Raul, following your response about the koetsu, do you consider a good advice to add some positive vta to this and any cartridge that has been in use for several years? Is not normal that because been used for that long time, the contact angle tend to shift a little becuase the cart weight? Thanks.
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.
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.
13,665 responses Add your response
Dear Frogman: +++++ " nformation that is present in real life is lost by the recording process.... " +++++ and I can add :2 and during playback proccess too ". As I posted, a comparison between what we have at home has no comparison against live music: main factor is that in a live event there is nothing in between music and you but the air instead what we hear in a LP has over 100 links/veils/filters that gives to the sound a different " face ". The speed, dynamics, no-distortions, fflow, tone color, natural agresiveness and the like diminish the real " power of music " the feeling and emotions that only the live music can gives in its own way. I repeat: nothing but the air between music and each one of us, THIS IS THE WHOILE DIFFERENCE. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Hello all I of have a Cisco copy of Tchaikovsky's violin concerto in d minor Stinburg and the Pittsburgh symphony. Hadn't spun it lately and yes quite enjoyable indeed. Im getting a nice full spread with the featured violin front slight left. Shimmering strings colossal tone the breath of the soloest coming through very real. Plucks that extend you almost can feel the air. Don't know how this copy stacks with you classical experts but for me a simple man very nice first thing in the morning. I might add this AT 155/160 combo does all music really well. Going to have a hard time moving on to anther MM gem. Its a beautiful morning down in dixie, Mike |
Regarding the Stanton 980LZS or the 981LZS: A friend purchased an NOS 981LZS from pickup naalden (Cris). He uses a SUT. Suffice to say that he is not happy with the sound he gets via the SUT. He says it sounds closed in and lacks "transparency". The max load resistance he can achieve with the SUT is less than 300 ohms, and I think this may be the problem, since I too found that the cartridge does not bloom until you raise the load R to at least 1000 ohms. I think this may have to do with the fact that the inductance of the 980 is much higher than that of a typical LOMC (1 mH vs typically about 50 uH [microhenries] for LOMC). So, even though the internal resistance of the 980/981 is very low at 3 ohms, I do not advise mating it with a SUT. You need a true high gain phono stage. I would appreciate the comment of Dlaloum or Timeltel or anyone else regarding the validity of my hypothesis for why there seems to be a problem. I remain quite thrilled with my 980LZS driving the high gain phono stage in my MP1 phono stage. Will be interested to know Dave Garretson's results as well. |
Dear Lewm: +++++ " my 980LZS driving the high gain phono stage.... "+++++ as with the LOMC cartridge the Stanton was not designed for SUTs. Now, I don't know why your 980 can't " shine " at 100 ohms. My 981 certainly dit it at that load impedance but my Phonolinepreamp is way different from yours. Now, remember that lower impedance meand lower SPL so when we compare at higher impedance we have to match the SPL under any carrtridge comparisons. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Regards, Lewm: "The Pickering XLZ/series cartridge was designed to be used in stereo systems which have high gain, low impedance MC input or use external head amps with input impedance of 100 ohms or higher." Rummaged around & pulled out of my kit an AT-630 SUT specifically intended for the AT-30E MC, 1:10 gain. The Pickering XLZ 4500S gives singing lessons to the AT-30E (recently replaced stylus w/NOS assembly, you can do this with the 30E), & once was considered a fairly listenable cart. The AT 30E recco. loading at the head amp is 100 ohm, the AT 630 tranny works well with the Pickering into 47k at the phono section. Tone/timbre is good. Crisp, translucent hfs, startling dynamics. Exceptionally quiet in the groove. I really like this cart. Peace, |
Dear Nikola, I am sure the Atlas is a great cartridge, at $9500. But for Fremer it is merely his flavor of the month. Don't take it too seriously. Dear Thom, I must confess I cannot make heads or tails out of your post just above Jorsan's on 4-26. What is it you are trying to say? Dear Raul, We are in complete agreement; the 980/981 was not made for use with a SUT. I think I even posted my concerns on this matter prior to this, but now I know for sure based on my friend's experience. I had a conversation with Dave Slagle, and he agrees that the problem is its relatively high inductance compared to a typical MC. I was merely trying to warn anyone here who might want to purchase one of those NOS 981LZSs from naalden; don't do it if you plan to use a SUT in order to achieve the necessary gain. As to the rest of it, I can only report to you that my 980LZS does not perform up to its maximum potential when I accidentally listened to it with a 100R load. It sounded dull, closed-in, and lifeless. It came to life at 1000R. I think 1000R is what I used previously when I was so happy with it. Based on what Dave and also Bill Thalmann said about the specs of the 981/980LZS, 47K or even higher might be even better. I plan to try it. If you have based your judgement of the LZS series on its sound with a 100R load, you owe it to yourself to try a higher value, at least 1000R. And here's why: the nominal internal resistance is indeed very low at 3 ohms, which makes one think that 100R should be fine. But the high-ish inductance adds a reactive component to the total resistance seen by the phono stage; as frequency goes up, resistance goes up. At hf, the net resistance is much higher than 3 ohms. Thus there is a significant roll-off of hf response by the time you get up to 10kHz and higher, into a 100R load. Although you are not the first to suggest that the phono circuit downstream from the load resistor has something to do with the choice of load resistance, I have yet to read a clear explanation for why that would be, apart from the possible effect that the net input impedance of the circuit might have in parallel with the chosen load resistor, but that's a no-brainer. Is there something more to it? |
