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
Dear Lew, 'not all Croats are traitors' is equivalent to
'some Croats are traitors'. This however is no what
I intended to state. But probable more interesting for you.
I wrote to Axel about Fremers review and suggested to him
to inform by Ogura if he can get this diamond coated boron cantilever and with which styli. This way we all will have more choice. .

Regards,
Hi David,

Thanks for your tip regarding sibilance. With my PS Audio GCPH, the loading is actually at 47k.

On the other side, I'll sell my Rega next Monday and next week might be the one where I'll "complete" my SP-10 mkII project. So, I will have to adjust know the Nagaoka on a SME 312S arm. I'll give feed-back later.

Sébastien
Nikola, Do you think Axel can do ruby cantilever/elliptical stylus, so as to restore my broken Ruby to its original equipment? Can he deal with an email in English?

It is interesting to me that most of us in the US, especially those who do not travel, are totally oblivious to the very powerful hatreds that exist between highly related populations, sometimes within the same country, in Europe. Here, yes there is some internecine virulence, but not on the scale of the centuries old resentments, e.g., in Spain (between Basques and everyone else), in Belgium (between Flemish and Walloons), in Ireland, and in your country (sometimes "countries").
Nikola, I don't understand your answer. You still hear no difference between cantilevers? This isn't a legal matter - no need to give an evasive answer. The anecdote about a highly publicized defectively glued stylus is meaningless, but amusing. I can picture Mikey Fremer checking SRA with his microscope, good for him! Does the stuff about metallurgy and alchemy mean that you think there is no difference?

Lew, I can't find the dimensions of Soundsmith contact line. The Grace F9 diamond is .2 x .8 mil? There's probably only a little difference in the minor radius but you should get more vertical contact. A guess - slightly more detail, esp in high freq and greater tip longevity.
Regards,
Dear Lew, Axel is (also) specialist for the B&O carts and,as you know, there is no difference between the 'ruby' and other kinds of sapphire. However I would prefer the ruby bearings in my Reed (grin).Axel speaks English so you can ask you specific question.

Dear Fleib, I like both Virtuoso's very much but have light
preference for the aluminum/ nude line by vocal music and
light preference for the boron/elliptical with string instruments more in particular violin. BTW I am very fond about Beethoven's violin sonatas. At present however I am
'in love' with 'somebody else': the AT 180.

Regards,
Lewm,

"Astatic 4000DIII" = Empire 4000DIII?

Are you stating what you feel is a fact, or are you stating a question?

I have heard but never found anything that would prove that Astatic did in fact produce the Empire stylus. The more I looked into the business end of Empire, the various owners of the Empire name and their shady practices, the more discussed I became with the entire Empire line. No wonder it folded.
Dear Lewm: As Nandric posted Axel " take " English with no trouble. One advantage with him is that he handle nude : elliptical, superelliptical, line contact, shibata, Gyger2, etc, so we can get what we want with different cantilever build material: boron, aluminum, ruby/sapphire and Be.
Yes with more options is more dificult to make a choice.

You ask for differences when listening elliptical (0.2x0.7 ) against line contact and even that in theory there are differences on performance because in theory ( as Fleib posted ) you can get more contact area with the line contact things are that due to so many imperfections on playback that those differences could be real ones or only distortions from either stylus shape. In many ways could be more important how good the fixing source align the cantilever and the stylus in the cantilever and his " touch " in the suspension.

The other side is the real cantilever construction/shape/dimension and how good was polished the stylus. Each cartridge's fix source has its own cantilever and stylus source and not necessary the same one.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Acman3: As you and Halcro I like very much the Garrot P77. I just finished a comparison against my A&R 77 where even I interchange stylus in the cartridges and I have to say that performance is almost similar and I say " almost " because the A&R77 with the Garrot stylus makes a " tiny " better performance but this could be because the A&R 77 stylus has a lot more hours ( I bought it two weeks ago for " penauts ". and with two original stylus but both well used. ).

Now, I just received the Jico replacement and I like it in both cartridges and performs the same even that I listened only 3-4 hours I like what I heard that I already ordered two more Jico samples between other thinks because all the similar cartridge motors that Audiopulse posted I own and want to try.

Now, I will send to Axel the secon A&R 77 stylus replacement to an up grade in this way I will be abble to compare the Jico/Axel/Garrot/A&R and decide wich one in true is the ones that permit that both cartridges shows at its best but in the mean time I'm hooked ( for the moment ) with the Jico one.

Curious, the same bad experience you had with your 205 Jico is the one that other people reported in the net. I had and have very good experiences with the Jico SAS in my M97 by Shure.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Acman3: Jico SAS alternative as we experienced is not always the best option. Other than the Technics 205 bad experience I have first hand another one: when I bought my Shure M97 Jico SAS and due that I really like it a friend of mine owner of the Shure V15 VMR ask me about and I in some " stupid " way recomemend his the Jico SAS for his Shure with out taking in count what Dlaloum posted here several times with out taking in count the Shure V15 cantilever original build material.

