Who needs a MM cartridge type when we have MC?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

we need a decent TT and decent tonearm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
rauliruegas
Dear Lew, I would never dream to accuse you of any narow
minded thougts. You are a critical mind but never with some hidden agenda. I don't need to repeat my admiration for your mind and conduct. But I actually don't care who wrote what but try to compare statments made and their logical connections. If I think that I discovered something that make no sense I will write about that. My post is of course also public so anyone who has whatever remarks about my post is free to criticize my statements or opinion.
I preased Raul by many occasions but also questioned some of his statements in particular about him self. I deed this also about some of your statements. I never got the impression that you are angry about that. I also think that your comparison between Orsonic and Arche is not logicaly correct because 'look alike' is not the same as
'the same ' in logic which means identical.

Regards,
Dear thuchan,

Welcome back, mr. popular industrial psychologist and business consultant.

Thuchan, I believe that when you are giving advice to your clients; maybe some that have similar missteps such as, dertonarm, you tell them something like this:

'it is important that your verbals and non-verbals are in complete alignment."

So, while these verbals of dertonarm are not in alignment, it is not useful for us to listen to your marketing hype around archies from such a dishonest toolster. There is a history, Thuchan, you maybe closely aware of this history, where these infamous fellows from bavaria were allowed to create their own reality at the expense of many others. It is better to have these dishonest practices cleansed in the "light of the day."

As you now, there is a price for silence when staying comfortably ensconced while others are removed of their resources. Thuchan, "why are you still so comfortable with your dertonearm toys and still have a tendancy give this false hope of hype, why"

So, please here, we are ready to hear of solutions from those designers that can bring magic from the caldron; however, not from this bavarian imposter and his minions.

Thuchan, release yourSelf from that one boy d. It is okay, you could buy the original transducers instead of these replicas. Really, it is okay.

Good, now finished, let us now continue to discuss real and honest solutions!

Fun Mostly,

Stitch.e
Stiche,
you are repeating yourself. we all have past your permanent self-blocked situation and it is worthless argumenting with you as you are obviously running on a different track than most of us. Pls. don't bother us with your emotional attempts against group members anymore and stay away from exchange on opinions about issues you seem to have no interest to deal or experiment with. Go and drive your vendetta somewhere else. you will find people who will follow you but not here - sorry!
Hello Lewm,

Maybe you could watch out for this collapsing archie.

When thinking of dertonarm's past, it can be unfortunate to not be aware of his and axinia schaefer's past misdeeds.

Please see:

www.audiobanter

Please dertonarm, a.k.a. kasugi, axinia schaefer and acoustical-systems, please tell us much more about your business self, okay.

So, these dertonarm fan-boys, go away now and do not continue trolling to create more problems for others.

Please leave this thread alone and take your bag of phoney tricks with you, thank you.

dertonarm, make your years of refunds; thuchan, make your good and valuable business consulting advice available to dertonarm, reminding him to promptly clean up all of his misdeeds, instead of looking to create more problems.

Fun Mostly,

Stitch.e
Dear Nikola, I am afraid it was I who promulgated the Orsonic/Arche analogy. On the Arche thread I stated that I had been offered the opportunity to be an "early adopter", but I held off purchase of the Arche, because others on this thread, including Raul, had expressed a dislike for the Orsonic. The physical resemblance between the Orsonic and the Arche is undeniable, and I already knew that Dertonearm was an Orsonic advocate. So it did not surprise me to see that his headshell is, shall we say, influenced by the Orsonic design. This fact did not and does not put me off the Arche permanently; it merely made me want to audition my Orsonic headshell prior to making a purchasing decision, on the premise that if I like the Orsonic, I might like the Arche much more. I hope that seems reasonable to you. In the meantime, I have received assurances from DT that beyond the physical resemblance between the two headshells, they have nothing else in common.
My feelings about the sound of the Acutex 420 have not changed. I find it to be a very realistically alive sounding cartridge, and refreshing in it's unwillingness to sound "pleasant" at all times. I have never listened to any other Acutex cartridge, but based on some of the comments of some it's obvious that I should.

