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
Now, I'm not saying that the LPM420 is " unlistenable ", no but we are comparing it against cartridges that belongs to the very top qualite performance " land ". If we don't have in hand this kind of performance level I think any one of us could live with the 420 " for ever ".

R.
 
Dear Nandric,
the headshell issue is a very important one as is a good lead wire and good contact. I experimented with quite a variety of headshells for MM, MMI and MC carts. The material had a range from different sorts of wood (with or without laquer), mixed materials, ceramic, titanium, aluminium, magnesium etc. I had reasonable priced samples and also very very expensive ones. We exchanged some ideas on Henry's thread and here already. I now discovered a SAEC ULS-3X headshell coming with an integrated grounding cable. Does anybody have experience with this kind of headshell configuration? Any advantages?
 
Censorship is a widely discussed phaenomen. I regard myself as being more on the liberal side allowing quite some freedom and tolerance for different opinions and ways how to achieve good results, also in audio. Thank god we live in a democracy but when it comes to extreme positions resulting in crusades or vendettas against certain personalities or philosophies I think censorship can have a certain function, on some forums it is necessary. Hopefully it will be implemented in a wise way not targeting in the first line against the more flexible and critical members rather than the product or "one church only" followers. I believe that a forum management supporting a relation approach at the end of the day will not attract a wide and international society anymore.
I am optimistic!
 
Dear Thuchan, Is that the ceramic headshell supplied by SAEC? If so, I have second-hand information that it is not so good (meaning I have never heard it myself, but I do trust my source).
Kenwood offered an optional ceramic platter mat for the L07D; I have also heard rumors from the few that own one that the mat sounds terrible. Maybe ceramic is not so good for audio, except in certain bearings.
Dear Lewm,
yes, it is a ceramic one made of sintered oxidized aluminium. I have two of this kind I am using with my SAEC WE-8000, of course they look different because of the ankle coming with for the straight tonearm. They are made of the same material. And they do sound fabulous. My samples are without ground connect cable. I have no experience with the ceramic platter.
SAEC is besides of Micro Seiki and WAVAC one of my favourite Japanese Audio Companies.
Dear Timeltel and friends: HEADSHELLS, IMHO the main/primary target headshell design is to help the cartridge to dissipate/disappear any resonances there and reject any tonearm resonance feedback along a secure and precise way to hold the cartridge and permit overhang set up.

All the other " functions " IMHO are design targets in the tonearm: VTA/SRA/VTF/AZ.

IMHO the most important headshell characteristics is not which kind of facilities can gives but its build material that can fulfill that " main target ". I don't care about a headshell facilities ( even if those facilities are in reality the tonearm target. If the tonearm has a wrong design and has not those facilities that's because a wrong/bad design but not an after market headshell " obligation ". ) but that its build material be " the one " need it to fulfill that main target.

In this regard till today no headshell design and especialy the metal ones can or could fulfill that target: no exception here.

This is my same position/opinion about turntables ( any ), I posted several times that the most important target is not which kind of drive in the design or facilities but TT BUILD MATERIALS especialy the TT MAT ( or the TT PLATTER SURFACE IF THERE IS NO MAT. Btw, I coincide with this same opinion with Atmasphere Agon contributor. ) that's in direct LP surface contact. Same for the tonearms.

We discovery one of those " magic " materials that I use in our self MAT design, headshell and tonearm design. Sooner or latter all of you will be aware what is. In the mean time have fun.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Regards, Raul: "In the mean time have fun." Yes, that's important. I hope none took my "project" seriously, it seemed there was more "heat" than "light" in recent communications here, & my foolishness served to "lighten" things up .

BTW, it should be mentioned that the Acutex 4XX carts are much improved through a mount fabricated of wood. Easier said than done, it is a convincing demonstration of the resonances contributed by the supplied mount. A Shure M75ED T2 is also residing in a cocobolo mount. Tonal balance remains and neutrality is improved. My listener involvement has, however, diminished. It's just not quite as engaging.

Excluding the superb Shure ML140 HE, it seems I'm one of Dgarretson's "long nose" listeners ---but then the ML140 DOES have a prominent proboscis---

Peace,
Seriously, I didn't expect this monster will grow larger than Wires + Tubes vs. SS + any Best for Money all together!
Dear Raul, Your strategy with the 'look alike' argument between the Orsonic and Arche by which your opinion that Orsonic is a worthless p.of.s. is quasi logicaly transfered or connected to Arche was obviously not very succesful. Besides you stated over and over again that you will never comment on any component without your own tests , experience or whatever with the involved component. How long do you own and tested the Arche? Now you abviously want to try a different strategy with your own 'humble' opinion reg. the conditions which an headshell needs to satisfy in order to satisfy Raul's demands. Why should anybody care about such 'arguments'?Then there is a simple question: why do you own so many headshells?