Dear Jorsan Usually all my Koetsu experiences " demanded " in my set up a tiny positive SRA/VTA but this could change on your set up. We all know that the cartridge SRA have to coincide with the LP cutting angle but this is no way to fulfil due to LP imperfections that all we know so we have to try/test in each set up and decide about. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Thom, On second reading, I do understand your post, I think. Anyway, 100R does not do justice to the 980LZS in my system. In my friend's system WITH the SUT, the cartridge is seeing about 270R, and that is evidently not sufficient either to bring out the best from the cartridge. (Dave Slagle calculated a 3db rolloff at 20kHz with that load.) I did not try values in between 100R and 1000R, but clearly 1000R is far superior sounding. In any case, the hybrid you are listening to is not identical to a 980/981LZS, so perhaps that accounts for your experience vs mine and that of my friend with the SUT. Also and finally, the step up ratio of the AT630, with which I am not familiar, may be quite different from that of the built-in SUT in the Allnic, which could also make a diff. Beyond that, quien sabe'? |
Dear Timeltel: I owned any single SUT from the early 80's by AT. From the AT630 to the AT1000T. The 630 was not an entry level one but a way mediocre SUT that IMHO can't makes any " favor " to no cartridge. Forgeret about specs but one extremely important: the AT 630 weight is less than 200grs against the AT1000T that weights over 8kg. From where came that SUT weight: from the transformers as better and bigger transformer ( obviously according a good design like the AT one. ) as better frequency extremes response, especially on the bass. I repect what you are hearing but let to tell you: its next " brother " ( top step ) the AT650 fumigate the 630 and the 700T or the AT1000T are a totally different " face " on qualioty performance level. IMHO any god designed headamp outperform the 630. I believe what you posted but makes no sense to me knowing that 630 that other than degradation helps to nothing but an " emergency ".Crisp sound almost always means: " distortions ", at least that's my experiences. Maybe you are doing " something " with that 630 that I'm unaware. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
04-26-12: LewmHi Lew, Cartridge inductance and load capacitance (cable capacitance + the input capacitance of the phono stage) will interact to produce a high frequency resonant peak in frequency response, below the frequency at which rolloff eventually occurs. For a cartridge having relatively low inductance, such as a LOMC and perhaps even the Stanton you are discussing, that peak will be well into the ultrasonic region, and perhaps even in the RF region. Heavier loading (i.e., lower load resistance) will reduce the magnitude of that peak. If that peak is too large as a result of excessively light loading, it may result in frequencies being introduced into the phono stage that it may not be able to handle in a graceful manner, resulting in adverse effects at audible frequencies. Those effects could include increased susceptibility to RFI problems, increased tic and pop sensitivity, intermodulation distortion, ultrasonic ringing, or even oscillations. Excess ultrasonic energy could also create similar problems for components that are downstream of the phono stage. Best regards, -- Al |
Correction to my previous post: Cartridge inductance and load capacitance (cable capacitance + the input capacitance of the phono stage) will interact to produce a high frequency resonant peak in frequency response, below the frequency at which rolloff eventually occurs. For a cartridge having relatively low inductance, such as a LOMC and perhaps even the Stanton you are discussing, that peak will be well into the ultrasonic region, and perhaps even in the RF region. Heavier loading (i.e., lower load resistance) will reduce the magnitude of that peak.Should have said: Cartridge inductance and load capacitance (cable capacitance + the input capacitance of the phono stage) will interact to produce a high frequency resonant peak in frequency response, below the frequency at which rolloff would occur in the absence of a low value load resistor. For a cartridge having relatively low inductance, such as a LOMC and perhaps even the Stanton you are discussing, that peak will be well into the ultrasonic region, and perhaps even in the RF region. Heavier loading (i.e., lower load resistance) will reduce the magnitude of that peak or eliminate it altogether.Best regards, -- Al |