It is my firm belief that audiophiles, in their quest for "refinement" in the sound of their setups, sometimes "miss the forest for the trees". Tonal subtleties are usually given much more weight and introspection than dynamic subtleties in the priorities hierarchy. Very seldom is the subject of dynamics discussed with the same type of fine detail and insight as is the subject of tonality. I believe that this is the result of insufficient or limited exposure to the sound of live music. I am reminded of a discussion in the Single Malt Scotch thread where I made the comment that the Macallan 18 yr old Scotch was superior to the 25 yr old. The 25 yr old is incredibly smooth (for a Scotch) and "refined", while the 18 yr old improves on the 12 yr old's roughness, while retaining the characteristic earthiness that I consider to be an intrinsically Scotch trait without being so "refined" that it is reminiscent of a good brandy.

One can't argue with personal priorities or taste; it is clear that these differ from listener to listener. But I find it interesting and actually very telling that a cartridge like the 420, for me, gives me more of that wonderful "coiled spring, ready to bounce" quality that live music has in spades, ability to play tunes in the bass, as well as the ability to sound gritty when appropriate, than cartridges that very recently were considered to be at the top-of-the-heap (ATML170OCC, Azden, Empire 4000). Please don't misunderstand, I have no interest in playing "the best" games; there are too many variables, and these are all good cartridges which push various and different "reality buttons" for me. The 420 pushes more of the right buttons for me than a lot of the others. And for $100? Cmon, you guys!
Dear Timeltel: +++++ " are much improved through a mount fabricated of wood. Easier said than done, it is a convincing demonstration of the resonances contributed by the supplied mount. A Shure M75ED T2 is also residing in a cocobolo mount. Tonal balance remains and neutrality is improved. " +++++

IMHO in analog item build material is the KEY. As you I own not only 15+ tonearms, 10 TTs, 150+ cartridges and around 80 headshells.

I collect nothing, the purpose is to find out the best road to be " THERE " ( where only " the eagles achieve it ". ).

Through the years and trough several a lot of tests/experiences my self opinions on different audio subjects ( analog ) were changing " dramatically " and was through all those experiences that today I'm almost totally sure about that cartridge body direct contact build material with the headshell/tonearm and from the LP with the TT platter/mat.

We found out a propietary blend build material that IMHO is today the only real solution for the tonearm/headshell/TT platter and mats and we found out almost at random.

Now, I tested several cartridges ( MM/MI/MC ) through regular tonearms with different headshells: Technics, ATs ( 12 different!!! ), Grace, Ortofon, FR, Nagaoka, SAEC ( ceramic and metal blend. ), wood ones, wood and metal blend, Lustre, SME, etc, etc.
As we all know same cartridge same tonearm with different headshell sound different. Well in all those tests the best cartridge performance was achieved through our headshell blend material and if I tell you how was and is mounted this headshell in those different tonearms you can't believe its greatness:

because I want only to test that blend headshell build material to really now if I could consider it and proclaim it as a " universal " one ( the best for any cartridge/tonearm. ) I don't build or buy the collar at the end of the headshell to mount and secure it to the tonearm, so how I mount this headshell to the tonearm?: PLUG-IN!, unveliable it works and works great with an additional advantage: that because is a plug-in device is extremly easy to change Azymuth!

From some years now some analog items were designed with blended build materials trying to achieve what I fortunatelly already achived, take a look to the " best " today tonearms and TTs. There is the " key ". Nothing IMHO is more important to achieve excellence on qualiuty performance level.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Raul, Your strategy with the 'look alike' argument between the Orsonic and Arche by which your opinion that Orsonic is a worthless p.of.s. is quasi logicaly transfered or connected to Arche was obviously not very succesful. Besides you stated over and over again that you will never comment on any component without your own tests , experience or whatever with the involved component. How long do you own and tested the Arche? Now you abviously want to try a different strategy with your own 'humble' opinion reg. the conditions which an headshell needs to satisfy in order to satisfy Raul's demands. Why should anybody care about such 'arguments'?Then there is a simple question: why do you own so many headshells?

