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 Raul, that is a wonderful litany of options from Axel. I'll wait for his response to my email. Running in this old M320 on my linear tonearm has been an amusing exercise. By tilting the air manifold of the linear tonearm down toward the record spindle, the stylus tilts right, restoring channel balance at the cost of tracking problems on some transients. It's a sick puppy that still sings well through many tracks, like late Judy Garland. Well worth fixing.

Lew, above 30kohms even closely matched LDRs track poorly. This limits their useful range in a volume control, where 2-4 LDRs need to track in concert. However with a separate control pot for each channel, in the phono load application each LDR can be set precisely from 50R to 500K or higher. They drift a bit with temperature, but it is relatively simple to set them to obtain the correct resistance at the operating temp. of the chassis.
Lewm/Almarg, on the Marantz 7 circuit, it has a 1meg resistor/100pf cap ON the tube across grid/cathode and a 47k resistor/150pf cap paralelled at the input. I have read that the loading resistor should be on the tube to minimise parasitic issues ( I'm not an expert but I'm pretty sure the 150pf cap on the tube keeps everything settled in this respect. Given that in the standard Marantz the 47k loading is on the selector switch, this may be why they have the 1 meg on the tube as well. I did at one stage sit the 47k vishay on the tube as opposed to where I have it on the input RCA's now but could not hear any significant difference.
If you want total variablity that avoids switches one of the better solutions that I've seen was on the Counterpoint preamps where they had gas tight mini ring clamps soldered into the circuit boards - you just pushed the resistor legs in and the grip was pretty tight.
Resistor location isn't as important as is where the ground for the input is which should be close to the tube.

Dover, allot of vintage schematics are that way where they have a switch with multiple eq's.
AT150ANV update

There is a very brief review of the AT150ANV compared to the AT150MLx on Audiokarma...

For those who are not aware, the AT150ANV is an improved version of the AT150MLx, changes appear to be the titanium body along with some sort of anti vibration internal compound, and a stylus cantilever made of ruby/sapphire.

Preliminary report on sound is that it is slightly warmer than the MLx, while maintaining the overall sound, detail etc...

This is what one would expect if the slight top end rise present on the MLx were to be reduced, by raising the cantilever resonance frequency (a consequence of the differing material used) - achieving a cartridge that is another step closer to true neutrality / perfection.

It is not an in depth review or report - I expect there is more to come, but it is the first I have seen online.

bye for now

David
Heh Lewm,
I do not currently have the budget for the AT150ANV!

Just providing people with a lead to a forum where someone has purchased the AT150ANV and is providing some feedback on its sound.
I've been working my way through this thread, but as you can imagine, it is quite an undertaking coming into it two years late! :)

I'm curious to know if anyone has tested and ranked the current production MM's and MI's, and how they compared to the oldies.

Thanks!
Lewm, did you ever get your Grado TLZ back together and into your system again? I was trying to follow where things wee going with that, but I lost track.
Good luck Bigerik,
Our beloved leader appears to have crossed to the 'Dark' side?
Raise our hat for Raul. We all are of course thankful to
Raul for his lead in the MM adventure. But all of us who
participated from the start in this thread become used to his contributions and regard them probable as 'normal'. I become aware of the real value of his contributions when
I was confronted with the namenclature of some carts about
which I thought to be well informed. Say AKG kinds. From
this example one can make a (mind)move to the complex universe of the 'all MM carts' ever made to comprehend the need for some quidance in the labyrinth of the possible choices. Only thanks to Rauls passion, curiosity and big
spanding on carts acquisition was it possible for him to find the way in and out of the mentioned labyrinth. After, say, the Virtuoso which I would never buy 'on my own'because I don't like Suchy I also got the Astatic MF 200 about which I never heard before and those both carts are not only superb but just two in the row of Rauls discoveries. On my own I would probable discovere one or two good cart but only by accident. No 'accidents' by Raul because his search was/is systematic, continual, passionat and determinate. I hope he still can afford the new one.
The MM carts are considered to be 'cheap' but above 10 specimens and 'some' upgrades by Axel this consideration become a myth. Thanks again Raul!

Regards,
Nandric, please report on your reactions to the Astatic MF 200 as soon as you are able. I think there may be only four of us in here who own the darned thing.

