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
Yeah, I don't hear anything dull about it, or bright, for that matter. Back when Dave mentioned the adjective "dark", I countered with "rich". I do think it has a rich coloration, but I also think that's because it really is excellent at "hearing" all the instrumental and vocal voices on the track; it does not highlight anything in particular. (This is sounding like promotional literature; I don't mean it that way. It's just a very nice cartridge that I am happily living with these days.)
Lewm, Maybe dull was a poor choice of words, I meant it in the sense of uninvolving. Mine is NOS with few hours on it, so I can't say much more, except most of the time it sounds very good. Neutral would still be my best descriptor.
Regards,

Lewm, Fleib,

Neutrally rich. Yes, that I would agree with in describing either of the two cartridges.
Neutrally rich, I like that!
Regards,
Don
Hello Lew et al, It's been too long since listening to 981LZS to comment authoritatively. LZS will be revisited, though probably not before CES. IIRC Stereophile denotes the de-listing of items from Recommended Components List that have ossified in memory. For me the LZS has slipped into this category. Most recently I've been toggling between M320III STR and Grace/Soundsmith F9 Ruby OCL. Reptilian winter conditions of 55-60F in the listening room require increase of VTF to 2-2.2gm on Axel-modified Acutex. Perhaps an increase in VTF will bring yours up to par with Stanton and Grace? I'm inclined to rate Acutex slightly above Grace-- better layering, rounder images, more relaxed background. It's a close call near the apogee of MM/MI. With LZS I'll try fresh tubes in MP-1 phono.
Our musical vocabulary is not sufficiently rich and consequently the expressions we use pretty arbitrary.Those expressions which have positive connotation are easier to agree on then the 'negative' one. In linquistics there is this notion of the 'emotive meaning' of words. We all understand what this, uh, means but explanation, as is the case with the theory of meaning, is very difficult to provide.
Dear Lew, To express my gratitude for your compliment
this is a real story about the 'emotive meaning' of words. My older son told to his parents proudly to have learned a 'neat word' at school. 'And the word is?' we both asked.
'Penis' he proudly stated. I then thought: 'poor logicians with their substituvity theory salva veritate'.This theory states that any name with the same reference can be substituted for each other salva veritate. My mom would never agree with such a nonsense I am 100% sure.

Regards,
To Mr Halco...I have asked in your "nude turntable project" thread as there is no (review) can you send me the direct link to the review?

Lawrence
Musical Arts
Dear In_shore: +++++ " however no one from the nude thread went as far as trying their table into a panzerholz plinth,....no one. " ++++

me neither but let me to share other plinth experiences with Denons and SP10s:

several years ago ( way before any one talked about naked TT. ) I made some tests on my Denons ( DP80/75. ) that originally came in the Denon wood plinths: I use it both, the solid wood one and the wood/fragments ( I can't remember the name in english. ).

After this I use it a natural marble and onyx stones as a TT plinth seated on AT pneumatic footers. Quality sound performance improves by a wide margin.

After this I seated ( a top the marble and onyx plinths. ) both Denons on three tiptoes like. So the TT was " anchored " by the tip toes to the plint. Here the whole plinth in fact fuctioned like a " gigant " ( 40kgs. ) arm board.

Again, the reward was a significant improvement. Then I gone " naked " sitting the Denons directly to pneumatic footers but still using the stone arm boards.

The reward this time was again an improvement over the plinthed " versions ".

Same happened with the SP10s.

In both cases, Denon/Technics, the quality performance level is extremely sensitive of in which kind footers ( the ones where the TTs are seated directly. ) the TT is directly seated.

I made several tests about with stand alone footers and with blended/combination of more than one kind of footers and in my case with my TTs nothing I test outperformed and outperforms the TT seated directly on those AT pneumatic footers.

Tip toes like are not very good for that job but those were my experiences where other persons could have different experiences.

An example of one experice I had is this:

my two belt drive Acoustic Signature TTs are seated directly on inverted tip toes that are seated directly to AT pneumatic footers. With this TTs that solution works marvelous and because of that I tested with the DD TTs and guess what?: it does not works at all, very deficient. Why? I don't care but does not works.

Of course that in audio does not exist " absolute " and exist the posibilities that a plinthed TT at its best could beats a naked one at its best. By this time and with my DD TT I think that the naked fashion is extremely hard to beat with a today " technology " used on plinths.

The plinth issue per se is not only a complex one but an " enterprise " a serious one for any one that want to go in deep with a " perfect " design.

Certainly I'm not ready to do it not even the knowledge level to do it so in the meantime that appears that " perfect " plinth I have to stay with the DD TT naked version: IMHO makes less harm.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Btw, when I propose the TT naked version people " laugh " of that idea/experience and no one took it in count.

