Dear Raul,
It appears that you have left everyone on this forum completely speechless, even Nandric. Hear, Hear!
John
P.S. Thanks for the info on the Empire MMs.
Who needs a MM cartridge type when we have MC?
Dear friends: Nandric posted: ++++ " I am sure that Lew is willing to give Raul a good bottle of wine in exchange for the disclosure of his new reference (MC) cart. " +++++ when I tested in deep this LOMC reference cartridge I decided not to disclose it till I can compare it not only against other"today "LOMC I own/owned or heard it, against the best MM/MI samples but against other vintage LOMC that for any reason I never owned or listened but that I know were top performers. I had very clear what to look for and suddenly started to appear one after one through ebay/agon ads and I started to bought it and sended directly to Axel. When I received and tested the Sony XL44L I really was and am exicited due to its first rate behavior against that LOMC reference and against any today LOMC that I already own or heard it. No it not surpass my reference one but is near it. I don't receive yet around 10+ vintage LOMC ones that I know will be " surprisinly " great performers. My today LOMC project did not born two weeks ago but several months ago after my Ortofon MC2000 experiences, yes this is my today cartridge reference and I hope that when I receive all those vintage LOMC cartridge don't lost very fast its reference status, I don't want to have a new reference cartridge every single week ( could be???? ) and that's why I did not disclose it till I have a " complete " tested scenario " but I think nothing is wrong to share with you which cartridge is that one reference. My MC2000 sample is not the original one but has the VdH touch: boron cantilever/VDH stylus against the original tapered aluminum/line contact design. Yes, performs better than the original. This is not an easy cartridge by any standards, has a " crazy " low low output: 0.05mv, other than my Phonolinepreamp I know no other active high gain phono stage ( obviously I dis not heard all the phono stages out there ao could be other that can do it with no noise. ) that can handle with out noise and I mean it: no noise. The cartridge is not only a " pain in the ass " low output design but a high compliance ( 20 cu. ) cartridge with a weight around 11grs. Why Ortofon designed this cartridge with those characteristics? is something out of my mind but certainly they knew what they did it. In its time this cartridge was listened almost only through the Ortofon dedicated SUT and even in this way the noise always was a " problem " . The cartridge was a reference one for some reviewers as J. Gordon Holt to name some one. The Ortofon MC2000 shares with other top cartridge performers ( Acutex M320 ( flat nose. ), Astatic MF200, Goldring G800, Sony XL44L, etc, etc. ) one superlative cartridge characteristic: great tracking habilities, it is delicious to listen the MC2000. I'm question my self right from the begining: why or how is it that a cartridge signal that needs to pass for more phono stages can outperform cartridges ( like the MM/MIs or higher output LOMC ones. ) that did not?. Is the MC2000 design a near " perfect " one?: I can't say it for sure???? Btw, my latest LOMC purchase is the Lyra Clavis Da Capo and I want to try it because I owned and sold it when I bought the Helikon. Today I know that not only the Helikon but the Skala and the Titan or Olympos ( I heard it all those Lyras. )can't make many things that the Da Capo can ( as I remember it. ). I bought it with broken cantilever so this permit me at once an " up grade " and I hope that my expectations on this Lyra can be achieved, we will see. Ok gentlemans as you can read there is no secrest about my MC2000 reference as with this subject I always am willing to share with all of you all my audio experiences. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Nandric: You know that I have in " great " place the Acutex M320 ( flat nose. ), for me is a fantastic performer and due to your " insistence " to find out that stylus replacement and some other persons speaking on the cartridge I just mounted again and confirm its " pedigree ": just fantastic!!!. I owned three cartridge samples, I sold one of them and today I own the one I'm enjoying and a second sample with an after market stylus. You don't said it but I assume that your sample came with and after market stylus ( right?. ) and what I want to tell you is that along other cartridges I will send that cartridge sample to Axel for an up-grade and to compare it against my original version. The original is so good that for the first time I can't be sure if the up-graded one could beats it. The thing is that if you can't put your hands in the NOS Acutex stylus replacement then I can share with you ( and all ) if the up-graded is worth to do it. This up-grade could take some time for now because Axel has more than ten cartridges from me and I don't want to send him any more till I receive what he has. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Raul, "All these will go to Axel after I make a " fast " test on it" Perhaps the most important thing I learned since reading your posts over the past few years is the potential for fine tuning any cartridge by not only VTA and VTF but also matching with tonearm, headshell, and loading. Given this range of parameters, how can you make a "fast test" with any meaning? Even for cartridges where you conduct your more "normal" test/review, do you keep notes for preferred set up with each one? You have auditioned an almost unbelievable number of cartridges over the past few years and I don't know how you would keep track of so many otherwise. |
Dear friends: Almost all the months in this year I was hearing either MM/MI and LOMC " new " cartridges and left the " past " top of the line cartridges. Two days ago, after more than a year, I mounted again my Technics EPC100CMK4 that I never tested in my today " new "/improved analog systemand I'm amaze again as the first time at : What a high high quality level this cartridge can shows!!! As good as the Goldring G800 or the Astatic MF 200 or even the Clearaudio Virtuoso and the Sony XL44L perform the refinement level on the Technics sounds is not matched for any of the other cartridges. Refinements that you can be aware only if you test it through the Technics. It is not easy for me try to explain it because in some way is something " new " for me that I heard it in some ways only through my LOMC reference cartridge. It is not that is more transparent or dynamic or better frequency extremes or inner detail/layering and the like but I think that is more on how handle the music transients and the better definition of those transients and its harmonics. The kind of the cartridge work with music transients gives to the Technics performance a " complete " performance as we hear it on a live event where nothing be missing. It is a subtle " hearing " but at the level that I'm hearing this subtle word means a lot because is not easy to surpass any of the quality level performance of those cartridges named here. This Technics " new " experience tell me that I have not to forget all those " past " gems that I own and that I hve to listed again to some of them. After this cartridge experience I think I was totally " mad " the day that I decided to put on sale and sold it, fortunately I was lucky enough and the buyer repent of what he bought and I recovery the EPC100CMK4. I think I will return to some of the " old " cartridges I tested over the years including those modest/humble Ortofon M20 Supers. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Halcro: Thank's. I don't have the 66 but the 64 and some other high mass tonearms ( SAEC. ) and my AT 1503 with a 18grs. headshell gives a " healthy " 40grs on effective mass, so I think I can meet the cartridge needs even I own three different 18grs. headshells and always I can use my own tonearm design and I will. After your experiences I was looking for this FR 6SE cartridge and I have good expectations on it, we will see. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Raul, I'm wondering what arm you're intending to run the FR-6SE on as it is rather low compliance for a MM and so sounds best in a heavy, controlled arm? It sounds very much better in my FR-66s than any of my 'lesser' arms.....which should be no surprise given that Fidelity Research would have carefully matched its performance for their arms? It will possibly sound better at your 100K Ohms loading than my 60K loading and a fair bit of capacitance helps with the highs? I suspect that this cartridge will benefit greatly from Axel's 'touch'.....and look forward to your reports? Regards Henry |
Dear Acman3: Certainly the Nagatron 9600 is a great design and can compete with the best of the best. My sample is waiting on line to go for re-tip to recovery the fenomenal " status " I now the cartridge can shows. I think we are lucky to own it. Btw, that Sony XL44L is just great after the Axel's touch but even in original condition is very good, you will see when have the opportunity to hear it. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dgarretson: Agree, the EPC-300 is a candidate for Axel and yes " will take it to better than new ". Today I take one step forward with all vintage cartridges and is to re-tip it as fast as money permit it. No one of several cartridges where I made it disapoint me. I already give all the effort and time to hear and test it in original condition and the time to move on is now. I can't be sticky with " past sucess/experiences " I like to explore and experience " new things ". I just bought two LOMC and two MM/MI cartridges. Denon DL-H5LC, Micro Seiki Lc-80W, Pionner PC-400 and Fidelity Research FR-6SE. All these will go to Axel after I make a " fast " test on it especialy with the FR where I want to know /confirm what Halcro heard and reported with this cartridge. That LOMC Denon was an unexpected finding because was designed for the Asia market and in its time a high price model. The MS LOMC is a very well regarded performer not easy to find out and I think I was lucky to put my hands on it. We will see. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Regards, Raul: Thanks for your measured response. Was there a fight? "maybe because our music references are different or because I like other kind of distortions and not those ones." Played bass & contra-alto clarinet with symphonic orchestra & operatic ensemble for several years. Every stage offered different acoustics, the hall & number of seats filled had an influence too. Same for studios, a direct to disc & something from Booker T. Jones replay with a noticeable difference. The effects of resonance and pressurization are well described if one finds ones' self seated in front of the tympani, oboe, bassoon & french horn to the left. There's a contrast in the experience heard (and felt) when sitting in aisle eight or the "heavens", which can also be interesting. No "Pro" experience but there are, reputedly, differences with mics & their placement. When listening to a recording I'm sometimes aware of this. "References" necessarily imply qualifications, in real life there are variables to be dealt with. Your comment should be, and is, appreciated. Peace, |
Hello Raul, I hope when you get around to the Acutex 420 you will enjoy it more, but...The 420, on my system, is a bold performer. It does not always get out of the way of the music but adds its own twist/pace. I do not think it will pass your total neutrality test. Again, I hope I am wrong and you enjoy. On another note, I am back to the Nagatron 9600, and still think, conical stylus or not, that it is one fine cartridge. Have you revisited yours, or upgraded the stylus? Mine is very neutral to my ears. It handles surface noise so well, I wonder if it is a conical. What would a triangle stylus look like? Did you or anyone on this forum look at it through a microscope? Also, I picked up a Sony xl 44l. Now all I need a MC phono amp. |
Dear Dgarretson: ++++ " investigation of vintage MCs, I eBayed a Technics EPC-300 now en route from Oz. It's low output(described variously as .1mV or .14mV) should make for an interesting comparison to other low output types ... " +++ I hope that EPC-300 could satisfy your LOMC expectations because that model was the Technics LOMC entry level that appeared in 1977. I own the Technics top of the line 305MK2 that appeared in 1981. In those times the 300 had a Japan's price of 15K Yens against the 50Ks on the 305MK2. I like my 305 and I'm sending to re-tip to Axel. Btw, the DLS1 is very good and I like it a lot. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Timeltel: Inaccurate?????, I can't see or read why. The AM30 did not showed to me nothing " new " against AT/Signet top of the line cartridges. I named the AT 180-OCC and the TK10ML2 and the hand selected 20SS. I don't have in hand the AM50 but I know almost for sure that can't surpass the 180-OCC or the other two. Normaly the top of the line cartridges are top of the line because performs a little better than its little brothers in the line. The AM20/30 are in the middle of the line. Again, I can't see what are you " fighting " for or with. Good to know that you don't die for those Signets, my error. ++++ " I wonder why we'd not agree there is much to enjoy from the presence, .... " ++++ maybe because our music references are different or because I like other kind of distortions and not those ones. ++++ " unsubstantiated preconceptions " ++++, I have not preconceptions other that what I experieced. When I writed that you die for... I was sure I readed somewhere in the thread but I already posted: my error, my mistake. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: +++++ " does not mean that the other guy's system is somehow inferior to yours. " ++++ I don't say that, I'm sure that you are hearing what you posted and that's why I said that IMHO something could be wrong there including something in the cartridge set-up ( this included the headshell that's part of any cartridge set - up. ). +++++ " this is not likely to be due to colorations or distortions of my electronics, since I AM hearing this difference between two cartridges. If the electronics were failing me, then no cartridge could make up the difference. Got it? " ++++ No I did not. IMHO all audio systems ( inluding both of us. ) have its own distortions/colorations and always permit that we be aware on differences between any two audio items under evaluation. The Acutex LPM 315 is a great performer and the 320 is even better and both IMHO are little better than the Ruby one and I'm not trying to dimish in any way the Ruby that's very good too. I tested all these cartridges in an " universal " tonearm/headshell with no advantage one to each other. Now, the point is that you own the LPM320 and I know for sure that you will have a future opportunity to hear the best the cartridge can shows. Lewm, I was temted to put on sale my 420 but after readed the Frogman and Acman3 experiences I decided to give me a new opportunity with that cartridge. Problem is that for what other reported needs around 70 hours on it before I can make a serious tests and normaly I can't stop that time with a cartridge especialy when did not showed nothing especial. Anyway, I will try it again. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Hi David, Hardly can wait for your comparison about your ACUTEX carts ! Glad to hear your AT20SS is not peaky. Very interesting hear your comments about it on Tomahawk ! Also our Professor has an AT20SS and he says it´s not an easy cart to perfect set up but when it is the sound is first rate, very alive and never peaky. I understood Raul had had some problems but he added ceramic on headshell and it "tamed" the somewhat too up-front sound. So there´s something wrong with my stylus and I will buy a new original 20SS replacement as he advices. Cheers |
Dear Raul, I am happy that you are happy with the Goldring G 800 (E?). But you forget to mention what kind of cantilever/stylus combo Axel put in your G 800. I am supposed to wait till your post about Axel's upgrade. BTW I checked the 'pickupnaald.nl' for John but there are no more Goldrings G 800 of any kind on their site. I own one and am willing to exchange for the M 320 original stylus. Regards, |
Dear Jbthree: That Goldring is " stellar " cartridge and cartridge motor. Right now I own four of them because I want to test it right from the original to different cantilever/stylus combinations. IMHO is a truly hard to beat performer. I think that every one of us must to have and experience it while last, especially that we can get for 30.00-50.00: to say at that price is a bargain could me an misunderstood, it is a unique opportunity. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Nicola, Thanks for your very kind offer, I may take you up on it if other sources do not come through. I contacted the pizza seller directly and he only has what is listed on eBay.it; the M312III however, was a incredible buy for the money and a no-brainer for friends and family recommendations, as well as checking questionable vinyl. John |
Regards, Raul: Allow me to address your comments concerning mid level carts and what I "like". Raul, you wrote: "The AM30 is in the middle line, is not the top of the line but if you " see " the AM50 design on cantilever/stilus is almost no different with other top AT cartridges." It is inconsistent to label a cart "mid" and then state that with a different stylus, it is "almost no different" than other TOTL carts. Shall we look into this? Carts are electro-magnetic generators. The quality of the windings, construction of cores and the care with which they are assembled are important. Once beyond electron flow and resonance characteristics of the cart, the stylus assembly is the predominant influence on audible performance. Signet carts are hand assembled with more than the usual care encountered in production examples and although a good elliptical has its charms, the midrange clarity and delicate hfs of a nude LC or Shibata profile on beryllium are a personal preference. These are rarely described as "mid level". Let's keep in mind that for the AM20 through 50 carts the generators are identical. The AM10 is of lower inductance and build quality is equivalent. There are those who would consider the lower inductance cart preferable. Cost-wise, as with so many other carts the stylus assembly is the determining factor. Examples include Goldring x800, x900 & 10xx carts, the AT15 variations, AT20 series, AT22-25, Signet TK9 &10. Let's not forget about ADC carts, the QLM-30 through XLM for instance. The examples are numerous. Your comment, as written, is inaccurate. You are in error when you write: " -as you die for the ( not me ) Signet's middle of the line models". I'll not speak for Halcro, Henry can speak for himself and in relating his experience with a cart offering an unusual quality of performance, he did so and with his usual eloquence. I read that the strengths of the cart in question were elsewhere than the mids and while midrange performance was not objectionable, Henry found those other qualities commendable. Overly polite, it ain't. There was also reference to a headshell he'd not tried before & it was found to be of some merit. As apparently you and I are both familiar with the cart, the stylus and the headshell I wonder why we'd not agree there is much to enjoy from the presence, range of response and articulate performance this particular combination offers. Posts similar to Henry's, in the past, been referred to as "a learning opportunity". One might think to thank Henry for sharing the information? You are welcome to your opinions and they are respected as being your individual preferences BUT please refrain from ascribing, unheard, a diminished quality to anothers gear, or miss-stating the preferences of others to fit certain unsubstantiated preconceptions. This is not productive behavior. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man |