I also think it is outstanding, concurring with previous accounts of its outstanding clarity, rhythm and finesse, lack of distortion, and tracking ability. You might laugh to learn that I acquired mine for USD 9.99!

Regards,

Jim
Bigerik,

There haven't been a definitive listing/ranking of cartridges other than what became the flavor of the month/week as cartridges were auditioned and then compared to last weeks favorite. There is not a single cartridge that has been reviewed/discussed on this forum that could be considered an also ran type if purchased. Pick any cartridge you want, find one on eBay/Audiogon or where ever and I would say without reservation, you will be quite happy with your new discovery. The last and I do believe is the current flavor of the month is the Clear Audio Virtuoso. It is one of the few current still available cartridges being manufactured that was extensively review and rated. I own 2 of them and they are excellent. There are several after market upgrade options available for this cartridge that also was extensively discussed so keep reading. This thread is the cartridge bible for audiophiles.
Regards,
Don
Dean_man,

I do not have the Astatic MF200 but I do have the MF100. I would group it (MF100), as an equal with the Audio Technica AT20SS, the Empire 4000D III, and the Stanton 981 LZS. I base this statement on personel experience.
Regards,
Don
BTW, that entire group I would place under the London (Decca) Jubilee.
Thanks Don.
I thought maybe someone just put the top 10 together or something. Never hurts to ask!

I did see some rave reviews on the Clearaudio. Does sound like it is something special.

Erik
God! The last thing you should want is a "Top Ten" or any sort of rank order. Inevitably anyone's opinion will be only of minor relevance, a guideline at best, in your final determination of what you like best in your system. Indeed, has anyone here or anywhere on the internet ever said that his new cartridge was "bad", "terrible"? Only if the cantilever was broken.

As to the Grado TLZ, it is still mounted on a headshell that can go right into the DV505 tonearm. I should try it again. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since I declared that it suffered from a stiff suspension. (Oh how I wish that would happen to me once more!)
Dear Bigerik: I own and tested ( some only briefli. ) today Rega, Sumiko, Reson, Clearaudio Goldring, AT95, AT150MLX, etc, I would like to try the Ortofon 2M Black. At least the Virtuoso showed a very high quality performance compared with the best vintage ones.

To rank cartridges is really a hard task especially when exist so many top performers where you can live " happy " with either one. Today maybe I can rank my cartridges.

I know that the MF-200 is very hard to beat overall but the re-tipped Virtuoso too and the Technics P100CMK4 too and the AKG P100LE too and and the retipped Acutex too and the 20SS too..and....and...too!!!So as I said a hard task.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Halcro: Not really, I'm still hooked by all those MM/MI gems.
Things are that " suddenly " came to my mind the " idea " to test vintage renowed ( at least by me. ) LOMC cartridges Axel re-tipped. I just bought around 8-10 LOMC ones that I want to test it. I'm thinking something that could be or not true: that vintage LOMC cartridges were a lot better that we can think and many of them ( re-tipped. ) can not only compete with the best today LOMC ones but even could beat one or two of them more easy that we can think.

I always " seen " the MM/MI as an alternative in the same way that the LOMC is an alternative too. I'm still own several modern LOMC cartridges and already heard almost all latest models and because these ones does not " impress " me as designs that outperform in clear way LOMC cartridges designed a few years ago came to me the idea to test vintage ones that I know were top ones: we will see how compares against the today ones and obviously against the MM/MI " creme of the creme ". Yes, one of my LOMC outperform overall the best MM/MI cartridges and I want to know if that is an exception or could exist more.

As with the vintage MM/MI the vintage LOMC we can buy for a lot less money than any today cartridges.

