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 friends: IMHO we can't takea tonearm like a stand alone audio item, tonearms are only a part of a very complex resonator circuit where that circuit is full of interrelationships between the different circuit stages, this makes very complicated the tonearm designs.

The intrinsic tonearm resonances/distortions are in " touch " with the other resonator stages just from start:

I think that all begin with the LP, turntable platter plate and the clamp ( when in use ) resonances in at least these ways: amplitud, level, main frequency and harmonics. Next stage belongs to the cartridge it self along cantilever/stylus/suspension/cartridge body/LP. From here goes to the headshell ( integrated design or not ) removable or fixed headshell. Independent on the tonearm/cartridge resonances due to the cartridge compliance and the tonearm effective mass exist a resonance stage in the circuit between the cartridge body/headshell/mount screws/mount level's torque.
Then what Fleib posted between the removable headshell and the tonearm arm wand connector and from here goes through the stage between the arm wand resonances and the tonearm main bearing. Then to the bearing/arm pillar and from here to the tonearm arm mount mechanism and from here to the tonearm/TT arm mount.

All those circuit stages can change its relationship " levels " depending on build materials all through the audio items involved in the circuit and even additional or not damping at each stage by whole design.

So IMHO we can't attribute the whole " thing " only to one or two of those resonator circuit stages.

What makes more complex a tonearm design is that the designers do not know how their tonearms will be mated overall.

The analog " cross " are those mechanical resonances/distortions: terrible for say the least.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
I think I forgot at least one resonance circuit stage: where the TT is seated.

R.
Lewm, I think you've highlighted the folly of fashion - wooden arms and tonearm's hanging on a string. These are literally TONE arms, as in tone controls, providing little rigidity to ensure the stylus is measuring the groove modulations accurately. Images of a log randomly floating down a river as a little boy valiantly tries to steer the log from the rear come to mind when string arms are mentioned, eg Well Tempered, Schroeder. If that floats your boat, well and good. The main benefit of these types of arms is that they can sound warm, cuddly, vague, not too detailed to upset the system and can smooth over system imbalances and poor set up. To include these types of arms in a discussion on headshell/tonearm rigidity is spurious.
I do like the engineering of the Triplanar and ability to set up the cartrudge very accurately and easily, but I think one of the issues, and why I rejected it, is that the effective mass of 11g is a bit on the low side for the low compliance LOMC's that I use.
Dover,
Why not just add a weight, if that was your only objection to the TP? One can easily increase the effective mass of any tonearm, not easy to go in the other direction. I agree with you that "medium mass" tonearms are neither here nor there when it comes to matching with high and low compliance cartridges.

I was not necessarily touting the supremacy of the TP over all others; I was just pointing out that it seems to be well engineered as regards energy transfer. As to the goodness of wood for tonearm construction, Vetterone, whom I highly respect, has written on one of these threads in no uncertain terms that wood is superior to metal in terms of dissipating energy. Far be it from me to challenge him on that notion, but I did mean to point out that some of the most expensive wood tonearms may not be so good at getting the energy from the cartridge body and into the wood part of the tonearm, due to all the material interfaces the energy must traverse. That said, my one experience listening to a Talea with a ZYX UNIverse, in a system that was very familiar to me, was an epiphany; the pairing sounded absolutely great.

Fleib, Do you really think that's true, about one screw (or one fastener of some kind) being advantageous? It's an interesting idea. I'd like to see the math or some supportive physical theory.
Dear Lew, Re Fleib. Your Reed 2A headshell is fastened with just one screw so you can experiment before the math and physical theory are provided. However the Germans have this proverb:' if theory and practice conicide then they are probable both false'.

Regards,
According to AJ Conti changing to a heavier counterweight closer to the pivot point will lower the effective mass - it is counterintuitive. To increase EM you need to split the counterweight into multiples and distribute some weight further back behind the main counterweight. The maths becomes a nightmare. In some cases depending on where the original counterweight ends up you may in fact still end up with a lower EM putting additional weight behind the main. Therefore I prefer to start with an arm that is in the zone to start with. I did consider getting a Triplanar made to order with a higher effective mass, but put that in the too hard basket.
Effective mass and moment of inertia seem to be expressions of the same thing. Using a heavier counterweight closer to the pivot will reduce eff mass. Calculating MOI includes distance.

