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 Dgob,

I must confess that I have no idea what you are talking about! Some of this might just be down to language (or where you 'reside,' regarding 'philosophy'). However, your (interpretations of Frege's) arguments still amuse and clearly stand for themselves. Given space and time, 'others' might share the humour.

For me, I am sorry but I simply cannot continue to afford your every comment a response. Maybe when you make a useful statement concerning hifi (or given the location, even on cartridges) we will have something of value to discuss. Maybe?

As always...
One aspect of cantilevers that has received no mention so far is the relation between the cantilever material and how the stylus may be affixed to the cantilever.

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

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

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

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

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

hth, jonathan carr
Regards, Halcro:

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The sibilance and glare of outrageous distortion,
Or praise pickups and arms amidst a sea of opinion,
And claiming subjectivity end them?
VTA on the fly, too steep, too little;
and by a slip to say we bend the cantilever,
then the thousand natural shocks that budget is heir to:
'tis a compulsion devoutly to be avoided.
Too little, too steep; Perfection, it's a dream –
Oy, cantilever's a nub!

When we have shuffled off our moving coils,
MM's give us cause – where's the respect?
And makes us rather hear that natural hue of resolution.
Surely tonearm pod and absent plith,
Have inconsequential movement;
With this regard pivot to spindle run not awry,
And lose the name of accuracy.
So off you now, the square Ortofon!
Acutex, in thy glorious harmonics;
Be all the muse's joys surrendered.

Henry: As always, pleased to share. YMMV.

Peace,
Hi Dgob, When you address you self with your thoughts you can prove what you like. But writing about Frege without any knowledge about his work is, say, very strange. Frege is called the father of the modern logic because he was the first who 'invented' the predicat logic and quatification. After more than 2000 years of the domination of Aritotelian logic this was a very huge advance in science.
But this contribution of Frege was only his first work.
I have no intention to introduce you to Frege's work but
that you are 'innocent' about his contributions to the fundation of mathematics, logic, phylosophy of lanquage and phylosophy of knowledge is a shortcomming in your education. This of course is not something that you can blame on me.
Regards,
Dear Professor, I feel very hounored with your poem but the
honesty forces me to state that you overrate my (literary)
English. There is this 'strange' situation with my English.
I can read and understand , say, Quine, Tarski, Davidson or
Chomsky but the literature needs some other 'level' or 'languge capability' of understanding. That is, I think, why scientific translations to other languages, seem
to be much more easy. Ie in the scientific community all over the world the participants are already familiar with their own terminology. I have ,for exapmle, a friend who has
no idea about the Russian language but has despite of this a subsciption to some Russian (mathematical) periodicals. Ie he can obviously understand the 'mathematical languge' without understanding of what is called 'plain'-or 'vernacular' language. My quess is that they understand each other because they are thinking about the same, uh, things.

Regards,
Hi Nandric,

I was refering to the Dgob to whom you oft make reference. He who is implicated in: "The phylosophy of science should be abolished because Dgob solved the problem about the truth..." The same Dgob who appears in your comment in various guises: fool and prophet. The fact that this person resides in your thinking is fine, to me.

As for your view of linguistic truth, I was there when Derrida was a rage in continental Europe - maybe not so much in Germany (but no ground, IMO, to go to war over). I came after Russell pointed the acknowledged flaw in Frege's original arithmetised logic; after Kant pointed the weakness in Wolff; Hegel pointed a weakness in Kant; Heidegger pointed a flaw in ontologicial assumption; Marx pointed the weakness in Hegel etc. I know some that argue that Husserl (of Caretesian Meditations) and his reworking of the cogito presents a radical break with post Platonic western philosophy and I dare say I will be here long after the 'new radical break with all that went before' emerges.

I am not dismissive but it could appear that to stand outside and above past thinkers has an uncanny habit of reducing the thought of those thinkers. Straw men often burn better and apart from illuminating the face of the torch bearer serves mankind little purpose. But, as I have said, I could be wrong.

As always...
Nandric,

Btw, I do not seek to merely disagree with you and do find somethings of interest in your response to Timeltel (09-14-11) concerning a sense of language, translation and mathematics.

As always...
Hi Jcarr, Thanks for your post, very interesting. Maybe it's due to modern adhesives, but exotic cantilevers usually don't sound like the tip/cantilever interface presents much of a problem.

