Who needs a MM cartridge type when we have MC?


Dear friends: who really needs an MM type phono cartridge?, well I will try to share/explain with you what are my experiences about and I hope too that many of you could enrich the topic/subject with your own experiences.

For some years ( in this forum ) and time to time I posted that the MM type cartridge quality sound is better than we know or that we think and like four months ago I start a thread about: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1173550723&openusid&zzRauliruegas&4&5#Rauliruegas where we analyse some MM type cartridges.

Well, in the last 10-12 months I buy something like 30+ different MM type phono cartridges ( you can read in my virtual system which ones. ) and I’m still doing it. The purpose of this fact ( “ buy it “ ) is for one way to confirm or not if really those MM type cartridges are good for us ( music lovers ) and at the same time learn about MM vs MC cartridges, as a fact I learn many things other than MM/MC cartridge subject.

If we take a look to the Agon analog members at least 90% of them use ( only ) MC phono cartridges, if we take a look to the “ professional reviewers “ ( TAS, Stereophile, Positive Feedback, Enjoy the Music, etc, etc, ) 95% ( at least ) of them use only MC cartridges ( well I know that for example: REG and NG of TAS and RJR of Stereophile use only MM type cartridges!!!!!!!! ) , if we take a look to the phono cartridge manufacturers more than 90% of them build/design for MC cartridges and if you speak with audio dealers almost all will tell you that the MC cartridges is the way to go.

So, who are wrong/right, the few ( like me ) that speak that the MM type is a very good alternative or the “ whole “ cartridge industry that think and support the MC cartridge only valid alternative?

IMHO I think that both groups are not totally wrong/right and that the subject is not who is wrong/right but that the subject is : KNOW-HOW or NON KNOW-HOW about.

Many years ago when I was introduced to the “ high end “ the cartridges were almost MM type ones: Shure, Stanton, Pickering, Empire, etc, etc. In those time I remember that one dealer told me that if I really want to be nearest to the music I have to buy the Empire 4000 D ( they say for 4-channel reproduction as well. ) and this was truly my first encounter with a “ high end cartridge “, I buy the 4000D I for 70.00 dls ( I can’t pay 150.00 for the D III. ), btw the specs of these Empire cartridges were impressive even today, look: frequency response: 5-50,000Hz, channel separation: 35db, tracking force range: 0.25grs to 1.25grs!!!!!!!!, just impressive, but there are some cartridges which frequency response goes to 100,000Hz!!!!!!!!!!

I start to learn about and I follow to buying other MM type cartridges ( in those times I never imagine nothing about MC cartridges: I don’t imagine of its existence!!!. ) like AKG, Micro Acoustics, ADC, B&O, Audio Technica, Sonus, etc, etc.

Years latter the same dealer told me about the MC marvelous cartridges and he introduce me to the Denon-103 following with the 103-D and the Fulton High performance, so I start to buy and hear MC cartridges. I start to read audio magazines about either cartridge type: MM and Mc ones.

I have to make changes in my audio system ( because of the low output of the MC cartridges and because I was learning how to improve the performance of my audio system ) and I follow what the reviewers/audio dealers “ speak “ about, I was un-experienced !!!!!!!, I was learning ( well I’m yet. ).

I can tell you many good/bad histories about but I don’t want that the thread was/is boring for you, so please let me tell you what I learn and where I’m standing today about:

over the years I invested thousands of dollars on several top “ high end “ MC cartridges, from the Sumiko Celebration passing for Lyras, Koetsu, Van denHul, to Allaerts ones ( just name it and I can tell that I own or owned. ), what I already invest on MC cartridges represent almost 70-80% price of my audio system.

Suddenly I stop buying MC cartridges and decide to start again with some of the MM type cartridges that I already own and what I heard motivate me to start the search for more of those “ hidden jewels “ that are ( here and now ) the MM phono cartridges and learn why are so good and how to obtain its best quality sound reproduction ( as a fact I learn many things other than MM cartridge about. ).

I don’t start this “ finding “ like a contest between MC and MM type cartridges.
The MC cartridges are as good as we already know and this is not the subject here, the subject is about MM type quality performance and how achieve the best with those cartridges.

First than all I try to identify and understand the most important characteristics ( and what they “ means “. ) of the MM type cartridges ( something that in part I already have it because our phonolinepreamp design needs. ) and its differences with the MC ones.

Well, first than all is that are high output cartridges, very high compliance ones ( 50cu is not rare. ), low or very low tracking force ones, likes 47kOhms and up, susceptible to some capacitance changes, user stylus replacement, sometimes we can use a different replacement stylus making an improvement with out the necessity to buy the next top model in the cartridge line , low and very low weight cartridges, almost all of them are build of plastic material with aluminum cantilever and with eliptical or “ old “ line contact stylus ( shibata ) ( here we don’t find: Jade/Coral/Titanium/etc, bodies or sophisticated build material cantilevers and sophisticated stylus shape. ), very very… what I say? Extremely low prices from 40.00 to 300.00 dls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, well one of my cartridges I buy it for 8.99 dls ( one month ago ): WOW!!!!!!, so any one of you can/could have/buy ten to twenty MM cartridges for the price of one of the MC cartridge you own today and the good notice is that is a chance that those 10-20 MM type cartridges even the quality performance of your MC cartridge or beat it.

Other characteristics is that the builders show how proud they were/are on its MM type cartridges design, almost all those cartridges comes with a first rate box, comes with charts/diagrams of its frequency response and cartridge channel separation ( where they tell us which test recording use it, with which VTF, at which temperature, etc, etc. ), comes with a very wide explanation of the why’s and how’s of its design and the usual explanation to mount the cartridge along with a very wide list of specifications ( that were the envy of any of today MC ones where sometimes we really don’t know nothing about. ), comes with a set of screws/nuts, comes with a stylus brush and even with stylus cleaning fluid!!!!!!!!!, my GOD. Well, there are cartridges like the Supex SM 100MK2 that comes with two different stylus!!!! One with spherical and one with elliptical/shibata shape and dear friends all those in the same low low price!!!!!!!!!!!

Almost all the cartridges I own you can find it through Ebay and Agon and through cartridge dealers and don’t worry if you loose/broke the stylus cartridge or you find the cartridge but with out stylus, you always can/could find the stylus replacement, no problem about there are some stylus and cartridge sources.