Regards,
Dear Timeltel: +++++ " are much improved through a mount fabricated of wood. Easier said than done, it is a convincing demonstration of the resonances contributed by the supplied mount. A Shure M75ED T2 is also residing in a cocobolo mount. Tonal balance remains and neutrality is improved. " +++++

IMHO in analog item build material is the KEY. As you I own not only 15+ tonearms, 10 TTs, 150+ cartridges and around 80 headshells.

I collect nothing, the purpose is to find out the best road to be " THERE " ( where only " the eagles achieve it ". ).

Through the years and trough several a lot of tests/experiences my self opinions on different audio subjects ( analog ) were changing " dramatically " and was through all those experiences that today I'm almost totally sure about that cartridge body direct contact build material with the headshell/tonearm and from the LP with the TT platter/mat.

We found out a propietary blend build material that IMHO is today the only real solution for the tonearm/headshell/TT platter and mats and we found out almost at random.

Now, I tested several cartridges ( MM/MI/MC ) through regular tonearms with different headshells: Technics, ATs ( 12 different!!! ), Grace, Ortofon, FR, Nagaoka, SAEC ( ceramic and metal blend. ), wood ones, wood and metal blend, Lustre, SME, etc, etc.
As we all know same cartridge same tonearm with different headshell sound different. Well in all those tests the best cartridge performance was achieved through our headshell blend material and if I tell you how was and is mounted this headshell in those different tonearms you can't believe its greatness:

because I want only to test that blend headshell build material to really now if I could consider it and proclaim it as a " universal " one ( the best for any cartridge/tonearm. ) I don't build or buy the collar at the end of the headshell to mount and secure it to the tonearm, so how I mount this headshell to the tonearm?: PLUG-IN!, unveliable it works and works great with an additional advantage: that because is a plug-in device is extremly easy to change Azymuth!

From some years now some analog items were designed with blended build materials trying to achieve what I fortunatelly already achived, take a look to the " best " today tonearms and TTs. There is the " key ". Nothing IMHO is more important to achieve excellence on qualiuty performance level.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
My feelings about the sound of the Acutex 420 have not changed. I find it to be a very realistically alive sounding cartridge, and refreshing in it's unwillingness to sound "pleasant" at all times. I have never listened to any other Acutex cartridge, but based on some of the comments of some it's obvious that I should.

It is my firm belief that audiophiles, in their quest for "refinement" in the sound of their setups, sometimes "miss the forest for the trees". Tonal subtleties are usually given much more weight and introspection than dynamic subtleties in the priorities hierarchy. Very seldom is the subject of dynamics discussed with the same type of fine detail and insight as is the subject of tonality. I believe that this is the result of insufficient or limited exposure to the sound of live music. I am reminded of a discussion in the Single Malt Scotch thread where I made the comment that the Macallan 18 yr old Scotch was superior to the 25 yr old. The 25 yr old is incredibly smooth (for a Scotch) and "refined", while the 18 yr old improves on the 12 yr old's roughness, while retaining the characteristic earthiness that I consider to be an intrinsically Scotch trait without being so "refined" that it is reminiscent of a good brandy.

One can't argue with personal priorities or taste; it is clear that these differ from listener to listener. But I find it interesting and actually very telling that a cartridge like the 420, for me, gives me more of that wonderful "coiled spring, ready to bounce" quality that live music has in spades, ability to play tunes in the bass, as well as the ability to sound gritty when appropriate, than cartridges that very recently were considered to be at the top-of-the-heap (ATML170OCC, Azden, Empire 4000). Please don't misunderstand, I have no interest in playing "the best" games; there are too many variables, and these are all good cartridges which push various and different "reality buttons" for me. The 420 pushes more of the right buttons for me than a lot of the others. And for $100? Cmon, you guys!
Dear Nikola, I am afraid it was I who promulgated the Orsonic/Arche analogy. On the Arche thread I stated that I had been offered the opportunity to be an "early adopter", but I held off purchase of the Arche, because others on this thread, including Raul, had expressed a dislike for the Orsonic. The physical resemblance between the Orsonic and the Arche is undeniable, and I already knew that Dertonearm was an Orsonic advocate. So it did not surprise me to see that his headshell is, shall we say, influenced by the Orsonic design. This fact did not and does not put me off the Arche permanently; it merely made me want to audition my Orsonic headshell prior to making a purchasing decision, on the premise that if I like the Orsonic, I might like the Arche much more. I hope that seems reasonable to you. In the meantime, I have received assurances from DT that beyond the physical resemblance between the two headshells, they have nothing else in common.
Hello Lewm,

Maybe you could watch out for this collapsing archie.

