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
Regards, Dover: It seems like a simple proposition to just head out to the shed & chop out a box, produce two cutouts and drop a tonearm and deck into it. After several months of consideration, progress is a slab of manufactured material. Rough to the eye but square and precisely layed out. The "Dover Tap Test" with a screwdriver handle puts resonance in the 5-600 Hz range, a nice "thunk" with no duration. Reversing the tool, the tip rings, the slab, not.

Anchoring the TA firmly to the surface seems to give better results than have the arm boards used in the "factory" plinths I've experience with. I can anticipate advantages to be gained through the "nude" approach. Anchoring the tonearm to mass would seem most beneficial. IF startup torque can be adequately addressed and IF motor/bearing rumble is negligible, there's definite potential in being a "pod people".

If the adage "well begun is half done" is a measure of appearance of the completed project, then all that's left is a "rattle can" finish & a towel to cover my embarrassment. :0

IMHO, currently well begun. Neither lifeless nor demonstrating extravagant coloration, the lively response (agree with Raul, the TT71 is a pleasant surprise) from both deck & arm is encouraging for this novice plinther.

Then there's In_Shore & Panzerholst, this needs to be experienced, too. And slate, the best is said to originate in Pennsylvania.

Fairly adept in the shop, a mass loaded arm pod & nude deck is probably the most easily achieved. Considering the excellent guidelines and positive reactions from both Raul & Henry, an alternative to be considered.

CLD designs, I really can't see as appropriate to the amateur. Without extensive research that is. I fear I'll end up with fifteen plinth variations for one deck that hopefully will aspire to a few high end characteristics.

Got links?

Meanwhile, doing my best to wear out Dannys HZ 980 stylus, I really like this cart. Think he'll go for it if I tell him Nikolas' duck ate it?

Having fun & learning as I go,

Thanks &

Peace,
Hi Nandric, the calibration of a cart does not include resistance and inductance measurements. Those are checked stationary. Frequency response and separation are measured "in groove" with a test record.
That requires a stylus, and would probably change (Fr response) with a different test record.

Regards,
My main issue with wood is not the sound, its the dimensional stability. I worry about warpage or movement over the years after spending all that time making it.
What you could do is rout some squiggly lines underneath and fill them with hotglue, lead or whatever, then just make up a story that one of your fellow professors who consults to NASA on chaos theory and energy dispersion in nuclear submarines has designed the optimum geometry for creating energy dispersion channels in stratified timber. I'm pretty sure thats what most reputable TT manufacturers do. Maybe use the golden ration for width to depth ratio just for good measure.
Another option might be to drill random holes of different diameters and depths on the underside to break up the fundamental resonance of the slab.
Regards Professor,
I'm following your Victor TT-71 experiments with interest.
I am a committed "Pod Person"........but apart from the sonic advantages I believe are inherent therein......the ability to readily adjust the Spindle-to-Pivot and thus accommodate any (and every) tonearm is a blessing not to be scoffed at?
Regards
Henry
Timeltel.
Great to read that you are embarking on a plinth/pod journey.
This is great fun and really frustrating all the same time.
You don't specifically state what material you are using?
It is some time since I put together my plinth and I am interested in the results from other people with other materials. I'm getting itchy fingers to have another go.
The purpose of the tap test is to hear the signature of the assembly under analysis. I found it best to use a stethoscope so that you cannot hear the airborne sound of the impact. I believe, but could be wrong, that we are looking for a short sharp "tic" as per my earlier post. The shorter the better. A sound that lasts longer indicates that we have slow dissipation of energy.
At resonance the tap test will not invoke an increase in vibration amplitude above the initial impact..There is no source of gain in a passive material. It is however the resonant frequency that will be dominant what you hear. Also the tap test covers a broad spectrum of frequencies due to its fast rise time. Much in the same way that speakers frequency response can be measured with a single click. This also indicates that a "tic" is a desirable outcome since it implies even transmission of frequencies.

Good luck. I look forward to reading about the results.
Regards, Halcro/Dover: You guys in the down-side-up part of the earth just wake up?

