unaware but not surprised that some studios manipulate digital recordings to emulate analog qualities. Have a fairly adequate Rega Saturn CDP here, it's one I can listen to for more than 20 or so minutes without becoming restless. Designed by Rega to intentionally soften transients in order to emulate the analog "sound". Runs a little fast, lots of PRAT, it's a Rega ;).

Still waiting for your promised comments on the TOTL AT's. Might be a good time to revisit the Shure ML 140HE for comparison too? And the very rare Astrion, "OldADC" reveals each was individually hand tuned.

Peace,
Cantilever material. There are many 'strange' statements
about this theme. Consider : 'aluminum is inferior in comparison with boron, ruby , beryllium ',etc. To my mind a statement about physical property of some material should not be contradictory. Say:' copper conducts and does not conduct electricity'.
Regarding the aluminum cantilever we have Rauls statement
that he persisted on aluminum in his new 'star' and changed
only the stylus. He seems to be in a (very) good company with Takeda san who swears by aluminum . His Miyabi Standard and Miyabi 47 are highly praised carts.
J.Carr stated in some if his post that he does not like ruby cantilever qua sound. Does he imply that ruby is inferior to, say, boron? Some other designer called Peter
seems to be very fond about the same, uh, material. I assume btw that sapphire is the same as ruby except for the colour. Well I think that one should not ascribe such contradicting properties to the material thing in casu but instead refer
to his own tastes and valuation. Otherwise the innocent physical object will at the same time have and not have some quality.

Regards,
Hi Nandric,

in researching cartridge and cantilever behaviour there are a range of distortions that are directly related to cantilever behaviour...

Specifically: cantilever resonance, and torsion/flexing.

The first I am starting to get a reasonable handle on ( and appears to be mostly unknown/ignored/disregarded by most audiophiles)... the cantilever resonance can influence both frequency and phase response octaves above and below the peak resonance point...

Numerous designers have used the cantilever resonance along with the electrical resonance to generate a near flat frequency response but there are problems with this approach.. the idea of combining a series of flaws to end up with a result close to the target is..... problematic!

The Shure M series are examples, so are most of the empires, and the Audio Technica aluminium cantilever cartridges.

The things that define the frequency of the resonance are the proportions and shape of the cantilever, along with the rigidity and speed of sound (closely related!) through the material.
Harder materials tend to have faster speed of sound and higher resonant frequencies (also achieved with shorter cantilevers...) - so there are advantages to certain shapes (tubes, tapering) - but many advantages come with materials - diamond, ruby/sapphire, boron and beryllium are all examples.

In the search for improved linearity, one approach it to move all resonances up and out of the Audio range - cantilever materials are key to this.

Another aspect of this, is that apparently torsion/flex in a cantilever (which happens more with the less rigid materials.... like aluminium) tend to lead to various forms of distortion - including the Euphonic second harmonic.

Here we start to divide into the usual subjectivist vs objectivist camps, and the reproducer-archivist vs musician/stereo-as-musical-instrument camps.

I fall relatively firmly into the objectivist and reproducer-archivist camps. So my goal is to reproduce the original master recording as best I can....
Thereafter if I want to add euphonic distortion to it (and distortion is by definition anything that was not in, or differentiates from, the original master!) I can use equalisation and other forms of sound tailoring to achieve it.

Excellent cartridges like the AT440MLa have cantilever resonances impacting on the sound at frequencies of around 10kHz - the tapered aluminium cantilever and its damping have been designed to control the resonance to best effect - but these styli do not achieve the level of quality that the ATN150MLX stylus does - substantially because of its boron cantilever (it has of course the same proportions, but the damping is varied somewhat) - so the MLx has its resonance peak above 20kHz (not far above though) and although it does impact on the audible range down to perhaps 15kHz, the impact is slight... and the cartridge sounds substantially the better for it.

Also knowing the material does not tell us about the shape/structure of the material.