Dear Raul, You really ought to work on how you relate to others. Because you hear things differently from me or anyone else does not mean that the other guy's system is somehow inferior to yours. I take your point that the DV505 may interact differently with the Grace Ruby vs the Acutex LPM320. And you did not even mention the obvious factors that may be making a difference in my perception of the two cartridges: the headshells (they are mounted in two very different headshells) and the cartridge loading. Also, because I say that the Grace does a "better" job at presenting ambient cues than the Acutex does not mean that I can hear no ambience via the Acutex. Please read what I wrote; I said that the Grace (IMO) does a "better" job, not that the Acutex is a total failure. Moreover, this is not likely to be due to colorations or distortions of my electronics, since I AM hearing this difference between two cartridges. If the electronics were failing me, then no cartridge could make up the difference. Got it? Now I will stop short of criticizing YOUR system, because I have never heard it. |
Dear friends: This could be useful for some of us: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Digital-High-Resolution-LCD-Laser-Photo-Tachometer-Non-Contact-RPM-Tester-/270979985691?_trksid=m503&_trkparms=algo%3DRIC.CFNPRP%26its%3DI%26itu%3DUA%26otn%3D4%26pmod%3D221089398035%26ps%3D63%26clkid%3D1280961205775103414&_qi=RTM1053525#ht_2450wt_1265 Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Hi John, The Dutch seller don't use paypal so I bought the G 800 E for Raul such that they posted the cart to Axel. If you order one for the USA you will get 19% discount (-19% VAT ) and pay me back via paypal. Depending on the postage to the USA you can also obt for the direct posting to Axel. Regards, |
Dear Raul, Thanks again for the info on the Goldring G800, it may be the best sounding cartridge that I own. Bass is incredible as well as dynamics and micro-details. This is all without a re-tip. I am using an NOS aftermarket Astatic stylus with a Shibata tip and getting excellent results. http://www.ebay.com/itm/REPLACEMENT-STYLUS-NEEDLE-FOR-GOLRING-110EE-USED-IN-GOLD-RING-G-800E-CARTRIDGE-/350587042905?pt=US_Record_Players_Home_Turntables&hash=item51a09dbc59 John |
Dear Harold-no-the-barrel: IMHO and through my experiences with the 20SS is not an easy cartridge for a " perfect " set up but when you are " there " the performance is first rate, very alive and never peaky. Now, some AT 20SLa that I saw it through ebay came with an after market stylus replacement, not always with the original one. Here you can buy a new original 20SS stylus replacement for your AT cartridge: http://www.stereoneedles.com/audio-technica.html http://www.lpgear.com/product/ATSAT0020SS.html Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: +++++ " if I am listening to a great saxophone player, I like also to hear what the bassist and drummer are doing behind him or her. If it's a big band, I revel in the massed brass sections. " +++++ well not only you but almost any one of us and in a live event that's what we hear. Now, if you are not hearing that through the 320 then IMHO: your cartridge has a wrong set up somewhere ( that DV505 could be the culprit between other links in your system. As my system yours is not perfect. ), your cartridge is out of specs or your electronics are to colored. I know you are not deaf and only a deaf man can't hear what you states, so IMHO something wrong down there and IMHO both the Stanton and the Ruby can't even the 320 quality level performance. Dgarretson posted: +++ " Despite its virtues, the Stanton signature is in the end darker and less alive. " ++++ I agree with him about. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Hello Harold, my M320 is still in the shop, so no comparison to M420 available as yet. It's been a long time since mounting the AT20SS. Unfortunately I didn't take notes and thus need to revisit it. I don't recall that my example sounded peaky(I used 100K loading and never tried adding capacitance). However somewhere along this thread I think there are posted impressions similar to yours. In the spirit of Raul's recent investigation of vintage MCs, I eBayed a Technics EPC-300 now en route from Oz. It's low output(described variously as .1mV or .14mV) should make for an interesting comparison to other low output types like Stanton 980LZS and Denon DL-S1. |
