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

Regards,
Regards, Nandric: Nikola, you've introduced a marvelous topic. Relax, it's no longer P. C. to shoot the messenger. Referring back to our brothers at Lenco Heaven and the comments from the very competent Reto:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace,
Thanks David for the link - interesting stuff. L_dog is saying the exact thing I just posted about the 440. Actual cu is more like 13 @100 Hz. Also, I always used more VTF - around 1.7 to 1,8g. The subject is complex and often one aspect of cart use (set-up) is substituted or used to compensate for another, like mass, bearing friction and damping. For those substituting styli, the cart will now take on the specs of the new stylus. For example, using a ATN155LC will give you a cu of 16 @100Hz.
Regards,
Speaking about Dudley. I always thought that he is an
old-fashioned Englishman interested in antique and listening with his eye. As a foreinger I may be interested in the 'English litarature' but only in translatation. So his literary capabilities are not of much interest to me when I read Sterophile (sorry Lew). But when he writes about some cart I can't resist the temptation. And there it
is: Ortofon's Xpression. I am sorry but I need to quote the
whole sentence:''I wouldn't normaly have expected such solidity, such lack of fussiness, from a pickup (sic!)with other than SPHERICAL stylus tip''. I thought: 'my gosh I am in a totally wrong company'. However even he was forced to admit that no conical stylus can match the Replicant stylus from Ortofon. Ergo: Axel will not get my order for a conical/ boron combo adventure of my. Fleib also thanks to you for your warning.

Regards,
Hi Fleib,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bye for now

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

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

Then you will need some test tracks...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bye for now

David
Hi Griffithds,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Psycho Acoustics is fascinating!

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

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

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

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

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

bye for now

David
Regards, Fleib, Griffithds. Don, congratulations on the Astatic.

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

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

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

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

Peace,
"Easy answer, so easy you'll rap yourself on the head. When you do you'll sense the sound predominately through the bone structure of, in my case, a very thick skull. It's somatic sound, also realized when one clicks teeth together. It might be inaudible to another but definitely registered by the person gnashing his teeth, the one with a most distracted expression. The skin will also act in a "tympanic" manner, and of course fluids also transmit vibration."

:-)_ And therin lies the answer. As carbon based units. The reason that analogue can sound so delightful! Because we (as humans) are analogue.
Hello Griffithds, **If I understand it correctly, 90% of a cartridges sound is from the cantiliver/stylus. I use the 440MLa stylus on the TK5Ea and like it very much. Loaded at 47K with only the cables for cap. Sounds fine as I expect you very well know. What is it about the 440MLa's motor that causes so many people to dislike it when it is coupled with it own cantiliver/stylus combination? I understand it sounds very bright, ear piercing and ear bleedingly shrill are some of the discriptions I heard it described as! That desscription is about as far as it could be from what I'm hearing with the TK5Ea/440MLa combination!**

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

Your Signet has a different combination of inductance and impedance. You've hit on a combo where the sound is more compatible. You're using very little shunt capacitance so the affects of inductance are not augmented. That's what voicing is all about with HO carts and what makes them much more flexible or tunable than MCs.
www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/load_the_magnets_e.html
Regards,
Raul,

There are cartridges that you expect will perform very well. Any cartridge you recommend, would fall into that catagorie. There is one that you highlighted, has actually caught me by suprise. I want to thank you for bringing it to my attention. That cartridge is the Astatic MF100. There is nothing in its performance that brings attention to any part of itself. It just gets out of the way and lets the music flow. It truly is a cartridge I could live with forever and be quite happy. Thank you again.
Regards,
Don
Hi Raul, Regarding arm mass and compliance, resonant frequency is only one symptom of the relationship of mass and compliance. I don't think a low resonant frequency is necessarily a bad thing. I think cartridges have to be evaluated on an individual basis for sound quality and optimal performance. Best mass compliance relationship seems almost arbitrary to some extent. For example, the 440ML has a cu of 10 @ 100Hz, so is equivalent to about 18 @ 10Hz. The M20 Super has a cu of 20 yet seems to do much better in med mass arms. The 440 comes alive in a low mass arm, the difference is dramatic. The 20SS has cu of 9 @ 100Hz so is slightly stiffer than a 440 but weighs 8g which puts it close to equal footing. Yet the 20SS seems to do much better in heavier arms. I did not find the improvement with low mass. Exactly why this is, I don't know. The DL-S1 is another example of a rather high cu cart that seems to prefer med mass arms. But surely very high cu carts (> 25 cu) have to be tried with a low mass arm. Such a design dictates optimal performance with low moment of inertia. When considering this if you substitute MOI for mass, you'll have a better idea of where I'm coming from. I must admit I haven't been able to devise any rules or adequate explanations.
Regards,
Regards Timeltel, Dlaloum and Fleib,

