Dear Henry, I fully agree with you that low-efficiency, multi-driver speakers with complex crossovers just about never get it right. But I would have thought that the Magico big speakers were in that group. I heard the Q5 at the RMAF two years ago. With multi-megabuck source and amplification components to back it up, it sounded "only" very good. Hard to fault but not life-like by any means. Of course the room was full of people who were ooh-ing and ah-ing the speaker. Likewise I got a good taste of the Vandersteen 7 at that show. It too was highly regarded, but to me there was a marked discontinuity between its self-amplified woofer and its upper register. I liked it less than the Q5, even though I am in general a fan of the lesser Vandersteen speakers, on a cost/performance basis. |
Hi Lew, Yes.....you're right about the Magicos seemingly being in the same 'camp' I appear to be disparaging?......yet its efficiency is quite high, its impedance curve is not difficult, its crossover is first order (I believe).....and it isn't ported. But I mention it only as an example proving the exception to the 'rule'? |
Hi Timeltel/Lewm, re the "ginormous distortions of higher output MM's". Was a response to the previous comment by Halcro who seems to think that LOMC's are inherently inferior to MM's. I dont have a preference myself, hence the reason I follow this thread. My own view is that all cartridges have distortions and tradeoffs in design. Whether you swipe a magnet across a coil, or a coil across a magnet, there are going to be non linearities, resonances and phase anomalies inherent in the movement. Many folk here talk about tip resonances, resonant peak, tracking etc, but how many here would have a truly phase coherent system including amplification/cables/speakers that are capable of really telling us what their front end is doing. Now in terms of output I have compared the same model of Benz MC's with 3 different outputs - 0.3, 0.8 & 1.1. I have always run full valve MC phono stages with no fets/transformers in the path. The only exceptions to this were a Burmester phono, Klyne System 7 & and a few others. Even with a 60db total gain which many would consider marginal for MC's the loss of speed and coherence with the increased output was clearly audible on a wide range of speakers from Martin logan CLS ( modded ) to Proac Tablettes ( modded ) and Tannoy 15" Monitor Golds ( modded ). Similar results were gleaned from listening to 2 Grado's with medium and low output. Would I generalise that I prefer low to high output - yes provided the phono stage is decent and capable. As Lewm suggests, if the phono stage is not optimal, then a higher output cartridge may be better suited. Now what about compliance ? Well if we think about speed and coherence, the two standout designs I have heard extensively are the Decca moving iron and the Ikeda MC both of which dont have cantilevers slewing around. So that begs the question on high compliance - is a cantilever more prone to slewing around going to increase the probability of phase anomalies. It would seem to me to be more logical that a low compliance cartridge, provided that it is mounted in a tonearm capable of ensuring decent tracking, has going to have more controlled or less phase and timing issues from non linear movement between coils/magnets/magnetic fields. Note this independent of whether it is MC or MM or MI. One of the gists of this thread seems to be that after sifting through hundreds of moving magnet cartidges we have found about 10, that with 30 year old rubber suspensions, with a new cantilever material and stylus shape chosen by god or by guess, without regard to the original design paramaters of coil layout etc, that these 10 examples prove that MM's are inherently superior to all LOMC's. This is simply not the case. So I like to be provocative from time to time. |
Dover,
"One of the gists of this thread seems to be that after sifting through hundreds of moving magnet cartidges we have found about 10, that with 30 year old rubber suspensions, with a new cantilever material and stylus shape chosen by god or by guess, without regard to the original design paramaters of coil layout etc, that these 10 examples prove that MM's are inherently superior to all LOMC's.
This is simply not the case. So I like to be provocative from time to time."
Although my personal musical pursuits have taken me in a new direction, I do not think you are being at all 'provocative'. Only a fool, IME, generalizes to the point of generic dismissal - particularly when we are talking about something as idiosyncratic and complex as hifi cartridges. What many seem to have found is that a selection of relatively cheap MM/MI/MF cartridges can perform as well as and even better than 'any' (often very expensive) MC alternative.
No drama
As always... |
Taste, environment and set up not withstanding.