Technics made boron tubes using a vapor deposition method, probably similar to the methods used by Shure and AT for their Beryllium tube cantilevers... the Technics literature of the time claimed that for a cantilever of the same shape and proportions, their Boron tube was superior to ruby/sapphire or diamond cantilevers. (in terms of raising the resonance to a higher frequency and increasing torsional rigidity)

So speaking theoretically the "exotic" materials have the edge....
Speaking practically in the real world - implementation is everything! - Digital implemented right is superior in every way to vinyl analogue as a recording and reproduction medium... but there are so very many digital systems that sound terrible!
And so many analogue systems that rise above their imperfections to sound great.

I admit to being on a search for a holy grail.... or at least a small collection of cartridges that I will settle down with for a number of years....

I do love the sound of the Aluminium cantilevered ADC SuperXLM shibata, and the beryllium cantilever AT20ss.
But I am still seeking cartridges that move the resonance totally out of the 20-20 range - and I have not found one yet. (maybe when I find it, I will discover it makes no difference, and the grass was always greener on this side of the fence...)

To summaries my (as usual) verbose posting.... the desirable qualities in a cantilever include torsional rigidity and higher resonance frequency, as a result aluminium is a less desirable material - in shorthand terms you can rank cantilevers by material Aluminium being the lowest rank, then Titanium (and perhaps carbon fibre?), and then the exotic materials.
Also cantilevers can be ranked by solid (lower) and hollow (higher) as well as straight (lower) and tapered (higher).

It does give us a handy way of looking at a cartridges specifications "sound unheard" and make some sort of judgement as to where it might rank in the cartridge sound quality continuum.
Essential given that many of us have no hope of hearing any of these cartridges without purchasing them.

So some of my criteria (flawed as they may be) in my search for the Holy Cartridge....
1) A cantilever that has a decent chance of placing the resonance around an octave beyond the audible range or higher
2) Low inductance (so as to also remove the electrical resonance)
3) a Body either designed for good damping or that can easily be modded/adjusted to improve its damping.
4) High tracking capability
5) Flat frequency response

And I prefer removeable styli - if additional rigidity is required in the stylus mounting, it can be achieved with a tiny amount of plasticine or blue-tack. - I do like those cartridges that screw the stylus mounting in (Technics 100/205 and TK9/10) for max rigidity while maintaining exchangeability.

Raul - my comments with regards to the AT13/14/15/20 and the TK1/3/5/7 - was related to the construction of their rather heavier metal bodies, as opposed to the closely related AT10/11/12 cartridges
AT was clearly doing something similar to what CA have done with their cartridges.
The differing stylus mounts also impact on the stylus/body vibration environment, with the signets having the better design for vibration control. - Which is not to say that a particular exemplar might not have a problem.... as I mentioned earlier, experiments with one or two thin threads of plasticine or blue-tack may make a substantial difference to some cartridges...
Best fitted between two rigid surfaces and in a very thin layer to maximise shear effec which is a valuable damper... between stylus and body is just about perfect. A tiny amount between cartridge and headshell may also help in some cases (more experimentation needed here...)

bye for now

David
Dear Timeltel: I bought not one Signet sample but three ( I already sold one. ) and there is no difference.

Btw, I think you missed my post on AT line. What I remember of it is that it is near a Siny123 post with his opinion about.

Yes, the Astrion and 140 deserve a " serious " listening.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Hi Dlaloum, You are obviously searching for the 'objective'
cause -effect phenomenon in cantilever material. But you never stated anywhere that some material has and has not some quality at the same time. So I was not able to discover any contradiction in your statements. Ie you are within the bondary of physical science.But you of course know about designers preferences which may be called 'subjective' in the sense of their subjective preferences. Some call this 'art' but I prefer 'mythology' as a more adequate expression. If an physical object lack
some property no art whatever can provide the non existend
property to the object in casu. But our hobby seems to consist of both parts: science and mythology. I don't however believe that you will ever include mythology in your research. You can use your time much better I assume.