Dover: You have industry experience, I'm sure you're already aware that for broad surfaces of live wood, furniture makers need to incorporate slip joints to accommodate the expectation that wood expands/contracts 3/8" every four feet cross-grain, 1/8", along the grain.

A (if you noticed) believer in the attributes of bamboo. The material originally anticipated for the top of this plinth was a piece of laminated bamboo, 18 x 24 x 1 1/2"th. Purchased for this project last fall and stored on a shelf for several months, the glue bond nearest the surface is opening up, should have been stabilized (mineral oil would have worked) before setting it aside. Dimensional stability is a definite advantage with "manufactured" wood products. Like your idea for interrupting the grain. Done thematically, filled with tinted epoxy & surfaced, one might offer the Strad, the Cornet, the Flatulent Diva?

Henry: Pay little attention, discussing this project is an excuse to praise the HZ 980, although the thoughts of others are definitely appreciated. As for your pod, I've a 40 ton hydraulic jack and a roll of duct tape that will accommodate any TA ever made. VTA on the fly, with conviction. :)

Evening here, time to put some more miles on Dannys' wonderful Stanton. (Teasing, Danny. Weekend with the lovely lady is over, she'll be home ASAP.)

Peace,
Professor (Timeltel),
I've been up for 6 hours already....and Dover ( who parties with gusto).....may have been up even longer?
Regards
Henry
Dear nandric: My mistake. My JVC is the UA-7045 and as you said a lovely looking " guy ":

http://www.vinylengine.com/library/jvc/ua-7045.shtml

the other JVC I'm aware is the UA-7082 that's a long version.

If you can try tp find the Sony PUA-237, very good and great with LOMC cartridges.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Hi Timeltel, Your welcome. Great to see you enjoying your new turntable and glad you are enjoying the 980. I don't think you can overuse the cartridge as I don't think it was even broke in. Only about 10 hrs. Send it home when your finished with it. It is a very good cart.

Looking forward to your turntable updates.
Dear Raul,
You wrote, "As you know load impedance with low output cartridges is critical." I would say instead that load impedance with cartridges that have low internal resistance is critical. Output signal voltage has nothing to do with it. I am sure you know this.

Anyway, you imply that when you went above 100R there was something wrong with the high frequency response. To me, the very definition of "dark" must involve an apparent, if not real, diminution or attenuation of the treble. So, when I went from 100R to 1000R, everything got better, bottom to top, to give me the sensation that the cartridge was "happiest". There was/is no sense at all of a "tipped up" treble, as you imply.

Then you also say that sound pressure is reduced with a 100R load relative to higher R loads. When that happens for real, it is due to an impedance mismatch; it means that the cartridge (in this case) cannot adequately drive that resistance/impedance. The values of output Z and input Z, which ideally should be around 1:10 ratio or higher are typically well below that ratio when such a phenomenon is observed. One definition of proper loading for me with LOMCs might be to say "the lowest load R where there is no loss of gain". Ralph Karsten recommends this criterion. But I do know that many hobbyists use load Rs that do involve giving up some gain. IME, this always sounds too dark to me. In any case, it's been a while since I tried 100R with the 980LZS, but I did not notice loss of gain. Probably this is because, if it happened, I just turned the volume control up a notch. I am pretty used to my system and my room, so I am quite likely to listen at the same sound pressure levels, as long as the gain structure permits. My phono stage has a surfeit of gain.
Dear Raul& Fleib, The ladies call this 'the man thing' probable refering to our obsession with our hobbies. I would add as such the 'curious' behaviour regarding the
user manuals and technical specifications included. It looks as if reading those is somehow undignified for a man. If Raul has not mentioned 'curious fact' about 1g
VTF versus 1.1/4 g. by 981 specs. I would not bother to check the specs. again. Only then I noticed the partition in this small card between 'calibration' and 'specification' .Despite my legal training Fleib which presuppose careful reading. And I nearly started a war against you about those specs. and what those 'actually mean'. Some Mexican made very strange omissions because of this 'man thing': writing repeatedly '981 S' instead of
'981 HZS' and even UA 245 instead of UA-7045. I feel ashamed of this as a lawyer but somehow proud as a man.