Nicola, To quote myself, "OK, so I will try to say what I meant by referring to the Acutex LPM320 as "clinical", only in comparison to the Grace Ruby and Stanton 980LZS: The latter two cartridges give me more information about the ambience of the recording venue and about what the supporting musicians are doing, particularly this is so for the Stanton. The Acutex does a great job with the spotlighted lead performer but is not as good at transmitting those cues just mentioned." If it were possible to edit the post above, I would add that it is this difference in portraying the ambience of the musical venue that caused me to use the term "clinical" with respect to the Acutex. The Acutex, to exaggerate, seems to cut out the lead performance with a very sharp scalpel and hand it over to the listener, whereas the Stanton and Grace give me a wider rougher chunk of the music. Thus the lead performance is more submerged in the mix. I happen to prefer the latter presentation. On a practical level, if I am listening to a great saxophone player, I like also to hear what the bassist and drummer are doing behind him or her. If it's a big band, I revel in the massed brass sections. (As you know, I am no surgeon.) |
Dear Lew, You see: if you care for your literary talent there is no way to avoid adjectives. I can't imagine literature without this, uh, grammatical category. Besides the expression 'clinical' has for me scientific connotation so I don't understand the 'negative intonation' which is somehow connected with this 'term' in our forum. As a medical scientist you should forget the 'emotive' and explain to the people the true meaning of this term. Regards, |
Hi David, How good is your ACUTEX M 320 III STR now on Tomahawk ? I´m glad to say I´m also running The Terminator T3Pro with Tomahawk. How good is your Audio-Technica AT20SS ? I´ve just bought an old AT20SLa, unknown playing hours. It sounds very trebly/peaky and too sibilant. The sound is otherwise ok and the stylus looks ok, although the cantilever is very slightly bent horizontally and don´t have a microscope. Is your AT too sibilant, hopefully not ? Fascinating saddle there ! Cheers |
Lew, you and I are in similar situations, insofar as we have separate phono stages for high- and low-output cartridges. Like you, I have a modified Atma MP-1 with a hybrid cascode for low output cartridges like most MC and the rare low output MM like Stanton 980LZS. For high output MM/MI it's a modified ARC PH-2. Subject to its 48db gain limitation, this unit unexpectedly surpasses any stock ARC phono stage that I've heard including their current Ref. The more the system has improved, the harder it has become to ascertain which phono stage is more "colored." This is with all cartridges through the same tonearm, tonearm cable, and TT. Of recent mounts, I think I prefer the Acutex 420 STR through the PH-2 to the Stanton 980LZS through Atma. Despite its virtues, the Stanton signature is in the end darker and less alive. To futher assess the contribution of the phono stage I can resort to a few medium-output cartridges that will work with either phono stage(Lyra Helikon and Sumiko Virtuoso DTi). However, earlier comparisons between these two cartridges and some of the better MM/MIs leave me limp about remounting either of these MCs to satisfy an academic curiousity. I agree that proper test conditions for definitive comparisons between cartridges are a bear to set up and find time for. |
Dear Dover, I agree with you about expressing one's opinion so that others might benefit, but it is rare to find a reviewer, here or in the audio press, who is up to the task. To do it well requires a lot of time and thought. Very few guys get it right. You could fairly say that I am too lazy to try most of the time. OK, so I will try to say what I meant by referring to the Acutex LPM320 as "clinical", only in comparison to the Grace Ruby and Stanton 980LZS: The latter two cartridges give me more information about the ambience of the recording venue and about what the supporting musicians are doing, particularly this is so for the Stanton. The Acutex does a great job with the spotlighted lead performer but is not as good at transmitting those cues just mentioned. The Grace and the Acutex are auditioned on my Lenco using my Dynavector DV505, with different headshells for each cartridge. The DV505 feeds a modified Silvaweld SWH550, with a revised output stage. The Silvaweld feeds the Atma-sphere MP1 line stage section. The Stanton is mounted on my Reed tonearm on my SP10 Mk3, feeding directly the (hi-gain) phono section of my MP1 preamplifier, which has been modified many times and uses a hybrid SS/tube input gain stage. The MP1 feeds my Atma-sphere OTL monoblocks, which drive my Sound Lab 845PX loudspeakers. Lately I and others were able to work out a scheme using an after-market ESL step-up (made in Oz, Halcro) such that there is no crossover network in the 845 circuit. This has made a huge improvement in "continuousness" and in efficiency. I daresay that a 50W tube amp could drive the modified 845s to ear-splitting levels. Anyway, I quote here the system components, because it can be seen that the differences I perceive among the three cartridges cannot be due to "coloration" of the Silvaweld phono stage. This is not to say it has no coloration, because IMO nothing has no coloration. However, differences between Grace and Acutex could be due to headshells, loading, etc. There is always some uncontrolled factor that could cause one to wrongly ascribe the sound quality to one component vs another. I am going to build in some switchable load capacitors and alternative load resistors into the Silvaweld for just that reason. |
