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
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Mockery as a form as worship? How crude.

Building temples takes big bucks. There will be plenty of opportunity for that later. That is, after the church is established and corrupt. The Church of Aesthetic Revelation will have many branches. Every member's listening room or studio will be their sanctuary. Ministers will have their facilities open to other members (by appointment only) for revelatory experiences. Ministers will be ordained and be eligible for whatever tax relief is available in their area of residence.

Enlightenment through aesthetic revelation is serious pursuit of God-head. All manner of drink or substances is approved in the attainment of that goal. It is not the business of this church to make up fairy tales or prescribe approved methods of enlightenment. Each individual must find their own path. We benefit from the revelations of others in similar pursuit. There is no approved definition of heaven or hell. For me, hell is a broken cantilever. Heaven is when it sounds awesome. May the aesthetics be with you.
Regards,
Fleib,
so a member would be an Aesthete....

Hell is an audible hum and vibration problem.... obviously evident, yet completely intractable - all endeavours the eliminate it fail... no apparent source.....

bye for now

David
David&Fleib, If you appoint me as the first theacher at the faculty of theology I think I can explain the difference between heaven and hell. At the same time and in connection
with the mentioned subject matter I can give lectures about
the false prophets: Marx,Engels,Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hoga
(from Albania). The last mentioned was the 'smallest' one but unmached by others in his pretentions.To get some idea about the hell one need only to visit Albania.

Regards,
Dear Nandric,
You are whatever you assume to be. That is, once you assume the position. It's up to you to figure out how political and social-economic philosophies fit in with aesthetic revelation.

Now I'm in a quandary about what stylus to try next on my Virtuoso. I removed the 7V stylus from the modded 95 and noticed it was slightly off-azimuth. Trying to realign, it broke. A word about transplants; You can't transplant a stylus from a different series with an exotic cantilever. It will break. The cantilevers are set at different angles in different series. If you want to transplant a modern 120/440 7V series, the cantilever must be bent down slightly after it is aligned. This can only be done once. Trying to re-bend will break it. In other words, if you take the stylus-plug off a 120 and shave the plug so it fits in the CA receptacle, the cantilever is too close to the body. If you transplant and do it right the first time, it should be OK. Just don't bend it until you're sure it's aligned perfectly. BTW, the 7V stylus is a good candidate if you're considering a transplant. It's a nude .2 x .7 on a tapered cantilever. The cu is 7 @100. I believe all the CAs are 6.5cu (100Hz). They are listed as 15cu at 10Hz.

I put a 92E (P mount) on there and will try on a light arm. If I like it I might try transplanting a 140LC I have. The CAs might make great high cu carts. It only weighs around 5g w/o stylus. Any AT P-mount with the unusual looking plastic holder, is a direct swap - no transplant required.
Regards,

Dear Fleib, Never thought that religions are about 'aesthetic revelation'. Thanks for your lecture. You are obviously more then you think you are. My experience is
that for the most people it is about bargain insecurity. So many bought 'indulgence' receipt for 'one never knows'.
I am very familiar with many German poets who were very
interested in 'aestethic revelations'. The most of them had
some peculiar interest in trees. Ie in their odour. But alas they never mentioned the people nearest to those trees. The farmers who were starveling from hunger.

Regards,
Does this topic only address high compliance mm's? Certainly a few low compliance items have not been mentioned.
Hello Plinko,
The Clearaudio MMs are probably the lowest compliance MMs being produced today. The equivalent 10Hz cu is 15. That is the same cu shared by many LOMCs. AFAIK, all other current MM/MI have higher compliance. Very few, if any MM/MI types ever had lower cu.
Regards,
Dear Plinko: I can add some info to what Fleib posted.

