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
You guys are killing me. I love the Stanton 881, so the 980 hzs on Thakker would be great, or do I get the NOS Shure ml140he?

Or do I tell my daughter at college to get a job and buy both?
Ac, I of course had to go right to eBay to check out Thakker. Seems he has a 980LZS, not HZS. Or did I miss something? Personally, I am sticking with the LZS. Z stands for impedance, I think. The LZS will have much lower inductance than the HZS version, which means impedance will be correspondingly lower at all frequencies. This is a good thing, one thing that MCs have over MMs as a general rule. Funny that Raul's fave cartridge is a LOMC with high compliance compared to others of that ilk, and one of my faves is this MM with low inductance compared to other MMs. (But the Grace Ruby is at least as good IMO and is more conventionally like other MMs.)
Regards, Pickering admirers: Might take a look:

http://www.pickeringuk.com/spex.html

The TL4S is a P-mount design, styli should be compatible with your Stanton carts. Hopefully Griffithds (hi, Don) will consult his resources and confirm?

Might also take a peek at the fairly obscure Stanton 7804S as described on the VE database. Those familiar with this cart report a positive experience.

A current production alternative to the 881, an elliptical from Stanton manufactured (AFAIK) in their Florida location, anyone know this cart?

[url]http://www.musiciansfriend.com/pro-audio/stanton-890-fs-mp4-cartridge-for-finalscratch--matched-pair-2-rm[url]

The description is imaginative, "2 matched cartridges mounted on tone-arm like devices (that would be headshells) ---."2 spherical styli---. 2 elliptical styli are designed for hi-quality playback for recording of records into the FinalScratch system or any other application where sound quality is critical."

The 890AL would seem to be the most attractive alternate to the classic 881, 900 ohm impedance as compared to 1300 ohm imped. for the 890FS offered above.

Thuchan reminded me to dig out one of my Shure V15-111s. Sporting the HE stylus, the slightly abrasive quality heard with the elliptical stylus (on my ancient SS rig) is corrected, resonance related artifacts in the upper registers are relegated into obscurity and the bass moves with an agile strength supporting the status of the V15-111 being, for some, a reference cart for forty years. Thanks, Thuchan, have listened to nothing else for a week & apologies to the Stantering crew for thread drift.

Peace,
Lewm,

I have the BAT VK10Se with all the latest upgrades. That includes the latest Lundahl SUT's. The BAT gives me from 44db up to 78db's of gain, more than enough for the 981's. With that said, I must admit I prefer the LZS over the HZS. Is there something that I could put my finger on to state why? No, there's not except this. I have set up both the LZS and the HZS on Graham arm wands and dialed it them in with the Mint LP device. The arm wand with the HZS gets cartridges rotated on it (removing the HZS). The wand with the LZS remains set up. I refuse to remove it from its wand. Subconsciously I think my brain is telling me something. Res. set at 47K, and cap. set at 100 plus the low cap. cables. I wish I could define what I like about one over the other, but frankly speaking, I could live easily for the rest of my life with either of them in my system. If you have heard the AT180/170 OCC, or the Signet TK10 MKII, you will have an ideal of what a 981s sounds like. Just a little more refined. Hard to imagine that considering the level of performance the mentioned comparison cartridges are at but believe it.
Raul has hinted at but not come right out and said that the 981s is M/C like in its performance. I agree with him in that "hint" if you are only talking about what M/C's do right.

Regards,
Don
Dear Acman3,

"Or do I tell my daughter at college to get a job and buy both?"

You have answered your own question!
Lewm,

I have in both of my posts to you, forgot to mention how lucky I feel you are in owning a XSV7500. You are living in rarified air territory with that one.

Regards,
Don
Lewm, Check williamthakker.eu.

I currently do not own an MC phono stage. I have been going back and forth on upgrading my Preamp or getting a phono amp or stepup.
Timeltel and fellow Stanton/Pickering friends,

Hi Tom. As usual, your post are an absolute encyclopedia of information. I had to reread twice to absorb everything you provided. Your gift is much appreciated.