As always... |
Dgob, thanks for feedback. I have shortlisted the best MM's on the thread for trial. I have had Garrott P77, Andante P76, various Stanton's, Grace F9E Ruby, Shure V15V's, Clearaudio Virtuoso and none of these approach my Ikeda, Dynavector Nova 13 or Koetsu Black, not even remotely in the same league. The likely candidates - Glanz , Acutex 320/420, Technics EPC100, Signet TK7 - are either unobtainable, and/or unable to be restored to new. I suspect if the Technics EPC100 were produced today it would be a $2000 cartridge at the very least. So we are not comparing apples with apples. The question of how cheap are these cartridges really are when $200-300 ( or $600 for the Technics ) buys you a knackered used cartridge that may or may not be usable or repairable, it's like throwing US$300 into a lucky dip, how many times do you have to try before you get lucky. And then of course if you put a value on your time then they may well be $2000-5000 cartridges anyway. My 25 year old Dynavector Nova 13 has been rebuilt completely from the ground up, new generator, diamond cantilever etc, by Dynavector, recently for less than the price of a Clearaudio Virtuoso. |
Dear Dover, Your Dyna 13 rebuild by Dynavector looks to be a very interesting proposition. Can you be more specific about the details. I just got my Karat 17 D2 back from Axel. He somehow managed to solve the problem with the (very) short cantilever. He gets from his supplier the standard cantilever/stylus combos .I got his 'celebrated' line contact stylus pressure fitted in a aluminum cantilever. Raul recommended this cart and I am impressed with the result. But I am also curious about the diamond cantilever and the rest. Does one need some dealer as intermediary or can one deal direct with Dynavector?
Regards, |
Dear Halcro/Lewm/all: I think that today we are aware that in our home systems we can't mimic that visceral/dynamics of the live music. Now, the loudspeakers in its best " encarnation/perfect " what can do is to mimic the audio system signal with out degradation and taking in count that we have to a theoretical " perfect room ".
IMHO the efficiency, impedance or other factors you named as a design targets are a desire only but not necessary a designer targets. I think that a loudspeaker designer must be free on what surround the speakers but the room. The " problem " of low efficiency or electrical impedance/phase curve and other is not his " trouble " that must be solved by the amplifier designers not the loudspeaker designer.
In the other side IMHO the most critical factors to achieve top top/first rate loudspeaker quality performance reside in the low mid-bass/low bass frequency range: how it handle how it performs there. IMHO that range frequency is the real loudspeaker design challenge where unfortunately does not exist ( till today ) the " perfect speakers that fulfil it Is in this frequency range where IMHO the " magic " comes or not.
If the speaker is a moving coil type or electrostatic or an hybrid design is in general not important or if it is multidriver design. I heard " thousands " of systems with different loudspeaker types and almost all ( decent speakers. ) performs very good from that frequency range an up but the wide diffrences on performances came from that low mid-bass/low bass, is through my experiences in this range where " home system music lives ". and if we take in count this then ( from my experiences too. ) the " best " bass design is the sealed/acoustic suspension one against ported and other bass type of designs. As in any audio system link accuracy and low distortions is a must to have and in that bass frequency range sealed are more accurate with lower distortions. Could have we the same kind of performance through a ported one design? could be but I never had the opportunity to hear it yet.
Halcro as a trasducer and like a phono cartridge the loudspeaker " mission " is way critical but I don't think that today is weakest system link, I think that in the last years that market segment was and still is growing up with improvements over the past. What maybe I could agree is that the loudspeaker challenge is the higher one: especially to " golden ear " audiophiles.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Henry, I thought that there is consensus about the 'fact' that the speakers are the weakest link in our systems. Anyway I agree with your stand. Speaking about speakers those that I consider to be exceptional and capable to delivere the needed dynamics are ( in chronological order) the so called 'line source': Apogee's(Scintilla), the big one's by Nudell's Infinity and the(newer kind) Dali Megaline. Albert owned the Megaline so he can say more about them. What I can say is that those Megaline can be get in Germany for a very reasonable price (+/- 10.000 Euro). No conventional speakers can come close to. Regards,
|
But Nicola, two you have named above, the Apogee and the Infinity monsters, are horribly inefficient. The Apogee Scintilla, in particular, is a well known 2-ohm amplifier killer. They both do make a "big" sound, because they are physically big with a large radiating area from floor to near ceiling. And the Infinity, which comes down to us in a present day equivalent as the Nola Grand Reference, needs a whole column of woofers to produce what must be prodigious bass response. I am very curious about the Megalines, but I have heard the other two many many times, and all I got from them was their big soundfield that was not so transparent, not so "real", fun but just big.