If I understand it correctly, 90% of a cartridges sound is from the cantiliver/stylus. I use the 440MLa stylus on the TK5Ea and like it very much. Loaded at 47K with only the cables for cap. Sounds fine as I expect you very well know. What is it about the 440MLa's motor that causes so many people to dislike it when it is coupled with it own cantiliver/stylus combination? I understand it sounds very bright, ear piercing and ear bleedingly shrill are some of the discriptions I heard it described as! That desscription is about as far as it could be from what I'm hearing with the TK5Ea/440MLa combination!
Has anyone ever potted the insides of a 440MLa body to see it that might help?
Just kind of shooting from the hip with that thought.
Regards,
Don
Hello Timeltel, I was referring to performance with a beryllium cantilever. Ever try that? Yes, stock cantilever @ 47K is unacceptable for me too. Impedance is greater than 2600 ohms, but inductance (490mH)is less than some favorites? Aren't some of your Signets > 500mH? Do you think impedance is more important? IMO AT made a mistake voicing the orig 440ML OCC. The generator is the same as the MLa, but output is greater. However, weaker magnets don't seem to compensate enough for alum/ML stylus. It seems to me you wrote it off w/o trying a stylus substitution. Maybe I'm wrong about that, in which case I disagree about your assessment. I tried it stock at 32K and it's pretty good. I shouldn't post when I'm drinking my morning coffee, but it seems that you didn't give it the same consideration as other carts.
Regards,
To all of you fine gentleman if your in the New Orleans area feel free to come listen to my distortions would love to have ya over. Mike
Regards, Fleib: Wow, burr under the old saddle? Feel better now?

I have a personal negative response to the 440MLa, which is similar to most carts with more than 2600 Ohm output impedance: Bright mids and hfs bordering on glassy. The ML stylus/resonant Alu. cantilever doesn't do much to alleviate this. Yes, reco. load 47k/100pF, tried on EPA-250 (12gm eff. mass), EPA-500 (7gm eff. mass) and Black Widow (first model, 3gm eff. mass). I just don't care for the cart, OEM. I'm not alone in this. As is, it is what it is.

Want to buy one cheap? That way, you CAN have less for less.

Apples to apples, please.

Peace,
Regards, Anyone? Easy to understand:

http://www.rense.com/products/AboutFreque-08.pdf

"The “1’st” Harmonic is the actual fundamental frequency itself. The “2’nd” Harmonic is a frequency that is twice as large as the fundamental frequency. The “3’rd” Harmonic is a frequency that is 3 times as large as the fundamental frequency, and so on.
Example: For a Frequency of 100 Hz, the 2’nd Harmonic is 200 Hz; the 3’rd Harmonic is 300 Hz."

Nikolas' reference to conical styli, David's teasing comments and several posts by experienced broadcast/recording engineers on other boards -SEEM- to assert that the core of a musical performance is presented in the audible range from 30 - 15k Hz. A quick search of the VE database in the category "stylus, conical" shows a nom. 18% with hf capabilities above 20k, several up to 50k. Groove modulation and contact area or "patch", hold that thought.

To my simple layman's mind, resonance and to some extent harmonic apparency is determined by rise time, by overshoot, by ringing and by damping wether it be it overdamped, underdamped or critically so. These considerations extend beyond electrical parameters into the physical characteristics of a specific cartridge and all it's permutations of tip mass, cantilever build, rigidity, cantilever resonance/damping, I also assume the suitability of the tonearm for the particular cu of that cartridge has an influence.

Not hesitating to demonstrate my ignorance but still hoping to avoid the "slings and arrows" of my outrageous forum behavior ;-), they're several areas in which I'm puzzled:

(1) In order for a statement to be true, the reverse must bear scrutiny. In the condition of either absence on the recording, or the ability of the stylus to operate in a fundamental frequency of, let's say 25k, would the harmonics effectively "reconstruct" the absent fundamental? Psychoacoustics or measurable? Current thoughts are yes-no-maybe, but IMHO these fundamentals and associated harmonics are integral to the original performance, wouldn't it be best if this information was actually recorded to the lp and the transducer in question was capable of retrieving said information?