"The TL4S is a P-mount design, styli should be compatible with your Stanton carts."

My "resources" confirm you are correct. I hope someone in need of a replacement styli picks one up and enlightens the rest of us. Could be that non-available Stantering replacement stylus we have all been looking for!
Take care my friend,
Don
To those interested,
An old thread pertaining to Stanton/Pickering. Alot of useful information for the uninformed. For others, well, a refresher.

http://forums.audioreview.com/analog-room/stanton-881s-stylus-replacement-new-cartridge-28162.html

Regards,
Don
To All,

Before anyone misunderstands, the TL4S that Tom (timeltel), and I have been talking about is a M/M type stylus. That means 880/881s and above line of cartridges. Anything below, XV15, 680/681 are M/I. THEY ARE NOT INERCHANGABLE!
I would hate to have someone with a 681EEES buy a TL4S, on our recommendation, only to discover it doesn't work!
Regards,
Don
Dear Acman: Yes, Thakker is handling both vbersions the low and high impedance but you have to invest 500.00 Euros for each one. These 980 are the non-calibrated " 981 " cartridge models. Yes this 980 is IMHO better than your 881.

Well, your pocket will decide what to do about. Take in count that the re-sale price on your 881 is important too.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lewm: I envy you: two NOS nude stereohedron?, just great!!.

Yes, my Phonolinepreamp was designed with two separate discrete phono stages: one MC and one MM.

R.
Dear Raul, You anvy Lew for his two styli? I thought you
own 'second to none' system and > 100 carts. If it was his
electrostatics (the best the are and plural) or, probable, his
slate plinths I would understand your envy better.

Regards,
Dear griffithds: IMHO I think that you like it the Stanton LZ over the HZ because you like it more the step up transformer " heavy " colorations where the HZ goes straight in. Differences from both cartridges are tiny ones and I think that the HZ puts a little more " life " to the music, more " there " with. I can live with either but if you push me I give my vote by a " tiny hair " to the HZ.

Now, maybe the Graham could makes a difference too. I made my LZ/HZ " fast " shoot-out with the Sony PUA 237/JVC UA7045 and with my own tonearm design and I made it with even SPL in both cartridges.

Anyway, I think both are worth to try it.

In the other side, I'm not telling that my Stanton is or has exactly the same LOMC music presentation level. I'm saying that my sample I can consider as a cartridge reference alond my LOMC references but not outperform any of these ones.

The ones that own both kind of cartridges as us know the differences in between but those differences with top both cartridge worlds I can consider exist a level that we can name it " reference " and my Stanton/XVS 5000 stylus is IMHO a " reference ".

Btw, a few hours ago I bought here on Agon an Acutex 315 flat nose where the difference ( specs. ) with the 320 is almost non-existence. It surprise me that the 315 ad was at very low price and no one of you pull the triger and that's why I did it.

Yes Nandric, I can't stop to buy cartridges and second-three samples on top performers.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Raul, I hope the family bisiness will prosper so you can buy whatever you like. I must also confess to still search for , uh, 'interesting' carts. Btw the secretary Eva is probable still busy with Christmas shoping because I got Axel's wife on the phone. He is ok but has not the time to answer all emails at the moment. Otherwise he would not be able to repair our carts. I am still waiting to hear about my Shiraz which needs some complex 'surgery'. Anyway no worry for whoever is is waiting for his answer. He is a German you know.

Regards,
Dear Raul, I gotta love you. If someone has an opinion that differs from yours, it's always because the OTHER person "likes" distortion. I say this with all due respect, affection, and admiration, but you might try to be a bit more objective.