What happened?: that my friend ordered the Jico SAS for his Shure and after 30 hours of playback we take in count that the Shure original stylus was way better than the more distorted performance in the JICO SAS. The only thing that I made with my friend was a " shamed ": sorry.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
terms like "smooth" and "romantic" are usually problematic...
They have a strong tendency towards subjectivism.... and as a result can mean something different to each and every person.
For the last four or five months…..I have been re-evaluating all my cartridges due to the increased resolution of my system, and have been wrestling with both the ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ differences I am hearing between them all.
As Nikola pointed out……..I am in a small minority of audiophiles with the ability to instantly switch between 24 different cartridges, six different arms and two different turntables.
The permutations and combinations are daunting but…….never one to shirk my duties…….I attacked in a way that would do credit to Hannibal :-)

The largest ‘subjective’ differences were those between the LOMCs and the MMs.
For the first 15 years of my involvement in audio……I had one arm with one MM cartridge at a time (albeit five different models).
For the next 15 years….I had one arm with one LOMC at a time (albeit nine different models) whilst for the last 4 years…..I’ve had a multitude of arms and cartridges on two turntables.

It was Raul…and this thread which ‘turned’ me back to the MM cartridges which I had ditched so blithely under the influence of the audio press so long ago.
I have been a ‘convert’ ever since.
But why are we ‘here’….in the minority?
Why do all the high-end reviewers and audiophiles and cartridge manufacturers (with a notable exception)…..prefer LOMCs almost ‘to a man’?
Why do I hear differently to them….or they to me?
This is what I have been wrestling with for months!

The interesting phenomena I have found….is the ‘order’ and ‘speed’ of the ‘cartridge-switching’ experiment?
When I change from a MM cartridge to a LOMC……I am immediately ‘impressed’.
There seems to be a ‘tightening’ of the sound and rhythm.
There seems to be a greater solidity to the bass performance and sometimes…..a feeling of extended upper-frequency response?
If I were to draw my conclusions at this initial point……I would come out in favour of the LOMC cartridge.
But a strange effect takes place over the next few days. I begin to hear a ‘flatness’ to the soundstage which wasn’t there with the MMs?
What appeared to be a greater solidity in the bass turns into a ‘sharper’ hit but without the substance of the ‘real thing’ and without the ‘roundness’ of the MM presentation.
What appeared to be a greater upper-frequency detail retrieval is in fact no such thing. It seems to be a removal of the ‘air’ and ‘shimmer’ around the notes which then emphasizes their fundamental frequencies whilst removing some of the harmonics?
But the greatest disappointment seeps into my consciousness.
The midrange….the n’a plus rien, the raison d’etre, the soul, the heart of all music……is deficient.
Without the depth and physicality of the midrange heard through the best MM cartridges…..the presentation of the LOMCs becomes a shallow pastiche of analytical cornucopia intended to convince by deception?
Swap immediately back to a MM cartridge…..and there is no ‘immediate’ feeling of superiority.
This is the riddle!
It takes ‘time’ to appreciate the ‘truth’ to the performance of the MMs whilst the ‘reverse’ substitution to LOMCs…appears ‘impressive’.

Anyway…..this is one small man’s ‘take’ on the subject?
As always…..YMMV!

Henry
Dear Halcro, thinking is a kind of wrestling with ourself.
There is also no such thing as listening without 'interpretation' which actually involves our whole brain. Then there is this remarcable 'adaptive capability'
of the brain. We can talk about our experience and feelings but there are no identical brains. You can't feel my pain so to speak but you can try to feel empathy with my pain. However we are talking about the external (sound)sources which are physical in nature while we are 'programmed' to think that THOSE are objective in the sense of physical laws. Deniel of of physical laws would be strange so we are
obviously hearing the same sources but with different brains and interpretation. This is the riddle 'mental versus physical' which Kant already treated (the 'free will') and which is so difficult to answer for a physicalist.
The best I come across is Davidson's : all events are physical but not all are (also) mental ( D.Davidson, essays on Actions&Events ).
So, it seems, there is no problem with your'subjectivity'; rather on the contrary.

Regards,
Lespier, Any conclusion already regarding Piezo YM 308
versus Acutex M 320? Those Piezo's are much easier to get
while their styli look very promising for the 'flat nose' owners.

Regards,
Lewm - drop Axel a line, he responds in good English... he may even be able to handle American..
Griffithds - I believe that Empire manufactured their own cartridge initially... and that the 888/999/1000/2000/3000/4000 series were all home designed... (although stylus manufacture might well have been farmed out)

Later things get very murky, with Astatic Japan, Azden/Piezo, and also BenzMicro & even Ortofon making kit for the Empire brand...