When I’m talking about MM type cartridges I’m refer to different types: moving magnet, moving iron, moving flux, electret, variable reluctance, induced magnet, etc, etc. ( here is not the place to explain the differences on all those MM type cartridges. Maybe on other future thread. ).

I made all my very long ( time consuming ) cartridge tests using four different TT’s: Acoustic Signature Analog One MK2, Micro Seiki RX-5000, Luxman PD 310 and Technics SP-10 MK2, I use only removable headshell S and J shape tonearms with 15mm on overhang, I use different material build/ shape design /weight headshells. I test each cartridge in at least three different tonearms and some times in 3-4 different headshells till I find the “ right “ match where the cartridge perform the best, no I’m not saying that I already finish or that I already find the “ perfect “ match: cartridge/headshell/tonearm but I think I’m near that ideal target.

Through my testing experience I learn/ confirm that trying to find the right tonearm/headshell for any cartridge is well worth the effort and more important that be changing the TT. When I switch from a TT to another different one the changes on the quality cartridge performance were/are minimal in comparison to a change in the tonearm/headshell, this fact was consistent with any of those cartridges including MC ones.

So after the Phonolinepreamplifier IMHO the tonearm/headshell match for any cartridge is the more important subject, it is so important and complex that in the same tonearm ( with the same headshell wires ) but with different headshell ( even when the headshell weight were the same ) shape or build material headshell the quality cartridge performance can/could be way different.

All those experiences told me that chances are that the cartridge that you own ( MC or MM ) is not performing at its best because chances are that the tonearm you own is not the best match for that cartridge!!!!!!, so imagine what do you can/could hear when your cartridge is or will be on the right tonearm???!!!!!!!!, IMHO there are ( till today ) no single ( any type at any price ) perfect universal tonearm. IMHO there is no “ the best tonearm “, what exist or could exist is a “ best tonearm match for “ that “ cartridge “, but that’s all. Of course that are “ lucky “ tonearms that are very good match for more than one cartridge but don’t for every single cartridge.

I posted several times that I’m not a tonearm collector, that I own all those tonearms to have alternatives for my cartridges and with removable headshells my 15 tonearms are really like 100+ tonearms : a very wide options/alternatives for almost any cartridge!!!!!!

You can find several of these MM type cartridges new brand or NOS like: Ortofon, Nagaoka, Audio Technica, Astatic, B&O, Rega, Empire, Sonus Reson,Goldring,Clearaudio, Grado, Shelter, Garrot, etc. and all of them second hand in very good operational condition. As a fact I buy two and even three cartridges of the same model in some of the cartridges ( so right now I have some samples that I think I don’t use any more. ) to prevent that one of them arrive in non operational condition but I’m glad to say that all them arrive in very fine conditions. I buy one or two of the cartridges with no stylus or with the stylus out of work but I don’t have any trouble because I could find the stylus replacement on different sources and in some case the original new replacement.

All these buy/find cartridges was very time consuming and we have to have a lot of patience and a little lucky to obtain what we are looking for but I can asure you that is worth of it.

Ok, I think it is time to share my performance cartridge findings:

first we have to have a Phonolinepreamplifier with a very good MM phono stage ( at least at the same level that the MC stage. ). I’m lucky because my Phonolinepreamplifier has two independent phono stages, one for the MM and one for MC: both were designed for the specifics needs of each cartridge type, MM or MC that have different needs.

we need a decent TT and decent tonearm.

we have to load the MM cartridges not at 47K but at 100K ( at least 75K not less. ).

I find that using 47K ( a standard manufacture recommendation ) prevent to obtain the best quality performance, 100K make the difference. I try this with all those MM type cartridges and in all of them I achieve the best performance with 100K load impedance.

I find too that using the manufacturer capacitance advise not always is for the better, till “ the end of the day “ I find that between 100-150pf ( total capacitance including cable capacitance. ) all the cartridges performs at its best.

I start to change the load impedance on MM cartridges like a synonymous that what many of us made with MC cartridges where we try with different load impedance values, latter I read on the Empire 4000 DIII that the precise load impedance must be 100kOhms and in a white paper of some Grace F9 tests the used impedance value was 100kOhms, the same that I read on other operational MM cartridge manual and my ears tell/told me that 100kOhms is “ the value “.

Before I go on I want to remember you that several of those MM type cartridges ( almost all ) were build more than 30+ years ago!!!!!!!! and today performs at the same top quality level than today MC/MM top quality cartridges!!!!!, any brand at any price and in some ways beat it.

I use 4-5 recordings that I know very well and that give me the right answers to know that any cartridge is performing at its best or near it. Many times what I heard through those recordings were fine: everything were on target however the music don’t come “ alive “ don’t “ tell me “ nothing, I was not feeling the emotion that the music can communicate. In those cartridge cases I have to try it in other tonearm and/or with a different headshell till the “ feelings comes “ and only when this was achieved I then was satisfied.

All the tests were made with a volume level ( SPL ) where the recording “ shines “ and comes alive like in a live event. Sometimes changing the volume level by 1-1.5 db fixed everything.

Of course that the people that in a regular manner attend to hear/heard live music it will be more easy to know when something is right or wrong.

Well, Raul go on!!: one characteristic on the MM cartridges set-up was that almost all them likes to ride with a positive ( little/small ) VTA only the Grace Ruby and F9E and Sonus Gold Blue likes a negative VTA , on the other hand with the Nagaoka MP 50 Super and the Ortofon’s I use a flat VTA.

Regarding the VTF I use the manufacturer advise and sometimes 0.1+grs.
Of course that I made fine tuning through moderate changes in the Azymuth and for anti-skate I use between half/third VTF value.

I use different material build headshells: aluminum, composite aluminum, magnesium, composite magnesium, ceramic, wood and non magnetic stainless steel, these cartridges comes from Audio Technica, Denon, SAEC, Technics, Fidelity Research, Belldream, Grace, Nagaoka, Koetsu, Dynavector and Audiocraft.
All of them but the wood made ( the wood does not likes to any cartridge. ) very good job . It is here where a cartridge could seems good or very good depending of the headshell where is mounted and the tonearm.
Example, I have hard time with some of those cartridge like the Audio Technica AT 20SS where its performance was on the bright sound that sometimes was harsh till I find that the ceramic headshell was/is the right match now this cartridge perform beautiful, something similar happen with the Nagaoka ( Jeweltone in Japan ), Shelter , Grace, Garrot , AKG and B&O but when were mounted in the right headshell/tonearm all them performs great.