Dear Don, Apparently you have not been reading my posts all these months, which is understandable, since I am a bore. But you wrote, "I must admit I prefer the LZS over the HZS." This means that you are brilliant and perspicacious. I like the LZS, too, altho I confess, and have confessed, that I have not yet heard the HZS. I like the LZS so much that I own two, a 980 and an NOS 981 version. (In my case, my phono stage has gain up the wazoo, so my predilection for the LZS cannot be due to my "liking" the distortions of a SUT. I have never owned a SUT.)

By the way, I do not own a "whole" Pickering XSV7500, only the stylus assembly. But I do own an XSV4500, which I am guessing could be upgraded by the substitution of said stylus.
Raul,

I did see the "315 flat nose" listing but because I already have a "312 flat nose" on its way to Axel for upgrades, I passed. You did get quite a deal on it as far as price! What do you intend doing with the "315"? Perhaps also sending it off to Axel.
Regards,
Don
Hi Lewm,

" Apparently you have not been reading my posts all these months,"

Not true! I read all posts. There is far to much information/knowledge available on this forum that everyone can learn from. BTW I had to look up the "perspicacious". Thank you for the compliment, I'm humbled.
You do BTW, own a "whole" XSV7500, you just don't know. The body/generator you are using on the "4500" is the same (exactly), as that which is used on the "7500". I do believe that if you marry the two together, and compare it with your 981s, you will prefer the "7500" because of the cherry picked comments I mentioned in a earlier thread. I gave up on looking for the "7500". There's just none available. You have a hell of a stash of "gems".
As far as "liking" distortions, all equipment are full of distortions. Manufacturers can not even built two pieces of equipment that measures "exactly" the same. This is due to tolerances,(+/-) in every component part that is in every piece of equipment. More parts, more combinations of tolerance variances.
Regards,
Don
Dear Lewm: I'm with you and that's exactly what always looks my posts on that circumstances.

IMHO ( and I posted several times in different threads. ) the name of the game in high end audio are: distortion levels ( any kind of distortions. ). A perfect audio system could be the one that is distortions-free ( I'm talking in general way. Of course there are several other factors about but the main one for me are those distortions elsewhere an audio system. ).

If you read some of my posts about I always said that my main targets in audio are: accuracy and neutrality. You can approach those targets when you work to lower and lower distortions all over your audio system.
When we have accuracy, neutrality and low low distortions then that audio system improves its resolution a resolution that we need it when we make item comparisons. As higher resolution as better comparisons and is that way when you really be aware of differences that with a low resolution system you just can't do it.

Your system and mine have different resolution levels and it's there where when we heard the same cartridge we can have some " diffrences " but I want to say that at the end overall you and me can/could coincide on our opinion in that cartridge even that exist those system resolution differences.

That's all.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
"Your system and mine have different resolution levels". Actually, I think that has nothing to do with it. There is no such thing as total neutrality in an audio system. It's an absolute that one can seek to reach (one's system can always get "better"), but one should not expect to reach it, because the source material is always flawed, and the method by which the source material is created is even more flawed. Thus one is left with one's own taste. No matter what you may think you are doing, there is no getting away from your (and my) built in listening biases. I am absolutely certain that my system can "resolve" every tiny detail that yours can resolve, yet they will always sound "different", because you and I are each unique. Same goes for any other two individuals here.
Dear Lewm: ++++++ " There is no such thing as total neutrality in an audio system. It's an absolute that one can seek to reach (one's system can always get "better"), but one should not expect to reach it, ... " +++++

I agree but IMHO there are different level of resolution and distortion in any audio system in the same way exist different level of cartridge quality performance.

