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
Hi Raul, Yes, I think I've read all of Dlaloum's posts. He's very knowledgeable and we agree about most things. If you're talking about reference to speed of sound in different materials, I think that would pertain more to plinths, than cantilevers. The stylus tracks groove humps and physically moves in reaction. Those movements are transmitted up and excite the generator. The needle talk you hear with your ear near the cart (poetic ain't it) is like heat from a light bulb, a byproduct. It's the movements that are transmitted, not the sound of. My .02

The comparison of Pickering 7500 (low inductance) to another HO with 600mH, is just an anecdote, and conclusions are questionable. The 7500 has extremely high inductance for the output, and 600mH is somewhat high, but I think the 2M series for example, is higher. Comparing a LO to HO doesn't work for me. Carts in the 900mH range and even higher, tend to be rolled. But I agree with him that all aspects of design, in combination, determine performance. Inductance is considered the Achilles heel of HO carts. There's no getting around lowering of hi fr resonance, although this is sometimes used to augment a dip in response. Plug in x capacitance and lower the freq of the peak and roll off the extreme high end.

Maybe this will get a response from Dlaloum. Haven't heard from him lately.
Regards,
Regards, Fleib: I believe it's correct to state unbalanced units connect successive signal grounds together directly through each interconnecting cable. That the chassis is generally used as a signal ground conductor leads to the question that if phono section capacitance is shunted (to ground), and if TA signal and ground are grounded at the chassis, then curiosity is raised as to wether a cartridge "sees" cap./res. through that associated ground.

It's just curiosity.

The quote given earlier does refer to "a" phono section, wether integrated or pre is not stated.

Wiring hasn't been chased down for a while, a good time to try Dover's suggestion of star grounding at PS.

Peace,
Regards, Fleib, Dover: Spent about an hour this AM re-routing ICs, moved grounds to PS. Listening to Mark Knopfler "Privateering", very quiet, great imaging. Crosstalk & noise levels improved. The rat's nest of power cords, ICs & ground wires built up over five years (they do it in the dark) have been chased, connections cleaned. "You don't miss it until it's gone".

Cart is an F9-L. Luscious mids & lucid hfs, lively bass but a slight overshoot & hint of smearing on sharp transients. Most likely suspects are cantilever rigidity or a tired suspension, a minuscule application of ArmorAll helped. 100k & 200pF (shunted), 1.2gmVTF.

Still curious about the chassis/common ground effect. My bad, going balanced is not in the cards. Very much in the arena of Halcro's (Hi, Henry!) "homegrown theories" & most certainly idle speculation. I've got more, hope to keep you entertained.

Fleib, I've the spec sheet for the AT-12Sa:
Vertical tracking angle is 20*. 370mH, 500 ohms, 2.7mV output.
AT-10, 11, 11E, 12E, 13Ea are all 670mH/1200 ohm.
Output for the 12E & 13Ea is 4.2mV, the others are 4.8mV.
Channel sep. for all is in the 20's, 12Sa & 13Ea the best at 26 & 25db/1kHz.

The ATN12S is bonded on a micro mass tapered al. cantilever. Fr res. is 10-45k.
Rumors of an ATS12S, nude Shibata.
The ATN13 (10-30k) is a 0.2 x 0.7 elliptical, nude on a sturdier but still tapered bright alloy cantilever. For a 2 x 7 nude, the AT 13Ea is a surprisingly "warm" cart. Minor "plastic surgery" is required for a drop-in swap between the 10 & 20 families.

"Ebayed" a Signet TK7Ea with a supposedly new lpgear vivid line stylus, will be interesting to see how it compares to the (IMHO) excellent TK7LCa/ATN155LC.

Peace,
Raul, That's interesting about the output level. I saw a copy of an owners sheet for the 440 and it said 4.2mV, same as yours, so that must be the spec. This was from an old post in a tape forum by someone who bought 2 in 1981. He seemed pleased with them. The only thing I can think of, off hand, is maybe the magnets lost some of their magnetism. Coils are laminated and normally don't change. If the output is lower on your example, that would make the generator closer to an AT-12S,SA or perhaps a 15/20. I believe weaker magnets would also reduce inductance in a coil with a magnetic core.

I don't think the Precept stylus will fit anything other than an AT-10 or 11 without trimming the plastic. My 550 stylus arrived, but I haven't looked at it yet. I suspect you're having too much fun with yours to mess with it. I'll have to check it out.