Dover, Like the others who commented, I disagree with your summation of the nearly 9000 posts that make up this thread. I will be the first one to step up and admit it if I find a LOMC that blows off the best of the MM and MI cartridges I own. I have already investigated Koetsu, Ortofon, and van den Hul LOMCs, and none of those does the trick. I am trying to decide what comes next. Thinking ZYX, Miyajima, etc. Got any ideas? What do you like currently? |
Dear Raul, Whilst I agree that the bottom octaves are important in achieving a realistic presentation.....like you I have also heard 'hundreds' (not thousands) of speakers....but I disagree that almost all ( decent speakers. ) performs very good from that frequency range an up I find that almost all speakers sound like........speakers? Almost none disappears......and in doing so.... presents an illusion of three dimensional instruments/voices? Almost none creates a transparency and an 'air' around, between and behind the images? Almost none appears to be effortless in its presentation? Whilst the lower octaves are great to have.....they can never make up for the deficiencies in the mid to upper regions. One of the most memorable speakers I heard with this ability.....were the original Martin Logan CLS electrostatic panels driven with valve electronics. They had little bass.....yet managed to disappear and present a spooky facsimile of 'the real thing' which enticed one to actually walk around? |
Dear Nicola, My experiences with Apogee were not as positive as yours? My friend had the Apogee Divas which he drove using the big Naim NAP250 amps left over from his tri-amped Linn Isobaric period. To me, the Divas sounded too much like......metal? Which to me, is not surprising since that was the resonating medium? |
Lewm, I am struggling with cartridges at the moment. I had a hiatus from audio for a few years, during which I ran a heavily modified ET2/Shure V15Vmr which was perfectly adequate. Then I got sick of the air pumps and after some contemplation I bought a Naim Aro in preference to the Graham of the day. The Shure did not like this, so I then I got the Dynavector Nova rebuilt and this combo worked very well until I knocked the arm and broke the cantilever. Then mounted a NOS Denon 103D onto the Aro and this was fantastic - fast, lucid, excellent soundstage - the owner of the Technics SP:10mkiii/ET/Shelter 901 that designed yours and Alberts mods used the word amazing when he heard this. My system has evolved considerably since then with MIT Oracle cabling and updated crossovers for the Tannoys - Teflon boards, Duelunds etc. Then I wanted to up the ante, so I bought the Ikeda Kiwame, as I had previously owned the Ikeda before, and considered it to be the best cartridge I had ever heard other than a Garrot modded Decca London. Unfortunately the very low gain and requirement of a heavy arm put me off. Tried various step ups, both passive and active, bought the Klyne ( which was less transparent than any of the tube pres I had, and got a bit frustrated. Went back to the Shure V15 mounted in my Dynavector 501 so I could forget about everything and just listen to music. I considered the Denon 103D even though it was excellent to be of concern in terms of suspension given its age. Then I bought a new Koetsu Black as a stopgap measure. Mounted in the Dynavector 501 it was just ok at best. Remounted in the Aro and the Koetsu Black opened up - more transparent, more space, air, soundstage and speed. So this was my daily runner until a few weeks ago when the rebuilt Dynavector came back. Mounted the Dynavector in the Dynavector 501 arm and was surprised at the speed and articulation, much better than the Koetsu/Aro combination. So this is what I am currently listening to. I suspect that if I mount the Dynavector back into the Aro the system will lift again, but cant be bothered at the moment. Looking at your system I like the combo of tube pre/OTL's/stats. I cant understand why you cant get a good sound out of the Koetsu Urushi. The wood and stone Koetsu's I have heard can be a bit "slow" perhaps, which is why I bought the Black - I had previously run a Black with a Zeta arm which had speed and impact. I think so much of the cartridge sound is arm/phono dependent - hence the variations in results. I never cottoned to the van den huls and the Benz's although they are quite good. With both these brands models sound quite different - there doesn't seem to be a family sound. I do wonder if the MC's of today have really progressed. Some such as Benz where the original proprietors have left may have declined. The Sumiko's from the Bluepoint onward were a disaster to my ears, they were substantially worse than the preceding Sumiko Talisman range and yet I have huge respect for David Fletcher - so I dont know what's going on. At the pointy end of the market - I