I'm not totally sure that my system can resolve every tiny detail than yours or yours than mine ( well I know but is only for " my eyes ". ), what I'm sure is that both are different. That can coincide of detail resolution in 98% of music playback does not means are the same because that " volatil " 2% remaing resolution is the one that makes the differences
Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Griffithds: Well, first to compare against the 320 and second: you are right send it to a refresh and see what level could be achieved with the flat nose motor with better cantilever/stylus/suspension cartridge.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Timeltel: An important, critical and " sensible " word.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Regards, Raul: Distortion is most often understood to mean IGD, OGD, FIM, TIM, sometimes even PMS. Music is generally considered an art and the elements constituting "good" art, it's tone, texture and structural elements have yet to be empirically defined. The consensus among the cognoscenti is that the agreement of informed persons is sufficient. It seems there are a number of respondents in this thread who meet that criteria.

Concern as to wether electrons in a fuse are bumping into each other from right to left or left to right, for some, just may be a distraction from the hypothetical core of our pursuit, which rightfully should be the reproduction of music in a manner the listener deems pleasurable?

The purists' perspective is unassailable and entirely respectable. However, & since we're not all of the same mold, using the example of an audiophile whose hearing acuity above, say 12kHz, was diminished would it be considered unacceptable if he were to turn up the treble just a teensy bit, or would it be better to say-

Regards & enjoy the music?

Peace,
Timeltel - you forgot the most common distortion - OMG. This is particular to audiophile systems and usually occurs when one has spent the food money on more important things like new fuses. It is also known to have been used by audiophile widows, upon discovering that the mortgage hasn't been paid.
Raul, If you would define your terms better, we could have a better argument. What do you mean by "resolution"? What do you mean by "distortion"? It seems that you use one or the other term any time someone disagrees with you on the rating of a cartridge, tonearm, or whatever else, always to say that your system has better resolution and lower distortion, while you do charitably admit that even your system is not perfect. (No kidding.) You say you are trained to hear distortions. I once asked you to describe your training, but you never did. I fully realize I am wasting space even to try to get anywhere with this..
Dear Lewm: Resolution?, you already know what it means but I can give you an example a direct example:

two weeks ago arrived the SR20 fuses for my subwoofers. As you know before the subwoofers I changed the external ML amplifiers fuses where I reported the improvements: lower distortions higher system resolution, then I changed my Essential Phonolinepreamp fuses with improvements: lowering distortions higher overall resolution.
Well, my expectation with the subwoofers fuses change was not so high because I considered that my Velodyne's performance level with the internal changes I made it and the fancy hi-fi tunning fuses was really good: what a nice " surprise " because when I switched to the SR20 fuses and start to heard the system my " jaw drop " as ever, I can't believe what I heard and I'm hearing on the whole bass system management ( I don't know why???? ): the low midbass, bass and low bass acquired a new dimension not only on more clear power and weight but bass precision, handle of harmonics and definition I was unaware that could be posible to attain.
Whole bass management achieved lower distortions and this sole fact gives the overall system a better resolution performance level than before because today that bass management does not interfere with the other music ranges that bass management been " cleaned " and permit to the other frequency ranges to shine as ever bringing to my ears a resolution level that permit me to be aware of MUSIC that I can't heard it before.

That means higher resolution due to lowering bass management distortions.

I always support that the main frequency range where we can have the higher overall improvements reside in the bass frequency range, when this bass frequency range is right on target ( and mine is better than ever as I never heard it in any system regarding $$$$ ) your system comes to life. You can't be near this " comes to life " till that frequency range be " there " and you can understand this only if you are experienced it and I know you did not as Dover or Timeltel neither.

Btw, Dgarretson and Dgob please do it a favor and change your Velodyne fuses for the SR20. For both of you IMHO this is a must!!!

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
When bass system generated " trash " disappear the system " new " experience is overwhelming where there are no words to express it ( at least I don't have it. ): it's a new experience and to understand it we have to live it or if can't do it " die/live with ignorance ".