Regards,
Seriously, I didn't expect this monster will grow larger than Wires + Tubes vs. SS + any Best for Money all together!
Regards, Raul: "In the mean time have fun." Yes, that's important. I hope none took my "project" seriously, it seemed there was more "heat" than "light" in recent communications here, & my foolishness served to "lighten" things up .

BTW, it should be mentioned that the Acutex 4XX carts are much improved through a mount fabricated of wood. Easier said than done, it is a convincing demonstration of the resonances contributed by the supplied mount. A Shure M75ED T2 is also residing in a cocobolo mount. Tonal balance remains and neutrality is improved. My listener involvement has, however, diminished. It's just not quite as engaging.

Excluding the superb Shure ML140 HE, it seems I'm one of Dgarretson's "long nose" listeners ---but then the ML140 DOES have a prominent proboscis---

Peace,
Dear Timeltel and friends: HEADSHELLS, IMHO the main/primary target headshell design is to help the cartridge to dissipate/disappear any resonances there and reject any tonearm resonance feedback along a secure and precise way to hold the cartridge and permit overhang set up.

All the other " functions " IMHO are design targets in the tonearm: VTA/SRA/VTF/AZ.

IMHO the most important headshell characteristics is not which kind of facilities can gives but its build material that can fulfill that " main target ". I don't care about a headshell facilities ( even if those facilities are in reality the tonearm target. If the tonearm has a wrong design and has not those facilities that's because a wrong/bad design but not an after market headshell " obligation ". ) but that its build material be " the one " need it to fulfill that main target.

In this regard till today no headshell design and especialy the metal ones can or could fulfill that target: no exception here.

This is my same position/opinion about turntables ( any ), I posted several times that the most important target is not which kind of drive in the design or facilities but TT BUILD MATERIALS especialy the TT MAT ( or the TT PLATTER SURFACE IF THERE IS NO MAT. Btw, I coincide with this same opinion with Atmasphere Agon contributor. ) that's in direct LP surface contact. Same for the tonearms.

We discovery one of those " magic " materials that I use in our self MAT design, headshell and tonearm design. Sooner or latter all of you will be aware what is. In the mean time have fun.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lewm,
yes, it is a ceramic one made of sintered oxidized aluminium. I have two of this kind I am using with my SAEC WE-8000, of course they look different because of the ankle coming with for the straight tonearm. They are made of the same material. And they do sound fabulous. My samples are without ground connect cable. I have no experience with the ceramic platter.
SAEC is besides of Micro Seiki and WAVAC one of my favourite Japanese Audio Companies.
Dear Thuchan, Is that the ceramic headshell supplied by SAEC? If so, I have second-hand information that it is not so good (meaning I have never heard it myself, but I do trust my source).
Kenwood offered an optional ceramic platter mat for the L07D; I have also heard rumors from the few that own one that the mat sounds terrible. Maybe ceramic is not so good for audio, except in certain bearings.
 
Dear Nandric,
the headshell issue is a very important one as is a good lead wire and good contact. I experimented with quite a variety of headshells for MM, MMI and MC carts. The material had a range from different sorts of wood (with or without laquer), mixed materials, ceramic, titanium, aluminium, magnesium etc. I had reasonable priced samples and also very very expensive ones. We exchanged some ideas on Henry's thread and here already. I now discovered a SAEC ULS-3X headshell coming with an integrated grounding cable. Does anybody have experience with this kind of headshell configuration? Any advantages?
 
