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
Hello Raul if I understand you are saying having a vintage cartridge retipped will be better sound wise than original. Mike
Regards, Ct0517: Hi, Chris. How much better is the 320? Raul was being diplomatic when he said, IIRC, "A hair", but this depends on what you're listening for and that's a whole discussion in itself. The 320 offers excellent clarity in the hfs, mids not quite so forward and bass transitions are nicely punctuated but delivers less of recorded resonances. Harmonics are not as effectively displayed and transitions don't have quite the same snap. Depending on perspective, when both carts are working at optimal the 320 is either more refined or less aggressive. Raul would, I suspect, describe it differently and he has been very gracious.

Not much has been said about the 312/412, these will require the same careful set-up as their "big brothers", those who thought to order the 412 are in for a pleasant surprise, they both compare (IMHO) favorably.

The 315 is best described in Raul's review and his recent comments. For me, the most interesting of the Acutex carts and is the one in the series that I can listen to for extended periods without listener's fatigue. The bass is something special. I was disappointed with the 415 but was eager to move on to the next in line so there is a real possibility it was not spun long enough and needs to be revisited. Hopefully someone who recieved a 415 will find good things to say and I'll be inspired to work harder on it.

In tweaking the latest Acutex I too spent two days aligning it. The day I started and the one on which I finally nailed it. The other day in-between, that we can ignore?

Peace,

My Acutex 420 is a little on the warm side compared to some of my other supposedly better models. It wasn't hard for me to align using my MintLp protractor. I can listen and enjoy music with the 420 just as easy as I can with my Raul approved top rated models. It may even become my favorite model because I am not looking for perfection just models that let me get lost in the music, and the emotional impact of music. I don't care about utmost accuracy or tiny details a cartridge may miss. I guess it means I have system and or ear problems, so what.

A big thanks to Danny for letting us know about the Acutex cartridges availability!
Dear Lew, I have no idea what 'refreshing' of an cart means
but have pretty good idea about the questions how the styli/ cantilevers are made (see my post about Gyger) as well what is involved by a retip. The Dutch retip service explains what they do and at what price. When you look at
the construction of an MM and MC cart you can see first and
then imagine what is involved by exchanging the, say, rubber ring (aka suspension). Easely done by a MM cart stylus but by the MC cart the rubber ring is behind the bobbin with the coils which means that one need to remove the bobbin first with the 4 wire for the connectors. Not so easely done and very time consuming which means added
repair cost. For the same reason exchanging the whole cantilever/stylus combo is more easely done than the retip of the stylus only.

Regards,
Thanks, Nandric. Also, to Raul, I apologize for being a bit aggressive re the bit about "today standards". Since most of my vintage cartridges are NOS, even though they were "New" about 3 decades ago, I would think I have little to gain with a re-tip per se, and to change the cantilever would be to change completely the flavor of the cartridge, which could be good or bad. In fact, I would rather keep my "tip" and just have the suspension rejuvenated, but I imagine that most repair services would not be willing to focus on that one job. In my previous post, I was alluding to the fact that the scuttlebutt around getting things to and from vdH from the USA is that it is very expensive and difficult due to some deficiency of the US distributor. (I have no direct experience, so I apologize in advance if this criticism is unjust.) Other options for those of us in the US would of course include SoundSmith (also known to take forever to do work, but at least I can drive to their facility, push comes to shove, and Peter Ledermann is a lovely man who is easy to talk to) or Expert Stylus Repair in the UK or the mysterious "Axel". Does Axel take work direct from US customers?
Hi,

When someone does not agree with you and yet you still believe you are right, you can show the good grace of letting their mistake stand.

Some interesting views on the 420 and some consensus. It clearly satisfies many and that is a great thing.

As always
Lewm i thought it was me for not being able to find info on Axel. So he is mysterious.

Im in the same boat as you all of mine are NOS and i cant speak on any in my corral but Empire 4000d3 gold and silver. And for now would not let ether out of my sight for anything but making sweet music.

