Dear Acman3, My problem with 'calling names' and even criminal accusations against Raul are based on the following arguments. First: the criminal law and criminal justice are intended as 'public good'. Ie the protection of all sitizens. The contract law on the other hand apply only to the members involved in the contract. Only those members can claim rights and /or obligations from each other. This is probable the reason for the expression: 'mind your own business'. Now regarding this case between Raul and Tom. I thought that it should be easy to comprehend and 'grasp' the possibilities: 1. Raul sold intentionaly a damaged cart; 2. the cart was damaged in transport;3. the cart was damaged by custom inspection and 4. the cart was damaged by Tom. Those are the possibilities so any direct conclusion imply the certain knowledge about what was actualy the case. Those that are able to predict this should start an 'fortune telling' business. There are however layman experts everywehre. I come the first one across in the subject of vaccination while my dear Lew who is a real expert in this field posted 3 contributions about this issue without any succes. I had no idea btw that he can be so patient. So thanks to this imbecile I learned more about Lew. If we knew in advance where the knowledge 'hides' many things will be much more simple. Anyway the fact that Raul wrote this promise to Tom about compensation in no way imply that Raul deed anything wrong. To assume that he was wrong means to be sure that Raul posted a damaged cart to Tom. Who is willing to claim such a knowledge? I also learned from Lew's experince reg. vaccination not to get involved in discussion with layman legal experts.
Regards,
|
I am not sure why spellcheck did not catch my typing errors. |
Hello Nandric, I agree with you that it is better to take the loss "even though I know to have posted the idem in good shape." I know what it"s like to open a new toy and when opened it is broken. Great disappointment! I think it is my responsibility until the buyer opens and accepts the idem.
I recently sold my old turntable to a guy who was very excited to get a better turntable. When it arrived one of the leads had broken and he was unable to repair. He ordered some new wire which was really cheap by our standards and I refunded that part of the money. I felt really bad that he could not enjoy his new toy but it instead became another problem in life to deal with. I think we all have enough problems without adding more for others.
Not trying to look like a saint ,as I sure can rationalize with the best. |
Hi Don, 'criminal fraud' is a case for the criminal justice. Contractual issues belong to the civil law (suit). This is a very important division in all modern societies. It is about the responsibility. In the first case the person in casu is responsible in the second the property of the person in casu is, as it is called,'liable'. The 'speculation or quesswork' is about the transport and customs because there is no way to tell where the damage is caused. This is anyway my own experience . Not to get involved in those annoying procedures I prefer to take my loss despite the fact that I know to have posted the item in good condition. To sell a damged cart (or whatever) without description of the damage is stupid because one can be 100% sure in advance about the consequence. But irrespective of the 'guilt question' in the contractual case one should fulfil what one promises.
Regards, |
Nandric,
The following is a quote from Raul on this forum.
"02-11-12: Rauliruegas Please return to me and I return your money and I take shipping both sides. I'm not a seller of second hand cartridges and that's why you can take your money."
I returned the cartridge per his request. He has the cartridge but refuses to give me the refund.
This is neither "speculation or guesswork". They are facts. You being a attorney perhaps you would be so kind as to give me your definition of criminal fraud! Regards, Don |
Nandric, with those arguments in your last two post hopefully you are not a deffense attorney :). |
Dgob, You may have problems with my English but I have problem with your logic. If you are not able to understand my sentences than you can't deduce anything from them. But you obviously do. I checked your reference to my post from 3-18-12 and have no idea how you deduced anything about 'maturity' and 'taking sides' from my post. As a lawyer I also need to explain to you that our forum is not a tribunal nor a law court. Besides we all got important information and advice from Raul for years and for free so he at least deserves some consideration. You have non whatever as is obvious from the context in which you put this case: to warn the comembers against the swindlers. I know such kind of people as you are but those are not among my friends nor comrades. |
Nandric,
I generally find it hard to follow your sentences (English obviously not being your first language) but does your account (03-18-12) really display the claimed maturity of not taking sides regarding Don and Raul?
I believe this is also not the first time that this thread has been used as a vehicle to warn others of sellers who might seem dodgy and so I think Don has been treated slightly harshly for voicing his apparent frustrations. This is not to take sides as I do not know Raul's account but I do find certain interventions here very strange.
Just saying.
As always... |
Pryso, You are correct about Max being a drummer. As I was quickly writing I was trying to visualize from memory an experience that happened more than 30 years ago. Pardon the error. Regards, |
Montepilot, here is a consideration about detail:
You described Max Roach, "when he walked through the front door wearing his black fedora and trench coat carrying his bass". That is interesting since Roach was a drummer.
Now I suppose he could have been carrying his bass drum, but why would that be?
But considering detail in playback, my opinion is this is a result of modern close-mic recording technics. In a live performance we don't typically hear the musician breathing (perhaps other than Glenn Gould), the page turning, or the chair squeaking. They may have been "real" events but they are too low in level to be heard from much distance in a live audience situation. Therefore I am far more interested in the tonal representation of the instruments and how well the emotion of the performance is conveyed. Mouse farts into a cotton ball can easily be ignored. |
I would like to make a comment regarding home audio listening verses attending a real live event such as being in a club, orchestra hall etc. It is simply impossible to duplicate a real life experience in a outside venue in our homes using electronic equipment.