Censorship is a widely discussed phaenomen. I regard myself as being more on the liberal side allowing quite some freedom and tolerance for different opinions and ways how to achieve good results, also in audio. Thank god we live in a democracy but when it comes to extreme positions resulting in crusades or vendettas against certain personalities or philosophies I think censorship can have a certain function, on some forums it is necessary. Hopefully it will be implemented in a wise way not targeting in the first line against the more flexible and critical members rather than the product or "one church only" followers. I believe that a forum management supporting a relation approach at the end of the day will not attract a wide and international society anymore.
I am optimistic!
 
Now, I'm not saying that the LPM420 is " unlistenable ", no but we are comparing it against cartridges that belongs to the very top qualite performance " land ". If we don't have in hand this kind of performance level I think any one of us could live with the 420 " for ever ".

R.
Dear Lewm/D/friends: I have similar experiences that Dgarretson and till today the Acutex " champ " seems to me is the M320 but the LPM315 and 320 are not far away from it both really good where the LPM320 is a little more refined than the 315 and near the M320 performance level.

No, IMHO an even all those Frogman experiences the 420 is far away from any of those Acutex ( it is more on the " hi-fi" side. ) because as Dgarretson pointed out these ones have all what the 420 shows and more lot more. I think something is " wrong " with the 420 motor because one gentleman here re-tipped through Axel and things even that improve a little can't match the LPM 300 series.

Something that did not happened to me when I send to VDH to re-tip my LPM 315 that IMHO surpass the stock LPM320.

Lewm is right to me the M320 has a more solid cartridge body and better " conextion " between the stylus/cantilever assembly and the cartridge body, obviously that to glue the LPM assembly will improve its performance level.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
There is a bewildering variation in materials used for the cart body: plastic, composits, wood, aluminum, steel,stones, titanium,etc. There are even nacked carts with just a plate for the headshell. The polite or kind persons call this 'tuning' , the educated 'trial&error',
the critical 'a mess'. Anyway, with some exceptions, there is obviously no theoretical fundation for the 'set of all sets of carts'. So some of us like Professor and Henry try
to cure this situation by a multitude of headshells and even by construction of their own exotic headdshell with a less exotic names like Veronica. A name very well known in
Holland as a radio broadcast. Because the Arche thread is closed (some of our members has some influnce by the censorship authority) and I am not sure if my P&R for D
was sufficient to get this 'wonder' for free I need to underline that Arche IS (probable) the only cure for all deficiencies of 'the set of all sets of carts'.

Regards,
I and all my friends preferred Veronica. Archie was a shmuck.
Timel, bluetack is all I've come up with so far. But I fear it would add too much mass to the cartridge body. "Self-adhesive drawer bumpers"; does McMaster-Carr sell those?

Is it true that Veronica and Betty went on to invent "Post-its"?
Regards: IMHO Lew is on the right track, anyone tried something as simple as blue tack or self-adhesive drawer bumpers placed in strategic locations? Wood mount is an easily heard improvement.

Still seeking investors for headshell. Prefer unmarked U.S. $. Considered labeling it "Betty" or "Jughead", prefer the classier "Veronica".