When thinking of dertonarm's past, it can be unfortunate to not be aware of his and axinia schaefer's past misdeeds.

Please see:

www.audiobanter

Please dertonarm, a.k.a. kasugi, axinia schaefer and acoustical-systems, please tell us much more about your business self, okay.

So, these dertonarm fan-boys, go away now and do not continue trolling to create more problems for others.

Please leave this thread alone and take your bag of phoney tricks with you, thank you.

dertonarm, make your years of refunds; thuchan, make your good and valuable business consulting advice available to dertonarm, reminding him to promptly clean up all of his misdeeds, instead of looking to create more problems.

Fun Mostly,

Stitch.e
Stiche,
you are repeating yourself. we all have past your permanent self-blocked situation and it is worthless argumenting with you as you are obviously running on a different track than most of us. Pls. don't bother us with your emotional attempts against group members anymore and stay away from exchange on opinions about issues you seem to have no interest to deal or experiment with. Go and drive your vendetta somewhere else. you will find people who will follow you but not here - sorry!
Dear thuchan,

Welcome back, mr. popular industrial psychologist and business consultant.

Thuchan, I believe that when you are giving advice to your clients; maybe some that have similar missteps such as, dertonarm, you tell them something like this:

'it is important that your verbals and non-verbals are in complete alignment."

So, while these verbals of dertonarm are not in alignment, it is not useful for us to listen to your marketing hype around archies from such a dishonest toolster. There is a history, Thuchan, you maybe closely aware of this history, where these infamous fellows from bavaria were allowed to create their own reality at the expense of many others. It is better to have these dishonest practices cleansed in the "light of the day."

As you now, there is a price for silence when staying comfortably ensconced while others are removed of their resources. Thuchan, "why are you still so comfortable with your dertonearm toys and still have a tendancy give this false hope of hype, why"

So, please here, we are ready to hear of solutions from those designers that can bring magic from the caldron; however, not from this bavarian imposter and his minions.

Thuchan, release yourSelf from that one boy d. It is okay, you could buy the original transducers instead of these replicas. Really, it is okay.

Good, now finished, let us now continue to discuss real and honest solutions!

Fun Mostly,

Stitch.e
Dear Lew, I would never dream to accuse you of any narow
minded thougts. You are a critical mind but never with some hidden agenda. I don't need to repeat my admiration for your mind and conduct. But I actually don't care who wrote what but try to compare statments made and their logical connections. If I think that I discovered something that make no sense I will write about that. My post is of course also public so anyone who has whatever remarks about my post is free to criticize my statements or opinion.
I preased Raul by many occasions but also questioned some of his statements in particular about him self. I deed this also about some of your statements. I never got the impression that you are angry about that. I also think that your comparison between Orsonic and Arche is not logicaly correct because 'look alike' is not the same as
'the same ' in logic which means identical.

Regards,
Hello Frogman, I agree with everything you said. It is true that for the most part we/I am seeking refinement and don't always want, as much as I love it, a drummer in my living room at live levels. I have and do admit to liking my HF a little softer.( getting a little old I guess)

The 3xx long nose share very little with the 4xx. It is probably better to think of them as having different manufacturers, so it is not being compared to some of the best of the best. As Raul said, the 420 lpm only seems to be the worst Acutex. This is like being the worst Mercedes or a bad Rembrandt. Still fun and very good to my ears.

I like the qualities the Acutex 420 brings to the table. I do think its resonance is hard to predict on each of our system so I am trying to make it less resonate. Maybe I will find it boring too, once this is accomplished and then go back to
the original.

BTW, I find the 312 much better than the 412. Try playing Jack Dejohnnette's "Pictures" #1 with the 412 and let me know what you hear.

Danny
Dear Lewm: All what you were heraing about ceramic as a build material on analog audio items is true and agree with.

My first encounter with ceramic was 20+ years ago through the SAEC 506/30 and WE-8000 tonearms and I was for many years facinated by these very well made tonearms till I learned that both are the type of tonearm with higher distortions than more " noramal " tonearms, that's was/is why are so " alive " and because of this wrong characteristic several japanese people prefer it over the MS 237/282 not saying by me but for japanese SAEC/MS seller of those times.
Ceramic is very inert material but way resonant in the cartridge field. SAEC ceramic headshells are beautiful made it but wrong couple to any cartridge.

Latter on, i encounter ceramic through my Mission The Mechanic tonearm bearing and latter on in the Graham tonearms through its arm wands. In no place the ceramic was successful.

I know that Thuchan is in love not with every kind of system distortions but with high and heavy ones and that´s wht IMHO he is in love with the SAEC tonearms/headshells and the like.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Btw, thank you Lewm for your post about the Orsonic.