Regards,
One size does not fit all, regarding cantilevers and their properties. Even cantilevers of the same length and general material can be different. A straight aluminum cantilever might be more rigid than a tapered one, but heavier. Ruby and sapphire are generally heavier, but SS uses an extremely thin single crystal piece of ruby. Combined with a micro tip, I would think tip mass would be reduced compared to stock. But exotic cantilevers aren't always preferred. Maybe Takeda san puts the time and expertise into making the output of the Miyabi compliment the resonances of the cantilever, but I doubt if mass market companies do the same, at least to that extent.

During the heyday one of the big MC manufacturers, possibly Dynavector, made a video(s) of cantilevers in action. They used laser interferometry or some such method to tape this. The description of aluminum cantilevers was of wild gyrations like a bull whip and at times it looked as if it would fold up on itself. I would love to see that video. An aluminum cantilever usually sounds more robust, especially in the midbass, but less detailed and exact. We all choose what compliments our system and taste. I don't subscribe to the notion that there is one best cartridge.

Regarding ATs answer to the digital challenge; Maybe it was because early digital was so harsh and unmusical that AT got off track. Their cartridges generally got much worse from that time. For the sake of a higher output, they compromised inductance/impedance and went for detail uber alles. I believe the 440 came out in the 80's. Output was 5mV. It had a nude ML on a tapered cantilever. I had to load it at 30K/100pF to prevent ear bleeds. In all fairness it sounds good like that, but even better with a beryllium ML or LC at 47K. AT now seems to be finally addressing that. The generator of the Virtuoso is more like an AT-15/20. The wood top damps vibrations or whatever, right at the mount. I wish there was a beryllium/boron stylus that would transplant into the plug. They break if you try. I'm sure CA ordered that body and plug for a reason. They charge something like $600 for a new crappy stock stylus. The Jico LC is probably better. I'd sooner send it to VDH or SS, but I don't think the generator is better than an AT-20. The body is lighter, the compliance is 15, and the wood works wonders.
Regards,
Dear Fleib: Overall I agree with you. No, there is no " one size fit all ". The cantilever been a critical an important factor on cartridge design is just one of the carrtridge design factors, that's that is only part of the cartridge. Of course that a cartridge designer has to analize full characteristics on diferent build materials on cantilevers and its " shape ". The cantilever must fulfil the designer cartridge performance targets: thi is that the cantilever must help to achieve those designer targets.

A cartridge designer ( as almost any audio item designer. ) is like a chef that can cook with the same ingredients different " plate " flavors.

For a good chef having on hand: aluminum, boron, ruby or the like perhaps is not the most important part but how he can cook around any of thgose " ingredients " to an specific " flavor/taste ".

I think that are at least two critical characteristics in cantilever materials: transmitting speed and self resonance/distortion control.
Transmitting speed is essential and critical for the music reproduction: dynamics and transients are two characteristics that makes the difference with different cartrridges, as higher transmitting speed as we perceive better cartridge dynamics due to faster transients. At the other side as more self-free of resonances/distortions the cantilever transmit the signal in purer and precise way " incrementing: dynamics and the " feel " of faster transients that we can percieve as: power, power that only the live music has.

Yes, the cantilever design is important and maybe more that we can think but I'm with the statement that say that " the best cantilever is no cantilever ". In real terms the best cantilever represent in the signal reproduction a " delay " in the signal transmition that means a downgrade on dynamics and transient speed.

In the 80's I owned the Dyna Nova 13D that was a very expensive cartridge, I bought from a Dyna distributor in Laredo, TX who put on sale his demo sample for me at a " bargain " price that I can't refuse. Unfortunately in those times my audio system performance was well away from today but even that maybe this was the best cartridge I owned in those all times. I remember that almost always the cartridge put me nervous when I used because that to short cantilever. Not only me but even the Dyna dealer can't explain the importance of that tiny/short cantilever.

Looking to the Virtuoso one its cantilever looks as a " gigantic ". I wish and would to have that Nova 13D on hands to give a listen on today audio system standards, I think that this Dyna could be a revelation but why Dynavector grow-up with out " return " on design to its Nova 13D? I don't know.

