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 Axel: Yes, when we have how to compare between MM/MI and LOMC then we can " fall " in count that there is almost no contest by the LOMC cartridges.

+++++ " Also, I think the wrong direction has already been taken by some new MM design " +++++

this is very unfortunate ( for say the least ) and I like you agree that is a wrong " road/direction ".

It is so wrong direction ( maybe those cartridges designers/manufacturers can't " see " yet te real subject about. ) that we can find/get today for 5K? a LOMI! that like the LOMC cartridges must pass for those additional " terrible " gain stages that degrade the cartridge signal. This is only one example of that ( IMHO ) wrong " road ", of course that for them and for other people that is the right " road ".

The real subject here is that from my point of view all those today very good cartridge designers can/could make great MM/MI cartridges if they forgot for a " moment " the LOMC ones and take care about music sound reproduction, I mean REAL music.
Maybe they need to return to their each one " origin/root " of why they start making cartridge design other than $$$$$. They ( IMHO ) need to re-start to hear in their own audio systems some of those vintage MM/MI cartridges and make their own conclusions about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Lewm: +++++ " to come out and write what you have written on this subject. However, we each have to reach a decision for ourselves between our fave LOMCs and MMs,...." +++++

the every person " believes " and what every person " speaks " is related with each one compromises/priorities ( in this case on the music sound reproduction in a home system subject. ), each one compromise with " my self " and each one decency.

I like to " see " the people at their " eyes " always and not have to " get down " my look when I say to any one: Hello!

I always say that the name of my " obligation/pledge " is the MUSIC and nothing less even that some people here in this forum accuse me of a " commercial audio agenda ": totally wrong, my audio agenda is the MUSIC and how to be near the real MUSIC through our home audio systems.

I don't support any kind of audio technology or any kind of audio item ( like two-three persons in this forum. ) for and only commercial interest.

I don't say that one or other product is great ( when I know it is not ) only because I need ( for doing business ) that the people believe " my LIE ", this kind of attitude that unfortunatelly often exist here has a name: dishonest and corrupted one.

Yes, here and now IMHO the LOMC cartridge sound is wrong and the best way to enjoy the REAL music is through the MM/MI cartridge alternative. From now I support the LOMC cartridge alternative only like a second option for analog LP reproduction source.

Like you say ( and I agree with ): each one have to reach a decision by " ourselves " on the MM/MI cartridge subject.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Gents,

Is there any correlation with your perference of MM's with their purity and lack of brightness with all the SS gear you have?

IMO tubes can a lot of the MM ease and more that you are talking about.
Downunder,

I suspect the universal response that you will receive to your questions is: "NO".

I suspect that (like myself) most people are talking about colourations and not just brightness with MC's. The form of emphasis that spotlights aspects of performances. I know that there is a view (which I largely share) that tubes and MC's focus on third order harmonics and can fool one into believing that this is closer to a live performance. However, they are not.

A similar example (both performance and cost wise) might be with cables. Here the Siltech cables (at least up to their G5 range) would stand in the tubes, MC's camp and something like the Audio Physics silver range would be more in the SS/MM camp. The argument resolves around 'fidelity' and how 'high' or not the tools' performance stands regarding live performance and/or recorded performances (itself an obviously important - though rarely noted - distinction).

However, in the last analysis it comes down to one's taste and that is difficult to dismiss, I think.

Just my £0.1's worth.
Dgob et al, Please, please let us not let this thread degenerate into a tubes vs solid state argument. Your statement to the effect that tubes "focus" on third order harmonic distortion is, to be polite, inaccurate on all levels. But I defend and respect your preference for solid state devices. Here I think we are looking for magical combinations of cartridge/tonearm/turntable/phono stage, with cartridge as the variable under discussion. FWIW, as I noted above, I bought a solid state phono stage to audition my MM cartridges; it will be driving an all tube linestage and amplifiers downstream.
Dear Downunder: The whole MM/MI subject and my conclusions ( where other people agree ) on it is not related to tube/hybrid or SS electronics or a synergy with. The subject is an objetive and more deepest than that.