Thanks, Al. Here are the specifics: The typical inductance of an MM cartridge is on the order of hundreds of mH, and the internal resistance is tens of ohms. The inductance of the 980LZS is 1mH, and its internal resistance is 3 ohms. The typical inductance of an MC is tens of microhenries, and its internal resistance is similar to or a bit higher than that of the low output Stanton. Thus the 980LZS is a 'tweener. That is to say, it's inductance is around 20X higher than that of a typical LOMC, but its internal resistance is comparable. In reading your corrected statement, it seems you might be saying that a lower load resistance might be beneficial to the Stanton. I am here to tell you that is not the case; it sounds dull, rolled off, closed in, slow; choose your own adjective from that family. My friend heard it the same way via his SUT. This is not because the low load resistance is dampening some resonant peak that I had become accustomed to (or maybe it is a resonance necessary for flat response); this is in comparison to any other "good" cartridge in my collection, as well as in comparison to the Stanton itself with a load of 1000R or greater. Further, we have the testimony of Dave Slagle, who, given the parameters above, was in agreement that the top end would be rolled off with a too low load resistance. This is what I hear. Maybe I am totally misunderstanding the intent of your post, for which I do apologize. I am probably exaggerating the "badness" of the sound with a 100R load, but I would never choose it over what I hear with a 1000R load, and I mean to try 47K and 100K as well. |
In reading your corrected statement, it seems you might be saying that a lower load resistance might be beneficial to the Stanton.Hi Lew, No, I was not implying that. My intent was simply to respond to your statement that "I have yet to read a clear explanation for why ... the phono circuit downstream from the load resistor has something to do with the choice of load resistance." It is certainly conceivable to me that a low load resistance could produce a sound that is "dull, rolled off, closed in, slow." As is often the case there are competing tradeoffs, and an optimal balance has to be found empirically. Best regards, -- Al |
Hi, Lew: Maybe I should expand on the previous post? The quoted text "The Pickering XLZ/series cartridge was designed to be used in stereo systems which have high gain, low impedance MC input or use external head amps with input impedance of 100 ohms or higher." is from the brochure that accompanied the Pickering XLZ 4500S. Stanton offered a dedicated pre, the BA-26, vaguely described here: http://www.gramophone.net/Issue/Page/June%201981/113/761952/#header-logo. Pickering UK offers a specifically designed unit, the PLZ: "Made in Britain especially to match the quality of the Pickering XLZ Hybrid range and takes your existing phono stage up to Moving Coil sensitivity, this enables you to use your amplifiers normal 47k MM "phono" input for MC and will work with most MC cartridges. Totally discreet circuitry - no IC's, specifications are... Gain 27db S/N ratio 85db Freq Response 5 - 150k. Raul, the AT 630 had laid ignored for a long time. I'm quite aware of its quality. It may be "cheap as chips", however it's a functional tool and the cart is still exceeding expectations. So much so, it has no resemblance to what Lew describes his friend as hearing. I've had no need for a preamp for twenty (+) years. Right now I'm pleased to be able to listen to the XLZ, and exceedingly pleased with it's performance---in spite of the redundantly "fumigated" 630. If you're suggesting I should obtain an upgraded pre to listen to the Pickering, I'll give it consideration. Your well meant suggestions are appreciated. On a different "note", although some may observe negative connotations when reading the term crisp, in this instance it refers to quick transient response with rise time (see linked article) of less than 20 microseconds. I see little hope for either explicit terminology or reference recordings, too dang many audiophiles hanging around. :) Peace, |
I received back from Axel my Clearaudio Virtuoso (Black) and Fidelity Research FR-7f.....both with the 'Nandric-approved' nude Line Contact stylus in aluminium cantilever. After a long break-in for the Virtuoso (during which it sounded quite awful)....it suddenly developed into a far better cartridge than the original. A transparency and 3D air to the image combined with a deep and well-defined bass balanced with delicate and realistic highs. This cartridge surely breaks firmly into my top five :^) The FR-7f originally had a conical stylus which......mounted in the FR-66s tonearm on the Raven AC-2......gave a rather special yet neutral performance ranking it above the XV-1s but just behind the UNIverse in sonic virtues. Not bad for a 30 year old cartridge :^) With the line-contact stylus...it really is no longer a 7f. Maybe it's a 7Fz although there appears to be slight differences in output voltage and other technical parameters according to the information on Vinyl Engine? Let's call it a 'mongrel'........but a 'mongrel' which explodes out of the LOMC family like a 'bat-out-of-hell'!!! Straight out of the box.......this cartridge dug details out of the vinyl that I seriously had never heard before? Cliched though that sounds......it is blindingly true. It left the UNIverse in its wake and even made the Olympos sound like a retarded mute. This was simply not possible?!!! Does it alter my previous impassioned rant on MC cartridges and their faults as I perceive them? On the contrary......it reinforces it. The 'quest for detail' has now reached its zenith with the resulting sound bearing less relationship to 'reality' than ever? A switch back to the Virtuoso is like 'smelling the roses'. Thank you Nikola for bringing Axel to our attention. He turned around my two cartridges within 10 days of receiving them and the workmanship and sonic results......not to mention the reasonable pricing.......are spectacular. Cheers Henry |