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

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

That really is interesting. The current DL-304 and DL-S1 are somewhat unusual. They have relatively high compliance, low VTF and seem best in med/heavy arms. They also have very low output and 30 or 40 ohm impedance! Results seem very system dependant. I have an old 103d that came with a vintage table I bought. I've been afraid to use it cause it has the original tip and I don't have a proper microscope to check it. I'll have to get that together.

It seems that AT and Ortofon are getting away from using micro tips on aluminum cantilevers. I get the feeling that AT is trying to tone down a bit. The 33EV has aluminum and a .3 x .7 with response to 50KHz. The OC9III has boron/LC, also out to 50K. the orig 440 spec was 32K. Notice that Ortofon put a shibata on the 2M Black.

I've read opinions favoring the sound of aluminum.
Regards,
Regards, Dgob: Someone mentioned my "name"?

Internal logic. Nationalities, cultures, languages structuring thought patterns. What little I know about it is intriguing stuff. I saw many students with different behavioral sets learn to work together in the classroom.

Peace,
Regards, Jcarr: Thanks for taking the time to share the info. on cantilevers. Just finished listening to a Grace F9-L. 5.0mv output, alu. cantilever/LC stylus. There is a market for well designed MM carts. The Grace seems like a good one. Any information on cantilever damping would be recieved with interest...

Peace,
Dear Professor,
Brilliant....I chime.
My daughter however opines
Where the hell are the bloody rhymes!? :^)
Cheers
Henry
Hi Fleib:

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

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

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

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

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

>Results seem very system dependant.

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

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

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

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

hth, jonathan carr
Hi Timeltel,

Yes, during my time in the Academy, a friend who was completing his doctorate conducted an interesting test concering community and communication. It is a test that I repeated while working as an academic myself.

Have the students provided with a variety of instruments (drums, tamborines, mouth pipes and similar instruments that need not talent to produce a rhythm with). Give them a few moments to decide on an individual rhythm that they could play repititively but which did not match anyone else that they could hear rehearsing. The aim here is to produce dissonance.

Then have them all start playing their piece at the same time and a cacophonous dissonance is instant. Then time them and at some point they all start to play in a singly recognisable rhythm.

Given the current site and interests, I thought that might be an interesting experiment to share.

As always...
Jcarr,

I once heard the Denon 1000A on a now departed friend's system and recall his love for that item. The memory of the impact of first hearing that level of sound is still with me. Of course, it is difficult to really assess that performance or impact as my own experience of sound and hifi have been greatly changed over the decades. Still, it remains the one MC (of those I have already owned and heard) that I would still love acquire. Maybe one day!

As always...
Timeltel - I too am fascinated by the way in which language alters (or perhaps more correctly - shapes..) thinking patterns. An area of some fascination for me. I wonder how many international diplomats are aware of this....

Jcarr
Thank you for all the valuable info.... and as I sit by the knee of the master... I will ask a few more questions!

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

How does this distortion manifest?
What type of distortion is it?
How is it spread across the frequency spectrum?
When I measure a cartridges response, what patterns could I look for that would identify or be associated with permeability?
How do I identify a non-permeable core cartridge?

(I continue in my search to understand... and model... cartridge behaviour)

As an aside there AT continue to market their lower end p-mounts with a carbon fibre cantilever... But I am not aware of any mid to top end styli with CF cantilevers...

bye for now

David
Dear J.Carr, I started questioning the assertion of some of
our members that aluminum is 'inferior' in comparison with
the other cantilever materials. While I have no shares in any aluminum mine I am glad that you saved the 'status' of this 'good old material'. But from your explanation why aluminum is still a good choice for cantilevers (the direct
contact with the stylus) it seems to logicaly folow that
boron is 'suboptimal' in this sense. Ie I am aware that you
are explaining just one aspect of the 'whole story'. However there is still this 'naggish question' in my mind: 'Why is Carr using boron for his cantilevers?'

