Who needs a MM cartridge type when we have MC?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

we need a decent TT and decent tonearm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
rauliruegas
Lew,

With direct appreciation of your circumstance, I wish you and your family easier passages.

Not to rehash improprieties but, at the hardest of times, I find comfort in Heraclitus' saying:

"Everything flows, nothing stands still" (τὰ πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει)

May happier streams flow soon
Hi Geoch, It's funny, I only saw the Thorens Reference. I never heard it. The dealer who owned it kept it in the back room under a blanket. Because I knew the guy for years and I was in the biz, I had the privilege of seeing the throne.
The ST4 was the last regular Goldmund and had an integrated arm. I used a Zeta on mine. I had a Studietto. But I had extra springs of different stiffness so I could tune the suspension. I was also a qualified Linn set-up man so I knew how to do that. But it became popular to substitute sorbothane pucks for the springs and severely modify the design. Lurne eventually abandoned the linear arm. There's an interesting interview where he explains why. My buddy who had the Reference invented a set-up jig and got his sounding very good. He had a Grasshopper. Have you seen the pics of the new Reference? It's on Goldmund's site. It costs something like 1/2 a mil? and a set-up team comes to your house. I guess it costs more in the States. They're in Switzerland, LOL.
www.goldmund.com/products/reference_ii

Lew, The Teres motor uses it's own weight to keep it against the platter. It comes in 2 heights so you can design around those. This guy puts it in brass and angles the motor.
www.trans-fi.com/orberus.htm
Best wishes to your family. Here's hoping that your son will continue to do well.
Re my "thoroughbreds": Will someone please buy that friggin' L07D that's for sale on the 'gon? It bothers me that no one will pay that incredible bargain price.

I was actually going to email you about that tt Lewm. I believe you have 2 of them (!) and therefore must think highly of them. Is it significantly better than a sp10 mkii? Had I not already just bought a tonearm for my sp10, I would have given buying the L07D serious consideration. That the latter does not really permit other tonearms is a bummer and a deterrent--even if the original tonearm is good.

It's actually not listed anymore. Just as well; it'll save me from perusing that listing EVERY DAY.
I really do enjoy all you guys, and I do apologize for over-apologizing AND for any unintended insults to Pierre Lurne'. We have been navigating a very delicate situation with our mentally-ill son. This may have caused me to over-post and to perseverate. Tonight I think we entered calmer waters, and I am very happy in fact. The minutiae we endlessly hash over is actually good therapy for me at times.

Tim, Have you seen the Teres motor in person? My only question about it is that it seems to rely upon its own mass to provide a force to hold the idler wheel against the side of the platter. But thanks to Mr. Newton, that also means the platter is pushing on the motor assembly. I wondered who wins.

Re my "thoroughbreds": Will someone please buy that friggin' L07D that's for sale on the 'gon? It bothers me that no one will pay that incredible bargain price. Or is this just an indication that the whole upper end audio market is in a shambles?
Dear Fleib, the real excellence lies only inside the TD124 II.
Anything else from this company is average in design & execution and considered by the new economy direction from Thorens.
Of course we can live with something that works enough.
But it is allways better if we admire the concept also.
As I've own the J4/SL5 and the Goldmund ST4 at the same period, my DP80/SME IV was better than both. Then comes the ST4 and the best of 4 was the Simon York Zarathustra S4/Pluto 5A. Those parallel trackers was inferior of course, but it is true that the J4 was not an integrated concept concerning the foundation for the motor & chassis, and this makes speed instability despite the beautiful & inspired work of the metacrylate, delrin & lead in use and the very careful design of the platter, the inverted double "Π" chassis reinforced by a lead square section at the center of gravity and the symmetrical tention of the belt. Unfortunatelly the upper chassis with the platter's bearing was on springs, while the lower chassis with the motor was the stable base for these springs and for the whole TT. The ST4 has the half midbass body of the J4 maybe due to the light platter, but overall was more faithfull to the music in terms of pitch stability, transient response, attack & clear harmonics. Something has lost in the first step of validation of this TT and the outcome was not on the par of the Goldmund despite the extensive research on resonance in forms & materials.
Lew, with your stable of thoroughbreds I wouldn't be looking for any other turntable either. My comments to relate my friend's experiments were just to describe a different application of the very fine Teres motor and control unit.
Hi Tuchan, Tell you the truth, I'm no longer on the quest. I just like to play records sometimes. Most of my experience with comparative tables is from 20 yrs ago. I set up tables (among other things) for a living at a couple of different high end shops. Matter of fact I set up the first production TNT. There was no manual so I did it over the phone with HW. He's a great guy, BTW. Although I didn't relate to the sound of the TNT, I have a feeling that I could live with a Classic. I heard it a bit at a dealer and it seemed very nice w/o that ponderous feeling. Most of the platters weren't all that heavy but I was never partial to belt drive. I still feel it was/is always a default go-to for start-ups getting into biz with mostly desire.

Later I was partnered with a friend who had a Reference. Now that was one heavy belt drive I could live with. It wasn't just the name on an impressive black throne. After all it looked more industrial than the Thorens whatever it was called. That one was fit for a queen. It was all cream and gold like the fixtures in a Hilton hotel. The Reference seemed neutral. It had the weight and the pace, quite a rare combo. I have no ax to grind, I'm long out of the biz. I'm sure my custom will be fine once I get it together. In the mean time I can listen w/o all the speed issues.
Regards,
Dear Lew, What brouhaha? I plead guilty of implying my Sota is a pos. For all I know they completely redesigned and the 4 springs no longer hang from a 1/2" piece of mdf plinth, which bends under the weight. Now I envision this as being steel with the armboard supporting structure completely redesigned to something other than the same layered stuff. This new Sota would require a complete re-evaluation. Alas, mine is an old one and it is what it is. Modding is too much work, and what about the motor and cheap power supply? I think I'll stick to plan A.