Lots of rebranding in the later Empires (some of which was very good indeed... the BenzMicro MC's and the Ortofon MC's were no slouches!)

But the 2000 / 4000 are authentic Empire...

bye for now

David
Halcro, My general experience mirrors yours, though limited to the comparison of a wide range of MM/MI to a smaller sample of MC. Linking your remarks to a review in today's newspaper of the lyrical experimental filmmaker Nathaniel Dorsky, I lean toward an alternative to the usual dichotomy of objective vs. subjective interpretation of recording and playback:

"Interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art...transparency in art(and criticism)...means experiencing the luminence of the thing in itself, of things being as they are." From Against Interpretation, Susan Sontag

It is "necessary to see objects by moonlight--as well as sunlight-- to get a complete notion of them." Thoreau
Dear Nandric,
I can actually understand your response :^)....and it gives me some solace just as Dgarretson's Thoreau quote does.
By the way Dgarretson.......a wonderful selection of equipment in your system. I'm impressed :^)
Dear Dgarretson, The 'dichotomy' you are talking about is
'build in' in the language we all use: 'inside'-óutside',
'one side-the other side', 'above-bellow', 'subjective-objective', etc., etc.
You 'lean toward an alternative to the subjective-objective dichotomy' as you state. This however means a 'third way' of thinking. I was not able to discovere your 'third way' of thinking. You only quote two persons who have no idea what they are talking about. Ie they are not even aware of the misleading grammar they use.
The 'is' between S(ubject)and P (predicate) in the S is P
sentence form has 4 different logical readings of which they as well many others are not aware.
1. Plato IS wise ( classification of an object in a set);
2. Man IS mortal ( inclusion of one set in the other);
3. Morning star IS Evening star ( identity relation)
4. God is (existence assumption;there is an X, such that)
Now:
A.'Interpretation is the revenge... ' etc. This make no sense at all or should be treaded as licentia poetica by which 'authority' a writer or poet can state what he likes.

B.'it is necesaary to see objects by moonlight..'.etc.'to get a complete notion of them'

To which physical law this 'necessary' condition is refering? How is that we can get a 'complete notion' of anything by looking?

Sorry Dgarretson but if you are interested in 'enlighting'
you should not look in the literature but in logic and philosophy of science .To start with that is.

Regards,
Dear Halcro: I almost agree with you, as a fact your experiences are what through this thread other members reported including me.

Now, " working " again with LOMC cartridges in the last 1.5 year I found out at least two LOMC cartridges that did not conforms exactly as what you stated but that in some ways gives what we like for the top MM/MI and do it more accurate with lower coloration than in the MM/MI cartridges.

In a home audio system IMHO the frequency extremes are the ones that " tame " the midrange, as better the frequency extremes as better the midrange we have to recall that music is conformed by harmonics.

IMHO a " weak " link ( if we can name it that way. ) in the MM/MI cartridges against my prefered LOMC ones is at frequency extremes where one-two maybe 3-4 LOMC cartridges performs ( as I said ) with not only best applomb but with accuracy that the MM/MI even that are near it can't even.
I'm talking here of small/tiny " colorations/distortions " but not because are tiny are not there. System resolution and system accuracy IMHO is the name to evaluate that subject.

I'm waiting to receive all my MM/MI and LOMC " up graded " by Axel to make a re-evaluation on the whole subject looking for what I was missing before the up grade or lossing after it.

Something very clear to me is that the MM/MI performance quality level is almost always very high against LOMC where there are several cartridges that are terrible. The MM/MI alternative is more " even " on that subject.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Nandric, I scratch my head in doubt that the arts(musical or otherwise, together with the educated critical faculties necessary to assay the arts) will be understood or appreciated by a viewpoint so strictly based on scientific rationalism and technical linguistic analysis. What rationalist construction do you apply to Buber's I and Thou? I believe that you earlier alluded to a generation of russian philo-scientific materialistic youth yearning to become Dostoyevski? In my reading, this dilettante mind-set is precisely what Dostoyevsky the artist was rebelling against in intellectuals of his day. Perhaps this is why you found madness in the underground man and perhaps the author. Anyway, you seem to accord with Plato in his suspicion of the arts and little can be said or done to change that.
Dear Dgarretson, Nobody can do without some 'mental map' or
'intellectual frame of orientation'. The 'dichotomy' you
refered to is constructed from the 'opposite terms' or conceptions probable because this is the easy way to learn 'the map'. Ie the 'conceptual map'.
Now : 'interpretation is the revange ...etc,.
We use the expression 'revange' as reason to explain some
peculiar kind of action. Revenge imply a relation between at least two persons. Say John beat up Paul because Paul seduced his wife.
Or: Pogorelic interpretation of Beethoven Sonata nr.32 was such that listeners got mad and wanted to beat him up as revenge for the lost time and money.
I turned your quote the other way round and this make more
sense than your quote. In your quote 'interpretation' is
constructed as a person with angry intentions. Is this
interpretation of some universal kind or are there different kinds of interpretations? Say of Kant, Hegel, Beethoven and Mozart. We have read about Richters interpretation of Beethoven, Gilels kind, etc., but there is no way to ask Beethoven which of them is the right one.
So what kind of interpretation are you or your artist against? It is called 'against interpretation' but we have no clue about which one or which kind, etc.