R.
Dear Raul, Thanks for suggesting to re-fuse the Velodyne. Over the past few weeks I've been incrementally installing Acme silver/cryo fuses and fuse holders in BAT VK75SE, Atma MP-1, and ARC PH-2, both at AC and on DC rails. This has been a small revelation-- far more than expected. Some of the improvement was immediately noticeable(e.g. rail fuses on BAT), and some took 10-20 hours of break-in. I forgot about the sub!
Dear Dgarretson: +++++ " This has been a small revelation-- far more than expected. Some of the improvement was immediately noticeable... " +++++

that's, a " revelation " an unexpected revelation I'm " calm " today about that revelation I experienced with the SR20 fuses but when I heard it the first days I made the changes I was nothing less that jaws drop astonished.

When I did it with my subs the " revelation " was even bigger in this audio link. IMHO nothing can improve more ( real improve not only a diffrent sound. ) that have low very low distortions in the bass frequency range management. Lowering the IMD in full range passive speakers ( in any passive speakers. ) is the biggest revelation/audio experience any one can has. The first step to lower that speaker IMD is through the integration of active ( two at least. ) subwoofers leaving the main speakers handling the whole frequency range from 80'hz and up.

I hope that even that you are not using the SR20 can have that " revelation " with your subs. have a good time.

Btw, now that you already experienced with those fuse changes please tell us if today your system has lower distortions and higher resolution than before. Appreciated.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
The benefits of a subwoofer are obvious, but all too often the penalty is (1) an obvious discontinuity in the sound field, and (2) audible colorations/"distortions" introduced by the necessary crossover, active or passive. The trick is to avoid those two pitfalls. I have rarely heard it done successfully, and for me the issues raised by adding a subwoofer are more annoying than is the lack of a subwoofer. One commercial case in point: the Vandersteen Model 7 is an ikon among modern speakers; everybody seems to love them, at least every reviewer does. It uses an active woofer with built-in amplifier; the rest of the speaker is driven by one's external amplifier. I had the pleasure of listening to this speaker at R�MAF. All I could focus on was the crossover point between the active woofer and the rest of the speaker. There is a discontinuity big as the Grand Canyon, like two different speakers. (No comparison to your system is intended, Raul. I am sure you've done a better job of integrating your sub.)

Anyway, my huge ESLs have thunderous bass. (I know you will find fault with that; nothing is perfect.) Having NO crossover is better than having ANY crossover, for my particular set of likes and dislikes.
Dear Raul, Each substitution reduced congestion and improved resolution and timbral accuracy all across FR. Replacing the four DC rail fuses at 6C33C output in BAT amp is the most dramatic change by virtue of improved LF. I can see why Victor has eliminated rail fuses in his latest REX amp. As you indicate, the improvement is perceived as a clearing of LF and bass harmonics at higher frequencies. Plucked bass lines, nuances of single-coil vs. humbucker pickups, and baritone acoustic guitar strings come alive in a way that I've rarely experienced in audio.
Lew, with the improvement in LF performance of amplifier to main speakers that is audible down to the 30hz crossover point to the sub, I can now hear more clearly the discontinuity between mains and sub-- discontinuities of timing and of tonality. Maybe this can be resolved with refinements to sub set-up and re-fusing per Raul's suggestion.

BTW, even when operating at a relatively benign sub-bass crossover point around 30Hz, getting the Vel. DD up to snuff has been an evolutionary process entailing modifications to plate amp, cabinet structure, and experimentation with stands.
The problem with most subwoofers is that unless they have been designed as part of the main speaker and are using identical amplifiers & cabling, then the phase and timing will be at odds with the main speaker, thus destroying timing and coherency. Given that harmonics and overtones of a bass note extend right through to the high frequencies ( giving us more information - for example on how hard/fast the drum was hit ) , then a mini-monitor can have a more correct and informative base, even if the fundamental is several db down, than a full range system with phase and timing issues. Even with those parameters in place, the best subwoofer implementations I've heard have nothing above 40-50hz and cant be heard until turned off..
Regards, Raul: Although agreeing that the pursuit of the ideal is a worthy goal, the assertion that there is a single solution for all applications is itself questionable. “Beware the man of a single book.” ― St. Thomas Aquinas

Having spent twelve years playing clarinet (b-flat, B-flat bass & E-flat contra bass) as a student, amateur and unpaid semi-professional until economic realities intruded, and having participated in symphonic, woodwind and operatic ensembles the evidence is adequate to satisfy myself that no two examples of the same instrument, nor the tone, texture and technique of the performer will be the same. Experiences as a poor musician, cabinetmaker and educator leave me quite content to remain a simple enthusiast in audio. Consequently I think it best to avoid unsupported conclusions concerning the awareness or priorities of others.