Lurne's latest is designing a CD transport. It makes for some interesting reading. He is a physicist or studied physics if he didn't actually work as a physicist. You'll find interviews at TNT, Stereophile and 6 Moons, Enjoythe Music etc.
Regards,
Dear Lew, For such a critical mind as you are I am suprised
with your own sensitivity reg. comments on your own comments. But of course those comments are not scientific or based on Newton. As you put it yourself 'this is a chat
group'. The most statement made in this 'group' are more
made with the intention to convince our self then the others. We need, I think, to rationalize in some way our spending on all those components. BTW my 'compensate' was provided with quotation marks.

Regards,

Regards,
Dear Nandric and Fleib, This here is a "chat" group. I am not a reviewer, and this is not Stereophile or TAS. There are so many unscientific, unsubstantiated, and "unfair" opinions stated on Audiogon discussion groups that we could throw out the website on that basis. All I said was that I had extensive listening experience with what might have been Lurne's very first design, many years ago, and I did not like it. IThe reason it failed as a design, IMO, may have been due to its apparently undamped spring suspension; pitch stability was poor. For all I know, Mr. Lurne' may now be the genius behind some of the greatest turntables available today. I have completely lost track of his work. Was not even aware that he is still in the business. It is often the case that flawed early efforts (if it is possible that I am correct about what I heard) are no indicator of future success or failure. Moreover, he may be an absolutely wonderful person whom I would be proud to know. Nothing personal was intended. But you're right, I should have stifled myself to avoid this brouhaha. Can you tell me what current products bear his stamp?

Hi Tim, I sold my Hyperspace long ago and have no interest right now in converting any belt-drive to rim-drive. In fact, I am quite happy with what I've got and will probably go to the great beyond with one or another or all of them. (Well, actually I know I cannot take them with me. Perhaps I can work a deal and take a nice cartridge, in case there is audio on the other side.)
Hi Fleib, you said you cannot listen to most heavy plattered belt driven tables. Which ones you had the chance to audition in a good system with what kind of motors? Of course it may be a risk to go for over 30 years old tables. You find electronic parts e.g. in the Nakamichi or in the EMT 927, not in the big Micros apart of the motor units which are built for eternity. In this case you need going for well preserved or maintained units or you take care of the electronics by yourself. 

Whatever you decide going for - vintage or modern designs - if you are ending up with a Topclass TT (not pointing neccessarily to the so named shop in HKK) you need spending time and money on improving everything. But then you finally  have landed on a planet of great pleasure and exitement which I doubt you will reach with a plug & play machine of today.

best & fun only - Thuchan
Regards David, The LC denotes line contact and ML is micro. There's no doubt that it's damping cantilever movement that causes phase nonlinearities. You are probably right regarding the ATN440ML vs the 7V. The 7V is intrinsically damped due to cu. I would think much less rubber is required. The donut on the 440 does seem substantial. A 152 or 155 is even more compliant than a 440. But beryllium vs aluminum seems to make all the difference.

I think it might be a mistake to wait for more advanced square wave analysis. With good resolution you can see just about everything and calibrated right before your eyes. There should be an interpretive guide that came along with the program? If you need one I'm sure it can be found on the net. There's some question about a cart doing square waves anyway. Stereo Review type results seemed to reflect the sound of a cart. Do you think the signal has to go straight in? How can you subtract the phono pre when it's worse than the cart? I know you'll figure it out.

Regarding out of band noise; Most of my electronics have bandwidth from DC to light. On one system I was getting high freq hash on everything. I made a zobel across the speaker terminals and cured it. That's a shunt, cap and resistor in series.
Regards,
Dear Fleib, To 'compensate' for Lew I agree with you regarding Lurne. I am an 'old admirer' (owned J1).You deed not mentioned Belladonna, his newest disign so assuming that you are not aware: www.tnt-audio.com

Regards,
Dear Daniel, Thanks for the copmliment. My experience is
that the most easy to translate is scientific work while
literary works are nearly impossible to translate. However
your 'what is legal...' should refer to some vague ideas about the 'subject matter' by this great German writer.
As I pointed out : nobody reads Criminal law (smile).
Glad to see you back btw.

Kind regards,
Hi Lewm, Fair in the sense of limited experience. Maybe sometimes it's best not to say anything at all. I've seen many of all kinds of tables in need of repair. I've only heard a 7D a couple of times. I was impressed, but by no means definitively. How could I be?

Imo the suspension plinth etc of the Sapphire are not worth saving. It's old anyway and needs refurbishing. The oak base and lid will dress up another table. I like the platter, mat, clamp and main bearing. I might use part of the wood/lead subchassis. I haven't yet figured out exactly what I'm doing with the armboard and its mounting. That's where Lurne"s ideas are good to know.

I've yet to hear Teres direct drive tables, but I have little doubt that they are the way. They start at $10K so I doubt if I'll be getting one soon.
http://www.teresaudio.com/certus.html

The problem with 30 yr old tables is the electronics start to go and sometimes small parts need replacements that are hard to find. I know a couple of techs but lugging everything is a hassle. I read about some guy on the net who used a DD table with video tape around the platter to drive another table. You have to be a little crazy to qualify as an audiophile. Maybe he had the drive table anyway and gave it something to do.
Regards,
Hi Fleib,

with regards to damping, the type of damping I am talking about is within the stylus mount - direct cantilever damping, as opposed to cartridge body damping...

Which means that when you exchange styli on you AT440MLa to a beryllium ML tip (155LC? 152?) you are changing the cantilever damping as well... - and of course the compliance is another cantilever suspension parameter - so placing an AT-7V stylus on an AT440MLa would obviouly give the AT440MLa the compliance of the AT-7V.