Then 'looking as the method to get clear notions'.
I know 4 blind persons of which two got academic degree.
All 4 can look as long as they can or like to whatever object, the moon included,but we know that they can't see. How deed they learned the 'notions' needed to pass exam?
On the other side we can observe animals looking very
careful to the other kinds , those who want to eat them and
those who they like to eat. What kind of 'notions' do they get by looking?
Henry started his 'Copernican revolution' in order to make some point. Now deed people before Copernicus see the same moon as the people after Copernican revolution?
Well Copernican revolution give us some other 'frame work' to understand our universe. I don't believe that he improved our visual capabilities.
Ergo the methaforical use of language by your artist is alas not explaining anything . The division of labour is that the artist should care about beauty , esthetics or whatever but we expect from science to explain what is true and what is false. I have spend much time with the literature so I am aware of the writers pretentions to
explain to us , the readers, how the world works. However
I learned from Frege more then all writers together.

Regards,
Don, My post on the possible identity between the two 4000DIIIs was a question, not an assertion. Hence the question mark. Does seem beyond the range of chance that the two companies could have arrived at identical names for their styli. Not important either way, however. Does this make Empire sinister, in your opinion. Like the Evil Empire or Empire Strikes Back? (Lame attempt at humor.)

Henry, That was a great post on the feelings that accompany switching back and forth between MM and MC. The two MCs that I have been using for the past few years are the Koetsu Urushi and the Ortofon MC7500. Right now, I am about to switch from the Ortofon back to the Urushi so as to compare it to my current favorite MMs. What I find is that I "love the one I'm with", for a while and then want to go back to the other technology for a while too. But I tend to find good qualities in both types. I am wanting lately to try a really top end MC, to get another angle on this subject. Based on nothing but internet scuttlebutt, I am interested in ZYX UNIverse (in this case, I heard it locally and really liked it), Miyajima Kansai, Transfiguration Orpheus or Temper, Blue Angel Mantis, and a few others. Ortofon MCA90 and Dynavector DV1t or s do not really tempt me; nor does anything costing more than $5K (generally available used for $2K to $3K).

I am trying to figure out why Raul cannot say which are his current MCs, since he has admitted above that he is in a mood to prefer them vs MM/MI. What would be lost by spilling the beans on this not so dark secret?
Lewm, My Astatic 4000dii is an aftermarket replacement stylus for an Empire cartridge. I assume Don's DIII is also.

If I had to guess which MC cart Raul is not naming it would be the Ortofon Anna. I'm not sure why Raul is teasing us:). I recently heard it at Mike Lavignes place and it sounded great.
Hi Sarcher30,

I think I own more cartridges/stylus's than I own socks! This is my Empire collection.
I have 2 original Empire 4000DI's, 2 orginal Empire 4000DIII's, 1 Astatic 4000DII stylus, 2 Astatic 4000DIII stylus's, and 1 lpgear 4000DIII stylus. I run the non original Empire stylus's on my Empire 2000E bodies to great effect BTW.

Regards,
Don
Thanks Lew.
I also am wondering about Raul’s evasiveness in revealing his two ‘choice’ LOMC cartridges?
Furthering your thoughts on trying the ZYX UNIverse LOMC cartridge………I have had three of them and for at least the last 5 or 6 years……it has been my ‘reference’ cartridge and easily the best LOMC that I have heard. It is also quite arm tolerant, sounding well in arms as diverse as the Hadcock GH 228, Continuum Copperhead, Graham Phantom II, DaVinci 12” Grandezza, Fidelity Research FR-64s and FR-66s.
The Fidelity Research FR-7f I recently acquired……comes the closest to it of all the LOMCs I have heard in my system (although the Lyra Olympos I’ve heard in other systems may indeed equal or exceed it in some ‘emotional’ aspects?).
As good as the UNIverse is though……….it still suffers IMO, in comparison to the best MM cartridges in the important areas of ‘realism’ which I mentioned in my previous post.

Raul,
Your references to colourations/distortions leads back to the quote at the beginning of my previous post….and the position of subjective vs objective which is close to the heart of our Balkan friend Nandric?