Along CA I think that the Shelter 201 and Sumiko Pearl are medium compliance but for what I remember there is no low compliance MMs other than the Ortofon Arkiv/Night Club or the like that are for specific works ( DJs. ), these cartridges runs at 3gr- to 5grs: you can try it!. Seriously the other " normal " cartridge that I think has a lower compliance is the Decca london :12 cu. but again nothing in the low compliance range.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
maybe we are all to some respect a little too tolerant. Building a church means we need to have a clear hierachy, gods, bishops, priests and a lot of rules & principles to follow. - and of course believers. We should rather follow the good examples of audio churches which clearly separate believers and not related audio jerks. We do need to bring in masses of believers. therefore the agenda must be clear, simple, easy to understand. Punishment principles are also very important. Will be a lot of fun...

best & fun only
Dear Thuchan, I don't believe that we are 'too tolerant' but well that we all are inquisitive. We ,or anyway I, like to see your post about components which I can't afford. We want to know 'what there is' but also how 'it' sounds. In some sense you may be the only one who can provide this information. The peculiar thing about this thread is that anyone can afford a decent MM cart. So no wonder that we have so many participants as well that this thread looks as 'indefinite'. Thanks to Raul of course but
he is an descendant of Emilio Zapatta, a revolutionary.

Regards,
Thuchan can be our first hellfire and brimstone preacher....

You focus on punishment..... takes all sorts I guess!!

Plinko - strange that after talking about possible low compliance MM's the AT7V got missed!
But perhaps people are assuming that you are already aware of it given recent postings.
Dear friends: I think now I have a more clear opinion on the AT-95 SA that I 'm testing in the last 10+ days along the CA and other top performers:

http://www.lpgear.com/product/LPGAT95SA.html

I mounted in the AT-1503 with the same Audiocraft headshell that the CA loves. Running at 2.0 grs with 150pf.

The cartridge is good right from the first minutes and improve a over next two ours and then stay there.

Is it a " shaven " CA?, well it sounds really good by any standards but certainly the CA is more refined , accurate and neutral performer and there are subjective and objective/technical reasons for that, here you can see the specs in the CA to compare against the AT-95:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ranlg&1313624221

Even these differences I like the 95SA more than I expected for this humble ( really humble. ) cartridge. It can compete and challenge any top MM/MI or LOMC cartridge you want.

The cartridge is very good tracker, better than the CA, and pass all 16 cannon shots but the last one in the Telarc 1812. This fact speaks a lot on its high quality performance level.

Even that the " plastic " stylus holder seems ( as it is ) a chip one I have to say that it has a lot less resonances than those average AT/Signets ones and this cartridge has no microphonics at all. It is a well made humble cartridge with a top performance that IMHO could be a good additional alternative to any of you for your " chapel ".

Btw, buy it before price goes up: around 3 years ago its price was 79.00 ( I think that was what I paid for it. ) and today 149.00. Worth the " effort ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Thuchan, When you start to believe that your church is the "one true way", you will know you have a real church. Which is why I stay away from all of them.
Dear Dlaloum, With all your lanugages no consideration whatever with the foreigners in this forum. What,the hell, is a 'brimstone teacher'? BTW I am a proud ownwer of the AT
7V and have no problem at all with the compliance of this beauty.

Regards,
Hi Raul,
Because my AT-95 is potted and has a custom aluminum top plate, I didn't want to say too much. Even with these modifications I had much the same results. BTW, Wm Thakker was selling the regular 95E for around $32. I believe LpGear charges $10 more than the price of the respective replacement stylus. There is a new stylus for it - a line contact, called vivid line. All these 95 replacement styli fit the CAs. You could remove the stylus on your Virtuoso and try it on the 95, and vise versa. It's a nice cart for a secondary table, especially one with a med/heavy arm.
Regards,
Hi All, perhaps I missed much of the discussion. I haven't followed the thread in quite a while (perhaps 50 pages or so). I would offer up the vintage Pickering 380 as a superb example and still quite under the radar. Perhaps I mistakenly assume that these are low compliance given that the best arms for these are very high mass. Cheers.
"When you start to believe that your church is the 'one true way', you will know you have a real church."

Science is like that, no? Or certainly some scientists and non-scientists believe it to be the 'one true way'. There is even a name for such a view: scientism.