have recently heard the Zyx Omega which sounded pretty good - transparent, detailed, no grain - mounted in a Raven tonearm. The Zyx Airy by comparison just sounded ok, but according to the importer, who is a personal friend, the Airy varies quite a lot depending on arm and additional cartridge mass applied to the headshell. When Peter Ledermann visited here recently I had a good listen to the Voice and the new Strain Guage cartridge. I was impressed with the lack of grain these cartridges had - thought they were pretty good. Coming back to your system, personally even though I am running the Dynavector arm I dont think it is a world beater. As discussed above, with some cartridges the Naim Aro bests it by a long way. We have quite a few L07D's down here and noone uses the arm on them. Most of the Kenwood arms I have seen either have seized bearings or loose bearings. The Triplanar to me looks the best option for a MC but given its light to medium mass of 11gm in my mind you would be best with lighter medium compliance MC's. Another friend of mine imports the Miyajima's but I haven't heard one yet. My gut feel is it needs a heavy arm. Have you considered upgrading the arm on the L07D ? Perhaps something more suited to your MC's. I would have thought even something like an SME V would get much more out of your MC cartridges than the Kenwood or Dynavector arms. As an adjunct the Zyx Omega was a new replacement for one that had a diamond mounted on a particlularly oblique angle unknown to any arm designer. Would I buy a MM - yep if I can find one with the speed & transparency of the Dynavector at least. Thats why I keep reading these posts. Would love to try a Glanz, Technics EPC100 or Acutex at some stage if I can find a decent one. Coming back to what I own - the Ikeda still remains the best but I do not use it. The new Ikeda with a cantilever may be worth investigating, I would probably take punt on it if I didn't have the cantileverless model, and an appropriate arm - read heavy. |
Nandric, I probably shouldn't have mentioned the rebuild as it was done as a special favour. I know that they have refused others, so I am quite fortunate. I can confirm that it was completed by Dynavector Japan. I dont know if mods were made to the generator system from the original design, but the cartridge seems better than ever. The current model 17D3 is the closest they have today. What cantilever material did you use ? |
Dear Dover, This was my fearful assumption: to good to be true. That was 'the' why of my question. But I am happy for you. I have some idea about the so called 'retip' services. To retip a stylus in the existing cantilever seems to be much more difficult then to replace the 'whole thing'. So those retip firms get from their supplier cantilevers with styli already fitted. I assume that those 'combos' have a particular lenght and the connected angle for the stylus. Considering the very unusual (short) cantilever by Dyna Karat I am glad that Axel somehow fixed this problem. My quess is that he used aluminum because the 'exotic kind' can't be bend (for the stylus angle). I never asked Axel if his 'aluminum cantilevers' are actually some 'alloy' kind. But I was already impressed with his upgrade on my Virtuoso black which was line contact pressure fitted in a aluminum cantilever. BTW my second Virtuoso got the boron cantilever with nude elliptical. This upgrade however become very expensive recently because of the (huge) incrise in Japanese prices. Ergo: those Dyna's look very attractive but the problem is obvious.
Dear Lew and Henry, To call my babys 'metalic' or even worst 'monsters' is not something that I can possible connect with the expressinon 'politeness'.
Regards, |
Lew, If you really want to hear the very best of what LOMCs can deliver....I have two suggestions. Firstly....the ZYX UNIverse which is .24mV and quite unfussy about arms (I used it with success on 6 arms from a Hadcock GH228 to the Copperhead and FR-66s. It is now back in production with a new price of $5,000 from Mehran of ZoraSound ZYXEvery discriminating listener to the UNIverse has had nothing but praise for it. Secondly.....if you want to save yourself $1,500 yet own possibly the greatest LOMC cartridge ever made.......buy a Fidelity Research FR-7f FR-7f for $2,000 and get a Fidelity Research FR-64s tonearm for $1,500 FR-64SIf you send the FR-7f to Axel.....for €179 extra, you will have the best LOMC anyone has ever heard. Better than the legendary Olympos! |
Dear Halcro,
I agree completely about the original Martin Logan CLS panels and would also add a few Magnepan models of my experience; that occasionally and briefly sounded like the "real thing". It is indeed spooky when it happens and has brought me from another room more than once. My newer Martin Logans do almost everything right but never ever have they sounded "real".