Regards,
Dear comrade Don, Raul is in our vocabulary like party
secretary in the central committee. So he is a priori right
in anything. You should consult your older comrade before
making such contradictory statements. BTW the easy way to
live the party is simple by not paying the contribution.
The excommunication is the hard way.
Dear Raul,

****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?****

Excellent question and one that probably has no definitive answer, given the inevitable effects of record warps and off-center holes etc. But I have heard the effect enough times that I believe I have formed an answer for myself; if no one else. In addition to my previous comments, I would describe the effect this way; and it needs to, once again, be viewed in the context of musical nuance:

Imagine that one is driving on the highway at 60 mph with the cruise-control
engaged. The road is relatively smooth and the auto is performing comfortably. Suddenly one encounters a rough section of road. The speedometer will show a slight slowing of speed. That is what I hear when the stylus suddenly encounters a heavily modulated passage on an LP; particularly on heavily orchestrated symphonic music. It may not be perceived as an obvious slowing, but as a subtle decrease in the music's rhythmic forward impetus. A great symphony orchestra heard live can sail through a heavily orchestrated section of music with a thrilling sense of forward drive as powerful as that in a more lightly orchestrated section. The problem can be very subtle, but it is there nonetheless. Obviously, some turntables do much better than others with this.

Ironically, while I find most digital playback to have less overall rhythmic nuance and excitement than a great LP, I don't hear the same loss of forward drive in the heavily modulated passages.
Dear Lewm: I repeat, my main target on sound reproduction is that the bass management be " spot on " and in my system at 100R that target is achieved in better way. That's all.

The darkness on the cartridge is only a different " color " or shade of color than the one in the HZ version.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Plinth Builders

Timeltel/Richardkrebs/Inshore/Dover/Lewm/Halcro/Raul et al ?

I have this strange and peculiar fascination with resonances and vibrations, as they apply to home base. The table itself. IMO – The more “right” we get it to our own preferences, our tonearms / cartridges will be the more happy. One problem is we never know, until they go for a test drive. Sort of like designing/building a car and not knowing who the customer will be?
I myself have my latest version DD set up, in I guess what you would call a minimal plinth. Looking for advice and recommendations on the next version. Would be an enthusiastic and willing contributor if only for my experiences and the mistakes I have made; if someone would like to start a thread on this.
Cheers
Dear Griffithds: +++++ " 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. " +++++

if you read trhough this thread and otehr threads that was exactly what I always supported, that was always my advise, but this always is not for ever.

Through the time and due to experiences on re-tipping my cartridges through VDH first and latter on Axel I changed my mind because I took in count that I could and can have serious improvements if I go against my way of thinking on this regard.
The time gives me the precise answer and confirms that I was wrong but not only I experienced about but several Agoners inside this thread and other threads already experienced the same that I experienced.

That's why exist SS or Axel and many other re-tippers.

That statement I learned through the AHEE but not all what the AHEE teach to us is right an unbiased.

Griffithds, as me all of you day by day are growing up and learning " things " for the better or bad and with this kind of learning all of us are enriching our audio/system knowledge in favor of MUSIC.

I just received from Axel my Lira Clavis DaCapo and it's a new formidable LOMC cartridge a lot lot better than the original. When time permit I will speak on this Lyra re-tipped one that confirm ( once again. ) that that statement, AHEE and me were wrong.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Raul,

Perhaps you need to address your findings to Richard Steinfeld, the Guru of all that is Pickering/Stanton. I only quoated what he has placed in print. I don't doubt you like your hybred better than a original 881LZS. But you do not have a original 981HZS to do a comparision.
I have a Goldring G800 that was designed to be an entry level cartridge. I can claim that it is better than many of the cartridges that we have reviewed on this Forum including the Virtuoso. The fact that it now has a Beryllium cantilever and a Shibata tip, and no longer has a alum cantiliver with a conical tip I quess doesn't matter.
Regards, Richardkrebs/CT05-Chris: Long post, you'll be sorry you asked.

Choice of elements in a turntable can be comfortably left to a qualified other, assembled through random decisions by the consumer, or, given some degree of awareness by the hobbiest, sometimes by homegrown theory, speculation and intuition.