Other things that you have to know: I use two different cooper headshell wires, both very neutral and with similar “ sound “ and I use three different phono cables, all three very neutral too with some differences on the sound performance but nothing that “ makes the difference “ on the quality sound of any of my cartridges, either MM or MC, btw I know extremely well those phono cables: Analysis Plus, Harmonic Technologies and Kimber Kable ( all three the silver models. ), finally and don’t less important is that those phono cables were wired in balanced way to take advantage of my Phonolinepreamp fully balanced design.

What do you note the first time you put your MM cartridge on the record?, well a total absence of noise/hum or the like that you have through your MC cartridges ( and that is not a cartridge problem but a Phonolinepreamp problem due to the low output of the MC cartridges. ), a dead silent black ( beautiful ) soundstage where appear the MUSIC performance, this experience alone is worth it.

The second and maybe the most important MM cartridge characteristic is that you hear/heard the MUSIC flow/run extremely “ easy “ with no distracting sound distortions/artifacts ( I can’t explain exactly this very important subject but it is wonderful ) even you can hear/heard “ sounds/notes “ that you never before heard it and you even don’t know exist on the recording: what a experience!!!!!!!!!!!

IMHO I think that the MUSIC run so easily through a MM cartridge due ( between other facts ) to its very high compliance characteristic on almost any MM cartridge.

This very high compliance permit ( between other things like be less sensitive to out-center hole records. ) to these cartridges stay always in contact with the groove and never loose that groove contact not even on the grooves that were recorded at very high velocity, something that a low/medium cartridge compliance can’t achieve, due to this low/medium compliance characteristic the MC cartridges loose ( time to time and depending of the recorded velocity ) groove contact ( minute extremely minute loose contact, but exist. ) and the quality sound performance suffer about and we can hear it, the same pass with the MC cartridges when are playing the inner grooves on a record instead the very high compliance MM cartridges because has better tracking drive perform better than the MC ones at inner record grooves and here too we can hear it.

Btw, some Agoners ask very worried ( on more than one Agon thread ) that its cartridge can’t track ( clean ) the cannons on the 1812 Telarc recording and usually the answers that different people posted were something like this: “””” don’t worry about other than that Telarc recording no other commercial recording comes recorded at that so high velocity, if you don’t have trouble with other of your LP’s then stay calm. “””””

Well, this standard answer have some “ sense “ but the people ( like me ) that already has/have the experience to hear/heard a MM or MC ( like the Ortofon MC 2000 or the Denon DS1, high compliance Mc cartridges. ) cartridge that pass easily the 1812 Telarc test can tell us that those cartridges make a huge difference in the quality sound reproduction of any “ normal “ recording, so it is more important that what we think to have a better cartridge tracking groove drive!!!!

There are many facts around the MM cartridge subject but till we try it in the right set-up it will be ( for some people ) difficult to understand “ those beauties “. Something that I admire on the MM cartridges is how ( almost all of them ) they handle the frequency extremes: the low bass with the right pitch/heft/tight/vivid with no colorations of the kind “ organic !!” that many non know-how people speak about, the highs neutral/open/transparent/airy believable like the live music, these frequency extremes handle make that the MUSIC flow in our minds to wake up our feelings/emotions that at “ the end of the day “ is all what a music lover is looking for.
These not means that these cartridges don’t shine on the midrange because they do too and they have very good soundstage but here is more system/room dependent.

Well we have a very good alternative on the ( very low price ) MM type cartridges to achieve that music target and I’m not saying that you change your MC cartridge for a MM one: NO, what I’m trying to tell you is that it is worth to have ( as many you can buy/find ) the MM type cartridges along your MC ones

I want to tell you that I can live happy with any of those MM cartridges and I’m not saying with this that all of them perform at the same quality level NO!! what I’m saying is that all of them are very good performers, all of them approach you nearest to the music.

If you ask me which one is the best I can tell you that this will be a very hard “ call “ an almost impossible to decide, I think that I can make a difference between the very good ones and the stellar ones where IMHO the next cartridges belongs to this group:

Audio Technica ATML 170 and 180 OCC, Grado The Amber Tribute, Grace Ruby, Garrot P77, Nagaoka MP-50 Super, B&O MMC2 and MMC20CL, AKG P8ES SuperNova, Reson Reca ,Astatic MF-100 and Stanton LZS 981.

There are other ones that are really near this group: ADC Astrion, Supex MF-100 MK2, Micro Acoustics MA630/830, Empire 750 LTD and 600LAC, Sonus Dimension 5, Astatic MF-200 and 300 and the Acutex 320III.

The other ones are very good too but less refined ones.
I try too ( owned or borrowed for a friend ) the Shure IV and VMR, Music maker 2-3 and Clearaudio Virtuoso/Maestro, from these I could recommended only the Clearaudios the Shure’s and Music Maker are almost mediocre ones performers.
I forgot I try to the B&O Soundsmith versions, well this cartridges are good but are different from the original B&O ( that I prefer. ) due that the Sounsmith ones use ruby cantilevers instead the original B&O sapphire ones that for what I tested sounds more natural and less hi-fi like the ruby ones.

What I learn other that the importance on the quality sound reproduction through MM type cartridges?, well that unfortunately the advance in the design looking for a better quality cartridge performers advance almost nothing either on MM and MC cartridges.

Yes, today we have different/advanced body cartridge materials, different cantilever build materials, different stylus shape/profile, different, different,,,,different, but the quality sound reproduction is almost the same with cartridges build 30+ years ago and this is a fact. The same occur with TT’s and tonearms. Is sad to speak in this way but it is what we have today. Please, I’m not saying that some cartridges designs don’t grow up because they did it, example: Koetsu they today Koetsu’s are better performers that the old ones but against other cartridges the Koetsu ones don’t advance and many old and today cartridges MM/MC beat them easily.