With regards to square waves, I was hoping to find some software suggestions that would analyse the square wave by FFT, breaking it down into its component parts to allow identification of its component parts...
ie: rather than looking at the square wave on an oscilloscope (I have software oscilloscopes), come back with data on that square wave in terms of phase/frequency, rise time/slew rate and distortion...

Hi Pryso,

thank you for that link - an interesting article- particularly the part about the saccule.
It is clear that the presence of ultrasonic sound can be perceived.

What is not clear and is hotly debated is to what degree the perception of that ultrasonic sound is direct perception of the utrasonics themselves, or indirect perception of the intermodulation artifacts of the ultrasonics which are in turn within the audible range.

Several other problems exist too - Ultrasonics are incredibly "beamy" the beam from an ultrasonic tweeter is incredibly narrow - and the appropriate "sweet spot" is therefore very narrow too. Reproduction and effective use in a stereo (if warranted which is by no means certain!) - is problematic. (although there have been experiments in it)

The commonly accepted approach to ultrasonics (which various research groups are researching... and may in due course change) is that 1) there is definitely ultrasonic components to many many instruments, 2) These are (primarily?) perceived through the intermodulation of these frequencies with other frequencies present at the time of recording, producing IM that is within the audible range, 3) Reproducing the original ultrasonics in a stereo system is doubly problematic as it invites a secondary IM of the recorded ultrasonics with the reproduced music - the resulting IM being another form of distortion.

Further problems exist! - An analysis of many different forms of amplifiers, recorders, and other electronic equipment used in the audio chain, will frequently show ultrasonic distortion or simply RF pickup of various forms - even when nothing is being played back.
The recording/playback chain is not usually designed to cater to ultrasound, and therefore this range is not kept "clean" and "noise free" - hence there is frequent use of HF filtering to clean up the "grunge" - which otherwise can affect the primary audio signal through IM (within the electronics).

Personally I know that with my own recordings, an analysis of the frequencies above 20kHz always shows the system picking up various signals that are clearly not related the recording (I can unplug the input and they are still there!) - their levels are lowish (below -60db) but would be considered unacceptable within the audio range.
The signals vary by time of day, and perhaps other conditions ie: it is not clear whether they are products of radio interference or carried by the powerline (even though I run power fitering)
I get better results in an audible sense, by filtering above 20kHz - which I do in the digital domain, after recording.... but I believe another level of improvement is possible by moving the filtering to prior to the ADC, and therefore taking a part of the spectrum away from the ADC to facilitate more accurate reproduction of the audio spectrum, (this would need to be done keeping in mind phase issues - so a gentle slope analogue filter?)

An interesting topic.... LP's can certainly have signals well beyond 20kHz, and a well pressed LP can have reasonable level material through to 50kHz without a problem.
But whether the material above 20kHz SHOULD be reproduced is quite a different question - and the reproductive tools we have available - the entire chain in point of fact- is designed only for and around the audio range.
Although some components have extended frequency response, this is usually claimed and published as a means of demonstrating that the more limited audio range is therefore clean and linear as the device can perform well outside that range.
We have not even discussed the limitations in the vast majority of microphones...

bye for now

David
Lew, here's a thought. An audio buddy bought a Teres rim-drive motor and controller to try with his Scout. It produced a wonderful (fill in audio adjectives here) improvement over the stock belt drive. That experience encouraged him to try DD so he then progressed though a Kenwood 650, then a Luxman 4xx, each time hearing small but worthwhile improvements.

Most recently he found a belt drive Micro Seiki table (exterior motor, not sure of model #) but was having problems with accurate speed. On an inspiration he set up the Teres in place of the MS motor, using some specialized cord drive rather than direct rim contact. With the Teres motor/controller he was able to achieve correct speed, and what he believes to be the best vinyl playback he ever experienced. For the curious this set up includes a new Ortofon arm, Oyaide headshell, and Dynavector XX-2.
Dear Fleib,
I don't know whether the word "fair" applies. I just gave my opinion and qualified it so as not to include his more recent designs. For example, it would not be unfair for you to say I am balding. I tried to be fair, in fact, in the sense that I concede that what I heard so long ago may be totally irrelevant to Lurne's present work. Now, how are you going to mate the Teres rim drive to the Sota? Won't the Sota chassis get in the way? I once thought of using the Teres with my Nottingham Hyperspace, because that one has no interfering platform or apron that would impede contact between Teres and platter.
Dear Nandric, ...;-) ... "it is allowed what you fancy, what is accommodating" ...a good translation, if however Goethe's "was sich geziemt" includes not just what is accommodating, but what is legal, commonly accepted and ethically approved as well.
So the smart spirit of the 18th century took the safe road home in this phrase.
It goes in a different direction compared to Friedrich's "Ein Jeder werde selig nach seiner Facon".
Cheers,
D.
Dialoum, while I appreciate your research and descriptions, you make one assumption that I wonder about -

"The mechanical resonance is just barely outside the audible area (21k to 23k) "

I realize the 20K audible area is a long-standing assumption, but there has been quite a bit of research in the past few decades that challenges the perspective of high frequency perception. James Boyk was a professor at Cal Tech, audio reviewer, and a concert pianist. He has written articles on research that identifies perception of musical tones well above 20K.

http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

This is offered not to diminish your findings but to suggest a revised consideration for cause and effect.
Dear Lewm, No offense taken. I think it's unfair to Lurne. A Goldmund direct drive was my all time favorite table. I wish I still had it. It left my LP-12 in the dust. Now I have a Sapphire sitting on the floor disassembled. It awaits my redesign with a Teres rim drive motor. I can't listen to most heavy plattered belt drive tables. Whatever floats your boat and belt drive tends to sink.
Regards,
Dear Fleib, You are quite correct, I am ignorant of the 3 turntables you mentioned, but I only commented on one model of one of those 3 brands that I listened to at least 15-20 years ago. I listened long enough and often enough to that one particular Lurne' turntable to form an opinion. If you noticed, I tried to allow for the probable fact that his products have favorably evolved since then. The earliest efforts of any designer are often best forgotten. Sorry if I offended you.