John |
Dear Ct0517, thanks . yes would be interesting hearing about your own listening impressions in that room. unfortunately I am not very close to Toronto - to this wonderful city - right now :-))
Dear Halcro, agree loudspeaker design is the most critical issue regarding a Top-System. We are always working on the front end forgetting that the amplification, the perfect matching with the speakers and the design of the listening room deserves more attention. What does it help speaking about 0,01 % improvement on distortion regarding maybe a MM, MMI, MC when the front end is not working at its best. |
missprint in the last line, not front end but "back end", sorry |
Dear Dover, agree on your thoughts and conclusions. While it is fun comparing MMs and MCs it might be worthwile concentrating on MIs, too. The Ikeda 9 Rex Kawami and the London Reference are currently two of my favourites. I believe you can reach good results with MMs, especially using a "tuning machine" like the EMT JPA-66. Nevertheless the real High-Lights I experienced with some MCs and MIs. But it also depends on the arms, the phono stage and the chain itself. So I am pretty sure that this is a personal experience & assessment and does not mean a general statement.
One may also not draw the conclusion -which some people do - that MMs are the poor people's Moody Blues. It seems to me that there is a world for all three designs. |
Greetings Timeltel, What I was eventually working up to is a correlation of electrical parameter relationships. It is often agreed (it seems) that inductance < 450 - 500mH, impedance < 800 - 1K ohm, and yes output < 3.5mV, are indicitave of the best HO carts. This seems true regardless of mechanical parameters or generator type. But is there an ideal relationship? If all 3 parameters are very close in value (Virtuoso), is that indicative of a superior generator or a superior AT MM type, or coincidental? You seem well versed in this area. I have no idea about the spicific electrical parameters of most of the "best" vintage models and it may be difficult to get all the numbers. Just looking at AT, Virtuoso has 420mH, yet seems to outperform some others with 350mH. Is the high impedance of the 150MLX the problem? The V has 660 ohm impedance and DC is like 480. I've long suspected that CA ordered a close to ideal generator for this type. Gotta give them credit cause there's nothing special about the stylus.
The 103 mods that have become popular, inspired me to pot an AT-95. A tiny screw, acessable from the top, removes the plastic top from the body. This is the same body as the CA. Tilt the body back so the epoxy flows toward the pins. I used reg liquid epoxy. It doesn't take much. Then glue the top back on cause the screw hole is now filled. I'm not sure how much epoxy made it past the threaded insert in the body. I also made an aluminum top piece, out of an old headshell. Not exactly sure what did what, but it seemed to make a noticable improvement. A Gerry Mulligan record seemed to be much more like the sound of a master tape dub I used to have. It didn't have the detail of a top cart, but more enjoyable than before, surprisingly so. Regards, |
Dear Halcro: The subject about low-midbass/low-bass frequency range goes deeper that what you posted and obviously that what I posted too.
My explanation was not complete or precise about, let me try to add something that could help on that subject:
that range is the hard to fulfil at first rate quality performance IMHO hardest that midrange/hf range.
Why speakers with " restricted " response in that bass frequency range performs so good ( I'm talking of decent/top speakers. ) with that disappear act and that so palpable midrange/hf range?:
bass frequency range management means not only to handle with accuracy and neutral/natural that range trhough the fundamentals but all that create harmonics that goes almost endless and that afect as the fundamental notes our whole perception. This range affect seriously the midrange/hf perceived response as no other factor in any audio system. When that bass management is not " right " we lose midrange and HF perception of the sounds that were generated there but that we can't hear in the right way because that wrong bass management preclude that we can have the clarity and transparency need it for the midrange and HF can shine in all its glory.
Please read carefulli this post that at the end/conclusion talks precisely on what I'm saying here:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1117893153&openflup&27&4#27
Now, independent on that ask you: why with " thousands " of different speaker models we can find out only a few ( very small quantity ) that are real full range ( flat 20hz to 50khz. ) speakers and always are and have the highgest prices?, yes because that last one and a half bass octave is almost to get but with an active speaker system. No one passive speaker I know handle in " perfect " way that bass frequency range.
We need active designs here, especialy in that bass range.
Btw, all those factors that you posted about efficiency o9r speaker electrical impedance and the like are solved with active speaker designs.