Henry, now you might have a hint of what the Ikeda MC, which is Mr Ikeda's next generation cartriudge after the FR-7f, and has no cantilever, might sound like. I have owned 2 of them and believe me, if your arm/phono is up to it, and most aren't, nothing short of a Garrot Decca is anywhere near as quick. It is not for the fainthearted. |
Dear Henry, I already wrote to Axel that he got 'die Ode' (a poem) from you, so to speak. I am sure he will enjoy your writing. But the merit also belongs to J.Carr because he was the first one who mentioned this 'pressure fitted stylus in a aluminum cantilever'. I used this description by my ordering by Axel for my Virtuoso and Axel delivered perfect work for +/-160 Euro. I am of course very glad to read that you are more than happy with the result. Regards, |
Dear Dover, I noticed that in our forum Raul, Dertonarm and Syntax mentioned those 'cantilever-less' Ikedas. But nobody explained anything except that they are exceptional in two senses: qua sound and exceptional difficult to adjust. Would you care to elaborate on them? There are also different models such that some seem to be better than the other. Strange actually that we know so little about them. Regards, |
Hi Downunder, I just purchased and have received my alleged bootleg copy of 'The Colour of Spring' on eBay. Supposedly a Japanese EMI-Toshiba reissue complete with obi and a purple bonus disc. Do you or anyone else know what the story is on these? It is without a doubt one of the quietest, flattest and most dynamic pressings I have ever bought. Strangely the disc itself is out of round but the pressing is centered. It is one great sounding LP; I'm just curious if it's an unauthorized import, a bootleg or a really high quality Chinese fake. John |
Dear Timeltel: +++++ " AT 630 had laid ignored for a long time. I'm quite aware of its quality. It may be "cheap as chips", however it's a functional tool and the cart is still exceeding expectations. So much so, it has no resemblance to what Lew describes his friend as hearing. " +++++ even that's not the same Lewm's model I posted that my 981L at 100 ohms performs not " quite good " but very good and as you with " no resemblance to what Lewm describes ": he and his friend are hearing. ++++ " and exceedingly pleased with it's performance---in spite of the redundantly "fumigated" 630. If you're suggesting I should obtain an upgraded pre to listen to the Pickering, I'll give it consideration. Your well meant suggestions are appreciated. " ++++ I'm not suggesting a preamp change but only saying that IMHO the 630 is not up to the task. I have preferences ( for good reasons. )for Active High Gain phono stages against any SUT. That's all. My comment was only that: a comment on what's that SUT. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Henry, Thank you so much for your last couple of posts comparing high quality MCs to some of the ones we have been discussing here. It puts a perspective on things that helps my decision-making. Timeltel (Thom), Can you say what is the turns ratio of the AT630 SUT? Quality aside, therein may lie the difference between what you are hearing with a low output Pickering vs what my friend hears via his Allnic SUT using the low output Stanton. Also, can you confirm my assumption that the resistor on the secondary (phono stage) side of the AT630 is 47K ohms? (Knowing the turns ratio of the SUT and the resistance on its secondary, we can calculate the actual load on the Pickering.) Thx. Almarg, Thx for your response. Good to know we are on the same page. I always feel insecure if and when we are not, as I do value your fund of knowledge. |
Dear Timeltel: +++++ " AT 630 had laid ignored for a long time. I'm quite aware of its quality. It may be "cheap as chips", however it's a functional tool and the cart is still exceeding expectations. So much so, it has no resemblance to what Lew describes his friend as hearing. " +++++ even that's not the same Lewm's model I posted that my 981L at 100 ohms performs not " quite good " but very good and as you with " no resemblance to what Lewm describes ": he and his friend are hearing. ++++ " and exceedingly pleased with it's performance---in spite of the redundantly "fumigated" 630. If you're suggesting I should obtain an upgraded pre to listen to the Pickering, I'll give it consideration. Your well meant suggestions are appreciated. " ++++ I'm not suggesting a preamp change but only saying that IMHO the 630 is not up to the task. I have preferences ( for good reasons. )for Active High Gain phono stages against any SUT. That's all. My comment was only that: a comment on what's that SUT. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Stanton/Pickering Lovers: If you have interest to go a little deeper on the Stanton cartridge alternatives/subject this link could help you. This guys are very good about inclusive Richard writed a book that's considered the Stanton/Pickering Bible for many people, I think the book is still on sale you only have to contact Richard: http://www.lencoheaven.net/forum/index.php?topic=158.0 Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Raul, Have you listened to your LZS with a 1000R load or higher? If not, then your opinion that it sounds "good" with a 100R load is neither here nor there. Further, what we need to know is the turns ratio of the AT630 and the resistance across its secondaries; it may well be that the net resistance seen by the low output Pickering that Timeltel is using is equal to or higher than 1000R or at any rate may be much above 100R, which might account for the difference between his observations and mine. Can we approach this question scientifically rather than by fiat? |