Having owned two belt-drive turntables with relatively undamped spring suspensions (Thorens TD-125 and early SOTA Star Sapphire III), I feel I can fairly say that they are not to my taste.
Hi David, Square wave response was shown to me by an electronics designer. The output of the device was plugged into a scope and analyzed. In the case of an amplifier a signal generator can be used as the input. In the old days square wave response was sometimes published for carts. The pictures were like those on a scope. Perhaps there are oscilloscope programs for PC?

Again, I would quibble about high frequency resonance figures but it would be prudent to wait till controls are in place. I realize your comparison was "off the top" but I believe the compliance is much lower on the 7V and every aspect of stylus and cantilever is apples to oranges to the 155LC. I also wonder about damping and the 440. I believe it might be something other than damping. The 440 sounds "right" with a beryllium cantilever and a ML tip with "standard" loading. Compliance is even higher with a 152ML, but damping goes with the stylus. It's interesting to speculate.
Regards,
Thanks for that link Timeltel...

An excellent article - and valuable as much for its inherent content as for its references...

I need to try to track down Hallgren's "RLT" parameter - I have been kludging this in my model, but if that reference leads me to something a bit more scientific than my approach that would be great!

Right now I measure the loss slope with excel apply it back as an adjustment factor to the cartridge model - once done for a cartridge, it improves the accuracy of the model across all the possible loadings for that cartridge markedly. (makes it much easier to decide on an optimal loading - and to reduce the number of options that get listened to)

Some of the stuff in there is a bit too technical for me (like I said - I'm not an EE!) - but I get the impression that in the discussion of cartridge/phono stage interaction, there is also the possibility of certain loads (too high? too low?) causing additional distortion and non-linearity...

This is a factor I have never considered!
Is this common? - Quite a few of you are designing and building your own phono stages - is this a concern, and should this be considered when choosing the load for a cartridge? - Or is this in fact something which post this article and ongoing developments became merely a footnote in history, not a concern for phono stages post 1980 (?).

In any case an excellent article covering a lot of the limitations and inter-related variables of cartridges... good stuff!

bye for now

David
Regards, Dlaloum: Thanks, David, for your research into the relationship of cantilever resonance, damping, and the relationship to loading. Your easy to read style makes this understandable and takes away much of the mysticism many associate with cartridge design.

The Tom(linson) Holman paper before the AES can be found (PDF) here:

http://www.davidreaton.com/PDFs/Holman_AES_paper.pdf

Additional research is to be found in back issues of the Boston Audio Society. Thanks again.

Peace,
Dlaloum,

Real food for thought. I'll be keeping abreast of associated developments.

Gratefully
Hi Raul,

noted your comments about RIAA accuracy...

This brings to mind the question of what is the RIAA encoding accuracy of the standard lathes used for cutting the masters?

Not that there is justification for varying from the standard... and doing so involves every increasing risks (in terms of reproducing the recording).

But I do wonder, what are the RIAA margins of error in the mastering process, and therefore what is a reasonable margin of error to aim for in reproduction?

No point sweating over 0.0005% if the mastering error is within 2%... But if mastering error is within 0.001% then ideally you would want reproduction within the same order of magnitude or better!

bye for now

David
Timeltel,
you talked about analysing Square Waves in evaluating phono stages...

What tools did you use for the analysis?

Have you looked at similar analysis for cartridges?

This is one of the ways of looking at both impulse response and phase response... but it requires the right test track, and the right analytic software...

I do have at least one record with a square wave track - but need to find a way to analyse it!

thanks

David
Hi Folks

Halcro in your postings about the AT7V and the ATN155LC you asked about the reason for the differences between styli and the concomittant need for loading adjustments....

I've been thinking of writing a lot of this down.... an article for somewhere perhaps.

But taking a shot at it here and on the fly!

First the needles ability to follow the groove varies by shape and particularly by side radius... this will change the distortion levels (and some of that distortion may contribute to "enhancements" at certain frequencies)... but will not for the most part affect the fundamental "sound" of the stylus (in other words it affects fine details but not overall tone).

The cantilever is very much more critical:
1) it is the prime contributor to effective mass - and the lower the total effective mass, the better both tracking and high frequency becomes - this is however another "detail" aspect.

2) Mechanical Resonance and Damping thereof - this is the core and hub of the matter - the tone/sound of a stylus is fundamentally driven by this!
The frequency response of the stylus will be altered by the resonance, and by the damping (and suspension - which is part of the damping) used.
The Ortofon Ortophase article has graphs showing 4 different cantilever setups on an Ortofon MC200 cartridge - minimula/no damping through to heavily damped.
This affects the amplitude frequency response as well as the phase frequency response substantially.
Many of the cartridges regarded as "the best" have their resonances placed well outside the audio range (EPC100 well over 50kHz, Shure V15V 33kHz to 35k Hz)

Placing the resonance that high ensures that the stylus and cantilever can respond in a (relatively) pure linear way within the audio band... and a close to linear way well above the audio band.

Coming back to earth, and considering some styli I have measured....