Once I had arrived at my ‘discovery’ of the Moving Coil puzzle……..it was as if an enormous weight had lifted from my shoulders?
No longer was I puzzled by my preferences…..nor was I ‘constrained’ by the accepted correct ‘sound’ of cartridges in general.
There are some MM cartridges which can sound tonally….close to LOMCs. Because of the prevalence and acceptance of the MC ‘sound’…….I feel that without consciously knowing it….we tend to favour those MMs (which approach the MC sound) as being ‘neutral’ or ‘uncoloured’?
But if I conclude that Moving Coils do not, to me, sound like the ‘real’ thing……why should I accept that Moving Magnets should sound close to Moving Coils?

Liberated as I now felt……..I listened to one of my favourite MM cartridges…..the Empire 4000D/III Gold mounted in the Copperhead tonearm on the Raven AC-2 turntable.
A liquid performance of emotional integrity enveloped my entire listening room.
Here was the ‘reality’!
No mamby pamby pussyfooted politically correct vapid ‘interpretation’ here!!?
Air…transparency…gut-wrenching bass…..three-dimensional imaging and…..the clincher……’believability’!!

I immediately reached for my other MM cartridges which were previously thought to be ‘coloured’ but shared the Empire’s DNA.
The Fidelity Research FR-5E and FR-6SE as well as the Empire 1000ZE/X and the Garrott P77.
Each one brought the emotional impact and ‘truthfulness’ that I’ve never experienced with say……digital?

The concert grand piano is arguably the hardest instrument to record and reproduce convincingly?
It has the widest dynamic range of any instrument….and it can actually be played in a home so that the reproduction of it on our systems……can be truthfully compared.
The same can be said about violins, flutes, clarinets etc……but they are relatively ‘easy’ instruments to actually reproduce?
The piano is a percussion instrument….but it is also a ‘stringed’ instrument.
On the real thing, one can hear the ‘striking’ of the hammer felt and the vibration/reverberation of the strings.
Very few recordings exist which accurately capture these effects.
Two that do it the best IMO….are the 1981 recording of Daniel Barenboim playing the Liszt Sonate in B Minor on Deutche Grammophon and the Keith Jarrett Koln Concert on ECM.
When played with the MMs I have now elevated to ‘Golden’ status…..the reality of a concert grand in my living room is achieved.
Can I really ask for more?
No question about it, and this is the very first thing I noted about the very first MM I auditioned after joining this thread, the MM/MI alternative does piano better and more realistically than MC, plain and simple. There may be individual exceptions to that rule, but I have yet to hear it. I hear live jazz piano 2 to 4 times a month, when I go to my jazz vocal workshop. I also played piano as a kid and up until recently owned a Bechstein. "Nobody does it better" than a good MM. Why? The MM gets the harmonic envelope of a real piano as well as the decay of a piano note, better.

Another incident that was telling to me: Recently I had a very wealthy friend visiting for an audition of my system. He lives in France, where he owns a Verdier table, a Schroeder tonearm, and a very expensive MC cartridge. He also owns an Audio Note Kegon amplifier driving a fancy horn array (can't recall the brand or model). We were comparing the Ortofon MC7500 in a Reed tonearm on my Technics Mk3 vs the Grace Ruby on a Dynavector DV505/Lenco. Although the Technics is a superior table in most ways, it took him about 15 minutes, during which time he remarked frequently about ways in which he preferred my system to his, to decide that he preferred the Grace vs the Ortofon. "It's more musical", he said. I agree.
Lewm,

My 1st ever Empire 4000DIII was bought from Pacific Stereo in San Diego during the Quad era back in the mid 70's Several years later, this same company (Pacific Stereo), had a close out sale on all of the Empire stock. They were severing ties with Empire due to poor customer relation problems. At that time they were owned by TAE, a stylus replacement manufacturer who had also bought Walco who was a stylus replacement manufacturer. . They kept the name Empire, used their stylus inventory, which was Empire, or Walco, or TAE to fill the original Empire stylus cartridge line.
The original Empire 4000D stylus's are a long tapered cantiliver. The clearance sale Empire stylus was a short fat tube cantilver. I contacted TAE/Empire thinking I had a fake and was informed that they had "upgraded the cantiliver design" and that the straight fat tube was the latested design.
Therefore, an "original" Empire stylus could be an original Empire stylus. Or it could be a good Walco imitation. It could be a mediocre Walco imitation. Or a mediocre TAE imitation. They own the Empire name and could put any cantiliver on any Empire cartridge they choose to.
BTW. That short fat tube type Empire 4000DIII is one of the worse tracking cartridges that I have ever owned. I have read on this and other forums of members who do not like the 4000D's. I've wondered if what they had was not a original Empire, but a TAE Empire.
I still have one of those stylus's so if you would like to have me sent you a picture of it, sent me a email address. It will make you laugh if you have a original tapered 4000D to compare it to!

Regards,
Don
Don, Since you have both the original and aftermarket stylus as well as all three kinds-DI,DII,DIII can you describe the sonic differences? I have not heard any but my Astatic 4000DII.