(2) Lost all my references when the old notebook crashed and burned so consider this as garbage data. IIRC, a "typical" conical stylus has a round contact patch of 18um. A "typical" elliptical a major 30 (something)um. Shibata, line contact, or the Orto. Replicant from 45 to 100um, the minor radius is much finer but the major radius is in extended vertical contact with the sidewall modulations. Relating to FR, the minor radius is, I believe, the main concern. The higher the frequency, the finer the modulation, in order to trace these frequencies above 20k an elliptical tip of .4mil minor radius is effective. Shibata/LC/ML/Parawhatever are further reduced in this plane, 2um or less. The extended major (vertical, 45-100um)) radius serves to spread the actual pressures involved so that the effect is a finer vertical involvement of stylus-to-groove is enabled while at the same time relieving the concerns for record wear due to elevated psi conditions. Frequency response is improved while record wear is less evident.

In consideration of the existence of extended uhfc (and subsonics) and assuming one finds their harmonic influence desirable in playback, a conical stylus may not be the best choice.

Or, perhaps as hinted at in the entirely speculative Para. (1), these "desirable" harmonics/resonances come pre-packaged on the LP and cartridges equipped with conical styli and considered desirable are designed by people who are really quite clever (I think they are, anyway).

Fire at will.

Peace,
Hi Tubed1,

I can not agree with you more! I have spent the last 3 days listening to only MC's, primarily the Benz Mico Ruby 3, and a cartridge that was designed by Winn Sao called the Blue Oasis. Previous Stereophile Class A and Class B rated cartridges. I am seriously thinking about selling the 4 MC's I have. I own several MM/MI cartridges that are better. Several more that sound just as good. All but 1 has been discovered/rediscovered because of the forum. Some of them I had previouly owned in the past. Sold because of the "dirt" read in the rags, convinced me that the road to Rome was paved with MC's. I will be forever gratful to Raul, Timeltel, Nandric, Dlaloum, Lewm, and others on this forum who had the courage to speak up and buck the trend!
Regards,
Don
Dear Nandric: That thread came from 2007 and that's was the first time I was in touch with the MD. I heard it at Slipknot's place on the Walker, the Essential 3150 phonolinepreamp ( I think that with Shindo phono too: I can't remember for sure. ) and Kharma speakers.

From that 2007 thread people were arguing that the MD was/had a 103 motor and I posted there that if that was true does not means performed as a 103 but way different: way better quality.

Nothing is wrong with that 103 cartridge motor, today exist several cartridges that outperform easily the 103 that shares the same motor. This is something as with the AT and CA cartridges and I already posted my take with that was the same as with the 103 and MD.
At the end the quality performance level of the MD is not thak's to Denon but to the MD " designer " as with the Clearaudio Virtuoso Wood.

In the other side I agree with Lewm about that MD designer as a good marketing/business guy.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Fleib: Those 123 pages were writed through 4 years and through those years we learned many things and thank's to that " learning " some of us change a little on set up with some cartridges.

About tonearm effective mass and cartridge compliance there are IMHO several " roads " each one with its own trade-offs. Yes one of that road to analize is the one you posted because we have to take in count not only what VTF seen the cartridge but that tonearm moving mass along the tonearm effective length.

I made and have a lot of experiences trying to look for real differences on quality performance ( what we hear. ) that we can related not to the tonearm overall design but to that effective mass in the tonearm and the compliance in the cartridge and honesty till today I have not a precise answer about. Is not easy to have precise answers in that subject because to many factors invloved and related in between.

Through this thread and in other threads I posted that I already experienced resonance frequencies between tonearm and cartridge as low as 4hz with out single problem, at least that I was aware, that same cartridge in the same tonearm with a 8hz resonance frequencies where I can't detect an improvement because of this friendly resonant frequency. Of course all these kind of tests were by ear.

The interesting subject could be to bring that kind of " stage " to laboratory level and see what is really happening there and with that information test under playback if those laboratory results could have some sense on what we are hearing.

Other subject that in some way bother me is what you posted:

+++++ " removeable headshells disqualify you from making "ultimate comparisons" " +++++

in my system I have removeable headshell tonearm designs and non-removeable ones. In both cases the phono wires goes directly from cartridge pin connectors to my phonolinepreamp.
I would like to know and appreciate that you can tell us what are the main factors that you took as foundation for that posted statement. Maybe I'm missing something important that I/we are not aware of it: thank you in advance.