On this very forum, there are those who deny the value of aesthetic perception (not in those words, of course) or pejoratively refer to it as 'subjective' or 'illusory' in the absence of verifiable testing/measurements or a scientific account. As if offering a scientific account somehow magically confers value. Cable discussions, for example, are rife with this tendency.

Then there are those who refer to physics just to scare the children on the (often correct) assumption that it will silence the opposition. It often works because who, amongst us scientists and wannabe scientists, dares to oppose the church of physics?

What does this have to do with MM carts? Who knows--but someone brought up the idea of religiosity :).
While I am firmly in the camp that the implementation of the physics has an enormous amount to do with what I hear and how good I can make things (does that make me a true believer in the Church of Physics, able to "scare children" in a single leap (of faith)?), I am also firmly of the opinion that the implementation that most of us have is decidedly imperfect, and when we get to a certain point, what each of us likes is almost certainly more subjective than objective (the objective gets you to a certain point, the subjective is what you like among systems of that particular 'level'). Some of this 'subjectivity' has to do with looks, pride of ownership and of the path that led us to where we are, our knowledge of the object in question (specialized knowledge often creates a sympathetic opinion), the fact that one has decided to like DD/idler/BD more than another, high compliance over low compliance, tubes vs SS, MMs vs LOMCs, and a variety of other choices. Effectively, it boils down to deciding which kind of 'imperfection' (DISTORTION! Did I scare the children? :^)) one prefers.
Nandric - Brimstone ... an archaic (alchemical?) term for sulphur.

The expression hellfire and brimstone, refers particularly to the variety of preachers who try to inspire their listeners to do the "right" thing through fear of the fires and sulfurous smells of hell... such preaching invariably involves much yelling and physical agitation....

The stick rather than carrot approach of religion...

With regards to the AT7V - what do you mean by "no problems?" - all reports have been very positive, it appears to be a low compliance MM design ... so possibly the trend of the next 10 years in MM... but I have not heard a negative report about it so far...

bye for now

David
Banquo363
With regards to aesthetic perception.... the question remains whether we are attempting to reproduce the carefully structured aesthetic construct of the artist(s) - (including mastering engineer), or whether we individually try to create a new aesthetic in our home or system. And to what degree we vascillate between the two extremes - and what balance we end up choosing.

To listen to a system with euphonic colourations, is conceptually wrong to me - it is like taking the Mona Lisa, and placing it behind tinted glass, because one prefers the way it renders the colours....

One may not LIKE the Mona Lisa, one might prefer Renoir, or Picasso - but the same thing applies.... if you view all of these through tinted glass, you will never perceive the picture the way that the artist drew it.

The other side to this, is that everyone has differing hearing sensitivity, and we may in fact be adjusting the various systems to compensate for our own personal variations (and failings) - and one also wonders whether the artists perception was also altered by their own variations and failings.... Which is the potential start for a completely different discussion.

My first listen (about 1 hour) to the Dynavector DV-23RS last night.... this cartridge sounds clearly different to all the others I have tried.
Much too early to get analytic about it - and I will test it thoroughly in due course... but there is definitely something to the short cantilever thing....
Other than the Decca, I don't believe I know of other short cantilever cartridges....

bye for now

David
Dear Thuchan,

Your comment of 09-22-11 brought up a memory of reading about the will of the church forced onto the filthy masses during mid evil time Europe with unimaginable torture methods.

In these modern times Nandric maybe a good candidate for High Priest of verbal punishment.
Dear Dlaloum, Even a native speaker is not pressuposed to be a 'knowledgable person'. So, it seems, the understanding is not only about language. The sequence of words seems also to be very important ( say prefix,infix and postfix
among morphems). Your carrot and stick metaphor has some
connections with Kant's apriori and a posteriori or ex ante and ex post ordering. But this also apply to the political systems. The 'carrot' in the socialistic way of production
was the promissed ownership of production means. Ex post
it was obvious that the labourers become means of production for the party members. They enjoyed riding in those black Mercesdes via their party representatives. We
are lucky that we can wote in our political system . This to my knowledge is the only way to avoid the stick. Ie everyone would like to use the stick if allowed.