Halcro, you know me: I'm " married " with the music and only with the music, hardware is only a tool to enjoy it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
No idea about the others but I am 'spoiled' with the MM carts in the sense that any cart whatever above, say, $400 looks to me as 'irresponsible' expensive. Two years ago I
thought that below $ 4000 there were no carts to be proud off. But then come this Italian guy who become some kind of a gold mine for me. I first bought one NOS Lustre 801 from him for $450 and asked if he has some carts to sell. He mentioned , among other: Krell MC 100, Sony XL 88 and Genesis 1000 ( with 'lost stylus'). I got all of them for
1000 Euro. I have never heard about Krell carts before, the only info about Sony XL 88 was just one sentence in the context of FR-7 discussion while Fleib was my only source reg. the Genesis. Axel retipped the Genesis with aluminum cantilever and pressure fitted Shibata stylus without any consultation with me. Well the Krell was the suprise of my 'analog life'. The 'cannon' was the first expression that came to my mind because this expression I come across by someone's description of some peculiar Stradivari violin. A violin is of course not supposed to sound like a cannon but the intention of this comment was to underline how loud this one can sound. When one visit whatever Concerto 'pour violon & orchestre' one is always wondering how this small instrument can 'keep up' with the full orchestra? Well the 'cannon Stradivari' can.
The dynamic 'scale' is not only the intrinsic part of any music but also of any instrument so it seems to be obvious that the 'instruments' involved by the music reproduction
should be able to at least approch the 'real thing'.
I of course searched for the info about this Krell MC 100 and was very pleased to read that this cart is 'identical' with the Miyabi Standard. This cart was btw recommended to
me by Syntax and Thuchan some time ago but after the time that I 'decided' about the $400 'bondary'. So, in some sense, I got the Stradivari for 500 Euro. Anyway the Krell is at present my Stradivari among all of my carts.
So much for now.

Regards,
Haruo Takeda = Miyabi = Cello MLC1 = Krell KC100. Ironical that Krell should copy Levinson, when Agostino would not supply any dealer who stocked Levinson.
Yoshihisa Mori = Sony XL88 = Madrigal/Carnegie 1 & 2 = Benz ( various ) = Van den Hul MC1/2/Frog
Small world really, even before the internet.
Interesting listing you put there Dover:
Yoshihisa Mori = Sony XL88 = Madrigal/Carnegie 1 & 2 = Benz ( various ) = Van den Hul MC1/2/Frog

To this family I can add the Empire MC1 I have, which appears identical to the VdH MC1/2/Frog/MC1000

However in this family cantilevers and needle profiles have definitely varied, and according to Vdh the internal details have varied too (number of turns of coils, type of wire, suspension materials)...
So although one might say the generator is the same, it appears various styli have been fitted to this generator (using the "lingo" of MM)

bye for now

David
Hmm just had a look at images of the XL88, it looks nothing like the Empire/Benz/Vdh MC1 family - do you mean to say that the internal generator structure is similar? Or is it that the same designed worked on these?
The Sony XL 88 is the cheaper version of the XL 88 D by which the cantilever and stylus were made from one piece of diamond. According to Thuchan this one was the most expensive cart in the 80is in Germany: 5000 DM. My quess is that the Volkswagen was (then) cheaper.Accidentaly when I told Thuchan about 'my' 88 he was listening to this same cart. His comment: 'a must have next to FR-7f'. BTW the technical data are identical. Then about the 'small world'. The designer of the Accuphase 2 was the designer of...

Regards,
Dear Nandric: In the earlier 80's came a cartridges storm designed with stylus/cantilever made all with diamond material.

All those cantilever/stylus diamon's cartridges were the top of the line on each one cartridge manufacturer and prices were really expensive against other models with almost the same motor but with more normal cantilever build materials.

The Sony XL88D was if not the first one that appear was one of the first down there, its domestic ( Japan ) price in 1980 was 150K yens.
The Audio Technica AT-1000MC in 1981: 200K yens.
Dynavector Karat Nova 13D in 1983: 150K yens.
Highphonic MC-D15 in 1983: 158K yens.
Sonovox ( I think but not sure. ) SX-88S in 1982: 330K yens.

The only one I never heard is the Sonovox. Today I have the Dyna and AT.

That Japanese cartridge diamond storm finished suddenly as it startted and today I think only Dyna still use diamond material for its cartridge cantilever.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
DLAloum - Yes generators are of the same lineage from Mori. Sony XL-MC7, which became Carnegie 1 ( bodies the same ), then Mori colluded with Lubachek ( Benz ) and van den hul to produce Madrigal Carnegie 2, ven den hul MC1 and derivatives and Benz Silver and derivatives, all of which are related and have similar body.
Interesting about the old low output MC's. I have an old Monster Alpha 1000, that some believe is better than the gold coiled 2000 that was above it. Then again, some people feel that the world is flat and in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy too, but I digress.
I have been wanting to send this to Soundsmith for a retip. Would be interesting to have a listen to how it sounds with a great new stylus on it.