In a paper presented to the AES, 1977, Bruel & Kajer (B & K) conclude that the "fundamental problem creating parameter is the frequency response of the turntable". Rumble, wow & flutter were identified as the primary miscreants. The choice of belt, idler or direct drive units is a matter of personal preference. In an arena where less is more, technical attributes might be considered.

B & K (trying to avoid the homegrown aspect here) also points out that "one should not make tradeoffs with respect to tonearm rigidity and fixtures, spurious resonances could be the result and destroy stability of the stereo image". Reflections are identified as an important factor, "A linkage of mechanisms can be expected to result in a number of resonant modes". Spurious resonances and excitations of these resonances can cause relative movement between the record, cartridge body and stylus. This movement generates a signal that is not on the record. Consequently, some degree of damping and maintaining a stable relationship between the spindle and pivot appear to be somewhat beneficial.

Structural and acoustically borne vibrations are recognized concerns. Failure to address either may result in audible coloration or in the extreme, system oscillation. Resonances from sharp transients tend to build, there is a need to address duration of extraneous vibration. Otherwise at termination of the signal there is residual energy resulting in the cartridge producing the generation of a signal when there should be none. This is adequately described as "ringing". Once identified, the listener is increasingly aware of this type of distortion.

Let's say correction of resonances in the turntable and arm are desirable. In a worst case situation, inadequate damping can result in sideband intermodulations resulting in increased amplitudes. This is where addressing boundary resonances becomes important.

If it can be accepted that a mechanical system can have as many resonant frequencies as it has degrees of freedom, then each degree of freedom CAN act as a harmonic oscillator. Let's view a gimbal bearinged tonearm as a beam, anchored at one end but still having two degrees of freedom, vertical and horizontal. Rotation of a unipivot arm is not being considered.

Journal Of Applied Physics, 2004: "Fundamental resonances --- observed, overtone resonance was found to depend on the ratio of beam length to cross-section diameter". Variation of cross-section diameter of the beam along it's length was measured and showed a linear variation. It was found that "there was a negative shift in frequency for the fundamental mode due to an increase of mass near the end of the beam, but positive for the higher modes" (this needs IMHO, to be understood), for which increased stiffness dominated over the increased mass. For a tonearm, there is then a correlation between cross-section diameter, taper, rigidity and mass, particularly at the free end where headshell and cartridge mass bear on this relationship. Additionaly, added complications arise in that the tonearm beam is free in two planes at the bearing end but also if constrained at the distal point by the stylus, compliance then enters the picture. We simpler folks call it matching cart to arm.

It would be simpler to state that (a) deflection of the beam, (b) the Young’s modulus, (c) the momentum of inertia, and (4) unit mass of the beam are respectively involved in the performance of a tonearm, a system neither perfectly clamped nor completely free. The wand is constrained in a condition somewhere between these two limits.

Then there's substrate. We're getting close to plinth territory now. One of the essential decisions is wether to couple or de-couple the resonating beam (tonearm) to substrate. Boundary resonances exist when vibrations reflect from a surface, external or internal. Measurement can be taken at the point source or at the point of reflection. To borrow a term from physics, let's call this turning point resonance. Dependant on the convergence point of resonances, increase in amplitude or a shift in phase are detected. This makes coupling of mechanical devices, including CLD plinth designs, an extremely sophisticated approach. Interruption of a homogenous material dampens resonance, the material of convenience was high density particle board.

Using 1/4 inch plywood a template was made. A top-bearing flush trimming router bit guided by the template produced a copy in 1" high density particle board. The drive and TA were installed, a trial revealed a resonance derived tracing error, heard as grain. A second layer increased mass, bonded with a polyurethane wood glue and clamped on the milled surface of a table saw, a gluing caul above.

So, be it homegrown theory, speculation, intuition or application of a basic awareness of influences, so far, so good. This began with a scheme to recover my borrowed out SP-25/Black Widow from a 33 yr. old son by replacing it with a patched together outfit.

