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 Frogman, I am glad you like Dejohnnette. This recording is sort of minimalistic, solo poly rhythms with a little organ or Aborcrombie guitar on most tracks.

Maybe I was a little hard on the Acutex 412 for not being able to play one recording's cymbals. I have been listening since I got home from work and it has been very good. I have put it to other test and it has been OK. It is still weak in the highs but the mid range and bass are good. I am listening at 47k and whatever the capatance is of the wire, so maybe at 100k and loaded differently the highs could be corrected.

It will be interesting to me what happens to your 412 when playing the 1st track. My other cartridges handle this music easily. Even the Acutex 420.
Dover, I too own and like the big brother to your Dynavector DV501, the DV505. In fact, I also have a mint DV501 that was given to me by a dear friend who is chronically ill at this point. I will see how my Orsonic 101b mates to those two tonearms vs how it mates to my FR64S. Perhaps there is some non-universality to the matching of tonearms with headshells.

BTW, I weighed my Orsonic tonight; it tops out at 16.5 gm, including the wiring. Not such a lightweight.
Thanks Lewm, I've often wondered if my Orsonic is a dud one. I know you prefer Stevenson, but I've reinstalled the Dynavector to run the Nova17D and I made a jig to ensure the pivot to spindle was spot on. Using the Garrott Bros protractor, which uses Baerwald the cartridge alligned perfectly "almost" dead straight in the headshell. I rechecked the calc's for the arm in the Vinyl Engine tonearm database calculator and found that theoretical ideal was only 1degree out from Stevenson, which is where I ended up. Tracking, lateral image definition is very good, so I'm sure Baerwald is fine for Dynavectors. In my system Stevenson doesn't sound as good, and imaging is off. One thing I have come across is that the Dynavector arm, with it's high lateral mass, is very intolerant of any deviation, even tiny, in the horizontal/vertical bearings from level, ie the armboard is not congruent to the platter.
Dear Raul et al,

Can someone recommend a low gain (MM only) and hopefully low noise, vacuum tube phonostage. Low price, say under $1500, would be good as well.

Thanks,
John
Hi Dover, I somehow missed your appointment to the head of the forum church but recognised the language of excommunication, majestic plural, theological qualifications like 'vitriolic diatribe', a ban on mentioning some names ,etc. And than the other shoould consult their therapist?
Addendum, You should check the info about the Maginot line because you are building one around the MM thread. The French experience may be useful. Anyway watch out for the Germans.
Nandric,

Nice analogy. What do revisionist historians say about the Maginot line? Was it as boring as this thread has become?

John
Dear John, You can say 'I think this thread is boring' and than post some interesting contribution to improve the situation. 'Nice analogy'? Well I myself prefer the iron
horse versus the locomotive. BTW there seems to be also an Trojan horse inside of the (new)Maginot line.

Regards,
BTW there seems to be also an Trojan horse inside of the (new)Maginot line.
I thought I detected that also?
My Dear Nandric,

I do not think the situation will improve until these War Re-enactors take their silly costumes and fake weapons to another battlefield. "Si wis pacem para bellum".

John
Dear Henry, I know you were everywhere in Europe. Does the Trojan horse you 'detected' look like a Balkan or like an German horse? Or was you only interested in buildings among which also in the Maginot line?

Regards,
Dear Dover/Lewm: The Dyna DV-505 was for me for several years a " keeper ", I was looking for a second hand in good condition till I found out and found out too the add-on arm lift.

From the very first moment I mounted cartridge around the Stevenson set up that according to Dyna is not only the way the tonearm was designed but they think is the best set up for it.

Well I really never was totaly satisfied with Stevenson set up till I tested with Baerwald.

As my audio system improved its resolution and my training on set up ( that improved too. ) along it the Baerwald set up in my system is the " best " set up especially against Stevenson and not for a tiny margin I can say.

When Lewm, that I have in high praise, posted that he does not like it its 505 performance he decided to change to Stevenson and the light goes onn!.
This Lewm first hand experience disturb me a little and still disturb me because I can't understand why Stevenson works fine there and not with some of us.