Latter on Halcro and a few audiophiles given a try and they like it.

DD naked fashion is only an alternative that for some it works and for others like you does not works.

Anyway a different and " new " experience.

R.
Raul -
I think everyone does think about what you say, but many do not try suggestions out. If I was a turntable designer I'd call it inertia. If I was a cynic I'd call it laziness.
The main issue I have with the nude TT approach is that I believe there must be absolutely zero movement between the turntable bearing/platter position and the tonearm mount in order to measure the groove accurately. The removal of the motor drive from a common plinth can very often reduce this rigidity. I'm sure there are instances where nude will sound better than a poorly designed plinth, but be aware that the shelf then becomes the common junction and the way you mount the motor drive and armpod to the shelf becomes critical. Any differential movement between the motor drive and tonearm pod will result in loss of resolution and articulation.
Regards, Lew: 800 Watts total music power & etc---. (No reply anticipated)

The "Amplifier Rule" was compiled in 1974. It's been revised.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/12/amplifierrulefrn.pdf

A few "cherry picked" comments, copy/paste.

"(T)here have been technological and marketplace changes that may warrant modifications to the Rule’s testing and disclosure requirements." Comments were solicited by the FTC (Federal Trade Commission), initial respondents were:

Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association (CEMA)(1); Wass Audio~Digital (Wass)(2); Sonance (Sonance)(3); PHI Acoustics (PHI)(4); and Velodyne Acoustics, Inc. (Velodyne)(5).

An extension was announced, additional comments from: EKSC (EKSC)(1); Audio Research (Audio Research)(2); QSC Audio (QSC)(3); Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc. (Thomson)(4); and Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association (CEMA)(5)

"(T)he Commission concluded tentatively that improvements in (multi-channel) amplifier technology since the Rule’s promulgation in 1974 appeared to have reduced the benefits to consumers of disclosure of THD in media advertising. In the ANPR, the Commission also concluded tentatively that an insufficient number of consumers would understand the meaning and significance of the remaining triggered disclosures concerning power bandwidth and impedance to justify their publication in media advertising--- proceeding to amend the Rule to exempt media advertising, including advertising on the Internet, from disclosure of THD and the associated power bandwidth and impedance ratings when a power output claim is made."

"(T)he Commission stated--- that it had reason to believe that the disclosure of THD, power bandwidth, and impedance in media advertising that contains a triggering power output claim no longer provided sufficient consumer benefit to justify the associated increase in advertising costs."

This is a lot fun to read:
"Further, the Commission concluded that those few amplifiers that do generate appreciable levels of THD tend to be very expensive vacuum tube designs that are sold to a specialized group of consumers that may not consider THD specifications an important consideration in their purchase decisions."

"(T)he Commission has reason to believe that the disclosure of THD, power bandwidth, and impedance in media advertising that contains a triggering power output claim no longer provides sufficient consumer benefit to justify the associated increase in advertising costs---the Commission also preliminarily concluded that the proposed amendment of the Rule to exempt from media advertising disclosure of an amplifier’s total rated harmonic distortion and the associated power bandwidth and impedance ratings when a power output claim for an amplifier is made would reduce the Rule’s paperwork burden. "Thus, the net effect of the amendment is to reduce the Rule’s paperwork burden for businesses by 900 hours."

This is interesting stuff, pre-test stress is reduced from one hour at 1/3 rated output, 20-20k, to 1/8 hr., 1000k. How convenient for those manufacturers who might tend to be selective in design.

Specs. are to be made available, the consumer has the burden of research.

Several of the "commenters" demonstrate expressed commendable interest in maintaining high industry standards, another major industry supplier seems not quite so consumer oriented.

Again, just a FYI, thirty-some pages. Quite entertaining.

Peace,
Dear Dover: I agree and that's exactly what Lewm posted time ago.

In my set up I use the same footers for the TT and tonearm and same plattform even that I know it is not the ideal/perfect way but that's my alternative that till today worked fine for me.

Of course that I would like to have a good looking plinth that can works as good the naked fashion or even that beats it.

I'm not against the plinth per se, it is only that what exist around IMHO does not fulfil the targets I already achieved. No, I did not try all the plinths around and certainly I can't do it. I will wait for a better alternative.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Thanks for the link Halcro but i was hoping to read on your findings of your naked turntable?

did something happen to your post??

Lawrence
Fidelity Forward
Lawrence,
Please see the Thread.
All the descriptions are there if you just 'click' the left-hand Date column.
Can anybody explain what kind of forces are involved with
the stylus drag? To my mind those thiny cantilevers + styli
are very furnerable so only 'thiny forces' can be involved.
The inertia force of an, say, 15 kgr. platter is such that
I have difficulty to imagine any influence of the stylus drag.
Measurements data please please no philosophy.
Dear Stanton's friends: Tes, I remember that when Dgarretson ( I think ) posted that the 981LZ was on the dark side I agree with him.
Now what means " dark " to each one of us?, maybe different things.

