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.
rauliruegas
Regards Raul: I've been following the conversation and as there seem to be two different design philosophies I thought this might be of interest to some.

From "LesW", designer of the Shure ML140 HE: "The holy grail with things like carts and speakers is the transverse speed of sound of the material. It's a measure of specific stiffness. In the (Shure) III and the IV in order to get a low mass the cantilever first non rigid body resonance had to be in the audio range. In the III that made for a small sag and peak. In the IV it made for a lesser sag and two peaks. They were all well controlled.

But Beryllium... with it's speed of sound between two and three times higher than aluminum allowed us to get that cantelever resonance well out of the audio range without compromising mass. A high moving mass will just rip apart record groove modulation (!).

Another part is the geometry of the cantelever. Materials like boron and diamond have a speed of sound similar to Beryllium, but it's not so easy to make a geometry like the microwall tube so you can take advantage of the properties. An airplane could be made of the very best high strength aerospace alloys, but if it were a solid piece it would never get off the ground. That's the problem with many boron and ruby carts."

And, "OldADC", Peter (R.I.P) Pritchard's successor at ADC: "The Astrion was an evolution. The ZLM attempt to recapture the combined warmth and sparkle of the XLM II was only partially successful and the Astrion was conceived to solve the *perceived lack of stiffness in the ZLM's tapered tube cantilever*. The lawyers wouldn't let us use beryllium because of the toxicity hazard so I ended up going with a laser slotted single crystal sapphire with the modified elliptical diamond bonded in the laser slot.
I am of the "free the pivot" school. Those other beasts required a tie wire to assemble the stylus assemblies. A small wire was soldered in the back of the stylus tube and pulled toward the rear of the cartridge to a specific load and then soldered off to hold the assembly together. The load plane and the tension defined that center point of rotation for the assembly. All well and good until you consider a couple of factors.
1) That assembly is now by definition imbalanced in motional impedance fore and aft of the pressure defined pivot point. Constrained, held hostage, on a freaking leash!
*2) That tie wire has a resonance of its very own. Almost all of them, based on length and diameter of the wire ended up somewhere around 17kHz*. Many designs went to great lenght to dampen and tame that resonance but....and here is the big deal....even if you tame the amplitude resonance so flat you can't see it in a swept sine wave plot....you haven't done a dang thing for the 180 phase shift that must occur when that wire passes through its resonance, damped or not. I swear I could always hear a tie wire in the desperate confusion of attack on top hat symbols".

And, out of context: "too sharp a leading edge just isn't perceived as pleasant" (re. B&O/SSmith voicing).

Not forgetting about coil inductance/output impedance, if one's preference is for an unflinchingly accurate transducer, a Microsomething stylus on beryllium/ruby/crystal just might be your ticket.
For those with a more "romantic" sound in mind, tapered/thinwall alu. is to be considered. A long footprint Shibata or line contact stylus will give good detail retrieval while still treating your ears (and vinyl) with respect.
Neatly splitting the difference is titanium, mass/rigidity less than beryllium, resonance greater. Comparing Ti. to Alu., greater mass/rigidity, reduced resonance.

BTW, a mongrelized Signet TK7SU/Akai RS-180 (hand selected ATN14S nude Shibata) cantilever transplant is greatly improved on an 8.5gm Ortofon LH-8000 (Japaneese Oak) headshell. Low bass transients/soundstage is tightened up substantially. Good placement, easy mids and HF's are not noticably penalized, even at 47k res. After a week of close listening, two more LH-8000's on the way now for other carts with the somewhat rounded bass sometimes found with alu. cantilevers. For those who enjoy the TK7SU or similar pre-digital influence carts, prices for the LH-8000 seem to be going up. Just sayin'--

IMHO, EPA-250 (12gm eff. mass), antique rig & etc.,

Peace,
Dear Tubetan: Talking for me. MM or MI does not really matters on the subject.

I already heard The Voice and the SMMC1/2 , these all SS cartridges.
The SMMC1/2 are B&O MI original designs modified by SS and marketed by SS.
Several times I posted ( and even you can read it on thhis thread somewhere or at the thread page: writed 4+ years ago. ) that IMHO the original B&O MMC1/2 designs were better quality performers than the similar SS ones that are a little on the hi-fi side with out the natural B&O original " signature ".

Even the B&O people has a test on SS rebuilds against other B&O authorized fixing source ( Germany ), this is what they found out:

http://www.beoworld.org/article_view.asp?id=203

+++++ " Moving onto the Soundsmith it was immediately obvious that the two pickups were very different in character. The SMMC20EN appears to have been retuned for the digital age, gone is the smoothness and niceness and in it’s place is a sharper, more aggressively detailed sound that is more akin to that of a CD player than a classic turntable. The SMMC20EN required slightly less down force (1.3 grams) to track correctly but because of its brighter sound the limits of the LP system were more audible, it was never sibilant but it certainly verged on it at times. Some recordings were also overlaid with a steely glare that could very occasionally blur the imaging. For highly produced, high energy music the SMMC20EN cut through the characteristic B&O sound and toughened up the 8000 system in general, if you want to rock and prefer LP to CD then it represents a very worthwhile audition. It was not a pickup that I found relaxing however. " +++++

these is part of that hi-fi side that SS shows and I talked about.