When Banquo says we do not focus on things like detail retrieval, hall ambience, hearing the breathing of musicians etc. when listening to music at a live event he is quite correct. But I believe there is a reason for this. At a live event the sum of the experience is greater than just the musicians playing on a stage. As an example, I recall many years ago going to the Jazz Club Keyston Corner in Sanfrancisco to hear the Max Roach quartet. Max had gotten there late but when he walked through the front door wearing his black fedora and trench coat carrying his bass the atmosphere in the club became highly charged. I believe that the collective enthusiasm of the crowd itself is also felt on a subliminal level. His mere presence, that gigantic persona he projected effected the aura, the ambience of the room. Now Keystone Corner's stage was small and musicians croweded each other for a place on stage. So the idea that you could separate individual players in the audiophile sense was not even under consideration. What I am trying to convey is that in a live setting there is so much more going on around us which is not visible to the human eye or ear but goes into the mix of the live experience. Under these conditions no one gives a hoot about soundstage, detail retrieval, recording hall ambience etc. etc. All of these audio considerations are way too restrictive to a live event.
That is why I say the home listening experience is an animal of another sort. The two experiences do not exist on the same plane. So in my home listening experience since I do not have all of those ineffable que's that exist naturally in a live setting and are second nature, I think we set out to fill in as much of that experience with transparency, detail retrieval and all the audiophile stuff we routinely talk about. Not all recordings deliver this, but when they do its nice to hear. For the record there are a large number of records I own that do not have these audiophile qualites and yet I get great enjoyment from them.
My apologies for going off the topic of MM vs MC but I thought it was tangential to what we have been discussing. It would be good to hear from other folks on what their objective is when they switch cartridges. What did the new MM give you that the previous one did not in the context of the listening experience.
Kind regards, |
Dear friends, This thread is going in the wrong direction. Besides the abvious intolerance there are also personal accusations based on speculation and quesework. We are not the 'resolution centre' like the one by ebay. To try to involve us in personal matters is not done and even improper. Why should I be put in the position to choose between Raul and Don? We all know that Raul owns and owned more than 100 carts. No need to be Einstein to deduce that he was involved in more the 100 transactions with many different persons without any known problems. It is also understandable that he sells some of his carts. I am sure that he can earn more money by selling by ebay or Audiogon. I personaly would sell to a comember only if I am 100% sure about the person. Mike is the only one so far. This is because the possible problems among comrades are much harder judged then otherwise. So far the only problem I know about is with Don. What I do know from my own experience is the fact that a seller can impossible defend him self against the accusation that the item is not as described or received as damaged. But who will sell a damaged cart? Everyone knows in advance what the result will be. So because of my own experience I want to defend Raul for the reasons mentioned. For himslef it is much harder to do. If Raul was dishonest we would hear more reports about that then just one.
Regards, |
Dear Fleib: Certainly I know what I'm saying. The subject is that you designed an ICs electronics so you have to support it but that does not means is the best way to go only an alternative: as Albertporter said " different ways to skin the cat ".
As with the cartridges on electronics does not exist the " perfect " and the ICs designs are not perfect. As I posted: advantages and disadvantages.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Montepilot, I agree with you regarding detail and resolution. There's no disputing your results. There's a big movement lately about preferring musicality over detail, but I don't think it's an either/or proposition. Sometimes it might seem that way mostly due to equipment limitations. But many people seem to genuinely feel that too much detail goes beyond that from a live event. So it brings up the question, if you were in a club or concert would you hear those details of Ella's voice or the rice on the drum head. Personally, I think the point is moot. Those details are on the recording, regardless.
Regarding ICs in the phono stage. Raul doesn't know what he's talking about, although he's entitled to his opinion. The fact of the matter is that discreet components can't do what good ICs do in many areas of performance. Having a million parts all connected with wire or traces on a board is only superior because of old school prejudice and inferior designs using ICs. Most designers don't know how to effectively regulate ICs. I haven't heard the F-115, but seeing pictures of Samuels board, it looks like he might know what he's doing. Nevertheless, it doesn't change your results.
Raul, I've reached the conclusion that Soundsmith is right. You're a preamp manufacturer masquerading as a hobbyist. Even if your production is limited and not generally available, you've offered it for sale. Hasn't it been going through revision? Planning to start up production? What the hell is going on with that tape ball cartridge, are you dishonest as well? |
Hi Montepilot,
Congratulations on your system. It certainly is of the highest calibre and able to illuminate the qualities of all your cartridges.
What you hear....you hear. And you are certainly in the majority of high-end analogue listeners in your preferences. This in itself makes me doubt my hearing ability or the resolving power of my own system....but in the end....it's only about what we each individually hear and like?
To echo Danny's sentiment......I'm glad you have found your audio Nirvana.
Henry |
Montepilot, Thanks for your further response. You have a very nice system that is obviously very capable of reproducing the fine detail of which you speak. On my way home from work today, I was thinking like Banquo. I was wondering, could you tell whether it was white rice or brown rice or wild rice, bouncing on the drum skin? And like Banquo I was questioning whether I care about detail retrieval. But I do care. I think of my system as an instrument for playing LPs as accurately as possible. After that, I can choose the "flavors" for myself. Fact is, I don't feel deprived of inner detail whilst listening to the Grace Ruby or the Stanton 980LZS. When I compare them to a "good" MC, the Ortofon MC7500, I don't feel that the Orto retrieves significantly more detail. And the former two cartridges are more "musical". This was exactly the remark of a close friend who listened to the two cartridge types in my system two days ago.