Btw, we don't see the 13D very often on sale over the net and this means its owners knows what they have.

regards and enjoy the music,
raul.
Dear Raul, It is not easy to argue with you. There are at least two kinds of 'arangement' of things. The aggregation and the coalition. The first is an arangement of 'similar' things (a heap of stone) the second of different things. The latest is also called a 'composition'. A cart is obviously an çomposition of different parts. The cart designers try to improve their carts by changing or alteration of one or more parts in their cart. J.Carr, for example, altered the stylus suspension in order to get the centering of the stylus within some exact values. J. Allearts deed 'the same' before so that the VTF on his carts is within 0,2 gm. In this context it make sense to talk and discuss individual parts which make the whole composition. But you are always refering to the whole of the composition. Everything depends of everything else, and so on. Now an holistic approch is of course legitimate but without individual parts one will never get an composition and consequently a holistic approch would make no sense at all. I am very interested in this 'cantilever material' issue but while many make 'general statements' about those materials there is not even an answer regarding the aluminum cantilever. The physical material in casu can impossibe have and not have 'inferior' properties in comparison with boron, ruby, beryllium or whatever. Or so I thought.Ie to my mind it must be possible to discuss individual parts without necessity to always involve the 'whole'.
Regards,
Hi Nadric, There is no "best" cantilever material. Perhaps the best cantilever is no cantilever, as Raul suggested.

Cartridges are of sufficiently different design that you can only describe general characteristics to cantilever material ie. weight and rigidity. Switching from one material to another may or may not yield pleasing results, depending on the cartridge and the listener. While Miyabi may have an aluminum cantilever, the vast majority of high end MCs have boron. The top ATs all have boron except the newer 33EV. That doesn't make boron better in all cases. If you changed to boron on a Miyabi it would probably sound worse. I think you have to discuss this on an individual basis. Because the Maestro has a boron/micro, but might sound a bit over-damped with the extensive wood, it doesn't take much imagination to guess that the Virtuoso might sound even better with an exotic cantilever/micro. The generators are the same.
Regards,
Hi Fleib,

What scares me the most, when we talk about changing cantilivers, are the words we all have been using. May, may not, might, probably. They are all true. We roll the dice and take our chances.
I would quess that cartridge designers try different cantilivers in their creations before deciding on what they want to present to the world or do they just say, I'm going to use a alum. cantiliver and then proceed to design around it?
Hi Fleib, I never made any statement about cantilever material, not to mention 'the best' of them. I only mentioned contradictory statements about aluminum cantilever. Considering the fact that we are talking about physical properties of this material those statements can't impossible be all true. You are adding to the confusion by such an hypothetical statment as 'the Virtuoso might sound even better with an exotic cantilever/micro'. The Virtuoso is already proclaimed as 'the best' cart ever so you need to explain how 'better' than the best is possible? Bisides
'exotic cantilevers' are not mentioned by anyone in this
thread. This loose way of speaking is not the way to explain anything. My point is still this: if aluminum cantilever is inferior in comparison with boron, ruby, beryllium or whatever, how is it possible that Virtuoso with an aluminum cantilever and Takedas Miyabi Standard and Miyabi 47 can get such a prease? There is no way that an
'artist designer' can endow property to an physical object
which this object not 'posses' by its nature. For such things we will need the old alchemist.
However Griffithds alredy made my point in some other description.

Regards,

Hi Griffithds,
I think that depends on who/what we're talking about. Certainly ZYX, VDH, Benz etc use boron without question and design around it. It is generally considered superior. Because rigidity is higher and it's light weight, detail is greater and resonance is of higher frequency. Cantilevers contribute more to tip mass than the tip. Miyabi and Denon are strictly aluminum, which is more forgiving and possibly "musical". I think aluminum is also slightly more dynamic. Less rigidity allows for greater excursions, but with less control. Long aluminum cantilevers will almost always resonate in the top of the audible band. (Thanks Dlaloum) This tends to blur the highs. I suppose that can be overcome with design.

