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
To all of you fine gentleman if your in the New Orleans area feel free to come listen to my distortions would love to have ya over. Mike
Hello Timeltel, I was referring to performance with a beryllium cantilever. Ever try that? Yes, stock cantilever @ 47K is unacceptable for me too. Impedance is greater than 2600 ohms, but inductance (490mH)is less than some favorites? Aren't some of your Signets > 500mH? Do you think impedance is more important? IMO AT made a mistake voicing the orig 440ML OCC. The generator is the same as the MLa, but output is greater. However, weaker magnets don't seem to compensate enough for alum/ML stylus. It seems to me you wrote it off w/o trying a stylus substitution. Maybe I'm wrong about that, in which case I disagree about your assessment. I tried it stock at 32K and it's pretty good. I shouldn't post when I'm drinking my morning coffee, but it seems that you didn't give it the same consideration as other carts.
Regards,
Regards Timeltel, Dlaloum and Fleib,

If I understand it correctly, 90% of a cartridges sound is from the cantiliver/stylus. I use the 440MLa stylus on the TK5Ea and like it very much. Loaded at 47K with only the cables for cap. Sounds fine as I expect you very well know. What is it about the 440MLa's motor that causes so many people to dislike it when it is coupled with it own cantiliver/stylus combination? I understand it sounds very bright, ear piercing and ear bleedingly shrill are some of the discriptions I heard it described as! That desscription is about as far as it could be from what I'm hearing with the TK5Ea/440MLa combination!
Has anyone ever potted the insides of a 440MLa body to see it that might help?
Just kind of shooting from the hip with that thought.
Regards,
Don
Hi Raul, Regarding arm mass and compliance, resonant frequency is only one symptom of the relationship of mass and compliance. I don't think a low resonant frequency is necessarily a bad thing. I think cartridges have to be evaluated on an individual basis for sound quality and optimal performance. Best mass compliance relationship seems almost arbitrary to some extent. For example, the 440ML has a cu of 10 @ 100Hz, so is equivalent to about 18 @ 10Hz. The M20 Super has a cu of 20 yet seems to do much better in med mass arms. The 440 comes alive in a low mass arm, the difference is dramatic. The 20SS has cu of 9 @ 100Hz so is slightly stiffer than a 440 but weighs 8g which puts it close to equal footing. Yet the 20SS seems to do much better in heavier arms. I did not find the improvement with low mass. Exactly why this is, I don't know. The DL-S1 is another example of a rather high cu cart that seems to prefer med mass arms. But surely very high cu carts (> 25 cu) have to be tried with a low mass arm. Such a design dictates optimal performance with low moment of inertia. When considering this if you substitute MOI for mass, you'll have a better idea of where I'm coming from. I must admit I haven't been able to devise any rules or adequate explanations.
Regards,
Raul,

There are cartridges that you expect will perform very well. Any cartridge you recommend, would fall into that catagorie. There is one that you highlighted, has actually caught me by suprise. I want to thank you for bringing it to my attention. That cartridge is the Astatic MF100. There is nothing in its performance that brings attention to any part of itself. It just gets out of the way and lets the music flow. It truly is a cartridge I could live with forever and be quite happy. Thank you again.
Regards,
Don
Hello Griffithds, **If I understand it correctly, 90% of a cartridges sound is from the cantiliver/stylus. I use the 440MLa stylus on the TK5Ea and like it very much. Loaded at 47K with only the cables for cap. Sounds fine as I expect you very well know. What is it about the 440MLa's motor that causes so many people to dislike it when it is coupled with it own cantiliver/stylus combination? I understand it sounds very bright, ear piercing and ear bleedingly shrill are some of the discriptions I heard it described as! That desscription is about as far as it could be from what I'm hearing with the TK5Ea/440MLa combination!**