I agree with you ( Dover ) that extremely high sensitivity to tiny deviations on the whole tonearm set up.

Anyway, even today that Dyna is a novel tonearm design, good.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Btw, we can think that the Dyna XV-1s could be extremely " happy " with the 505 but for my " surprise " too and even that the cartridge here sounds good ( is very dificult that the XV-1s can sounds bad. ) it is IMHO not the best match for it.
Dear John,' Si vis pacem parabellum' looks to me an wrong
choice to express your intention.
Dear Nandric,

Sorry, I thought you would appreciate the sarcasm in English juxtaposed with the ironic use of a hoary Latin obiter dictum.

John
Dover,
I do not "prefer" Stevenson. I found that when I mounted one cartridge (I forget which one) on the DV505 in Lofgren or Baerwald geometry, I had to twist the cartridge such that it did not align with the long axis of the headshell. Concomitant with that, it sounded lousy. It sounded better with Stevenson alignment, which of course permits the cartridge to be aligned perfectly with the long axis of the headshell. Rightly or wrongly I concluded that perhaps the distortion I heard with the Baerwald or Lofgren alignment was due to stress on the cantilever, when the vertical pivot arc is not aligned with the arc of the cantilever. There is a thread on this on Vinyl Engine. Geometry is just geometry, IMO. I don't think one sounds better than another except if you like your outer grooves to be reproduced with the lowest possible tracking angle error (Baerwald or Lofgren) vs your inner grooves (Stevenson).

One difference between the DV505 and the 501, IIRC, is that the former has a lateral mass balance weight, which is used to make certain that the horizontal bearing is neutral in space. ANY gimbal bearing tonearm will not work optimally if its horizontal movement is not plane parallel with the LP surface. With a unipivot, that would result in changing azimuth.
FYI, Raul's post reminded me that I have learned since that the DV505 may not have been designed exactly for Stevenson but merely for some Dynavector geometry that is nearest to the Stevenson paradigm. I subsequently acquired a protractor closer to the original Dynavector intent. Does it make a big difference? No. A small difference? Yes.

I wish I knew what the heck is actually being discussed in the "Maginot Line" metaphor. Since the German solution was to go around the fortifications via Belgium, I am concerned since one of my closest friends is a native of Liege.
Nandric, Henry,
when will they start the attack? Do we have a chance to prepare ourselves? Maybe John has a plan. I am lost...
Regards, Dover. Off now from an ADC mag. headshell and on an Orto. LH-8000 wooden version, an EPC-U25 (half-inch mount) cart is causing me frustration. I hope you can give a fresh perspective.

Tried with two styli previously, one reputedly "OEM". The cart is of four laminated coils, 500 ohm output inductance, 2.5mv output. All the major ingredients for excellent performance are in place. With the two previous styli, macro dynamics were poor, bass muddled and hfs lacked extension. This leaves midrange for consideration. Confused & lacking articulation, it wasn't all that either.

Improved on the Orto. headshell and now with a Jico SAS at twenty hours, hfs are edgy and while bass has gained substance and transient slam, upper mids are heard with an unnatural glare. Jico boron cantilevers have been measured to resonate at 12k Hz; good for air, not so for glare.

Determined to prove my intuition concerning the cart, and considering your years of experience, could you offer an opinion? To rule out one option, tempted, but no, I won't throw it away. :)

Peace,
Timeltel, I am no guru. My main experience is MC/Arms/Decks having been an importer and retailer around the advent of CD. Typically in this era we would have Sota/Linn/Roksan/Pink Triangle/Well Tempered /Townsend /Oracle in the shop at the same time along with a myriad of arms - ET2/SME V/Zeta/Alphason/Syrinx/Sumiko to name a few. TT/arm matching is as big a mystery as arm/cartridge combo's - there is no substitute for suck it and see.
I note that your cartridge is low mass 6gm and low compliance 10cm/dyne, have you tried a more massive headshell or added weight to one of your headshells.
One product I have used but which is unfortunately no longer available was the old mod squad tiptoes for cartridges, this could sometimes cleanup resonances.
There is a seller on ebay selling carbon fiber spacers which could well be worth trying, I used carbon fiber in my modded ET2 headshell to good effect, it tends to dissipate energy as heat.
I do not ascribe to the spongy pudding school of energy dissipation such as the cartridge man's cartridge spacer, in my mind soft compounds tend to store energy and release it out of time with the music, thus smearing the sound.
Personally I wouldn't use either a magnesium or wooden headshell, my preconceived view would be - one light and wispy and lacking substance, the other an unpredictable tone control. I could understand the magnesium being used with a light and very compliant cartridge.
Timeltel,