Thanks to MMs with replaceable styli, we can hear for ourselves what these differences are, at least to some extent. I already posted about putting a beryllium ML on a 440. Maybe a 440 stylus will sweeten a 150MLX? LOL, I doubt it.
Regards,
Regards, Nandric: There is perhaps an element of Socratic dialectic in your question?

Bertrand Russell distinguished "knowledge by acquaintance" from "knowledge by description". This might be somewhat analogous to Carolus Linnaeus' coining of the terms "methodists", those who care about the principles of classification (acquaintance), in contrast to the mere "collectors", who are concerned primarily with description and pay little or no attention to taxonomic arrangements.

To state that alu. has certain properties is quantifiable in the lab but when attempting to qualify its performance as a cantilever then it might be admitted there are conditional considerations. It then becomes somewhat like the belief "The sky is blue" is true, even if the sky this morning was red.

This is the sort of thing epistomologists have argued over forever but it might reasonably be tenented that theoretical knowledge in the matter can never be substituted for practical application.

I'm pleased to consider that you'd entertain such a Hegelean premise by hinting of alu. cantilevers being “raised” to some higher level of performance by circumstance. ;-)

Peace,
Hi Nadric, **The Virtuoso is already proclaimed as 'the best' cart ever so you need to explain how 'better' than the best is possible?**

1) I respect Raul's opinion but I might not always agree. He has experience with more cartridges than I, and I've found his opinions invaluable. I know there was a coronation, but IMO there is no, one best cart.

2) Raul's sample was not a stock cartridge. The stylus and cantilever were replaced by Peter Ledermann (Soundsmith). It had a nude .3 x .7 elliptical on a tapered aluminum cantilever. Stock would be a straight alum cantilever. I'm not sure what the stock stylus is. Apparently it's a bonded elliptical. I haven't seen one and CA tells us nothing about the tip on their site. Tell you the truth, the stock assembly looks like a Jico replacement stylus for the AT-95. I wouldn't be surprised in the least. If you cut the plastic wings off one of these Jicos, it plugs right into any CA body. They are pretty good quality bonded styli with a straight alum cantilever.

Exotic refers to any cantilever made from material other than aluminum. That would usually include beryllium, boron, ruby and sapphire. They're all somewhat different in rigidity and weight. Carts are different in design and cantilever length, so we can only talk in generalities or about specific carts. Kings come and go. Who was king a month ago, 20SS or Technics? Any crusader will tell you that the holy grail has yet to be found, if indeed it exists.
Regards,
Hi Fleib

quite agree... the Aluminium may sound more "musical" in certain circumstances - but that may be euphonic 2nd harmonic distortion.

Also a resonance beyond the audible range can alter the "overshoot" on a square wave test - basically it will exaggerate certain types of dynamics - making them more "audible" and possibly making the cartridge sound more "hifi" (or more musical depending on individual taste, and use of language!).

The ear is easily deceived - frequency variant compression applied only to frequencies above 14kHz can provide an illusion of additional detail and air...the lower level (as in amplitude) detail is raised up to a higher level making it more audible, while the peaks remain exactly as they are... Subtle, sneaky, often sounds very good - and absolutely inauthentic to the original recording.
One can of course argue that had Mozart and Bach had access to synthesizers they would have used those as part of their repertoir... but they didn't and making something artificially different from the original, does not reflect the intent of the artist(s).

Note: I am not saying that one particular material has this problem and the other has a different problem. But I do caution that most high end cartridge designers of the last 20 years have focused on a euphonic approach... (part of the movement that has also seen a resurgence in the use of Valves).
Designers of the 70's and early 80's were attempting to overcome the physical limitations of the medium and of cartridges to create a perfect replay/reproduction medium.