Nandric, Don't abandon hope for your AT-12S it may be a hidden gem with the right stylus.
Regards,
Timeltel, With the bit about separate grounds on each channel, I thought it might refer to balanced. I thought the cap to ground they were referring to was on the tonearm ground? If the cap is on the signal ground but not the hot, would it add capacitance to the mix? I guess it wouldn't be shunt capacitance, but being in series with the ground would add to tonearm cable capacitance? Beats me.

AFAIK, the AT-12S, SA, and the 15/20 series are the only ATs with 500 ohm impedance. If the PC-440/550 have DC resistance as indicated to me, then they probably have the same impedance. There's a thread on Karma with this info.
Regards,
Hi, Fleib: "Beats me".

Me too. In the absence of actual test data, answer is purely speculative.

500 ohm, some Signets in that range, would have to check (not now, company coming) but IIRC, AM-10, TK3Ea & TK7E/SU are dangerously close.

Need to try the ATN440MLa on the TK3Ea, might be a pleasant surprise.

Peace,
Dear Fleib& Acman, Because of your contributions I looked
at my AT 12 S stylus for the first time carefuly. I own an hand microscope (50 x) and was able to see what kind of 'riches' I actually own. The cantilever and the Shibata
stylus look fantastic. So the only thing I need is the Precept 220. I am sorry for Indieroehre but I intend to keep my 12 S stylus. For my dear comrade Acman I can only say that in this as well in the parallel universe there is no better cart than his Grace F8. We all can only hope that he is willing to sell this treasure.

Regards,
Dear Fleib: I will check that 440 output level comparing to the 220 that in theory share the same generator. I think that 4.2 is reffered to 5.0cm/sg but I read somewhere that the 440 had 2.7mv that's why I posted about and because seems to me during listening that th eoutput is lower. I have to try my other sample to be sure.

I don't receive yet my 550ML replacement, I hope you could have the time to post your 550ML experiences.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
I forgot, no I'm not speaking of speed on different build material cantilevers. As you well said the stylus/cantilever transmit movements and not music waves.

++++ " I think that would pertain more to plinths, than cantilevers " ++++

agree. Related to that plinth subject and its cartridge performance influence my experiences told me that the very first " link " that is in touch with the LP : TT mat, is IMHO even more critical that the plinth it self. An ideal plinth on TT playback most be innert protecting the cartridge/tonearm of internal/external vibrations/resonances/movements but this is the " ideal " one that unfortunately does not exist yet. That TT mat makes a huge diference for the better or bad.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Raul,
Saw an Ortofon MC3000 for sale on eBay. It is said to be an "improvement" on the MC2000, because it has slightly higher output and lower compliance (but still, higher compliance than most very LOMCs). The asking price is sufficiently high that this would be no casual purchase. Have you heard it? Thx.
Regards, Raul: Some pretty "cut & dried" evidence, requires one page only at:

http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=6674&start=240.

No matter how much you wish it weren't so, the effects of cantilever mechanical resonance/damping simply cannot be dismissed.

Peace,
Dear Lewm: I owned but not an improvement over the MC2000. If you want a taste of that MC2000 the I will go for the MC3000MK2 ( I own it. ) is way better than the 3000 and with the same output level.

The 3000MK2 is very good performer but it is not the MC2000. Both cartridges are different designs from: cartridge body build materials, cantilever build material, stylus shape, suspension and the like. Even the MC2000MK2 is a different " animal ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Timeltel: I'm not dismissed nothing. Maybe I can't explain it. The cantilever/stylus/suspension-compliance has a resonant frequency point and of course that there are other kind of " vibrations " down there that affect the cartridge performance sound. We all know that the cantilever it self impose some kind of colorations to the final sound but that's not exactly what I was refering but what Fleib posted two you twice about and I agree in that sole subject/characteristic with him.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Thanks, Raul, for sharing your experience with the MC3000. I certainly did not assume that it would be better than the MC2000, as the seller (2juki) implies. His written description on this item displays a much better command of English than does his usual eBay auction. Perhaps he had someone else do the writing.
Thanks Nandric, that should do it. Something subtle was what I had in mind. We don't want to oversell.

BTW, Where can I get a F8 from a parallel universe? What kind of stylus does it have, and how does it sound compared to the F8 from this universe?
Dear Lewm: Juki is one of my trusted sellers, my Micro Seiki RX5000 came from there between other items.
He now carry Ortofon and his market prices are very nice/lower than even the USA/Europe Ortofon distributors.

Maybe he can get for you the MC3000MK2, this is a cartridge I recommend.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Since some of us are using tonearms with fixed headshells, and most of you are using different headshells to tame resonance, would using a spacer of equal thickness, as a headshell, made of headshell materials, ie ebony,titanium, give the same results as a headshell, as long as it did not negatively effect compliance?