Regards,
Dear David, I have no idea about dimensions but Lukatschek,
the owner designer by Benz, is experimenting with short(er) cantilever designs. My Ruby 3S has a shorter cantilever than Ruby 2.

Regards,
Dear Banquo363: I understand your oint and agree/disagree. I agree with the T_bone " take " about science and its importance.

In theory I think all what each one of us in our each one home audio system perceive / ears sense. ) has a scientism explanation ( by physics/mathemathics and other formal disciplines. ) and I have no doubt about but ( unfortunately always are " buts ". ) things are that till this " moment " there is no single scientist " model " that involve all the parameters, alternatives and relationships that are inside in the audio reproduction whole subject but not only that but there is no scientist model that explain: what to measure, where to measure, why to measure, how to measure and its scientist interpretation.

IMHO that's why science " fail " on audio. Even that fact we have several objective " tools "/measures that along the subjective opinion helps to have a better idea of what we are hearing.

Now, our each one subjectivity is in some ways a " science " kind discipline not formal one but empirical that all we acquire through several experinces years.

The problem with this empirical knowledge is that we learn/ned not only the " right things " but the " wrong " ones that we took it and let stay as " weigthy " part of our subjectivity with out aware that information is plain wrong. This fact explain in part why we ( fortunately ) agree or disagree in between on different audio topics/subjects.

Learning physics or mathematics in formal way has no place for what is wrong stay in our mind as " right ": we know that 2+2=4 and not 9. Many times in our empirical subjectivity behavior 2+2=15 and we are entitled with that result and disagree when some one afirm that 15 is the wrong answer and 7 is the right one and we follow in disagreement when a person said: hey guys it is not 15 and not 7 but 4.

It is not easy for a person that learn and that been/was " trained " ( by the AHEE. ) that 2+2=15 that suddenly agree with other person that the real result is: 4. This is what we found out often in forums like this one.

Over the last years I try ( learning and training. ) that in almost every single audio subject 2+2 always be 4: a big 4 or small 4 or cloudly 4 but always 4.

Several of my differences with some of you is only because of that. When for me those seven's cartridges including the Nandric beloved 7V are only average performers for some of you are a lot better than that.

Yes, I'm telling that all of us must follow learning to improve our each one ignorance level ( me included. ). I did and try to do every single day.

Btw, normally almost no one likes " objectivity " because in some ways think that then audio discussions could lose some " fun ". I think is the other way around because now with that " objective " weight we have more " guns " to talk about.

Syntax poste a thread about the greates MC cartridges with out any frame/context ( objective. ) to compare and decide according it.
Almost everyone goes and posted and they styll doing and its right no problem here.
I posted on that thread twice about the convenience to have standards/references/frame/context to compare and decide which are those great MC cartridges and you know what: no one posted any single word on what I posted. This confirm in some way what I said here: people think that with that " frame "/context ( objective one. ) fun is loosed so they prefer ignore about.
Btw, Lewm and Jloveys ( there ) were the only persons ( maybe A. Porter. ) that posted something not specific as me but something that was related with.

This is the way we are! but the exiting point is that WE ALL CAN IMPROVE.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Dlaloum - yes all sorts of punishment of course. Now I learned some new helpful expressions...

Dear Lewm - my problem is I was educated in a church - not so deeply maybe like Nandric but...so this experience took me on another path - going away from all church oriented patterns of behavior. agree with you totally, I think Nandric too.

Dear In-shore - yes Nandric is close to becoming a bishop, maybe not a kardinal. Therefore he might need some more Non-MMs :-)

Dear Raul - yes 2+2 = 4 :-)
Dear Raul, T-Bone, Dlaloum:

To be clear, T-bone, I certainly am not denying the relevance and importance of science to our hobby. That would be crazy. I marvel everyday at the music I hear from my system (and other’s) and am truly grateful to all the engineers and scientists who make it possible.