As far as I can find out, the AT630 gives "20db" of gain. This implies a turns ratio of 10:1, which means that if Timeltel has a 47K resistor at the input of his phono stage, the Pickering is seeing 470 ohms. It might well be that 470 ohms would sound already substantially better in the ways I described, compared to 100 ohms. |
Dear Lewm: I did not and now I can't because my system still down but that is not the subject due that in my system at 100R performs very good with no sign of what you posted. Maybe you can make a test: that your friend borrowed his sample and test it in your system and see if duplicate what you already listened. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Hi Lew, I'm glad you found my posts of some interest. I have, for some time, been ruminating on the puzzle (to me) of the LOMC attraction? What alarmed me the most......was why I heard (or preferred perhaps).....differently to the majority or high-end audiophiles and reviewers? It is similar to my inability to listen to digital reproduction for any length of time and certainly never to enjoy it? As with my aversion to digital.......where many have told me that I haven't heard the very best hardware available......I was fearful that perhaps those same folk would claim that my 'system' (or phono-stage, tonearms etc) was not 'up to' the demands of the very best LOMC cartridges? Which is why I have taken the last five months to 're-analyse' all the cartridges in my newly upgraded system. It was only with the ability to quickly change from one cartridge to another and back again....from one turntable to another and back again....from one tonearm to another and back again....that I finally 'cracked' the conundrum? To me....it was a significant 'Eureka' moment! The 'lure' of the LOMC was in the INITIAL comparison to the MM. We are all 'suckers' for increased detail? The 'Quest for Detail'....as I call it....is nowhere better exemplified than in the continual 'discovery' of a better and (usually)...more expensive LOMC cartridge of the month by the foremost analogue reviewers of TAS and Stereophile? When the judgment for a ‘better’ cartridge revolves around ‘more detail retrieval’…..and that is often the case…..then who can blame the cartridge designers and manufacturers for pandering to that conviction? The unfortunate result however IMHO….is a sound that increasingly departs from that of the ‘real’ thing? Is it any wonder then that we can become blasé about the sound of a ‘live’ symphony orchestra…..and claim that there is more ‘detail’ in our home systems? It’s true that I have heard more ‘detail retrieval’ from a super SS preamplifier and amplifier than from comparable valve types….but does that equate to a more realistic presentation of the air, transparency and soul of real voices and instruments? An easy test for this ‘realism’ vs ‘detail quest’ is with the crowd clapping on a recording of a live performance (preferably a very good one)? Not a single LOMC cartridge that I have heard, recreates the volume and naturalness….the air and transparency….and funnily enough….the ‘detail retrieval’ of the best MM cartridges in this regard? Detail retrieval is but one attribute of a cartridge’s performance. Let us beware the absolute ‘Quest for Detail’ :-) Regards Henry |
I theorize that the sense of increased detail with LOMC cartridges is due to their lesser ability to re-create the harmonic envelope of a voice or instrument, compared to the best of the MM or MI types. Your comments fit with my notion, if you think about it. Just substitute harmonics or harmonic envelope for "volume and naturalness, etc". And to think, you are upside down on the other side of the planet. You are entering winter, and I am entering summer. Your toilet water rotates in the opposite direction from mine when you flush, and yet we hear the same way. |
Timeltel, The SUT in the Allnic is built in to the MC inputs. You can't avoid it, if you want MC-type phono gain. He reported to me that the max net resistance that can be presented to an MC cartridge (and in this case to the Stanton) is 278 ohms. (This is hearsay; I have never personally examined an Allnic H3000.) Granted, there may be other reasons why the high-ish inductance of the 980LZS makes it not work well into a SUT. I had not thought about it until now, but the limited capacity to adjust load R is another sacrifice of using a SUT. One could not, for example, experiment with running an MC into a 47K load, as some do recommend. I talked him into at least listening to the cartridge via the MM inputs, but we both do not expect the gain to be sufficient. Still, I am curious about what he will report. |
Henry, Sorry for my indiscretion. I am sure that the direction of the rotation of the water in your house, in sink or toilet, as it goes down the drain is politically correct. It's interesting to me now; for years I read the reviews of REG in TAS. REG is an old-timer who always insisted that his MM cartridges were more realisitic sounding than MC ones. I viewed him as a quaint eccentric back then. Raul pointed out the fact that REG was in the vanguard. Raul, Sorry to learn that you are still deprived of sounds. I remember the many long months that it took me to revise my OTL amplifiers, which finally led me to buy a solid state amplifier I did not even want, just to have music. You have my sympathy. |