Lew, can't say I completely understand it or can do the math. Energy propagation gets into mechanical impedance. Vibrations travel both ways. There are other forms of mechanical energy like sound pressure waves that impact on the table/arm. I think you might find these interesting:
http://www.stereophile.com/interviews/pierre_lurne_audiomecas_turntable_designer/index.html

http://www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/belladonna2_e.html

Regards,
Fleib,
There are 2 schools of thought here - the wooden spoon and string brigade are trying to dampen energy, others such as Naim Aro, Dynavector are trying to encourage energy away from the cartridge and sink it to ground through the arm/armboard/plinth.
At any junction or join some energy will transmit through and some will reflect backwards towards the cartridge. Therefore no join ensures no backward reflected energy towards the cartridge.
Now if we have a join whats best ? There are probably 3 main types - bayonet, screw and clamp. The most rigid is the clamp eg Triplanar arm tube yoke effectively creating a wider pressure than either a bayonet or screw. This will be more rigid, but presumably will spread the resonance out over a wider range but with less amplitude. Materials used will also have a big impact on how energy moves/reflects, from my rusty memory if each succeeding material away from the cartridge is "quicker" than the preceding material, then that will minimise the reflected energy going back toward the cartridge.
Dear Audiopulse: My G800 was up dated with nude line contact on aluminum cantilever. I know that Dominic use the Ruby cantilever , when Axel received my Goldring I was tempted to order the ruby/saphyre cantilever but I decided to check before with the aluminum one and hear it to evaluate its quality performance level and from here decide to go or not for the ruby/saphyre one.

I ask Axel to up date the XL44L in the same way than the G800.

After test both carrtridges I will report here. To decide to go to a " better " up grade I want to know first if the carrtridge motor deserve it.
I have high expectations on that can happen because both cartridges are very well regarded.

Orinaly I was decided to send the G800 to Dominic but due that I never heard the Goldring I prefered to " wait " and see how good in reality is the cartridge motor.

Now, if the Sony is as good as some persons experienced then I will go latter with the berylium/Gyger2 up date.
Btw, now I'm trying to decide if I go with this top up date for my Astatic MF-300due that the 200 is IMHO an stellar performer: I really like the Astatic motor.

I can't help you about what I experienced with the G800 or the Sony because my system is still down.

I bought my G800 trusting on Dominic opinion so I'm waiting that even with the aluminum cantilever the cartridge can performs very good. I can't imagine why the G800 could not perform good with aluminum cantilever, we will see.

Regard and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Fleib: +++++ " that implies a less than rigid headshell/armtube " ++++

++++++ " Using a removable headshell you're much more likely to have vibrations remain in the headshell as they hit the headshell coupling. I have some arms with removable headshells, and I think this is true. IMO it's better to avoid additional resonance, retain greater arm rigidity, and allow the arm to dissipate mechanical energy. " +++++

the kind of resonances and its frequency level depnds mainly not only on how rigid is the coupling but the headshell build material and how resonate and how can dissipate it and not only through the tonearm.

This is something that we worked in deep through the whole design of our tonearm that now is finished. Our tonearm, even that is removable headshell ) does not shows what you states and that can happen with other tonearms that use different build material than our propietary one

Overall build material on tonearms are the main factors on that resonance issue, obviously along other design parameters but build materials makes a paramount and critical differences.

Always exist resonances/distortions on many kind and the success on any design IMHO is try to leave those resonances/distortions away of the frequency range our brain is more sensitive and where could cause more problems.

Tonearm as a whole audio item has a " pre-historic " status and there is a lot of land to improve its main functions. The tonearm as a whole IMHO is just a " kid " and needs to grow up faster in benefit of our hobby. IMHO there is no " last word " or do not writed yet that last word in tonearms so it is exciting to know that the best is forthcoming about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear friends: IMHO we can't takea tonearm like a stand alone audio item, tonearms are only a part of a very complex resonator circuit where that circuit is full of interrelationships between the different circuit stages, this makes very complicated the tonearm designs.

The intrinsic tonearm resonances/distortions are in " touch " with the other resonator stages just from start:

I think that all begin with the LP, turntable platter plate and the clamp ( when in use ) resonances in at least these ways: amplitud, level, main frequency and harmonics. Next stage belongs to the cartridge it self along cantilever/stylus/suspension/cartridge body/LP. From here goes to the headshell ( integrated design or not ) removable or fixed headshell. Independent on the tonearm/cartridge resonances due to the cartridge compliance and the tonearm effective mass exist a resonance stage in the circuit between the cartridge body/headshell/mount screws/mount level's torque.
Then what Fleib posted between the removable headshell and the tonearm arm wand connector and from here goes through the stage between the arm wand resonances and the tonearm main bearing. Then to the bearing/arm pillar and from here to the tonearm arm mount mechanism and from here to the tonearm/TT arm mount.