BTW, for those not in the know, the Monster Alpha line was designed by the great Hisayoshi Nakatsuka, maker of the best sounding cartridges I have ever heard: Zyx.
Speaking about Nakatsuka. I assume he also designed the Genesis 1000(?). I listened to my Genesis 1000 which was retipped by Axel with a pressure fitted Shibata in the tapered aluminum cantilever for two days. I listened only to guitar music; Spanish and Classical. To me those strings move very fast, produce keynotes and harmonics while one can also hear the corpus of the instrument. I was very impressed with the Genesis so Fleib thanks for your advice. The Genesis is not in the same leaque as the
Krell 100(aka Miyabi Standard) but it is an fantastic cart not only considering the price. The suprise came when I switched to Astatic MF 200. Thanks to my Lustre 801 and 4
headshells I can switch from one cart to the other in 3 min. time. The suprise was that I was not able to hear any difference between them. My preference was always for the
LOMC's althouth only slightly. The cause in my case is the midd/high coherence. There is no question about the low frequencies; the MM carts are better. I assume that this has something to do with compliance(?). But anyway the Astatic MF 200 is an remarcable cart. My best at present. For some 'orientation' I own: AT 180, Signet 9Cl, Virtuoso
black with boron cantilever/ super elliptical and Glanz 31 L (the same corpus and generator as the Astatic 100/300 but different stylus ). The 'L' is for line contact. I intend to try the 'L' stylus with the MF 200.
So much for now.

Regards,
Bigerik, Not sure what you want to 'clarify' but my Genesis
is the same. I own the original box as well as the manual.
On the box there are folowing markings: Genesis 1000; alpha
series; Monster Cable. In the Instruction manual there is
also the year 1987 mentioned.
Just didn't want anyone who didn't know the difference to think there was an Alpha 1000 and a Genesis 1000. That's all. Too much bad info on the Internet already.
Nandric, I was surprised when I read your post that Axel fitted an aluminum/shibata without consulting you. That seems like a far cry from tubular boron/micro ridge. Maybe he felt that it needed to be toned down or romanticised, but response is very flat, as you can see from the print-out. IMO the strength of the 1000 is in it's speed, accuracy and detail. It just seems very honest, reflecting the sound of the record. I can only guess how much original performance is compromised, introducing alum cantilever resonances and curved contact area of a shibata. Imagine taking a ZYX with boron and using alum/shibata replacement. I don't mean to vilify Axel, you still might prefer others, but IMO you've only had a glimpse of the cartridge capability.
Regards,
Bigerik, The Monster 1000 and 2000 are identical except for the gold coils. Even the impedance is the same. I owned a 500, 1000, and 1000 improved, as they came out. I didn't get the 2000 because I didn't like it as much. It's slower, rounder and slightly romantic. No, I don't think the Earth is flat, etc. Your analogy is insulting. That was obviously intentional, as I previously stated my preference. I happen to disagree with Raul about ranking of carts. But you sir, equating money with performance, then writing that drivel, clearly goes against the spirit of this thread.
Regards,

SiGh. It is the Internet. I forget sometimes that humor does not translate, and people choose to be insulted by any perceived slight.
Dear Fleib, the parts and wholes are distinquished depending on the kind of the parts. If the parts are similar or equal we than speak about aggregate if they are
different about 'coalition' or composition. Well a cart is
obviously an composition while the so called 'masters' or
'sans' cook them, so to speak, with their own recipe. If the aluminum cantilever is ,uh, a priori dismissed as inferior than we would never had Takeda's Miyabi carts. The 'monster' is everything as you described the 'beauty' but the Miyabi is better. BTW Axel retipped my two Virtuosos ; one of them with boron/super elliptical the other with aluminum/ line contact. But I was not able to decide which is better. There is of course the subjective valuation but there are many 'subjects' who are impressed by Miyabi. More in particular the Miyabi Standard.
To reassure you in some sense I intend to compare the 'monster' with my Benz Ruby 3 S and than decide which one to keep.