"I theorize that the sense of increased detail with LOMC cartridges is due to their lesser ability to re-create the harmonic envelope of a voice or instrument, compared to the best of the MM or MI types." Totally presumptuous ironically from a harsh critic of any comment perceived to lack scientific rigour. What evidence do you have to substantiate that one form or another of cartridge can produce a greater harmonic envelope. |
Dear Dover: My take on this critic/important subject is and was analized just from the begin of this thread: CARTRIDGE TRACKING HABILITIES. IMHO this is the " name of the game ": MM/MI cartridges share a common characteristic that's that are high compliance devices where the LOMC are low to medium compliance ones. IMHO that MM/MI compliance characteristics ( of course that kind of suspension/cantilever and stylus shape have influence and are part of those cartridge habilities. ) makes the difference when in these kind of cartridges the stylus tip is almost always in the groove against the LOMC that lose contact ( minute/tiny/micro-level. ) with the groove in comparison with the MM/MIs. Stay in the groove not only means lower tracking distortion but more musical information where will comes the harmonics and the whole " thing ". So IMHO the LOMC cartridgesw have higher tracking distortions and less overall musical information: that's why we can't " smell the roses " with the LOMC cartridges. Please read the last Downunder's post where he claims that he prefers his stand alone Technics P100CMK4 to his new and top of the line Lyra Atlas. The P100CMK4 is a very very good tracker. Regaqrds and enjoy the music, R. |
Since when are increased detail retrieval and volume or harmonics, mutually exclusive? Do these overly detailed MCs exceed the detail on the record? Is the goal to interpret the record in such a way as to make it sound less than what was recorded, exchanging detail for harmonics or dynamics? Even Raul now has an unnamed MC or two that are "better". |
Hello Henry I believe you are right on the money when it comes to MCs. After going through three universes with a Tom Evens groove plus srx and sold on detail and micro detail I was convinced this is what pleased me during listening sessions. Rauls time and effort going back to the last millenniums totl MMs had me do the same thing. The result like yours forgetting that detail and enjoying that romantic vintage superior sound. Ditching that MC phono amp and going simple with my MM phono stage brought that sound back I remembered from the hayday of analog playback. Thanks for the fine posts Mike |
We appear to be heading back towards the linguistic impass we encountered before. Henry, could you characterise your listening experiences with top MM's vs MC's in technical audio terms that can only have a single meaning please.... if that is possible it would avoid this kind of dead end to the discussion that we appear to end up in so frequently. My personal comment about MC's vs MM's is that most if not all MC's have a rising top end. The low inductance of the design (even for HOMC's) implies nowhere to hide the resonance, and even for my Karat 23Rs with a theoretical resonance at 70kHz+, there is still a (very slight) rise in the top end. Any cartridge with a standard 6mm + cantilever length is likely to have a resonance under 30kHz with the rise to that resonance beginning around one octave lower at 15kHz. So item 1 - MC's have a rising top end Item 2 - for the most part MC's are more highly damped, as indicated by the need for higher VTF's - this may have an impact on phase. This one is a wild guess, there is the Ortophase article by Ortofon in the early 80's but that seems very marketing oriented. On the other hand their experiments showed a consistent preference within the hearing panel for cartridges with reduced damping - even when that reduced damping resulted in increased colouration. Implication - less damping is better.... from which one could possibly draw the conclusion that higher compliance is better. What was not analysed in that article was what actual measurable effect was caused by the increased damping - the article places the blame on phase anomalies/shifts.... but little (no?) other material is published to support this contention. It does appear that cartridges with lower damping would have better impulse response - possibly resulting in a more live/immediate sound. Is the increased "detail" heard in many MC's driven by the rising top end? - this would effectively magnify the harmonics of the midrange and up.... my own experiments show that variations in amplitude of less than 0.2db can cause variations in the perception of detail/timbre/tone... and that they are not perceived as an amplitude change! Typical MC's have a rise of 6db+ at 20kHz.... Typical MM's keep the 20kHz point within 3db - and the better ones within 1db of neutral. In any case lets not get stuck in the quicksand of differing terminology.... bye for now David |