I don't know if it breaks down into a percentage like that, but yes, it's the movements of the cantilever that cause the generator to produce electricity. The output of a HO cart also has inductance as a property of that output. Inductance combined with shunt capacitance (the total capacitance load) lowers the high frequency resonance of the generating system (cantilever). It has the effect of (usually) making a cart sound brighter by augmenting the treble but rolling off the extreme high end. Examples of carts with high inductance are Shure M97 (600mH) and Stanton 681 (900mH). Sometimes overly mellow carts like the M97 will benifit from raising the resistance. The stock M97 will have flatter response loaded around 62K with "normal" shunt capacitance, around 250pF, possibly a little more. This capacitance will augment the drooping treble. Too much capacitance will roll off the high end. Another way to get better response is with a SAS stylus. In the case of the 440 the aluminum cantilever and superior HF tracking of the ML tip are too much in the treble region. Response is augmented just below 20K with a severe peak. Loading it down to around 35K will tame this but only if shunt capacitance is extremely low. Otherwise the very HF are lost. In this case a better solution is using a more rigid cantilever. This resonates above the audible band and doesn't exaggerate HF the way alum does. I'm not sure about cart impedance and didn't consider >2600 ohms as a limiting factor. Perhaps Timeltel is right, although the 95E has 2.8K impedance and doesn't sound glassy at all.

Your Signet has a different combination of inductance and impedance. You've hit on a combo where the sound is more compatible. You're using very little shunt capacitance so the affects of inductance are not augmented. That's what voicing is all about with HO carts and what makes them much more flexible or tunable than MCs.
www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/load_the_magnets_e.html
Regards,
"Easy answer, so easy you'll rap yourself on the head. When you do you'll sense the sound predominately through the bone structure of, in my case, a very thick skull. It's somatic sound, also realized when one clicks teeth together. It might be inaudible to another but definitely registered by the person gnashing his teeth, the one with a most distracted expression. The skin will also act in a "tympanic" manner, and of course fluids also transmit vibration."

:-)_ And therin lies the answer. As carbon based units. The reason that analogue can sound so delightful! Because we (as humans) are analogue.
Regards, Fleib, Griffithds. Don, congratulations on the Astatic.

Fleib/Don: As an inveterate stylus-cart swapper and well aware of the influences of loading as well as the effect of cantilever damping, a personal preference for carts with an output impedance of less than 780 Ohm has developed. This is reflected in capacitance, carts that open to 300-400pF frequently exhibit a bright mid and sometimes overly crisp hfs.

Gear is a thing to be kept in mind, antique amplification is SS, current mirror loaded with a three stage Darlington SEPP circuit, DC power with zero NFB. Speakers are four Paradigm Signature S4 stand-mounters, the surprisingly smooth beryllium tweeters run to 45k. An active DSP 12" sensibly integrated sub sits just to the inside of each. Altogether a neutrally voiced rig with good attack and sustain, endless overhead but don't feed it anything with sharp edges.

And headshells. One of those who post here (ahem) had at last count 28 cartridges mounted on headshells ranging in weight from nom. 6 to 12gm, materials are magnesium, alu., carbon graphite, composite and three species of wood. The headshell selection is tested and leads selected to best compliment the cartridge requirements. This guy would be pretty adamant that doing so is not a demonstration of incompetence but a personal choice made with full recognition of the performance variables as compared to an arm with fixed headshell (of which "he" has several).

I'm really more interested in wether anyone thinks that through resonant interaction, at least the impression of unrecorded uhfs can be Lazarus-like raised from the dead. Not likely but still an entertaining proposal to toss around.

Peace,
Hi Griffithds,

your TK5ea has an inductance approximately 60mH higher than the AT440MLa (490mH vs 550mH) - although not huge, this means that for the same capacitance and resistance, the high end will be rolled off a little more and a little earlier.

So for starters, running the 440MLa stylus on the TK5ea is controlling the high end a touch more.

But I think the description of piercing ear pain listening to an AT440MLa is perhaps gilding the lilly just a touch (!).

The upturned high end is present - and can be exacerbated if the user is unaware of capacitance issues and uses too high a capacitance....

I posted measurements I made of the AT440MLa at a range of differing capacitances and resistances at:
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=416983&page=2
or a really abbreviated version at my website:
https://sites.google.com/site/zevaudio/turt/cartridge-comparison-list/audio-technica-at440mla

Keep in mind the scale of the graphs - peak boosts and drops are only 5db.
Optimally set up you should be able to achieve +/-1db from 1k to 18k+ with the AT440MLa

But although not obvious as "level" variations, slight rises and dips of as small as 0.2db can be sensed - although they are frequently described as more/less detail, or improved tone of a particular kind (frequency dependent) etc...
Changes in level below 3db in magnitude are seldom identified as a level variation.... but we still sense them.

Psycho Acoustics is fascinating!