The conclusions comes/flow in a " free " way after more than two years ( this thread start in January 2008 and I start it after many months testing the MM/MI experience. ) of a in deep very large process with the MM/MI and MC cartridges where I use the best audio " tools " for it including my audio music experiences.

Those " tools " include ( between other things ): almost any tonearm at hand ( vintage and some today ones ), almost any MC top rated cartridge ( vintage and today ), almost any MM/MI cartridge, different TTs ( BD and DD ), tests with my system and other people systems ( these ones mainly with tubes and with limitations for loading the MM/MI cartridges. ), with opinions on other people in their systems and in my system, in audio systems ranging from 20K to 500K ( dedicated to MC ones with different type of electronics/speakers/analog rig/room treatment....), etc, etc.

All the work/test/voicing were made following the rules on set-up, matching tonearm, mainly with the same test recordings ( music LPs ), taking in count different listening SPL system levels, etc, etc.

Trying to speculate about tube/SS subject IMHO is a total misunderstood on that long process that bring in very precise way my conclusions on the subject.

Downunder I try not leaveing nothing to the random and try to be fair between the MC and MM/MI trying to put in even/similar full/whole listening conditions.

I don't test/listen " oranges " against " bananas " but oranges vs oranges.
Every single set-up cartridge parameter were optimized for each cartridge: tonearm matching, loading impedance/capacitance, headshell matching, SPL listening, overall cleaning, temperature, VTA/SRA, VTF, AZ, etc, etc.. I try always to have only one variable: the cartridge it self.

I hope all these help to avoid speculations on the whole subject and that when any one make comparisons in its own audio system he makes putting the MC and MM/MI in the same/similar conditions: optimize each one quality performance reproduction.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Downunder,

Just to clarify. Despite Raul's undoubtedly sincere efforts, his comments come down to an observation of fidelity. Plain and simple.

Lewm,

Apologies but I was trying to give an example and not criticise. My point was more about perception and hifi: not about universal truths. You can see my position earlier in this thread concerning "absolutes".

I hope I stand a little clearer in the comments that I made and still support.

Cheers
While I am not prepared to declare MC's superior to MM's in every respect, or vise versa, I do think Downunder is correct; to a degree. I made the very same point in one of my previous posts. I do think that, as a group, and generally speaking, solid state equipment does not have the "juicyness", and dimensionality, nor the sense of aliveness of good tube equipment. All, traits of real instruments playing in a real space. SS amplification tends to sound more tonally dry than real life, and with less of that, hard to describe, sense of aliveness. Like a coiled spring ready to explode at any moment. Conversely, tube equipment tube equipment often lacks the precisely delineated leading edge, and ability to sound convincingly nasty when it is appropriate. Live music can be very nasty sounding. In my experience, MM's while having the edge in the "juicyness", and dimensionality area, simply don't have the sense of aliveness, or speed of MC's; when compared to the real thing. It then becomes ovious that a correlation is inevitable. To those that profess to not making those connections or correlations, I say it's impossible; unless the equipment used to make the comparisons can be deemed perfect, and absolutely neutral. I think most of us would agree that no piece of equipment is perfect, and absolutely neutral. Anyone who does think that is simply not familiar enough with the sound of real instruments. As with most things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

I realize many will disagree, but that is the way I hear it. The intent is not to start a SS vs, tube controversy, but to point out an obvious correlation. I do believe there is as Downunder points out, a connection. BTW, tubes do not "focus" on third order harmonics, and SS on the second. It is exactly the opposite.

I spend several hours every day around the sound of live instruments playing in a real space (I am a professional musician), either in my practice studio, or on stage playing in symphony orchestras. All I can say is that what I described above is the way I hear it.
Where would the Audio Technica AT20SLa rank among the best MM cartridges ever made? Also pitted against the Shure V15VMR-LE?? Both from same era of the 1980's...Thanks, Ray
Dear Frogman: IMHO your group generalizations are only that a " generalization " and could means almost nothing in what I posted all over this thread.