My point is that there are scientific concerns and questions and then there are aesthetic concerns and questions. In our hobby, the answers to the latter need to take into account the answers to the former. However, there’s no intellectual trajectory such that once all the scientific questions are answered there is no more need to ask the aesthetic ones. Put another way: an assessment of the goodness of the sound expressed by a cartridge is not wholly determined by recourse to science, to its standards and methods. It involves, to name but a few factors, audiophile culture and the history of criticism in the audiophile community. Devotees of the ‘church of physics’ deny all this: investigation into history and culture is but a stopgap and amusing diversion until 'we' physicists/neurobiologists/what have you are done with our work.

The distinction between objective and subjective is very difficult to get a handle on. It is a mistake, I think, to believe that just because our hobby is not dictated by objective science (the error of scientism) then that makes the hobby subjective in the pejorative sense (the other error of scientism). By ‘subjective in the pejorative sense’ I mean ‘standardless’ or ‘governed only by personal preference’. This is the sense, Raul, that you are objecting to with your 2+2=4 example. I agree with you wholeheartedly that there are objective standards by which we can evaluate, say, a cartridge’s goodness. I submit however that such standards are not given to us and dictated by science, but rather are built out of the experiences and judgment of the members of the audiophile community. There exist authorities in our hobby and they are not so merely because they know more science. The best equipment makers are not merely good engineers but after all the measurements are taken, they listen and listen well.

To be sure, there is a sense of ‘subjective’ that applies to our hobby: an objective and complete account of our hobby must take into account and make reference to psychological subjects, i.e. us. That makes it different from physics, the laws of which don’t make essential reference to us. But to grant this sense of subjectivity is not to force us to accept that 2+2=5. I mean everyone is, in the political sense, free to believe that a 3rd rate cartridge is as good as an AT 20ss or to believe, to vary David’s example, that their child’s fingerpainting is just as good as Guernica. But by the relevant objective standards governing the respective domains, whatever they are or turn out to be, such judgments are mistaken—and that is a fact.

This is connected to religiosity via Dostoyevsky (and Nietzsche’s madman) in the following way: if god does not exist then everything is permissible. This means, I take it, that in the absence of a universally applicable standard to support, guide and vindicate our actions and beliefs, there are no standards at all—we can do and believe anything we wish. This is a non-sequitur, both in the case of god and in our case: human beings and audiophiles have managed to govern themselves just fine without god and physicists, respectively, vindicating our judgment.
There is no escaping our early development and what we were taught, i.e. how to think and act and what to believe. The most we can do is realize this training and take steps to overcome, if necessary.

A performing elephant raised in captivity will have a chain tied around his ankle and staked to the ground. The elephant learns that he can not escape the chain. When the elephant grows up he is still bound by the chain even though he could easily break it.

Aesthetic revelation could have something to do with traditional religious training/practice, but not necessarily. I suspect that each of us occasionally has some sort of revelation on an individual basis, at home in our sanctuary. These forums serve as an exchange of methods (practices and equipment) to attain that revelation or to get more enjoyment from our rituals.
Regards,
In_shore, There is no obligation to read the post of the
High Priest of verbal punishment. Nor any obligation to read whatever.
Dear banquo363: Again I agree/disagree with you. I think that the main " trouble " in our hobby are us: us as human being and what this human being involve.

I'm not a devotee of " church of physics " but as you recognize its importance in our hobby. IMHO there is no single audio link in the audio chain where science it is not " there ": electronics design, cartrridges, tonearms, speakers, etc, etc. and yes if it is true that with out specific science ( physics, mathematics, mechanical, etc, etc. ) disciplines all those audio links can't " exist " ( at least in the way we know. ) it is true that with out each one designer " subjectivity " ( that involves not only: listen but scientist skills. ) those audio links can't exist either.

I don't think that our hobby is not dictated by objective science I think it is ( like it or not. ) in the same way is dictated by subjectivity: both " doctrines " live together and have not only a very close relationship but a hard mix in between.

Fleib open that window that many of us even don't know exist ( and this is my main point about the 2+2=15 instead 4. ) with his elephant example and this is what I'm trying to say...Several of us in the whole audio subject grow-up with that chain and for different reasons we stay that way with out break it, we did it only with few audio subjects and many times we never did it.