Regards,

Sean
Sean,

There is no easy way to describe the sonic differences!
I do not hear any difference in between the DIII's. Astatic or Empire. The Astatic DII and the Empire DI sound very similar except with slightly decreasing bass weight in their presentations. Slightly is the key word here. I can roll tubes and receive greater sonic differences that rolling any of the above mentioned cartridges. Perhaps when used in CD4 channel retrieval, there would be more of a difference, but in 2 channel, to close to call. The lpgear is the one that had puzzled me. They call it a Empire 4000DIII replacement but I have reciently discovered it is a eliptical profile albeit a very good one. It never did sound anything like the others even though it looked (tapered tube, etc.), just like them. Don't miss understand me. It still is a very clean sounding stylus. It just doesn't have the Empire smooth or "relaxed" sound to quote Timeltel. I actually prefer the lpgear version when I'm listening to live recordings of Blues, Rock, etc. More of a in your face, you are there kind of sonic soundscape! If you are concidering something other than your Astatic DII, I would get the lpgear DIII. It's only $40 and would give you something that was not only good, but alittle different sonic wise. Everything else would only be fine tuning what you aready have!

Regards,
Don
Don, Thanks for your thoughts. It is very easy to change stylus on the Empire so I may try that.

Sean
Dear Lew, Having a very wealthy friend is, alas, not the same as being rich yourself. So I understand the tension between your longing for a top MC cart and the 'willingness' to pay their price. But I noticed the following. The Ortofon A90 of which 'only' limited numbers are produced is offered for $2400 on ebay (new in the box).
Looking at those expensive Van den Huls on ebay one is inclined
to think:'there must be something wrong with this one considering the price'. And so further. No idea if the producers are killing each other but I am sure that they
all are 'fishing' in the same water. I also know that patience is not your best 'quality' but the mentioned 'shift' is very promissing for those who also
think by carts above 4K 'not me brother'.

Regards,
Dear Henry, I assume that you can 'digest' my philosophical
post only because you like the Balkan humor?
My quote of Davidson : 'all events are physical but not all
are (also) mental' looks like a riddle. I forget to add
this , I hope, 'enlightening' example invented by Russel.
I forget the context or what he wantend to point out but
here it is:
'this stone is thinking of Vienna.'

Regards,
Dear Lewm: +++++ " "It's more musical" " +++++

like " smooth " " musical " IMHO almost always is a sinonymus of un-natural and accepted coloration/distortion...

Live music is accurate and has natural tone color, it is smooth but at the same time with natural agressiveness.

Musical, smooth, warmer, analityc, lean and the like are audiophile terms that means that kind of performance is not accurate but colored and/distorted.

There are no audio systems that be perfect so those colorations are " normal " and the differences in between for quality performance level resides in those " colorations/distorions " level differences.

So it is normal for many people speak with those " normal " terms. Maybe we need a different set of audiophile words or change its today meaning.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Raul, "IMHO", I know what these terms mean and what they do not mean. I know what spurious "colorations" are and are not. I should have known better than to use the term "musical" on this thread. Some audio bits help convey the sensation that one is at a live performance, and some get in the way of it, mostly by a sin of omission. What my friend meant and what I mean when I say the Grace Ruby is more musical than the Ortofon MC7500 should be obvious. Please give me some credit, or come and listen for yourself. I can only agree on one thing: the word "musical" probably should be thrown out of our lexicon, because it does have an ambiguous meaning for an experienced audiophile.
Dictionary definition of Musical:

"Musical adj. Of, relating to, or capable of producing music: a musical instrument. Characteristic of or resembling music; melodious:"

I for one do not see anything in this defination that even comes close to " un-natural and accepted coloration/distortion..."

Lewm's friend felt that the MM cartridge was capable of producing music better that the MC. Made perfect sense to me!
Where in the hell are you people finding these negitive definations of these very common words or is this Balkin humor and I missed the joke?
Dear Griffthds, I hope you have no intention to involve me
in 'definitions' of English words? For your 'negative' insinuation about 'this Balkin humor' I will complain by my uncle Boris. So watch your back.
Dear Nandric,

I'm onto your Balkin ways! While I'm watching my back for Boris, who will be watching my front! You Balkin's are slippery!
Dear Lewm: Good that you know everything but I'm not making a critic about you but what your friend said that's acomumn audiophile vocabolary for say: " I like it " more that's " right ".

Anyways, I don't need to been at your place to know what you are talking about ( almost. ): I know that you use modified tube electronics, I know your analog rig and more or less your ES speakers so I don't have the necesity to figure nothing.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
I have to agree with Don on what the term " Musical" should mean but somewhere along the way the term was hijacked by people who didn't want to have to say , I like my music "Fat,slow and syrupy" (not that there's anything wrong with that ;). Musical just sounds a little better in that context.