Seems to me that SS voicing is to that hi-fi side. They choosed to design the strain gauge cartridge with out RIAA standard and the cartridge share that hi-fi side.

I send to SS my Win ruby cantilever cartridge to fix it because they works with ruby material and my cartridge cantilever was bent. When I receive it I noted that the cantilever was shorter and after few hours broke and I re-send to SS aclaring that I want the original Win length in the cantilever because I don't like what I breiffly heard with the shorter one.

Seems to me that the SS " touch/magic " goes almost always to that hi-fi side because that's what like these guys.
Almost all the people that retip at SS are very satisfied because their cartridges now sounds better than ever: well all them are hearing a different cartridge voicing almost a different cartridge and nothing wrong with that.

When I send my Virtuoso to SS I was very clear to stay nearest to the original design, as a fact SS try to " push " me in different direction but does not convince me.

Some one told me that Ruby and sapphire has similar characteristics and if I was any of you ( Fleib. ) then I will take the Virtuoso and then send it to Alex in Germany ( whom use sapphire material. ) to fix it. I have to say that Alex not only shows to B&O people his high skills but this guy was the only cartridge fix source that take the Technics 100CMK4 from Dgob and fixed at great satisfactory level, not even VdH wants to take the cartridge to fix it, Dgob was really worried and sad about till we find out Axel.

Anyway, we always could buy SS cartridges if we like it ( not me, today. ) but if we want to find out where the Virtuoso could " arrive " then the Alex alternative IMHO could be the best option.

Btw, I don't have any relationship with Alex.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Griffithds/Fleib: The alternative to find out how " long " could goes the Virtuoso with different cantilever/stylus approaches is a good one too especially because in stock status showed very good quality performance.

Of course that as Fleib point out any single change to the Virtuoso makes a voicing change but this is what " we " are trying to find out, we can't make it with out change the original voicing: even my sample is a little different from the original.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Hi Raul, Griffiths, I already stated my opinion and read nothing to convince me otherwise. The only thing is, I haven't heard a Maestro so I don't have that experience on which to base my opinion. Because the generators of these cartridges are identical, and the Maestro is highly thought of, I don't think it would be a great leap of faith to read between the lines.

***I think we (those of us who are following this thread), would learn more as to what can be acomplished using the same basic cantilivers but using the 2 different levels of styluses. I on the other hand, would wind up with 2 absolutely amazing cartridges no matter which way I
choose!***

Correct me if I'm wrong. Doesn't the cart come with a straight (non-tapered) cantilever? If so, you've already changed the voicing of the cart. Maybe it's changed less than if you change cantilever material, but even changing the tip will effect voicing. An exotic cantilever is far superior in resonance characteristics, detail retrieval, and tonal nuance. The voicing with an exotic cantilever doesn't always compliment the generator, but I doubt if that is the case here. It seems to me that with a ruby/micro you will probably wind up with a cart superior to either the Virtuoso or the Maestro. This isn't new ground here. It's been successfully done before. Perhaps you should talk to Peter (SS) about it. I think that putting a micro tip on the stock cantilever is like pearls before swine.
Regards,
Hi Tubetan, I think that's a great idea. Do you have an Aida? Have you ever heard one, or the Voice? I have no doubt that they're excellent cartridges. Unfortunately, neither one is feasible for me to get, at this time. Perhaps someone who has one can comment.
Regards,
Hi Folks,

All this talk of the CA's superiority...

Looking at this technically there is nothing extraordinary about the generator in use - what is interesting is that the vibration control applied by the external body around the generator appears to take things up a notch.

But there are other examples of this approach - the Signet TK1/2/3/5/7 series, The AT13/14/15/20..., the Shure Ultra500... and the many many woodies out there (MM or otherwise).

BUT: exploring and in trying to understand the aspects of performance, I observed the generic dip which happens with all my cartridges in the 5k to 12kHz range.... querying this led to being pointed to BAS Speaker Vol 8 #4 & 5 where the Boston Audio Society team did an extensive series of cartridge tests looking at everything from rimble through cartridge/arm resonances to arm resonances, table isolation, feedback etc...
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/pdf/bass/BASS-08-04-8001b.pdf
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/pdf/bass/BASS-08-05-8002.pdf
and also discussion in
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/pdf/bass/BASS-09-10-8106.pdf
(Thank you Snead for pointing me to these!)

Also the B&K white paper titled "Audible Effects of Mechanical Resonances in Turntables," (1977)

Particularly noteworthy was a Shure representatives comment that this dip is caused by cantilever flexion and twisting... designs that allow more of this show greater losses in this range, than stiffer ones...