I always think that science ( different disciplines. ) is not only a great tool but the only one that ( some time in the future when exist those " models " I'm talking about. ) can help us to understand not only what goes on around what we are hearing but why we heard what we heard even that each one of us are " unique/singular ". Of course here we have to leave out subjects like: why I like rock and not jazz or classic music or why I prefer digital over analog and several other deep subjective subjects.

My take is that we have to use more often the " objective " approach not over the subjectiv one but along it.

The great cartridge work that Dlaloum is entilted shows to any one the importance to take in count objective factors/measures along subjectivity to make judgements more precise on cartridge quakity performance.

Objective tests are help me in many ways to understand the importance of different kind of distortions in cartridges during playback. I learned the importance of the cartridge tracking self abilities in favor or against quality performance and how I found out this?: when I begin to run tracking cartridge tests ( years ago. ).
Before I been convince of the main and critical importance of this cartridge tracking subject I don't care if this or that cartridge were able to track ( example ) the Telarc 1812, who cares?, I was thinking in the same way that the majority of the audio people think: who cares about that Telarc when there is no other single recording that was/is recorded that way ( it does not matter in what frequency ranges. )?

Well this kind of way of think was fine till I understand was wrong till I understand the vital importance overall job that the cartridge stylus tip must perform. If we want to hear what is in the recording the first " demand " is that the cartridge can extract " intact "/complete/no-distortions added and a main subject/factor to did/do it is the cartridge tracking ability to stay always in the groove and I mean it: stay always in the grooves and not jumping ( microscopic level. ) every single 1/100 sg.
IMHO with out specific tracking tests ( objective. ) we can be aware not only the cartridge tracking abilities but the generated distortions either. IMHO exist a heavy weight ( more than what we could think ) tracking distortions in what we heard/hear and we are not aware on it or only a few are, well I'm one of those " few " and this fact is part of the why's in my cartridge quality performance opinions.

Anyway, IMHO as more objective tools we use as more understanding we have of what audio is around us and these objective toold not only not precluide or leave in the dark our subjectivity but only enhance it and of course leave safe and live each one " singular " virtues/bias.

Regards and enjoy the music,
raul.
Near the end of the post we have to read: we can't be aware not only... " instead we can....

R.
Raul, see link for switch I was talked about last week.

http://s61.photobucket.com/albums/h69/ecir38/tonearm%20input%20switch/

This is just a temporary solution to get up and running two tonearms.

Brad
Dear Ecir: Thank you. Looks fine and seems that works!. Good that we can handle those set up dip-switches from out-side.

I see you are using Holco resistors, these are good ones but I prefer Caddock. Btw, through M. Percy you can get very good polyestirene/polypropilene pf caps ( page 14 in his catalog. ). These two alternatives can make a difference on quality performance. Of course that this does not lower merits to your design, it is up to any one of us tochoose those parts as we judge convenient. The main subject is what you already did it with the design.

Thank you again.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Raul, not Holco they are IRC .1% They parralell 100k vishaey nudes inside the pre. Will give the caddock a try in the future.

http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/IRC/RC55LF-D-100K-B-B/?qs=Y0UoVIhhWoPLojHOTn4HaQ%3d%3d

Like you said use whatever you like although need to consider that layout only has .100" spacing.

Pcb is only 1.5" x 1.5", would like to order a pcb for this down the road which should allow the pcb to be even smaller.

Brad
Dear Ecir38: I was unaware of these Irc resistors, looks and seems to me as very good option. Is this your first time you use it? which are your experiences with?, they have to be very good for you mix it with the nude ( first rate. ) Vishays.

Regards and enjoy the music,

Raul.
They are known for low noise hence the reason for using them. Used them on a goldpoint step attenuator that replaced a pec potentiometer. This was a huge upgrade not necessarily related to just the resistors.

I think these would be the next best thing besides a surface mount as far as noise go. Plan on using them again when I rebuild my phono section.