Travbrow getting lost in the music is well put and when your there pure enjoyment of sound and dimension is the only reason i have been such an avid audiophile/music lover all these years. Not many things in life can compare with being in that place on my end. Mike
Dear Lew, You actually answered all of your own questions by reasoning. If you really need a retip I can recommend Axel. I alrady mentioned this 19% tax in Europe and asked Axel if the foreingners need to pay this tax. His answer was: no.
So you can also deduce from this answer that you can post
your cart to him. However there are quality differences in
styli and cantilevers. Ie you should first ask what he has
to offer before posting your cart. His English is very good
and there is nothing 'mysterious' about him. I am skeptical about a retip of an MM cart because of the cost. Ie searching for a spare stylus is a better alternative. But for your Koetsu and other MC carts you will need the best quality styli and of course you should consult Axel before.

Regards,

Lewm scratch that on Axel hes not mysterious Raul has his link above in a post to me i some how missed dah. Mike
Lew

"Does Axel take work direct from US customers?"

Well he takes work from Canadians :^)

I am very anxious to tell you guys a true story that is in progress for me but I need to be patience to see how the story ends. Lets just say I am waiting anxiously for a Christmas present from Germany. What do you think Nicola ?

Dear Professor - thank you for the wonderful clarification on the 420. yes two days elapsed time. 5 minutes to set up on the tonearm jig. 5 minutes the next day to nail it down better. We won't discuss what happened in between.

Cheers
Dear Chris, To be honest I was very skeptical about the repair of your Dyna because the coils were also damaged. But if Alex thought that your cart is irepairable he
would told you so already . It is some time ago that you posted the pictures of this cart to me but I have no recollection when you posted the cart to Alex. Anyway I hope for you that he will succeed. It may be a kind of professional chalenge for him.

Regards,
Oh what the hell its my fault for bringing it up, but you guys kept talking about Axle and retipping I couldn’t hold back any longer. I let the cat out of the bag - and I keep telling my wife that she cant keep a secret.

Mike and others my retippng 2 cents worth FWIW - hope this helps.
Virtuoso for 8 years - regular retip by SS - about 1.5 years ago - phenomenal sound better than stock - excellent work - long 3 month wait.
Inherited a Benz Micro MC 3 that needed a retip with a TT purchase a few years ago – SS Ruby Retip option - again excellent work - phenomenal sound - long 3 month wait.
Bought a used XV1 years ago - cant remember when. In good shape but will a need a retip down the road.
Suffered a terrible accident 20 feet from the TT. Think Medieval Guillotine.
Sent the XV1 to SS for repair - they were not interested in doing the repair due to suspension damage. Contacted Dyna - they only wanted to sell me a new XV1.
So after chatting with Nicola and hearing stories from Raul and Des I contacted Axle and sent him HI REZ pics.
He replied back that he needed to see it so I sent it to him. I confirmed he received it he said it was repairable. I’m stunned at this point.
I waited a couple of weeks. I was anxious so I inquired – he told me he needed to “fix up the suspension” “he will make it like new” so it would take a little longer.
I am flabbergasted at the calmness in his email response.
He then tells me when he is finished he will send it to me and if its good I can pay him after.
He even recommends the type of cantilever and stylus he should use.
I’m totally stunned and electronically through email speechless at this point – so I muster up a “sure Axle sounds good.”
So I am anxiously waiting for an XV1 that has been rebuilt by Axle. It will no longer be a stock XV1 but I think it will sound (very) good if he can repair it. I am still a little skeptical based on the SS experience and ready for a possible email that he tried but no luck. This is the reason I was trying to hold off mentioning it to you guys.
Will let u know. I can say this man has integrity and my respect. Sorry if my XV1 rebuild is slowing down someones retip.
There - feels good to bear the soul.
cheers
Axel most definitely takes repairs from the US. He speaks English well enough to be of no concern. He was 100% honest and affordable in my experience with him. He fixed a cartridge no one else wanted/was willing to, EPC100mk4. Highly recommended!
HI Timeltel,

++++Because it's so blasted difficult to align++++

I can not agree more!
I have spent most of the day realigning it after spending a few days rotating a few other cartridges thru for comparsion. This is NOT a cartridge for people (I being one of them), that like to rotate frequently. It still is not sounding as good as it did when I took it out 3 days ago. I must have just got lucky before!
As this talk of rettiping gave me an idea if anyone can confirm. Since the stylus body is where the work will be performed and its contents are the diamond, cantilever, suspension and magnet can one just use any old aftermaket stylus body instead of sacrificing a oem one that may still have some life.

an example where they may be a benefit is if the oem had a stylus guard one could use a replacement without a stylus guard.