Once Digital took over as the main toolset for "perfect" reproduction (or the attempt of it) - Vinyl gradually slid off on a slippery slope to euphonics....
Clearly there is no point trying to make a perfect reproduced when the goal is a euphonic aural experience.
So we now have the phenomenon of a range of differing cartridges being tuned with different forms of designed-in colourations.... you can have your recording red, blue, green, or taupe - there is something for everyone, and a cartridge to meet every mood.
But very little to assist in analytically reproducing the master recording.

So I question designs like Miyabi (which I am doing without ever having heard one...- so this is not a specific attack!) - where there are aspects which appear at first sight of the design to be inherently flawed - I trust the response of many listeners that report a very positive, pleasant, euphonic experience - but I have seen little in the way of reports that might lead me to believe that these designs would effectively provide me with an untinted window on the original master recording. (and there is nothing wrong with that... if it is your goal)

Bye for now

David
Dear Professor, The Germans who seem to be born with phylosophy discovered how easy it is to refute a phylosopher: one need only to read some other. While you
seem to question 'the method' of classification you obviously can't do without so you 'put' me in one of the two Russelian 'categories'. It is one old tradition to use
the 'opposites' for some kind of 'mental orientation' but there are probable more possibilities than two.BTW I am a Fregean and not Russelian kind of a guy. One can always avoid some question by refering to some other . Say
the aluminum question by refering to the whole cart and than argue about the complexity of the whole. No wonder that 'some of us' are still confused with aluminum cantilever. But Dlaloum deed not avoid the question and explained the physical properties of the innocent material without any metaphisical argument like the 'art' or 'artisans' who seem to be capable to endow éxtra physical qualities to their 'work of art'. However I don't
believe that Raul will be glad with this explanation. His hearing should of course never be questioned.
Regards,
Dlaloum,

While I find your behavioural explorations interesting I am confused by your statement that: "making something artificially different from the original, does not reflect the intent of the artist(s)."

'Artistic intent', is (IMO) too complex an issue to relate to accuracy of reproduction. And accuracy of reproduction also allows for variants according to our desire either to produce a facsimile of live performances with which we are familiar (here I refer to a facsimile because of the innate variations afforded by different venues and acoustics) or an (even more challenging) guess at what the 'original recording' was like. I know some argue that R2R and original mastertape is the answer but if you examine the sonic variance and options on R2R playback you will find that we have simply shifted the domain of the challenge about "accuracy". For these and similar reasons, I think things will remain very complex beyoond mere behavioural analysis.

Maybe my belief is misplaced!

As always...
Hi Dlaloum,

Having said what I just did (assuming that that one is posted before this latest one), I agree with your views regarding euphony and hifi targets. I do also believe that the justifying use of science that you are suggesting is the only way to go. Yet, the combinations of components and environments that produce the end product (high fidelity musical reproduction) seem so varied and complex that I obviously tend to err on the side of caution.
Fleib,

"Who was king a month ago? Any crusader will tell you that the holy grail has yet to be found, if indeed it exists."

I think you have eloquently raised an important point here.

Personally, I still find most admiration for the Technics Mk4 and the Glanz G5. Are they 'the best'? I'm not sure but they consistently (although not on all days or recordings) impress me the most - across a variety or performance and expectation levels - of those that I have heard so far.

Were I to go the route of Raul ( a route that he understandably took in order to clarify his assessments for an expectatnt audience) and award scores to cartridges, maybe I would follow Martin Colloms' practice of awarding marks out of 100 and across a set range of clear performance parameters. Here, my favoured cartridges would probably score around 90-93/100.
Hi Dgob,

I agree that the environment is complex - but that does not mean that we should not aim for an appropriate goal....
Aim for the stars, you may reach the moon.

The alternative is to give up and accept whatever sounds "good" at the time... and depending on mood, weather, fashion, shift to a "better" option as the seasons change.