In the other side an about quality performance level I'm not alone when I posted several times that the Orsonic is a bad headshell or not up to the task against other top really top headshells.
A few days Dover posted that he does not like it either and Halcro sold it three Orsonic he owned and I hope and be appreciated he can comes here and share with us why he took that decision that IMHO was not because he was in love with!.
Orsonic is for audio rockies.

Nandric, 95% of my headshells were bought way before came to my mind: hey why not build headshells with our blend unique build material and test that material with normal/stock tonearms?. Even today if I see an interesting headshell then I go and buy it to compare with our self design. Got it???

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
okay Raul, the old story of your distortions. good! You were invited many times to "my world of distortions". you never came. Maybe you would never go back to your home having experienced something different...
Dear Raul, I have no problem at all with your valuation of
the Orsonic headshell. Nor with the description of Arche as 'looks like' the Orsonic. This is the usual way to describe the unknown with the help of the known objects. Consider an primitive society in which nobody except the Long Nose have ever seen an locomotive. How should the Long Nose give some idea about this 'thing' to people who have no idea about that thing? Well if those people are familiar with horses and iron the 'iron horse' will serve the purpose. Nobody has ever seen an iron horse but one
can imagine such thing thanks to description. But who will state that this iron horse is THE SAME as the locomotive? This is my problem with your suggestion about the Arche which you have never seen nor tested. Lew is also on the 'wrong track' because his intention is to test the Orsonic in order to conclude something about the Arche.
Can he conclude something about the locomotive with the help of an iron horse?

Regards,
Actually, I take back my "touche'". I had not only the appearance of the Arche to go on but also the knowledge that DT likes/liked the Orsonic. Thus how could I not conclude that the Orsonic at least influenced the design of the Arche. Further, two headshells that use the same rather unusual engineering of placing the cartridge mount on two stalks projecting from the tonearm mount base, may be fairly suspected of having similar virtues as well as faults. The Arche to Orsonic parallel is much much more cogent than is that of a locomotive to a horse, for one who has seen only a horse. (I am just arguing this point for the fun of it.) But I do allow that it might be a big mistake to judge the Arche by listening to an Orsonic. Perhaps I just did not wish to spend $395 for a headshell.
Can he conclude something about the locomotive with the help of an iron horse?

Is this a test? Can't the 'primitive' conclude, if the analogy is useful, that the locomotive can move, that it can be used to transport, that it can harm me if I get in its way, etc.... He has advanced his understanding without the need to experience the iron horse first hand.

Similarly, suppose the goodness/badness of the Orsonic is traceable to its unique physical form (as opposed to, say, its metallurgical makeup); couldn't one draw a reasonable conclusion about another headshell that shared that form?

Not all reasoning is deductive, as of course you know Nandric. But that makes all the more curious your vendetta against inductive arguments and ones by analogy.
Acman3, I just picked up a (supposedly) mint copy of "Pictures". I will listen to it with the 412 and report back. I have not mounted the 412 since buying it. A Dejonette recording is as good a reason to do so as any that I think of; my favorite drummer with the possible exception of Tony Williams. Regards.
Similarly, suppose the goodness/badness of the Orsonic is traceable to its unique physical form (as opposed to, say, its metallurgical makeup); couldn't one draw a reasonable conclusion about another headshell that shared that form?
I would say so?.........
I never had three Orsonics......only one.....and there is some doubt (since the company Orsonic went out of business more than 10 years ago) if my sample was original or a copy?
Nevertheless....even whilst carrying a mild-mannered MM cartridge.....when the going got tough, and the music complex and loud.......I could actually hear the headshell 'bending' under the stress.
How do I know it was the headshell?........slipped on another five headshells complete with similar cartridges and played the same track.
I sold it shortly thereafter.
Looking at the Orsonic design from a 'structural' point of view......one would conclude that little engineering acuity was involved in its design?
The brief appears to have been.....'make it as light as possible'?
Now 'lightness' may be accomplished by choice of materials eg titanium, magnesium, carbon fibre etc..........or by 'eliminating' material eg holes or reduced thicknesses?
From an 'audio' perspective.......'rigidity' is the prime requisite for any headshell IMHO?
The Orsonic design places immense strain on achieving decent rigidity (in all planes) comparable to 'normal' headshells and thus will always be at a disadvantage when the 'going gets tough'?
Regards, Raul: I must admit envy of those who listen to one TT, one TA & one cart.

Resonance can be constructive or destructive, a blessing or a curse. Underdamped, over damped, bloom, glare, grain, steely, glassy, woody, dark, analytical, the list goes on & ---.