All those circuit stages can change its relationship " levels " depending on build materials all through the audio items involved in the circuit and even additional or not damping at each stage by whole design.

So IMHO we can't attribute the whole " thing " only to one or two of those resonator circuit stages.

What makes more complex a tonearm design is that the designers do not know how their tonearms will be mated overall.

The analog " cross/croix " are those mechanical resonances/distortions: terrible for say the least.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Hi Dover, that sounds reasonable to me. I think much of it depends on the materials and execution. **At any junction or join some energy will transmit through and some will reflect backwards towards the cartridge. Therefore no join ensures no backward reflected energy towards the cartridge.** It also would ensure maximum rigidity and tend to eliminate additional resonance problems caused by a joint. It seems like a good case against removable headshells.

In the real world it seems like best performance often comes from a combination of dissipation and damping. If you have a rigid pivot(s) wouldn't considerations be somewhat different with strings or a golf ball suspended in silicone? Rather than forcing the cart to follow a rigid pivot 9 to 12" away, you're putting the cart before the pivot and making the arm follow the cartridge. On the other hand, VTA adjusters that have the arm pillar only sitting on spikes are said to have lots of extra bass. No wonder, the arm isn't coupled, it's decoupled.
Think I'll play a Memorial Day record. Lee Morgan vol 3, I Remember Clifford is on there - Blue Note 1557. I'll have to dig out a Benny Golson rendition too. What the hey, he wrote the tune.
Regards,
Regards, Lew, Fleib. And with your forbearance, Dover, an elaboration of your comments and an open question: Good points by all. Couple of joins not yet discussed, one where the cart meets the headshell, of whatever description it may be, it does exist. The second, the pivot, or gimbal. Then there's the interface of post to base, some say all the way to the spindle and ultimately, on perhaps a YORX turntable, returning to the vinyl.

And all those boundary resonances with their sly phase shifts and ringing.

Boundary conditions do effect the resonance frequency. The resonance frequency is influenced by Young's modulus, and geometry. It gives me a headache to think about such but the resonance characteristics of a beam are determined by: 1. Young's modulus, 2. The cross-section of the beam 3. The mass per length 4. The associated eigenvalue, or the self-resonance of the beam as described by the preceding factors. This seems inevitable when the beam of a tonearm is made rigid, this is generally considered a good thing.

In the case of resonance in a beam, there is a probability that not just the primary tone but also the second and third overtones are also excited. Measures to correct this are selection of the material itself, damping of the tube by external or internal applications such as sand, blue tack or teflon tape, by tapering or curving the beam, by sleeving the beam in order to interrupt linear resonance through the entire length, silicone damping, the list can get pretty long.

In a Jan. 2004 paper delivered by Xinqi Chen, Sulin Zhang, Gregory J. Wagner, (and Weiqiang Ding, and Rodney S. Ruoff),
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Northwestern University, this is described:
"Variation in cross section was taken into account by using a modified expression for the natural frequency based on a perturbation solution in the small parameter e (eigenvalue)=(D1-D0)/D0 , where D0 is the diameter at the fixed end of the vibrating rod and D1 is the diameter at the free end. The cross-sectional area and moment of inertia as functions of the length of the beam are then given." In plain language, overtone resonance was found to depend on the ratio of --- length to (a tapered) cross-section diameter. Thank you, gentlemen.

Then there's this worrisome bit: "the shift in frequency is *negative* for the fundamental mode due to --- increase of mass, but *positive* for the higher modes (2nd, 3rd 4th overtones), for which increased stiffness dominates over the increased mass." My thinking cap for that one, please?

It needs to be clarified that these fellows were concerned with the behavior of fibers, but clearly felt (quote) "If there are ‘‘problems’’ associated with microscale samples, it is likely that the same sorts of issues will arise with nanoscale samples." Coming from the scientific community, this is a fairly assertive statement but one can, naturally, draw one's own conclusions.

This is presuming a "perfectly clamped beam". In a beam which is damped, then boundary effects are to some degree deflected because, as Fleib points out, by the laws of conservation of energy vibration is then transformed into heat.

In the instance of a tonearm, it is neither perfectly clamped or perfectly free. Beyond theory and when put into practice, this means it is best that a number of samples be measured in order to determine the most appropriate set of values. Then there's cantilever resonance, cartridge self resonance (eigenvalue again), damping through suspension or tie wire, underdamping/overdamping of the electrical kind---.