Where I think the audio industry grow-up for the better are in electronic audio items ( like the Phonolinepreamps ), speakers and room treatment, but this is only my HO.

I know that there are many things that I forgot and many other things that we have to think about but what you can read here is IMHO a good point to start.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
Ag insider logo xs@2xrauliruegas
Dear Dover, You must be joking. The Vetere tonearm? Any
idea what I have spend the last month only? My sons
are seriously thinking to consult some (other) lawyer about
their legal rights. BTW , as I already mentioned, the whole
'Artillery' is still on the way to Holland: Shiraz, Kiseki
and Magic Diamond. Why is your Andreoli pre 'on the shelf'?
Would the Sony XL 44 l be of any help?

Regards,
I think the issue with the Magic Diamond was not really that it did not sound "good" but that it sold for roughly 10-15 times the cost of the Denon upon which it was based and to some did not sound any different. In other words, it was thought to be a scam, by some. (I have no opinion; I never owned a Magic Diamond or heard one.)

Back in the 70s, Harry Pearson fell in love with the spherical stylus version of the Decca cartridge (model name escapes me), just at a time when the audiophile world had drunk the Kool Aid of elliptical stylus supremacy uber alles. Many of the cognoscenti rushed out to buy the Decca, of course. I heard one; it had a great midrange, no doubt. Later, I bought the elliptical version, the SC4E. It could gouge a neat path through any vinyl, should have been used for a cutter instead of for playback. Very heavy body and zero compliance.
Dear Lew, There is no logic in your post: 'I never owned a Magic Diamond or heard one.' Then you quote some others opinions because you have non of your own but your first sentence starts with: 'I think the issue with the Magic Diamond was..' I am sure you wrote those lines not just before you go to bed but probale early in the morning.
Do you really think that others are so stupid to pay 10-15 times more for a Denon in disquise?

Regards,
Nikola has a duck. I'd have not thought it but he said so.
A duck is an amphibian, not all amphibians are ducks.
He also has a dog. I'd not have thought it but he said so.
A dog is a canine, not all canines are dogs.

Styli, in whatever manner truncated, taper to a point.
Not all styli are cones, there are also those of the square shank species.
Spheres are round.
There is no harm done in describing a stylus as having "a spherical tip".
To assert that a stylus is spherical is an egregious error.
This is a matter requiring great specificity.

So.

After having given it much consideration, I conclude Nikola likes animals.
Other than cats.
Nobody's perfect.

Peace,
Dear Lewm: There were and are cartridge designers that supported and still support spherical stylus shape.

Fulton was one of them I own one of his models that's a LOMC that from its specs goes on frequency response up to 50khz and performs really good.

Stylus shape is very important in a cartridge designs but only a part in the whole design.

I own the Denon 103 and is an average performer, many persons said that for its price is a great performer.

I don't know what Andreoli made with that 103 platform but I heard it and is a lot better than the 103. IMHO those persons that affirm that the performance on both cartridges is similar I think ( with all respect ) their audio systems has no adequate resolution for or their ears are " closed ".

About the MD price: what do you think on the 15K+ Koetsu Coralstone or other " crazy " prices on cartridges that IMHO has no quality performance justification??

Regards and enjoy the music,
R
Dear Professor, By universal quantification 'all' each
and every single object needs to satisfy the given condition(s) in order to make the statement true. By 'existential' quantification 'some' just one object which satisfy the given condition(s) is needed to make this statement true. BTW 'a duck' is not a determinated object so very difficult to own. You probable mean the word 'duck' but a real duck is not an expression but an object. You are still by Aristoteles logic of classes so whatever operations you try you get classes as result. The modern logic started by Frege. Also the logic of quantification which he called the logic of 'generality'.

Regards,
This discussion of conical styli reminded me that back in the days when J Gordon Holt was still publisher, editor, and chief writer for Stereophile, he drew a fair bit of criticism for rating his favorite Shure V-15 (whatever) conical version above the comparable elliptical stylus version. But then he was only making comparisons with LPs against master tapes he had of the same performances. ;^)
Nandric, There is complete logic in my post. Please read it again. To say that the Magic Diamond cost 10 times more than the Denon that spawned it is not to say that the buyers were stupid. Where is the word "stupid" in my post? The audio business is full of such deceptions. Are you aware that a Lexicon digital player is an Oppo in disguise, for many times the price of an Oppo? (In fact, many other upscale cdp's are Oppo's in disguise.) The makers of such gear would defend their actions based on the notion that they have added some "secret sauce" that makes their product superior to an Oppo. So too did the maker of the Magic �Diamond vis the Denon. The worst offenders are the purveyors of interconnects, power cords, and speaker cables. How much do you think they really pay for the wire that is the only functional part of their respective products? I am reporting information, not making a judgement. Therefore the fact that I have not heard the Magic Diamond is irrelevant. I am sorry, but your accusation would not stand up in court. You could say that I am guilty of reporting hearsay evidence, but I did identify my statement as hearsay.
Dear Raul, Of course, no cartridge is "worth" $15K. It amazes me that any are sold at that price, but they are sold, in fact. Why was my post on the Magic Diamond so provocative to you and Nicola? I did not say it was a bad cartridge. I did not say that it was not better than its forebear, the DL103. I only said what I said. It's just a fact that it derives from the DL103. I think the news was greeted with anger at the time, because the maker was not forthright about the source of his product. Just as Lexicon took a lot of criticism in the audio press when it was shown that they did not do much except to re-package an Oppo. But could the Lexicon be superior in sound to the Oppo, perhaps because of a more sturdy chassis, better shielding, more damping, etc.... Yes, it could.
to Nandric and everyone....I don't want to start argument but Yes i agree... Dover has an ax to grind..I have no idea why but..maybe he enjoys drama?!..

anyways my experience with the Conical shaped diamond is a good one.....Raul mentioned Fulton which is a very good example of what a good Conical cartridge can be(I own several) ....also the conical Decca's when working right are an excellent cartridge with good FR to 20kc

there are many more and personally like them a lot IMO they just sound like music :)

Good listening

Lawrence
Fidelity Forward
Dear Lew, those hearsay 'árguments' of yours are called
'propostional attitudes' (Russel)and there is no consistent
logical interpretation of them possible (see Quine:
Quantifiers and Propositional Attitudes).