After going through almost exactly half of the carts & etc's you've mentioned, I've been fortunate to find four combinations concerning which I find little to criticize, two that provide consistent reward and one that is superb. This one must be heard in the absence of critical intent. Without preconceived expectations there comes a nearly subliminal recognition of excellence. Subjectivity cannot be excluded but once a certain level of performance is identified, even minor variations might become objectionable to a demanding listener. There are many who are able to find enjoyment in a variety of presentations and fortunately (IMHO) I've found only two carts that I'd not care to listen to again.

If you've managed to build a TA, headshell and matt that, individually or as a system, allow a well designed cartridge to be heard free of the almost inevitable editorializing these components convey then you are to be congratulated.

Meanwhile, few have heard this gear and like a certain headshell, should be considered innocent of transgression until proven guilty.

Perhaps it is appropriate that the articles offered by yourself and an unmentioned designer are judged by a jury of audiophiles and found to have merit, and that both persons are rewarded in a manner which enables them to meet their obligations, perhaps to profit greatly. In such a scenario, audiophiles individually and as a group benefit. What could be better?

Peace,
Dear Lew, I had no idea about the price. But I also need to confess that I don't own any Armani suit. The argument is : it is just a suit. But for the sake of argument or excuse Armani can be used for some other purposes. There is water everywhere in Holland. So one can be witness of someone's death by drowing without any intention to observe
such kind of accidence. But you know how people are. They will not jump in the water to save the stupid immigrant who obviously wanted to learn to swim on his own ( the Dutch learn to swim and ride a bike before they can walk) but they will ask you:' why deed you not jump in the water to save the poor person'? And then I can answer: 'are you crazy , with my Armani suit'? So I must also confess that Raul may have some point with his quess how I would behave as a witness of 'some accidence'. BTW the copper mask does not fit on my SP-10.

Dear Banquo, I nowhere stated how people get their premiss(es), inductive or otherwise. But anybody should at least start to reason from some premisse. I know that we learn social rules in the same way as language such that many of those rules are 'ready for use' without any thinking but even those are called 'implicit'. So we as polite and kind people say: 'I assume that you presuppose...', etc.

Regards,

Halcro, I share your reservations about the rigidity of the Orsonic, based only on its physical appearance, although I question whether you could "hear" the Orsonic bending under stress. I would say, "maybe". My interpretation would be that you heard "something" you did not like and that it was absent with the 4 or 5 other headshells you tried. Then you infer that the unpleasant coloration was due to flexibility of the Orsonic, which the eye tells us might be an issue. We audiophiles are often guilty of making this kind of cause/effect link without any real data to substantiate it. If Orsonic was looking for lowest possible mass in their design, they failed miserably because the authentic Orsonic 101b weighs about 18 gm, IIRC. (That weight is what I remember from something I read.) I think they had some idea that minimizing the surface area of the support structure for the cartridge mount was a worthy goal; they may have set out to achieve that goal and also provide for ample fore and aft adjustment of the cartridge as well as azimuth adjustment. On the latter subject, I agree with others that while adjusting azimuth at the headshell is theoretically a good idea, most of the attempts to realize that goal in practice are flawed (Arche excluded).

Is there anyone here who actually likes the Orsonic, assuming one has an original production item? (I have heard that there are Chinese-made copies that are truly awful.)
Dear Timeltel: +++++ " Perhaps it is appropriate that the articles offered by yourself and an unmentioned designer are judged by a jury of audiophiles and found to have merit, and that both persons are rewarded in a manner which enables.... " +++++

as I told sooner or latter some of you will have that opportunity.

Btw, we ( Guillermo and I. ) design our tonearm and today we are thinking to put on sale only the tonearm even that we can go on with a MAT a TT or other analog items that benefit with the blend material we found out.
Timeltel, we are not on the audio commercial activity, we are two persons that as you are looking for the " pinnacle " on analog and that through the years don't found out the right audio items to achieve that pinnacle.
We think seriously that at least with our tonearm design we achieved ( for now. ) that pinnacle and we want to share in the near future with those audiophiles that could want to try it.

When José and I started our Essential Phonolinepreamp " adventure " what move me was that due that I can't find out the phonolinepreamp that can fulfill the cartridge signal needs then why not make it for use it as personal item not for market it.
Suddenly a UK gentleman ask about and then we decide to build it a unit for him and over the time for other six audio gentlemans and that's it.

With the tonearm was the same, the " adventure " started for personal use: for Guillermo and I and after some tests we decided that we can share it with some audiophiles.

Timeltel, Guillermo and I have a way of life that has nothing to do with the commercial audio. Audio for us is more a " religion "/hobby a very serious hobby.

As you what move me is to find out that audio pinnacle/superb ( as you said. ) auio system through its audio item links where the cartridge and the cartridge signal handle is the most important subject: I think????