I have been thinking how to modify a terminator arm to use reg. headshells, but thought this might give some advantages until I get around to it.
Here's a link for a fine thread at vinylengine on loading and capacitance
http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?t=6674&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
Raul,

I have a spec. sheet that compares the Precept 110 to the 220 and 440. The 110 has an output of 4.6, both the 220 and the 440 are stated at 4.2. This is at 5 cm/sec.
I've tried to copy and paste this hear but it wont copy and paste. I could forward the email to you if I had your email address.
Regards,
Don
Professor i hadn't caught up on pass posts here before i saw the link to the same thread in between super bowl commercials. For sure a long thread that i will spend the time on. As you say peace.
Thanks Raul, I've been looking for a recommendation for 2juki. I'll buy from him with confidence.
Don
Dear Acman, the parallel universe is a kind of 'show off'
about my philosophical 'inclination'. But when I was
confronted with 'all possible worlds' I give my philosophical study up.
Regards Raul, Exactly, ´...the very first "link" that is in touch with the LP: TT mat, is IMHO even more critical that the plinth itself ´. Furthermore, mat itself + record´s (platter´s) speed and especially its stability are the most crucial factors in LP play. In my system I have recently improved both and results are breathtaking.
Even mediocre (technically speaking) carts sound relatively good, some even excellent on such decks. Different plinths have different colourations/resonances on sound quality but are only secondary, minor factors.
Hello Acman, Experimenting different spacers between the Tomahawk wand and cartridge will the most fascinatining, yet inevitable course in Evolution. Aluminium may very well be the best solution for the already fantastic Tomahawk but other materials should be studied carefully.
You are the chosen one for this quest and will be the pioneer. May God bless you.
Dear comrade Don, There are other comrads than Raul and they all like to know if 220 and 440 have the same generator and body? I already own the right stylus (AT 12S)

Regards,
Regards, Raul: Sorry, I misinterpreted your post. Fleib's comment "speed of sound in different materials, I think that would pertain more to plinths, than cantilevers" was addressed, not to me but to another. Wouldn't tonearms, and the manner in which they're integrated or isolated to the plinth/spindle/platter be a related consideration? I didn't read your post with enough care, mea culpa.

Remember the controversy when the Meitner TT was introduced?

http://www.museatex.com/at2.htm

"Because most of the energy is generated by the cartridge stylus, this is the area to receive most of the reflected energy. The result is a form of distortion read by the stylus and incorporated into the music signal--- the typical record (is) an increasingly ideal half-wave coupler of acoustic energy from the lower mid-range up, and improving as the frequency rises. The record naturally dissipates vibrations, particularly at the levels and frequencies that they occur, to air. Thus air becomes the absorbent "platter", the only substance that does not give energy back to the record."

Peace,
Regards, Stltrains: Hi, Mike. There's a link in that LONG thread to one discussing wave propagation within a cantilever, quite a read.

33 yr. old son has absconded with my SP-25/Black Widow TA. He has the marvelous ability to transform "loan" to "give". The BW is like an old friend whose voice is immediately identifiable. A Shure V15-111/HE stylus was, I thought, a good match.

Peace,
Dear Harold-not-the-barrel: +++++ " mat itself + record´s (platter´s) speed and especially its stability are the most crucial factors in LP play. " ++++

of course that speed accuracy and stability are the primary targets and that's why exist a TT.

We audiophiles know that the TT mat is important but IMHO almost no one gives the importance that I think it has.

In all the years that I have reading and posting in Agon only Atmasphere and now you are the only Agoners that realy knows what are talking about on that subject becuase took " actions " specific to be aware of its critical role in the quality performance trhough the analog alternative.

Almost all of us already tested and changed mats in our TTs but IMHO many of us never go deeper in the mat research with the same " attitude/emotion " that we did it when discovered , for example, the MM/MI alternative.

My experiences about tell me that's worth to make that mat deep research because the rewards are and makes a paramount difference. Of course that maybe some of you already are " there " even that never posted about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Griffithds: 5.6cm/sg, that's what I was thinking but can't be sure.

Normaly, the cartridge output spec comes/is measured at 3.54 cm/sg that's what we are accustom to be aware. When some one tell us that a cartridge has an output of 3.7mv almost all of us before listen it more or less have a clear idea where the volume selector will be in our system.

That 4.2mv for the 220/440 seems to me to high for what I was and am hearing and that's what I posted that the output is lower than that spec, your post confirm that that 4.2mv PC440/220 output was not measured at the normal 3.54cm/sg but at 5.6cm/sg.