Speakers are Paradigm Signature series, the S4. A 2 1/2 way design, response is 35-45k, +- 2db. Midrange runs full range, beryllium tweeters are surprisingly non-intrusive. Four speakers, each bolted on an Atacama stand, lead shot/kitty litter filled & anchored to a 12 x 12 x 2" walnut block.

At the foot of each is a comparably voiced Paradigm 12" DSP active sub, front ported and integrated in (according to my HT oriented friends) a perhaps overly conservative manner. Front speakers are eight feet apart, three feet from the front (long) wall, rears are more towards the corners and toed to face the fronts. All four arrayed an equal distance from the primary listening position. Ambience, soundstage and imaging is satisfactory. Fronts are powered straight from the amp, rears and subs through a Niles selector with volume control. Rears are run -3db. The "media" room is 18 x 22 x 10'6, large oriental carpet & leather furniture.

Patch cords. "The Wasatch cables possess a kind of presence factor, or rather a coherence thing that I find alluring as well as musically engaging. The impression remained with everything I threw at them." (Clement Perry, Stereo Times, 1/11/2001). Wasatch Cable Works, before they became ZU.

Amplification is gratifyingly absent of anomalous contributions, old-but-maintained Pioneer SX-1980 (a RECEIVER oh, the shame). Offers distortion response of 0.03% @ 135 watts/1 hour, TIM 0.01%. Dual coffee can sized tororidal transformers and four 22,000uF capacitors, two per channel. Clarity & balance is not a concern. Not the ultimate, but as far as neutrality, power reserve & resolution it serves it's purpose in an uncolored workman like fashion. Take it as you will, there is no one thing that stands out about it.

I must confess, your's & Dgarretson's comments concerning "Fuses that matter" are intriguing. Response & integration of the subs is satisfactory, even at the low gain implemented there are times when I've an impression they're lagging.

Current TT is a Pio. Exclusive PL 70L-11. Order would be P3. P-10, then PL-70, a stable hanging rotor drive & resonance free performer.

There are days when it all works together in a superlative manner, others when I wonder what went wrong. Soundsmith notified me yesterday that the ruby/optimized LC rebuild of a ceramic bodied ML150 OCC I sent in Sept. is finished, anticipating it'll provide a few more days of the superlative type. Hope it gets here before the Apocalypse, Dec. 21. I'll consider fuses for the subs, but no movement there until the 22nd. ;)

Now, back to fuse directionality?

Peace,
Dear Lewm: There is nothing perfect and if it is true that additional crossover is a " penalty " we have to evaluate this " penalty " against several advantages that can be achieved by the integration of a pair of active subs in true stereo fashion to passive speakers.

I don't want to repeat what I already did it on this subject several times in several threads only that the main achivement with the subs integration is to lower the system IMD, here you can read something about ( obviously that there are other important targets/advantages on that subs integration. ):

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1117893153&openflup&27&4#27

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1117893153&openflup&84&4#84

Now, in my system my main ADS speakers are untouched by any external crossover. What I did was to change the ML monoblok amplifiers the frequency range where already are operating by design for a higher frequency that in my case is 78hz. What I did is to change one ML cap and one resistor for different values and a lot better quality, here I'm not only did the crossover as I want it but improves the quality performance using those caps/resistors of top top quality: Vishay 275 resistors ( thank's Dgarretson. ) and top of the line teflon V-caps.