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

I'm not so sure about that very good phono stage requirement when it comes to the DL-S1. Perhaps a more forgiving phono stage with lots of gain would be more likely to insure acceptable results. With an output of .15mV I'd guess that a SUT would help. I participated in a group review of this cart. Although I didn't keep it long enough to get it "right", some people loved it at 100 ohms. I heard an emphasis on the overtones that gave it a hyped up sound - very irritating on acoustic music. Another participant using SUTs and/or a high end pre, got similar results. A fellow who posts on Asylum loads it at 30 ohms and loves it. He must have gobs of gain though. I must admit, I never thought to load it at 30 ohms. That's why I said it's system dependant. I read that it's being discontinued, but that's unconfirmed. (I blame that overtone thing on the alum cantilever. LOL)
Regards,
Dear Dlaloum, I am interested in the so called 'phylosophy
of languge'( the analytic kind) for a long time. I speak
5 languages and use 4 very frequently. To my mind one needs
first some thought and than construct or compose a sentence or proposition in one of the lanquages. As Frege stated one can express the same tought in different ways, (using the available vocabulary of the lanquage in casu) and this seems to be possible because of the 'generative power' of the languge in general. One can combine morfems in a nearly endless way and 'generate' new propositions which are never 'heard' before and despite of this the other will have no problem to 'grasp' or understand this proposition. Such is the 'power' or (endless) possibilities of languages. This of course does not imply that one can express him self as eloquent as in his native languge but it is the tought that (should) count . Think of, for exapmle, Einstein, Godel, Tarski,etc who become university
theachers in the USA without perfect command of the English language.

Regards,
Hi Nandric,

My first words were in the language of my grandmother, then I learnt the language of the country we were living in, we moved to another country when I was 3 - and then again when I was 8...
In some ways I have ended up as a Native speaker of 4 languages...
But without practice... it sits there in the back of ones mind rusting away.... - spending a month with speakers of any of these languages does wonders... it takes between 3 and 6 weeks before I start to really think (and dream) in the language....

There are definitely assumptions built into each language, and therefore there are inherent thinking structures that come with each of them...

Isn't the world a fascinating place!

bye for now

David
What has been the maximum capicitance required for a cart so far in this thread.

Brad
Hi David:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so on.

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

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

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

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

hth, jonathan carr
Hi Dgob:

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

cheers, jonathan
Dear Nandric:

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

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

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

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

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

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

cheers, jonathan
Dear Fleib:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

kind regards, jonathan carr
Jonathan,

In your last sentence...
I note that some designers of MC cartridges and phono stages use quite massive amounts of capacitance to roll-off any ultrasonic peak from the coil inductance-cable capacitance resonant peak, but personally I have found this approach to take away more than it gives.
Is this because the designers don't trust that the phono stage (and amplification stage further along the line) have adequately robust ability to deal with resonant peaks?

And on the vintage air-cores... Sssshhhh! I'm still looking for a few of those! :-P
Jcarr,
Thanks again for your informative answer. "Everyone" says that LOMC inductance is so low, it's inconsequential and can be dismissed. Your description of the ultrasonic peak and possible consequences, is not widely known. I assume the inductance is much higher on the DL-S1 than most. What's typical LOMC inductance, 30uH?

I started with 300 then 400 ohms and couldn't seem to find the magic number. As I approached 100 ohms, it got worse. Gain and noise wasn't a problem. It must have been IMD. This phono stage has very low capacitance. I've had great results with other MCs and didn't know what the problem was. I think you've solved the mystery.
Regards,
Dear Dgob: Do you read what J.Carr posted on phono stages?, IMHO that's how your Phonolinepreamp was designed but on " steroids ".

No I'm not presume on that design but facts are that it " falls " under that description and was so " tempt " to leave pass.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear friends: I was and am a little busy working-playing with that Neumann correction and with the AT-95SA ( I will post on this latter. ).

I have both at hand so time to go in deep about.

Dlaloum posted that the NC could or can gives more " airy " or transparency to the whole performance ( or something like that. ) and makes sense for any one to think in this way due that that NC gives some gain in the high frequencies.

I found out as a main charateristic in my audio system: more coherence- better " unity ". The " difference " between both frequency extremes now seems to me with better equilibrium and this makes that overall tonal balance improve in favor of better quality performance level.
Now, unfortunately I don't know which recordings were cut with that correction but for what I read almost in all recordings exist some way or the other this type of correction if at/with different frequency.