It is, for me, all very complicated but unless one has had the good fortune to own a tonearm and cartridge perfectly matched and also perfectly meeting the listener's expectations then the ability to select appropriate mass, material and cross section through the exchanging of headshells is of some value, but that's a personal opinion.

AND---

Neither supposition or proposition, just the promised question: Being fairly aware of the points in making a case for damping and line transmission of resonance to the mass of the plinth in it's function as a vibrational sink, this does seem the best supported approach. However, as there are a number of evidently microphonic cartridges that have sneaked into the ranks of well regarded pickups, even a gentle touch of the Empire 4000D-111 is to be heard through the speakers and there aren't many complaints about that particularly dynamic cartridge. Is it possible that tuned mechanical feedback is an intentional component of design?
(Henry loaned me several "?'s", he cranks them out by the hundreds & will never miss these few). ;)

Peace,
Timeltel -
Perhaps Henry could denude the Empire for you ?.h?
When I was working at a medical company a few years ago they were working on fusing carbon fibre & titanium for use in wheelchairs - now that would be interesting for a tonearm beam.
the exchanging of headshells is of some value, but that's a personal opinion.
And it's an honest opinion......
Trying to justify 'opinion' by speculation or invoking 'voodoo' science is annoying IMO.
Now there may well be some reasoned thought behind all these 'theories' on energy transmission and vibration but it doesn't make them right?
Nor does it establish a hierarchy of 'importance' in the actual design and function of tonearms and headshells?
I think Fleib answered his own question....can we actually HEAR it?

There are so many honourable convictions in audio....especially when it comes to analogue?
Sprung turntables vs rigid.....heavy vs not so......vacuum hold-down vs none....clamps vs none....belt-drive vs DD vs Idler.
High mass tonearms vs medium......uni-pivots vs gimbal bearings.....fixed headshells vs removable......straight arms vs 'J' or 'S' shaped....single length phono-cable vs junction box.
White papers can be produced on these....and many others.....which 'prove' the theoretical superiority of someone's conviction?

But can it actually be PROVEN in the listening?
Can we actually hear the evidence of these theories?....and I don't mean have each one of us proven to himself, the best direction for his audio choices?
I mean.....in a blind listening test on an unknown system.......who is willing to bet they can hear the difference between a uni-pivot and a gimbal bearing tonearm?
Who can tell the difference between a fixed headshell tonearm and a removable headshell one?
Who is willing to bet they can hear whether there is vacuum hold-down or not?...whether a clamp is used or not?...whether the turntable they are listening to is belt driven of DD?
And has anyone ever seen a blind listening test where any listener is able to verify whether a MM cartridge or MC is playing on a consistent basis?

Yes...theories are the beautiful minutiae of audio....but a 'single' theory is rarely its own reward?

And no more '?s' for you Professor until you learn to use them with the abandon of a non-academic like me!

Regards
Henry
Hello Henry, I'm afraid we still have a basic problem. Blind listening tests on unfamiliar systems are near useless for anything but gross differences. Despite our references to live music, most systems fall far short and hi-fi stereo listening is a medium unto itself, mimicking that of live music and "exceeding" it in certain areas. I've conducted blind tests. Depending on what the test is about, I could pretty much make them come out any way I wanted, with careful selection of components. Using test instruments is sometimes a useful way of identifying what's going on and training our ears to discern.

All of us try various things to get a more accurate or pleasing sound. If there is a mechanical resonance impacting the electrical output, we automatically take appropriate action depending on our opinion of the affect. However, being locked into one approach would tend to limit our ability to identify coloration and consider a different approach. The S and J shaped arms were developed to incorporate offset angle into the headshell and maintain a more rigid (straight) coupling. So, this brings up the questions, is it better if using a removable headshell and, is it better vs a fixed headshell?
Back to square 1.
Regards,

Henry I have finally managed to test the Final Audio with the Sutherland Timeline.
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1320876538&openflup&546&4#546
Dear Fleib,
Agreed…..we do have a basic problem.
I’m not a great proponent of blind listening tests either…..however when a statement is made that a principle in audio is superior to another, that statement should be demonstrable in some scientific manner?
If it is claimed that a rigid headshell is better than a detachable one….this should be audible on any system…..not just one’s own?
It cannot be logically valid that a statement is true but cannot be proved to be true?

I have the luxury of having two turntables operating side by side with three different arms on each…….two with fixed headshells and four with detachable.
If I cannot tell the difference in any way between those arms……how accurate and reliable is such a statement?