As for MM phono stages, it is my observation that there are some great bargains to be had among used and even vintage phono stages, some of which feature adjustable loading for MMs. I was able to pick up a Silvaweld SWH550 phono stage about a year ago by winning an auction on eBay. I use it for MM, only, although it does have an optional input for MC as well. Once I changed its output coupling caps, it is a dream. Nandric, you might be happy with a tube type MM-only phono. |
Hello Montepilot, thanks for your interesting comments on the MM/MI verses your Alnic MC. I think most of us realize that some expensive LOMC's, like your Alnic are probably better in some, or possibly all, areas than our favorite MM's,but like you, I would have trouble explaining a "needle" for $5,000 to my wife. Hopefully I will get to hear some top LOMC's after I get my children through college ( 3-4 years). In the meantime I get to listen to some good music through MM/MI , and as you said , if you had not heard what top MC's could do, you would be happy as I am listening through MM/MI. I guess as usual,in my case, ignorance is bliss.
As far as why some of us own 10 or more cartridges's, I personally like to hear different presentations from the different cartridges. Sort of like getting different interconnects or a different preamplifier.
I am glad you have found audio nirvana!
Danny |
Hello Banquo,
Thanks for your comments. I have encountered this argument before regarding detail retrieval and the extent to which many audiophiles go to obtain greater realism in their audio playback. My question is what are audiophiles trying to obtain when they purchase 5 or more cartridges? Many on this forum own more than 10. If the idea is to just get a very nice musical rendition of a given performance then all this effort of chasing the new cartridge of the month is totally unecessary. Why the great pursuit to find the ultimate cartridge? I believe that great audio is unecessary to have a moving musical experience. I have sat in my car long after I parked to hear a very moving performance on the car radio. To me audio is totally different animal. It's objectives can only be defined by the user. What I have described are my objectives and what gives me great satisfaction. I am not suggesting that this should be the pursuit of anyone else or that it should be a priority for anyone else. Still I don't consider the details I described in regards to Ella Fitzgerald as akin to an artifact in the corner of a movie screen. She is a living breathing person with personality and emotion with the intent to convey a message through her art. I see it as a completely valid pursuit to get as close to that musical intention of the artist as possible. If this is of no interest to anyone, great. You can save a lot of money and frustration. For me, I love the pain and the gain.
Best wishes,
|
Hi Lew, Yes, the orig stylus for the 980 Is the D98, but the D81 is interchangeable, so are the other Pickering styli I mentioned. I don't know if there is any difference between a D81S and a D98S, possibly compliance or some qualitative difference? The Pickering 7500 seems to be identical to the 980 LZ. I've compared specs with a couple of guys that have the 7500, including David. Apparently there was a predecessor, the XLZ-4500S. It has a stereohedron and the 7500 has a stereohedron II. I like the Pickering stylus holder better than Stantons.
I'm rather new to the Stanton line, this 980 is my first. I bought it NOS from Kevin at KAB a few years ago. He's the one who told me about stylus possibilities. Matter of fact, when I bought it I also got the D3001 (.2 x .7) stylus to go with it. In the old days I didn't like Stantons, specifically the 681 which is what I usually heard. This dislike continued until I heard the 881. By that time I was into LOMC. I noticed the listings in the cart database for the 500 series. I think the problem with all these Stanton/Pickering is cheap styli and holders. Regards, |
Dear Montepilot: I really appreciated your time to share here your fine audio analog experiences through MM/MI and LOMC cartridges.
I agree that the 20SS is a tiny step a top the 4000D3.
I read again your Reed2A tonearm review ( as a fact I posted tehre in the past. ) to " figure " about what surrounded all the cartridges you own.
Halcro question was critical and I assume for the same reasons I read about your system and agree with him that the MM/MI cartridges are really demandant/ask for the best set up we can make for it can shows at its best, same for the LOMC ones.
I heard the Allnic electronics and the Veito ( in my system. ) but not the Puritas. Allnic cartridge is no surprise: a good one but nothing exceptional. Well only a few cartridges out there are exceptionals.
I had and have deep and long experiences with SUTs ( external and internal to phono stages like Allnic. ), in some times I was convinced that nothing could be better than LOMC through a SUTs, that was what I learned till I grow up.
My position about SUTs are not a new one but older. Here two posts on that subject by me:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1130451054&openflup&29&4#29
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1138829438&openflup&41&4#41
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1138829438&openflup&20&4#20
IMHO your electronics can't do justice to any LOMC cartridge including your Puritas, but this is only my opinion.
I believe what you hear through your system with LOMC cartridge whaT i CAN'T BE SURE IS IF WHAT YOU HEARD IS WHAT IS IN THE RECORDING OR ONLY A KIND OF " INTERPRETATION " by your self due to the own electronics high distortions. TYhose Allnics are far from be accurate and certainly this makes huge differences for cartridge comparisons.
In the other side, good that your SS phono stage can handle 100k impedance that IMHO with many MM/MI cartridge is a must along the right capacitance loading.
I know, as Fremer " posted " that the Samuels is very good for its price range but IMHO not the best out there.
If it is true that loading set up is critical for MM/MIs it is critical too the phono stage design and phono stage quality performance level. Your Samuels use IC for its gain stages and active RIIA implementation, these design choices has some advantages but critical disadvantages. Why to use ICs instead discrete circuits?, one reason is to stay in a market price range ( normaly a low price range, like the Samuels ) other reason is that to fulfil top performance through a full discrete design demands a higher knowledge level and better skills from the designers.
Till today I never heard an ICs based phono stage design that outperforms a good discrete based design. I'm talking of quality level performance.
I think that your experiences and comparisons in your system , IMHO, can't be taked as a true comparison because not only electronics ( critical ) but tonearms were different.
Maybe if you compare the Puritas and the 20SS through the Samuels you can have a more " fair " comparison with less " different parameters " that affect the overall comparison.
As I posted my reference is a LOMC cartridge and for good reasons but for good reasons too some of the top MM/MI I own and owned are a real challenge to any LOMC including your Puritas.