Regards,
Dear Lew, I am really sorry for your, say, disturbance. I assumed that you are familiar with the terminology I used. It is actually very easy to explain. Your attitude
towards some statements made about Magic Diamond is as you stated. Say a,b, c...n. I assume that you have also seen and read other statements about this same cart with different valuation then yours. So other persons have different attitude than you have reg. those statements. But the statements made are obviously mutual contradictory. Ergo it is logicaly impossible for the contadictory statements to be true. BTW attitudes mean in
this context : believing , hoping. wishing ,etc. that such and such is the case. Ié :
'x believes that p is true'.
This is a kind of model or general exampel for this kind of statements.

Regards,
The issue I have with the Magic Diamond saga is that people are presuming it is a reworked Denon 103 but there is no proof. Even if it was, we have no idea of how much rework is done and at what cost.
As far as I recall the original Van den Hul Grasshoppers started life as a Dynavector cartridge - does this mean the Grasshopper should be US$299.
As to the value proposition, some people spend $50-60k on amplifiers that look like power stations and sound like dentist drills. If they like them so what. I know someone here locally that changed to monoblocks - he told me they sounded worse than the stereo amp, but he liked the look better. His money, his choice.
HERE

The origin of the MD cartridge is not a matter of opinion, mine or anyone else's. It is a matter of fact. I have cited a thread where the origin of the Magic Diamond cartridge is discussed and debated. Based on what I read, I am tending to doubt that what I wrote previously is actually true. (The ratio of opinions on the cited 2007 thread is in favor of the independent origin of the MD.) It was a factoid that stuck in my memory from long ago, longer ago than the dates on the cited thread. The MD cartridge may in fact have no child/parent relationship to the Denon DL103. The important thing is whether it sounds good; I have no idea whether it sounds good or not. If Raul and Nikola are enthralled with it, I have to suppose that it does sound good. I used to know Lloyd Walker (Walker Audio), and I now recall that the MD was his baby in the US. I trust Lloyd.

I apologize to Mr. Andreoli, the Italian gentleman who is said to produce the MD and many other cartridges and who is a believer in spherical styli.
Nandric - I picked up the "Magic Diamond" moving coil preamp from Germany when I was trying to optimise my very low output Ikeda. For a solid state device it is very good, saw off the Klyne 7, but I prefer tubes for phono. My gut feel is that the Magic Diamond cartridge will be very very good. If I was retipping it I would keep within the original design intent. The Garrott Bros were adamant that fine profile tips such as the microscanner were unsuited to the Denon 103 design - they recommended the weinz parabolic. Same with cantilever. I might have made Walker an offer on their one for sale, but the ruby cantilever puts me off.
Dear Dover&Lew, I have no idea how MD sounds or what the
thing is worth. But one was listed 'as new' on the German
'audio-markt' for 3 months while the seller reduced his
asking price 3 times. Then I made him an offer and, to my
suprice, he accepted. I must confess to be intriqued by
Andreoli as person and have read his controversial article
of more than 30 pages in German. There is this phrase about
the small bondary between a genius and a lunatic. But what
is without question is the fact that this man is obsessive
with our hobby actually. The opinions are devided
as is usualy the case and there is no way for an amateur like me
to decide whom to believe. Now this 'believe thing'
is anylised by logicians and others . Russel was the first to
name the issue as 'propositional attitudes'. For the sake
of analysis all kinds of attitudes are put in this form:
'x believes that p is true'
Whatever individual can be put in the place of the variable
'x' (say Lew, Nikola, Henry,etc) while 'p' stands
for whatever proposition. Many attempts are made to logicaly
make something of this contruction but without any result.
All the attemps lead to contradictory outcome. Alas because
we all use this way of speaking and because of this
use the issue is important for all kinds of language researchers.
But there are also other important issues which are also not solvable.

Dover, I have also seen this Magic listed by Walker and
the same reason as you mentioned 'puts me off'. If Andreoli
thought that the ruby cantilever with some other stylus is
to prefer he would do this himself. What I would like to
know is what kind of stylus he actually uses. I don't believe
(sic!) that his stylus is, uh, 'conical'.

Regards,
Nandric - I'm a bit like Lewm. I dont believe Walker would be pushing the Magic Diamond if he didn't think that it gave justice to his turntable. Same with Raul, he's hard to please, and yet he regards it as a very good cartridge.

Some comments from the designer himself on the new Altair with reference to some other cartridges and their design -
http://www.analog-forum.de/wbboard/index.php?page=Thread&postID=960000

Swiss vendor of Bluelectric products, which include cartridges, amps, speakers - check out Luilui/Micromagic Bluelectric/MC systemebluelectric
http://www.dietiker-humbel.ch/index.php?id=26&tx_commerce_pi1%5BcatUid%5D=54&cHash=fe5cc110a9

I think you will find this gentleman is an artisan who builds complete bespoke systems of quite diverse construct. I suspect producing the same product twice is too boring for him. He clearly has an in depth knowledge of the record cutting process and is attempting to reverse engineer the cutting head with his cartridge design - in other words can I get out of my cartridge what went into the cutting head. In order to do that I need to account for the construct of the cutting head and its various distortions.
Dear Dover, all those people are masters in adjectives.
My dear friend Dertonarm is unsurpassed in this capability.
BTW the lawyers are not to be underrated in this sense.
We may wonder: 'who would believe such nonsense
or exaggeration ?' but the fact seems to be that
this somehow works otherwise nobody would do it. Or so I think.
Many of your and Lew's post are 'to technical' for me but
I also enjoy good prose and admire critical minds. So my
expectations are the probable cause that I was, say, dissappointed
with his last post. BTW he himself is also critical about his own
previous post and as scientist used to critical remarks. My own
psychology may also be involved because I just bought the
'damn thing'. My description 'not very expensive' may be
a(weak?) way out.
But if Andreoli is an 'artist' or a person with some new ideas
I would say he deserves our support because we all hope for
some improvement 'in' the objects of our 'desire'.
However I am not qualify to judge about Andreoli the 'artist' or
the 'technician' and can only hope to like his cart.
We will soon see about that.