Finaly, I think that the speaker is not the weak link in the audio chain. IMHO the first weak link is the medium it self followed by the analog rig ( including the phono stage ) and then perhaps the passive speakers/room link.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dover and Halcro, My main turntable these days is my SP10 Mk3 with Reed 2A tonearm. I also do have an FR64S which I have not heard yet, only because I have to find a way to mount it, probably on the secondary armboard on the Kenwood L07D. Contrary to the experience of whomever you may know who owns a Kenwood tonearm, I find little to fault with the L07J tonearm, which is the one that comes with the L07D. What one must do is to upgrade the wiring; makes a big difference. The way the L07J tonearm is mounted into the structure of the L07D turntable is unique and represents very sound engineering, but I guess it might be said to violate the Copernican view. I know of no other factory built tt/tonearm combo that is so well done, on that score at least. I have heard LOMCs on the Triplanar (with several turntables), the Reed (with Mk3), the L07J, and on an RS Labs RS-A1, which is shockingly good despite the quite weird design. (Ortofon MC7500 may have sounded better on the RS-A1 than on the Reed 2A, by a hair.) I modified my RS-A1 so as to run the wiring straight from the cartridge to the phono inputs. The same will be done for the L07J, now that winter is approaching. I do plan to rig the L07D so that I can mount the Triplanar and/or the FR64S in the secondary position. I am working with a machinist to create the mount platform. |
If you send the FR-7f to Axel.....for €179 extra, you will have the best LOMC anyone has ever heard Do you know everyone, or is this the collective "we" ? or the royal we ? Glad you like Mr Ikeda's early designs. By the way I agree with you on the CLS's with tube amps. You may or may not know the early CLS were also produced in Australia, with slightly different crossovers & Australian hardwood frames. These went lower and did not have the 50hz bump the american model had. With Quicksilver 8417's this combo reproduced recording acoustics unlike anything I've heard, which includes Dave Wilson's own monitoring system. |
I didn't know the early CLSs were built in Australia? How did that come about? |
I had my FR-7f originally re-tipped to original specs through Dertonarm's Japanese Master in Tokyo. So I heard it with brand new conical stylus. When this new diamond spontaneously sheared one day.......I sent it to Axel. As far as I know.....I have the only FR-7f that Axel has re-tipped with a new Line Contact diamond? So 'I' am the ONLY one of 'ANYONE'.......and thus blessed.......feel safe from contradiction? For the time being......... |
Halcro - one of the original co-designers was either Australian or moved to Australia. I imported the 1st CLS into NZ. The first few came from Aussie to get over import restrictions and then later we imported directly from the states. I think they had a falling out but not absolutely sure. The Aussie guy imported the panels complete, and used Aussie made interfaces and frames. My memory is fading, it may be that the Aussie mods were the source of a difference with Gayle Sanders and the license pulled. To my ears I preferred the original Aussie version, due in main to the slightly different interface. Unfortunately cant remember the guys name. |
Halcro - re FR-7f (Axel version) - thanks for clarification. Hopefully someone will compare the new Ikeda with cantilever to the FR-7f at some stage. It would be interesting to know if they are of similar design or whether some new developments have come about. |
Dear John and Dover, I think almost everyone who heard the original CLS over 20 years ago were similarly stunned? I remember listening to them in the Dealer's showroom on a Saturday afternoon with my friend Richard. On the following Monday morning he had ordered them.....and by Wednesday evening they were singing in his listening room powered by the Audio Research SP-9 preamp and D-115 power amp. Unfortunately.......like most samples of those speakers......the panels shorted after a few weeks and after having new panels installed.......the same happened to them after a few more weeks. It was a problem that spelled the end for the CLS......and the CLS/II was a entirely different (and unsuccessful) final gasp for that particular concept? It's footnote in history however.......will remain until we too.....expire? |
Dear Fleib. You are right about the Virtuoso. One of my samples has Gyger2 stylus and is outstanding over the other Virtuoso(s) I own and owned.
Btw, Dover I think could be a good idea that you try an Axel's Virtuoso wood in your system with Gyger2 stylus, IMHO hands down the Rex 9 I own by a wide margin. You can get right now an Acutex LPM320 through ebay auction, other good very good alternative to top MM/MI performers is the Astatic MF-200 or even a MF-300 or you can get for " penauts " a Goldring G800 ( very easy to buy on ebay. ) and send to Axel to re-tip.
I think that these cartridges could make that you re-set your grading on MC vs MM/MI ones.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Henry, Within 12 days you can use the plural 'we' without any fear to be accused of exaggeration. I just posted my FR-7 to Axel for the same retip.