Brad
Griffithds im trying to understand what your getting at when you state
"I must have just got lucky before"
Does that mean you setup with a alignment gage get the cartridge perfectly aligned then get azimuth by ear or a tool and then tweak those setting slightly if you think there's better sound off of perfect setup.
If you do tweak from a ideal benchmark you the could spend the time to get right on again if sound gets worse. I don't think I like the idea of getting lucky because finding that place again my not ever happen. Mike
Hi Stltrains,

About 1 hr. after posting "I must have just got lucky", I relocated the sweet spot. I have several arm wands for my Graham and should have left the 420 mounted after descovering the sweet spot the last time. I had to make tracking adjustments that were so small that I would swear, I did not make any setup changes at all, but it deffinately did make a noticeable difference when the stylus hit the groove. The window for setup is extremely narrow. If you hear any siliblance, at any time, then you need to continue the hunt. I must add something. I also have a Virtuoso wood. It is so easy to setup when compared to the hassle you will go thru with the 420, I swear, I think you could do it with your eyes close. Man, I wish all cartridges were that easy.

Regards,
Don
Dear Ct0517: Axel is really good. Mab33 and Dgob both cartridge Technics EPC100CMK4 were not took by any other cartridge fix sources as SS or VDH or Expert one and Axel took it and fix it!!

I'm sure you will have that great XV-1 with you prety soon running and enjoyed.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Travbrow: ++++++ " I am not looking for perfection just models that let me get lost in the music, and the emotional impact of music. I don't care about utmost accuracy or tiny details a cartridge may miss. " ++++++

I'm with you on half part. Difference between what you are looking for and what I'm looking for is that I ( like you ) want " to lost in the music with its emotional deep content ( I have to add. ) " and be nearest to perfection cartridge ( or any audio item. ) quality performance level.

Please read what Frogman posted in other tread about that could give you a wider " window ":

+++++ " I reluctantly admit to being a "neutrality apostle". But I am reluctant only because, IMO, the term neutrality is usually misunderstood. In your comment you pair the term neutrality with sonic-footprint. From my vantage point, sonic footprint is, by definition, usually the result of distortions. Neutrality (or however close a component gets to it) is a measure of musicality. In other words, a component that is truly musical IS closer to neutral. "Precision control" allows musicality. " +++++

you can't have/achieve neutrality with out accuracy, such is life and MUSIC.

I don't like distortions even that my ears are not better than yours but only with different training.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
stuff your turkey with the latest:

m320 str

My turkey runneth o'er with MM carts already and at nearly $500 more than the 420, which I bought, I'm out of that game. But if Raul's right, and he's never steered me wrong, surely someone should gobble it up (sorry).

Thx Raul - your words make me feel better. I will not ask for another Christmas present - in 2011 :^) if it comes back to me with a second life.

Banquo - that 320 did not last long - anyone here ?

Cheers
Congratulations Banquo363, Great snag. I am envious.Let us know what you think. I bet you will be pleased.
Acman3 - sorry for the punctuation in my last post. It should read.

Banquo - that 320 did not last long. (in response to his post to us)

Then I was curious so I asked - Anyone here ? separately.

I guess someone believes that cartridge is better than just "a hair" than the 420, if they have been reading here or thats one expensive strand of hair.

Acman3: neither. I was just an unaffiliated messenger. Seemed like something who reads this thread would want, so I passed on the info. Evidently someone wanted it badly.

I am not a cart collector and I have many more than I can use as it is, e.g. I've barely listened to a NOS Shure ml140he that I found 6 months ago. And yet I keep reading this thread with interest. ???
Dear friends: That M320 comes from the same seller that sold one last week for 449.00. This same seller was putting on sale the 420 here and on ebay too.

Suddenly the Acutex cartridges appear in NOS condition: weird for say the least, especialy these M320s.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Hello Banquo363 and Ct0517, Thanks for the clarifications. Sorry for misreading the post.

I also have to many carts but I would have liked to have heard the m320.

The differences of the individual carts are really interesting to me. How these little tranducers can alter the entire sound of a system is addictive.

I need to get rid of a few but they seem to come in much faster than they leave.
Hi Acman3
There must be something going around?

+++"I need to get rid of a few but they seem to come in much faster than they leave."+++

I seem to have the same problem as you. I scored a Garrott Brothers P77 and a Andante P76 last night. The problem is, it's hard to thin out your stash when you like everything you have!
Dear friends: reading the 2012 Stereophile Buyer Guide I found out that it listed 320 different models that handle MM/MC cartridges where 16 has the 100K option and in almost all those 320 models the capacitive loading options are minimal.