Kind regards,
Hi Nandric, You speak in generalizations about different carts, as if this is universal. Didn't we read about the ruby/LC seemingly changing the nature of the Virtuoso? You have a boron and alum, but with different tips, still not a direct comparison. Perhaps if you had a Maestro stylus assembly (boron/micro), you'd hear a difference? Unknown.

Aluminum isn't dismissed as inferior, it's different, just as ruby is different. They all have different weight and rigidity; they flex and resonate differently. Since it's the movements of the cantilever that drive the generator, wouldn't you think they might sound different? The Miyabi was voiced with aluminum. The Lyra Atlas is diamond coated boron rod and some ZYX are diamond. You can't make universal generalizations about cantilevers from one design to another. You might prefer the Miyabi or Ruby 3 S to the 1000. I'm not making any claims about this. I'm saying, you're not hearing the original cartridge. My example has orig cantilever (diamond coated boron tube) with new optimised contour LC.
I don't know exactly how the sound of yours differs from mine or the original, but I'm sure it does.
Regards,
Dear Fleib, I am sorry I thought that you consider or value aluminum cantilevers as less than the 'exotic' kinds. We already have had discussion about cantilevers with Carr's participation. From him I learned that only aluminum can be pressure fitted with whatever stylus while by all other the stylus must be glued to the cantilever. That is why I asked Axel if he can provide such a 'combo' for my Virtuoso while, for the comparison sake, I asked the boron cantilever for my second Virtuoso. As Carr explained there are many material properties which a designer need to consider by his choice. One can only reason with some (pre)suppositions so I thought that I should name some specimens which contradict the 'general statment' that 'exotic cantilevers' are better. Next to Takeda I can also mention Ikeda with many of his FR -carts all with aluminum cantilevers. BTW Takeda's aim was to design a truly dynamic cart and choose deliberately for the aluminum cantilever. His choice also presuppose experiments with other cantilever material. Anyway one can find his interview on the net and see his arguments.

Regards,
Hi Nandric, It's still difficult to make generalizations. A shorter alum cantilever could be more rigid than a longer exotic. It might make sense to use alum to optimise dynamics. For a given length it is less rigid than an exotic and might exhibit greater movement in response to stylus/groove excursions. But I don't think this can be considered in isolation. What about output, tip mass, damping, frequency response/extension and resonance(s)? All these things plus more, interact to define cart performance.

A friend gave me a DL-304 with broken cantilever. Like the DLS1, this cart has non permeable core and very low output. It has an alum cantilever and special elliptical. I had it re-tipped with ruby/LC. The cart was amazing. I haven't heard more detail from VDH, Ortofon, etc. But the cart was relentless. Minute changes in VTA/SRA made a difference between amazing and unlistenable. Perhaps this can work the other way. J Carr told us a little something about cantilevers, but that was the tip of the iceberg. Why do you think he uses boron? Perhaps response to 50K has something to do with it. The Genesis 1000 has more extended response, to 80K. I doubt if your example does. But more importantly, you've changed the voicing.
Regards,
I'm currently planning a custom wand/pivot assembly for Terminator that will accept standard removeable headshells. I want to accomodate the max width found among the various specialty headshells. Knowing the max width dimension is important to ensure adequate clearance between the headshell and a cantilevered front counterweight assembly that parallels the headshell. Advice regarding max width(not including the finger lifter) would be appreciated. The few headshells I have collected so far are 20mm wide.
Dear Fleib, The cart designers don't produce any cantilevers . They can order only what their supplier have to offer. J. Carr gets his from Ogura with the stylus already fitted. Fremer was suprised in his review of the Atlas that the stylus was glued 7* (degree) different from the Titan i. He stated: 'Lyra buys preassemled stylus/cantilevers assemlies from outside suppliers, in this case Ogura' (Stereophile,May 2012). So your question: 'why do you think J. Carr uses boron cantilevers?' needs no answer from me. But if those suppliers ,in order to save in production cost, offer just,say, two kinds of cantilevers we get your 'generality' by this same fact. We can't make particular statements about particular cantilevers and styli when they don't exist. But it is true that Takeda used very short aluminum cantilever as you presupposed and that is why his Miyabi carts are very sensitive for the VTA adjustment. However I also own the exotic beryllium cantilever, which is even gold plated , in my AT 180. But my both Virtuoso's and Astatic MF 200 sound better. As in any 'composition' it is not the parts but the whole composition which make the difference. BTW there are indefinite many particulars and that is why we need some generality. Those are only meant for our orientation. Otherwise we will be lost among particulars, like in a (huge)forest.