Peace,
Kidding aside, I for one, would be interested in your idea's on improving the structural integrity of the Acutex cartridges.
Exactly!!! You got it. Plus pixie dust.
Actually, it's probably easier and smarter to buy an M series Acutex rather than to mess with the LPM.
I think (note: "think") that the major difference between LPM and M that could account for the difference in sonics (unless they have very different engines, which is not the case as far as I know) is structural rigidity. The M structure may better stabilize the cantilever assembly and may also dissipate energy into the headshell more efficiently than the LPM one. I have ideas how one might reinforce the LPM structure between stylus tip and headshell.
Lew, my only info on point is a Trans-Fi friend who compared M420, M415 and LPM312 to a recently acquired NIB M320III STR. (I have compared all of these except for the LPM.) He felt that the M320III STR clearly surpassed the others, as well as all other cartridges in his experience including London Decca Reference. For both of us the M4XX series revealed a minor but stubborn sibilance that the M320III STR avoids. He found that sibilance is less of an issue with LPM312 than with M4XX. FYI, he mentioned that the Slovenian who is selling a Stanton collector's edition cartridge on Agon may have a few more NIB examples of M320III STR.
Dave, Where does that place the LPM320STRIII, a long-noser of the 320 series? That's the only Acutex with which I am familiar. I own a used M312 (flat nose 3XX series) in unknown condition and have had thoughts of upgrading its stylus assembly, and my LPM420 is still a virgin. Do you go right along with Raul in stating that M3XX series (flat nose) is superior to LPM3XX (long nose) series?
Addendum, My reference to the 'set-theoretic' kind may need some illustration. One would not expect, it seems, acid loaded comments between mathematicians. My math. carer started very early and was caused by different interpretation of the identity relationship with my theacher. I stated that to me '2+2' does not look alike
as '4' . My theacher's comment was: 'Nandric that is beacause you are an imbecile'. Many years later when I learned about Frege I got the answer: '2+2' has different
sense as '4' but the same reference as '4'. Ie both are refering to, uh, the same thing or number. Speaking about Frege. He belonged together with Russell to the same 'group' while this group wanted to base mathematics on logic . This kind of fundation of math. was not appreciated by some other mathematicians so , for example, Poincare's comment was loaded with acid:'My gosh I thought that this logical programme was totaly sterile but I was wrong. It give birth to many paradoxes'. Well this was the birth of the so called 'set-theoretic paradoxes'.

Regards,
As one in the 'linear group' whose 'set' also includes both Acutex 420STR and 320III STR, I propose a further set division between flat- and long-nose cartridges. Through this distinction one also finds a useful simile to describe certain posters. Preferring 320III STR to 420STR, I am a flat noser-- perhaps with a linear flat nose.

On the other hand, to be in the long nose set one need not experience the 420STR-- there are many in the general set of audiophiles with very long noses, often easily recognized by others if not themselves.

Lew, having compared both cartridges on a linear arm, I would agree that the 420STR does some things that neither the 320III STR nor other top MM/MI that I've experienced quite match. As has been noted, it is extraordinarily vivid with lots of jump and boogie-factor. It does a great job of conveying the dynamics and flow of music. Also, to paraphrase Frogman, it is very direct, not pretty or kind, and as a pro musician he notes that much music is not pretty or kind. However, by comparison, the 320III STR has most all of these qualities and is cleaner and less coarse. Its quieter calmer background is much better at revealing depth and subtleties. This is suggestive that the 420's virtues are affectations. However, among all the MM/MIs the 420STR 'alternative' should certainly be experienced, as it is in the small company of cartridges that can tighten your wig.
Diatribes are caused, according to me, in the same way as the set-theoretic kind. 'Set', 'group', 'class',etc. are , to use Lew's explanation for the 'plinth versus base' diatribe, synonym. The confusion is mostly caused by misunderstanding. The set
or group may be to large or not clearly define . Syntax even thinks that belonging to an
group is a matter of choice. If this were so I want to belong to the class, set, group... of the reach.
Now Lew's own confusion about the Acutex 420 is caused by not discriminating between the 'linear groep' versus the other kinds of tonearms 'group'. That is to say if you own the 420 you can enjoy this cart but under proviso that you also own or buy the ET-2 arm.

Regards,
Dear Mr Stitche,
Maybe you ask Unoear selling you one sample. I heard since a short time he is running parallel. He is not really distant from your home. You forgot mentioning your relation to your Bavarian friend. Maybe he can give you some more other advices.
Diatribes are bad enough, but these vitriolic diatribes are simply too much. Let's stick to diatribes and cut the vitriole.

On another thread was written, "the 420STR does/did for me what no other cartridge, MM or MC, has ever done" (or words to that effect). This is high praise indeed and places the author of this thought in a distinct minority, so far as I can tell. Could it be therefore that the 420STR is one of those great cartridges that elicits strong apposite views, like some of the van den Huls or the Ortofon A90?
Dear Mr. t,

Thank you for the cartridge advice; however, I heard that this archie has collapsed. I wonder if, maybe, it fell in on the designer.