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Halcro: My mistake. By your emails I confirmed that you owned only one Orsonic.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear friends: Clairvoyant???.

in an email to Halcro on: March-05-2011 I posted:

++++++ " It could be nothing weird if in the near future we will see headshell by Dertonarm other that he is an Orsonic seller. " ++++++

Other than my experiences on audio as all of you I have some kind of personal " capacities ", this is one I have and don't think this one was at random NO.
Sometimes I make/made mistakes but normaly I have the capacity to know whom the people are as a person and this goes to audio systems too.

Anyway, only a comment about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Because he wants that every one can think the Orsonic was/is the best performer and now we can see: WHY.

R.
Yes, Raul you are very correct on that one.

I have it from a good authority that Dertonarm also plays games with his Omnigon preamplifier. My friend was told the SUTs in this thing Omnigon were of a very special order from Jensen . So, my friend said he would like one of those very special, ONLY made for dertonarm, these were to be very unique and of a "special" design. Of course, dertonarm said it was true, NOT!

So, my friend, he bought one of these dertonarm SPECIAL SUTs that were designed specially for little d and his Omnigon. Well, it turns out it was not so special, a nice one yes, but just like all of the other stock SUTs that Jensen sells to everyone.

SPECIAL, not special, just dertonarm marketing hype. Yes, says dertonarm; it is so good; just believe me, really just believe me,
NO!

Fun Mostly,

Stitch.e
There is obviously nobody who is willing to defend the absent Dertonarm. There is no need to be clairvoyant to know that the situation by Dertonarm is even worse than
the Orsonic headshell may suggest. Since the 80s this person swears by this 'monster headshell' connected with the FR-7 kinds of carts. We want even mention the corroded
internal wire (pace Raul) which make the whole combination not only suspicious but actually rediculous. Why and for what purpose would he need the Orsonic headshell? As he stated more than once he needs no other than FR-7(x) carts. But in the HI-FI Magazine 'Das Ohr' (the ear) by which he was reviewer in the 80s there was an comparisson
between 7 or 8 headshells by which the Orsonic got the second price. I am not sure if this Magazine was from 1984 but I am sure that I bought the Orsonic because of this
review. It may be the case that Dertonarm is loyal to his past. Back than I only bought components which were backup by 'objective reviewers'. Those were the times of certainty my friends.

Regards,

In my experience, the guys at Jensen are very approachable and forthcoming. When you call their main number, typically the phone is answered by one of their engineers, not a receptionist. They are willing to talk about anything related to their products or to the subject of transformers in general. Moreover, they publish some excellent "white papers" on the subject, available to all on the internet. I just cannot see them colluding to produce an "exclusive" SUT. It's a very "American" business, in the best and oldest sense of the word, out of southern California, not Bavaria.
Hi Stitche, I already posted my advice addressed to Raul by which I stated that onyone who has an contractual claim can either consult the 'no cure no pay' attorney or try
the debt-collector agency. Both have representatives all over the world. You can repeat your complaints 100 x in our forum but I don't see how this forum can be of any help to your case. There are more suitable procedures for your claim if you have one.

Regards,
Dear Lewm,

I am sorry that you misunderstood.

No collusion at all from Jensen; only this unreliable self-reporting from dertonarm. Just little d hype that does not stand up.

As someone else has kindly stated before, "self-report in is the best kind.". So, do you trust what comes out of little d or those that are so closely aligned with him and know of d's past, do you?

Dear Nandric,

Thank you again.

Fun Mostly,

Stitch.e
Dear Stitche, I think it is you who may have misunderstood my post. I was saying, in effect, that it seems unlikely that Jensen would be building a "secret" exclusive SUT for one small enterprise many thousands of miles from their facility. I was agreeing with the premise that there may have been some attempt to create a false sense of exclusivity in order to justify what I imagine was a very high price for the preamp. This is done all the time in the "high end" business. Nothing new.
Regards, Frogman: Gestalt – "essence or shape of an entity's complete form". Loosely, a theory that the brain is holistic, parallel, and analog, with self-organizing tendencies. The perception of stimuli in their entirety precedes the perception of their constituent assets, the product of complex interactions among various attributes. Behaviorists approach the understanding of these elements through cognitive processes, the casual "Gestaltist" might use the phrase "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts". Although this is a deviation of Koffka's original phrase, "The whole is other than the sum of the parts", Gestalt theory allows for the isolation of contributing elements relative to the perception of the whole, a perception of what it really, holistically, is.

In audio there is a need to conduct "real" experiments in contrast to classic laboratory situations, experienced in real conditions, in which it is possible to produce with greater variance that which would be habitual for a listener.

There are "laws" of perception which seem inadequate in describing the individual's emotional connectivity with art. Evaluation through exposure and experimentation enable the listener to identify the qualities that "resonate" with his sonic goals. Diversity is a condition of nature, conformity the opposite of sophistication.