Why is that?, the audio electronics I own ( Phonolinepreamp and Amplifiers. ) only has to your " generalizations " the name: SS, and that's almost all.

Its quality performance is almost perfect and the name of that almost perfect quality performance is NEUTRALITY. As a fact neutrality is one of my audio system main targets and characteristic.

Your post oblige me to clarify in a precise way on the subject and that's why I bring here what other Agoner musician ( no, he is not an owner of that unit. ) that attend and is in touch with the live event ( like me. ) write about my audio system SS Phonolinepreamp when he heard it in his own system in place of its tube one ( with out making any single fine tunning or change on tonearm/cartridge set-up to the " new " SS unit. ), this person for whom I have a great respect owns Revel speakers, Raven TT, Triplanar tonearm and in that time a Ruby 2 LOMC cartridge:

+++++ " . The Essential 3160 ( this is my SS Phonolinepreamp ) sounded
> more like tubes than did my tubed..... That is not to say that it
> sounded tubed in a gimmicky way. It was warmer, but not dark. Rich, but not
> unfocused. Full, but not bloated in any way. Raul spoke of many different.....

Piano was simply the best I have heard come out of my speakers.
> All the things you associate with "live" piano sound were present. The
> initial attack was full in a way I don't think I have heard in any system.
> It had bite without any of the expected tinnyness ever present in electronic
> reproduction. Fullness, richness, and bloom were really "there." Decay of
> notes was stunning. Orchestral instruments were rendered equally
> realistically but with much more focus and greater soundstage depth. Cymbals
> had shimmer and were combined with real weight and body as in life. Weight
> and attack on drums was terrific as well. " +++++

As you can see part of the " tools " that I were and am using through the whole long process that bring " alone " the conclusions in the subject are good enough to make those cartridge comaprisons, my Phonolinepreamp has a second MM phono stage with the same top quality performance than the MC one.
Remember?: oranges against oranges, nothing less.

You own the P-76 and AT 170 ML, I don't know if you already listening to it at the right load impedance/capacitance but you can read what Dgarretson posted about:

+++++ " My impression of 100K loading is similar to Timeltel above. With 100K the good character of P-76 is enhanced with improved inner detail & refinement in HF. These improvements are reminiscient of a good MC cartridge-- further diminishing any advantage that MC might have in the areas of resolution & spatiality. The difference is great enough to conclude that you need to try 100K to hear what MM can do. " +++++

I invite you to see and read about the Dgarretson audio system here: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?vaslt&1140494870

Anyway, IMHO the tube-SS subject is IMHO out of the thread " equation " for the conclusions. The whoile subject is more " serious ", deepest and learning than that.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Frogman: That Agoner experience/opinion with the SS Phonolinepreamp is not a close/each day audio friend, that was the one and only time I meet him: he lives in USA and I in México city.
What you read it was/is what he shared to other two very close friends of him.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Frogman,

I only play the cello at a low level and so would not comment. However, if you read the FM Acoustics website, you will see numerous renowned musicians speaking about their quite different perceptions of that solid state equipment. Yet, my initial use of analogy should not be misunderstood and perceived as the point of my statements. I share your sensitivity to the aporia of judgement particlularly in its wider application to art and politics. On these subjects I could write a book and have friends who have done so.

By extention, this aporia could for example raise questions about neutrality representing fidelity to live performances, particularly where those live performances can be in distinct acoustic spaces that might lend emphasis to anomalous parts of the frequency range. These performances (many of which I am sure we have all attended at some point) are literally "live" but not necessarily 'neutral'. It is in this light that I worry whenever I hear reference to "live performances" that seem to believe that these occur in a vacuum or that perfect neutrality captures the 'live event' rather than the 'recorded event'. And I am not disagreeing with anyone here, just stating my perceptions and position.
Frogman,