Obviously that the " alternative " is the MC one. Even that in the cartridge list we can see there are more MM/MI options than in past years.

I think that the MM/MI alternative could and is a very good one to impulse the analog/LP advocates especialy for new comers. This alternative is a lot less expensive and a good " entry level " for any one.
Many people refuse to try analog because is an expensive option through MC alternative and all what surrounded it. Yes there are unexpensive MC like the 103 but this is an exception.

Anyway, the last " word " is in the audio manufacturers side.

Btw, whom will take that M320?. Probably this seller has more samples.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
That seller already has another one listed so its probable he has even more?

Brad
Hi Timeltel,

Your comment,"After six hours, realigned it from Baerwald to Stevenson overhang," has had me puzzled. Years ago, I use to try every cartridge in both positions and I have never discovered at cartridge I prefered in the Stevenson position. After awhile, I just started to align every cartridge in just the Baerwald position and have continued to do it that way for years.
With the difficulty I have aligning the 420, and thinking about your above quote, I realigned it using the Stevenson. Much improved, not in just ease of setup but overall quality of the presentation. I have been lead to believe that the 2 setup positions only pertain to the inner groove tracking areas. But with the 420, the entire record surface playing area is improved. Last night, I picked 5 different cartridges. Listened to each of them in the Baerwald then the Stevenson position. I prefer the Baerwald on all of the tests.
I do not understand and perhaps with your vast knowledge, explain to me why this is so? What is it about the 420 that has it requiring the Stevenson? Does the unusal stylus shape have something to do with this?
Timeltel,

Analyzing my 5 cartridge test, I realize that they were all(or of some variant of), the eliptical stylus shape. I think tonight, I will retest using Shabata (or some variant of the Shabata stylus), for a result comparision. Perhaps the answer lies in the configuration profile?

Regards,
Don
I am using the Technics EPA 100MKII tonearm with the 420 and my Mintlp protractor was made for the Technics EPA100/500 tonearm factory alignment geometry, very similiar to Stevenson. I have always considered the accuracy of the alignment very important, maybe more important than the geometry chosen. Very interesting, I never considered the idea of different stylus profiles performing better with a specific alignment geometry.
Dear Griffithds: You don't explain in a wide way what you did when pass from Baerwald to Stevenson, I mean that normally when we are choosing for tonearm geometry set up the main and fix " number " we took is the manufacturer tonearm effective length so when we pass from Baerwald to Stevenson and to match in both geometry set ups that manufacturer tonearm effect6ive length we need to change the tonearm bearing position against the TT spindle: that's it that we have to move the tonearm position and not only the overhang/offset-angle.
You can see it here with an example:

http://www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_alignment_calculator.php?mv=&l=e&ev=250&i=i&c1=&o=i&c2=&cal=1&submit=calculate

that's the normal process on that tonearm geometry set-up. Of course that we can do what ever but is important to follow what Löfgren stated about.

Maybe you have to think on that subject and to think that Stevenson always gives you higher tracking distortions but at inner grooves, it does not matters stylus shape. Those old calculations were made all taking in count where the stylus tip will have to stay against the bearing tonearm distance and that's all: well almost because that off-set angle calculation too.

As always the other side on this whole subject is that we can like more this or that geometry set-up but the important thing IMHO is that what we are doing for the set-up is right/according the rules.

Of course too, that what Travbrow pointed out is important: it does not matters which geometry set-up you choosed if the alignment during the set-up is not accurate, as more accurate the better but remember that we belongs to an imperfect way imperfect analog world an even that the set-up could be accurate things when the stylus hit the grooves during playback could change due to LP waves/LP off-center and the like.

In other threads already some of us ( along other contributors. ) discussed in depth the overall subject. You can look for on the forum if you have doubts about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Regards, Griffithds, Travbrow: In the kit here there's a Denneson "Geometric Soundtractor", Baerwald geometry. The Denneson is handy for getting the cart aligned within "ballpark" standards and this is a good starting point, the remainder done by ear.