I have also tested the ATN440MLa on the TK6Ep cartridge body (the p-mount version of the TK5Ea same inductance/impedance)

My observation is that the peaks are less pronounced (around +3db rather than +5db with the AT440 body)

With the TK5Ea/TK6Ep - running it at 150pf and around 30k will keep the frequency response within +/-0.7db - whereas at 47k best you can do is around +/-2db (which is better than you get on the AT440 body)

In a nutshell what we are talking about is high end rise - frequency response - which is not related to the sort of subtle inner detail that can be exposed by removing some of the vibrational smearing.... which can be achieved through potting.

But we agree - the ATN440MLa sounds better on a TK5/6 body!

bye for now

David
We have all the tools we need to measure frequency response... - and some of the other values.

Spectrum analyser software is built into many audio editing software packages (CoolEdit, Adobe Audition) - or you can purchase (or find some freeware/shareware RTA/FFT there are a few around)

Then you will need some test tracks...

HFN test record provide a pink noise test track which is reliable to around 16kHz.

The classic CBS test records provide both sweeps and spot signals - the sweeps can be used the same way as the pink noise to get an overall F/R.

The Spots can be used (manually, it takes a while!) to measure harmonic distortion as well as frequency response.

Keep in mind that a pink noise or sweep using an FFT averaging analyser, INCLUDES the harmonic distortions as part of the frequency response - some people believe this best reflects actual performance - I am not convinced, I prefer a measurement that separates the signal from the distortion where possible. But the spot measurements take around 10 times as long to do ...

Measuring other parameters of cartridge behaviour are much more difficult!!

I have (with he assistance and huge input of LuckyDog at VE) developed a spreadsheet model, into which I can feed the measurements of a cartridges actual frequency response measurement, and then deduct from it the theoretical electrical response(based on inductance / resistance / capacitance and standard models) - the end result shows the "flaws" it he system as a "sum" - but it cannot seperate out mechanical cantilever issues from electro magnetic non-linearities.

Still this spreadsheet has allowed me to see the imperfections - whether my conclusions as to their causes are valid or not is a different matter!
Cantilever resonances are relatively obvious... (assuming I have them right!)
The mid-high range drop is more difficult - some documents appear t indicate that eddy currents occur in this zone - and that might account for part of it.
Some Shure docs. mention skew/twist of the cantilever as causing the drop in these frequencies - and the rise in harmonic distortion that accompanies it seems to indicate the Shure cause is more likely - but perhaps it is a combination of both? - no way of seperating them out.

We also have the test tracks needed to measure intermodulation distortion by international standards... (I have not tried this yet...)

BUT - making these measurements takes a lot of time and effort....

Whether it is worth it to you... is up to you and what you value obviously!

Also my approach is aimed at a system where you do your best to make the entire system and each component within it as neutral as possible.

People who listen to only a single source (ie turntable) may opt to "tune" their system by choosing an appropriate cartridge setup. - this is no different to equalisation, or adjusting the bass/treble dials - but apparently has audiophile cred., whereas using the much despised tone controls or worse, much worse! (in hushed tones) - an equaliser - will get you drummed out of all audiophile circles.

bye for now

David
Hi Fleib,

I have not dig into the aspects of compliance / tone-arm mass beyond the basic resonance.

LuckyDog on VE built an interesting damping calculator spreadsheet ...

The Japanese manufacturers quote the compliance at 100Hz because it is a better measure of the suspension damping.

I believe that there is another key to performance matching in the damping of the inherent suspension of the cantilever and the inherent damping built into the tonearm bearings.

I have a feeling that LuckyDog may have built another very usefull tool in that calculator - but have not had the time/inclination to get my head around that .. yet.

The spreadsheet is here : http://www.luckydog.demon.co.uk/images/loafer.xls

And the related thread is here:
http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?t=36347

This vinyl replay stuff never ends does it !? :)

bye for now

David
Speaking about Dudley. I always thought that he is an
old-fashioned Englishman interested in antique and listening with his eye. As a foreinger I may be interested in the 'English litarature' but only in translatation. So his literary capabilities are not of much interest to me when I read Sterophile (sorry Lew). But when he writes about some cart I can't resist the temptation. And there it
is: Ortofon's Xpression. I am sorry but I need to quote the
whole sentence:''I wouldn't normaly have expected such solidity, such lack of fussiness, from a pickup (sic!)with other than SPHERICAL stylus tip''. I thought: 'my gosh I am in a totally wrong company'. However even he was forced to admit that no conical stylus can match the Replicant stylus from Ortofon. Ergo: Axel will not get my order for a conical/ boron combo adventure of my. Fleib also thanks to you for your warning.