Regards,
Hi Nandric, I must admit I fail to see your point. Lyra carts are designed by Carr but made in Japan. I'd think they can buy cantilevers/tips from anyone they want. I got the impression that he would use something else if he wanted, and that boron was part of the design.

Look at ZYX, much closer to home in this case. The R-50 Bloom has an alum cantilever and response to 40K. The R-100 through 1000 all have boron. Response is to at least 80K. All the LO ones have 4 ohm impedance, but with a variety of coil material. It certainly looks like cantilevers have something to do with it.

Your AT-180, Virtuoso, and MF-200 are all different designs. So what if you prefer the later two? If you had a 150MLX, do you think it would sound the same with an ATN440MLa, ATN120E, or ATN-ANV? What about your Virtuoso, does it sound the same as stock compared to your versions? Raul said that Soundsmith level 1 was better than stock.

**As in any 'composition' it is not the parts but the whole composition which make the difference. BTW there are indefinite many particulars and that is why we need some generality. Those are only meant for our orientation. Otherwise we will be lost among particulars, like in a (huge)forest.**

The whole composition is made of particular parts. You can't divorce one from the other. Sometimes you change cantilever material and it's an improvement. Other times it's a disaster. All we can do is take a guess and try. With most MM we have an advantage with replaceable stylus. Put an ATN152ML on a 440, and it's a dramatic improvement. Isn't that why we read this thread, to find out about others' results? If you get a DLS1 or 304 with a busted cantilever, I'd recommend tapered aluminum/hyperelliptical replacement.
Regards,
Dear Fleib, I mentioned first that the cart producers don't produce their own cantilevers as well that they depend for those from their suppliers. This is not a 'big buseness' and Gyger jr. is trying to sell this part of his company for some time now. I asked Carr for help with the Ogura company in order to get those 'micro ridge' styli for Axel. I got from him 4 addresses and wrote 4 emails to all 4 addresses but never got any answer. So my 'point' is that the cart producers as well as the cart services can use only those 'parts' which are available (aka produced).
This however is the 'necessary condition' but not 'sufficient condition' as is clear with Axel's case. He wants to buy micro ridge styli but is not able to find an supplier. In the 70s there was a real competition among cart producers reg. the 'exotic cantilevers' and the used materials but this is not the case at present. There are basicaly boron or aluminum. Anyway those are what one can see by new produced carts.
BTW it was not my intention to contradict any of your statement except the one which I thought was stating that aluminum is inferior material in comparison with the exotic
kinds. That was my 'real point'.

Regards,
Nandric,
Why would you go to Ogura to buy a micro ridge diamond. The microridge profile is patented by Namiki Precision Jewel Company, and as far as I know Namiki still manufacture this. Namiki also used to make cantilevers and complete cartridges as OEM for some of the smaller boutique "cartridge houses". They have offices in Germany and Switzerland.
Here is a thought - a 20% reduction in cantilever length has a far greater impact on effective mass and rigidity than the material used for the cantilever...

The ATML series as an example had shorter cantilevers than the AT1x0 series...

The press fit of needles into cantilevers is NOT limited to aluminium - if you have the right production facilities.

Technics used to cut a slot for the needle in their boron tube cantilevers with a laser - the needle was then apparently inserted with the material hot, and as it cooled the shrinkage of the material would provide the "press fit"

I have a feeling I read somewhere that Dynavector did something similar...

The "standard" cantilever tends to be circa 7mm long...
Flex generates harmonics - which tend to be euphonic, so all "romantic" cartridges have "long" cantilevers...

When you look at cartridges particularly renown for neutrality and dynamics you find quite a number of short cantilevers among them (Decca, DV Karat...)

I do find the press fit idea fascinating, and wonder what a very short aluminium cantilever might sound like... what would a Dynavector "Alum" (as opposed to Karat) sound like? with the cantilever length at under 3mm effective mass is negligible regardless of material used... needle could be press fit too... interesting thought!