I set up my Technics U205cMK3 with the Jico sas stylus for that cartridge and it is very unmusical. In fact it's annoying and will be sold soon. As Henry said life is to short. I then was able to get the original Mk 3 stylus to play most of a Schumann Piano quartet before starting to bottom out and had the first emotional connection to music in 2 days.

It is also possible I have a poor sample, so if anyone else has a different experience please let me know. I do like the Technics 205 and would probably try another replacement if someone could recommend one.

Raul, I guess I will have to get the Jico for the P77 since most have said it is an improvement on the original. Do you think that the standard P77 sounds better with the Jico stylus because it was not tweaked by Garrott for the Garrott stylus?

Danny
Hello Raul, I seem to have misread your statement, so no reply is necessary.

I shouldn't have taken the Evelyn Woodhead sped reding course with Ed Murphy.
Hi Danny,

First time that I have ever heard someone refer to a Grace Ruby as being fat, slow and syrupy! I quess what it realy is, is a very unmusical cartridge. I seem to have alot of unmusical cartridges. I use them in my unmusical system. Sounds rather unrealistic to me!
OK. The term "musical" to describe an audio component has indeed become controversial in some circles. Those who, like Raul, are on a quest to eliminate all distortions might take it to mean that the component adds a pleasant coloration. "Euphonic" is another term for the same thing. Of course, this is not at all what I meant to say about the Grace Ruby. I took umbrage in fact at Raul's implying that if I heard the Grace as musical, in this narrow sense of the word, then it must mean that I am not after the real truth in sound reproduction, for which he professes to be in a lonely search, like Don Quixote. Because we all know that live music does not always sound "beautiful". I know this too; that's why I was remonstrating with Raul. To me the term "musical" means that the component CAN reproduce not only the beauty but also the stridency and the cacophony of a live performance. Not to say anything is perfect in that regard. Also, this goes back to the fact that Raul has sworn off all tube electronics because of "distortions"; that's a bone of major contention between him and me. I gave up discussing the relative merits of tubes vs transistors with Raul, because he will fall back on his standard argument that I have not trained myself as a careful listener who can detect distortions, nor have any of you.
It's interesting that Lew brings up the subject of 'valves' and 'transistors' in this discussion on MM and MC cartridges?
I have heard a lot of the best SS amplification (both preamps and power amps) including Gryphon, MBL, Soulution, Plinius, Mark Levinson, Boulder and of course Halcro......and none of them IMHO.... has ever approached the transparency and three-dimensional believability of the best 'tubes'.
Despite the higher distortions inherent in a 'tube' circuitry.......there is a 'magic' there, which no amount of denial from Raul can dissolve?
The two regrets in my audio life is that I cannot find a valve power amp to drive my speakers satisfactorily......and that I no longer have a valve preamp in my system!

What I hear between the presentation of LOMCs and MMs is very similar to what I hear between SS and Valves.
MMs provide a 'magic' naturalness which so far......seems to elude MCs?
Regards, Griffthds: I tried my best, but ON NO!, you had to ask. An example of don't ask, you may not like the answer, for sure.

Rather than musical or analytical, it may be helpful to think in terms of speed or fluidity. These terms do avoid the typical negative connotations. Favored carts offer a fundamental connection with the music; a realistic tonality, dynamic, appropriate transient behavior, a robust solidity and satisfying uncongested flow.

If the choice MUST be between neutrality and transparency or fluidity and coherence, we're in trouble. Consideration is given to the design of a transducer for the desired effect. Arguing this is not so would be unrealistic and fortunately there are numerous carts to choose from. Although differences can be subtle, each is invested with it's special character and appeal. One perhaps suited for the purist who listens analytically, or another capable of meeting the expectations of the enthusiast who is appreciative of the involvement of a less structured live performance. Although analog is a mature medium it's unfortunate that the perfectionist must be forever frustrated in that the faultless system has not yet been developed. Consequently the subjective element arises, an element that can't be dismissed.

Anyone want to go on record as preferring a cart that isn't musical?

Peace,
Dear Professor,
Peter Ledermann is the 'exception' I mentioned in current cartridge designers and from all reports from my trusted sources......the cartridges he produces (including the Strain Gauge) are not to be sneezed at?
With the bamboo cantilever.......he gives a lifetime stylus replacement.
Has he got it in for Axel???
Regards
Henry
Neutrality - ability to reproduce the frequency spectrum correctly (ie: flat frequency response - one problem with magnetic systems is that the frequency response varies according to level... as the signal itself acts as a biasing current into the coils of the cartridge)

Colouration - anomalies in the frequency response - usually peaks or troughs limited to a narrow range of frequencies are identifiable as a colouration - a smooth rise or fall isn't usually interpreted as colouration, more likely to be described as warm/cool, perhaps bright or smooth...

Transparency - this one is much harder to quantify - usually it is about the ability to discern the details... the micro rather than the macro of the recording, without those details necessarily becoming prominent (ie: not a colouration as above...)
I think it may be closely related to speed/nimbleness/effective tip mass...
Some people focus on the soundstage / imaging when talking about transparency - personally I think soundstage / imaging are a side effect... if you have more detail exposed clearly, you imaging improves...