Regards,
Raul, my friend if you wish I can send you the MF2500 but be warned once you listen to this cart nothing else matters...

Lawrence
Fidelity Forward
Dear Dover: Yes, L.Walker supported that MD cartridge. The time I heard it was at a meeting of an audio association in Philadelphia when I was invited ( Spencer Banks was the persons that I contacted, a very good Agon friend as JG and many others. ) to show our self design Essential 3160 phonolinepreamp.

In that meeting attended around 25 persons including L.Walker and the meeting was at J.Galbraith.
During the listening hours we were listening to the MD cartridge and no one had any single compliant about its quality sound performance level.

The MD was mounted in the Walker/tonearm rig, Essential 3160 and Kharma loudspeakers.
L.Walker used that MD in his system and my friend J.Galbraith bought it because the Lloyd advise.

After that thread I linked ( is the same that Lewm linked latter on. ) there were posts on other threads where in fact the MD platform came from the 103.
As I already told: what's wrong with? who cares?, the cartridge performance is very good. The merit of the MD is that Andreoli had very precise and specific targets on his design and I yhink he achieved with the MD.

IMHO,103 platform or not is not important.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lharasim: If you are willing to put on sale to me then I accept your offer, just email me: rauliruegas@hotmail.com

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Raul, You wrote, "IMHO,103 platform or not is not important." That is what I was trying to say, even when I was also saying that the DL103 is father to the MD. But that seemed to upset you, and certainly it upset Nikola. So it follows that there was some hostility toward the MD, back when the connection became commonly known, because of the vast difference in cost between the two. That's all I ever meant to convey. I think even Lloyd may have backed off the MD because of the resulting bad vibes, but I am not sure.
Dear Lew, As I understand Raul he wanted to say: whatever platform is not important. What Raul think that is important (for any designer)is to have a clear vision about what he wants to achieave and the consequential execution. If one looks at the pictures of any Denon and then to the pictures of the EMT SDS 15 one will see much more similarity with the later. The generator of the MD looks not like any of the Denon's. Then the MD weights 16g twice as much as the Denon. The corpus (aluminum) only can't explain this weight difference. You are in my opinion to much focused at the price difference between the Denon and the MD while there is no proof at all that MD is made from Denon parts. BTW the most cart producers buy the parts from part-supplier. The most Van den Huls, for example, are made from the Benz parts and even the whole Van den Hul carts are made by Benz. Van den Hul made long term contracts with Gyger and Mr. Benz the former owner of the Benz company. Lukaschek who bought the company from Benz is still obliged to the contract mentioned.

Regards,
Dear Lewm: No, I was not and certainly I'm not up set because any of you comments.

You already know me and sometimes through what I post persons could think I was upset/angry but really not.

Now, I don't know how that MD sounds today but with our today systems improved I think that the MD performance could be improved of what I heard the first time.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Astatic/Glanz's friends: Well, I think I finished with the Astatic/Glanz " tiny shoot out ".

Btw, Griffithds that Glanz MFG 71L that you saw on ebay is the one I bought and according with my experiences with IMHO you was right when decided not bid in that auction.

The Glanz is similar to the Astatic one ( it is obvious: Glanz the former and then Astatic bought the patents to build its cartridges. ). The MF-100 is in this cartridge series the top of the line and the MFG 71L the top of Glanz series line.

If we see it both phisically are identical in cartridge body shape and its stylus are compatible each to the other even with the Astatic MF-200.

My take with these cartridges is that if exist any design/build differences that came as an improvement in the Astatic that was the latter cartridge design. I don't want to go inside that because could be only speculations.

The Glanz performs almost the same as the MF-100 but you can heard ( at the begin when you are listening for the first time the Glanz. ) more " transparency " on its performance but along my test method I took in count that is not only no more transparent but that transparent characteristic is only due that the bass management is non adequate against the MF-100. In the Glanz the bass is " slim " with no weight and precision as in the MF-100/200.
Both cartridges are more alike than different but I can't found out no single sign where the Glanz beats the Astatic ones: 100/200.

I use it the MF-100 stylus on the Glanz ( as a fact I did all the interchanges of stylus in between those cartridges. ) and things does not improve but with the MF-100/Glanz stylus things improved. So my take here is that the Astatic's were designed with a " better " motor than the Glanz.

What I paid for the Glanz is not justified against the other cartridges I own. I bought it more for curiosity and my curiosity had a price.

Of course that if some of you don't own the MF-100 or the MF-200 then the Glanz is an option in that direction but these Astatic/Glanz cartridge are not easy to find out, especialy the Glanz in stand alone version.

Well enough on the Glanz because I want to return to my Precept PC440 and my VandenHul MM3 that for me are a new vintage cartridge generation that I did not encounter before due to its incredible quality top performance that is different from other " yesterday " top performers.

In some way what I call " new generation " for whatever reasons is really a cartridge vintage " new generation ".I think there are 2-3 additional cartridges ( Goldring800, one of them. ) I own that belongs to this " new generation ".

As time permit I will return with the Precept and the MM3.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Aaarghhh! My dear Nikola, I am quite fond of you but you refuse to get the point. You are taking, once again, my statement of a simple fact, which is identical to what Raul says, as an opinion. For the last time, I fully agree with Raul; the fact that the MD was derived from the DL103 makes absolutely no difference to its merits or demerits. Moreover, I am not in the least bit offended by this fact in any way. I think I will have to buy a Magic Diamond in order to prove my point to you. (Well, maybe I won't go that far.) OTHERS, not me, in the audio community were at one time offended by this connection, because of the vast price differential between the two. I only reported this fact. Can we guess that the offended individuals are most likely to have been those who shelled out $5000 for the MD? Yes, we can guess that. I am not one of those persons.
Dear all, I got the Magic Diamond. Mystery solved? Only
partialy. All those who guessed about the 'platform', more
in particular the Denon have obviously never seen the cart.
The cart is namely sealed like some parts in Klyne's preamps.
Only a small part of the 'generator' with coils, damper,
cantilever and stylus can be seen. It is a kind of
sticky substance with which the whole cart is filled. I looked at
the stylus and the cantilever with my hand microscope (50x)
but was not able to determine the stylus shape. The cantilever
may be aluminum alloy or beryllium. I have no idea
which. I intend to start my tests tomorrow.