Regards,
Thanks David for the link - interesting stuff. L_dog is saying the exact thing I just posted about the 440. Actual cu is more like 13 @100 Hz. Also, I always used more VTF - around 1.7 to 1,8g. The subject is complex and often one aspect of cart use (set-up) is substituted or used to compensate for another, like mass, bearing friction and damping. For those substituting styli, the cart will now take on the specs of the new stylus. For example, using a ATN155LC will give you a cu of 16 @100Hz.
Regards,
Regards, Nandric: Nikola, you've introduced a marvelous topic. Relax, it's no longer P. C. to shoot the messenger. Referring back to our brothers at Lenco Heaven and the comments from the very competent Reto:

"Shiga had established, that by a given design (ie. precisely defined moving mass of the generator system and a spherical stylus in conjunction with the elasticity of vinyl at room temperature) the playback distortion could be compensated for by the plastic deformation of the vinyl and the temporary change of the groove geometry.

"Some clever trickery there, it appears, specifically requiring a spherical stylus--- John Walton, a cartridge development engineer at Decca picked up Shigas study in 1966 and confirmed:

"...So it turned out, that equipping even the best cartridges with elliptical styli effected no reduction in distortion whatsoever, rather, an increase..."

Other comments relate to the increased phasing inevitable with the more radical profiles such as the Orto. Replicant which is famous for frustrating those who are impatient in alignment concerns.

Categorically, the finer the minor radius of the stylus, HFs are better reproduced but at the cost of phase related distortion. Sufficient documentation exists showing there is an "anthropogenetic" subliminal response to UHFCs. Harmonics go both up and down the scale, these fundamentals and harmonics exist in live music. If then the presence of UHFs is considered a positive event and considering the relation of stylus minor radius to groove sidewall modulation, in order for a conical stylus to perform at these frequencies it needs to be fine indeed. In anthropomorphic terms, your vinyl might resent that.

Meanwhile, if Nikola (or anyone) should chose to drive a conical stylus rather than an exotic, as always the trade-offs exist and it remains their choice. Like selecting a Bentley Mulsanne for it's mid RPM torque and luxurious ride, or another who chooses a Mitsu. Evo for it's sharp responses and tracking ability in the twists, there's cause for neither shame or criticism. Cars & carts, there's a model for every need. The crux of the matter is the ability to distinguish between "better" and "worse". Any of you autophiles want to confess to desiring a Yugo?

Q.: Why does a Yugo have a heated rear glass?
A.: To keep your hands warm while you push it :-).

Peace,
Dear Professor, I am in no way responsible for any stylus
kind whatever nor for the Yugo car. But as a former Yugo-guy I feel very distressed with your comment about our 'national pride' with a heated rear glass. We really thought that the heated rear glass was a proof of our hightech capabilities. Back then we already produced 30% of those Fiats.

Regards,
Regards, Nandric: LOL, glad to see the "Balkan" humor intact. 30% Fiat accompli?

How to double the value of your Yugo---

Fill it with gas. (GRIN)

Peace,
Dear Timeltel: ++++ " The crux of the matter is the ability to distinguish between "better" and "worse". " +++

or just different.?????

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Hi Timeltel,

thanks for that link... Doug and JCarr's postings are particularly interesting.

What they do not discuss is the relationship between compliance and the level of energy transferred to cartridge/arm.

Lower compliance / firmer suspension, transfers more energy into the arm - as it must, given that it needs to overcome greater intertia/mass in a well matched setup.

High compliance, matched with a lower mass arm, as a result passes far less energy on. And as a corollary, requires less damping in the arm - which is a good thing, as damping usually adds mass, and the arm needs less mass not more!

Issues like sibilance, and inner groove distortion (the main thrust of that link) - are related to tracking ability, combined with minimising reflected energy coming back into the cartridge from the arm...

All of which becomes easier to achieve with a high compliance classic design - like the MM/MI's that we discuss in this thread.