Btw, your comment on the M20FL/E gives me the opportunity to test both cartridges again.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lew, To my knowledge the Magic has nothing to do with
Denon but (look at the pictures) probable with EMT or Ortofon SPU. Then, according to my information, this cart price in Switzerland is 'only' $ 2500. While I must confess to be intriqued I am not even contemplating to order one. Raul totally 'spoiled' me for the MC producers. Anyway for those rediculous MC prices one should blame
the 'free trade'(illusion), the importeurs and the dealers
and in the latest place the producers. The Dutch as the
champions of the free trade mythology want for every item
that cross their border 31% of the items value for the state treasure.

Regards,
In the context of the old Decca cartridges, the conical version certainly was thought by most to be superior to its elliptical counterpart. I don't recall the model name for the conical/spherical one that HP so adored, but I bought the elliptical one (SC4E), in my usual contrarian manner, and found it to be a real dog. "Terrible" is not too strong a word for it. I think that if you like Quad 57 speakers and treasure midrange romance, a conical/spherical stylus can be the cat's pajamas. But if you fancy yourself to be a wideband guy, you would probably want a different stylus shape to get there.

Nikola, I have read many remarks on the internet to the effect that the Magic Diamond cartridge is or was naught but a gussied up version of a much much cheaper production cartridge, possibly one of the lesser Denons. So this would tend to reduce Mr. Andreoli's prestige in my eyes, except as a business man and professional guru.
I suspect the 440MLa has not been given the consideration as some other favorites such as the TK-5, 7_. Put your beloved ATN155LC or ML on there and terminate with < 200pF and the cart is remarkable. I found there was no longer the need to load it down to 35K. Of course this was with a more appropriate low mass arm, a modified Sonus Formula 4, approximately 5.5g eff mass. IMO a cart can't be overly detailed unless it's not resolved adequately. This isn't a case of less is more. This is less is less.

IMO almost all you guys are compensating for your high mass arms with electrical load. I wonder how you get the results that you seem to get. MOI suffers with your heavy arms. A high cu cart wasn't designed to drag around all that weight. What's the eff mass of a FR-64, 35g? No wonder you need the suspension refresh. IMO Mass and removeable headshells disqualify you from making "ultimate comparisons". BTW, the cu of the 155LC is 16 @ 100Hz. The CA MMs have a 10Hz cu of 15. Think this might have something to do with their performance on med/heavy arms?

I haven't read all 123 pages of thread, but I've read enough to know that some results are weird. You run the M20FL or E with the tail way up in the air and loaded at 100K? This may not be the World's greatest cart but it can sound very nice. The original version was supplied with caps (300pF I believe) to bring up the treble/upper mids. It sounds somewhat distant under "normal" load, which can be nice. ALL carts should track with an SRA of around 92 degrees, depending on the record. You have an elaborate system of compensating for one misadjustment with another. I guess it works but I still question your results and ultimate compentancy.
Regards,
Dear Raul, I am not suprised at all that you have heard
the Magic diamond already. It would be strange if you had missed any cart of some interest. I assume that you have read the thread in our forum by KCR about 'Magic Diamond vs Airtight PC 1'? This thread may have caused your interst?
My interest in Andreoli and his carts is 'only' academic but not in pejorative sense. Many years ago as student I have read with great interest about components in 20 K range while then even $200 looked to me as 'astronomic'. Ie we want to know 'what there is' irrespective of price. The Magic is about $5000 and the other in 15-20 K range. Because of our MM thread I would never pay more then, say,
$1000 for a cart. Not any more that is. What we really need
and what I hope for is that the 'technical guys' among us
can invent the tools to measure the frequency responce and other relevant values of
MM carts such that we can optimise our MM carts. This is the only 'deceptive' part of our MM Nirvana. This of course also means the more adequate phono-pres for the purpose. I am sure that you have pretty good idea what is needed for such a phono-pre.

Regards,
Raul, by your fervor
There's reason to be impressed.
Let's not forget subsonic bass,
It's foundation for the rest.
But it's not heard said Dlaloum more
Watching as silent bass danced the chair,
And backed the nails out from the floor.
But we do know David is a sly one.
Aye,
We've been baited by the best.

Peace,
Nandric: I forgot, on playback the cartridge overhang that we set up through a protractor is loosed during playback due to records imperfections we already know exist.