Regards,
LEWM -

There is NO PROOF that the MD is a 103 or based on it.

You keep presenting the assertion "that the MD is based on a 103" as a fact, again and again, but it is unproven.
Speculative discussion on a forum does not constitute proof.
Do you have proof outside of forum gossip ?
Why do you repeatedly misrepresent this product ?
Dear Raul, My experience is much more limited but according
to my info all those Glanz and Astatic carts are made by
Mitachi Corporation. Even the boxes are identical. The
only difference are the styli: Shibata by MF 100 and 200
and line contact by Glanz 71-31. The corpusses or corpora
(thanks Lew again) look to me also identical. So the
only conclusion can be that the cantilevers are different.
That is to say in order to explain your findings. I compared
MF 200 and Glanz 31L and was not able to hear any
difference. Vetterone made the same conclusion (Glanz thread).
The Glanz 31l is much better than Glanz 31 E (E=elliptical).
However I am not sure if Glanz 5 which is my best MM cart is
made by Mitachi. I have no other info about this cart than what
Dgob provided in the Glanz thread. BTW thanks to Dgob
I got interested in this brand.
What is still strange to me is the fact that I have never
seen one on the German ebay; Glanz was a German brand.

Regards,
The MF-100's you all have been studying do not sound like the 2 I own, or you are not examining carefully. The 100 has a completely different cantilever to any other Astatic. It is tapered a great deal and has part of it cut away on the backside where a sliver of elastomer supports it (in a most unconventional way) to the rest of the stylus body (for the vertical dimension).

The 2-300 has a conventional arrangement.
Dear Nandric: I have nothing more to add to the Glanz experiences. As I posted I prefer the Astatic.

I think now is a better idea to focus in the vinatge " new generation ".

Btw, the Signet TK10 MLMK2 could be in that NG niche. On this cartridge I have to clarify a mistake from my part on what I was thinking was the Signet TK10 MK2 when in reality was only the TK10ML ( MK1. Sorry Griffithds I was unaware about. ): things are that I bought two samples of that Signet where the sellers stated the cartridge was the MK2 version but like three months ago I seen and bought on ebay the real Signet MK2 version that's an improved performer over the TK10ML and not for a short margin.
The Signet MK2 we can recognize because we can read at its top gold plate the model that states MK2 and at the side of the black cartridge body , in white color, we can read Microline. Well, this true MK2 TK10ML version is IMHO the best ever AT/Signet cartridge even over the famous AT 180. Against this MK2 the other AT/Signet top model versions seems to me as " average " performers.

Nandric, if you see it then take my advise and buy it. This week appears one on ebay with out stylus but I think that the MK2 motor is the " key " on its top " different " performance level.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Sorry, must say: " this week appeared ... ". I was tempted to bid but at the end decided to let it gone.

R.
Hi Raul,

"The MF-100 is in this cartridge series the top of the line and the MFG 71L the top of Glanz series line."

This is not accurate. As you know, I owned both the MF-100 and the Glanz G5 and (their actual, documented top-of-the-line) G7. You really need to hear these two in comparison to the Astatics. It might be a pleasant surprise and cannot cost you anything other than time and experience. They're rare and so you should not have a problem selling them on if you do not like their performance. As for the management of bass, this is completely out of keeping with my own very extensive experience with these cartridges.

Worth keeping the door open.

As always...
Dear Storyboy&Raul, Both topline Astatic and Glanz have
exactly the same body. The model name is inprinted on
the stylus holder not on the body. This means that the styli
are exchangable and carts easy to compare. I alas don't own
the MF 100 but those who do can put the MF 100 stylus in the
other cart(s) and hear for them self. My quess was
that the cantilever only can explain the difference between
MF 100 versus MF 200 versus Glanz 71 , 51 ,etc. Storyboy
actually confirmed my quess.

Regards,
Hi there is just a Grace F -8 Ruby at hifido. Never heard about a F-8 Ruby . Nice pics. Costs nearly 400$. Regards. Knut from Germany.
Dear Storyboy: I think I never posted that the MF-200 sounds like the MF-100 but both are more alike than different.

As Nandric said the stylus in the MF/Glanz line can be used in between the different cartridge models.

Good that you own the Astatic's that are very good performers. Could you share your experiences with and other MM/MI cartridges you own?, appreciated.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Nandric: ++++ " this true MK2 TK10ML version is IMHO the best ever AT/Signet cartridge even over the famous AT 180.... " +++

well maybe not because I never heard the AT-50 anniversary and exist that great Precept PC-440!

Btw, the stylus in the TK10ML MK2 is an improvement too over the MK1 version.

So, my mistake on that statement.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Raul,

Thank you for the update on my "TK10ML" It was an honest mistake. Expensive one, but honest mistake non the less. If I ever decide to sell it, It will go as a "MK" only. But I do disagree with your assesment of calling it only "average" performer. It may not be as good as the "MKII" but "average", absolutely not.
Regards,
Don
Dear Raul, this Benz LP S and the Magic Diamond are the
most expensive carts I ever bought. But I am very reluctant to test either. The reason? What if they sound mediocre? Should I then kill myself? No such dilemmas whatever by the MM carts. One can't get wrong with those so to speak. I even made some profit by selling some in order to buy some other. This way I got a decent collection
of MM carts: Glanz 5, Glanz 31l, AT 180, Stanton 981 , Signet TK 9cl, TK 9E, AKG P 8ES Super nova, AKG 25 mk II, Goldring 800 with Axel's nude line ,etc. Those MM carts give somehow much more joy then the MC kind. I still think that my Miyabi, Sony XL 88, Ruby 3S, etc.sounds better but despite of this I keep looking for the new MM kinds. Thanks to you there will be no shortage of those.

Regards,
Raul,
I have remounted my AT180 and my TK10MK(?), to decide weather my initial impressions could be confirmed. I think the person who sold you the TK10MK calling it a MKII is because the stylus was upgraded to a MKII. Looking at the screws, there is markings on the screws that prove they have been back out and then retightened. Just like what would happen if the stylus had been replace. I have always liked my TK10 over my AT180. The differences are small and not definable by me so lets just say personnel preference. Your statement about the MKII betters the AT180 is just how I feel about my TK10. I don't feel Signet made any changes to the TK10 generator when they brought out the upgraded stylus MKII. No mounted stylus guard to ID so they ID'D the body. Are you aware of any way to determine a MKI stylus or a MKII or would it take looking at them under a microscope?
Regards,
Don
Moderator,
Is there a reason why my posts take so long to actually get posted?