The AT440MLa has a nice stylus and cantilever, but the mechanical resonance is spread from about 13kHz to 17kHz - the wide spread and "double peak" pattern of that resonance appears to indicate quite heavy use of damping... (internal to cantilever? - different materials in the suspension? not sure...) - Keep in mind that damping also does terrible things to phase linearity.... and these are difficult to measure or pin down subjectively...

So the ATN440MLa stylus has a tone which is driven by the raised area across the high frequencies - and the fact that this raised area is spread across a relatively wide frequency range.

Moving to the ATN15/20SS - with the beryllium cantilever...
The mechanical resonance is just barely outside the audible area (21k to 23k) but the rise to that peak has an influence down to around 15kHz.
because the peak is outside the audio area, it doesn't need to be damped so heavily - so the peak it much higher than the ATN440MLa peak, but its influence at 20kHz is only a touch more than the height of the ATN440MLa's peak - and by the time you get down to 16kHz the influence is negligible, where the ATN440MLa is at it's maximum influence around that frequency area.

The ATN15/20ss therefore sounds much more inherently neutral as a result (its midrange is well outside the influence of the resonance - where the ATN440Mla resonance influence extends down to 8kHz or perhaps even 5kHz)

3) Loading:
given a rise at the extreme high end, on the ATN20ss stylus - Neutral results require a load that drops off in an inverse relationship to the rise, resulting in a relatively flat frequency response. - This drop off needs to start quite late - so low capacitance and inductance is important, and avoiding high R loads as these may raise the high end exacerbating the already raised fundamental cantilever performance.

By contrast the ATN440MLa needs to have a rolloff that starts earlier as its own peak starts earlier - so different capacitance - and a lower R loading to keep from adding a rise in those frequencies...

You can see that these two cantilevers will have very different "sounds" - their fundamental frequency response is very different - and therefore the right loading to provide a flat F/R is different - the loading must match the stylus - not the cartridge! (the cartridge is of course a factor)

Now the cartridge - in the past I have said the cartridge has the least impact - which I still hold to, but they are interesting beasts too...
Cartridge electrical frequency response is NOT linear
A cartridge is a coil/magnet system much like a transformer, and suffers from increasing inefficiency as frequency rises.
The quality of the materials and construction will affect the level of inefficiency - as will voltage levels & frequencies involved.

What I am observing is that when looking closely at cartridge frequency response, all cartridges have a response peak in the lower mid/high bass region (between 150Hz and 300Hz) and then response shows a consistent downwards slope thereafter.
The angle of that downwards slope is most likely related to the effectiveness/efficiency of the construction.
This means that all magnetic cartridges tend to have a slight bass "hump" (the "warmth" of vinyl) and then a midrange slump.
Many cartridges then use a combination of electrical and mechanical resonance to "fill out" that drop.
(there is also a much more dramatic drop when the LCR response shoulder is reached...)
The better the quality of construction/design, the lower the slope angle - and the less need there is to use resonances to fill things out. (and therefore top end cartridges tend to push the resonances further out... because they can!)
You can easily plot the Inductance, Capacitance, Resistance frequency response of a cartridge, and then you can experiment with differing values of C & R which will show how the response can be tailored- high end can be raised or lowered, a peak can be induced, and the shoulder after which performance drops rapidly can be shifted back or forwards in frequency.

When you change styli - the cantilever F/R is different, and to balance it out, you then need to adjust the capacitance and resistance, to change the cartridge curve to properly match the cantilever curve and provide a "flat" frequency response..... so it is definitely stylus driven - not cartridge.
Using a different model form the same manufacturer, or using a stylus from an after market manufacturer - regardless of its quality - will require a change to the loading.

Another example - a Shure M97xE will tend to sound best at 62k with its original stylus, but tends to sound best at 47k with the SAS N97xE stylus...

Other cartridge related thoughts:
A cartridge is a self biasing environment - applying a voltage to the cartridge changes its frequency response (marginally but still changes!).
There are some discussions on VE about the possibility of phono stages providing some biasing voltage...
But the important thing to consider is that the signal produced - the music itself - is in fact a bias current, affecting the frequency response.

Keeping in mind that I am not a physicist or Electrical engineer.... but I believe that this biasing influence is non linear with voltage - that is to say, at lower voltages and inductances the influence of the sound may be proportionally reduced.
The advantage of LO systems may in fact be the improved linearity due to reduced self biasing influence.
This may also be one of the reasons why many of the higher quality styli have a lower output (along with having lighter magnets to reduce effective mass...).
Lower inductances tend to push electrical resonances further up the frequency range (good!) - but may also be shifting to a range where self biasing is also reduced....

In any case - coming back to the point... yes - loading follows stylus...
Switching AT cartridge bodies allows experiments with differing inductances and the same styli... the overall "sound" follows the stylus.
Differences tend to be driven first by the stylus - then beyond that there are the differences driven by the various types of non-linearities and the effectiveness of the designs in coping with them - areas where some people may not even hear a difference.

bye for now

David
Dear Lewm, Your comments say more about the design flaws of the LO-7D than about Lurne. I must plead ignorance concerning your Kenwood, just as you are ignorant concerning Audio Mecca, Goldmund direct drive and Lurne.
Regards,
Dear Dertonarm, I need to make some 'a posteriori' comment
on your Goethe quote. As a lawyer I know that nobody, except some specific lawyer, read Criminal law. There are two reasons why: 1. the language used is very boring because of the repetition of the same kind of hypothetical statements.
a. If you commit 'a' you get 4 years;
b. If you commit 'b' you get 10 years'
c. If you commit 'c' (of the capital crime)you get death
penalty ( in some countrys) , etc. etc,.

2. The second reason is simple because people don't like to
know in advance but prefer to quess. If they are allowed
to quess they will always quess in their own interest.
So no wonder that every defence start with: "I had no idea that 'a' was not allowed'' or ''I had no idea what 'a' exactly means'',etc.
This defence is based on the strange assumption that 'ignorance' is somehow identical with 'innocence'.