For me a cartridge with a " dark " sound/presentation could be a very good quality performer because " dark " for me does not means dull or cold or anlitycal or with out soundstage or with out dynamics and so on.

Dark for me is a different tone color in a cartridge performance in the same way that one violin can have a dark sound against other that's more " alive ". Which one is right?: both, with different tone color. No two violins sounds the same with the same tone color as no two pianos sound exactly the same.

So, for me dark is not an atribute that diminish an audio item in any way.

Said it and IMHO both calibrated 981s: the LZ and HZ, are neutral cartridges and both very good performers ( better than the non-calibrated ones?, maybe. ).

Why I prefer the HZ version?: the HZ has not only a litle better definition on the first attack/transients that permit to hear the fundamental and harmonics with " life-like " sound where we are aware of the precise sound of the instrument and how been " touched " by the player.

This characterisitc gives the HZ a better feeling of dynamics with a more alive tone color nearest to the natural agresiveness that has the live instrument/music where the LZ diminish a litle this regards.
This gives the HZ the feeling to be more transparent and with more aplomb at the high frequencies but at the other end of the frequency that little more " transparent and transients handling and dynamics " gives a better frame to the bass where you can hear better definition here too.

I runned both cartridges in the Sony PUA-237 seated in my naked Denon DP-75 and as almost always the HZ seen 100kohms along 350pf additional to the cable capacitance, the LZ 100 ohms that was where I feel and hear that in my system performs the better.

Btw, I tested both cartridges in other tonearms and the best match ( other that my own design. ) was and is the Sony PUA-237, very good tonearm indeed.

Lewm, both cartridges already " broken ". Other consideration here is that my HZ runs with the Pickering XSV 5000 MK2 stylus replacement that between other things fits ( stay in place with out loose. ) better than the original one.

As I already posted I can live with both but if I have to choose then I take the calibrated HZ version and over both the: Precept 440, my experiences on it latter on.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Hello Raul, After listening to and comparing the Stanton 980HZS to the 881s, it is clear to me that the 980 was better than the 881. It has the same sound but better all around. I don't know if it's the small step in #'s or the stylus. I have sent it off to another Stanton lover, in Kentucky, to evaluate against the 881 in case I am wrong.

In the mean time I saw a 981HZS with low miles and purchased it. It arrived today and surprise, it's calibrated specs. are the same as the uncalibrated 980HZS. LoL! It seems there are big differences in the 981HZS from cartridge to cartridge. I guess when purchasing we will have to ask for #'s.
Dear Acman3: Yes, there are differences in between the 981s.

Now, what really means " calibrated " for Stanton:

the cartridges ( 981s calibrated. ) comes with a chart od calibration values on a few cartridge parameters and what at the end means that calibrated cartridge is that Stanton guarentee that if we follow exactly the set up parameters in that calibratioon chart we can achieve the frequncy response and frequency response deviations at 5k,10k,15k and 20khz and its tracking habilities at the VTF value in the chart as the channel separation.

With a non-calibrated cartridge the specs are only that " desired " specs but Stanton can't guarantee that those specs can be achieved when in the calibrated one are achieved.
Of course that at random a non-calibrated one could achieve those Stanton specs but we can't be sure.

In the other side the cartridge specs performance depends not only on that calibration but on our each one habilities to set up in precise way the cartridge. The other thing is that Stanton say nothing about how the make that calibration, I mean: which test record, which tonearm, VTA/SRA, etc, etc.

What really we have to do is to listed, enjoy and have fun with.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Nandric: I don't know what you mean with " measurements ". For what I know no one has a complete analysis with specific measurements on that regard.

I already posted in other thread ( I can't remember if I posted in thios thread too. Maybe????) that I made " measurements " on that stylus drag in an empiric way where I tested 5-6 different cartridges with 4-5 different LP tracks and choosing those tracks at the outer grooves, center and inner grooves and with 2-3 different tonearms.

Those cartridges differ mainly on VTF and stylus shape.

I found out that not only the grooves recorded velocity has an influence but stylus shape/VTF and the place/point where the stylus is running.

I have all what I measured somewhere. I did it with the TT motor ( I use it BD one. ) off. What mean I?:
with the TT switched on I switched off and read the time that took the platter to stop.

I took several days of tests only to be sure that the switch off been exactly at the time the stylus is in the groove and to stop the wtaxch exactly when the platter stop ( when swith the motor off this must be matched to the watch start to run. ).