Thank you for put some light in the subject. Yes, I appreciate if you email me that cartridge sheet: rauliruegas@hotmail.com

Regards and enjoy the music,
R
Dear Timeltel: Never mind. What is really interesting in what you linked ( thank's. ) is that in some ways confirm what I posted here and in other threads about the critical importance of TT mats:

+++++ " The point at which the record contacts the mat or platter is an energy interface that vibrations, traveling at high velocities, must traverse. These vibrations will not be completely absorbed by the interfacing surface, and a significant portion of the energy will be "mirrored" back into the record. Because most of the energy is generated by the cartridge stylus, this is the area to receive most of the reflected energy. The result is a form of distortion read by the stylus and incorporated into the music signal. " +++++

that feedback is " terrible " because makes a signal degradation, so as better the mat to dissipate that stylus/LP energy and impede the feedback as lower will be that degradation.

I used several TT mats over the years and in all cases with different results. Was like two years ago during the work in our tonearm design that I ask my self and share this question with Guillermo ( friend and tonearm co-designer. ):

hey!, why not test what could happen if we build a TT mat with our propietary same build material that we are using in our tonearm? , at the end is working ( the material. ) great with the tonearm so why not? and that's what we made it and what we achieved was and is overwhelming and unspected.

We discovered " something " there. After that I again asked my self: why not use it in all the tonearms other than our desing through the headshell? and that's what we did and build several headshells that's where I mount and make the cartridge tests, these headshells are plug-in tyupe this is that do not have the universal headshell connector bayonet but just plug-in that gives/permit me easy changes in azymuth and overhang.

This kind of mat and headshell I'm using permit me too to be aware of distortions tiny distortions that we can hear in normal set ups, in the past I made the tests between universal headshells against my headshell for I can make that kind of statement.

Timeltel, time for the Precept PC 220/440 or 550ML.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
My mistake:

+++++ " that we can hear in normal .. " ++++, wrong: we have to read it this way:

THAT WE CAN'T HEAR IN NORMAl......

R.
Regards Professors, In the case of the Meitner and others alike the Transcriptors way back in the 1960´s "The record naturally dissipates vibrations, particularly at the levels and frequencies that they occur, to air. Thus air becomes the absorbent "platter", the only substance that does not give energy back to the record."
This is exactly happening with the Reso-Mat, the modern implementation of the then (and still futuristic) Transcriptors platter. I put the Reso on my platter and the improvement in audio quality & purity is breathtaking.
I began to experimenting on hard mats in the early 1990´s. Originally I had a very dence and smooth sorbothane rubber mat, and it gave very nice audio with my very compliant MM carts. So I experimented hard metalacrylic mats with my very compliant MM carts. I also had a GOLDMUND STUDIO DD TT with metalacrylate hard mat but I find its sound quality unconvincing with my MMs. Oh, wish I had had a proper MC like Shinon Red (boron/MicroLine) then ! But in my younger days couldn´t afford one... they were insanely expensive at the time, and second hand/used were extremely rare. Heavy DD TT and Shinon cart, just couldn´t have them both. I never abandoned sorbothane and I´m still using it under the Reso-Mat.
However, hard mats (compared to soft mats) may very well fit better certain, less-compliant (MC) carts. Anyway, it was "hip" in the late 1980´s to use low-compliant "high-end" MC´s and obviously hard mats were designed to fit them.
Professor Timeltel, Glad you´re experimenting a nude TT. Without knowing your equipment I knew you MUST have something extraordinary there !
Dear Harold-not-the-barrel: I tested years ago the same approach as the Reso-mat and it works, no doubt about.

What I used was tiptoes like directly to the TT platter and a clamp. Maybe I have to test it again against my mat, right now I think I have a better tiptoe build material than in the past. Thank's to bring here that Reso-mat.

Even that I almost agree with the Reso-mat about clamps I think that a light clamp improves the souns.

I use a wood light weight clamp that an Agon friend gives me ( he builded, is a copy of the Shu Monk one but light weight. ) and I put/glued at the side where the clamp is in contact with the LP 2mm of our tonearm build material.

In the past I used every clamp that was out there till by my self falled in count that the traditional clamps made it more harm than help. I started to listen my LPs with out clamp till my friend send it his design and when I tested ( with out my material in there. ) I like what I heard and latter on I add the material to the base in the clamp and is how I'm using it till today and there is nothing that tell me to reject this clamp yet.