IMHO while subtle the improvement is notable and really welcomed. I have to follow in this RIAA correction tests but if you ask me today about my answer is: that I think I can't go back, I can't hear with out that NC again.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Hi Raul,

Yes, I did smile with the description in his first paragraph concerning the requirements for a phone(line)preamplifier and recognised the fit with my Essential. Of course, this only confirms what my ears have been telling me for some time but it is good to hear another highly valued clarification of its impact.

Thanks all

As always...
Dear David, 'But without practice...(it is)rusting away.'
Does this not applay to all of our potential and actual
capabilities? Btw you probable assume like Wittgensten that
we think in (some) language. Say in the 'dominant one'.
I am not sure about that. However I recognise this 'adjustment time' needed to 'get in' a language which one has not SPOKEN for a while. This is different with writing according to my experience. But the real wonder about language is the inborn capacity of the kids to learn so easily whatever language there is. So it seems to be obvious that the mind is first and any aquisition comes latter.Ie we still have no idea about our capacities but well some about our capabilities.

Regards,
Nandric,

mmmm, remembering some Skinner and Chomsky readings from 20+ years back....
In my opinion (and based on my readings about linguistics, symbolic logic and the aquisition of abstract thought in children) - language provides us with the abstract tools with which to conceptually manipulate what we see and interact with.
Language therefore shapes our toolset... and as the old saying goes, to the worker with only a hammer, all problems are a nail...
If you have more tools in your toolset you can select a more appropriate one. Hence the importance of teaching children a more complete and extensive vocabulary, and introducing literature early rather than late (certainly before the age of 8). The more conceptual tools are provided in the very early years, the more a childs mind develops flexibility and the ability to pick and choose from a wider variety of conceptual constructs...
Language is a highly sophisticated form of abstraction, with concepts embedded deeply within it. Concepts that are assumed by 99% of that languages speakers without ever considering that they are making an assumption.
People with multiple languages and/or cultures or people who interact regularly across such boundaries rapidly become aware of these assumptions. (You get hit in the face a couple of times, you learn to duck!)

I agree that the mind is first - ie: the potential - but language is a relatively easy way of enabling a large chunk of that potential, with relatively minimal effort. (Music is another...)

One of the things I find sad about anglo culture... not just in Australia, but also in other English speaking countries - is that due to the dominant position of English today, these countries either do not teach other languages (in the majority), or do a piss poor job of it. It is simply not seen as important. (we are the empire, everyone speaks our language - why bother?)
All the English cultures are impoverished by this.
Almost all of my French cousins speak English, none of my Australian or American cousins speak French...

We don't really know our human potential, but we do know it is greater than what 90% of us achieve....
Having children grow up with many different languages, and many different forms of music .... shapes them.... for the better.

bye for now

David
Dear Dgob: Maybe is time that you give a in deep listeninbg test to the Neumann option.

My take here ( other that my tests about really likes me. ) is that if the majority of recordings came with this " correction " then apply the inverse one is what IMHO we have to do. This is exactly the same " stage "/meaning than the RIAA where we need to apply the inverse on the phono stage to be " there " but now to be really " there " IMHO I think we need that inverse NC that as me you already have in your Phonolinepreamp.

I would like to know your future experiences on this subject, thank you.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Fleib: My sample runs great at 100 ohms.

Dgob, I respect JC on the DL-100A that's very good but IMHO the DS1 is way better and yes the Highphonic D-15 is very fine too: you have to remember that the Highphonic people came from Denon.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Raul:

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

jonathan
Dear Jcarr: No, we did not. Now that you are touching the NC on LPs permit me to ask: what do you think about? makes sense ( it makes sense to me. ) to work with?, yes? good, no? why not?

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Henry, Only by rereading what we already have posted one can see the possible 'offending' remarks he made. What I meant with 'atheist' is someone who does not belong to any church whatever. I realy hope that you are not a religious person? But then there is the fact that you have all kinds of 'symbols' or 'relics' which belong to different religions. You own, my goodness, even an belt-driven TT in your system. What kind of church will
accept such a person as a member? That is why I hope that you are not a religious person.Ie everyone of those will see you as a 'betrayer' of the true belief and even worst as a 'incredulous' person. You should in any case not mess with the Islamics.