A measure of cantilever quality?

This then points to the importance of using extremely rigid cantilever materials...

But also to the importance of keeping the cantilever very short...

This flexing would result in not only a drop in sensitivity but a subtle increase in various distortions... (where is the flexing energy going to?)

Should we be looking at designs using particularly short cantilevers? (or just focus on Ruby/Diamond cantilevers?)

The other things these extensive tests show is the actual measureable influence of arm resonances on the sound... and the importance of damping. (there is also limited discussion of overdamping - but this aspect is not developed)

Interestingly the arms/cartridges showing best results in terms of arm resonances are mounted on ultra light arms...
A reflection of engineering reality? or a reflection of the state of play in the late 70's / early 80's?

Getting back to the CA cartridges - the body mounting is directly impacting the arm resonant environment - apparently successfully so - it would be interesting to make these type of measurements comparing an AT95 or AT110 (similar AT family - basic plastic body surround) to the CA developed body surround... on the same arm obviously... I think this might uncover the "secret" of their vaunted sound.
And make that technique thereby available to all those of us willing to tinker with our cartridges/arms/setup.

Also if (as I suspect) that is "all" there is to the CA cartridges - then similar results should be achievable by varying headshells, using wooden "damper" shims, or other similar means... and with the flexibility of choosing any standard cartridge.

bye for now

David
With all the talk of sending a Clearaudio Wood cartidge to Soundsmith for some of Peter's magic, why has no one considered comparing the Soundsmith Aida?? I know it is moving iron, and the discussion is moving magent. But if Peter is a miracle worker and I don't doubt he is, why not try a whole cartirdge system built by him instead of someone else's design modified by him. Or is the whole point of this recent discussion the pedigree and design superiority of the Clearaudio product?

Thanks,
Eric
Hi Raul and Fleib,

Fleib, if I was to look at this project from a cost perspective, the smart thing to do would be to go with Peters TOTL ruby/micro option. But what I don't want to do as Raul has stated, is lose or change the signature of the Virtuoso. I really hope you do send yours into SS for the ruby/micro option because I would love to hear what the end results become. I would even be willing to send you my Virtuoso (after the micro stylus replacement), so that you could report on what differences the 2 cantilivers using the same styluses present.
Raul, this could become quite an interesting project for all of us to learn from. There is no doubt (in my opinion), that the Virtuoso in any configuration, is something special. To throw a couple hundred dollars to SS to raise this cartridge to something even greater than it already is, is something I want to do.
Dear Griffithds: I'm with you.

In the other side the Fleib ruby cantilever option is other alternative with way different targets. As J.Carr posted more than once: if you like your cartridge " signature " then re-tip with the same/similar cantilever. A change in the build material cantilever along stylus makes almost a different cartridge that could lose its main " signature ".
Through my years experiences about I'm with JC too.

Now, I'm not against the ruby cantilever option only that's more " different ". I have no doubt that this alternative is a good one.

On this subject IMHO almost all reside on what we want : on what are our targets about. Any option is good one nothing wrong here, we will go for the one that fulfil our targets in better way.
I can say that I would like to try the ruby option or the similar sapphire one ( through the german source. ) but then I need two Virtuoso samples and this tell me that I need to invest at least 650.00 for other cartridge sample that I prefer invest in an Ortofon 2M Black. In the other side I don't want or need to change the Virtuoso " signature ".

Why don't I change the boron cantiler on my Technics cartridges for a ruby one? or with each one of all other top cartridges I own or any one own: either LOMC or MM/MIs?, the alternative is there but then seems to me that in that way we are changing the reference to other cartridge owners.

Anyway, a very specific targets dependable option.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Hi Griffiths, I can't help feeling that putting a micro stylus on the aluminum cantilever is a mistake. You could wind up with the voicing of an AT-440 (alum/micro), slightly sweetened by the wood.

Raul indicated that the Maestro was over-damped with the extensive wood and boron/micro stylus. Maybe a wood Virtuoso is the perfect vehicle for the micro with a exotic stylus. I'm guessing that you would have the ultimate CA. It would be interesting to compare the Satin wood to ebony with that stylus. I've read reports of others who were extremely happy with SS ruby CAs. I'm thinking of sending my Virtuoso to him for the ruby/micro. I think you should reconsider.
Regards,
Hi Dlaloum,

Sorry for misdirecting my comments on this cartridge to Flieb. I see now that the thread was a comment you had wirtten to Flieb. Not the other way around.
Very interesting comments you have written concerning the Ultra line and Shure. I am very much looking forward to hearing your comments on your Ultra. I have seen a few of these show up on e/bay once in a while and have concidered checking them out based on my sometimes foggy recollections! Keep us posted and thank you for your comments in advance.
Hi Raul,