Dover, Note use of the word "theory". In other words, I made an observation and I then have advanced a hypothesis to explain it. I just threw it out there. Also, it was very late at night when I wrote that, with kind of a snootful of booze on board, as well. After I went to bed, I realized I should have qualified my statement in the following way: I cannot claim to have heard a large number of samples of what are considered to be the very best MC cartridges available. Therefore, my personal data set is limited. But it appears that Halcro has more observational data than I and that he hears it the same way. It would be more "presumptuous" of me had I stated my theory as fact; I did not intend it that way. I actually think this difference between MC and MM or MI should be demonstrable on a 'scope. I have a 'scope, but I am not sure how to do the test properly. Anyway, it's a topic for conversation. I start with the consistent observation that piano sounds more real with MM/MI compared to the best of the LOMCs I own or have owned. I think it sounds more real because I hear more of the natural harmonics of the piano and more of the attack and decay of each note. So then I extrapolate that phenomenon to voice and other instruments, or rather I wonder whether it does extrapolate. I agree completely with Raul, if there is any truth to my rash generalization, it has a lot to do with superior tracking (higher compliance) of MM/MI cartridges. It may also have to do with the absolute voltage output of a typical MM vs a typical MC. In the latter case, the voltages of the signals that comprise the nuances that cue us to the reality of the voice or instrument (e.g., attack and decay) are much more minute than those that are generated from an MM or MI. Thus the information we/I sense as lacking from an MC may actually be present in the signal but may not be "sensed" by the phono stage in proportion to its actual magnitude. IOW, the fault may be in the high gain required. I could especially see this happening with a SUT, where the tiny signal has to cross from primary to secondary of the transformer. Hysteresis, etc, could rob us there. An analogy to this would be found in the comparison between systems that use flea power amps driving very efficient speakers, especially horns and more conventional audio systems. I am not a fan of the former, but I would not argue that those systems are very revealing of nuances like attack and decay, and I think it is because of their very high efficiency. I will now proceed with haste to my bomb shelter. This is all free association on my part. No harm is intended. I am certainly not done with LOMC cartridges in my system. |
If tracking is responsible for more detail, then a great tracking MM would be superior in that respect to a MC. My intent here isn't to tout one or the other, rather to point out inconsistencies in generalizations. I have no doubt about what was heard, I just doubt if it is universal. Like loading - this is, at least to some extent, dependant on equipment. David, the Ortofon article only subjectively tested for imaging. They said that the 5 MMs were more heavily damped and that's why they had inferior phase linearity and imaging. As damping was added to the MC, response got flatter but imaging suffered. It's been postulated (w/o directly stating) that detail and harmonics/dynamics are somewhat mutually exclusive. Could this be the limitations, the mechanical aspects of the medium? |
I don't know if this applies to all LOMCs, but some will sound super dynamic - larger than life, if loaded at 47K/high gain. Detail and focus suffer somewhat until that load is brought down to a lower value. For awhile the reviewers at TAS were using 47K, so I tried it on my Genesis 1000. Maybe this has something to do with the electromechanical aspect, and it might not be a limitation at all. Lew, I use something like 300 ohms on my 980LZ. I'll have to try it again in my AHT. I've been using in another system. |
Hi all, I agree with Raul, in my experience there are situations where MM's are a better option. Firstly average mid priced MC's, eg Audio Technica OC9, often sound slewed, phasy and non linear, I have demonstrated to customers that a humble Sumiko Andante can blitz many mid priced MC's. Secondly - average or mismatched tonearms - there is more than just effective mass, compliance at stake here, armboards/tonearm combinations alone can impart colourations and resonances, then throw in a less than perfect MC and again a recipe for disaster. Thirdly and one of the least considered - the phono stage - how many really good MC phono stages are there. Solid state very seldom makes music, it disaggregates it and that includes the Halcro/TEAD mentioned above. Transformer step up's - you are lucky if you get close - I have a stack of SUT's both modern and vintage and can easily demonstrate 2 transformers from the same manufacturer with the same turns ratio and input/output specs producing totally different sound - 1 coloured and edgy, one clean detailed and free from grain ( the less expensive one ) depending on cartridge. It's a lucky dip of complementary colorations. I still use a Marantz 7 ( with update Smith mods & external power supply ) and have not found a more complete phono that does timing, openness, soundstaging and can amplify a LOMC with no fets/SUT's etc. I have owned Jadis, Manley, ARC, CJ etc, listened to many including Shindo, Kondo, Burmester and they are all slow, slugged and are simply not musical compared to the modded Marantz. There may be some good ones out there, but they are very few and far between - again buying/matching an MC on spec or review is a lucky dip. Then we get into personalities - audio systems are often a reflection of personalities - some people want a nice easy life, dont want to make decisions, they may want an audio system that does not challenge them - soft, turgid, nice to listen to, but doesn't challenge the senses, not too much detail. |