Perhaps a thread focusing on low mass arms might be a good companion to this thread?

bye for now

David
Dear Dlaloum: +++++ " High compliance, matched with a lower mass arm, as a result passes far less energy on. And as a corollary, requires less damping in the arm - which is a good thing, as damping usually adds mass, and the arm needs less mass not more! " +++++

not always damping add mass to tonearm: what about tonearm build material " self damping "? I mean that that material has its own damping by it self to " kill " those cartridge/tonearm resonances. Sounds like this kind of material ( if exist ) could be " ideal " one for tonearm or arm wands.

Even low compliance cartridges and its transfered energy to the tonearm could be " killed " too.

As with the platter build material in the TT the tonearm build material is the " key " on that regards and other quality performance " subjects " with these audio devices that could include cartridge body construction.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Hi Raul,

totally agree - each and every material has its own damping properties...
So every tonearm has some degree of damping built in, and choice of materials will then allow some level of tuning of the damping.
Also every material and shape will have its own resonance points... which we really really do not want to activate!

Carbon fibre seems to be among the best of the low mass materials - the other one is natural woods....
Perhaps one of the heavier grades of balsa?
Or maybe Spruce? (used to be used for aircraft....)

bye for now

David
Any and all audio gear made of carbon fiber that I have ever heard sounds... dead, dead, dead, IMO. Resonance is in music. All instruments resonate. The human voice resonates. Killing all resonance is not a good thing, IME. We just need to make it work for us, rather than against us. Achieving that goal is more serendipity than anything else, since the phenomenon is so complex.
Regards, Dlaloum: If one tried hard enough to do so, supporting evidence for your proposition can be found here:

http://www.bimat.org/assets/pdf/nu_04_95chen.pdf

"(F)undamental resonance could be observed easily; observation of the overtone resonance was found to depend on the ratio of the fiber length to the cross-section diameter." (Tapered or sleeved tube/pipe?)

It's interesting to speculate that high mass arms and low compliance carts at relatively greater VTFs are influenced in that: "(S)oftening behavior results from the effect of the beam momentum in the axial direction (low mass, high cu). The axial force is developed by the transverse deflection---. The effect might be negligible for small amplitude--but it results in nonlinear effect when the amplitude is large. For the doubly clamped beam, the axial force will bend the amplitude-frequency curve--- when the amplitude of the vibration is greater than the critical point. This has been known as the ‘‘hard-spring effect.’’ The axial force has a more significant effect on the overtones than on the fundamental." Hmm.

Two approaches, to mass couple and thereby drain resonant energy, or to reduce the initial amplitude. Boundary resonances are also have their effect, shifting their frequencies as demonstrated in other investigations and sometimes in increasing in amplitude.

Since carbon fiber is mentioned, the authors examined the resonant qualities of microfibers pulled from a quartz rod but made the point that "we have chosen to study micro scale (quartz) fibers as a way of qualifying the mechanical resonance method for obtaining Young’s modulus values for the ever-growing class of newly synthesized nanoscale fibers, wires, and tubes. If there are ‘‘problems’’ associated with microscale samples, it is likely that the same sorts of issues will arise with nanoscale samples."

A good case could also be made for reducing boundary resonance through cartridge isolation devices in specific circumstances.

Poem. By Henry Gibson:

In New Orleans dwelled an audiophile Creole
Who was asked if his cart sounded reole.
With a tug of his hair
Depends, said he, on how you feole
If you call what you hear is air
Instead of harmonic squeole.

Peace,
Dear Lew, You 'resonated' the right physical base. Wat 'we'
only need to do is adjust all involved resonances to their
'natural resonance(s) level'. Ie the exaggerated one by
'killing' them and by jack up those that are below their natural level. But we need to start by avoiding any carbon fiber stuff. This proposal looks to me like the 'natural deduction' from your premise.