My previous offer to you still stands on the carbon fiber spacer. Yours for the asking. It appears Dover likes them also!
Regards,
Don
With regard to the Arché SRA headshell - from the pictures there appears to be a couple of weaknesses - it only has a single bayonet ( undersized too, I'm very particular on size ) and there appears to be a gap between the body of the headshell and tonearm in which resides the ubiquitous rubber washer. Can one of the owners confirm if this is correct. I'd be curious to know if some sort of floppy suspension is part of the design brief.
By the way did Peggy Lee get the fever, she seems to have disappeared ?
Dear Professor (Timeltel),
I have to admire your persistence?
I can't remember more than one cartridge I have ever persisted with......which, having initially sounded poorly.......transformed itself into a spectacular swan?
On the contrary.........most of my valued cartridges sounded wonderful from the getgo?
Just mounted a NOS Shure ML140HE yesterday (thanks to a valued contributor here).......and can hardly contain my enthusiasm?!
This specimen may be too good to be true?
I need more time to collect myself?
Regards, Dover: In the late 70s Grado dealers would include (for the asking) a pentagonal aluminum plate with three dimples, both tiptoes and isolation for one's cart. Purists scoffed, others said "well, it does something, use it if you like it". Haven't looked up the specific compliance of the Jico SAS, there is a universal recommendation from the maker to run it at 1.4gm VTF.

This is the difficulty with AM styli, with the better offerings "caveat emptor" is perhaps too stern, "close, possibly excellent but different" is the best one can hope for.

Interesting, your comments on headshells. The ADC magnesium models are light enough to permit accurate tracking with high compliance carts (arm dependent, of course), EXTREMELY rigid, but prone to ringing. Removing the washer at the union with the collet helps to evacuate resonances, an isolation "device" is helpful in reduction of ringing, especially apparent with a plastic mounted cart. Curiously, a thin sheet of malleable metal is effective in this capacity, the dissimilar materials curb boundary resonant energies while still providing an effective path for draining these energies through the tonearm.

And those made of wood-. Different densities, specific gravities, as I have read you've not only been a dealer in audio but also extensively in the implant industry as well as recently in timber, I'm sure theres little about the qualities of either material, metal or organic, that you're unaware of.

Energy is, however, transmitted through radiation (acoustic), reflection (boundary resonance), convection or conduction (transmission through a material). Insulation and isolation are closely related concerns, the most effective natural insulation is, perhaps surprisingly, trapped air.

Follow, please, comment as you wish. An old, tried and proven technique for reducing port "boof" in speakers is the introduction of drinking straws. The degree of damping is determined by the number used. Because they are hollow, internal volume of the speaker is largely undisturbed.

Now, wood. Wood is comprised of three structural identities. Growth rings, longitudinal cells and transverse rays. Growth rings contribute to rigidity along the length, transverse raying unifies the longitudinal straw-like cell structures, which in heart wood are vacant of anything other than air. This is especially evident in the end-grain of species such as oak, hickory, ash or pecan. These fall into the group of ring-porous woods.

So here one may observe attention to insulation, isolation, density and specific gravity. Wood is a traditional material in the construction of plinths and, certain carts such as Nikolas' Virtuoso, and speaker cabs, it's use as an isolation platform is not unheard of. Bamboo, actually a grass, in a laminated form is becoming more frequently utilized in this capacity. Other than cost & strength-to-weight, there must be good reason.