Now, on dynamic basis and either DD and BD TTs I own I can't detected any single sound performance deviation even with three stylus in the grooves at the same time.
Maybe my ears are not so sensitive as other people ears or I'm unaware on what to hear.

The stylus drag issue is already analized for many of us " amateurs " in different threads ( right now is happening in other thread. ) with no useful conclusions. I know that in the future there will be another threads where could be analyzed once again and for me that I'm not a TT designer is a useless exercise that help me in anything other than " curiosity ".

As with other analog subjects the stylus drag always was discussed with out take all the factors/parameters involved and this fact makes more useless any discusion about.

IMHO the TT designers are the ones that could come here and express their proved and measured ( if any ) experiences on that subject.
Seems to me that no one TT designer ever made/makes an in deep scientific research about. So why we " amateurs " have to do it with out the knowledge and skills level asked for that complicated task. Makes no sense to me.

Example: how can be useful for you to know more on the subject when you can't change your TT characteristics to deal or improve about? and even if you can: which kind of improvement can you achieve and if you or any one could hear that improvement?

Useless.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear friends: If I remember some one of you ask in " desperate " way for this tonearm and here it is in new condition:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Audio-Technica-AT1010-Tonearm-NOS-/221164946666?_trksid=p5197.m1992&_trkparms=aid%3D111000%26algo%3DREC.CURRENT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D14%26meid%3D4675948822589863993%26pid%3D100015%26prg%3D1006%26rk%3D1%26sd%3D221164946666%26

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Nikola,
As Raul says.....there has been much discussion in other Threads over the years about 'Stylus Drag'.
I have seen mathematical figures provided which purport to show both....that there is no discernible effects due to 'Stylus Drag'.....and that there indeed exists the 'Stylus Drag' phenomenon?

Regardless of the veracity of the figures provided.......just watch the effect of the tonearm being lowered on to the record on the Transrotor turntable in the Timeline video HERE
It occurs near the end of the video after the turntable speed has been adjusted to be 'speed perfect' WITHOUT the cartridge in the groove?
The real surprise to me....and many others.....is the speed of the 'slowing' effect on this massive Tranrotor platter with immense inertia?
If you can watch this effect and still claim that 'stylus drag' does not exist.......you're a stranger man than I?
Regards
Henry
Halcro - I agree with you, but would also add that you dont need the Timeline to tell you the speed is out on the Transrotor. The piano sounds awful - slow, turgid. Its not a good example of a high inertia deck, I suspect inadequate power supply/motor.
Dover,
Accepting that you are right re the Transrotor motor........the fact remains that the high mass platter must still retain some high inertia?
Without the motor even in play.......'stylus drag' sure must pack a punch to dent this inertia?
Dear Acman, You was succesful by your first attempt to
confuse some of us with your 'comparison' between 981
versus 980. To try the same joke twice is a proof that you
are a brave man. Your conclusion that both are 'the same'
qua measured parameters is not so much 'brave' but more
clairvoyant because there are no individual measurements by
any 980. Except, then, if you measured both by yourself(grin).
Dear Henry & Dover, I admire critical minds in general
those who are also technicaly 'grounded' even more.
As an amateur I can only think in assumptions like anybody
else. My first regarding the stylus drag is that the poor
thing irrespective of all of 'its' capabilties is not,uh,
very strong. That is why we handle this object of our desire
even more tenter and cautious then 'some other'(sorry ladies).
Looking at some platters I realy get the (mental)picture of an
elephant next to a mice. What I am then wondering about is
how this mice can hinder the other one?

Regards,
Hey Halcro - wanna try this on your Victor 101 ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwugFlbCOww

I've recorded the KAB speed strobe on my Final Audio Parthenon VTT1 thread drive TT while I bash the record with my knuckle.

Anyone else want to have a go - I used a Carol Kidd record.... from Linn.
Dear Raul, I must again state that I as a amateur can only think with or in assumptions. Those are anybody's quess. The facts are assumptions which are proven to be true. This
difference seems to be very important. Now my assumption is that to measure platters inertia as well what forces a cantilever/stylus combo can bear or endure don't belong to the field of the rocket science. I even assume that the producers of both objects for our hobby need to have some idea about those forces. That is why I asked for,uh, data
and not for philosophical opinions. I myself am very fond of philosophical discurs but in my case this is because of my 'not technical grounding'. I spend or lost , depending on perspective, much time reading in this forum about the 'stylus drag' and learned like in my philosophical reading as much as when I started with this study. So whatever the merit or sense of my questions I somehow thought that those are not very difficult to answer.This
of course is also one of my assumptions.