Both designs ( LOMC and MM/MI ) are not perfect and the best on these designs is that many of us today have two alternatives instead only LOMC like in the past.
I know that the important subject here is what you heard and hear through your system because is the way you like to " live " with. This post is only an opinion but yours is the important one.
Thank you again for share your experiences that as many other audio experiences always are: learning ones.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Peter Bogdanovich once interviewed Orson Welles and asked a question about his great, and greatly ignored, film "Chimes at Midnight". IIRC, Bogdanovich pointed out an anomalous artifact occurring at the corner of the screen in one of the scenes and wondered about Welles' intention in 'framing' the scene that way. Welles just laughed and remarked that if the audience is concentrating on the corner of the screen while watching his movies then all is lost.
Mutatis mutandis, one could argue the same about a cartridges' ability to highlight recording artifacts, such as those that Montepilot nicely described. Whether that capacity is a virtue depends on one's targets (a term I borrow from Raul). If one's aim is to excavate and highlight each and every thing that's in the grooves, then MC presumably has the advantage. However, IMO, that kind of detail retrieval distracts and detracts from the larger picture and from the overall musical coherence. I've never left a concert (the target of live music) remarking on the number of breaths a singer took between phrases, let alone on the sound her parting lips make. Same can be said about that other alleged audiophile virtue: the pinpoint soundstage. I just don't take those things to be an important, let alone essential, part of the musical experience. Montepilot disagrees, I take it, since he argues that such detail leads to a more involving musical experience (which we all want).
I've never heard a cartridge do both, but since I've never heard the Allnic (or for that matter, any top flight MC in my system) I'm in no way denying the possibility. But to me it's like watching the corner of a movie screen and saying that that's where the director's artistic ambition resides.
A question: is there a sub $3k MM only phonostage that meets the requirements that this design has? What should I be looking at/for? LCR equalization? Loading options? Dual mono? MM only since I have no intention to try the MC route. |
I located a Stanton 980 HZS, any opinion? |
My equipment:
Turntable is Garrard 301 in a customized plinth. The 301 has upgraded bearings and was completely gone over by Loricraft in the UK with additional fine tuning by my plinth designer. It is powered by a Loricraft 301 AR power supply. The table is wall mounted with additional vibration devices incorporated. This is the platform for both the Reed 2A and Triplanar tonearms.
Phonostage #1: Allnic L1500 SE. This is tubed base design to accommodate both MC & MM cartridges Phonostage #2: Ray Samuels F-115 Solid State. I had this customized by Ray Samuels especially for MM. He provided a 100K setting for me. It has adjustable gain. Do not be fooled by its diminutive size.
Power amp: Lectron JH-50 modified by Nick Doshi on occasion will swap in Yamaha B2 100watt SS Class AB amp.
Speakers: Coincident Extreme Monitor II
Power cables: Telwire & Nordost Brahma
Interconnect: always in flux |
Regards, Nandric: I was offered the opportunity to audition a gold body 500 by one of our highly regarded contributors. The generous offer was declined, the gentleman sent a wonderful recording consisting of trumpet concertos, sonatas and rondeau from Albioni, Purcell and Holst as a "consolation prize". Although this not-to-be-named fine gentleman (BTW, Hi, Jim!) is an accomplished musician and I have enjoyed his gift immensely, after investing a little time searching specs for the various Pickering/Stanton carts I regret declining his initial offer.
Intuition, not experience, leads me to presume the 500EE-11 is the "cream of the 500 crop". Unknown eddy currents or microphonics aside, the *specs* for the earlier 500s are among the best, later versions show increased impedance and output voltage. For the 500EE-11, 35db. separation is as good as the medium permits, the inductance/impedance (400 mH/535 Ohm, 3.1 mV output) specs are in the neighborhood of some fairly highly regarded carts, the AT20SS at (IIRC) 370mH/500 ohm, 2.7 mV for comparison. For further consideration, the AT22-25 is 550 Ohm, the AT440MLa with its frequently commented on hf emphasis at 490mH/3200 Ohm.
With the correct loading and a high-quality stylus assembly (aftermarket Shibata, HE, vivid line or NOS stereohedon and quad "Q" profiles are available, as well as several well thought of OEM ellipticals at .75-1.25gm VTF), one might anticipate the "lowly" 500 capable of excellent (and a hypothetically uncolored) performance. For those considering sampling the Pickering/Stanton family of carts, adequate research is an absolute necessity. There are wide body, narrow body, MM and MI versions and styli nomenclature relating to compatible options between the two manufacturers is practically indecipherable and as output can differ between the same cart with different styli, there is reason to think magnet strength differs too. Don't bet the farm on it but the rectangular and "J" shaped stylus assemblies are, within their respective group, reportedly interchangeable.
Nikola, I've no hands-on knowledge of this particular cart but I must confess the speculative aspect is intriguing and I hope to procure one soon. The above specs with a line contact stylus on boron, 20-25cu? Hmm. Keep us informed.
Peace, |
What a dilemma for me: Montepilot looks like my twin brother ( I also own the Triplanar and the Red 2A) while Henry is my Slavic brother. Now I mentioned somewhere that 'pretending' is an important social capability but I must honestly agree with both of my brothers. Henry is right regarding the phono-pre(S). I own the most recent Basis Exclusive with the 'innumerable' possibilities to adjust the MC carts but hardly any for the MM kind. The so called 'gold version' from 2009 which I also owned had no MM inputs at all to my (big) suprise. My Triplanar has probable an more 'modest mate' than the one by my twin brother but the Benz Ruby 3 S got two Absolute Sound awards btw. With the Phase Tech P 3G 'in' my Red 2A those are still my best carts. Among my MM carts the ordering is: 1. Virtuoso (black) boron / hyper elliptical; 2. Virtuoso (black) aluminum/ nude line; 3. AT 180; 4. signet 9 cl; 5. Stanton 881 S.