I don’t mind what anyone believes is contributing to their system’s synergy or success as long as they don’t claim some universal laws which they cannot prove and which I have personally disproved?

I can believe the passion of those advocates of valve amplification…..but it does not negate the merits of solid state?

As someone once wrote……”There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

Regards
Nandric, My Reed has the optional azimuth adjustable headshell. My inspection of it suggests to me that it is firmly imbedded into the wood arm wand, not just one fastener. Thus the mechanical interface between it and the wood seems to be a bit better engineered than that for some other wood arms. However, the azimuth device itself is perhaps suspect as regards its possible tendency to resonate.

Dover, AJ Conti is not alone. Effective mass is proportional to mass times the SQUARE of the distance from the center of mass to the pivot point. Thus, getting a larger mass counterweight closer to the pivot point will generally REDUCE effective mass vs a lighter weight mass that has to be farther away from the pivot point in order to balance the cartridge. It's the law. Modern tonearm designers tend to obey it; the older especially Japanese tonearms tended to ignore it.
Dear Halcro: +++++ " however when a statement is made that a principle in audio is superior to another, that statement should be demonstrable in some scientific manner?
If it is claimed that a rigid headshell is better than a detachable one….this should be audible on any system…..not just one’s own?
It cannot be logically valid that a statement is true but cannot be proved to be true? " +++++++

that's why many times is only theory but as I posted ( btw, I posted by 05-27-12 and because Agon does not posted I repeat it on 05-28. Something is happen there because if you read it is only today that Agon posted my post to Audiopulse that I writed and posted by 05-25-12!!! and to Dover on 05-26-12 ) the problem is that many times we are taking single theories for a single subject when as I pointed out the whole " thing " works as a resonator circuit where each stage on that resonator circuit has a direct and indirect relationship in between: any change in any of those stages ( inside the resonator circuit ) affect directly to the final " sound ".

It is " fun " for all of us to talk on this subject but our conclusions could be useless in some ways if we don't take or work on the whole resonator circuit.

IMHO our conclusions are " unfinished " ones and extremely difficult to prove it as you said.

IMHO we must to have a " mathematic's model " of that resonator circuit where all the parameters/factor with influence been on that model. This sounds good but I think very complex if we take in count all the parameters/factors invloved and its combinations because that model must include audio item build materials.

Whom's of us say: I take that " bull by its horns " ?. Here we have very brave contributors that can do it and that maybe as a " contribution task " some of this brave stand alone contributors can works togetter to achieve that resonator circuit model.

I'm just thinking in " high voice ".

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear friends: I think " that " could be a huge contribution to the whole audio community and not only to satisfy each one of us.

R.
I agree totally with Raul, which is why these discussions of resonance or "distortions" are so difficult, why each of us needs to listen carefully to the others, and also why expressing ones self as clearly as possible is a good idea.
Hi Halcro, **I’m not a great proponent of blind listening tests either…..however when a statement is made that a principle in audio is superior to another, that statement should be demonstrable in some scientific manner?
If it is claimed that a rigid headshell is better than a detachable one….this should be audible on any system…..not just one’s own?
It cannot be logically valid that a statement is true but cannot be proved to be true?**

I see your point, but isn't a resonance that shows up in the electrical output on test equipment, more scientific than people listening on an unfamiliar system and being put on the spot? On the one hand it's hard to argue with an oscilloscope or RTA, whatever, on the other hand we really don't know if this is a universal attribute of all removable headshell systems. I think perhaps it is, at least to some extent. We often hear these things and don't identify exactly what they are, or the cause; nevertheless we would select the headshell and tweak the mounting system to achieve the sound we are looking for. Do you have an extensive headshell collection? Why, exactly is it necessary, perhaps to tune an imperfect system? Don't take that as an insult or proclamation of superiority, nothing's perfect.
Regards,
I'll fabricate for my Trans-Fi linear tonearm a two-point vertical needle bearing assembly that plugs directly into a standard SME headshell bayonet-- eliminating the tonearm tube entirely. This can be compared to several short wands of various compositions with integral headshells. This takes all variables out of the equation except for the extra mechanical joint and solder/clip terminations. The same wire will be used throughout the arm and the headshell. Is an old-stock Technics bayonet good enough to prove the point, or is there a better bayonet out there to extract optimal performance from a removeable headshell?
I also agree with Raul on these issues.
...but isn't a resonance that shows up in the electrical output on test equipment, more scientific than people listening on an unfamiliar system and being put on the spot?
'Scientific' would include controlled testing using a dozen different arms of differing shapes and materials, with a dozen different headshells with all testing repeated many times?
It would need to monitor the torque values used with the headshell locking collars and also test with and without the rubber gaskets between the collars and the tonearms. Different rubber gaskets would also have to be tested?