Self resonance is variable with density. Boundary resonance is internally damped and as it is a material differing from most cart mounts, also serves to reduce the resonant interaction at that junction. Conduction is, it should be remembered, not always a good thing. Tonearms are subject to this too and as Raul recently mentioned can provide a path for mechanical or acoustic energies being transmitted back to the cart.

Please continue your lack of conviction that wood is appropriate for this usage, those who have actually explored their qualities promise tolerance. A precautionary "note" though---the typical matching requirements being met, those who anticipate bass bloom or "organic" mids may be surprised.

Anyway, the EPC-U25 continues to be an enigma. Haven't tried it on a graphite/plastic headshell yet. Current arm is a upper-mid mass carbon graphite pipe on a Pio. PL-70L-11. The Sumico/Jelco/Zupreme is a good model, two pins for lateral stability but at 12gm begins to boost eff. mass into a high mass area. As is, the cart sounds better at 47k ohms than 100k, just a little recessed in the hfs at 0 ohm. Running a 100pf shunt sounds about right.

So it's been a running battle with the thing for six months now. As a micro-line stylus has never been a first choice, and as boron is both lighter and more rigid, but also more resonant than beryllium I'll consider the stylus first. Perhaps a HE nude on aluminum?

Thanks for your response, it offered several points for consideration. And Don, for your generous offer.

A'gon contributors are typically informative and considerate, those who post here among the finest.

Perhaps the Arche/Orsonic debate is significant enough to deserve it's own thread (again)?

Peace,
Regards, Halcro: Apologies for the prior & somewhat windy post, submitted & caught yr comment.

I've a ML140 HE. Rarely mount it up as my other carts are resentful of it. It and a spare NOS stylus can be found in a cushioned air-tight container, next to my pristine TK7LCa stylus.

And Henry, please do save a few of those ?s for the rest of us(?) ;)

Peace,
I find myself in agreement with the Professor's 'treatise' on materials and their specific characteristics.
I also am firmly in the 'wood' headshell camp.....having never met a 'woodie' I didn't like?
Dover.....do you speak from personal experience with wood headshells? And if so.....which ones in particular did you find act as 'tone controls'?
My favourite 'woodie' has been the Yamamoto HS-1AS until recently when the Professor's favourite Ortofon LH8000 arrived unexpectedly at my doorstep?
Damn if this thing is even better than the Yammie?!.......because it's not nearly as beautiful as the HS-1AS which has a fine satiny black ebony sheen upon which is screen-printed its nomenclature in gold.
The LH8000 is covered in a cheap looking full-gloss sealant (obviously to prevent moisture absorption and consequent movement in the wood) making its appearance at the end of the FR-66S a slight disappointment.
But I bow to its supremacy!
And Professor.......I left quite a few ?????? out of this posting.....just for you :~}
And Henry--I left out a "gloat" in my previous address, it was I assure you wholly unintentional.

You will at some time treat us to one of your wonderfully entertaining reviews of the Shure? I'm looking forward to it with relish. Oh, yes!

Good listening, enjoy the ML140 HE. It's a treat.

Peace,
Timeltel, Interesting discussion on the wood properties. Some of the tonearm manufacturers should be articulating this. I can see some of the advantages you point out. I generally follow the Goldmund mechanical grounding concepts, getting unwanted energy to ground as complete and as fast as possible, minimising reflected energy back towards the cartridge/vinyl interface. I would prioritise maximum speed and articulation over frequency response, hence aversion to dampening, which general smears the sound. Our ear brain can compensate for frequency aberrations but cant replace lost information. In theory the material used in the headshell should be quicker in propagation than the plastic used in the cartridge, but slower than the armtube as energy wicks from slow to fast. The larger the disparity in propogation speed of the two materials then there is more reflected energy. Ideally you would have an infinite number of materials with increasing propogation speed between cartridge and ground such that reflected energy is minimised. I guess if you have a cartridge that is very resonant, there may be a tradeoff compromise between damping the cartridge body and introducing more reflected energy from the boundary of the cartridge/headshell and the headshell/arm versus providing no dampening but wicking away the energy.
How about a radical suggestion. Looking at your cartridge there is a large proportion of mass forward of the mounting points that is unsupported. Can you get a headshell long enough to drill and tap a hole in the end forward of the 1/2" mounting holes, angled back toward the cartridge, and insert a tuning screw between the front of the headshell and the top of the unsupported front of cartridge. This would stiffen up the mounting and provide variable dampening to the body.
Regards, Dover: Damping or dumping, this is an instance where it is easy to agree with both theories but not nearly as much fun as arguing the point ad infinitum. It might be best to consider it on a case-by-case basis. Plastic mounts are not my first choice, sometimes we have to take what we're given and do what we can.