This however is a provisional ordering because i have no idea what an adequate MM phono-pre can do.
Regards, |
Dear Montepilot, Thanks for your careful description of your experience. To continue in Halcro's line of thinking, what linestage (if any), what amplifiers, and what speakers? For that matter, what turntable? But I guess the point is that if you can hear the differences you describe among cartridges, the downstream equipment is not getting in the way of your perceptions. I heard the Puritas at the 2010 RMAF, in Steve Dobbins' room, and it was clear to me that it is very fine, indeed, in a Reed tonearm on his Beat turntable. Another that interested me, and still does, is the Soundsmith Sussuro. Also, Miyajima stereo and mono. |
Montepilot, What phono stage are you using with the MMs and the MC cartridge? I have found that many of the 'modern' phono stages include a MM capability as an afterthought.......if it is included at all? The quality of the phono stage for a MM/MI cartridge is just as important as for a LOMC.....in fact MMs are far more sensitive to loading and capacitance than most MCs in my experience. |
Since recent thread comments have touched on MC options I thought this was as good a time as any to weigh in on my MM vs MC experiences. In a 3-23-2012 thread above Nandric wrote: "No wonder than that the most of us own even more than two specimens of this kind ( modesty is a virtue). But the Nirvana for cheap seems to be very difficult to achive so even those who already own 'the best of the best' (like Lew) still buy some more."
I wish to focus on his comment “Nirvana for cheap” as this was the reason for my pursuit of the MM alternative. To come straight to the point, I have not been able to acquire Nirvana for cheap with any of the MM cartridges I own. This is not to say there are not very good performers among the MM’s but not one of them has been able to meet let alone exceed my Allnic Puritas LOMC cartridge. And believe me I have tried hard to beat it and would have been ecstatically delighted to have a cartridge perform as well at a fraction of the price. The idea a finding my reference cartridge and simply replacing the stylus when it wore out for a couple hundred dollars or less could not have been more welcomed.
I have owned the following MM carts: Ortofon FL20 Super & ME. Azden YM-P50VL, Sumiko Andante P-76, Audio Technica AT7V, Empire 4000 DIII, Audio Technica AT20 w/AT20SS stylus, Acutex 420 STR. The top performer of them all in my system is the Audio Technica AT20 w/AT20SS nos stylus on a Triplanar arm. Second place would be the Empire 4000 DIII on a Reed 2A arm.
There are several things the Puritas does exceptionally well that none of the MM’s I own has been able to achieve in my system. Please note that none of these qualities are absent from the best of my MM cartridges but with my LOMC Puritas there is a clear level of performance of a higher caliber that is easy to hear and sets it apart from the others. Micro detail retrieval: The ability to reveal a clear sense of speed and pressure of a string players bow on violin, viola or cello. Example, Cecil McBee’s , Chico Freeman intro on the song The Search on The Outside Within lp, India Navigation. Janos Starker’s cello on Bach Suites. Mercury Living Presence. My AT20 does very good on outer detail retrieval, but does not capture the full gruffness and scratchiness of bow to string that is fully apparent on my Puritas. On the excellent reissue Sounds Unheard Of, Shelly Manne uses some exotic percussion instruments with unusual setups. For instance on the track Poinciana rice is used on the bass drum head so that when it is struck you not only hear the reverberation of the drum but also the crackling of the rice as it rises and falls from the impact of the mallet. The MM captures the full impact quite well but falls short cleanly rendering how the rice falls back on the drum head. If not clearly rendered you can mistake the effect of rice on the drumhead as distortion or driver stress due to the impact. Does this minute detail take away from the enjoyment of the record? No! But once you have heard passages like this rendered cleanly you notice when these details are muted or smeared. BTW can your cartridge distinguish which brand of rice is being used! Just kidding ;-)
Ambience retrieval: the sense of air and space around performers exposing dynamic shifts and shadings for example in Schubert’s Trout Quintet was greatly enhanced with my Puritas. This made for a more exciting listener involved experience.
Female vocals are rendered quite beautifully with both the Audio Technica and the Empire. Two of my favorites among many are Helen Humes lp “Songs I love to Sing” Contemporary Records and Ella Fitzgerald’s “Let no man write my Epitaph.” What the Puritas does is it digs a little deeper in revealing those ever so slight vocal inflections that reveal the emotional intent of the singer. With Ella this is highly important for she is exceptional in using her voice to bend and shape lyrics to tell a story. With the Puritas you can hear ever so clearly the parting of the slips the swallowing and taking of a breath before singing the next line. This is the kind of stuff I believe we go through so much time and expense in setting up our audio systems to reveal. If I did not own a top quality Moving Coil cartridge and had heard only my Audio Technica or Empire in my system I believe I could live happily live with either of them and not be in such avid pursuit of additional cartridges. Once you know that there’s still more gold in them grooves to be excavated it’s hard to go back to a diminished presentation. The MM experience has allowed me to enjoy vinyl playback while sparing my Puritas from everyday use and hopefully extending its life. Last year I damaged the stylus of my Puritas and was nearly in tears knowing I did not have the money to replace it and it would not be covered under warranty due to my clumsiness. However the Allnic folks were wonderful and replaced my cartridge only charging me shipping to make an exchange. This totally blew my mind as I would have had a difficult time explaining to my wife why I needed to raid our savings account to buy a replacement for a “simple little needle.” During several weeks of waiting for a replacement from Allnic I listened exclusively to the Empire DIII/Reed & Triplanar/AT20 combo. I was able to fully dial in both cartridges to perform their best. They were both quite satisfying. Until.....