After all that......we need to ask ourselves.....'Is this a more fundamental influence on perceived sound than the tonearm material?".....or the tonearm bearing?......or the fixity of the tonearm base?...or the rigidity of the cartridge to headshell connection?
Should we not 'scientifically' test all these at the same time?
And then how do we establish the hierarchy of 'importance' with all these tests?
I think you are missing my point here Fleib.......if I cannot hear the effects of this 'resonance' you are measuring compared directly to my tonearms with fixed headshells......why do you assume it is important or even more illuminating.....why do you assume it is 'bad' rather than 'good'?

If scientific testing determined our choices in audio......all valve equipment would be relegated to the dustbin of history?

Oh.....and all my headshells are occupied with cartridges. That is their sole purpose....not for tuning :-)

Regards
Hello Timeltel, As a side note to your ideas, I can thump on my Empire 4000d 111 Gold and it doesn't make a sound. It has the more normal 1/2" mount of plastic instead of the metal wings of the original 4000d111. If I remember correctly, and Raul do correct me if I'm wrong, Raul preferred the older microphonic cart to the newer dampened cartridge, when comparing the two.
Do the improvements to the cartridge mounting actually hurt it"s sound by overdamping?
Regards, Danny: Initally mounted on an ADC mag. shell, spotlight was a little too heavy on the lower mids. Moved the Empire to a Yokohama HS3 8.5gm boxwood headshell & fat AT twisted copper leads and thought this put things in better order, even though I am a confessed midrange gourmand. Sounds very nice. Sometime in the future will try it on alu., carbon fiber and one of Henry's 9.5gm ebony headshells, I suspect greater mass may challenge the cart's high compliance. I appreciate the rich tonality and dynamics of the cart as set up now. If "listenability" could be measured I'd give this one high marks.

Moving magnet generators are either over, under or critically damped, the same for mechanical considerations. In the strictest interpretation of your question, no, overdamping will not improve the performance of the cart and always keep in mind that for every action there is an equal and opposite criticism.

Was not aware there was a solid mount version of the 4000D and I'm somehow distressed to hear that there is as now I'll be looking for yet another cart. The back plate for the pins-out on yours is white?

Any impressions of your Grace F-8(E?) yet?

Peace,
Dear Professor and Danny,
For some reason beyond conventional wisdom.......both Thuchan and I have found that the Empire 4000D/III really loves a high mass arm like the FR-66s and sounds positively euphoric in my Continuum Copperhead.
I'm just saying.........
Cheers
Henry
Hi Halcro,
**I think you are missing my point here Fleib.......if I cannot hear the effects of this 'resonance' you are measuring compared directly to my tonearms with fixed headshells......why do you assume it is important or even more illuminating.....why do you assume it is 'bad' rather than 'good'?**

I didn't measure the resonance and I didn't make those assumptions except its possible importance. An arm resonance is identified and attributed to the headshell. Should we ignore it? Lets devise an elaborate subjective test with 12 arms etc etc. This is really no different than what you do all the time and you haven't been able to identify it. So it doesn't exist or is unimportant if you can't hear it? How do you know you can't hear it, do all those arms sound alike? Why don't you measure the output and identify it? Perhaps you could work with the coupling and eliminate it or reduce it, and see/hear if it sounds any different.
Our subjective impressions might be the final arbiter, but progress is made by using measurements and learning what works or works better.
Regards,
Perhaps you could work with the coupling and eliminate it or reduce it, and see/hear if it sounds any different.
Hi Fleib,
Isn't that precisely what I do every day by listening to a rigid tonearm with fixed headshell (DaVinci) and a rigid (structurally the MOST rigid) tonearm with no headshell whatsoever (Copperhead) alongside the four other tonearms with detachable headshells?
Perhaps you should try this listening test to see which works better?
Regards
I have always felt that the notion that an audio component can be "over damped" is a bit curious. I don't believe that it is possible for an audio component to be "over damped"; in absolute terms. I realize that we have to live in the real world of still very imperfect audio components, and that we need to "manage" and even exploit the various resonances introduced by every component, and every part of every component in our audio system. I think Raul has it exactly correct in referring to this issue in terms of a "resonator circuit". While I admit that my point is purely academic, I think it is of value to always remember that audio components are not musical instruments, and that if the goal of audio is to reproduce as faithfully as possible the incredibly complex sonic signatures of these instruments' own "resonator circuits" (similar mechanical resonance interactions occur in musical instruments), then the very best, and unachievable reproduced sound is possible only by eliminating resonance in our audio systems. Very frustrating, since the best we can do is manipulate these various resonances.
For some reason beyond conventional wisdom.......both Thuchan and I have found that the Empire 4000D/III really loves a high mass arm like the FR-66s and sounds positively euphoric in my Continuum Copperhead.
I'm just saying.........