R.
Dear friends: IMHO in theory the guy behind the Magic Diamond cartridge design probably is right.

I own a Fulton cartridge ( LOMC ) that comes with conical tip (0.65m ) and has very good specs, example on frequency response: 10hz to 60khz running at 1.5grs.
This cartridge performs really good and if I don't tell you that has a conical stylus you can't even imagine but you could swears comes with a line contact: in this design I don't feel or think I'm missing music recorded information.

The stylus shape is always important but the whole cartridge design including its cantilever is way more important.

I posted sveral times through the years that cantilever build material is more importabt than the stylus shape and other persons confirm that including experts as J.Carr and by coincidence Dominic ( the new fix cartridge source in the " block ". ) quoted me by email this:

" A vast majority of cartridges can be improved by upgrading the cantilevers and tips. Hollow aluminium cantilevers in my experience have a poor performance and are actually quite flexible.
Upgrading the cantilever only, would in all cases offer a major upgrade over an aluminium one.
A mentioned my nickel cantilever. These are hand made individually for each upgrade. They are much stiffer than alloy cantilevers, though not as much as boron. This gives a lovely rich and detailed presentation.
Boron will sound more refined and accurate, and ruby even more so.
Tip upgrades will also help, but not to the degree you may think. There is no getting away from the fact that a micro ridge/line contact tip will give a better performance compared to a conical or simple elliptical tip, offering better frequency extension and groove noise, but even a conical tip will sound very convincing if mated to a better cantilever. Food for thought.
I see many many cartridges, and I find there are so many I could improve quite simply with new cantilevers etc. " ++++

What am I trying to say?: that even a conical tip can works great when mated with the right cartridge motor and the right cantilever.
The 103 motor is a good one but not good enough for a conical stylus as what happened with the Fulton one. Of course the Fulton has a higher price: 600.00 in its time.

Now, conical or line contact no one can through a pivot tonearm to follow in precise way the groove record modulations because of traking errors by the tonearm geometry, tracking errors by the cartridge it self and that is almost imposible to design and set up correctly a cartridge stylus shape that match exactly the groove modulations cutted in the recordings. We belongs to an imperfect world so all what we can tallk about are theory but on playback almost nothing of that theory can be duplicated.

Btw, Nandric all that near perfect protractors only shows a theory behind it but when the stylus is in playback that near perfect set up " disappear 2 due to record imperfections, LP wraps and waves that change the VTA/SRA and VTF. We have to live with this reality and this reality tell us that we have must to live with these full of distortion analog medium. So a discussion about stylus shape is more something academic that useful on the whole audio analogquality performance subject.
We all know that in analog 2+2 not always is 4: some time is 6 and some times could be 9.

Regards and enjoy the music,
r.
Dear Dlaloum: What you posted you already posted several months ago: intermodulation and UHFC: how to differentiate in between?

Maybe a black art but no precise answers yet. We or some one else has to make deep research about. But what you posted not only not diminish what Timeltel or I already posted through conclusions or links only say that there are some subjects that needs explanation or better tan that: need to test in a sure way to know what in a hell is happening down there.

In the other side intermodulation or UHFC the subject is if in any way we can or we can't hear it. Several research/studies said we can. Point is: why can we have doubts about? or how can we prove we can't hear?: can you? or you agree to disagree. I don't have a test laboratory in home that could permit me to separate IMD from UHFC but certainly this can do it.

Btw, when I add the supertweeters in my audio system not only improved the high/UHFC and soundstage information but improved in an unexpected way the low bass. I think this last happened because the wider contrast between frequency system extremes response.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Regars, Dlaloum: You posed: "none of these research articles have identified is what the mechanism whereby we sense the HF". Easy answer, so easy you'll rap yourself on the head. When you do you'll sense the sound predominately through the bone structure of, in my case, a very thick skull. It's somatic sound, also realized when one clicks teeth together. It might be inaudible to another but definitely registered by the person gnashing his teeth, the one with a most distracted expression. The skin will also act in a "tympanic" manner, and of course fluids also transmit vibration. If this is Voodoo, ah'm a goin'a look further into it.

Thanks for asking the question of what's recorded on the Lp. That and how it relates to stylus profile are two items of curiosity for me. I'll homestead the position for now that if it's on the record then I want to hear it. Leave your brickwalls out of my music, please.

Who was it who said "If less is more, imagine how much more would be"?

Peace,
"Does additional information reside deeper in the groove? I think it's just more dirt!"