Brad
Hi Raul,
I use the IRC R55 series (1/4 watt) in my phono stage with excellent results. They outperform the Caddocks I've tries. I plug in resistors for gain and load. The IRC are very clean and neutral. The 0.1% tolerance makes them easy to try different values as you don't have to buy batches and match them. I used to use the Vishay 102 series. I like the IRC more. The Caddocks I tried were MK or MP series. I also tried some tantalum (Audio Note?) that sound very nice, but seemed romantic rather than neutral.
Regards,
Thaks to both of you. Now seems to me that's time for IRC tests.

Vishay and Caddock are neutral resistors ( if both have its own signature as almost any electric/noc part. ) but if IRC outperform both then this say a lot and in the other side has lower price than the Caddock and Vishay 102 not say the nude version.

Thank you again.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
My experience doesn't say they will outperform, just haven't done a comparison. If you try them let us know.

Brad
I have not personally tried IRC resistors, but someone whose judgment I trust reports that IRC Tantalum Nitride SMD resistors are the best that he has heard. From the IRC data sheets and web site product info it is unclear if the RC55 uses this substrate.
This may have been said already.
IMO, Vishay nudes handily outperform the S102s.
Best sounding Caddock are the TF020 series with MK second, would use TF for phono load but not MK.
I also like Audio Note tantalum very much and would like to try these IRCs, if they are indeed tants.
I think this issue is more important for MCs, where one is likely to be using low value resistors to load down the cartridge.
Dear Lewm: I don't know why that " noise " about tantalum. I know that Audio Note use it in their electronics but I have to say that Audio Note has a colored signature performance.

I prefer the MK over the TF and of course the nude ones. I'm looking for dead neutral resistors/non-signature ones. Reading throught the TTI site ( the IRC manufacturer. ) seems to me that at least their resistors are very well made.

Now, Ecir38 report an improvement using in a step attenuator and fleib likes over S-102 and Caddock.

Other " advantage " is that from all these is the one with the lower price what's a good additional factor.

I'm using MK to load cartridges but I'm seriously thinking to use the IRC in my step attenuators, right now I'm using holco and resista and I don't want to invest on the Cadocks if the IRC are at almost the same level or even better.

Maybe if I try on cartridge loading then I can decide but many times the same resistor performs a little different through a different application.

What do you think?, any of you: I need advise on the whole subject and appreciated.

Passive parts has almost no rules, let me explain: I try it almost any single premium capacitor in my speaker crossover: from Hovland to Duelund passing for V-caps/Mundorf/Jensen/Jupiter and even Audio Note and no one of them ( the more expensive like the Duelund's. ) give me the neutral level I'm looking for till I found out Sonicaps: dead neutral so dead-neutral that there are people that hate it and say are liveless: well I don't want a " live " cap but a dead one that let pass the signal with out add nothing.

In the same application I try it too almost any resistor out there from mills to Caddock or Kiwame and I was reluctant to try the Duelund ones not only because its high price but because my bad experience with the Duelund caps but I have to test it and I bought it and in the last two days these resistors are the new guest in my speakers, what can I say?: dead-neutral no signature I can detect, very good surprise I have to say and worth its price if any one are looking for neutrality. Unfortunately there is no Duelund's for other aplications but speaker crossover: they were designed on purpose for.

I will wait for any of you advise.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Raul, It is possible that one would have different preferences for resistors used in tube circuits vs resistors used in transistor circuits, because one is high voltge and the other low voltage, as a rule. Since you and I operate respectively in those two different worlds, it is not surprising we might have different preferences. Believe me, in tube circuits the Caddock TF020 is more neutral, more "not there", than are the MK types. It's very easy to hear, and perhaps Dave Garretson will jump in here and support me on this. The TF020 is limited only in that it only comes in 1/3W rating. I think the absolutely most neutral resistors are the TX2575 nude Vishays. The AN tantalum resistors may or may not have a slight coloration, but it is entirely a euphonic one, and sometimes I like to stick them in here and there. If the cartridge tends to be a little "cold" sounding, the tants can add life without making everything mushy. (Please don't tell me that I "like" distortion; I can't take it.)
Hi Raul,

"Dear Dgob: Maybe is time that you give a in-deep listening test to the Neumann option."