Regards,
Ha ha Dover,
I love a good challenge :-)
I'll do my TT-101 if you post yours again using the Timeline for the measuring device?
That KAB strobe looks kind of wobbly to me.......?
It's not easy to bash the record, hold the strobe and camera with 2 hands.
I have to borrow the timeline again - none in country - local audio shop has the only one which I borrowed last time.
Nandric, Please do not confuse stupidity with bravery ! I did it for the Borg.

Btw, I have been married way to long for taunting to work. ;)
Hi Raul,
**Other consideration here is that my HZ runs with the Pickering XSV 5000 MK2 stylus replacement that between other things fits ( stay in place with out loose. ) better than the original one.**

You tested the HZ with the D5000, and not the LZ?
The differences you described could be due to a loose or different stylus, especially with transient response. I'm not saying that is the case, but it could be.

What you described as the difference between 980 and 981 is exactly as I was told. The only way Stanton could calibrate the performance was to fit a stylus, that when measured, met that performance standard. I don't see any confusion/controversy here. I assume all 980/981 examples were within tolerances, whatever that standard was. I don't believe Grado, Stanton, or AT tested all examples of a model and hand selected the best ones. They may have fitted a stylus on some and selected those combinations that met calibration design goals. In the case of Grado, I don't believe it at all.

Re: Stylus drag - Torque is probably a greater factor than inertia and dynamic speed correction seems necessary for a belt drive to get in the ballpark. The belt that decouples the platter from the motor, also decouples stable speed, as it stretches and contracts. Superiority of belt drive was a sales lie, fostered on the consumer after the demise of Japanese DD mfg.

Regards,
Dear Fleib, Your assumptions are 'one way only' like the
postage to the USA (aka US custom). BTW I now understand why the Americans are regarded to be so generous. They expect to get their presents back. Strange custom I must say.
Now what happens if the measured 981 does not satisfy the conditions which are formulated in advance? I would say: try some other which is actually the same as 'selecting' or 'hand picking' as Raul prefer to describe the possible procedure. In this 'possible world' all 980 may be those which deed not satisfy the prescribed conditions . One may even say that those are rejected in quality terms ( Acman this is what you get when joking with 'some' Bakanese).

Regards,
Dear Raul, I too found my 980LZS to be "dark" sounding with a 100R load. With 1000R it is much better, in my system. I wrote about this once before, and we did discuss it. I think you said that 1000R and higher made no appreciable difference to the sound of the LZS. For me, in my system, it does. I use 1000R. The "standard" 47K load also works fine. Anyone who thinks the cartridge sounds dark at 100R should at least try a higher resistance/less of a load.
Nandric, now that others have responded re the stylus-drag issue, perhaps you will forgive me for what is perhaps more "philosophy" than hard scientific data; although, for me, what my ears tell me supersedes any "scientific data".

Stylus-drag and it's possible effects, and all else that we discuss in these forums, takes on the most meaning when discussed in the context of the music. It is my contention that speed stability (or lack of), which is something that has a profound effect on dynamic nuance, is often underestimated; and IMO is more important than timbre related issues. The importance of absolute speed stability takes on special meaning if viewed, not in the context of the music playback arena, but in the music PEFORMANCE arena. Rhythmic interplay between musicians during a performance, and the success of which is dependent on absolute control (flexibility) of rhythm by the players, determines the success of the performance. Of course, listeners will disagree about which performance vision is best, but I am talking about rhythmic sloppiness or ambiguity in the performance. These considerations come into play (pun intended) at a level that is more subtle and complex than anything that happens in the techno/scientific/gear realm. Proof?

It is common for musicians to experience, during the course of a performance, performance related issues and disagreements with other players (or the conductor) that are very real; they are usually of a rhythmic nuance or intonation (a different discussion) nature. Each of those disagreements, on an individual basis, might be forgiven or overlooked by the players. However, the frequency (not hz) or relative severity of them shape the OVERALL success of the performance. What is my point?

Upon listening to playback in the booth, and much more so on the final recorded product, many of those very subtle individual performance ambiguities and disagreements are often times completely inaudible. What may be left for the listener is simply a performance that is lackluster; the end result of all those little things that the record/playback cannot resolve. So, what does any of this have to do with stylus drag?

IMO, if viewed in the above context, ANYTHING, no matter how seemingly insignificant from a "numbers" standpoint, that affects the rotational stability of a turntable will have an effect on the music. Wether that effect is audible or important enough to any one listener is another story.
Hi Nandric, **BTW I now understand why the Americans are regarded to be so generous. They expect to get their presents back. Strange custom I must say.**

It was never offered as a gift, merely an opportunity for you to hear it. You were already told this. What does that say about your persistence in this matter? I'm afraid your upbringing makes you an opportunist, perfectly suited for western capitalism but with the advantage of leagal training and manipulation.