The EPC-U25 has real potential. It can be heard with the SAS but then there's that annoying 12k bump. If you've noticed the same exists at the 8k range with carts having more than (+-) 1200 ohm output inductance, at 22-2300 ohm every defect of your, no, my vinyl is magnified. A four coil generator with laminated plates to reduce eddy currents, the next higher evolution would be toroidal, the "air core" equivalent in MMs. Call it tweaking or tuning, coloration or whatever, the ability to finesse the character of these carts is, for me, much of the allure of MMs. They can be surprisingly rewarding. Aggravating too.

Your thoughts concerning an adjustable damping headshell are interesting. You might consider a development and design program, the Dover Dampster. You might anticipate some degree of controversy though.

Lew's audiophile grade rubber bands are still another option, I understand there are cheap copies everywhere---

Thanks for your continued interest.

Peace,
Dear Lew, Don't worry . As soon as the Germans start the blitzkrieg I will take care for your friends in Liege. I live 'nex door' so to speak. To help you to understand the
metaphor of the Maginot line: It is actually about the sense of the military expenditure. Not for the military of course which the Maginot line illustrate but for the so called 'taxpayer'. There is also some allusion about such a 'line' around some, say MM, thread but this one is only 'accidental'. At my age I become more and more sceptical about the human kind and think more in particular that the 'concept' of gratitude is totally lost. I just donated an beatiful iron horse to the forum members and what deed I got in return?
Excommunication threat from his holiness the just appointed forum church leader + the advice to consult an shrink. At my age, dear Lew, even Freud would be of no help whatever.

Regards,
Thucan - thanks for the update. My only suggestion would be if the washer is rubber, to provide a metal spacer/washer alternative to fix the end of the arm tube to the rear face of the headshell, such that if a tonearm has slightly oversized tube you can still achieve a rigid coupling when tightened up.
Dear Thuchan, I am puzzled with your question 'when will they start to attack'? Even more so because Henry is also ivolved. But he was very hazy about the Aussie's(war) contribution not to mention his habit to use question marks everywhere. I don't like to risk my life under such indistinct conditions. I thought that the job for the warriors inside the horse was to open the gate and this is totally different proposition than 'start to attack'.
In casu I thought about the (symbolic) gaps in the 'Maginot line' around the MM thread. But you already succeed to smugle the Arche (hors or locomotive) inside the 'Maginot line' making all the people who think that French are arrogant bs. happy because of their misfortune with the building. BTW I got 'the locomotive' which is a different animal than the iron horse. But I need to study this locomotive in extenso first because I am scared to
damage the 'thing' which would mean the full price without any discount because I never bought the Tractor. So you can imagine my present situation in which my life is threatened from many sides.

Regards,
Dear Nandric,
it is never to late dealing with concepts built upon the Freudian start up. I need to confess I am not a friend of his theories but he deserves a historical monument. I doubt that we will see a Blitzkrieg in Europe in the next 200 years. The Germans especially concentrate much more on economy, their army is well integrated and the young generation loves spending the money of their fathers as we do spend small money on MM. We are facing the luxury of exchanging ideas internationally and having the time discussing special issues no one would have invested such efforts of creativity as we do.
Yes the problem will remain that even regarding absolutely unimportant issues - like a headshell design -, seen from a broader perspective, some of our friends behave like being members of the Gallic Village in Asterix & Obelix. The only difference is when the struggle is over the Gallic Guys sit together and celebrate. Might be a way to go...
Dover, FYI. Last night I tried to fit my Orsonic AV101b to both the DV505 and the DV501. You will be happy to know that I get the same result as you; the Orsonic and the Dynavectors are not at all compatible. The retaining collar on the end of the DV vertical arm will not get a grip on the pin of the Orsonic.