Don, I'm not one to believe everything I read in the rags. However, I guarantee that the more dirt produced from the high-end journals equates to deriving more mega bucks from your and my pocket book. Don't believe all of the hype, as this thread has proven MM/MI can sound just as good and better than LOMC.
In support of Rauls quote,
****Now, the 103 success IMHO is not because the speric/ conical stylus shape but mainly because its motor. That stylus came with conical stylus because the cartridge belongs to a very restricted consumer price range and not because Denon choosed as the better alternative. To confirm this fact all the other Denons including the top ones were designed with no conical stylus shape.****

If you follow the Denon 103 thread on the Lenco forum, you will discover that nearly everyone has or wants to sent their Denon off for a cantilver/stylus upgrade. I have done just that and must agree. The Denon without a conical stylus can be transformed into a far better cartridge than it's modest price (including the upgrade), would suggest!
Raul - I disagree with your conclusion regarding High Frequency sensitivity and the article Timeltel posted.

What none of these research articles have identified is what the mechanism whereby we sense the HF content is.

This article very specifically identified that the test subjects could not differentiate between silence and HF alone. - So no conscious sensing of the HFC.

We do however know that in the presence of both HFC and LFC (normal audio... Low Frequency Content) intermodulation occurs... ie the interaction between the two tones produces other tone(s) - generally considered to be intermodulation distortion (IMD).

Unlike the HFC, the IMD generated by the combination of HFC and LFC will have components within the LFC Zone.
These will obviously only be present when the LFC is present.

The risk is this - in the hope of improving fidelity we incorporate supertweeters into our systems and attempt to reproduce wide range audio...

On the recording we already have the recorded audible intermodulations of the ultra high frequencies with the audible frequencie... by replaying them again we are encouraging further intermodulation and therefore potentially going backwards by providing an additional source of distortion.

We know that ultra high frequencies are sensed somehow... but the attempt to reproduce that effect in a recording is definitely in the black art category.... and as such likely not to progress until we really do understand what is going on.

bye for now

David
p.s. theoretically my speakers go up to 35kHz (at least) - maybe I should check some of my LP's for content over 20kHz? - but then how can one tell whether that is true content, or merely distortions generated by the recording and cutting equipment?
Dear Nandric: Iheard twice the Magic Diamond: one with a Walker and one in other system.

Is it something special?, IMHO it is not. It is agood cartridge but nothing to remember that helps to say: " hey this is great and better that other top performers I heard ".

I don't know the other two models you posted.

Now, the 103 success IMHO is not because the speric/ conical stylus shape but mainly because its motor. That stylus came with conical stylus because the cartridge belongs to a very restricted consumer price range and not because Denon choosed as the better alternative. To confirm this fact all the other Denons including the top ones were designed with no conical stylus shape.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear friends: This link confirm what the other links that Timeltel shares with us about HF human been perception:

http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

We have to remember that our whole body works as " ears " on music perception, that's that not only the ears/brain makes that function but our bones and skin and hair ( beteween other biody parts. ) " hear " too.
in the other side our brain synttetize part of what we hear that we can't hear but that we have experienced on that/it.

There are several studies on the whole subject that's " severe " complex and exciting.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Regards, Dlaloum: Re. the 440MLa: Loading plugs have been considered. The 440s' stylus is good on any of the lower output impedance Signet/AT carts.

To your interest (and any others), the influence of UHF on the perceptions would seem to have commonality with research done with supertweeters. There's a plain language but well supported article from Townsend audio identifying the conventional wisdom of musical instruments not exceeding the 20-20k range is based on studies going back to work done by Bell Tel. researchers going as far back as the '30s. More accurate equipment and recent research results in the quote:“At least one member of each instrument family (strings, woodwinds, brass and percussion) produces energy to 40kHz or above, and the spectra of some instruments reach this work’s measurement limit of 102.4kHz. Harmonics of muted trumpet reach to 80kHz; violin and oboe, to above 40kHz; and a cymbal crash was still strong at 100kHz.” read more here: http://www.townshendaudio.com/the-way-and-the-how-of-supertweeters.

Another: http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548.full.pdf , "(Danielsson and Landstrom 1985) suggested that "the biological sensitivity of human beings may not be parallel with the 'conscious' audibility of air vibration. Second, the natural environment, such as tropical rain forests, usually contains sounds that are extremely rich in HFCs over 100 kHz. From an anthropogenetic point of view, the sensory system of human beings exposed to a natural environment would stand a good chance of developing some physiological sensitivity to HFCs. It is premature to conclude that consciously inaudible high-frequency sounds have no effect on the physiological state of listeners." This one proceeds to get very scientific although it must be said neither is a barnburner to read.