Alas, a project grown out of control. Apprehensive of monopolizing the thread & etc,

Peace,
Dear comrade Don, I was not as brave with my Goldring 800
and asked Axel for my 'usual upgrade': line contact pressure fitted in a aluminum alloy cantilever. My 'bravery' limit for the retip is 175 euro btw. The result is , say, 'nice' but not staggering in my opinion. However you got support from an unexpected 'source'. Axel is still busy with my Shiraz cart while the Shiraz is a modify EMT SDS 15 by Touraj Mogaddan from the Roksan brand. Touraj is a graduate from Imperial College of Engineering. According to him the stylus is the most important part in a cart and he thinks that Gyger II is the best there is. He made no statements about the cantilevers that I am aware of but in our forum we already have had some discussion about this subject matter. Anyway your berylliun/ Gyger II combo may explain the results you reported. When I bought Shiraz my intention was to get the EMT SDS 15 suitable for a SME kind of headshell. However I also got the Gyger II with this cart unintentionaly. Dover already praise the Shiraz and your comment about your Goldring is also encouraging. I will report about my Shiraz when I get the cart back from Axel.

Regards,
Dear Comrade Nickola,

"I will report about my Shiraz when I get the cart back from Axel"

You may have just made your first step into heaven!
Keep us informed.
Regards,
Don
One thing that has been established by Raul himself is that he does not have an original 980 and as a result, he is not qualified to make an assessment of the strengths and weakness of that cartridge.
What Raul should have said at the start of this debate is that he has a hybrid and that he is very well qualified to make an assessment of. I was even confused when the debate started on the cartridge but later with some postings from our guru(Raul) and others, I came to find out that the whole discussion was not about the stock 980 from the standpoint of Raul.
We should all concentrate on the 980 and maybe deviate a little as to how to extract more from the cartridge like we did on the Signet cartridge.
I am interested on the 980,981 and its different variants if I can hear more from people that have tried them.
Thanks all. What a great bunch you all are.
Dear Griffithds: I forgot. What I posted has to take it as an opinion based on precise experiences and that's all. It is not a rule.

What if I was owner of the Lyra Atlas or the Ortofon Anna or other new top dog? Will I send it to any of the existen re-tippers?, maybe not.

A today premium cartridge invlove not only the designer in deep effort to achieve pre-determined targets but those targets were and are achieved b by the design, parts selections and execution to taht design as the very especial cartridge voicing to match that designer targets.

With vintage cartridges or not so " today " top ones I will look to a re-tipper.

Btw, froma few months now I'm buying LOMC cartridges and for some of them I'm buying a second cartridge sample.

For example, my original Spectral cartridge that performs so great I bought a second sample that I send to Axel to re-tip for compare it to the original one. I already made it this with other LOMC cartridges that es exactly what I did and I styll do with MM/MI cartridges where IMHO is worth to do it.

About the Goldring G800 your experiences with is exactly what the UK re-tipper told me and that's why I bought 3-4 samples on it and why I higly recomend it.

About the 981HZSMK2 maybe you missed my post about. Yes, I compare the Stanton original stylus against the Pickering 5000MK2 and I posted that this Pickering stylus replacement was and is better by a not so small margin especially on tracking distortion/habilities.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear friends: The Precept experiences have to wait because I just receive in amint condition a Glanz MFG-71L that was the top of the line and in theory " similar " to the Astatic MF-100 that is a well regarded cartridge by its owners including me.

In the Glanz thread and maybe in other thread too ( I can't remember if in this one either. ) I have a serious disagreement/controversy with the Glanz against the Astatic ones and against the integrated headshell Glanz versions against the stand alone version as the one I'm talking about.

That controversy was so serious that the other person involved in that controversy implied that I was lied.

So, time to leave clear the " old " Glanz/Astatic controversy by my self and no better way that with the top Glanz ( stand alone version ) " dog ". We will see, normally " the time always put things in the right place where belongs".

Btw, maybe not many of you are interested about and I say this because almost no one took in count seriously the Astatic similar cartridges that at least the MF-100 and the MF-200 IMHO are top performers.
I insist, if you look somewhere any of these Astatic cartridges my advise is: buy it with no ask.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Raul, you forgot IMMHO the top astatic MF2500 that i have is tops!