Fluidity / Coherence..... IMO these are time or phase related.
In a live acoustic performance, the sounds are in a clear and precise time based synchronicity....
I am not just talking about the rhythm of the music - which is the performance per se... but the many harmonics flooding the room from the different surfaces of the musical instrument - these are directly related to the musicians actions on the instrument - related in time based terms.
As has been discovered with digital jitter, time based errors that are extremely minute, can have a distincat and audible impact on the end result...
This is where the best cartridges are separated from the rest....
Anything that involves a resonance, will also involve 1) A colouration (peak/drop) 2) A phase shift / Timing errors
Also the base LCR circuit created by the cartridge also has phase implications - much more so for high inductance MM's than for very low inductance MC's.
To make things more difficult for the average listener, all these timing related issues are complete obfuscated by the plethora of speakers out there that do not reproduce 20-20k in proper phase coherency. (if the speaker is messing with the timing already, how can you possibly tell whether the cartridge is doing a good or bad job..... rhetorical)

Finally there is Speed / Dynamics - the ability to accurately reproduce the incredibly steep rise time of the many sounds of music.
Repeating myself a bit here - but effective tip mass is the absolute most important thing. (for the same reason that electrostatic speakers are so dynamic and transparent) - this is also the key to micro detail...

So we get to "Musicality"....

To me this is a value judgement of the sum of the above categories, where someone is basically approving of the chosen blend of compromises made in the design.
It is usually accepting of flaws, as part of the judgement made is that the flaws are of lesser importance than the strengths. It has been weighed on the scales of audiophilia and found to be "Musical".

Basically all you can say when someone calls a component musical is that they liked it regardless of and perhaps in spite of, its flaws.

Is it euphonic - no way of knowing, is it coloured - ditto... it says NOTHING about the particulars and everything about the listeners ultimate reaction to it.
The very definition of a subjective term!

bye for now

David
Hi all, I think that the most disputes about words are contra productive because nobody will give up 'his own'. On the other side we need some 'common vocabulary' because
we are a typical community with the same (queer) hobby. Each discipline has its own terminology such that participant from different countries are able to understand
statements containing those terms or notions. They give the
context and/or 'orientation' regarding the question 'what
are we talking about'. The terms used have or should have
both: the meaning and the reference. The reference is what
we are supposed to hear : the music. A very complex and
tricky external physical occurance. As is the case with all
kinds of learning we learn from others, usualy the teachers. The reachest vocabulary I have seen in this thread is from Henry then Lew then Raul. Lew is also a musician so he must be familiar with the terminology used by the musicians. I don't believe that all of us want to enter musical academy but some notions from this discipline look
to me to be necessary. Ie we will need some consensus about ,say, a minimal number of terms (words,notions) in order to have a 'common language' because this seems to be
the necessary condition to understand each other. However
this is not about 'the' English language and ditto dictionary for obvious reasons: musical terminology is already 'universal'.
My proposal is that Henry, Lew and Raul think about and, if they believe that this make sense, try to describe the terms which they think are necessary for the purpose.Ie for what we think that we are talking about. Raul is already behaving as a theacher so Henry and Lew will need to consider the proposition.

Regards,
Dear David, I am sorry to have overlooked you but it looks
as if you can read my mind. I have no idea about the 'necessary notions' but the way you composed your list of terms is what I had in mind with my proposal. Lucky
me you give the exampel or the 'pattern' so I am not anymore in the (nasty) position to explain what I 'really meant'.

Regards,
Sounds Like? An Audio Glossary

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/

I'm a simple man and had no problem with how Lews friend used the term musical. One can conclude that he liked what he was hearing. It was not so much directed toward the F9 but probably from the combo with the idler magic.

Everyone has a differant opinion of what they like and dislike so take most descriptions with a grain of salt. One can tell the users preference by what components they use in their system. We have been around long enough to fiqure that much out as Raul has stated numerous times.

One term that is "unheard" of in the above glossary.

http://www.badrecordcovers.com/?p=216
David,
I applaud your contribution to the task of attempting a definition (or glossary) of audio terms via some technical specifications.
This seems to go some way to helping Nikola in his quest?
What is evident however......is that your glossary appears to be related to 'measurement'?
Now we all know that one amplifier.......let's say......can measure identically to another in terms of 'frequency response'.......yet the two can sound quite differently?
The perennial problem we have had in audio.......which has not changed perceptively in 100 years.......is that basically what we can measure, does not often correlate to what we hear or how, what we hear, affects our emotions?
This has bred the validation of a 'subjective' audio press initiated by the first Stereophile and The Absolute Sound 'underground' magazines.
How do you imagine that status quo to have changed?
Cheers
Henry