So I have not any single crossover penalty and I'm sure you can do the same with your amps there.

Perhaps the real integration of subs to an existing main speakers be the most dificult task down there. I posted several times that for I can acomplish that task I took more than a year testing and testing on phase, volume, crossover point, etc, etc. till I achieve that almost perfect integration with out that " There is a discontinuity big as the Grand Canyon, like two different speakers.
I never said that the subs integration in any system is an easy task because it is not but when do it in the " right " way the rewards are and makes a paramount improvement to the audio system.

+++++ " Anyway, my huge ESLs have thunderous bass " +++++

I never speak about " thundereous bass " using subs because this is not the main target could be a second target but IMHO never the main one.

My bass is nothing but " thundereous ", the bass management in my system is almost perfect and when you heard it you can't tell exist subs on it. You only know when the music ask for it and even that is very well under control: like in a live event with out the live event dynamics.

I know very well your ESL trhough my friend Guillermo system and I know what you mean with that distorted " thundereous " bass that preclude the great clarity that those ESL can shows you.

Now, all what you argue are only theory and this is the way you are. I can remember in the TT naked thread that you was the more fierce person argueing against because in theory several disadvantages and Halcro, me and other told you that you had the opportunity to tested through your Denon and Technics TT and you put several excuses for not do it even that IMHO you could do it, even I told you how.

You can argue anything you want but till you test it in your own system you never can prove your arguments. I'm sure that if in the time decide to test it you never come back to your today system status.

Almost always my arguments are not only theory but facts ( yes my facts but anyway are facts. ). If some one post something where I can be wrong I don't argue but try to test the " alternative " and I do everything to test the " alternative " in the best way and then decide what to do: if I was wrong I will fix it and if not then I learned that what I had was " right ". I can lose with that self attitude.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
My mistake, the last sentence need to be read it this way:

+++++++ I can't lose with that self attitude ++++++++ , I think?????

R.
Dear Timeltel: +++++ " the ideal is a worthy goal, the assertion that there is a single solution for all applications is itself questionable.... " +++++

in general I agree but take in count that some problems has only one solution where there is no alternatives that can even that " one solution ". Subject is to recognize which " problems " has only one solution.

+++++ " Consequently I think it best to avoid unsupported conclusions concerning the awareness or priorities of others... " +++++

sorry that's not the subject but that " ideal as worthy goal ".

Fuses?, many audiophiles swear that can hear different quality of sound depending on the fuse mounted direction I can say that with both my last Hi-Fi Tunning ones and the today SR20 I can't heard no difference. As a fact Sinergetics Research support there is no difference about fuse mount direction.

What still is a deep misterious for me is why a so small " wire "/fuse can makes so big differences in the quality system performance levels, especially with the SR20.

In my system in no one of the 17 fuses the music signal pass directly trhough any fuse.

Btw, thanks to explain your system, I think this is the second time because a comment from my part that moves you to do it. That was not necessary and if you remember I tested Paradigm subs when I was choosing subs at the time I decided for the Velodynes. Anyway, thank's again.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Dover: ++++ " the best subwoofer implementations I've heard have nothing ab..... " ++++

I think you need to hear subs with the same system implementation and set up refination ( fine tunning ) like mine.

As I posted to Lewm till you can hear something similar in your own system it is not only dificult to understand it but dificult that your arguments have some kind of foundation not as theory but as a fact.