Facinating stuff nonetheless.

Peace,
Lew, others, re: spherical/conical stylus.

Back in the days when Stereophile was a small format magazine and J Gordon Holt was chief cook, bottle-washer, and drudge, he evaluate the Shure V-15 Type whatever with both conical and elliptical styli and concluded the conical better replicated the sound of his personal master tapes. Thus he named that his reference cartridge at the time.

And as Timetell suggests, Denon would not have sold so many if the 103 didn't offer something beyond durability for broadcast use.

This is not to say everyone should like a conical styli but they might be a good choice for early stereo pressings.
Hi Tubed1,

"a conical styli actually rides deeper in the groove"

Ask yourself something. Does additional information reside deeper in the groove? I think it's just more dirt!
"The same has been said of carts with conical styli, there're good reasons for Denon having sold a million."

Indeed, a recent issue of TAS explained that a conical styli actually rides deeper in the groove than any other stylus type. Using the bowling ball in the gutter analogy it took me a while to gome to grips with this concept. Specifically in relation to a shibata or ML stylus. Different types (other than concial) of stylus may bounce around and off of the sidewalls of the groove for better or usually worse (distortion). For a conical stylus, deeper in the groove may in fact be related to more fully entrenched in the groove.
Hi Raul,

I'm a little confused? Do we now have 2 Axels. One in Germany, and One in England?
I think it's the exchange rates that are making the UK prices seem higher. If England had moved to the Euro currency system, I doubt that their would be much difference in price.
If Europe doesn't get its act together concerning the Euro, things could get a lot cheaper for us with dollars to exchange for Euro based repair work.

Regards,
Don
Dear nandric: Now that I'm in touch with Dominic I will try to test not only that nickel cantilever but his re-coil work ( I own one-two cartridges that need that job. ).

He email me some information about that nickel cantilever that I will post here.

There is one subject that wooried me a little and is that prices on almost everything in UK are way higher than in other countries. Could be that the quality in the work of Dominic is justified, I will try something with him about.

I said quality of his works against other sources. We have to remember that B&O put Axel over SS on quality of their each one works. So, in fixing cartridges exist differences on quality too as in any other kind of " job " but the only way to know it is trhough our self experiences.

Btw, as Axel Dominic is very friendly and a person with whom you can have a dialogue.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Hi Timeltel,

****the mongrelized TK7SU is sounding extraordinarily good tonight.****

I think it was you that once said "I never met a Signet I didn't like." I have come to that same conclusion. It doesn't matter which model, or what type of music you play. Nor does it mater which of the many different stylus/cantiliver options you install, it will still put a smile on your face. When ever I get the urge to rotate cartridges, a Signet has become the cartridge that I reach for first. They truly are amazing.

Regards,
Don
Hi All,

I just thought I'd point out a recent act of kindness and draw out its consequences. I do so in the light of recent discussions on this thread.

Firstly, Hans Henrick Moerch has recently offered me exceptional and personal assistance so that I can now run my Morch DP-6 red point precision at its optimum. Although I do not feel able to go into further detail about the nature of his help, I would note that his kindness and skills make him a true gentleman in a harsh age. Secondly, the consequence of this was to confirm for me that the Morch DP-6/Technics 100Mk4 combination is simply (within my long experience) unbeatable.

I was recently rereading some professional review in which they compared the Morch with a few other state of the art tonearms. They ran these comparisons using one or two cartridges and this seemed to satisfy the reviewer in reaching his conclusions. I strongly feel that putting the Morch/Technics combo together makes clear how limited a view such an approach represents: especially given that I have tried both parts of that partnership with a very wide range of alternative suitors.

As many have often emphasised on this very thread: the arm/cartridge combination is really the only way to evaluate the quality of the former - when we get amongst the elite and great performers. I'd conclude by imploring that, if you ever have the opportunity to possibly try out the Technics/Morch combo, please give it a try for yourself. It just might change your expectations of hifi and analogue!

As always...
Hi Timeltel,
does your analytical opinion of the AT440MLa still apply when it is run with a 35k load instead of 47k?

The conical discussion is interesting - they can be pleasant to listen to because there sins are sins of omission rather than commission - better to hear less, undistorted, than more but distorted ?