A couple of caveats: The frequency response of a cartridge changes according to the ambient temperature, humidity, and the groove diameter. It will also change to some extent with setup. Somewhere in my technical library I have charts published by Denon showing this. Distortion also changes with groove radius, ambient temperature, setup and environmental considerations like that. However, IME distortion is a better guide to how the top end of a cartridge will sound than the frequency response, probably because distortion means that new high(er) frequencies are created when none existed. Even if the LP only extends out to 5kHz, distortion can "create" 10kHz, 15kHz, 20kHz and so on. Frequency response is easier to understand if we think of it as frequency sensitivity - the cartridge is responding to whatever signals are already present on the LP. If the LP only contains frequency content out to 5kHz, that is what you will get. Unlike distortion, frequency response will not give you "new" high frequencies. Again IME, frequency response deviations in a transducer and frequency response deviations in an amplifier (or phono stage) do not sound the same. Frequency response deviations are easier to hear in an amplifier (although through component choice and circuit design, it is possible to create the impression of a rising top end when none exist, and it is also possible to make an amplifier sound dull when in reality it it has a measurably rising top end). Some cables sound like they have a non-flat frequency response (and I know a number of studio engineers who keep a pile of different cables in the studio to use as "equalizers" for their recordings), but in reality, nearly every cable that I have measured has been completely flat throughout the audible band. Although I keep the RIAA deviations well-within +/-0.1dB in the phono stages that I design, I am not completely convinced about the criticality of a super-flat RIAA curve in the phono stage. In my conversations with veteran LP recording and cutting engineers (in Japan and Europe as well as the US), I have not heard one person say that the encoding RIAA networks feeding the LP cutting lathes, or for that matter the encoding NAB or IEC networks in the tape recorders, used 0.5% capacitors or 0.1% resistors. The component tolerances that I have heard mentioned for vintage recording equipment are +/-5% for the capacitors (although some gear was rebuilt in later years for higher accuracy). If carbon resistors (2% for the better ones) were used, keep in mind that carbon changes resistance according to heat, while carbon comp resistors (5% for the better ones) change value according to both heat and humidity. Some recording engineers tell me that they hand-selected their network components for tighter tolerances, but I do not get the impression that these were the exhaustive kind of efforts that would be required to get the component values down to +/-0.5% or +/-0.1%. I will also point out that, for a time in the late 1970s and early 1980s, there were a number of MC cartridges that were developed for high compliance and high tracking ability at low VTF. The Highphonics, some of the Denons (DL-1000), Dynavector DV-50A, Pioneer (PC-70MC), Coral (777-EX), Sonys, and a fair bit more. If tracking ability is the key performance issue, one would expect that these cartridges would have been huge successes and gone down in history as truly memorable-sounding cartridges. What happened in reality is that the audio market (Japan as well other countries) seems to have concluded that the high-compliance pendulum had swung too far, and cartridges gradually reverted to medium-compliance. Personally my experience has been closer to Dover's - that the main advantage of MMs is that they make phono stage design much easier - that extra 20dB (or more) of low-noise gain required in a top-notch MC phono stage doesn't come easily. Also, the front-end design is more critical for MC cartridges than it is with MMs, since record ticks and pops (which can extend out to 300kHz, and can be much higher in level than the sonic information in the LP grooves) will not be attenuated by the high inductance of an MM's signal coils and cable capacitances. Instead, cable capacitances will react with the low inductances and low resistances of an MC cartridge's compact signal coils to create ultrasonic peaks which can cause high-frequency overload of an MC phono stage's front end and slew distortion unless the phono stage designer considers all of these things and takes appropriate countermeasures. One other characteristic of many MMs mentioned on this thread is that they are voiced differently from most of today's cartridges. This is fine for personal listening preferences, but it not a technically valid reason, as the technical design of a cartridge and its voicing are completely separate entities. Note that I have and will limit myself to discussing technical issues, and will not seek to belittle anyone's listening preferences. My view is that, when it comes to personal listening likes and dislikes, there is no correct or incorrect - everyone has the right to choose the sound that they like the most. kind regards, jonathan |
A half day of setting up and break-in NOS 981LZS is slowly yeilding results. It prefers 47K to a 500R load and a light 1-1.1 gm VTF to open up and alleviate an initially dark & recessed presention. Tracking is flawless. Too early to tell what it's capable of. Albert, why did you put yours up for sale after one hour of use? |
Hi Jonathan, thanks for that posting! Could you please go into more detail on the "voicing" differences? Are we talking audiophile fashion? Or are we talking differing compromises? Is one more "true" to the original master? Or can different voicings all be as "true" to the original master? bye for now David |