However, I then mounted the Orsonic on the FR64S, so as to mimic the combination once favored by DT. The fit is perfect and very firm.

What we have here then is a unique case of incompatibility between Orsonic AV101b and Dynavector tonearms, not an indictment of the Orsonic per se. (This is not to say that the Orsonic is necessarily a great headshell.) By the same token, the Dynavectors work fine with AT and Denon headshells. Go figure.

If I interpret his English correctly, Raul has been telling us that no metal headshell is up to his current standard. I also think he wrote that wood headshells are suboptimal as a class. We know he does not like ceramic. So what headshell material could he possibly have discovered to be the best? Quien sabe? Perhaps a composite of some kind. Perhaps carbon fiber.
Dear Lewm: Blended materials. Top today tonearms comes with blend materials where wood is an important one.

When I talked about wood I was not tested all kind of wood. Now, when I say that something does not fill my expectations that does not means is a bad item not it is not. I posted that the Acutex 420 is an inferior performer against the 320s but that I can live with.

What I know about headshell build materials is that row metal ( almost any ) is an " enemy " of the cartridge. In my experiences ( hundreds of test materials. ) the worst were the all metal ones and worst by a wide margin.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Nandric,
yes, it is a hard life we are facing. Just imagine next is a new tonearm on the market...

Dear Lewm,
did we already discuss bamboo as headshell material...in Mexico they have a lot of gold I was told.
Dear Timeltel: That Technics was an entry level in its time and even that the Technics name means a lot the real Technics on MM good performers are in its top cartridge models.

In the LOMC " land " Technics was not succesful as with the MM. So IMHO we can think that in this case the name Technics can do all or your sample is not on specs.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lew, In Europe we used Orsonic for the FR tonearms.
One reason was to reduce the eff. mass the other to avoid
the original FR headshell. You already mentioned the influence
of psychology by the new toys.

Regards,
It came along the 23 around 1981. Before these the 270C in 1975.

Returning to the LOMC models the 300MC appeared in 1977 and the performance level with the 305MC ( 1981 ) is really high in between and both were top of the line in its time, I owned the 300 and own the 305MK2.

One additional experiences that I had with Technics were with the top 205C ( next down step to the 100C. ). We can think reading its specs that this cartridge could performs very near to the 100C due that those specs are almost the same.
Well I owned that 205C in MK3 version and never been satisfied with till I was lucky enough to found out the MK4 stylus replacement but even here this was not the 100C but almost there. Btw, the 100C appeared on 1982 and the 205 on 1984.

Try to find out this 205MK4. Yes, I now that maybe you are thinking: hey this Technics 25 entry level could be the " losted Technics link " but it is not easy that this can happen as happened with other cartridges where the entry/middle of the line models performs top top top.

Any way, keep trying.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Regards, Raul: Thanks for the cart info. The U25 came on an NOS Astatic headshell, the much (and correctly) maligned waffle type. It was so inexpensive I thought it a good opportunity to investigate the qualities of each. An AT13Ea with a NOS clear diamond 0.2 x 0.7 nude on tapered aluminum is now strapped to the Astatic headshell, not up to "review" status but it is an entertaining cart with convincing bass and mids easier on the ear than expected from the sharp elliptical. The hfs are nicely extended but with a slight "tizzy" quality that can probably be laid on the doorstep of the AT headshell. An AT-MG10 headshell is in the drawer, I really should move the 13Ea to it and give it a more serious listen. The MG10 headshell is, btw, 4mm thick and seems to substantiate the reported resonance handling abilities of constructions of that dimension.

Correct, the U25 is in the EPC-250 family, as is the EPC-P23. With the available OEM boron cantilever and fine elliptical, the P23 was, in it's day, favorably commented on. The cart continues to stubbornly resist.