I'm torn between 2 options for my red Virtuoso. One is to have Peter of SS replaced just the stylus, using his "optimize contour line contact diamound", on the cantiliver that is currently on the cartridge. The 2nd option would be for him to install that stylus on his basic cantiliver and install the cantiliver/stylus assembly into my cartridge body. I'm leaning towards option 2, reasons being I would then be able to compare the new SS red Virtuoso with my SS black Virtuoso. They would both have the same bodies, same cantilivers, just different styluses. One being his basic eliptical stylus, and the other, his optimized line contact. I think we (those of us who are following this thread), would learn more as to what can be acomplished using the same basic cantilivers but using the 2 different levels of styluses. I on the other hand, would wind up with 2 absolutely amazing cartridges no matter which way I choose!
Dear Dlaloum: Nice Shure history. I heard the Ultra 500 when I owned the V15-V and in those times ( what I remember. ) I like the 500 especially its different cartridge body. I was unaware of the Ultra 400/300 till you " touch " it here in the past.

Now, I own the 140 and in comparison with the V15-V the 140 outperform it. The 140 looks a little weird but it is top performer. Siniy123 was the person that let me know about.

The 140 is hard to find and its price is nothing near the bargains we are accustom to. My sample was a NOS that I bought in an ebay auction and I paid over 450.00 for it. There is original NOS stylus replacement for the 140 at around 185.00 through ebay, the 149.00 stylus rep´lacement that you mentioned say it is an Ultra300 that fits on the 140.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Hi Griffithds,

I was the one that mentioned the Ultra400....
Shure's last gasp attempt at high end MM was the Ultra range, TOTL was the Ultra500 - which used the same stylus as the V15VMR - the generator was the same too but mounted in a different metal mounting block.

Perhaps the improvement was caused by the body mounting - much like the CA cartridges currently being discussed and their wood bodies.

Certainly the improvement was not in stylus or generator as these were unchanged!

In parallel Shure designed a new range of generators, which they perhaps hoped would replace the V15 series...

These were the ML120/140 which shipped with HyperEliptical styli on Beryllium tube cantilevers. Design objective was to sound as good as the V15V but to leverage more recent manufacturing tech to achieve a lower cost.
The designer of these cartridges posted on Audiokarma a while back. - He claims that in some ways it bettered the V15V design, but in other ways it came a close second.

Shure also released the "Ultra" versions of these cartridges as the Ultra300 and Ultra400 - the Ultra400's appear to have been hand selected Ultra300's they both have MicroRidge styli on Beryllium cantilevers.

Unfortunately they were released when CD was just getting into its stride.... they made little impact and were not a great commercial success.

When Shure decided to resurrect the V15 as the V15VxMR - they used a more economical version of the original V15, but remained with the V15 due to the (highly marketable) reputation it had built up over 20 years.... so the ML series did not live long.

I managed to find an Ultra300 body economically some months back - and only in the last week have I managed to find an economical NOS Ultra400 stylus for it. (they are still available at LPgear for quite a reasonable $150, and $130 for the Ultra300)
I hope to have the stylus sometime over the next 2 or 3 weeks (the joys of international shipping).

I will post my measurement and listening results in due course....

I believe the ML120/140 and Ultra300/400 are a possible bargain that can still be picked up at reasonable prices due to its relative obscurity. - and original NOS styli are still available at reasonable prices.

bye for now

David
Hi Raul!
Thanks a lot for your advices!
I had read all this post (extra long!) and i have learn a lot of thinks..
I enjoy very much the "analog side of the moon", with my two turntables. All my life i have a concealed desire: "to get a turntable"
I love his sound! It' "human"...
Thanks again for give me the opportunity to have the best solution for my turntable.

Best regards from Greece!!
Dear Delamostrel: I hope you are enjoying the analog experience where cartridge/tonearm set-up being a critical factor that could makes a paramount difference for the better when it's " right ".

I don´t have experience with the Shure 91 but with the 97 and V15III both with SAS/Jico stylus and both are really good and mate with your 1200.

If you want to invest for a " finale one " then my choice today is this one:

http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?anlgcart&1319872263&/Clearaudio-Virtuoso-wood-

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Griffithds: I just losted the opportunity to hear the CA ( red and untouched. ) because my friend " detsroy " the cantilever of the cartridge he accepted to borrow me.

++++ " It really is a more of you are there type of difference " +++++

this a main characteristic on the SS that certainly ( as you posted ) been an upgrade and that certainly too very difficult to explain/put on words but a subject that involve cartridge overall quality performance level.

Yesterday I had again the Maestro in my system and I'm still hearing a great performance but ( as you said. ) with different tone, softer if you like.

Yes, as you seems to me that with a better stylus the Virdtuoso can be even greater performer. Note that I'm said " better stylus " meaning same cantilever or at least same build material cantilever. Well this is what I would do it but obviously that it's your call.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Hi Griffiths, I've never owned an Ultra 400. I seem to remember reading something lately, but can't recall who posted it. There was an Ultra 500 too.