Regards, |
Ooohhh Nikola, You are in for a treat. On your beautiful FR-64s......I await your verdict with excitement and apprehension? Regards |
I would not go for the new Ikeda rather for the FR-7 designs or the 9 Rex Kawami. Going for a good Mono try the Ortofon Candeza Mono. |
Dear Thuchan, Those among us who have the priviledge to own the FR-64S are, I assume, interested in the new Ikeda's carts. But the nomenclature is very confusing. To my knowlegde there are three versions . Can you 'rank' them for us?
Regards, |
Dear Nandric, I have not tested all Ikedas, the carts I know I will be able to say something. I prefer the FR-7fz and next the FR-7f of the old carts. I prefer the 9 Rex rather than the 9TT. The Rex is a MI design, the 9TT comes with a cantilever. Many believe that the 9TT is not built by Ikeda sensei himself but who knows. For me It does not show the virtues of the Rex Kawami. If your going for a Rex best is you get it fixed in the headshell, it is hard work aligning it in the headshell.
If you are looking for more information maybe use this link:
http://audioexotics.hk/index.php?option=com_simplestforum&view=postlist&forumId=1&parentId=10177&topic=true&Itemid=53&limitstart=10 |
Dear Dover/Timeltel/Lewm/all: Years ago on this thread ( I think was here??? ) when I posted that the MM/MI had lower distortions ( for different reasons. ) than their MC " brothers " the first person that disagree was J: Carr it self whom posted that the MC were the ones with lower distoritons. Like Dover this time.
Through all these years and through almost endless experiences with both sides I can't understand yet where JC/Dover can prove that MC superiority/superior " characteristic.
I think that with cartridges happen almost the same that with electronics: that the measurements do not fulfil or explain what we are hearing because we are not taking the " right " ones. Could be that in fact the MC are or has lower distortions elsewhere against the MM/MI but that is not exactly what some os us are hearing or at least we don't be aware yet of that.
In the last weeks/months I was and am testing in deep not only the top MM/MIs but several vintage and today LOMC cartridges and as all in audio does not exist the perfect " answer ", both cartridge designs have its own trade-offs.
Can I hear always lower distortions with the LOMC ones?, no but with some set-ups a LOMC has lower distortions against a specific MM/MI cartridge set-up but not against a different MM/MI model. So seems to me that we have no specific rule here about that " MC lower distortions ".
I'm not finish yet my revision of LOMC cartridges, I bought more than 30 MC vintage cartridges, to give here a more precise " light " on that distortion subject that is really critical because distortions are important part/factor of quality level performance. When I finished I will report here.
Btw, Lewm I agree with you about HOMC cartridges that I listened sevral times not only in my system ( I own HOMCs. ) but other audio systems but that not only could change but already changed with an unexpected gift ( I pay nothing for the cartridge. ) that came with my Sony tonearm that I just bought and that I'm testing. This tonearm arrived with a HOMC cartridge where IMHO not only me but you or any one can detect in ANYWAY is HOMC!!!!. My report on a few days latter.
This experience confirm what I always support: every single day is a learning one!.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
That HOMC was unknow for me in everyway. When I make the report will let you know the manufacturer and cartridge model.
R. |
Regards Raul, What cantilever does your Virtuoso with Gyger 2 have? I was thinking, probably aluminum, but I shouldn't assume. Thanks, |
Dear Fleib, I am glad that I followed your suggestion and bought the Genesis 1000. While you was sceptical about Axel's retip (line contact pressure fitted in aluminum cantilever) I can say that Genesis 1000 with Axel's retip is a much better proposition then Dyna 17 D models. Besides the retip with the line contact/ aluminum is relative the most economical upgrade at present. In my present ranking: 1. Miyabi 2. ex aequo: Ruby 3S, Sony XL 88, Genesis 1000 3. Phase Tech P-3G ,Dyna Karat 17 D2 (Axel's retip), AT 180 , Virtuoso black and Glanz 31 L.
Regards, |
Hi Nandric, Have you in your arsenal, a Goldring G800 (with Axel's retip)? Regards, Don |
Dear Don, Yes I have. With Axel's retip.
Regards, |
Fellow Comrade, I had Axel do a "suspension refresh" on my Benz Micro Ruby 3 in addition to installing a nude Shibata & Berylium cantiliver on my G800. I've had them both back over a week now. I do have the Ruby mounted on a arm wand, but I can not force myself to remove the G800 from the tone arm! I'm in awe of the transformation! What cantiliver/stylus did you opt for. Regards, Don |
Dear Don, Only a damn capitalist can afford nude Shibata/ Berillium combo. My retip is the proletarian kind: Aluminum / line contact. I am not sure yet how to rank the G800. I tested this one for just two days. But anyway my Ruby 3s is better.