Now back to Goethe:

'it is allowed what you fancy, what is accomodating'

This is my transaltion. Well it may be the case that such
longing is allowed by Goethe but there are many articles in the Criminal Law which don't allow us to do what we would like to do.

Regards,

Dear friends: Good opportunities :

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nagatron-9600-Cartridge-Mounted-Black-Headshell-Used-/320715163104?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4aac1d05e0#ht_1144wt_934

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nagatron-9600-Cartridge-Mounted-Headshell-Used-/320715139632?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4aac1caa30#ht_1144wt_934

http://cgi.ebay.com/Rare-Vintage-EMPIRE-EDR9-Stereo-Turntable-Cartridge-/280696091204?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item415aca7244#ht_500wt_950

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Fleib, I did not know that Mr. Lurne' founded a school. I do know that I heard one of his early turntable efforts that had a spring suspension, and I thought it was a very bad sounding, over-priced product. Possibly his later efforts have been better; it would have been easy to improve the one I heard by tossing out the springs. The thing was visibly bouncing whilst trying to play music. (The suspension seemed completely undamped.) But this is all OT. Yes, the platter (and platter mat) is a very important and often neglected determinant of turntable sound, IMO. There are as many opinions on how to make the perfect platter (and platter mat) as there are audiophiles. The negative opinions that some have regarding the vintage Japanese dd turntables may have as much to do with their typical heavy, dull-sounding rubber mats as anything else. First thing to do with a Technics or a Denon is ditch the mat (but keep it hidden away, for originality). And yes, the shield is something that you don't miss until you install one and hear the difference. I would not run my L07D without it. However, I think the shield is likely to be specific for dd turntables and maybe only for Kenwoods at that. Some guys were going to try it with Technics tables, but I never read a report on the results. (The better Kenwoods have a coil-less motor that is mounted right up high just under the platter, so my completely unproven theory is that the motor may radiate EMI upward and affect the cartridge.)
Regards, Fleib: I did follow up on the provided link, nice discussion you guys had going there. Thanks.

Peace,
Hello Lewm, I really have no experience using a RF/EMI shield on a platter. I never had a problem in that regard, but I would imagine it could be something that you might not realize it needs fixing until you hear it w/o interference. Is that the case?
My thoughts were more about platter design and energy dissipation. I very much belong to the Pierre Lurne school of energy dissipation. There are about 1/2 dozen interviews with him on the net. One platter is a sandwich of 9mm of lead between slices of delrin. This is designed to reflect back at different times and break up reinforced reflections back to the record. Regardless of original intent of Kenwood designers, some things can be improved.
Regards,
Hello Timeltel, Sorry about that post last night. The 2nd set of pictures at the AC link I provided, above, shows the 95 with mods. I didn't want to add a lot of mass, that's why I used a cut down aluminum headshell. The epoxy holds it rigidly in place. This is the same 5 minute gooey type epoxy I used to pot the cart. Near the back-top of the cart is a screw that holds the plastic top to the body. I removed the screw and gently pushed the epoxy into the body. The plastic top was damped with rope caulk and glued on to the body. I pre-cut the headshell and glued that on to the top. Others have reported that potting the inside of the cart makes a significant difference. I figured that reducing or elimination internal vibrations could only help. It does seem to make a nice improvement on the 95. It seems quieter and more like a master tape sound. The other report I read was on an AT-14. The 95 is inexpensive so I didn't mind risking it for the experiment. The danger is with the delicate wires going to the output pins. I'm thinking about doing this to some of my others, but haven't yet done so.

Running near the front of the AC vinyl section is the thread on phase shift. Although it is lengthy, I think you might find it interesting.
Regards,
I must must hear an Olympos. It is such a revered cartridge, and by people who have everything and have heard everything.
Dear Lewm,
MI cartridges are a group of its own, good that you name it. It is a completley different design. But in the end we have three groups and if someone would ask me "what are your Stereo-Favourits of each group" I would mention: Lyra Olympos, AT TK7SU, London Reference. Of course there are many other excellent contenders.

best & fun only - Thuchan
Dave, I think the latest fracas is about how one selects one's components downstream from the phono cartridge, be it MM or MC or ceramic, even. As you know, I keep some good MC cartridges around as a reference. But even so, I am far from drawing any global comparisons between the two archetypes, because I have not heard many/most of the "very best" (i.e., most expensive) MCs and may not ever be able to do so in my own home system. Another thing is that we tend to lump MM and MI cartridges together. I think they may sound distinctly different but more like each other than like a good MC.
Dear Dgarretson, The French enlightment caused very different influences in Europe. The 'essence' was about the 'eloquence' but with different understanding in different countrys of what this means. In some countrys like Russia it meant 'well -read' or literature in other the science. So the dream of each Russian intellectual is
to become a second Tojstoj or Dostojevski. In Germany it
was literature + philosophy. So both , the writers as well
as phylosopher, are in high esteem in Germany. No wonder then that Dertonarm whom I regard as one of the most eloquent person I have ever meet is refering to Goethe.
Alas as Frege explained the literature is an art and not
a science. Ie the so called truth values are not involved
in the literature. Ie you are free to write a fantastic poem about the beauty of the Pegasus wings without any worry about the existance of this imagined animal. In science however it make no sence to attribute whatever propertys to a non existent entity. That is btw why we spend so much money for this colider in Switserland . If this higs particle does not exist the whole theory will colapse. Exactly what Frege meant with his 'About Sense and
Reference'. So to my mind this reference to Geothe is not
convincing at all.
Regards,
My favorite Goethe (in youth) was "The Sorrows of Young Werther." This was a double-edged critique of a poet/philosopher's romantic self-absorption. Goethe later recanted the book in light of a large readership of educated German youth failing to detect his irony, with a few even fulfilling the plot line of a romantic suicide pact. As German philosophers are popular around here, a note of caution lest the romanticism of the MM phenomenon consume us all.
Dear Lewm: I understand perfectly your point of view. Please read about:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&3941&4#3941

I'm not saying is perfect faraway from there but extremely competitive with yours or any other person in this thread or outside it. Btw, I'm not dimished nothing but when you " see " things with a little of objectivity things are different on what you supposed.