You suggest erring on the side of caution... but where do you sit in this great divide.... euphonist or archivists?
The one is never satisifed as there is never enough time to subjectively evaluate all options (after all a euphonists evaluation must perforce take weeks or months.... thereby limiting the number of cartridges one can listen to!) - and the archivist is searching for the perfect cartridge he knows to be physically impossible.... and knowing that still seeks for the best facsimile of perfection.

bye for now

David
Dlaloum,

As I tried to say, 'I agree'. And I suppose I sit within the dialectic between objective/archivist/scientific proofs and subjective/euphonistic/scientific verifications.

The former criteria allow for the formation of a less biased value system (component quality, aeshetics, law, ethics, etc). The latter allowing for evolving challenges to such value systems (hifi commentary and/or journalism, art appreciation, democracy, etc).

No arguments here.
Dear Nandric: Characteristics ( stand alone ) of any material are at our hand all over the net.

For me speaks on aluminum ( or other material ) alone has no sense in the cartridge overall design.

No, I'm not " angry " for your post, things are that our targets here are different, I like to speak on any subject inside a " live " environment that could make not only sense but that tell me something to learn inside that environment and no I don't like to answer a question with other questions but some times my way of think makes me to arrive this way.

Your question about aluminum material is similar as if I ask about Shibata stylus shape ( stand alone. ). It is different if I ask about that stylus shape inside a specific cartridge design/targets.

Anyway, go on: you know that even that some times I did not show this way: I'm open mind almost always. I can't learn in other way.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Hi Dgob, What do you mean with 'dialectic'? Is this some 'quality' or property of sentences or propositions or what? According to the modern logic any indicative sentence or proposition is either true or false (tertium non datur) and this independant of our psychology. Ie if we know or not know that some sentence is 'actualy true'.
To add 'dialectic' to whatever sentence you like will not
change anything about the so called 'truth value' of the same sentence. As Frege made clear 100 years ago the 'truth' is not a predicate. In our forum everyone who have
some thought need to express this thought in a sentence. What kind of added or any information we get from you when you add that your thought was/is 'dialectic'? To my mind this is only 'showing off' with your familiarity with those old phylosophers like Hegel.If you have an clear thought you can express this thought in a sentence without any reference to 'dialectic' of whatever. From your actual statements ane can see that you have no clear thoughts.
Otherwise we may be able to understand what you want to say. There is no 'dialectical method' that can help in such
a case.

Regards,
Dear Raul, My question about the aluminum cantilever was in the context of assertion of some of our members that aluminum as cantilever material is inferior in comparison
with boron, ruby, beryllium,etc. material. I myself was not
aware of 'inferiority' of aluminum so I mentioned your new
'star' with aluminum cantilever and also Takeda san with
his Miyabi carts. Assuming that cart designers are always
looking for the optimal parts for their products it make sense to talk about the parts individualy. So this presupposes that they compared those materials with each other to be able to determine what meterial they want to choose. But those materials have different properties and to my mind this imply that each of them is individualy tested and examined. It is a fact that most of them use boron at present so we may assume that they do this for some reason. And this reason must have something to do with the physical property of this material. However when Dlaloum mentioned 'euphonic' quality of aluminum I was not able to resist the temptation to tease you with your aluminum cantilever . Ie Raul and 'euphonic' quality are not so easy to combine.

Regards,
Hi Nandric,

I use the term 'dialectic' in its Platonic/Socratic sense. There was no intended 'showing off' here. For others, it simply means the striving for truth in/through open dialogue and that is where it tied into the conversation that I was holding with Dlaloum.

As always...
Dear Nandric: IMHO the " euphonics " is in the designer hands and not in a specific " in self " part of that design.

A designer can choose to achieve an accurate and neutral sound/performance in the same way that he can choose different level of item colorations on different frequency ranges to " motivate " the customers. I hate these ones.

Now, in electronics design it is much easy to achieve that accurrate/neutral item because if you are a good designer you even don't need to voicing it but when we are talking on transducers like cartridges or speakers you need to voicing it and you did/do this through an audio system and trhough your ears ( designer ears. ) that not always are accurate and neutral.