**Now what happens if the measured 981 does not satisfy the conditions which are formulated in advance? I would say: try some other which is actually the same as 'selecting' or 'hand picking' as Raul prefer to describe the possible procedure. In this 'possible world' all 980 may be those which deed not satisfy the prescribed conditions . One may even say that those are rejected in quality terms **

In order to test the cartridge they have to fit a stylus onto a body. If the combination doesn't meet the criteria, they would have to try another combination. This is more likely to be the stylus than the body. That is, if it was even done at all. In the '80s it was a commonly held belief that all cartridge print-out sheets, regardless of cart price, were run off on a copy machine.
In your case it doesn't matter. Yours is a different model.

Regards,
Raul,

**Other consideration here is that my HZ runs with the Pickering XSV 5000 MK2 stylus replacement that between other things fits ( stay in place with out loose. ) better than the original one.**

Richard Steinfeld (the author of the Handbook for Stanton and Pickering Phonograph Cartridges and Styli), states many times in that handbook NOT to mix styli with various bodies. He says you will get music, but it will not be what was intended by the disigner of the cartridge.
Regards,
Don
Dear nandric/Halcro/Dover: Stylus drag exist, period.

Now, about that Transrotor TT an its platter inertia we have to remember that the platter moves around a TT bearing so here could be a problem too.

To really evaluate in numbers the consequences on that stylus drag on an ideal TT we have to take not only all the factors/parameters involved that we mentioned here and in other threads but I know exist other additional ones tha have to take in count as LP warps ( for example. ) because this warps makes changes in VTF changes even that are of different level depending not only the tonearm used but if the tonearm is running in static balances or dynamic balanced fashion. In the other side and everything the same we have to consider too the onw cartridge tracking habilities.

Yes, this is not rocket science but IMHO involve several parameters that has influence in the whole subject and first than all we have to identify.

Now, at the end and if we can get scientific/math answers we need something additional: how those " numbers " affect what we are hearing? can we hear something? which the reference to compare? and so on.

I think that right now even the " best " guys as Tonywinsc,Richardkrebs, Mosin or our Dover have on hand only part of the " subject " and I think with no reference to compare at the end because I think that till today does not exist the ideal/perfect TT that is immune to stylus drag.

As I said: how can we be aware of that stylus drag on what we are hearing?, I posted that even with three cartridges at the same time I can't discern nothing on the perceived sound against only one stylus drag cartridge.
Obviously I have no training on this subject and maybe I have to search about and maybe a good point to start to know more or less that stylus drag sound is to make several tests ( with a method according to. ) comparing one cartridge against three cartridges and against two cartridges looking for clear and precise differences .
I don't know I'm only thinking on " high voice ".

Maybe I could try or not because in reality that could be a time consuming and can't help me to improve my system quality performance. As I said that is main target for TT designers.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lewm: As you know load impedance with low output cartridges is critical. I tested values above 100R and yes ( as always happen with this kind of cartridge designs. ) we perceived a little less darkness but in my case I don't like it the trade-of at the other frequency extreme.

I like a " perfect " tonal balance ( that even I don't know if really exist in the recording. ) and for me the foundation of the music in a reproduction music in a home system belongs to the bass management and the calibrated 981LZ performs better in this regards at 100R with out sacrifice at the other end. As I said dark is only a " color " and there are different level/tones of that dark/color.

In the other side I hope that when you made it the impedance 981 comparisons you made it with even volume in both cases because the SPL at 100R is lower than at 1k and you know that our ears perceive small differenecs on SPL but here is very important because we are making comparisons.

Anyway, I think that we really agree in the main subject about along the other Stanton's lovers.

Btw, I want to find time to test my Pickering TL4S, could be interesting.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R
Regards, Acman3: About that HZ 980, your American generosity is appreciated. There's this JVC TT71 motor unit I've been intending to play with, thought about matching it up with the AT-1100 TA. Our resident tonearm connoisseur had little good to say about that one, did some research and found, in spite of some very positive "popular" comments, a review which shows a broad range of resonant-related distortion. The same review also compared the AT1010, a different animal and given, in the same review, the thumbs-up. The graphs were, um, graphic. Other than the example Raul has kindly brought to our attention, there's another available. Appears to be well-loved but is attractive at $600 less.

Well, the weather warmed up to a shirt-sleeve 40*, I've this TT71, some chunks of full 4/4 (1 inch) high density particle board and a spare EPA-B500 base. A table saw, saber saw, router, drill press, hole saw, thawed out wood glue & a mounting template for the 235mm P to S Technics arm. Lots of plinth related opining here and an interesting thread at the AudioKarma site. You already know where this is going? Time & weather factors being propitious, the TT71 was plugged in & run for some hours. According to the on-board strobe it stabilized quickly from the crucial "Dover tap test", applied directly to the platter and not to an LP on the mat.