One final thing of interest is that when I received the replacement Puritas without any hours on it, it fell below the performance of my AT20/Triplanar. Even after 100 hours on the Puritas it was only comparable to the AT20 and I was worried that the new Puritas was inferior to the one I damaged. It was not until 150 hours that the new Puritas came into its own and began to reveal what I described above. It needed to be fully run-in to show its best. I say this to indicate that the best MM’s are no slouch in many areas of performance I have delineated, but in my experience up until now they do not have the speed, transparency and low level detail retrieval of the finer Moving Coils. So IMHO we do still need LOMC’s.
Regards, |
Dear Professor, While searching for the Karat 13D or 17 D on (what else) the Geman ebay I was very suprised to see that despite 62 cart pages there was no single Dynavector to find. So I was 'forced' to inspect ebay.com with the same result regarding the Dynas. But, to my suprise, I discovered your 'lowly' Stanton 500EE(NOS) and bought the precious 'lightning fast' for $50. I own two 881S so the 'precious' can borrow the exclusive 'footwere' from them and enter the 'high society' of the cart classes?
Regards, |
Dear Dover, I was not sure if my expression 'cruel' was 'offensive' but we got a very interesting report about the Karat Nova 13D . Thanks! However your enthusiasm about the cantileverless Ikeda added to complexity (of choice) instead of enligthtement. There are also 'frightening reports' about this cart in addition to their diversity. I got the impression from Dertonarm, Syntax, Raul and some others that only the 'professionals' among us are capable to deal with this cart(s). So after some info from Dertonarm I give up this 'road to Nirvana' despite the fact that I own a nice specimen of the FR-64S. There is no such thing as modest- questions or request in our forum so would you be so kind to add to your previous post: more about 17D (in comp.with 13D) as well about Ikeda(s)?
Kind regards, |
Raul - the cartridge in the picture may be a Dynavector Nova 17D, not the 13D. I dug out my correspondence with Dynavector. The cartridges look identical. If the serial number is in the format X### then it is a 17D. My 13D is ##, ie 45. Now the specs from Dynavector are as follows : Nova 13D/Nova 17D2 Output 0.12/0.20 (1kHz/cm/sec ) Frequency response 20-40khz/20-30khz +-1db Channel separation 25db for both Compliance 18/15 Impedance R=10ohms/R=32ohms Inductance L=52microH/90microH Stylus PA Line Contact/Microridge Cantilever 1.3mm/1.7mm
|
Dear Dover: Now after reading your last post my expectation with the 13D grow up. Tomorrow I will have on hand but my system still down. I will post my experiences with the Karat Nova 13D.
Another curios " subject " is that according the information I have the elliptical stylus in the 13D is not the normal 0.3x0.7 or 0.2x0.7 but 0.25x.0.7. Certainly Dynavector had reasons to choose a non-orthodox elliptical stylus shape.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Nandric/Raul, re Dynavector Nova 13D This cartridge was initially purchased/used many yrs ago, the sytem was at the time Final Audio Parthenon turntable/Dynavector 501/NYAL NCP II preamp with HTMPS tube regulated power supply and NYAL OTL1 monoblocks/Stax electrostatic full range speakers/Onkyo SL1 infinite baffle subwoofers ( very low base only ). Initial listening with a normal system was very transparent, but slightly lean and light bottom end. When the cartridge was auditioned in Dynavectors reference system in Japan which had flat response down to 15hz, then you realized the cartridge is dead neutral, it requires a true full range system to realise its potential. It is not a cartridge to impress with either lush midrange or fat bottom end, but if you have an extremely good system it will reveal nuances such as recording venues etc that other cartridges mask with colourations. I last used the Nova 13D in a Naim Aro and this was a very good combination, unleashing a bit more fluidity to the sound compared to the Dynavector arm. My own personal favourite MC though is still the Ikeda canterleverless MC. This is faster and less phasey than any MC I have heard but as stated in other posts requires a very good arm such as the FR64/66 and plenty of gain - output 0.15. Raul - fyi the boys at Dynavector recommended the vintage Denon AU103 transformer over any headamp or transformer they made themselves for the Nova 13. With the NYAL it had enough gain straight in. Latterly I used Klyne 7 phono ( ok soundwise but not as good as my Marantz 7) and Blue Audio System's head amp/Marantz 7 (modded)(preferred combo). Nandric - I would be wary at this stage as to whether it is as good as the best today. Unfortunately here in New Zealand I have cannot audition cartridges such as the Allaerts/Air Tight/top Lyra's etc. I have heard the van den hul grasshoppers, the Dynavector is very similar but again the Ikeda blitzes the Van den hul in my view. |
Lewm,
Raul has the money. Raul has the cartridge. Update accomplished. No refund. No cartridge.
Regards, Don |
Dear Fleib, I am not going to say you are categorically "wrong" in some of what you wrote above, but just to say that my set of facts about the 980LZS are different from yours. First, my 980LZS came with an OEM D98S stylus, which is much more of a rare bird than a D81S stylus. The latter I can find on my Stanton 880 cartridge, I think. But on the other hand, my information agrees with you on the subject of identity with the Pickering XSV7500. I was told by someone knowledgeable here (maybe even you) that the styli on the 980LZS and on the XSV7500 were identical, which was what led me to buy the latter stylus when I earlier got the chance to do that, since an OEM and NOS D98S stylus is pretty much unobtainium. (Now 3 people will say they have one lying around.) What say you to that? Thx.