Another commentator who it would be interesting to hear from is Jose Maldanado, the designer of the Essential 3160. I have personnel experience of his exceptional hearing and it would be intriguing to hear his take on those subjects. However, he no longer seems to post on this site and I have been told that the parameters of considering the merits of MM's or MC's preclude any analogous references. Shame.
I have heard good and bad SS setups and tube setups, it is difficult to make a good set up, but once you start getting a good sound (maybe not perfect) you can tell. A good setup can be either SS or tubes, I have close contact with an exceptional SS system, and I have a pretty good Tube system with horns (IMHO), we have compared in several occasions our systems and even with some obvious differences the final taste of the music is not that different!
And the differences between MC and MM are very clear and repetitive, every time we switch to a MC cart the same type of sound comes out, as when we switch to MM. There are always the same differences between MM and MC in any good setup and this differences are not SS related or Tube related or more suitable for either setup.
I will try to point out some of this differences I am talking about and try to put my finger on them, please bear with me: As a whole the first impression I get when changing from MC to MM is a unnatural high end on the MC cart. After a while you ears kind of get past that (or you adjust to that), then a very difficult to explain thing happens, music through a MC seems more detailed, the voices seem closer, but ambience retrieval seems lost. You can focus more on certain details but as a whole the music is gone and you are left with a sort of looking glass that amplifies certain details but blurs the whole event. This takes life away from the experience. MM is just more present as a whole more in your face and even more detailed without loosing focus...
I hope I could explain it better but one thing is sure for me, the same thing happens on a SS or a tube set up.
Dgob,

thank you for the very toughtful response to my post. If you reread my post, you will notice my liberal use of qualifiers such as: "generally speaking", "tends to...", "often lacks..." etc. Not once did I state that one technology or another cannot provide excellent performnace. Having said that, I stand by my observations; generally speaking.

One of the main problems with the use of the word "accuracy", is that more times than not the user is referring to tonal accuracy. If only it were that simple. In that respect, I mainly agree with you that the venue where the recording was made has a major influence in the perception of such. Tonal accuracy is but one piece of the wonderful complexity of music. If musical accuracy is the goal, and it should be, along with tonal or timbral accuray, we have to consider first and foremost rhythmic accuracy. It is there that the true soul of a performance lies. After that we should look at textural accuracy, and spatial accuracy. Although the last is, to me, far less important.

I completely agree that there is some excellent SS equipment that gets very close to tonal accuracy; just as there is of the tube persuasion. I don't claim to have heard anywhere near every piece of equipment that is out there. But I have heard quite a few of the heavy hitters (my system is not too shabby either), in some very well put together systems, and I can confidently tell you that in just about every instance when I have listened to music on a system that allowed me to suspend disbelief, it was a tube based system. What allowed me to suspend disbelief was not wether the sound was tonally accurate (whatever that means), but the sense that the music was alive; that a good enough portion of whatever it is that tells your brain that it is human beings making those sounds was preserved.

Raul, I have indeed heard the AT 170ML (not the P-76, yet)loaded at 100K, and while this loading does allow it to show more air and clarity, it did not give it the immediacy, and musical vibrancy of my Vandenhul Grasshopper, and certainly not like my old Decca London, which is, admittedly, grossly inaccurate tonally. The AT 170 ML is fantastic at letting me hear, study, and analyze the tone of a particular instrumentalist on a recording; I can't think of any MC thatI have owned let me do that to the same degree. But, if what I want to really dig deep into the trully subtle phrasing nuances of the same player, no MM I have heard allows me to do that to the same degree that my Vandenhul, or my Decca does (of course, I don't need to point out that the Decca is not a MC).

As in politics, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Regards.
Dear Frogman: +++++ " I can't think of any MC thatI have owned let me do that to the same degree. But, if what I want to really dig deep into the trully subtle phrasing nuances of the same player, no MM I have heard allows me to do that .... " +++++

that " subtle phrasing nuances " IMHO is more a synergy/matching tonearm/cartridge subject that a cartridge characteristic.

The fact that you don't heard it through MM/MI ( well not a totaly true fact due that the Decca belongs to the MM/MI carrtridge type. ) in your system it does not means you can't heard it in a better synergy/matching system than yours.
I don't want to go in deep with linear traking tonearms or VPI TTs that normaly is what you are using or with your phono stage performance and certainly not with my SS electronics where you can't even imagine its top quality performance.