I have to go to take my flight on time.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Dertonarm: You know I respect you and in some ways I could agree with you on this subject. More on this latter.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Thuchan: This is the second time in this page that you " receive " my personal opinion with " grace ", I really appreciated that because I don't wait nothing less from you.

I have to go now and come back when I have time.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Raul,
Since it is OK for you to rather harshly dismiss Thuchan's phono stage, and indeed his entire downstream amplification chain, and since it was OK for you to categorically dismiss vacuum tubes as a way to amplify music, I hope you will take it with equal grace, as Thuchan took your remarks, when I ask the rhetorical question, what are you listening to? Answer: You are listening to sound coming out of your speakers. You are not listening to your preamp or your modified Mark Levinson amplifiers. They are just generating complex AC signals that need transducing to be heard. How on earth did you select those speakers and that subwoofer, if your goal is as pure as you say it is? I posit that you made your choices subjectively. You are trapped, just like the rest of us, with your ears and brain. There are many many other speaker systems that would likely have lower distortion and flatter response than does yours, that employ much fewer distortion- and phase anomaly-inducing crossover components than does yours. Your whole rationale for stating that you operate on a higher plane than the rest of us falls apart when I consider your speaker system. But it's OK. I respect you anyway. I am with Dertonearm on this.
Dear Halcro,

finally I received my TK5Ea and the silver connectors. All put together with the new AT155LC stylus in an appropriate SAEC shell leads to a wonderful result in the FR-66s.

I have figured out, also with the TK3E and the TK7SU, if you are using the right headshell/MM cart combination the FR-66s is one of the best arms for MMs. The TK3E gets some more soundstage in the highs when using the No 3 stylus of the TK7SU. Nevertheless it provides a wonderful punch as we agree on. Many thanks again for the recommendation on these 2 carts.

I experimented a bit with MMs, also with the "new giants" and was able to get some nice sound out of these carts.
Some are providing an airy sound only, which is ok for voices or small instrumentation but not for the big orchestra and "the real music". This might be the reason why MCs are so popular.

Understanding the MM-shopping became a bit of a game for many MM-afficinados due to the reasonable prices. You can easily throw away the one you don`t like or put it back on ebay. I guess some of the MM-guys writing on the MM thread just do this, why not?

We should not forget the London Reference, a Moving Iron of benchmark quality. Maybe some of the MMs discussed here would lounge reaching it`s overall qualities.
Dear Raul, I will not take any side here, but I just want to recommend to everybody's attention once again the ultimate statement by J.W. v. Goethe regarding individual human preferences in all aspects of personal life:

"erlaubt ist, was gefaellt, was sich ziemt" (
from: "Torquato Tasso" by J.W.v. Goethe).

The more simplified english "each his own" comes close, but doesn't capture the full content.
As such, even the experience of "absolute sound" as well as "quality" is - unfortunately ...;-( ... - always in the eye, ear and mind of the individual beholder.
In other words - everyone of us is living in his/her/its own and singular universe.
Thuchan's position is as good and valid as yours (... or mine...).
None of us has any right to judge nor criticize the other's position or taste in sound.
Each a universe none of us can share nor fully explain to the other.
The dilemma of every audiophile striving for any absolute .....
Too bad.
Best regards, enjoy the music and fun only,
D.
Dear Raul,
agree with you we need not to rely on Gurus or writers` opinion. What I am saying is: I know some people in Japan and Germany who are deep into our hobby and they have real contact with the JPA66 and made their own experiences rather than looking from the distance onto this unit.This is what I am interested in also trying to comprehend the engeneering concept as well.

That was a LOT of words to say that "my JPA66 is 'bad' ". I also agree with you we have maybe different tastes on equipment and listening enjoyment. I rather go for lively, emotional sound, no neutral or clinical clean waves or flat in terms of frequency response.

the tubes vs. solid state issue is also a kind of development I would say. You stopped looking or experimenting with gear five years ago you said. I do respect this as I understood you have reached nirvana. I am pretty sure we both will become happy "in our worlds" and the only step forward in our exchange might be a real test in font of the systems.

best & fun only - Thuchan
Dear Thuchan: Finally I have a little time to give my answer- opinion ( btw, I need to post my answer to Halcro/Chris one and to Fleib on inductance. I need more time but I will do it. ) on your post about Common listening Aproach ( everything from here are in good shape and not against you. I respect you and you like me. Nothing personal. ) ):

++++++ " if we all would be a peer group knowing each other personally and also having had the chance to listen to each other system we might get closer to your objective parameters. I understand your approach finding comparable preconditions and to counterbalance them over the distance. Only I doubt it will work.

Regarding the EMT JPA 66, which is a pre-amp as well as a complex phono stage, I am in good neighbourhood with some Japanese and German afficinados that this is the ultimate machine. What I like is not only the sound and the variations you may play with, especially when it comes to MM cartridges. No, technologically the two output transformers (which phono stage does carry them) enable a different sound experience you may have with the EMT 139st too. Also the 6 inbuilt SUTs are of such good quality you will throw away most of the contenders...