Anyway, I don't want or need to convince you about. Normaly through my posts all I want it is to share my true experiences and almost never theories.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Nandric, maybe Axel needs a new secretary. My expensive package is still sitting at the German PO, nine days now according to my tracking info.
If I used an excuse of Christmas shopping as to why I can't do my job I'd be laughed AT then soon after FIRED. LOL

Anyway, as long as the German PO doesn't loose or throw my package worth easily over a thousand dollars I am okay with it for now.
Travbow,

Your cartridge may not be at the Post Office. Perhaps the tracking hasn't been updated. I've lost count of how many items showed held up in Flordia, or New York etc. yet got delivered to me that very afternoon hear in Boise Idaho. Just the fact that your item "IS" in Axels hometown should be conforting. It could have been lost somewhere in transit.
Regards,
Don
Dear Dgarretson: I want to share my experiences about: exactly what you are experienced with your Velodynes integration was what I experienced for several months each time I made changes for system improvements elsewhere my system but the subs:

+++++" I can now hear more clearly the discontinuity between mains and sub-- discontinuities of timing and of tonality " ++++

every single improvement in my system need it that I made it a whole new subs set up but when you are " there " ( " perfect " integration ) you will know because with new system improvements you don't need almost any subs changes on set up and that's where I'm .

Maybe I'm lucky with my system because the ADS woofers are paper cone ones exactly as my subs that comes with paper cones ( my model is different from yours, mine are the HGS series not the DD and I choosed because its paper cones build material. ), the ADS and Velodyne crossover filters are by design second order and maybe because of that and the time I put on that sub integration I realy don't have any single discontinuity never. I had it but not now.

In my system the subs are " invisible ", the bass sound always comes from the main stage even that my subs are in front side firing of the ADS main speakers.

Btw, I try several diffrent frequency crossover in the subs and main speakers ( including 30hz as you. ) but in my system/room what works better is obviously what I have now. Crossover frequency points are critical in the subs/speaker/room integration more that we can think.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Trovbrow, Just had Axel on the phone. He is still one man company, the secretary Eva is invented by our German speaking New Sealander. For you the 'damn foreigner' he needs to drive 10 km to the custom office in order to get your discount of 21% VAT ( the value added tax that I need to pay as European). I had never bad experience with Dutch
or German Post but there are many complaints about both lately. They are not able to teach computers to read the addresses and names correctly. I hope for you that you got the so called 'tracktrace nr.'. This way the 'lost packet' will be returned to the sender. Then the posting can be started a new. What is a human without hope?
Raul, Guillermo owns a pair of 845PX Sound Labs? Nice. But has he modified (or better yet, removed entirely) the terrible crossover that lies therein? Has he dealt with the treble transformer that is crossed over right in the heart of the midrange? If not, then you don't know what my speakers sound like. Please don't hang me for choosing an adjective (thunderous) that you could play around with. You know my intended meaning.
Dear Lewm: Plain and simple: Your pasiive speakers ( it does not matter your modifications. ) can't handle the bass management as an active subs that where designed in specific for that frequency range where the drivers are optimized for that sole frequency range where the amplifiers were designed in specific not only for that range but for the subs drivers and where the subs were designed with internal systems to lower not only IMD in its frequency response but THD on that bass frequency range.

Take a look: my Velodynes at full power deliver only """""
0.5% THD at 20hZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

no other home system sub in the market can't even that figure and obviously your ESL are far far away from there. Only for this fact those ESL generate higher THD that you could imagine.

Lewm, there is no contest here and you can argue and argue but have no single fact about but you can have: listen at full power your ESL and measure the THD.

With all respect you have no idea what are you talking about or what I'm talking about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Raul, Guillermo owns a pair of 845PX Sound Labs? Nice. But has he modified (or better yet, removed entirely) the terrible crossover that lies therein? Has he dealt with the treble transformer that is crossed over right in the heart of the midrange? If not, then you don't know what my speakers sound like. Please don't hang me for choosing an adjective (thunderous) that you could play around with. You know my intended meaning.
Timeltel,

Hi Tom. Your imput ref. (the Pickering DTL-4S), got me looking around. I picked one up at Turntables.com for list $184. Cashed in $70 worth of gift certificates and so the total paid was $114. 5/7 days shipping so I'll post my findings next week. Just under the 12/22 deadline!
Regards,
Don