I have long experiences with Grasshopers including the Colibri and I know what you mean by immediacy that it is exactly what the P-76 and other MM/MI cartridges shows all the time, a natural immediacy with less distortion than the Grashoopers or the Ikeda ones.

I'm using the P-76 in direct connection fashion in an unipivot tonearm and no one Grashooper I try it with it matching tonearm even the whole music presentation of the P-76 or other top MM/MI performers.

Maybe I'm wrong but for make statements/conclusions like mines on the MM/MI and MC cartridge performance subject you have to have exactly the right, precise and wide alternative " set of tools " to do it, including wide and in deep know-how on the whole subject.
IMHO for what you posted, for what are your system maybe you don't have all those " set of tools " to make a even/fair comparison ( oranges vs oranges ) and in the other side always exist the " each one perception and each one priorities ".

Frogman, if you listen to two different cartridges where there is a difference in the SPL of the system reproduction your perception is different if the SPL is even for both cartridges. This and many other subjects has to be take it in count when you are making serious and in deep comparisons on quality performance with audio items. I don't know if you do it, I did.

Anyway, " the exception confirm the rule ". No, I'm not saying that my opinion is the rule, I write with a more wide means.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Frogman,

Thank you. On the issue of acoustics and venue, this obviously can affect both the various venues in which the same piece of music might be played by the same musicians with widely differing outcomes not to mention the differing venues in which we receive/reproduce "a" recorded event. More detailed considerations of these issues can be seen in Paul E. Sabine's 'Acoustics and Architecture' or (to a less detailed extent) in Leo Beranek's 'Concert Halls and Opera Houses: music, acoustics, and architecture'.

My real concern residing around fidelity to "a" recorded performance not necessarily representing "real music", which is rarely as neutral as we might imagine/hope. But we digress. Back to our observations of the merits of MM's (which I largely share regarding 'greater/higher-fidelity to the recorded event') in relation to MC's.
Dear friends: I just receive ( two days ago ) my AKG P-100LE and I can say that is something to hear ( for say the least ), even I'm thinking in a fast review on it: yes it is that good.

I will take more days hearing it and trying to fine tunning and make comparisons with other cartridges. I need to know and confirm what " a priori " I'm listening right now and what is its quality performance.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Rayr2: That At 20SLa was one of the top Audio Technica cartridges and IMHO compete with almost any top MM/MI, I like it over the Shure V15V.

Its quality performance is realy near of the AT 20SS that is a great Audio Technica cartridge but I don't hear for some time the 20SLa. I think and hope that Dgob who own too and hear it not many days from now can give you a more " recent " opinion.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Rayr2,

Certainly, I have been playing my cartridge recently and if it helps:

The AT20 SLa is a truly great cartridge. I'm finding it really difficult to rank the MM's though as nearly all of high quality ones seem to present the musical event accurately only with distinct voicings. It plays similar to the original ADC XLM-1 integrated but provides more of a pocket of sound in which the musicians form a more harmonious whole. Its midrange is rich and vibrant but not 'coloured' as I had assumed at one point, having switched from cartridges that present in a more vibrant and or tighter way: namely, the Nagaoka MP50 and Glanz G5. These two bring leading edge attach (particulary on brass, percussion and/including keyboards, cymbals, drums and vibraphones).

As I say, from my experience in my system, I would not sell my AT20.
Raul...fellas... which tonearm would you keep if you had to choose only one

I have Micro seiki ma505
Technics EPA100 I have a few more but i need to sell one...

also out of these pivoted arms which one sounds better with the andante P-76

as you guys may well know I use rabco tonearm but do not want to give away something that I may want ..