About your CAs; If you want to save the original stylus (possibly for comparison), talk to Peter. He might have an extra plug. If not, you could get the cheapest replacement stylus for an AT95 and use that for the plug. Also, the AT P-mounts with the unusual looking plastic stylus holder, also fit perfect. You can get an AT-90 on ebay or amazon for around $20.
Regards,
Hi Flieb,

If my memory serves me correctly, that Ultra 400 you have was touted to be the best thing Shure ever produced. Highly regarded by all in the bussiness. How would you compare it to other cartridges in your collection?
I have also a Lenco L-75 refurbished turntable, with a Denon DL-160 in his arm. Compared those two carts-turntables, Lenco-160 bits the Technics-304 combination!!

I had sold immediately the DL-304 and now I am searching a best cart-solution for SL-1210MK2 turntable.
I have also a Shure M-91ED and I wonder if it was a good start (or a final one), to put a Jico SAS needle, in order to having better results.

What would you advise me to do?
(A desperate music-lover asks for your "tricks" & solution..)
Hi Raul!
I am an almost newcomer in turntables-carts field.
Recently (before 8 months), I bought from Greece the last piece of the great-last production of Technics SL-1210MK2 turntable.

I have a system that I am very pleased of it. Onkyo P-304 preamp, Onkyo M-504 power amp, Onkyo selector U-30 (I have many components to connect) & Scandyna - Blueroom Minipods loudspeakers with Scandyna's Bass station.

I had load in the Technics turntable (I didn't done any modification yet), a Denon DL-304 cart. The sound was amazing BUT only at first sight! With a better hearing, the sound was pretty harsh and very disappointed!
I would like to clarify a comment I made in the previous post. I heard this expanded soundstage on (some), standard records also. Not just the 180 & 200 gram discs.
I've just reinstalled my Benz Micro RubyIII and went thru some of the list of records I used with the SS Virtuoso Black. That soft wood tone presentation is back with the Ruby.
I like the new Virtuoso better.
Hi Griffithds,

It would be interesting to hear your feedback after you have soundsmith make the same cantilever and stylus changes. Maybe the earlier respondent who suggested that this would be where perceived differences lie had a point.

I'm eager to hear: although others can now rest assured that it is fairly easy to obtain the ebony version through their national Marantz retailer.

Many thanks for your informative feedback
Hi Fleib,

yep - I kept hoping for more - but this is what I measured...

They do have some response out at 35k... unlike the LCR resonance there doesn't seem to be a similar drop off after the cantilever resonance.

The problem is none of these mention their +/-db out to the very extended F-R, so they are not meaningful!
The denon test record I have goes out to 50kHz - so when I have a cartridge/stylus with some potential past the 27kHz I can measure with the pink noise track, I pull that out... but I have yet to find a serious contender...
I just ordered a NOS stylus for my Shure Ultra400 - we shall see....

bye for now

David
Hi everyone and especially you Raul.

I'm sorry for the length of time it has taken me to post my findings with the 2 versions I have of the Virtuoso. I wanted to make sure I have had (repeatedly), both set at the sweet spots before making final judgments. I would like to 1st say that I have a Denon 103R with the Midas alum. body installed. I have had the use of 3 different types of wood bodies, borrowed from friends, and have tried them all on the Denon in my system. I settled on the alum for this cartridge because it tightened up everything. The wood bodies tend to soften the presentation abit. Not a bad thing, just not what I prefer. The differences in the woods are of the most suttle of changes in tone. I repeat, changes in tone only. Those of you who have tube equipment will experience far greater changes in tone by just rolling tubes. I mention this because I expected to hear between the 2 woods, (old being the femenbak and new being ebony), a slight difference in tone presentation and thats all. What I'm hearing is a greater depth/3 demensional type of presentation with the ebony version. This is not what I'm use to hearing with just different wood bodies. There is no doubt that the 2 cartridges are of the same family. On some records, I could not tell them apart, but it seems that the better the record, ( 180 and 200 gram types), the sound stage would open up into a more believable presentation of acutal instruments being played in the room. I know Peter of Sound Smith says that the $150 cantilever/stylus job just renews the cartridge to its original condition, but the differences I'm hearing leads me to believe his basic upgrade is truly an UPGRADE! It really is a more of you are there type of difference. I've tried to put into words, differences in voice, or bass, or treble extension, but there is none that I can detect. They both appear to track the same, that is exceptionally well. It's really that out of speaker, floating around you type of improvement that I'm experiencing. Really hard to put into words. Upon 1st listen, I felt perhaps what I was experiencing was a comparsion of an old (3+ years),to new, cartridge presentation. After extended listening sessions, and discovering records that I could not hear any differences between either of them, is when I excepted the fact that both cartridges were playing at the top of their potentional. Raul, I hope someone near you has a new CA (untouched by an outside source), Virtuoso that they would lend you to compare with your SS (I feel improved), version. As great as my stock/original old version is, the new SS ebony version raised the bar for me. I am pulling together the funds to send my old (even though it's still in great shape), Virtuoso to Sound Smith to have his best cantiliver/stylus install just to see how far this cartridge can be taken. This experience has lead me to expect greater things for this cartridge from Peter at Sound Smith!
Thanks Raul, the ad sparked my curiosity. The seller seems to have experience with many carts. The ad is here on Agon.