Henry – according to this thread the 4000d/iii loves many arms.

I assume by euphoric you are referring to a sound that is well ...kinda nice….dreamlike….like you feel maybe after a couple glasses of Nikola’s Sliwowitz?

If so I also experienced this euphoric sound temporarily with the empire 4000 diii on my Dynavector Dv505 on the Lenco. I looked into it because it never sounded like that before. I admit I kind of liked at first, but then realized that for me it was a bit over the top, even for reproduced sound.

I discovered the resonator had come loose on the Dv505. Not sure if that was the only problem but once adjusted and tightened things went back to normal.
You're right Chris......the 4000D/III is hard to upset.
I have two of them.......one in permanent attachment to my Copperhead whilst the other resides in an FR-3 headshell able to be inserted into the FR-66s or FR-64s at a moments notice.
By listening side by side to it on the Copperhead and FR-66s on the Raven AC-2......the one in the FR-66s sounds happy and content whilst that in the Copperhead sounds even happier....euphoric even :-)

When I first listened to my FR-5E MM cartridge (on J. Carr's recommendation and Nandric's help in finding it).....it sounded positively euphonic though not quite euphoric?
I discovered that the two piece plastic mounting base to the cartridge was moving thus accounting for the euphonics.
A quick dab of glue restored this fine cartridge to a state of euphoria without the extra euphonics.
So I know exactly what you mean?

Cheers
Henry
Regards, 4000D/111 owners: Bought locally & assured that although the markings are scuffed it's a 4000D/111 cart. It seems everyone else has the solid mount, this one is on a clip-on metal mount, white back plate. Have I been had?

No issues with the stylus, came in original "Genuine Empire discrete 4 channel, Tip radius 4 dimensional" packaging. Whatever the cart's DNA may be, euphoric is a good description of it's performance.

Please advise.

Peace,
Hey Timeltel, Look on Lenco Heaven "Empire 4000d111 Gold " thread ,page 3. Is that your Empire?
Regards Professor,
My cartridges both have a gold body with an integral black coloured attachment base which could be metal or even plastic as it is on the 1000ZE/X.
On the side of the gold body is black printing (half of which has disappeared).....4000DIII/GOLD.
The stylus assembly is white plastic with the stylus guard having the lettering in gold bas-relief...EMPIRE with I underneath.
Is that any help?

Regards
Timeltel,

Your description matches my 4000d/III LAC model- right down to the scuffed lettering. The end with the cartridge pins has white plastic squares with the red, green, white and blue dots on them. Everything else is gold except the stylus, which is as described by Halcro.

Hope that helps or offers some comfort.

As always...
Timeltel,

You can see a picture of my type of model at: http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://otokazerobo.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/2008/11/empire-4000diii.html&ei=SBHHT7amKqTS0QWF-by8Dw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CH0Q7gEwAw&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dempire%2B4000diii%2Blac%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4ADRA_enGB457GB457%26prmd%3Dimvns
Dear Henry, I understand that a cart can sound euphonic while the owner can be euphoric about the cart. Your euphoria is however not convincing. There is too much euphoria to be true: FR-7, FR-5, 4000 d/III, Virtuoso with the pressure fitted nude (diamond) line contact, etc.,etc.. Is btw the concept 'fidelity' unknown in Australia?
Then there are also rankings, valuations or comparison which should result in something called 'the best'. But, say: 'John is the tallest guy in the class and Peter is even taller' can't be, say, logicaly correct.

Regards,
It appears there are different versions of this Empire 4000 DIII cart.

Mine looks similar in construction to Henry’s


Desmond yours looks like this


Similar to Rauls

I am not a cartridge expert like u guys, but looking at the two different body styles here metallic frame versus solid plastic tells me they will “definitely” resonant differently ? meaning different sounds.

I will add that my stylus shaft has been super glued to the body for some time now and I do not use the guard as it resonants too. The sound became less diffused when I super glued it. Closer to my MC in detail but retained the Empire MM midrange.