Good Listening!!
Re the P-76 the change in it is remarkable. its opened up totally after 30hrs, and playing it on the linear tracking Technics SL-7 it's treble in particular is remarkable. Cymbals simply beautiful, and the lowther shout of my DX2's is tamed by the purity and space of the upper mid range and treble. Soundstaging is relaxing, and utterly biguiling. The Lowthers dont do base a lot, but there's a naturalness to what's there that agian has an utterly relaxing and deeply involving presence. Also, dynamics have becoe leme less sharp, not lessened, and i am wanting to use that word naturalness again. Winston Masalis on Hothouse Flowers is truly magical. Thank you again, Raul
On a prosaic note, does anybody know where to acquire the 1/2" mounting clip that works with an Empire 999 SE/X cartridge body?

Thanks,

Dave
Lharasim,
You are presenting everyone with a dilemna.
What about selling one of the "few more"? :^)
Not having a P-76, I cannot venture real-world experience but I based on my experience with other light-ish low VTF MM carts and these two arms (the MA-505 in a few different guises), I would probably keep the EPA-100. This offends my aesthetic sensibilities because I love the machined look of the Micro/SAECs of the era (aside from being a fantastic arm), but I think the EPA is a more flexible arm which sounds very good with my MM carts.

That said, the real problem with the EPA-100 in its normal configuration is that it cannot take heavy carts the way the Micro can (with an added c/w) unless you happen to have the sold-optionally heavy-weight end-piece for the EPA-100.
Dear Lharasim: I concur with T_bone, keep the Epa-100 and let go the 505.

I don't try with many tonearms the P-76 but IMHO it sound really good with different tonearms, this cartridge ( like other MM/MI's. ) is tonearm friendly.

Regards and enjoy the music,
raul.
Great thread Raul !
Unfortunately I do not have the time to read it from cover to cover, but I had several impressive experiences with the venerable AT-180ML back in the early 1990ies.
I even modified 6-7 samples (glued the cantilever-assembly fix into the mounting - this did greatly increase both resolution as well as dynamic attack).

I still hope that one day we will see a MM-cart with really low moving mass or a truly great executed field coil design cartridge.

I still believe that there is ample room for improvement with the MM, MI, or maybe one day a CCP-chip based cartridge.

Moving coil has enjoyed the majority of the enthusiastic research and development in the past 2-3 decades.

Maybe we will see soon something completely new in terms of transducer design in phono pick-up. A completely new approach.
Meanwhile I really would love to see a truly high-end MM-design - one that can rival the best LOMC in terms of resolution and low-level detail - seeing the light of day.

Cheers,
D.
Dertonarm,

Maybe a quick read of all the thread will give you some perspective on the general line of experience being expressed. The best LOMC's seem to have formed an important backdrop time and again.
Dear Jsadurni: +++++ " MM is just more present as a whole more in your face and even more detailed without loosing focus...
I hope I could explain it better but one thing is sure for me, the same thing happens on a SS or a tube set up. " +++++

this is a reality: " things happen on SS or tube set up ". IMHO when something perform good it perform good almost always and does not depend on the electronic type technology. A cartridge has to be a " universal " audio item and in the same manner than MC are the MM/MI are a universal ones too.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Gilbodavid: It's nice to read that the P-76 performs so good " anywhere ", it does not matters in which audio system is working and this confirm the Jsadurni post and my last one.

The alive presence of the music through the P-76 is remarkable, it is hard to say if this cartridge has a weak characteristic.

Regards and enjoy the msuic,
Raul.
Thanks Guys I guess I will end up selling the micro seiki arm then...

I am really not into pivioted arms though!!

I may also sell a few of my adante p-76's I have too...

got to get some money oh well

Good Listening!
Dear Dietrich: That ATML180-OCC is a jewel of cartridge, I own it from new and I waas lucky to put my hands on it because this Audio Technica model never comes to America, its market was Asia and Europe. Things happen that the México Director of AT was/is a close friend of mine and he bring it direct from Japan to me: like many other AT auido items that I owned or own.

The one that sale in USA-México was the ATML170-OCC ( that I own too ) that is great performer too.

The good news to everyone ( including you ) is that all those great vintage MM/MI cartridges are a nice " discovery " to almost all of us with a tremendous advantage: today each one audio system is a lot better than what we had 20 years ago, this fact makes the today vintage MM/MI experience a unique one and " surprising " good even over the best LOMC.
Do you want resolution and lo-level detail: easy try to find that 180-OCC or better yet an AKG P100LE, well I know it is not an easy task to put your hands on one of these cartridges but is worth to take the time to find it.