David, I still can't reconcile resonance between 19 - 23K, on carts that have response beyond 30K. Beyond primary high frequency resonance, response should drop off like a rock. Wasn't the 20SS spec to 35K? I'm not sure what to make of this. AT wouldn't publish that spec if it was down 20dB.
Regards,
Dear Fleib: I owned the 108 and nothing important to remember. Denon was not a " high " name on MM cartridges those times, at least in America, and IMHO was not a real challenge to all other MM old time competiors for bisiness.

I never heard the 109 and to say it was/is the " best MM ever " could be true if the seller tell us against which other MM/MI cartridges he made his comparisons and in which audio system and obviously why he made that statement: what support it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Hi Raul,

Thanks for your interest and, as promised, I will let you have my impressions once I've had a chance to actually listen to one. In the meantime, I hope that the information that Clearaudio provided will help clarify some issues and encourage others to try either of the wood (MkII) options with a little more confidence.

I'm also really looking forward to hearing Griffithds' feedback on his experience with them and to trying one myself.

As always
Dear Jorsan: I don't have first hand experiences with that cartridge in those tonearms but seems to me that can works with the Clearaudio.

If the SME model you posted is a universal removable headshell then my vote is for it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
raul.
Dear Dgob: Well, I'm more interested on your experiences than in Clearaudio ones.

I'm just waiting Griffithds experiences/comparison with both cartridges.

regards and enjoy the music,
raul.
Hi Fleib,

I agree totally - the more linear the initial phase & frequency response, the less messing is require to correct it, the less additional distortion is introduced along the way.
Without a question of a doubt, the best thing is to start with a very linear cartridge/stylus having no LCR resonance or cantilever resonance within the audio range, and preferably pushing these resonances out far enough that they do not impact on the 20-20k range (50kHz? 75kHz?).

So far a few very nice sounding cartridges are all showing cantilever resonance between 19kHz and 23kHz:
Empire 1000z
AT20ss
ADC SXLM
Pickering XLZ7500S
Jico VN5xMR SAS
Shure V15HRP
Empire/Benz MC1

BUT all of them show dropp off below 100Hz, a hump between 100 and 400 (peak between 200 & 300), and a slump around 10k (of varying magnitude and width)
Correcting the above anomalies does improve the square wave (and frequency response) - but I have not yet done real listening with it...

I would like to get my hands on a Dynavector Karat or a Technics EPC-100 as they have a reputation for extended very flat frequency response.... far more so than any of the above cartridges that I already have.

Raul - I do have the SRT14 test record, but found the Ranger Square Wave test record to be better. (seems to be more cutter distortion on the SRT14)
I would love to get my hands on the CBS 112... will keep my eyes open for it.

I have been having footfall problems, which have been frustrating me (I know, a shelf would be better, but is not currently an option!) - I fitted magnetic levitation feet this evening, and the footfall influence dropped dramatically.... should be able to do more listening now.
(also new driver arrived for my headphones... to be fitted tomorrow, or the day after...)

bye for now

David
Is anyone familiar with a Denon DL-109d MM cart? There's one for sale here, and it's said to be the best MM ever.
Regards,
Hi Raul,

Almost forgot, but one additional useful bit of information here is that the ebony black Virtuoso is only build by Clearaudio (OEM) for Marantz. Purchases of this one therefore have to be made through Marantz: whereas the satinee brown Virtuoso can be purchased from Clearaudio retailers.

Hope this also helps
Hi Raul,

I got the relevant supplied information directly from Clearaudio. Sadly, I'm personally still in the 'research' stage and yet to buy or try one.

If I do have the opportunity to audition them before buying one, I will definitely let you have my impression concerning performances and any differences.

As always...
Dear Dgob: Good to know it but : what were your experiences with the three cartridges at quality performance level?

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Hi again, any comments about my last post will be greately apreciated:

" Hi,
What Do you consider a better match for the virtuoso, a VPI JMW 12.6 or a SME R2-12 tonearm? . Thanks in advance "

thanks
Hi Griffithds and Raul,

Just to confirm that there are absolutely no performance differences between the black ebony Virtuoso and the brown Satinee Virtuoso - apart from the colour of the wood. There is however a difference between both of these options and the metal version. As Raul suggested, the Wood versions would appear the better option concerning performance.

Hope others find this information as useful as I have
David, That's really interesting stuff. It's ironic that the old audiophile adage that using an equalizer introduces phase shift, has come full circle, LOL. A word of caution - a phono cartridge was not really designed to reproduce a square wave. The sq wave results may not be completely accurate or indicative of the actual cartridge performance. IMO you should verify results with listening at every step along the way and not base conclusions on test results alone.