Dear (Mad) Professor, Transplant is complete! The AT155Lc stylus assembly is in place in the AM10s......and you were right! The midrange is now THERE. In fact.....because the stylus is brand new....the midrange is almost 'shouting'? :^) But this Sigmutt is now a serious contender? I feel a little nervous remembering the parable......"Be careful what you wish for because you may get it?" But how did you 'know' that this stylus would bring some depth to the mids? What determines this factor?....and if you can predict and manipulate the sounds of various cartridges......hasten back to your 'bench' and invent another Sigmutt which I can try? :^) Regards Henry |
Regards, Fleib: Thanks for the follow up. Data on the AM carts can be found here: http://www.vinylengine.com/library/signet/am10.shtml Peace, |
Dover, I think one of the great losses in magazine reviews compared to 20-30 years ago is the comparison between competing components.I couldn't agree more! I think commercial pressures have rendered most reviews (and reviewers) to politically correct 'advertorials'? On the other hand......I just don't think that reviewers today (with a few exceptions like Art Dudley) get to hear any vintage gear or equipment outside the mainstream of 'the new'? And I don't think they have the ability or time to compare...crosscheck....and compare again....a multitude of cartridges in particular? And really.......to hear the very subtle differences in cartridges......one needs to be able to change back and forth quickly between a number of them. The time involved in dismantling one cartridge from an arm and installing and setting up another one correctly.....is simply too long to retain the correct memory of multiple sonic imprints IMHO? Regards Henry |
Dear Nandric, If the stylus holder is not original whatI was facing the same problem with one of my Garrott P77 cartridges where I broke the cantilever and foolishly threw away the whole stylus assembly. I sent Axel some photos and he replied that he could indeed fit a new stylus assembly to the body if I sent him the cartridge? I am doing so next week :-) So please ask Axel the question.....I think he can help you? Regards Henry |
Thank you Professor (Timeltel) for those kind words. I will indeed try the 155Lc stylus in the AM10s. This is one of my favourite assemblies and it never occurred to me that it was compatible? With the graphic descriptions of you in your 'shop'.........I think your title may be amended to 'Mad' Professor! :-) Thanks for all your help and knowledge in guiding me through my MM adventures. Regards Henry |
Dear Raul, As you, when this set up is " right " contribute a lot for the cartridge quality performance level be " right there " where we enjoy it the best.I think you are right about this. I recall with my Rega Planar 3 and Hadcock 228 Unipivot when I was limited to just one tonearm and cartridge..........whenever the 'cymbal taps' on 'One More Try' became indistinct......a complete review of the Hadcock's set-up parameters (and they are many) would often restore the status quo? But only up to a point! If the taps were indistinct with a brand new cartridge on its initial set-up......no amount of jigging would help? Also.....the cymbal taps appeared to 'fade' as the cartridge aged in usage? I also now try adding some capacitance to bring out these taps.....but again if they ain't there......it's not much use? There also is something intrinsic about the cartridge's ability itself as you quite rightly agree.......otherwise this phenomena would not appear constant across 9 arms and 4 turntables? Regards Henry |
Lewm, I prefer people to describe what they hear, and ascribe characteristics, even if others disagree. To me if you read someones review in the context of their system, or other comments, then that is more useful than "like" or "prefer". So let rip... . I think one of the great losses in magazine reviews compared to 20-30 years ago is the comparison between competing components. It's often through comparison's that we gain a more in depth understanding of a component, its strengths and weaknesses. Halcro's and Rauls comments on specific records are really useful in understanding where I am in my system development. |