Moved the pivot 0.5mm forward and 1.0mm out, to the unaided eye Baerwald alignment places the cart square to the headshell. The "American style gift" HZ 980 was mounted on a fresh Orto. LH 8000, it'd not learned any tricks, good or bad, from having previously hosted another cart. Played around with alignment, VTA, VTF & ended up at 1.4gm, slightly positive (tail up) VTA. Skating at a tad more than 1/2 VTF, loaded at 200 (shunted) and 100pF cap. OEM ICs for the Technics arm are variously given as either 47 or 52pF.

Currently running on the 12gm eff. mass EPA-250 wand, haven't tried the 7gm EPA-500H wand yet. First noticed was the improved definition as the cart warmed up, about two sides. I elected to instal a standing arm rest for additional security while tweaking P to S. Placing the otherwise well damped curved 250 arm on the post revealed a noticeably (understatement) microphonic quality of the HZ 980. Off it comes, ?butyl? bushings installed and nylon bolts used in the re-mount. It's a different cart.

I'm happy with the performance of the TT71/EPA-250 combination. I've an eye on some Isonoe feet. Currently there is a jump, a lively character to the current association of cart/arm/slab on sorbothane dots. A quality that invites extending listening. Subwoofers have been spiked to 14 x 19 x 1 1/2" (21 lb.) bamboo platforms, four 2" sorbo. hemispheres lifting the platform off those resonating ancient soft pine floors, an overdue improvement. A quick comparo. The 881 shows a rise in the lower hfs relative to the 980. Keep in mind the 881 is not the later MK-11, improved "space-age" magnet version. "Our" 980 has a bass response quick to rise, "punchy" and lets go when it's time to do so. Mids are clean, just forward enough to suit my passion for midrange and absent of the hint of glare heard with the older 881. Loaded at 100pF, hfs are just apparent enough to please my worn-out ears, 47pF leaves me wishing for more sparkle.

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/audio/index.htm

A 3' set of the 12.2pF/ft LC-1 low cap. cables should be here early this week. There are numerous positive comments about the B.G. Cable bang/buck thing & it'll be interesting to compare them to either the high quality OEM Technics cables or the nearly vintage Wasach Cable Co. ICs.

Wether it's voicing, preferred coloration or a serendipitous coincidence, the JVC-Technics match-up is gratifying. If In_Shore should happen to remember mentioning an availability of Panzerholst leftovers (whitmat [AT] gmail.com), and with a more sophisticated damping solution for footing and platter, also considering there's a stack of air-dried figured maple in one of the out-buildings for wrapping the deck, the mid-mass AT-1010 can find a home elsewhere. Possibly a case of "fix it until it's broke", I've not heard the AT-1010, I do like what I'm hearing now.

And yes, Danny, thanks again for that "American style gift", you'll find it returned when I can tear myself away from the 980s' almost lasciviously musical presentation.

Peace,
Dear Frogman: +++++ " Wether that effect is audible or important enough to any one listener is another story " ++++

that's the point. For me IF is AUDIBLE then is IMPORTANT but till today I never read anywhere a single " voice " that related how he heard/identified that stylus drag and how he knows/knew that what he heard was because stylus drag it self and no for other " factors ". How could he aisle the stylus drag " fact " from the whole playback environment?

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Timeltel: Why do you need a plinth with the JVC TT71. I tested on naked way ( and with its own plint: wood participle board. ) and IMHO performs even better than his big brothers and tiny below the Denons. Of course is up to you, as always.

For the same money for the AT1010 you can get two tonearms that IMHO outperform the 1010: Sony PUA237 and JVC U245, in both cases you can find out versions of the same tonearms with longer effective lengt. I don't have any experiences with the longer tonearm versions but what these two tonearms are showing handling MM/MI/LOMC cartridges is just fine.

I own yout Technics and the EPA-100, today I'm in favor of the SONY and JVC.

Of course are only additional alternatives.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Fleib, I am aware of your inclination to attribute to the styli more influence then they possible CAN have. But that those innocente things can be accused to change the resistance and inductance of an cart is new for me and probable everybody else. And my leagal training is also needed to defend the innocent. Only the opposite party which was not as succesful in a case would call such outcome a result of 'manipulation'. This qualification should be used for those who tell untruth about the objects
described. Then there is this phrase about the identity: 'it looks like a duck, quacks (sounds)like a duck then it probable is a duck'. Well I posted the data about my duck and those are nearly identical with those posted by Raul about his duck.
But it may be the case that both samples got the same stylus in the sense of the same quality.

Regards,

Dear Stanton: Something curious: in the calibartion chart the numbers were achieved with a VTF: 1.0grs but on the traking capability number that states: 100 microns ( fabolous number. ) that number was achieved not at 1.0grs in VTF but at: 1.25grs.