Firstly, apologies for my tardiness in responding. I have been away and am still attempting to catch up on my most important correspondence. In response, I have now flicked the switch in my Essential and tried it with the Neumann correction option turned on.

Yes, it does improve the sound by giving a more integrated presentation. I suppose the most obvious cliched analogy for the change I hear is that of having a layer of dust wiped off your glasses. Everything sounds clearer and detail across the frequency range is more firmly linked together. That would mean that the strike of a bell, its midrange tone and high range ringing all occur in closer proximity to each other and make the image and sound firmer/clearer (what I think you referred to as 'integrated').

I therefore strongly share your view that I would not now live without this option. Definitely worth a try by anyone with that option.

Thanks

As always...
Hi Raul,

Just one quick question on the Neumann correction option. Does the apparent integration of the frequency range suggest that additional/connecting detail is being provided here or is there some other explanation for the increased clarity and focus?

As always...
I realize that this is not close to news for this thread - but recently got around to trying several Shures at higher input impedances and am very impressed.Have used V-15-V/JICO SAS in Rega RB-600 at 100kOhm/200pF with truly excellent results.Tried stock new M-97xE in Technics SL-1200 at 100kOhm/275pF and found it sounded a little too bright - dropped to 73kOhm and was very happy with the result -everything that was nice about this cart to begin with at 50kOhm is still there - but much better detail in things like cymbal shots and brushes and even some electric guitar rifts- but not the least bit hard or harsh. Ultra 500/JICO SAS for some reason I seem to prefer this at 73 kOhm in the Technics arm - perhaps because of slightly higher capacitance in my SL-1200's cable ( not stock Technics arm cable) ?
I'm comin late to this parade - but am very glad I tried the higher input impedance with MM idea - it's a keeper!
Lewm, after several comparisons of these resistors in analog and digital sections of SS CDP, tube preamp, and tube amp, I accord with your top-down ranking of TX2575, TF020, and MK132. On a price-adjusted basis TF020 shines and is less fragile to install than TX2575. The MK132 is warmer and less revealing than the others. I currently have TX2575 on order for comparison to TF020 in a volume control-- which should be as revealing a test as the phono load application.

The IRC TaNtFilm PFC-series SMDs look interesting. To minimize wiring and connector interfaces, perhaps these could be soldered directly to the pins of a dip switch array, in turn soldered directly to inputs inside of phono stage.

Raul, the Duelund graphite resistor is indeed superlative in crossover-- clearly surpassing Mills and cryoed Caddock MP power resistors IME. Even at current steep price of 25 simoleons the Duelund resistor is good value relative to the improvement in performance.
I have read elsewhere, on DIYaudio I think, that the Dueland resistors are naught but lead pencils dressed up to sell for a lot of money. It might be interesting to try to make some resistors using pencil lead.
Dear Lewm/Dgarretson: I use the Vishay nude all over my Phonolinepreamp most critical stages. Fore some unknow reasons the TF's does not works for me as good as the MK series.

Now, I want to test other resistors on my balanced two attenuators ( 80+ resistors. ) and the nude ones are out of question$$$ ( for now. ) and that's why I think on the IRC that Ecir38 are using in his design. I can't make a mistake because I have to un-solder and solder again all those resistors and this is a " heavy " task. I was almost decided for the MK's but when I read on those IRC I'm in serious doubt about.

What do you think?, I'm asking for some help here. Yes, I could try the IRC on cartridge loading and see what happen and decide after this.

Btw, the Duelund resistors at least have the size and shape of a pencil and I don't care about but its neutrality.

Today my speaker crossover are in reality three separate crossovers each one wired directly from the amps and hard-wired.
The tweeter and woofer ones have the silver inductors and a cap ( second order shape. ) and is with the midrange crossover where additonal to the silver inductors/caps are two resistors ( one for each filter. ) and here is where the Duelunds are.

Regrads and enjoy the music,
Raul.