Lawrence
Fidelity Forward
Raul,
I feel tracking distortions (or lack of), is even more important than cantilever/stylus profile. What I wonder about is the fact that your 5000 is not even Pickering's top stylus. There is still the 7500 series. I understand changing cantilever material or a stylus profile by Axel or anyone else can and does make a dramatic improvement. What I would like to understand better is why swapping a Stereohedron for another Stereohedron could make such an improvement, especially when both were manufactured by the same company and both stated to be TOTL. Raul, do you have access to equipment that would let you see a frequency response from a cartridge. I would like to see or have explained to me, what differences the two styli produces. I would also like to know what the factory loading produces compared to your preferred loading in ref. to F/Response. Knowing you like your loading better is fine, but what is actually happening to the F/Response between the factory settings and your preference which I think was Res. 100K and cap. 350 + cables. What does the F/Response look like at cap. settings of 100, 250? You settled on cap. of 350 because you liked how it sounded at this setting. What does the F/Response look like? A lot of questions but no documented answers. I would just like to better understand all this Raul, in more scientific terms.
Regards,
Don
Raul,

A few weeks back there was a Glanz MFG-71L up for auction on eBay. I came close to bidding on it but because I already have a Astatic MF100 & MF200 I decided to pass. I hope you still have a MF100 in your stash because I really would like to hear how the two compare and if perhaps they really are the same cartridge. Looking forward to your results.
Regards,
Don
Raul, what is your secret to tracking down cartridges that are difficult to obtain ?
Before we know it you will be telling us that you two/three of the same Glanz cartridge.
I have been searching for the same cartridge and just gave up. It is like chasing a ghost.
Raul - if you would like to send me the Glanz & Astatic, I would be happy to arbitrate in this matter and give a fair and balanced review.
Dear Dover: Thank's for your offer but IMHO in all cases the best arbitrate almost always are each one of us.

Imagine that all the cartridge comparisons in this thread could needs an arbitrate!!!!!

Fortunately things in audio are not so complicated as to have an arbitrate, at least for now and at least with persons that are not audio " rockies ".

What I can do is to put on sale for you the cartridge that was outperformed after my comparison. Just tell me.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Dover, As you see Raul is not willing to actually share carts but only his opinion about them. I was, I think, the first one who put forward that Glanz and Astatic
are 'the same' carts. I first got the Astatic MF 200 and
then the Glanz 31 l (l=line contact). To my suprise I was
not able to hear any difference between them. Then I discovered the user manual included by my Glanz 31L and
got , what the German call 'Aha Erlebnis'. For both (import) brands Mitachi Corp. in Japan made the those cart.
All the corpusses or corpora (thanks Lew) are the same while the only difference are the styli. Shibata by MF
100 and 200 and line contact by Glanz 71, 51 and 31. There
are also models with elliptical styli MF 300 -400 while the
most Glanz models have both choices. But my MF 200 was more
than $200 while my Glanz 31 l was about $50. I sold my MF
200 for $380! That is how Raul's 'Ahe' works. If you are
curious about about Glanz you can get my Glanz 31 l and 31E
to compare. My Glanz 5 I am not willing to lend out even to
Tuchan, Henry or Lew.

Regards,
Dear all, I need to defend Raul. He was with me the only one who quoted the data from his 981 'calibration performance data' card. It would be strange to own the card and not the cart. His and my sample are nearly identical as I already mentioned. There are no such calibration data for the 980. So those can be only compared by listening test. I don't see why his comparison between the original 981 stylus and the Pickering 5000 should be so strange. Our Fleib, for example, does such comparison all the time. Raul is still the 'Emperor' of this thread and his contributions the most valuable. I deed not purchased 30 MM carts thanks to him but certainly about 15. So I still feel very obliged to him.

Regards,
Dear comrade Don, I am sorry to report that I am excommmunicated as a party member because of my capitalistic inclination and petit bourgeois mentality (LOL). The Shiraz
is, I hope , on the way to me but meanwhile I got the 'problematic' Stanton 981, the less problematic Benz LP S and the misterious Magic Diamond made by even more
misterious Reti Andreoli the 'kid' who learned this trade by the Bross brothers for two years. He was probable more fanatic about carts than our Raul. He come to Australia as
kid specifically to meet the brothers. He was then not able to speak English. To reinforce the mystery his cheapest cart is the Magic diamond ($5000) the next one $ 15000 and the next to the next $ 25000. For the last two mentioned the waiting time is 6 months. BTW I got my for much less because, despite the fact that his native languge is German , very few Germans have ever heard about him.Otherwise I would have much more competitors on the German 'audio-markt'. But it may be the case that they don't trust the Swiss. Because of the 981 my Benz is still in its box while Siraz, Kiseki and Magic Diamnod I hope to receive next week. So I have much to report about.