I wonder if the other numbers could change at this higher VTF, on sound performance improved a little on detail/definition but something that I had to test again and again to be sure about.

My sample are MK2 ( even the Pickering stylus. ), which yours?

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Regards, Raul: I gave SERIOUS thought about running nude, err, the TT71 that is. While confirming operational status of the long dormant TT71, the "basket" protecting the bottom of the motor was rested on a plywood bench top. Amplified by the direct contact, there was a faint whisper of sound, somewhat like the mechanical hiss of lightly drawn pencil point across a plate. Lifted from the bench it was inaudible.

Paying attention to the running commentary, at this point there are three layman-approachable philosophies: Nude, CLD and Mass-damped. Time & materials being available, mass damped seemed the most practical approach to determining application. That tiny little "hiss" worried me. CLD can be complicated, the interaction of barrier resonances & how it relates to self resonance and resonant interaction between those materials was not something I would begin to imagine I might determine with some scraps of material & an idle afternoon on hand.

The EPA-250 I've always felt to be on the "dark" side of critically damped. In two "factory" plinths I've not heard it exhibit the vitality I'm hearing with the current materials. The almost inaudible mechanical whisper from the JVC has disappeared and altogether the outcome is successful. I'd really like to have the Victor (I think it's the 5045) arm that was supplied with the JVC QL-7 but all I have is the drive, all else are pieces I have laying idle.

There is a slight ringing. The two inches of high density particle board are quite rigid. When given the "tap test", the greatest response is from that protective basket under the TT71. I'll strap a bungee cord around it to see, when I get around to doing it. IMHO, it really needs attention. I'm also aware that this, and the extremely ringy platter (the mat does an excellent job of eliminating this) result in the openness the current and quite accidental association of elements deliver.

So for now it's one small step at a time & there's recognition that any changes need to be reversible. Platter & basket damping and better feet do qualify in this concern.

I'm hopeful that with experimentation in those three areas, I'll be satisfied with the outcome and then laminate the UGLY particle board (not pressed chip board, oriented strand board [OSB] or medium density fibreboard [MDF]), and then wrap the slab with this really attractive curly maple I have on hand.

Cosmetically, a wiped dark gray (black) stain & hand rubbed oil finish, possibly a colorful laminate on the slab. Ivory? Red? We'll see. A dust cover is essential.

As always, open to suggestion, too soon to call this a finished project & your comments are ALWAYS given consideration. Thanks for taking the time to express your thoughts. If I got it right the first time, well, that would be the first time. BTW, I did a bit of research into the AT arms, the 1010 seems to be a really desirable piece:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Audio-Technica-AT1010-Tonearm-Turntable-High-End-Technics-/321051290199?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_15&hash=item4ac025ea57

Peace,
Hey Tom,

You get instant double posts, my single posts take 2 days. Go figure?

Regards,
Don
Dear Raul, Who is Stanton? Your 'curious' finding about the
VTF by which the 981 is tested is the same as by my sample:
1 mN. But this apply to the measurements marked above the
part 'specifications'. In this (lower)part ,by tracking,
I have 100 micron by 1.1/4 grams,compliance 30 mm/Newton, etc.
The above part is about individual calibration by 5 Khz
( 1/2 dB), 10 Khz ( 1.2 dB), 15 Khz (1 dB) and 20 Khz(1. 1/2 dB).
Those data in the above part are reached by 1mN.
By your advice to our Professor you mentioned JVC UA- 245.
Are you sure about this? I bought an fantastic specimen by Foxtan ;
the UA 7054 which to me looks as new. On my specimen
there is no marking of any kind. But by the template only UA 7082;
UA 7054 and UA 5045 are mentioned.There is no mentioning of UA 245.
I was wondering about the price and asked Alex (Foxtan) about that.
He told me to intend to keep this (low) price. As Raul I can recommend
those arms but in my case based on the looks. Really unbelievable for the price.

Regards,
Timeltel -
I have a good friend who has worked through several plinths. Slate rings, panzerholz was dead and lifeless. His latest trials are going lighter, using a sheet of ceramic insulation ( rigid, easy to cut and no energy storage ) with an aluminium top and bottom plate ).
His experiments have suggested you need multiple materials even in a light plinth to cancel any fundamental resonances of a given material.
I've often thought for the DIYer the Cotter approach looks worthwhile - alternate layers of aluminium and very hard plastic. This means you are only cutting 3-5mm sheets at a time, then gluing them up.
For best dampening you should use materials that are similar in density and speed - this gives a smooth energy movement from one to the other and minimizes reflection back.
What about a cotter type construction but minimise the plinth and put some sexy asymmetric curves in it - sort of minimal plinth approach - .