I noticed that Raul did get in the last note.

Dear Nandric,

No, I am not a member of that bavarian group, neither am I a groupie.

I will take a look at this "black beauty," and let you know. I do not know about a visit, I am afraid that I would be overwhelmed with your armani collection, ha!

Fun Mostly,

Stitch.e
Regards, all: All this discussion of exotic headshells has given me inspiration. I intend to head for the shop and lash together a double-wishbone suspended design, gyroscopically stabilized and with a "smart fluid" sensor controlled hydraulic adaptability to compensate for warps and off-center Lps. A patch of exquisite wood from a particularly endangered species, some gold plating for the required "bling" factor.

680gm, a perfect match for any tonearm. You've never heard your carts sound like this!. Drop this baby on your favorite Lp & observe with amazement as your tonearm demonstrates no eccentric movement. As a matter of fact it won't move at all! Eliminate skipping! Create your own grooves! Resurface your vinyl!

Availability to be announced. Sometime soon. Investor opportunity!

Peace, ;)
Dear Dover, My gosh what an dramatic use of languag: 'the
vitriolic diatribe'. We got at last the best scenario thinkable
where Germans are fighting each other and you
need to spoil the 'game' by some hazy moral remarks. I don't believe
that Darwin would agree. Besides no other shelter for the Mexican.
His learning curve has no other place for further climb.

Regards,
Hi Stiche, You can get the priviledge to be the first from
the 'German group' to buy something from me ( the applicant
for the group) . The 'treasure' is listed on A'gon market as
the 'black beauty' (aka Virtuoso black);
offered with unusual (no risk) conditions. I live 'next
door' by way of speaking so if you are not satisfy or angry
you can pay me a visit for cheap.

Regards,
Fine Stitch,
I have good experience with the AT155LC in a SAEC shell. I also tried it in the Arche, which showed astonishing results. So whatever you heard about the basic principles of matching MMs in special headshells with the FR-66s forget the most. Try it by yourself and maybe you buy an Arche headshell being now able for the first time to change the SRA by the headshell.
Okay, Mr. t.;

I am looking for MM cartridge suggestions for a FR-66s tonearm; you know this one as the "king of tonearms." I have no experience with MM cartridges.

I received some nice suggestions a couple of days ago from these fine guys, Halco and Nandric; Mr.t, do you have any other suggestions?

Are you familiar with the Garrott brothers cartridges? I believe that they were designers from Austrialia.

Fun Mostly,

Stitch.e
Stitche,
could you stop please telling names and identities all the time, wherever you start appearing in the last days only. I regard this a not very ethical approach from your side. When we were writing and exchanging on the MM thread since a long time we always used arguments instead offending group members.
Lewm,

No big deal, I did not get the feeling that anyone was jumping down my throat.

And yes when it comes to the technical aspect of analog (or digital for that mater) I am not all that educated but I want to learn all I can. Unfortunately i do not have any close friends who are into HiFi like I am that could teach me the ways of the Force. Also I live in the middle of the country side, no where near any HiFi shops that I could hang out and learn the trade so to speak.

One thing I love about HiFi is the various approaches to solve problems, there usually is not just one way but depending on a bunch of factors there may be multiple ways to skin the cat. And we all should be able to talk about our ways without ruffling the feathers of others.

Everything you said makes logical sense, and now that I have read it, it makes me think of what the Guru told me earlier when I was buying the Pre-amp and questioning him about the Phono Stage.

So we are all cool

Enjoy the Music!
Wow!
And that's all I have to say about that.