Dear Don, It would be OK, as far as I am concerned, to bring us up to date on the outcome of your dispute, when you feel it's time. Your recent silence on the subject led me to hope that all finally went well. |
Who would have thought that buying from eBay would be safer than buying from Rauliruegas!
"Updates to the eBay Buyer Protection Policy Dear griffithds, I'm writing to let you know about important updates to the eBay Buyer Protection Policy that will go into effect on June 19, 2012: •A provision has been added that in some cases we may refund part of the cost of the item to the buyer and receive reimbursement from the seller to cover differences between the item described and the item actually received, such as small parts missing or minor repairs needed. In these cases, we will not require the buyer to return the item to the seller.
•A clarification has been included that delivery signature confirmation for items $250 or more is only required in order to protect sellers from losing a case where such service is offered by at least one shipping company. Similarly, when we ask a buyer to return a $250 or more item to the seller, delivery signature confirmation is required if it is offered by at least one shipping company.
•A clarification has been made that items purchased from the Businesses & Websites for Sale category will not be covered by eBay Buyer Protection.
•A provision has been added regarding the relationship between eBay Buyer Protection and the new managed return process. If a buyer uses the process to return to an item purchased from an eligible transaction under that process, and the seller fails to provide a timely refund in accordance with the new process, the buyer may file a case under eBay Buyer Protection. If we resolve the case in the buyer's favor, we'll refund the buyer, the amount of which will depend on the terms and conditions of the process.
•As with earlier updates, other changes have been made to keep the eBay Buyer Protection Policy up-to-date with our product and service offerings. Thanks, Heraldo Botelho eBay Buyer Protection Policy eBay Inc. "
|
I thought it was common knowledge that Stanton and Pickering were sister companies. They shared the same technology and stylus substitutions are prevalent between model lines. Some time ago I posted that I'm using a Pickering D3001 stylus on my 980, which also takes the Stanton D81 (881) stylus. Any Pickering D3000 through 7500 can be substituted for a D81. Indeed, the 980 LZX cart is identical to the Pickering 7500 - not just in stylus, everything. However, this is not the case in most stylus substitutions. It's like AT. I can put any number of different styli on my Virtuoso, like a 3400, 95, 92ECD, 3472 and variants etc, but the carts themselves (bodies/generators) are different. BTW, I'm still using the P-mount styli on my Virtuoso and getting better results than the 95 variants. The cantilevers are thinner so lower tip mass. VTF is 1.25 to 1.5g. I'm using low mass arm - Sonus Formula 4 and Unitrac. |
By the way, Raul, what on earth prevents you from revealing the identity of the LOMC that has you so excited? Do you think naming it would cause a stock market crash? We are mature enough to deal with the information without serious consequences to our mental health. |
Albert, I did a search to find the specs of the 980LZS. Apparently the internal resistance is only 3 ohms, which makes it suitable to drive even a 100R load resistor, and in fact I may have tried that with good results, now I think about it. (My 980LZS is sitting idle at the moment because I am re-wiring the tonearm on which it usually mounts.) The low output (0.3 mV) and the low internal resistance both suggest that the inductance will be more like that of an MC cartridge than that of a typical MM cartridge, so I am guessing you would actually be OK using a SUT, notwithstanding arguments for and against using SUTs. I have never even owned a SUT, so my opinion on that score is meaningless. |
Dear Dover: Well, the one in your link has the 143 on serial number. I can see through that link that the price on the Karat Nova 13D had fluctations on the 25%: 40,000 yens against a second sample ( the same year. ) for 49,800 yens.
Now, seems to me a little weird that Dynavector choosed an elliptical stylus shape for its top of the line cartridge against other down models where choosed line contact ( 23R or 17D. ).
In that same link appears the Karat Nova 17D ( wood body. ) and in this one the stylus shape was line contact with a longer cantilever: 1.7mm against 1.3mm on the 13D.
Could you share the specs on the 13D and specs to make the cartridge set-up along your opinion on its performance level?, thank you in advance.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Lew,
I'll check that out once I get it. Maybe if there is an issue with step up I can go into MM input and have enough gain.
I think there is a higher output version of this Stanton, worse case I could search for one of those. |
Dear Albert, I would be very careful if using a SUT with the 980 to be sure that you don't end up with a load impedance that is too low for it to work properly. (I am now forgetting what Stanton recommends.) But I think these low output MMs present a kind of paradox; they like to see a high-ish load impedance but put out low voltage and therefore would be difficult to mate with a SUT. My Atma-sphere MP1 of course has more than enough gain for any MC or LOMM without using a SUT, so the issue does not arise for me, nor for Raul with his 3160. |
Dear Albertporter: +++++ " Many ways to skin a cat, LOMC cartridges have fewer windings and lower internal impedance. Some engineers and designers think this is more important than the high output alternative, " +++++
problem is not with the cartridge designers
+++++ " No way to argue which is best as each ear must decide for themself. " +++++
subject is not what your ears decide or what you like but what is right or wrong.
Years ago I made my self these simple questions: what if what I'm listening that I like it is wrong? what if what I learned through the AHEE is wrong?
the answers to those questions along added other questions/answers were the big step on all my audio life.
For the first time I was aware and was " concious " of the reality and understanded this reality this true. From here I started to destroy to left behind almost all what I learned that were wrong and started to build a new " road " that till today I'm on the way.
I know is not easy for you speak against SUTs due that you promoted through the electronics you have on sale.