It's been my experience that eliminating extra components in the signal chain tends to improve fidelity. That is, if high quality components are used. I can't help thinking that it would be preferable to have a reasonably flat frequency response without the EQ. Cartridges with extended response - high frequency resonance, seem to have very good phase linearity. It will be interesting to see what you come up with.
Regards,
Dear Dlaloum: Between my specific test recordings that I use or used through the years are the STR 112 ( CBS ) that has square-wave test, intermodulation test and some other tests, the other one that could help you is the SRT 14 from Stereo Review. As a fact there are several old specific test recordings that you have to find out through the net/ebay.

I think that is almost impossible not only to have the specific test track we are looking for but that the recording be at today quality performance standards.

Btw, I think that I still have 3-4 of those old equalizers, maybe could be time to test it and use it: why not?.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
On the topic of EQ....

I have been continuing experiments using Digital EQ...
The driver has been the search for phase linearity and the possibility of achieving linear phase as well as amplitude.

I was thinking about Square waves, and the manner in which phase and amplitude variations alter the shape of square waves.

Given that we do not have any test tracks that can effectively be used for real quantifiable analysis of phase, I am having to turn to a more subjective approach.
To that end, I started by mapping out the variation in a square wave when one applies + or - 4db of EQ at various frequencies... I did this both using linear phase filters (amplitude only) and minimum phase filters (traditional analogue phase+amplitude) - The test plots are up on my website for perusing /sites.google.com/site/zevaudio/.

I still have to take the next step which is also to do phase only variation by applying mimimum phase EQ then using linear phase to correct the amplitude - leaving the phase variation intact.

I got impatient, and took a look at what happens when I EQ a cartridges response using minimum phase (on the basis that most natural phenomena - such as resonances are minimum phase) - lo and behold, the square wave reproduced with that EQ in place (which took the cartridge to +/-0.5db from 70Hz to 19kHz) the Square wave became "squarer".

The problem remains of whether the test tracks are sufficiently accurate to allow accurate correction...

But they are definitely sufficiently good to improve existing default phase and amplitude linearity.

I still need to do the phase only plots so that I can get an understanding of what that looks like (I will also post the results up so people can have a look...)
The end result will be a set of pictures that show what each specific type of distortion of a square wave looks like...

From there one can take a look at a square wave output of a cartridge on a scope, and relatively quickly work out that there is a particular type of variation from flat, and roughly in what area of the spectrum that variation is...

I was not surprised at being able to achieve +/-0.5db, what did get my attention was the way the wave "squared up"...

With this reference tool (the reference plots) I can now read the many vintage reviews that show square waves, and get an understanding for the performance of the cartridges involved that I could not get before.

It now becomes abundantly clear, that a square wave with a large overshoot rise, is telling me that there is a high frequency resonance, the sharper that rise (and the squarer the top/bottom) the further out in frequency that resonance is....
But a cartridge that shows this overshoot, can also potentially cause phono stage problems, as the phono stage will be trying to pass an amplitude peak of possibly +10 or greater db... if insufficient headroom is available... other issues would then arise.

Another reason for "synergy" (and reverse synergy....)?

The arrival of advanced digital EQ (over the last few years) provides us with a new set of tools that can be used to optimise the performance of our cartridges in a search for the ability to reproduce the master....

If minimum phase can achieve 90% of what is required, then freeware like Electri-Q (posihfopit edition) can potentially be used as a high quality audiophile tool.

Raul - most of those old Equalisers were traditional analogue filters - which means minimum phase - and are therefore potentially the right tool for the job. (it's been there all along!) - that is assuming what I am seeing initially continues to be true - that minimum phase does in fact correct the square wave distortions that appear to be caused by phase non-linearity.

Bye for now

David

P.S. I really really want a properly designed test record for frequency amplitude and frequency phase testing!! (and impulse tests... )
Dear Griffithds: I agree with Fleib. There has to be an improvement/revision on the " moving system " to pass from that 80um to the 90um, this was not at random but on purpose. This IMHO is the main difference or at least the one you could hear it on playback.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Stltrains: http://www.stereophile.com/features/cut_and_thrust_riaa_lp_equalization/index.html

http://www.klaus-boening.de/html/timeconstant.html

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Raul it is most enjoyable having the ability to hear what small changes in caps/resistors mean to what you are hearing phono eq wise. I have retired a highly regarded mc phono amp and returned to gear that's almost older than me. Between the super sounding mm cartridges and vintage gear I believe the vintage music I love has a true to life sound that does satisfy my soul. I haven't had a lot of luck researching Neumanns correction can you add a link. Thanks Mike
Hello Griffithds, Sorry I missed your follow up to Raul's review. The specs you posted might indicate a change in the stylus/compliance, or they might just be a correction of their specs.
Frequency Response 20Hz-20kHz-- 20Hz-20kHz
Output Voltage 3.6mV------- 3.6mV
Channel Seperation 30dB-------- 30dB
Channel Balance 0.2dB-------* 0.3dB
Tracking Ability 90um--------* 80um
Tracking Force 2-2.5 optm.2.2--* 2.0
Coil Impedance 0.66kOm-----* 0.68kOm
Coil Inductance 0.42H------- 0.42H
Load Resistsance 47K--------- 47K
Load Capactance 100pF------- 100pF
Cantiliver Alum-------- Alum
Weight 6.0g--------* 10g