Regards,
Dear Nikola, It is my subjective opinion, yes, that carbon fiber does not make "music". This is based on listening to carbon fiber tonearms, platters and platter mats, loudspeakers, etc, over my audio lifetime. Possibly also including cartridge bodies.
What's often not taken into consideration is energy reflected back to the stylus from the record itself and its support, and the dissipation of energy through the arm to the counterweight and arm base and possibly the plinth. Knowing that energy can only be converted to another form and not lost, what happens to vibrations not transmitted due to isolation devices or poor transmission? Test reports of constrained layer damping between the cart and headshell show just how bad this is. IMO the cart has to be firmly attached to the headshell to maintain a fixed position, and to transmit vibrations to the arm. The more vibrations there are from the cart, the more this is crucial. Using mass to convert vibrations to heat is a most efficient way of dealing with this. Touch a vibrating tuning fork to a heavy rock, and the vibrations are quickly dealt with.
Regards,
Timeltel in New Orleans tonight will be a meeting of our audio club big boys audio toys. On tap will be a vintage system with two hk citation 2s along with other goodies. Gonna pass a good time in the big easy tonight Aaaaaeeeeee
mike
It is my subjective opinion, yes, that carbon fiber does not make "music".
I tend to agree with Lew on this one.
IIRC....didn't Lloyd Walker design a carbon fibre arm for the Proscenium?
This iteration did not last long and was replaced by a ceramic or titanium arm tube?
As I seem to recall from an interview.....Walker said much the same thing about carbon fibre?
I believe JCarr made the same comments about using carbon fibre in cantilevers...

Speaking theoretically - achieving total neutrality requires the ultimate in damping materials - there should be no vibrations there other than the ones originally laid down as part of the recording.

BUT - in an imperfect world where there are going to be vibrations in any case - a material providing natural vibrations that are in-tune with music (natural sounding harmonics) simply sound better than those that tend towards inharmonic (uneven or IMD) distortions.

Still there are many very well regarded low mass arms from the 80's that used CF...
Dear Dlaloum: ++++ " there should be no vibrations there other than the ones originally laid down as part of the recording. " +++++

I posted similar statement 2-3 times on the forum. This is the ideal stage/situation and from this point of view if the CF is dead dead then is the " ideal " material but CF is not really " dead " and in my experiences with sometimes works fine and other just does not works. The whole subject is complex and I think we can have only theories about or speculations with out facts scientific test facts.

Agree with you: some 80's tonearms were build with CF and performs very well, one example was and is the MS MAX282 where at least two of its arm wands were builded with CF. Btw, ADC designed one of their cartridges with a CF's cantilever in the TRX series and works just fine in the other side VdH use CF in some of his cables and sounds terrible.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Raul may have a point, vis a vis carbon fiber tonearms. I have not heard any of the old timers. But I have heard the Well Tempered Reference tonearm, which I believe to be made of carbon fiber...... very very very dead. But also over damped with a huge trough of viscous goop. So who is to say which element of its design accounts for its lack of life? The other way in which Raul may be correct is in his idea that CF may not be so much "dead" sounding as it is adding a peculiar "muffled" coloration, so not really neutral. But I still think we/I am pleased by a serendipitous interaction of "good" resonances. In the end, there is almost no way to rid onesself of room resonance, at the very least. Or do we want CF furniture in an anechoic chamber?
I know this is way off-thread however, after some serious thought and re-reading of THE HOW AND WHY OF SUPERTWEETERS I am seriously considering upgrading into super tweeter territory and was wondering if anyone has a recommended speaker they are willing to give up. What other designers/engineers are using supertweeter design other than Dahlquist?
While it is not probable it is also not impossible that an
amateur can produce some good thought experiment. How about speakers and carbon fiber? I mean the enclosure, not the drivers. The enclosure is not supposed to resonat at all so if carbon fiber is really 'death meat' then...
There is btw an English speaker producer who make very expensive speakers 'in' carbon fiber enclosures. I forget the name because of my age but one should think about the 'best sub ever' and then by association 'recollect' the name.

Regards,
Nandric, with CF five times stronger than steel one certainly wonders about the other applications of the wonder material. Boeing uses it to manufacture airplanes. Why not speaker enclosures?
The sub name is Torus and the name of the producer is Wilson Benesch.

Regards,
Nandric, with CF five times stronger than steel one certainly wonders about the other applications of the wonder material. Boeing uses it to manufacture airplanes. Why not speaker enclosures?
Dear Tubed1, As I stated beforhand an amateur may have some
good idea but to ask the same amateur for any explanation is a totally different matter. Ie I have never tought about possible similarity between airplanes and speaker enclosures. So far I know they produce totally different sounds. However both kinds should be well constructed and as well put together.

Regards,
Tubed1, No offence intended of course. But this way we
may get in 'steamers','barrels',etc., so somebody else may
ask the question: 'what by God has this to do with MM carts?'