Cart gently clockwise for IGD, counterclockwise for OGD. Distorion at both extremes, cart towards the pivot (decreases offset angle) & the reverse. This has worked well for me. When finally finished with the Acutex, it was just short of 14mm overhang. Conrad Hoffman's
template generator for Lofgren A alignment (almost Baerwald) calculates IEC overhang for the EPA-250 at 15.487mm and for Stevenson geometry, 13.786mm overhang. Technics compromises at 15mm overhang, square to the headshell.

The cart seemed best (IMHO) on the EPA-250 at just short of 14mm, this alignment/overhang is closer to Stevenson than Baerwald. Hope the above makes sense, somewhat smashed following a recent (minor) oral surgery and the keyboard is looking like a very complicated peice of machinery.

Peace,
Dear Griffithds: Maybe this could help you " support " my post about. You only have to make click on Download:

http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?t=4854

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Hi Raul, Timeltel

After your posts, I have gone back and dug out my Graham tonearm installation manual. I have not looked at it in years. He provides a device that is used to setup the cartridge to the arm wand. You position the arm wand with a loosly fitting cartridge into the device. There is a plastic flip down window that has 2 lines on it. One is identified as position 1 and the other is identified as position 2. I have been refering to them as the Baerwald position and the Stevenson position. I might be wrong in calling the 2nd one the Stevenson. I am going to type a paragraph from my manual. ++++Still keeping the cantilever parallel with the longitudinal track lines, position the stylus tip so that it lines up the the points marke "1" or "2". Position "1" provides for the null points to be at the standard "Seagrave/Baerwald" positions, while "2" is an alternative setting (proposed by Loefgren) which is said to provide improved over-all distortion at the expense of slightly increased peak distortion at the beginning and end of the record. The precision of this alignment system allows the end user to experiment with confidence and accuracy.++++
I assumed the "proposed by Loefgren" position was the Stevenson? Would this assumption be correct? The #2 position does increase the length from the bearing to the stylus tip.
I am finding it has been far eaiser to hit the non signal distorting position (sibilance elimination), using position #2 on my gauge.
Tonight, I have tried 3 shabata type stylus cartridges. The AT20ss, the AT15sa, and the TK/SU with the Akai RS180.I also tried the Ruby3 which is a F/Gyger. I do not have a preference with either setting #1 or #2 using any of the cartridges mentioned.
I have setup the 420, twice tonight using pos.#2 and found the sweet spot easily both times. I then tried setting it up using pos. #1 (Baerwald), and after 3 attempts, gave up. I'm not saying I would not have found the spot eventually, but it is so much eaisier/faster using pos.#2 which I will call Stevenson, I'm just going to stick with it on this cartridge. I do not understand why this is so? I does not make sense concidering what little differences the 2 setting should provide.
Raul,

Thank you for the downloads. Both of them. I will take some time to read and digest what will be discussed.

Regards,
Don
Timeltel,

Thank you for your helpful responce. I am sorry to hear about your oral surgery. Dentist visits are something I can easily live without. Hope everything turned out well!

Regards,
Don
Dear Raul,

There is a side benefit from all these cartridges I've been rotating in the last 2 days. I know the Signets are not on your list of perfered but, I would position the 420 equal with the TK/SU with the Akai RS 180 stylus. That would be below the 15Sa, the 20ss and the Ruby3. High praise for me because I like the Signets. Just my opinion.
Hi timeltel, according to the template generater at vinylengine (Stevenson A), overhang for my tonearm would be 14.616 instead of 15mm for the EPA tonearms pivot to spindle distance of 235. Effective length changes to 249.616 instead of 250 and offset angle from 21 to 20.857 degrees. The factory null points were closer to Stevenson A than Bearwald I thought. I don't have audible tracing distortion, But being the stylus is so sensitive I might tinker with the alignment and hear what happens.
I forgot to mention I used the IEC calculations for inner and outer groove dimensions. This is why I have different figures for EPA tonearm with Stevenson geometry.This stuff seems to easily confuse me sometimes.
Hi Griffithds, ++++Still keeping the cantilever parallel with the longitudinal track lines, position the stylus tip so that it lines up the the points marke "1" or "2". Position "1" provides for the null points to be at the standard "Seagrave/Baerwald" positions, while "2" is an alternative setting (proposed by Loefgren) which is said to provide improved over-all distortion at the expense of slightly increased peak distortion at the beginning and end of the record. The precision of this alignment system allows the end user to experiment with confidence and accuracy.++++

Position #1 is standard Baerwald. Some prefer to call it Loefgren A because he discovered it. Baerwald popularized it. Position #2 is Loefgren B also known as simply Loefgren. It has the lowest total distortion. Baerwald has the most even performance from beginning to end. Loefgren B requires the cartridge to be a little more forward in the headshell. Stevenson moves the inner null to the lead-out groove and optimises tracking there to reduce inner groove distortion. It requires the cartridge to be a little closer to the pivot.
Regards,
Hi Timeltel, The vinyl engine template generator gave me these results using IEC groove radius figures.