Regards,
Hi Nandric,

Although not infallible (who is?), Raul's judgements are generally of the highest order, based on lengthy first-hand investigations and should rightly be praised.

In my experience and consequent opinion.

As always...
Dear nandric: Appreciated. Now, that Magic Diamond: well in the past in a few Agon threads the Magic Diamond was under " deep " scrutiny. I had the opportunity to heard it in one of my trips to great Agon friends home places in USA ( J.Galbraith. whom own a top system: Walker TT between other items. ).

Sounds very good. Things happen that the Magic Diamomnd used the Denon-103 " platform " and from there born the cartridge with several designer modifications.

The debate about was " serious " because the MD owners refused to belive that Denon procedence. At the end was proved that in fact the original procedence was Denon even that what we read on the net by the designer it self could tell something different.

Anyway, Denon procedence ( I think there is nothing wrong with this. ) or not the MD is very good performer and I know you will be satisfied with.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Nandric, Raul,

I have read on other forums that Sound Smith (Peter), is doing great things with what he refers to as a manor rebuild of the Denon 103. It's not cheap but claims to make it a world class contender, bar none!
Regards,
Don
Dear Raul, To me this Magic diamond looks like a modify EMT TSD 15. The strange thing is that so many designers are somehow chalenged by this 'oldfashioned' German cart. Van den Hul, Brinkmann, Einstein, Touraj Mogaddan (Roksan) and possible some others all try to improve on the original design. My friend Tuchan was the first who recommended this EMT cart to me but mentioned some LZI model made for the Japanese market. Difficult to find and very expensive. So I used your method,so to speak, and bought defective kinds for cheap with intention to post them to Axel and then see what he can make of them. This way I bought the Shiraz and Kiseki blue for about 250 GBP
and posted to Axel. He was at first very sceptical about the possibilities for reapair but somehow 'invented' the way or the method to repair them. So I am very curious about those carts. The other curious thing is that Andreoli quasi pretended to believe that conical styli are superior to other kinds but designed some special shape for
his own Magic diamond and other carts which can reach 40 Khz. I am not a technical guy but dont believe that any conical stylus can reach 40 Khz. BTW that is what Axel told me also. So dear Raul we have obviously the same 'disease' but yours is much worse than my (grin).
Quote: The other curious thing is that Andreoli quasi pretended to believe that conical styli are superior to other kinds

why would you say pretended? there are many conical MM/MC cartridges that will play out there in the 40kc range and beyond....

IMO overall a good conical diamond designed cartridge plays in a more coherent way... meaning what i hear is a more togetherness... no frequency range sticks out

Lawrence
Fidelity Forward
Dear Nandric: +++++ " Raul is not willing to actually share carts but only his opinion about them. ... " +++++

you are right but there are some reasons about that I would like to explain:

- first almost all those cartridges are vintage ones.
- the more valuable are very and some extremely hard to find out.
- I live in México that's far away from almost all of you. Shipping both ways has an inherent risck.

in the other side and even that all of us really take care about the cartridge fragility even on cartridge set up/handling time to time some of us have " accidents ".

My latest one was two weeks ago with my NOS Stanton 981HZSMK2!!!!!! and in the past I can remember: Grace Ruby, four times ( yes, four times. ) one of my Colibris, one of the AKG P100, At 160, At 180, Technics P100CMK4 and I can go on and on.

It is a " pain in the ass " to work in the middle of ten tonearms/cartridges where your body is surrounded by those delicate items: when is not one finger is your arm or the sweter you dress or even your head.
I take care a lot on each one of the cartridges but almost all days I'm doing something around the analog rig system so the probabilities of an accident are higher that when you have only one-two tonearm/cartridges at the same time.