Regards,
Nandric, no offense taken. With no thread highjacking intended "Steamers and Barreled" readers are welcome to invoke a new headhigh post today. New materials open the door to new thinking and applications. CF and Kevlar are both thought provoking. Kevlar esp. because of it's structural integrity. Kevlar is even stronger than CF, bullet proof and can be 20x stronger than steel.

B&Ws cone material of choice and with good reason:

http://www.bowers-wilkins.com/Discover/Discover/Technologies/Kevlar.html
Hi Tubed1, Super tweeters? Ribbon tweeters typically have response to 40KHz. Some RAAL ribbons are claimed to have flat response to 100KHz. Fostex makes quite a few super tweeters with response to 40K. Some of the ribbons and the Fostex have high efficiency. Try Madisound. Parts Express also has a few ribbons with extended response.
www.raalribbon.com/
and don't forget Tannoy ones that Iown that goes to 50khz and others that comes from Japan.

Rgerads and enjoy the music,
R.
Hello all looking for some help ive been able to pick up a couple of cartridges. At155lc and m20fl super. Nether had the manuals ive been to the vinylengine with no luck. Any help with manuals would be happily appreciated.

The 155 caniliver looks to be unbent but out of alignment any ideas on which way to go, nos send it to one of the retippers or another AT model. Thanks mike.
Hi Raul,

++++VdH use CF in some of his cables and sounds terrible.++++

Years ago, I remember hearing some of vdH CF cables and I quite agree with your assesment! At the time I felt my dislike for them must be my inexperience because why else would someone world renowned develope and sell a product (for so much money), that would sound so bad?
This discussion has reminded me of that experience. I still wonder, WHY?
Dear Stltrains: http://www.vinylengine.com/cartridge_database.php?m=Ortofon&t=mi&mod=&sort=2&Search=Search&sty=&ovlo=&ovhi=&can=&dclo=&dchi=&stid=&masslo=&masshi=¬es=&prlo=&prhi=#thumb

here you can read all the specs of that Ortofon cartridge. Maybe you want something else: could you explain about?

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Considering that a 12-inch woofer bears some resemblance to a target complete with bullseye at the center, I think building drivers out of kevlar is quite relevant. If forced to listen to certain sopranos or American hip hop or (heaven forbid) bluegrass, I could easily see myself purchasing a firearm and using it on said kevlar driver. Fortunately I use ESL speakers; nothing about them resembles a target, and more fortunately, I eschew all of the foregoing types of fury-inducing music.

Supertweeters are nice, if you think your tweeter is not quite cutting the mustard at the highest frequencies. I don't know what else to say. With a good ribbon or ESL tweeter, one would not want it.
Hello Raul I would like to have the manuals for the sake of matting with the cartridges. And my searching skills are showing a good crack in the hull. Thanks for the link.
Mike
Regards, Lew:

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/vinyl/messages/99/998855.html.

The link relates to vinyl, not kevlar, but it's still hard to shoot holes in the proposition that extended frequencies complement the listeners' involvement. Someone had that figured out forty-five years ago.

Peace,
Dear Lewm: Do you already heard a supertweeter added to a good full range speaker? any ESL or whATEVER.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Ironically, kevlar woofers generally sound nothing like carbon fiber and are possibly the best types to mate with electrostatic panels to augment bass and compensate for lack of solidity. Even electrostatics with deep bass capability usually don't sound like natural bass. They might have the best midrange but electrostatics usually fall short in the high frequency dept as well. They typically lack the focus and imaging capability many value so greatly. But these generalizations don't necessarily apply to all examples, just as all kevlar woofers may or may not be worthy of target practice.

I had electrostatics with custom built direct drive amps. These amps produced 50KV and were astoundingly real sounding. Ribbon tweeters provided good high frequency detail and extension. Servo subs help in the bass dept, but must be crossed and EQ'd to make up for the deficiencies w/o putting the panels through a crossover.

In our attempts to minify a live musical event, physical limitations usually dictate capabilities. Specifically, size of radiating area vs imaging and focus, and ability of a flat panel dipole to produce natural bass. Not all electrostatics are created equal and some reduce panel size with frequency to overcome this imaging/focus problem. Not all dynamic bass drivers are created equal and Kevlar cones tend to be the better ones.
Regards,