Dear Zaphod,
I am sorry if it seems I meant to jump down your throat regarding your statement on the preferences of Japanese audiophiles. In truth, I was just making conversation. I can tell from your response that you may be new to this aspect of the hobby. One reason why designers may "prefer" an MM phono stage is that it is so much easier to build one that is low in noise and distortion. One major advantage of MM cartridges and related types (Moving Iron cartridges, too, usually) is that they generate a much higher output signal voltage than do MC cartridges; typically there is about a 10X difference. Thus the gain of a MM phono stage need not be as great as the gain added by an MC phono stage needs to be. However, you could experiment with low output MC cartridges by using a step-up transformer (SUT) between the tonearm and the MM phono stage. SUTs increase signal voltage while conversely decreasing signal current. (It turns out that MC cartridges are able to generate very decent current.) Thus by trading off current for voltage via the SUT, the MC can be made to drive an MM phono stage. This is why some use a SUT. SUTs are passive devices and so can add none of the distortions associated with gain stages, but SUTs are not a "free lunch", as they can limit bandwidth or lose or distort some very low level musical detail, due to hysterisis. (SUTs are a bone of contention among us audiophiles.) MM cartridges differ from MC cartridges in a few other important ways. Feel free to ask. If you knew all this, sorry to waste your time.
Ditto-

Please Mr. Eller Thuchan,

Follow this kind advice from Raul and Dover; take your handbag and shuffle back to your own thread, Archie. Thank you.

Fun Mostly,

Stitch.e
Thucan - go and wave your handbag somewhere else. We dont want the vitriolic diatribe from the headshell thread invading this thread.
This thread is read by many new audiophiles and is a great reference for MM research.
Raul - ignore everything other than on topic.
Thuchan Please I ask you and appreciate that don't come here to contaminate this thread with that kind of subject.

If you want an answer or any comment please go to the headshell thread where belongs.

>R.
Raul,
you said referring to a "German Group" you never specified although you were asked to list the names you are referring to and this "Virtual Group" you now are fighting against since you do not have the chance anymore to fight against Dertonearm:

"Is Thuchan/Eckart a member of that dishonest/criminal group?, please4 read here:

other that still promoting and the like I remember ( I have every single post from this group. ) that years ago when for the first time we talked on this german group he posted immediatly that he was not a member's group and he posted that with indignation ( that I can see already lossed. )."

Raul, you put a question but you may know what you are doing by putting such a question? By doing so you want criminalizing me as a person bringing me in relation with Dertonearm's business and his action.

Are you so naive not realizing what this kind of behavior shows of your real personality?

Raul, I am sorry but let me put in clear words you have a very narrow idea of how the world is working. People like you will create their own church and will believe they are not to be blamed when they start a vendetta against audiogoners. If Audiogon will allow this kind of "hanging the guys" by false and untrue accusations like you did with me this will be the end of a fair and neutral platform.
Let med stress that I prefer MM over MC, but MC can provide very good sound, but not at the autenthic level of the best MM's
Please let me clarify, I have no proof that the Japanese prefer MM cartridges over MC cartridges.
I was just pointing out that I was told that there is a group of "people" or "designers" that prefer a MM phono stage over a MC phono stage and that is why this Pre-Amp only came with a MM phono stage.

I was giving a complicated reason why MM phono stage was preferred, but as I said before, I cannot remember enough of it to even try and explain.

I do remember something about people still using MC cartridges with a MM phono stage and some kind of "step up transformer" to make it all work.

I hope this helps clarify things.
I use a MM cartridge because my phono stage is MM, but I guess one day I can try a MC with the correct specs like one of the Dynavectors. Or maybe even get a transformer to utilize a different MC cartridge and then I can see for my self which is better. But so far my MM is working just fine for my ears.
I am so old that I can remember the 'revolution' from the 80s while I got my first Supex in 82. Since then the prices of the MC carts were continiously increased with totally crazy prices at present (+ 10 K). If the Japanese really prefer the MM carts the logical consequence should be the decline in the demand for the MC carts with complement reduction in prices. I have not seen yet this 'contra-revolution'. Except the 'little one' in the MM thread.