Not only you offer me to send me one of your value treasures but other Agoners too and in all cases I refuse to accept not only because is a critical responsability for my self but to protect those vintage treasures.

If I remember was you whom posted something like this: " a cartridge is like my wife, I don't borrow she to any one ".

Many times and even if we can find out again one sample of a vintage cartridge maybe its quality performance ( due to its vintage status. ) been poorer than the first sample. I experienced this more than once.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
The mouse and the elephant :
Nandric due to the size of the contact of the stylus, the record groove is about 1/6th the size of a human hair, 1.5g tracking force equates to roughly 340lbs/square inch.
Dear Lharasim; You are right, your Astatic is the " losted link " and no one can find out. Lucky you are!

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
There is no such thing as a conical stylus, a conical stylus would gouge your record out.
There is a spherical tipped stylus.

Now there is an interesting summary or explanation of Reto Andreoli's theory on why spherical tipped stylus are more appropriate than fine tip profiles here :
http://www.lencoheaven.net/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=9mqival9n98ha639bu21sse1j3&topic=705.msg6149#msg6149
I strongly recommend you have a read and think. It is very interesting and quite logical to follow.

"That the stereo groove undoubtedly could be traced with less distortion with a narrower stylus than with a spherical stylus is true. But only if the suspension of the cantilever is the same as that of the cutter stylus. And this is never the case!
And here begins the tragedy of the industry, which has been grinding away on the spherical stylus since the first stereo records came about, hoping to improve the reproduction. The actual problem, namely the geometrical design of the cantilever suspension, was wholly ignored - except by Decca, EMI Varilux, Neumann and Ikeda. That this thoughtlessness, or the ignorance of the complexity of the matter has led to design errors, even has increased playback error, is a fact."

It is suggested that if you are going to use a finer tip than a spherical, then the cartridge compliance should match the cutterhead to minimise pinch distortion.
Due to the unknown compliance of the cutterhead, as it will vary with each recording then one could surmise that fine tip profiles should only be used with low compliance cartridges to ensure the cantilever has less compliance than the cutterhead.
( Timeltel this is your cue to add some intellectual rigour here )

The article acknowledges that Decca, Ikeda, Neumann & Varilux have recognised this in their cantilever design. Both the Decca and Ikeda cantileverless cartridges are the quickest cartridges I have heard by some margin.

Interesting to note that some record companies compensated for the stylus distortions of the day.

Now I know why when I packed an elderly gentleman's record collection into my wagon a few years ago he said with a glint in his eye "dont worry, I've kept a few of my favourite 78's".

Dear Nandric: Dear Nandric: This is one of the MD threads I refered to:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1174270052&read&keyw&zzspu

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Dover, If one assume that conical= spherical then either can be substituted for each other salva veritate. That is to say if the premise is also true (LOL). No idea how and why but I was the first to mention Anderoli in this thread asking implict for the 'rehabilitation' for the poor old innocente conical thing. I have then just read this paper of Andreoli in some Swiss Magazine. Well I may also have read some papers about particle physics...So I forwarded this article to Axel , Tuchan and Dertonarm but,
alas, never got any comment except from Axel who was not interested but mentioned to me that 'only elliptical, etc styli are capable to reach fr. above 20 Khz'.
I see now that I should post this article to you but back then I had no idea who you was as well that German is an official languge in New Zealand (LOL).

Regards,
Hi Dgob, From the qualification 'the top Astatic MF 2500'
by Lharasim I deduce that Astatic has something similar
to Glanz 5 or 7 . But because of Raul I am reluctant to
mention the headshell.

Regards,
Nandric - I'm surprised you have time to post given the number of cartridges awaiting your attention. I have a Reto Andreoli moving coil preamp sitting on the shelf, but alas no cartridge. Will be interested to see what you hear. My old Denon 103 Garrott still has fond memories for me. Are you going to go for the Vertere tonearm for the Shiraz ??
Dear Lharasim, I am sorry for us both but according to Dover we have no idea what we are talking about. This seems to (logicaly ) follow from our assumptions about the conical stylus. I was all the time aware how dangerous this New Zealand guy is but I learned from Frege that there is no mercy in the truth questions. I even like the guy probable because of this strange Slavic inclination towards suffering.

Regards,