But the argument that conicals provide a superior reproducer to lie contact.... hmmmm

bye for now

David
Lew&Griffithds, There is some similarity between 'our own'
Dertonarm and Andreoli. I want mention 'provocative minds'
but only two facts. The first is that there is no way to win any dispute from them. As German speakers they answer 'nein' to any argument stated by somebody else and
'ja' for any argument which they state themself. Now we all
remember that Dertonarm is accused to have no understanding
of tonearm geometry at all. His answer was to produce the best protractor there is . Aka 'the second fact'.
Andreoli produced his first (?) MC cart the Magic diamond
some time ago but was 'discovered' recently in the USA by Loyd Walker who used this cart for his Proscenium Gold TT. He also produced the Silver Spirit and the Virus but the prices are such that I am reluctant to mention them. Anyway
MM thread is already so convincing that extra (price) arguments are copious. All three carts have of course conical styli. Now I am not the right person to comment on
styli but I like to mention to be very fond of my 'pressure fitted nude line diamond '. It is not just a name like 'elliptical', 'shibata', 'micro line', etc but a real description.

Regards,
Regards, Nikola: There are some carts that are excessively analytical, IMHO the AT440MLa is one, loss of cohesion results. For me, anyway. Excessive detail results in distraction and basic pleasure found in the flow of the performance as a united composition is diminished. I've also a Tech. EPC-U25, which from the specs (low inductance, output impedance) should be a winner but with a conical stylus and the reduction of "distortion" (if that's really what's going on) it's just plain dumbed-down DULL.

There's a balance to be found somewhere between, similar to the character of a well conceived TT, whatever one thinks that may be. Personal experience indicates there's an interaction between constituent components, I find a well composed blend of a good quality cantilever and Shibata or Line Contact stylus on a cart with lower inductance (100pF suggested cap) suits me quite well, there are others who would agree. The same has been said of carts with conical styli, there're good reasons for Denon having sold a million.

Belt drive/DD or idler, conical/elliptical or ML, the discussions are always interesting, sometimes fun and it's inevitable that someone will learn something. Thanks for introducing the topic.

Peace,
Regards, Travbrow. Re; the EPC-102SP. Historically, single play means in a manual fashion, as opposed to stacking lps on a changer. As always, enjoying a good mystery. Do you have a new TA (Moerch DP-4)? If so how's it doing & always good to hear from a gentleman. Thanks, Bill.

Griffithds: Don, you need both. I thought to try one of the SAE1000LC HOMC offered here, not enough time on it to say for sure but for now it seems like one of those books that are all middle, but a good one. Hoping for a surprise ending but comparatively the mongrelized TK7SU is sounding extraordinarily good tonight. Maybe it's the weather?

Peace,
Hi Audiofeil,

Good eye! I never thought to look. That red flag is SCREAMING.

Regards,
Don
Hi Lewm,

++++Does anyone here agree with the notion that a spherical tip is optimum for a stereo cartridge? I have no doubt it is a good way to go for mono.++++

I certainly do not agree with the stereo part. The information that is captured by the spherical stylus just might have less distortions, but what a spherical stylus is capturing is probably 70% of whats is in the grooves. You can't claim to distort less of what you can't capture! Listening to a conical/spherical/round (what ever), cartridge with a stereo record, you imediately say to your self, what is it that I'm not hearing? It's not less distortion. It's less music/information/ambiance/detail. Filtered comes to mind but that's just not the right word. To filter something, you have to capture it 1st, then remove it. The spherical stylus doesn't capture all, therefore it hasn't filtered anything. It's just not all there!
I will say that a spherical stylus does play old, scratch, well worn records in a less objectable way. It hides/rides over/does not capture, the ticks, pops, and groove wear noise that predomanates that type of recordings.
The seller of the 102 said the SP stands for single play. The cartridge is optimized (special stylus cut?) to play SP records but will play LP records just as well, so he says. It could be as good as the early version 100C or who knows, maybe better? I never heard any early version integrated 100C cartridges but thought (regardless of specs) that they are better than any 205C model. But I could be wrong.
Regards, Raul: And thanks for the add'l info. The description reads "Top" cart, nice ellipt. stylus & beryllium cantilever, output same as the EPC-100s. Not in the market for another cart right now (esp. one I'm unfamiliar with) so I'll take your word for it but from the given data I'd have thought it a better cart than the 202, the "Special Products" designated items aren't usually entry-level.

Peace,