Regards, |
Comrade, "1. Miyabi". You do not fool me you sly one. We are Comrade capitalists. Did you have Axel pressure fit the line contact? Regards, Don |
Raul - you misrepresent my position on MM's. I dont think there is a definitive answer on which flavour has most "distortions" as you like to call them. They all have different strengths and weaknesses. I have been consistant in that I prize speed, timing, coherence, transparency and want to get the maximum possible out of the groove. I dont mind colourations, dont mind a rising or falling high frequencies. I cant stand compression or phase anomalies and I cant enjoy the music if there are timing issues. My 2 favourite cartridges in this respect are a Moving Iron ( the Decca ) and a Moving Coil ( the Ikeda Kiwame ). Hopefully I may be able to add a MM to the list one day. |
Dear Don, I kind of already fool you with my Miyabi. My is the 'American Takeda'(Krell KC 100) and I am very reluctant to say what I paid for. To my knowledge Axel does not fit styli in any cantilever but get those as combos (stylus already fitted in the cantilever) from his supplier. I have an whole list of questions for Axel but he has at present so much work that I need to ask 'piece by piece'. My next will be if he does the actual retip. That is 'glue' the selected stylus in the existing cantilever. That to me that is the 'real meaning' of 'retip'. The pressure fitted styli have the advantage that there is no glue between the cantilever and stylus. Not to mention the danger involved by cleaning the stylus with fluids.
Regards, |
Dear Dover: This is what you posted: +++++ " or you prefer the ginormous distortions of higher output MM's, ideal for listening to Mr Whippy tunes, than the tiny distortions in LOMC's, which is quite reasonable " +++++
" sorry to my misunderstood " .
Anyway enjoy your Ikeda distortions that are way different to the MM/MI alternative.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dover and Halcro, At last we have a subject upon which we can agree; the original CLS was one of the great speakers of all time, IMO, at least from the mid-bass on up. I still recall the night I first heard a pair at one of the few high end emporia that then existed in the Washington, DC, area. (Now there are none, zero.) I had prior to that evening been listening to a variety of different Magneplanars in my home system. (That was my only vacation from ESLs, lasted 4-5 years.) I was amazed at the life-like speed and transparency of the CLS (especially in contrast to the slow and damped sound of the old Maggies, sans ribbon tweeter) and bought a pair within a week after hearing them. I drove them with a pair of Futterman H3aa OTL amplifiers. It was all quite lovely. Then when the CLS II came out and was highly touted, I made the foolish error of selling my original CLSs in favor of the CLS IIs, without a prior audition of the latter. Needless to say, they sounded like s**t in comparison to the CLSs. I then learned that the major difference between the CLS and the CLS II was impedance. The former had a nominal impedance of 8-15 ohms; the latter had an impedance more like 2-4 ohms. Thus the CLS II was really built for solid state amplification. After that, M-L came out with the CLS IIz, which was to correct for the terrible load presented by the CLS II. It sucked also. And thus I drifted away from M-L speakers, altho I did own one of their hybrid designs later, which was quite good, but not as pure as the original CLS. Now you Aussies want to claim creative input to the CLS? Ok. Good job then. Too bad M-L has never gotten the point that their ESLs sound best with tubes. All their subsequent designs are aimed at the dreadnaught solid state amplifier crowd. Sometimes I peruse the for sale section of this website looking for a pair of original CLSs. They are quite a bargain, but I have enough speakers for this lifetime. |
Dear Dover, Despite of your eloquence your are fetched in contradictions. While I always thought that logic is a weak part by Raul. BTW he should quote his own statements from time to time in the same context. My experience is that the more sentences one produce the more chance for contradictions. So you probable also deserved an Mexican copper mask. Even without any info about your behaviour by accidents. |
Good Morning Nandric,
Axel does "advertise" retip! Perhaps he sends them to E/S or VDh? It definitely takes very steady hands and excellent eyesight to do an actual retip of a cantilever. Maybe he has some young person working for him that does this dificult task? I do know that he is in his 70's. If he does use others, he might not want to reveal that information for fear of his clients deciding to go directly to the source instead? I guess it really doesn't matter as long as it is done correctly. So far, I have had nothing but excellent results from him. |