"Men all know the disposition by which we attain victory, but no one knows the configuration through which we control the victory. Thus a victorious battle is not repeated, the configurations of response are inexhaustible. One who is able to change and transform in accord with the enemy and wrest victory is termed spiritual". Sun-tzu.

Peace,
Hi Dover , agree. I made it a custom not using any washers. But this is up to everyone's experience. I compared my Orsonic (I now believe everyone has one) with the new Arche headshell. If you have the Arche in hand and work with it you feel it has a different quality. But I never forget my first impression when I changed the SRA on the Arche using the middle screw. This was really a new experience for me.
End justifies the means?

Dear Timetel,
there are some simpleton minds among us, who desire to keep their integrity more than to boasts a victory. Ιn most cases, the above mentioned "spiritual" warlord, is just a misguided homunculus with a rotten gumption. Does the guile conformist has the higher value over the pure chastity? Do we have to yield to a wicked mind, just because we may win? Is there a victory that worths the cost of a wasted soul?
About what battle Sun-tzu is referred to?
Ahh, thuchan, "the middle screw," yikes. Well, it is appropriate when thinking of this archie. I see that you are still pimping this Orsonic knockoff with the impending, breakable, appendage; yes, "the middle screw," I like that one very much.

Okay, these types, it seems, are now synonymous pairings:

"the middle screw" and "archie"

"thuchan" and "dertonarm + axinia schaefer + Kasugi"

With these pairings just be careful, very careful.

Fun Mostly,

Stitch.e
Timeltel, few more suggestions
Loading resistor, using nude ( or nacked as some might say ) vishay's generally will lower the noise floor and remove gunge. Also an old trick we use to do with Decca London cartridges, which liked to be loaded at 22k was to mount the loading resistors onto the cartridge pins. This does give a different result than loading at the phono stage. I haven't tried tantalums as loading resistors.
Have you thought about phono cable LCR optimisation in terms of inductance ?
Magnesium headshell, try a combak harmonix tuning dot on top of the headshell, these can be very effective at cleaning up resonances.
If you want to push the envelope read up on Peter Belt, another form of tuning dot. These are very subtle compared to the combak.
Lewm - thanks for that confirmation, fortunately I haven't binned the Orsonic, although I came close.
Regards, Geoch: Sun-tzu, from the Chinese "Waring States" period, 2nd cent. BC, possibly offering a little audio advice? Remember my post concerned a cart?

1: Know the requirements for success
2: The required configuration may not exist.
3: What works once may not work in other circumstances.
4: Be flexible.

Still taught in military academies and required reading in many corporate boardrooms, one may play a game of substitution and insert "adversary", "mother in law" or "that pesky squirrel".

Or, would one rather have it that at the first sign of opposition one tucks the tail & insists resistance is not virtuous?

Try another reading: "know the disposition by which we attain victory, but no one knows the configuration through which we control the victory. Thus a victorious battle is not repeated, the configurations of response are inexhaustible. One who is able to change and transform in accord with the enemy and wrest victory is termed spiritual"

One of my favorites from our warrior-philosopher is "Wait beside the river long enough and the body of your enemy will float by".

Best not interpreted as a literal prescription?

Peace,
Reassuring YES. Thank you!
I'm not Mahatma Gandhi's fun but ...
Once that you accept the restrictions of your purchase, you have to proceed by abandon the efforts and go for a better product. I know first hand after 16 years of tyranny caused by my unconditional surrender on my fabulus Symphonic Line RG6. After the 9th degree of modifications, you most probably discover a different product in which it's cleverness and simplicity exceeds the hell out of yours.
There is allways the danger that if you stay long enough watching the enemy, ... you may start to accustom and even like it's habits,...and change your own habits,...spending your life trying to comprehend this uknown quality,...changing your whole world in order to suit it's temperamental behaviour.
Peace
I know defeating the enemy by using your ingenuity is more fun, but...

Sometimes you just need to put the enemy in a drawer.;)