Yes, I know that you don't like the answers that tell you: this is acomplex " task " but the reality is that this is a complex task/subject. At the end we are in the designer/market/profit hands. I already told you that manufacturers/designers are like a chefs and they will cook what the market are waiting for: euphonic sound, unfortunatelly the majority of those euphonic sound audio items are non-accurate and far away from neutrality against a few audio items that have euphonic sound and are accurate and neutral. There are different level of euphonics performance.

I owned the Myaby Ivory ( a very expensive cartridge. ) that when I owned my system was a poor one and I think never permited that the cartridge shows its best performance. I sold it to a friend with a top audio system and when I heard at his place I really can't believe how good the Ivory was and I was really sad ( for my self. ) because I " losted ".

Last time I heard a Myabi was two years ago in San Diego: I heard it in an unknow system for me and what I heard at first does not like me to much because the owner was loading the cartridge over 500-700 ohms then I suggest him to go down to 100 ohms and things change for the better and I can tell you that the euphonics I heard were inside an almost accurate/neutral performance in that system context.

Live Music has its own euphonics " weight " and that's why Music wake-up each one emotions/feelings, so I'm not against euphonics in this regard/meaning.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Hi Dgob, We are obviously using your 'dialectic' all the time without knowing that. But we call this 'discussion' which consist (or should) of arguments. And those kind of 'things' are actualy sentences or propositions which we
write in our post. Nobody calls his arguments,say, 'divine' but the result will be the same as with calling them 'dialectic'. Those arguments are judged in terms of 'strenght', sense or nonsense, but not in 'divine' or 'dialectic' terms. While we are in debt to the 'old Greek', probable the most for their invention of the concept 'cause' , there is some progress made in methodology since.
Regards,
For Nikola, who enjoys great literature.

Round about the platters go;
Into the mix fine details throw.—
Add VTF, that cartridge must have weight,
Must be an Ion,
Turns a minute, it has thirty-eight.
Aligning now and sleeping not,
Rest not now, must see what I've got.
Stylus of diamond nude to stake,
on the cantilever to roil and shake;
Best is of ruby, aluminum is a log,
Wooly and fat, the hf's worry the dog,
Addled mids, and bass's-bloat it flings,
Of cantilevers beryllium,
The golden-ear'd in lofty praise sings.
Aluminum for an arm of powerful rumble,
Like a hell-broth of hiss,
And turns groove walls to rubble.
Double, double toil and trouble;
An Aluminum cantilever,
Could it ever be more,
More than just a vinyl shovel?

Oh!- the wonderful sound;
Digg'd I in the dark;
Euphony in play the exotic dowel was eclips'd;
The devil had in an aluminum thin wall slipp'd;
Make the thing of alloy;
And tapered to rid of flab:
Shibata nude and dragon tooth sharp,
Then it your heart with music will stab.
Add thereto some lower induction;
Next throw in a pinch,
Of compliance reduction;
These the ingrediants of our delight.
So for those who keep from aluminum in fear:
Double, double coil and V-magnet,
Platter turn and sound so dear,
Surely makes my CDP sound stagnant.


Peace,
Hi Nandric,

You amuse me. Others should have their own perspectives here and maybe that is where the truth of this matter must reside.

As always...
Hi Dgob, 'Others should have their own perspective here and
maybe that is where the truth of this matter must recide'.
This is just one single sentence which demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about. First: what others should have I have no idea about. The other probable have some opinions but this is to 'abstract' because 'others' is like a quantifier without refering function. Like: 'someone has stolen my car'. My problem as well as of all those with stolen cars is that 'someone' is not a name. Then the thought that the 'truth' must have some place in which it 'recide' is pathetic. This logicaly
imply: find the place and you will find the truth. The phylosophy of science should be abolished because Dgob solved the problem about the truth. One only need to find the place where the truth recide.

Regards,
Greetings Professor,
I had no idea that Poet Laureate was also attached to your Doctorate?
Please tell me that it took no time at all for these verses to formulate in your mind.
So much time away from music would be a pity...or did you compose whilst listening? :^)
Forgive me.....an Acutex cartridge awaits :^)