Regards,
Dear Ecir38: With out take my notes I think that I added 400pf-450pf to an Exel cartridge and one of my ADC ones.

I have to say that that was time ago but anyway valid in my system. The capacitance subject always is system dependent and of course what you hear through that system.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Nandric, Since you are our resident philosopher and linguist, I am surprised to see that you define an atheist as one who does not belong to any church. We generally think of an atheist as one who does not believe in any god. Those are two different things. I believe (without checking) that if you look in an English dictionary my definition will be found there. Ergo, Henry can have several different types of turntables without being labelled an analog atheist. He may believe that one is better than all the others.
Perhaps, having multiple tables, he is an analog agnostic?
Or maybe even a polytheist!
Perhaps, having multiple tables, he is an analog agnostic?
Or maybe even a polytheist!
I like that David.
Both sound plausible to me :^)
Dear Lew, I assumed that by jokes the so called 'licencia
poetica' is also allowed. Why should a poet have more
rights? BTW to me the poetry is an inscrutable kind of prosa. But your 'definition' is of course the right one: only the godless are atheist. Not sure however about myself: I am an ex-Marxist.

As always with highest regards,
Dear David, I prefer your 'definition(s)' above Lew's because of its extension. Henry is agnostic because of his turntables and I am a polytheist because of Marx.

Regards,
All this theological talk has inspired me to start a church. Don't laugh, churches are a great racket, almost as good as banks or mortgage traders. Churches are tax free and employees pay a special rate. I envision a sort of Unitarian type free for all, except for the nominal dues, of course. Divine revelation through music, or any other revelatory pursuit, would be the theme. One of the big advantages would be the opportunity to make group purchases. A problem might be agreement on what to purchase. For now, an ebony Virtuoso near dealer cost for all who want one?

Services could be held online with music and videos. There would also be a physical church/warehouse to house the divine components. Every members listening room or studio would be their local chapel.
Inspirationally yours,
Dear Raul,
agree with you - the Neumann curve makes sense, and I am able to compare some curves in the appropriate record relation. Nevertheless the matching marriage between SUTs and carts I think is much more important for the overall sound. But here we are entering the MC field again...
I made a very funny oberservation at the Milleniums change. In Germany until 2003 the market was dominated by writing gurus offending SUTs.
BTW TAS just published a review of some MMs...

best & fun only
Dear Fleib,
this is the perfect idea. Do we need a bishop?
I am good in advising how to build up a well working hierachy...

best & fun
Dear Fleib, 'Churches are tax free?' I am convinced. Besides I already mentioned to be an ex-Marxist. Never got his theory of value right.Nobody deed. This Sraffa guy who impressed Wittgenstein so much is a nightmare. Are other
so called 'commodities' also included by the tax free arangement? I am not interested in a church which would prescribe what kind of commodities we 'should buy'. I always longed for an Armani (or Armany ?) suit but was afraid that it may cost more than a decent cart.

Regards,
Thanks Raul, I'm working on a dip switch arrangement for loading to be added to a 2 to 1 phono switch. If this works out alright the plan is to add this inside my current phonopre. If anyone is interested I will post more when finished.

Brad
The Greeks and Romans had it right. They had a god for every situation. That's the way to do it. Polytheism. I recently moved from the Temple of Beltdriveus to worship at the Temples of Idleriae and Directdriveus. (Beltdriveus is the son of Idleriae and Directdriveus, but he hated his parents, got drunk on a 45 rpm LP and crashed their chariot, and so he is consigned to the nether world of Noplintheum.)
Dear Ecir38: I can assure you that that post will be welcome!

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
I believe catholicism, being the later rendition of the roman approach to mysticism, has a similar approach... and the temples could use this as a model...

Going into competition with the pastafarians... http://www.venganza.org/

The Temples of Theaudiology would have a seperate nook around the central nave for each of the principle saints/deities....

eg:
St Linn, patron saint of sprung belt drives
St Lenco, patron saint of idler drives

etc....

Before ordaining the first priests of course we would have to set up the Theological seminary of Theaudiology....

Requirement for entry would be an examination which might ask questions at random with reference to this thread....
(Raul's thread would be compulsory pre-reading for the entrance examination)

And the tax benefits are legendary....

Yours religiously (as I continue with my vinyl rituals)

David