Stevenson A

Inner groove radius= 60.325
Outer groove radious= 146.05
Pivot to Spindle= 235
Inner null= 60.325
Outer null= 117.417
Effective Length= 249.616
Overhang= 14.616
Offset angle 20.857

Lofgren A IEC

Inner radius= 60.325
Outer radius= 146.05
P to S= 235
Inner null= 65.998
Outer null=120.891
Effective length= 251.403
Overhang= 16.403
Offse angle= 21.820

Technics factory settings are 15mm overhang effective length is 250mm and offset at 21 degrees, I think the null points are 62.2 and 117.

Just wondered why you have different results using the other template generator.
Hi Flieb,

Let me see if I understand the terminalogy correctly. Baerwald is Loefgren A, and there is a Loefgren B, sometimes just called Loefgren. Neither is Stevenson. Both the Baerwald and Loefgren points are farther from the pivot than the Stevenson with the Loefgren being the farthest. I'm I correct?

Regards,
Don
Hi Raul, I don't think it makes any difference wether you choose the effective length or pivot to spindle distance as the constant, you still end up with same tracing arc, just different set of values to get the same tracing arc. It is much easier for me too leave the pivot to spindle distance at recommended value (235 with my tonearms) it is time consuming to change my pivot to spindle distance. Getting the pivot to spindle distance set perfect so it would trace the mintLP arc perfectly the first time was time cosuming because of the way my armboard is mounted. Since I know it is right, I use the 235 pivot to spindle value to calculate other alignment geometries I want to try.
Dear Griffithds: Fleib is correct and your #2 position is Löfgren B that share similar offset angle with Löfgren A/Baerwald and with a small difference in overhang around 0.45mm.

If you read through my cartridge official reviews and somewhere in this thread I'm using Löfgren B ( #2 position . ), sound quality performance is minimal at all.

Stevenson is way different. My advise other that Fleib, me or other member can make a fast explanation is that you read both links I posted to you and try to understand the whole subject there especially with the Löfgren white papers discussion, is very enlighted for say the least.

IMHO any audiophile must read the LÓfgren great works. IMHO we can't discuss cartridge/tonearm geometry set-up with out knowing what we are talking about.

When we understand about then in automatic will be opened several " windows " big " windows " on alternatives to tonearm/cartridge geometry set ups.

Please take your time and readed, worth the effort.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Hi Raul, Stevenson is a variation of Lofgren (from what I understand) I think all are based on the same mathematics just different null points.
Hi Griffithds, Correct. If you look at the inner null point, the further out from the spindle, the longer your overhang. Alignment changes the overhang (eff length) and offset angle. The greatest alignment error is in the center of the record. Loefgren B minimizes this by having the nulls closer to the center. Loefgren A (Baerwald) is the most popular though. Most "standard" protractors like Dennesen, DB Systems, Geodisc, etc use it.
Regards,
Regards, Travbrow: The numbers you've run are for P/S of 235mm, try plugging in P/S of 250mm, I believe this is correct for your EPA-100.

Lofgren writes (pg. 9 of his ca. 1938 report), "the largest distortion risk occurs when the overhang is not set correctly for the linear offset (cutting stylus). On the other hand, the angular offset is not so critical". Angular offset becomes more important with the introduction of the elliptical stylus/stereo Lp.

Relative to your earlier comments, Lofgren also identifies alignment as influenceing the relation of summation and difference tones, suggesting RMS values depend on the frequency ratio and that alignment variances can result in either of these ratios becoming multiple times larger than the other. This particular section of math is fairly demanding and I'll not offer to offer proof but it could be fun to speculate that there is a difference to be heard with various stylus profiles and the effect on harmonics from alternate alignment sets. (That's s p e c u l a t e, I believe I spelled it correctly).

I've "no dog in this fight", but have had similar thoughts in the past. Keep in mind his observation that the most accurate alignment results in the least record wear.

Peace,