Regards,
Don
Dear Desmond: I don't want to start in this thread the same polemic with you. I stated very clear that in that series the G71L is the top of the line and a stand alone version.

If you like it more that 7 you own that's fine with me and my advise is that try to find out a new MF-100 because maybe the one you owns is out of specs or the other reason ( between others ) could be that the " kind distortions " of your 7 are the ones you like it more against the 100. Tha's all.

I forgot, the Glanz cartridge denomination in the stand alone and integrated headshell ( as yours ) are: G7, G1 and the like in the integrated versions and in thye stand alone thel call it the MF series: MFG71, 51 and the like. The G7 IMHO is the same as the G71L and the only spec " difference " ( that could be an error???? on its advertasind. )is the output level where in the integrated headshell is 4.2mv against the 3.5mv in the stand alone version but that difference IMHO is not an advantage because could means too higher inductance against the G71L.

You can go on and on in the same topic but has nothing in hand that can tell us the G7 ( integrated headshell ) was the top of the line against the G71L ( stand alone version. ) other than your opinion where you never heard the MFG71L.

Sometimes I think that your " life " goes with the Glanz topic if your G/ , for whatever reason, was or is beated!!!!! You can be sure that no one will die for that fact.

Btw, bass management in your system is different from mine and IMHO you can't took it as foundation on your opinion.

Anyway, nice to confirm your enjoyment on the Glanz. I like mine too.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Desmond: I forgot, +++++ " or the other reason ( between others ) could be that the " kind distortions " of your 7 are the ones you like it more against the 100. Tha's all. " +++++

where came/comes those additional " kind distortions " on the G7 that the MF-100 or the G71L have not?

the G7 is a headshell integrated design: today, 30-40 years after the G7 design/build, exist several headshells that for sure match in better way the cartridge to performs at its best and that puts " on shame " the integrated one. Today too there are several headshell wires that are a lot better than the ones inside the Glanz that have 30-40 years old. Today too the headshell wire connectors are a lot better than the ones 30-40 years old in the Glanz G7.

All these per se, IMHO, makes that any single advantage ( that there is not any. ) that could have the G7 disappear as dust inside a hurricane. There is no way that the headshell integrated version can or could compete in any way against its stand alone similar " brother ". That you like it is important only to you.

This " brother " can be matched easily to any tonearm not only to the tonearm effective mass but in the alignment to Baerwald, Löfgren or Stevenson geometry set up.

I respect your opinion but I can't disagree more with. You can think whatever you want and of course you can follow enjoying your Glanz over other top cartridges and stay sticky with but that can't means is a superior performer than the Astati's, MFG71L or almost any other top stand alone MM/MI/LOMC cartridge. As I said: it is only the additional distortions you like it, Good!.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Indieroehre: Grace builded a lot of F-8 different models that was on sale only to the japanese/Asia market.

These are some of them: F8L, F8M, F8D, F8L'10, F8C,F8V, etc, etc.

as theose ones exist several F14 models including the F14Ruby and several LevelII models.
No one of them where sold in America/Europe.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear griffithds: Agree, I was a little dramatic about that " average " reference.

I'm only posted in that way trying to explain that is better design and not for a tiny range/margin.

++++ " I don't feel Signet made any changes to the TK10 generator when they brought out the upgraded stylus MKII. " ++++

I can't be absolutely sure but what made it that I posted about is because I runned the MK2 cartridge with the MK1 stylus and performs better than with the MK1 cartridge motor.

Anyway, both are top performers as the 180 but the MK2 is a little different IMHO.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Raul,

There was a MKII available on eBay in need of a stylus just a few weeks back. Knowing there are no stylus's available, I passed. BIG mistake! O'well, be patient, there will be others.
Regards,
Don
Dear Raul, No cart is perfect and no person is perfect.
What I like by you is your willingness to share ,
your devotion to our hobby, your (financial) sacrifice for
this searching adventure, your inquisitiveness and most
of all your ears. What I don't like are your philosphical
outpourings. I want mention your learnig curve and
other extraordinary capabilities but those distortions
of yours are irrefutable. Whatever whoever states about his own
hearing experience you can dismiss with your distortions.
I am not sure if you are of Catholic religion but do believe
that you know about the pope. Only his dogmas are
irrefutable because he says so but as representative of the
Almighty . He is the only one who has a phone-connection
with HIM and understand exactly what HE wants. There are
however other religions and even skeptics and atheist.
Like pope in matters of (his own) religion you want
to determine what components are the best (aka with the least
distortions) and this apply in particular for the carts.
Your 'explanation' , for example, why the Glanz 5 or 7
can't sound right is inscrutable. While putting forward 3
or 4 assumptions as reasons 'why' you never consider the
logic of the reasoning. Namely that your conclusions can
be only true under proviso that your assumptions are also
true. On the other side you also stated that those cart-
producers are 'artist' with their own capabilities to 'tune'
or otherwise 'ennoble' their carts such that we
have no idea how this is done. No wonder than that despite
your claim to the contrary some persons may also claim
that those Glanz 5 or 7 sound better than Astatic MF 100.
Probable because they like their peculiar distortions (grin).
I am not sure if you ever owned Glanz 5 or 7 but
know that you own and highly regard one of the
FR-7 versions. Now even a blind person can 'see'
this clumsy integrated headshell and certainly can
imagine those rusty internal wire ...Well this is
the difference between your hearing capabilties
versus the philosohical kind.
Regards,
Hi Raul,

You are wrong on this matter (as Nandric, as an actual owner and listener to the Glanz G series, can testify). However, I have no axe to grind in this matter. If you have made your mind up, that is fine.

As always...
Hi Raul,

My final response will no doubt take a full day before it passes moderation and so maybe you will have hopefully moved on by the time it appears. However, I would donate a saying of one of my teachers: 'don't let ignorance close doors through which you have not walked'.

As always...