This is first accurate and best performance......." +++++

Nandric said that both of us have no communication, I don't think so. The main difference is that both have different targets: when for you is enough that you like what you listen through your audio system for me needs not only like me but be accurate ( measure good. )-neutral-very low distortions-no colorations.
When you are looking for what you like I'm looking for excellence in quality performance level all over the audio chain. Your trade-offs are way different from mines.

As I posted: I listen ( when driven audio items tests. ) to what I missed, to what is not in " there " or what is " exceptional different ", to what disappear ( including distortions. ), etc, etc. As Doug Sax answered on that Halcro link: " and I listened not so much to its virtues as to its faults ".

I have years posting: " loosing and adding the less to preserve the source signal integrity ", this is my main target. First than all I have to preserve the source signal integrity looking for accurate and neutral audio links all over the home audio system chain.

IMHO today what measure good sounds good too, not like in the old times when those vintage Japanese electronics always measured good but sounds bad, this IMHO does not happen almost any more: normaly what we heard today in current electronics/speakers/audio items is how it measures.

How accomplish or try to accomplish my main target?, other that my knowledge/experience level on music and audio subjects I have to design a " process that help me to understand what I'm listening under audio items comparisons and that help me to identify:different kind of distortions and different distortion levels, colorations, noises and the like " , that's where my process born and came " alive " years ago and over the time was and is " suffering " changes to improve and be not only better but more trusty.

I don't care about my " Japanece/Germans neighbourhood " and only take care about when that " person " has a superior knowledge/skills level than mine, that's it: when I can learn to improve and grow-up.

For years I care not only on my " Japanese/german " audio friemds, reviewers, audio retailers and the like till I take in count that I was not growing up or at least growing up to slow. Somedays one step a head and some other days two.tree steps back and many times only side steps.
IMHO something similar of what you are living with out knowingit. My advise about is that you take alone your " road " with no " Jurassic audio gurus " surrounded where you can't grow-up and only are loosing time and money, yes with a lot of fun but loosing at the end. IMHO there is no " signs " of your audio improvements.

Your " Lost Friends " in your virtual system is nothing less than the " Frustration Friends " where sooner or latter your today tube electronics will finish.

I know that you are not looking for excellence performance level on your system and certainly with those " Jurassic Park " audio items is impossible you can achieve excellence.

I will take that EMT Phonolinepreamp that you and your " Jurassic " friends name it: " ultimate machine ". For me an " ultimate machine " must be first than all ACCURATE and NEUTRAL and your unit is far away from there. There are many reasons why your " ultimate machine " it is not an ultimate machine: full of transformers where the signal suffer severe degradation ( the best signal transformer is no tgransformer. ), full of swtichs where the signal is degraded, tube inherent inaccuracies non-neutral colored noisy and distorted technology ( it does not matters design and first rate execution. ).

Dear Thuchan, the RIAA deviation on that EMT ( 20hz to 20khz. ) has a swing of 1db!!!!!!, this IMHO is non-tolerable to any today phono stage: this sole factor made that that phono stage can't " save " and mantain the cartridge signal integrity, instead of that only degrade the cartridge signal with inaccuracies/colorations and distortions that are not on the cartridge signal!!!!, so where you and the " Jurassic Park " seen the " ultimate machine "?. I don't care that you like it because that's not the subject.

The subject is to achieve excellence quality performance level and that unit can't do it. I know that you think that with your new " toys " you go several steps a head but IMHO you only give steps backward or in the best scenario: only a side step, but I doubt this last.

That's why is so important to have a " specific process to audio system/items evaluation ". It is almost impossible to know if you really advance or go back only with that " It's wrong but I like it ", can't do it for sure.

I was really benign with your EMT RIAA deviation because if you measure that RIAA maybe that deviation is over 1db and not only that but is almost sure that the left channel RIAA be different from the right channel RIAA as maybe there are differences even in the line stage frequency range/response for both channels and even its output level for both channels could have differences too.
I know what you are hearing not only because this EMT and your Wavacs but for what you report, example that you like it the TK3e. I can understand this because youare a rockie on MM/MI cartridges but in other areas you confirm what I'm saying.

We all know that analog is an imperfect medium but we don't have to increment those imperfections on each audio link that like the phono stage and say: " I like it ".

Accuracy is the name of excellence, with out accuracy it does not matters " how good it sounds ". Don't you think that is way better that something be accurate to the signal and at the same time Sounded Good?, certainly yes.

This is an example of the excellence level I'm looking for and that I already achieve with some of my audio items ( I'm not saying I'm done but I'm trying hard to be " there ". ):

https://picasaweb.google.com/104284617601331669309/1606201109?authkey=Gv1sRgCNrBhveq5uzC-AE#slideshow/5618984106525365922

that is the RIIA deviation ( both channels. ) on the phono stage I use.

https://picasaweb.google.com/104284617601331669309/1606201107?authkey=Gv1sRgCI3hj-juiKXOGA#slideshow/5618983008834878562

those are the same RIAA measurements on two top SS Phonolinepreamps.

Remember the 60K Phono Stage only german Vitus?, well it is not better.

The RIIA accuracy on my latest unit measured: 0.012db!!!! both channels!!!!: no differences in between.

This is only of the excellence example level I'm accustom and looking for.

No, you and me ( as many other persons in this forum. ) are listening different " things " and not because we don't:
""" knowing each other personally and also having had the chance to listen to each other system we might get closer to your objective parameters. " ++++, but because your trade-offs ( for say the least and be polite. ) are way different from mines.

Excellence against " I like it ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Timeltel, I made it out of an old aluminum headshell, using the old slots to align with the mounting bolts. It is fixed with epoxy. A broken keyboard is forcing me to use an old one whhhhhhhhhich had coffee spilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllled on it. lol, I'll have to get back to you.

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=88878.0