I do agree that most cartridge makers and retippers appear to be limited by what is available - can they do their own thing an mount needles on cantilevers - sure they can, but that increases the labour cost substantially!
Buying it in already mounted makes a heap of sense, and probably explains the very resonable price at which retips are now available to us.
Of course within that price bracket we are then limited to what is available in "pre-mounted" form.
However it is also clear that some retippers do do full retipping and provide various cantilevers...

I think the search for perfection would require (in my mind at least):
A Heavily laminated poles, low output MM body (preferably 4 or more laminations?)
A very short cantilever made of a light but rigid material - probably Boron - my reading does not seem to indicate any intrinsic advantage to ruby/sapphire/diamond over Boron. (Boron tube would be even better... but is no longer made)

The lot mounted in a very low mass, vibration avoiding design such as the Ortofon OM bodies, and suspended with a high compliance, low damping, suspension...

Anyone know of such a beast?
Maybe I will just have to make one myself....

bye for now

David
I am, alas, not always capable to understand what our Professor is talking about. Not something special because this happened to me with nearly all of my Professors. ButI
'got' his lesson about the colour of the styli. Never thought that those have some kind of added meaning. But thanks to this lesson I observed that the stylus by Astatic MF 200 has the same colour as the stylus by Glanz 31 L and consequently inspected thoroughly both. There is an marking in the inside of the styli: HAJ by Glanz and HAK by Astatic. The only difference is actually the stylus: Shibata by Astatic and line contact by the Glanz.
I was not able to hear any difference between them. I am however not sure if my 'discovery' will be of any help because both are very difficult to find. But, as one say,
one can never know in advance.

Dear David, speaking about styli. I was informed in this forum that Ogura is the only producer of the micro ridge styli and that is why I made much effort to contact Ogura. Alas they are obviously not interested in, say, small amounts which an retip service needs. Besides Axel thought that this kind is patented by Shure and not available to
others. My intention was to help him, myself and the others who may be interested in micro ridge styli.
Thanks for your info I certainly intend to try again.

Regards,
Dear 'real' David, I wronly 'attributed' the info about micro ridge styli to you instead to Dover. Excuses to both.
Well your 'thought' may explain the peculiar succes of the Miyabi carts because Takeda used short aluminum cantilever to get more dynamical sound but he needed to bend the cantilever for the purpose. That is why his carts are very sensitive to VTA. I assume that Ikeda also used short cantilevers by his FR carts but am not sure. Halcro can check this for us.
Anyway I know that Lukatschek by Benz try the same method with his new line. But because he uses boron cantilevers I assume that those must be cut by the stylus part in a special way or angle to get the dimensions right? This may also explain why Fremer was suprised with the 'angle' of the stylus by the Atlas?

Regards,
Dear Dlaloum: Agree with you about the cantilever length: reduce effective mass on the moving cartridge system. Somewhere in this thread I think I posted a link for the white papers that explain about.

Now, you posted:

+++ " Flex generates harmonics - which tend to be euphonic, so all "romantic" cartridges have "long" cantilevers..." ++++

as Fleib said maybe a generalization because the AT 20SS has a long cantilever but is IMHO nothing near as " romantic ".

We all have to think that a top of the line cartridge normaly pass true a voicing process where the designer tame its quality performance short or large cantilever. As Fleib and Nandric posted it is the whole thing and not a single area in cartridge design what makes the " magic ".

Anyway, good to touch again the cartridge efective mass efect.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
a Nandric-type post: 'all X's are F's' does not imply 'all F's are X's'. To wit: 'All romantic carts are long cantilevered' does not imply 'All long cantilevered carts are romantic'.

I agree with Raul otherwise that the long cantilevered 20ss is a far far cry from being romantic.
Hi David, You´ve done very interesting experiments on SHURE 1000E´s capasitances and impedances ! I´ve found 150-160 pF with 47 kOhm sound best and also give the widest frequency response for the SHURE Ultra 500, my preamp doesn´t have other high impedances options though. Which of those your higher impedances can you recommend?
Banquo, All man are equal but Dlaloum and Nandric are not.
Nandric uses only short cantilevers .
Decca has virtually no cantilever. Which is why the old heavy Deccas would beat the hell out of the LP groove. Compliance = 0. A hyperbole to be sure, but not far from reality.