I want to put you two examples of two regarded/praised audio item designers whom I respect along one audiophile that I respect too. One is R.Kartsen from Atmasphere whom know very well the damage that make SUTs, certainly he knows a lot about and that's why his phonolinepreamp is a non-SUT design and certainly not because " many ways to skin the cat ". The other is J.Carr cartridge and electronics designer whom choosed ( for very good reasons. ) no SUT it his great phono stage design. The audiophile/music lover is Dougdeacon that for some time was the best advocate to SUTs you could find out till he listened/tested a high gain active stage that he loves till today.
All these persons IMHO choosed what is right because they knew what was and is wrong.
M.Lavigne is another very good example. He owned or at least had on hand tubes electronics with inside SUTs and at the end when he decide to " download " his system choosed for no SUT in favor of active low noise high gain phono stage.
Do you want a reviewer?, well J.Atkinson.
As you I'm not alone and the " crew " are growing up in the same manner than the MM/MI " crew ". Btw, my today cartridge reference is a LOMC not a MM/MI type.
I hope that over time you can get one of the very top MM/MI performers where IMHO you could find MM/MI performers nearest to your beloved LOMC ones.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Nandric: Well, that opportunity was not for you this time.
Teh cartridge is very good performer and very low output (0.1mv ) and not easy to handle. I hope you can keep your hands on it in the near future.
In the mean time try to get the G800 by Goldring.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Timeltel Thank's to put some light in the Stanton/Pickering.
Btw, many people are " crazy " looking for Stanton/Pickering vintage original stylus replacement when IMHO could be better to retip it to today standards. What do you think in this subject?
Years/moths ago I was reluctant to change " nothing " in a vintage cartridge but through experiences about maybe I was wrong due that the cartridge motors on those vintage cartridges are so good that the improvement through retip to today standards put almost all those gems steps further a top its original " shape ".
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Raul Dear Albertporter: With all respect till today I can't understand why any one invest big big dollars on LOMC cartridges only to degrade its quality performance through a SUT, any SUT at any price.
Many ways to skin a cat, LOMC cartridges have fewer windings and lower internal impedance. Some engineers and designers think this is more important than the high output alternative, preferring the "larger gain" be outside and apart from the tonearm. Like all things high end audio, that's why both solutions are available and why people buy and listen to each. As for ways to acheive that gain, there are transformers, tubes and solid state. As you know each brings thier own flavor to the music. No way to argue which is best as each ear must decide for themself. I beleive the Shure (and the Stanton?) will not live up to my favorite LOMC but who cares? both of these inexpensive alternatives will provide good sound and no reason to not enjoy. Anyway, enjoy the Stanton.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. That's the best advise. |
Timeltel, regarding the Stanton 500, over time I've thoroughly enjoyed comparing different combinations of my grey body 500, two gold body 500 examples, and genuine as well as aftermarket Stanton d5100 stylus (blue), d5100e stylus (black grip, red box), and d5100ee stylus (black grip, metallic gold box).
Famous as the 'broadcast standard' cartridge for at least a couple of decades, the "regular" 500 with the blue stylus is one that has been both praised and cursed by audiophiles. In my experience it needs a high mass arm to sound its best. In any event I thoroughly enjoy each of my 500 variants from time to time but prefer my gold body examples to the grey one I have.
The top of the line 500ee that you refer to utilizes the hard to find d5100ee (.3X.7) stylus that tracks nicely at 2g. It's cantilever is hardly the tiny diameter of that on my 881s, but neither is it the "tree branch" of that on the standard blue stylus. Once in a great while a genuine d5100ee appears on that auction site. If there happens to be one available today I have no affiliation with the seller etc...
Jim
|
Regards, Raul, Fleib: The Stanton 881S specs are 10-25k, output imped. of 900, inductance 455mH, here's another for comparison: 535 output imped., 400mH coil induct., 35 dbl. separation, 3.1 mV output. With an exotic profile stylus, these specs would lead one to presume the cart has the potential for very capable performance. What cart? Keep reading. Meanwhile, concerning the "brotherly relationship" between Stanton/Pickering carts, an informative thread: http://audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=405437&highlight=stanton+500&page=2 "Pickering XV-15 and Stanton 68x are the same thing outside of the plastic and the brush - which are functionally equivalent? They're completely interchangeable. Just buy the best thing available at the price you want to pay - which is probably going to be a "Stanton" replacement. If anyone doesn't believe me, I'll be happy to stick a Stanton 681 stylus on my XV-15 and vice-versa, then record the results." And a little more from the same thread: "I know that the V-15 and 500 series are interchangeable, the XV-15 and 68x series are the same, and I think the XSV-3000 came out first, the 881s was a tweaked version of it, and then the XSV-3000 was brought up to matching specs." And the un-named cart above? The "lowly" Stanton 500EE. Peace, |
Dear Raul, As if you can read my mind. The AT 1000 was indeed on ebay.uk . However I was reluctant to write to you and ask about this cart because I assume that you get such questions every day. So I had no idea about the 'real value' and lost in the last seconds of the auction. I had Axel with boron cantilever in mind btw.
Dear Dover, At last I am able to see this 'wonder' or ''the object of Raul's desire''. But it is a kind of 'cruelty' not to say anything about the sound of this cart. Exactly the same as Raul's announcement of this mysterious MC cart and then keep silent about the whole issue. All this time I am speculating about the question: what can be better than Alearts MC 2 or Formula 1?
Regards, |
Dear Albert, Welcome to the right church and the true faith. The only one in the whole 'HI-FI world' which may be called 'profitable'. 'A solid investment' in the MC church looks like a (bad)joke but as you can see from Lew's proposal you can make profit even before you got any idea about your purchase. Compare this with the share market... And than there is also the 981 HZS with the same perspective. I am sure that your beloved lady will be very,very suprised but you can easily proof your case with this thread (the Breuer/Red guy).
Regards, |