One can answer this question only for one's self, never for another: If, as the roguish Frenchman posited, "Best is the enemy of Better", then at what point does "Good enough" become the enemy of "Better"?

The Acutex 420 is a remarkably engaging cart. Sound staging, balance and dynamics are commendable. You are not alone in finding it a cart worthy of attention. Actually, it seems to command it. The 412 is slightly less dynamic, more focused in the midrange region. Should you have the opportunity to hear either the LPM 320 or 315, they both will leave a favorable impression. Most would agree these are "Good enough" for an extensive listen, if there are "Better" is for you to decide.

I believe you might find experimentation in reducing the resonance of the mount interesting, perhaps even wrapping it with some of Lew's audiophile grade rubber bands?

Peace,
Stiche,
it seems to me you are still working on your issues with Dertonearm. I have no idea why on this forum and on his thread (hallo: he is not here!!!) but from my profession as a psychologist I am getting worried if everything is fine with you. Maybe if you need some professional help we can organize something in Texas at your home.

When I am in Texas usually once a year - and I love it to be there - I meet straight and fair people. I also learned that in the past when one had a conflict a shootout was arranged - man against man. In your case the man you are looking for is not in the village and it will not help you going to the next village shooting other people coming along the street.
Dear Acman3: Thank's to bring here the 412 Acutex subject, seems to me that is a promised cartridge and maybe the " all star " in the Acutex 400 series.

I will buy it and test it, seems it deserves that.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
I was wondering why there are so many different opinions on the Orsonic shell, including me who not really favoures this design. Having done a little research I found out that the genuine Orsonic - the real deal - was made in Japan and is hardly available today.
Most all "Orsonic" AV-101 sold on platforms seem to be chinese fakes made out of inferior aluminum and thus inferior sonics. The production of the original Orsonic was stopped in the first half of the 90ies ......
Maybe this is why me, Lewm and others will have a hard time today "judging" the genuine sonic abilities of a Orsonic AV-101 - what we did have in hand were most likely chinese fakes.

The advantage of the real Orsonic should have been a good compromise of the inevitable need to reduce weight without sacrificing stiffness nor the best possible energy transfer. Stiffness is very important. Ceramic was incorporated in headshell design because of superior stiffness combined with relatively low weight. Raul and Lewm are right on the disadvantages of ceramic.
It's inherent tendency to resonate makes it inevitable to dampen the ceramic with layers of different material. If you are using isolaters between headshell and cartridge this will eliminate almost all resonance which results in better tracking and allows your cartridge to perform as designed.

Even better is a newly built design which incorporates all the advantages listed here and uses the best material of today. Therefore looking at the headshell issue it makes sense selecting the right headshell for a cartridge and maybe the best matching dampening material as well. For older designs I would recommend upgrades if possible as it is also necessary to get the most out of a SAEC tonearm by rewiring it with an excellent litze - you may not fully discover the arms capabilities before you have done this.

Hello thuchan,

Nice to see that you are back defending those who borrow resources without permission, as you are familiar, sometimes forever.

Yes, thuchan, it seems that you are rumbling around caught-up in a simple complex of projective identity. I am sure that you could find someone to place yourself and dertonearm in couples therapy to help you workout this morass of living deeply in the embrace of connectiveness.

Hee-Hee, I am amused with your complex; this loss and diminution of identity that you are experiencing. Maybe dertonarm could channel directly through you confess of his misdeeds. I do feel that it is unfortunate that he has left all of this to you. Do you not think so?

Sorry, I missed you last month in Munich. It was a very productive trip, nice city, friendly and mostly honest people.

I do wonder what feeds your soul?

Fun Mostly,

Stitch.e
Raul, you jumped on Thuchan when he came over from the archie thread but yet allow Stich.e to continue both of your arguments here?

BTW, do you have a link that shows the differance of the real and fake orsonic.
Dear Ecir38: Not exactly. The real and deep subject on that closed thread started not because Thuchan and here was not because that copy-cat headshell. Please read what Thuchan posted here and was not because that headshell.

In the other side, no I don't have that link but the ones I owned were bought directly to Japan importer several several years ago and I'm sure were original.

Things with that headshell is that was very well sold it in Japan where hundred of japanese audiophiles " died for it " and because this fact many people in a wrong way ( as me in those times. ) decided to bought it with out think why those audiophile japaneses liked it.

Through the years I learned that several Japan audiophiles like different kind of distortions that we like, they like high distortions and the kind of " audio way of life/system " they own confirm that: Orsonic is only an example of a design that can't fulfil the cartridge needs, was designed with other targets.