In the mid-time buy this, hear it in your system and then comeback to share with us your experiences:
http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?anlgcart&1260085504&/B-O-Bang---Olufsen-MMC2-cartridge

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dietrich: I forgot, you are right about " glued the cantilever assembly fix into the mounting ", I try it this ( many years ago ) with my ADC Astrion and I agree that works for the better: problem is that you can't change the stylus when is need it.

I own two Astrion: one glued and the other in normal status and I can hear the differences between them.

Btw, I don't tired to say that the MM/MI alternative is the " best audio keep secret ever ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Now guys you can put your hands on that great P-76 through Lharasim, good.

regards and enjoy the music,
raul.
Hi All,

Can anyone sell me the adapter for the B&O MMC-2? I'd like to play it on my Audiocraft AC3300, which seems to do an amazing job with all of my MM/MI's.

Many thanks
Dgob, If you go on eBay and search on the topic "P mount adapter" or "P mount cartridge adapter", you will likely find an adapter for ca $10 to $15. I bought a pretty nice one for use with the Andante P76 in that fashion. The one I got has gold-plated pins, nicely made. I've got an NOS B&O MMC1 that came with its original adapter, made by B&O. It does not look to be as nice as the one I got from eBay. Or, I think SoundSmith will sell you an adapter for $50.
Siniy123 & Lewm,

Many thanks for your kind help and support. I have managed to order one.

Well, apart from Raul's new favourite (the AKG P-100LE), I think that's it for now - I've managed to amass the top 10 mm's recommended on this site. I'm looking forward to familiarising myself with them and better forming my opinion of their merits in my system and regarding my objective and psychoacoustic priorities.
Dear Dgarretson: Maybe you have to buy other Empire cartridge ( very low price ) like this:

http://cgi.ebay.com/EMPIRE-TURNTABLE-SPU-CARTRIDGE-2000-E-i-NEW-OLD-STOCK_W0QQitemZ300354113379QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item45ee800f63#ht_500wt_1182

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Careful of that cgi.ebay.com/EMPIRE-TURNTABLE- #ht_500wt_1182
Cartridge auction. The cartridge comes without a stylus.-bird
Since in any case I need to find an NOS stylus for my 999XE/X, do you think the 2000 is the better of the two cartridges?
Dear Dave: Very hard to say in a precise way. With out have a precise argument other than the 999XE is on the same " family " than the great 1000 ZE my HO is that maybe the 999 is better.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dgob, where did you find most of your cartridges? I have not been searching that long but I am having trouble finding one except for the Nagaoka mp50.
Does anyone know the difference between the mp50 and the mp50 super?
Thanks
Richard
Dear Richard: The main difference is in the cantilever that in the Super is sapphire instead boron in the regular 50.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Richard,

I have been assisted by some of the posters on this thread (Michael, Lawrence and Raul in particular). The other sources have been hifi friends over here in the UK and, finally, constant searches on eBay and specialist sites. It didn't take me too long but I suspect the real trick is having patience for your selected target to show up and to let people know that you're looking for it.

Good luck
Dgob, thanks for the info. I am looking for the Nagaoka mp-50 super to start with. For sure this hobby breeds patience or you go crazy.
Thanks
Richard
Ricahrd,

I have not heard the MP50 Super with its sapphire cantilever. The only one I've even seen for sale was Raul's. However, I highly rate the MP50 original and you can still find these going on eBay. Sadly, as with the law of supply and demand in general, its price seems to have increased since I bought mine. I'd start by securing one of these if you don't have one yet.

As I say, 'highly recommended' (at least from what I have been able to get from it in my system and listening environment)!