After this post and those links I feel like a I need more than my coffee right now. What an archaic system !
Dear Nikola,
I cannot believe that a fine Balkan who is educated and civilised and resides in a truly flat landscape cannot imagine admiring a beautiful redhead passing in the street and a moment later.......swivelling at the stunning sultry brunette who walks by?
Only to later....at lunch......gaze wistfully into the eyes of a ravishing blonde beauty across the table?

You see here....Downunder......beauty is not exclusive and unitary.
That is why the Professor and I regularly rotate our collection of cartridges.
So much beauty......so little time?

Regards
Dear Timeltel: The original 4000 D3 stylus description is:
" miniature nude diamond with .1 mil tracing radius " 4 Dimensional ". " and with this cartridge the back plate is black, I own two of these cartridges.

The white back plate is the one with LAC stylus and is a newest " model/vintage " than the original. Empire LAC stylus was used on that D3 and further on the newer models as the 600 LAC and 750 Limited.

The latest D3 encarnation is the Gold one. Obviously all three models performs different and at least with my D3 sample I can't say is euphonic one, yes it is not an universal cartridge that performs the same on any tonearm but when well matched seems to me is near neutral. Set up is critical as with any other cartridge.

Anyway, in your cartridge sample: how can you know that the stylus is the LAC one and not the original one?.

Empire did so many changes through the time that is difficult to identify for sure about, even exist OEM ( " original " ) D3 stylus replacement but the question could be the same: LAC or original one?

I think that do that the cartridge motor was still the same the sound signature of the cartridge is near the same.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Henry, To become lyrical by provocation looks strange
but if one is already romantic by nature then there are
no bondaries to one's imagination. I am not blind while the Dutch
girls are the opposite of their 'flat country'.
It is a multicultural nation with all imaginable 'colours'
but I feel sad when thinking as a realist...
There is however some comfort in all those carts, tonearms,
etc. 'gear' which prevent me to become nostalgic in the
worst possible way: the Slavic kind. But there is, it seems, a very
good and luxury asylum in my neighbourhood.
The nature can be known but not defeated. That is btw why
the humor, even the Balkan kind, is indispensable.

Regards,
Dear Fleib/Halcro: I'm following your " talking " and IMHO there is no single answer that's right to the whole subject. I agree with both of you in different ways.

I think and support that everything we hear through our each one system can be measured, problem is to know exactly what and where to measure for the measured results can have a direct relationship with what we hear.

T&his IMHO is very complex starting for so many parameters/factors involved because we need " references " under absolutely control of what we can hear, those references are something as: LP tracks that we dominate, system resolution, system neutrality, skills and tools to make those measurements, our each one ears frequency response habilities, our each one sound bias and I can go on and on.
Of course all that can do it but is a hard task.

We need to evaluate first which is our each one perception level on: THD, IMD, noise, tracking distortion and the like. Each one of us have different " experienced ears/brain " on those kind of " resonances/distortions ", even some of us can't distinguihs in between because some of us were not trained about.

I'm absolutely sure that as best each one of us are trained overall on those whole subjects as better the direct relationship on what we hear against those measurements.

Fleib, as always theories must to be proved because with out facts we can only speculate and in some ways is or could be useless.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Hi Timeltel,

I own both the black (original) and white (original) Empire 4000D/III cartridges. I would test both if you have an opportunity and decide for yourself. The LAC version will not disappoint.

As always...
Hi Chris,

Yes, one of them is the LAC. My other one, with the black back plate is not the Gold however but the older clip fixed version. I believe these three are the only 4000D/III models but I have never owned or heard the Gold version. I would of course hope to have the opportunity of comparing all three versions at some future point.

As always...
Hello Dgob, To your knowledge does the Empire 4000dIII LAC use the 4000dIII or LAC stylus? Are they interchangeable?
Hi Frogman, **I have always felt that the notion that an audio component can be "over damped" is a bit curious. I don't believe that it is possible for an audio component to be "over damped"; in absolute terms.**
Over damped, in this case refers to a mechanical situation that negatively impacts transient response. A resonance circuit usually refers to an LC or LCR electrical circuit. Interaction with mechanical resonance certainly is what we're talking about. Specifically, the vibrational energy transmitted from the cart and resonance of the arm that effects the electrical output. Dissipation of mechanical energy is an attempt to drain it and convert it to heat minimizing affect on electrical output. Arm resonance that shows up in the output is best eliminated if possible IMO.
Regards,
Specifically, the vibrational energy transmitted from the cart and resonance of the arm that effects the electrical output.
If there is any "vibrational energy" transmitted from the cartridge......I would suggest you have more serious problems than 'resonance'?