Anyway, nothing for I can't sleep.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
In keeping with what Raul just wrote, I recall seeing apparently NOS Orsonic headshells on prominent display in high end Japanese audio stores, within the past 5 years. This makes me wonder whether Chinese-made copies are circulating in Japan, which seems improbable given their sensitivity to copycat competition from China.
Dear Lewm: +++++ " I share your reservations about the rigidity of the Orsonic, based only on its physical appearance, although I question whether you could "hear" the Orsonic bending under stress. I would say, "maybe". My interpretation would be that you heard "something" you did not like and that it was absent with the 4 or 5 other headshells you tried. Then you infer that the unpleasant coloration was due to flexibility of the....... " ++++++

and then Thuchan added:

+++++ " The advantage of the real Orsonic should have been a good compromise of the inevitable need to reduce weight without sacrificing stiffness nor the best possible energy transfer. Stiffness is very important.... " +++++

it is clear that all these are only speculations because only the designers knows for sure that headshell design targets that IMHO those targets can't fulfil the cartridge needs but maybe as with many designs today the designers does not know for sure which are those cartridge needs and IMHO this is the real subject.

Anyway, rigidity and stifness are two desired characteristics in some analog audio items as tonearm or headshells but as with other audio design subjects we audiophiles are not exactly sure what all that means in reality and its real importance.

I know rigidity is an important design factor on those analog audio items and I don't diminish in anyway but problem is how can we detected a " weak " on rigidity in a tonearm for example and I tell this because the people that designed the DaVinci tonearm have as an " excuse " for their design does not had the azymuth facility with the argument/excuse that that goes against one main goal in its tonearm design: rigidity and that they don't want to " sacrifice " nothing against a lose of rigidity that could compromise the tonearm quality performance level.
After 2-3 years and when they took in count that a tonearm is a " slave " of the cartridge and due to this fact the tonearm has to help to fulfil the cartridge needs today his top of the line tonearm has an azymuth adjustement that certainly goes against their early target of rigidity and not only this but things are that the today design according with people/reviewer?? is better performer than his full " rigidity " brother design.

Now, if you or any one else read what I posted on our propietary blend build material headshell that I use to made and make several tests with cartridges mounted in normal/stock tonearms with removable headshell design you could see that that rigidity is in severe trouble because my headshells are fasten/hold in place with no nothing other than the pressure ( plug-in. ) of the headshell bayonet that goes inside the hole of the tonearm wand!!!!!
The headshell could move more or less easy to both sides ( azymuth ) and front/rear ( overhang ) even with out touch it!!!!!

Well, even that absolute no rigidity here performs marvelous and shows the importance of the blend materials in headshell designs to fulfil cartridge needs and as I posted there: metal is " the enemy ", no metal build headshell can IMHO fulfil cartridge needs.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lewm: +++++ " I was agreeing with the premise that there may have been some attempt to create a false sense of exclusivity in order to justify what I imagine was a very high price for the preamp. This is done all the time in the "high end" business. Nothing new. " +++++

yes, that is the audio high end history and part important part of the audio products marketing oriented as primary goal..

When we designed our Essential 3160 Phonolinepreamp because we were no marketing oriented because we were no " oficial " audio manufacturers we don't proclaim it.

Today that the Essential 3160 is no more down there as manufacturers I can tell that today still has a radical design that no other designers even attempt or attepted to design and not because we are something especial but because our targets and very especial my audio targets are different.

A similar approach we took with our tonearm design which is a radical design and not only because its exclusive build material but because its operation, a radical one.

I don't like to participate in an audio item design only to achieve " more of the same ", I don't like to copy other people designs. As with the Essential 3160 the tonearm is a radical design, you will see when see it.

My amplifier ( on desk ) motivation for a design is a radical one, something that till today no one attempt to do it or at least never appeared as a commercial product and today I don't know if we can have sucess.

Some of you could remember that I posted that I have on desk a cartridge design well it is on desk till I or we can find out a " radical " way to improve the today cartridge status and not before.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Orsonic headshell :
The Orsonic AV101b I have is most definitely original, not Chinese.
The Orsonic AV-101b that I have is crap. It has a single bayonet that is too small and allows the headshell to rotate as you tighten it onto the arm, it doesn't butt up solidly to my Dynavector 501, that is, the joint with the arm is not rigid. Thirdly, if you try to adjust azimuth, when you tighten the clamp, the headshell rotates again. The azimuth screw behaves more like a worm gear than a clamp.
If anyone wants to pay big money for a genuine original piece of crap let me know and I'll list it.
This is the full post I posted on the other thread -
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1347802090&openflup&87&4#87
Stiche
Nandric
We have all agreed that handbags should be left at the front door. No more posts on "D" or "Bavarian mafia" - it's boring as all hell. If you still have issues you need to discuss, talk it over with your therapist.
If it will help maybe we can start a fund to replace the choo choo train you lost when you were a small boy.