Good luck
I have been following this ever-growing thread for some time. A couple of fellow Audigoners in Australia I know had taken the plunge and had tried out some vintage MM’s with mixed results. As the entry price was comparatively so low I put my suspicions aside and decided it was worth trying this out myself. I had delayed this because my previous phono stage did not come with a MM option but the Audia Flight I now use does. With some advice from Raul who sent me a short list of some interesting MM’s for sale I went for a NOS Empire 1080LT with adapter on auction from a European seller who turned out to be excellent. The cart and adapter arrived separately but they arrived and he advised me of the delay with the adapter. Another seller would only sell to US buyers. Not sure why with vintage gear but he is entitled to his rules and its his sale.

My analogue front end consists of Basis Debut vacuum/Synchro Wave/Vector 4/Audia Flight phono and I had been using a Transfiguration Orpheus. Prior to the Orpheus I had a Jubilee and before that a Wilson Benesch Carbon. The Orpheus was, by quite a margin the best cartridge I had used. I set up using a Mint LP protractor.
As preparation for the MM I fed the MM inputs a digital signal via an IRIAA filter for over 2 weeks.

Enter the Empire 1080 LT. First thing first this took me a good 2 hours to set up correctly. Those bolts and nuts rather than a threaded system are a right royal PITA. Minor adjustments to cantilever alignment were extremely fiddly to make and I had to walk away from the set up more than once. Finally, though I had it set up as close to perfect as I could manage.

I set it to 1.25 gm VTF with a parallel arm tube. Capacitance was set to 300 pF. Antiskate was backed right off as far as I could go with the Vector but this seemed about right. The Audia Flight is 47 k Ohms and not the 100 k Ohms Raul and others recommend but it’s what I have.

Initial impressions of the sound were positive but I was not bowled over. Excellent separation of instruments with good width and height but depth was not as good as with the Orpheus. There was a lack of warmth to the sound compared with the Orpheus and the bass while articulate lacked impact. There was a lack of air and the view into the recording space was limited. There was good drive and real snap but the performance was not totally convincing and it was not what one could call a 3D experience.

I continued to run the Empire for about 6 hours and on Sunday ran the system close to non-stop for 6 hours. I didn’t listen, just had the TT on play and got up at the end of the side of a record I do not value highly and put it back to track 1. I kept the system powered up and then after dinner sat down and put on the Fantasy 45 re-issue of Curtis Counce’s “You get more bounce with Curtis Counce”. This was at precisely 6.45 pm. I know the time exactly because I checked my watch as soon as the cymbal strike on track 1 filled the room. What followed was an experience I had not thought possible from this US$156.00 cartridge or from any other for that matter. I sat transfixed, my smile growing wider as the record played. I had never heard it sound like this. It was truly thrilling. Now the bass was both articulate and had real impact. Depth had gone beyond what I had ever experienced with the Orpheus and the drum kit was in the room. It was more dynamic than I had ever heard my system sound with any medium. Sax and trumpet portrayed beautifully. The overall sound was detailed but not etched in any way. It was immediate. I played all four sides to make sure it wasn’t just a happy coincidence with this particular disc. Then I put on another Fantasy 45 – The Guitar Artistry of Charlie Byrd and put on House of the Rising Sun. Whoa!! This is what it should sound like. Sensational.

OK you get my drift. This is the most emotionally involving music replay I have ever experienced. Sounds like hyperbole but it is what I am hearing. I’m not sure what other MM’s sound like but I intend to find out. It may be that I have just struck an unusually synergistic match with my particular combination but some of my comments sound very much like those of others with very different systems.

Raul, a big thankyou for taking the time to write the initial post that piqued my interest and later, for the assistance in finding this Empire MM. There was nothing in it for you except sharing with another hobbyist what you knew to be the case with MM’s and I am very grateful you took the time to do this. I’m hopefully getting a Garrott P77 later this week so I’ll see how that one goes though I am reluctant having got to this point to change anything. Now back to my listening chair.
Phaser,
You'll like the Garrott P77. I think it is one of the better MMs I have.
Since it came up, I realize how scarce the Garrott P-77 is (I've been watching for a long while), but if I don't ask It'll never happen, does anyone know of one that might be available for reasonable $$$? Thanks -bird