The change in the impedance spec is pretty much meaningless. The difference is less than 3% and is probably less than the tolerance on most carts. With the inductance remaining the same, it looks like a correction of specs rather than any change to the generator. The tracking ability and VTF change also looks like a tightening and refining of the spec. There might have been a change to the moving system. 80um is excellent. 90um is exemplary. This becomes irrelevant with a Soundsmith replacement stylus. I think CA did a great job in choosing parameters for their line of MMs. Their 10Hz cu is rated at 15. This is more appropriate for med/heavy arms that are likely to be used. I think this contributes much to the resulting performance on these arms and is a bigger factor than has been previously stated.
Regards,
Dear Stltrains: I don't know you but me for several years was facinated for external added equalization. I owned multiple and different type of equalizers. I remember my Crown, Souncraftsman, MXR, Machintosh, Levinson, Klark Teknic, DBX or Accuphase ( and more. ).
Always trying to compensate for ears and audio system deficiencies and just for fun. In those times I was unaware what RIAA inverse eq. ment and I remember that when I readed that a Soundcraftsman integrated came with RIAA eq. I try to get it only because that RIAA eq.!!!: this was my knowledge level.

Time to time comes to my mind those old times and I think: what if I take my Klark-Teknic equalizer ( I don't know even where it is. ) and connect in my AS?, till today I never did it but I think could be interesting and maybe we can take advantage of today technology and in specific with digital equalizers units.
Thuchan presume because his unit had " seven " eq. options, with an add-on equalizer we can have as many as we want or imagine: not big deal if you have the right equalizer or as you the add-on eq. electronic circuit.

That kind of system equalization is a good alternative and interesting too but I'm refering to other eq. alternative: the one that can mimic ( inverse ) what is in the recording. I think that always is important to find out " what is in the recording " before try to alter it. The Neumann correction is IMHO a good " place " to begin with as is what some phono stages already do like the EMT unit that Thuchan owns.

Along this alternative what is interesting too could be to correct the cartridge frequency response deviations from flat response but here maybe we need a " near perfect " LP track test with recorded 20 hz to 20 khz frequency range.

Anyway, several alternatives but this time my focus is in: what do you think on my Neumann correction original question? recordings with the Neumann corection most be hear it with phono stages that mimic that RIAA correction ( inverse. ) or it does not matters?

Regards and enjoy the music,
raul.

Raul I have installed several different eq circuits in my vintage preamp. I am running them in and plan to audition the 4 of them for a favorite. I listen to classic rock, blues mostly. I do understand the passion for playback as it was recorded but in electronic music there's so many variables. Neummans correction is interesting and I would like to try it. I will do a web search thanks again for more alternatives to phono eqs. Mike
Hi Fleib,

In Raul's review, I posted a follow up dated 8/18/11. It lists the differences of the specs. that pertain to our 2 cartridges. Mine came right off of the pamphlet that is provided by CA and came with my Virtuoso. His matches the current specs. that are listed for this cartridge by CA. They are different in what I would concider key areas. It would not matter if your cartridge came with or without a cantiliver/stylus, or that SoundSmith replaced them, the specs. of this cartridge from CA would still be the same. Please look at the differences and give me your opinion of what these differences (if any), would create.
Dear Lewm/friends: +++++ " I have no opinion on this Neumann issue, only curiosity. Many years ago, Ralph Karsten told me where to install a resistor in the RIAA section of my MP1 preamp so as to introduce the Neumann correction. " +++++

well, I asked because if it is true that the recordings comes ( almost all ) with a RIAA correction ( Neumann or what ever. ) at the high frequency range then seems to me that the " right " way to play does LPs is with an inverse RIAA eq. that mimic it on that correction too.

Why any one of us could want to play LPs with a different eq. with what was recorded?, I mean if we want to preserve the recorded signal integrity to be nearest to the recording.

The subject here is not if the Neumann correction on playback could introduce " problems/distortions " for an improper design/implementation but the validity to use an inverse eq. correction on playback.

What do you think?, maybe it is time that phono stage designers take it in count in their designs, don't you think?

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Hi,
What Do you consider a better match for the virtuoso, a VPI JMW 12.6 or a SME R2-12 tonearm? . Thanks in advance
Raul, you and Phaser(Ian) system are more alike than different. Both SS for all amplification duties.
Ian really liked the Maestro better than his double price Transfiguration.

The MM cartridge will add some of the tone that SS is missing. Nothing wrong with that of course as it is always system balance and choices.

cheers