Anyway, IMHO we have to work in our each one system with mats and clamps to " discover " which approach and item works for the better: lowering distortions and killing colorations.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Raul,
It does seem that in "the modern era", cartridge output is more often given at the stylus velocity of 5cm/sec, as opposed to 3.54cm/sec. Worse yet, many manufacturers do not tell the reference velocity at all. I think they want you to assume that they measured at 3.54, when actually it is now "kosher" to measure at 5.0. Makes the cartridge appear to have a higher output.

I have seen arguments about whether the Koetsu makes 4 or 6mV output. I think the argument is really about 3.54cm/sec vs 5cm/sec.
Since the topic has been raised - 25 years ago I decided to experiment in the opposite direction of the Mat and Platter wars and try a next to nothing mat. I built a plate made of a flat record and 15 tiny foam 'dots'. After proper setup (of course) it was immediately apparent that what I had been listening to previously was essentially the 'sound' of the platter (or mat) buried beneath the reproduction. I still have and use that mat to this very day.

I do not use a weight, it's just the sound of vinyl coming through, and yes - it does have a 'sound'. Sorry, can't post a pic, but just pick your flattest giveaway record and make 3 rings of 5 tiny 1mm sq. foam (or whatever) supports.

It's well worth the effort, just remember who suggested it.
Timeltel those youngens I'm sure he's going to take care of the gear. I've recently got my hands on a widow. Mounted a Stanton 881 and a acutex 315 long noise. Had a Ken Willis protractor delivered with original BW specs. In the end the micro 505 is back in I never was satisfied with what I was hearing.

Put the AKG p100le on the micro using Willis original setting and yes this cartridge is special in every way. Except my Fisher 400c has to be cranked up a little to much due to 2.7mv getting some low level hum. And that is what I was digging into yesterday. The hum is present at 90db in a slight way
Mike
Harold, I got the idea from Dgarretson. He is light years ahead of me in knowledge regarding, well anything related to turntables and arms, and probably many other things not discussed.

I will try some different materials and see what happens.
Raul,
Spec. sheet sent. Let me know if it arrived. It seems to be a picture therefore I can't copy and paste to this site.
Not really sure but I tried many times using different methods. If you did receive it Raul, and there are others that want it (Nandric), I would be more that happy to send it to them if they provide their e/mail. If you can figure out a way to post it here, that would be even better.
Regards,
Don
Raul, the Precept 220 showed up today. The cartridge has a lot of promise, even with the 220xe stylus. Took a little while for the bass to show up. Only about 3 hours on it. Can get a little bright so far.

Regarding TT mats. I use the Acoustic Sig. platter bare or the Boston II if I can't get the cartridge to settle down. The AS has silencers, but don't know if that's a sales thing or something real. I tried a couple of others, but so far come back to these two. Always looking for a better mouse trap though. Would be interested in a weight.
Like the girl next door which we overlooked for 10 years
and then were to late. Heureka: keep the previous record on
the platter and put onother one above. The best mat ever
invented by a (tipsy)coincidence.
Raul, Lew, I think 5 cm/sec is the standard now. If you go to Ortofon, AT, Grado, site, they're all rated at 5 cm/sec velocity. When I saw the sheet for the PC440, I didn't notice the velocity.
I haven't looked at my 550 stylus yet. I don't have the Precept body, so I'm in no rush. It might be interesting to compare it to the 20SS stylus. I usually prefer the ML tip over a shibata. Shibata has a different facet on the front and back sides. That's supposed to give it a curved (rather than straight) contact area as the record spins. I'm not positive, but that could be the reason I hear the shibata sweeten the top end - not always a bad thing though.

I like Pierre Lurne' approach to platter w/no mat. He made a lead sandwich with methacrylate as the bread. The mass and resonant frequency of the lead prevented vibrations from being reflected back to the stylus.
A few years ago somebody on VE was using tiny spikes, or rounded spikes points up, as a mat. A few people swore by it.
Regards,

That's the thing with mats. There are schools of thought, just as for drive systems, etc. Some like to elevate the LP away from the platter, a la the old Transcriptors tt. Some like to use a mat that approximates the characteristics of a vinyl LP. Some like big heavy metal mats. And some like something that is none of those 3. But elevating the LP using multiple small contact points that hold the LP away from the platter must surely give a profoundly different sound compared to any of the other options. I used to own a Transcriptors, but I cannot recall its sonic character.
Dear Acman3: MY AS TTs have not the " silencers " on the latest AS model.

I can't be sure but seems to me that the ruber O-rings in those silencers are the ones that are in touch with the LP: it is in this way?, maybe that's why you like or use it with out mat.

I listened LPs with out mat in the AS and did not like me.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Raul, The silencers are flat with the platter, so the vinyl is not in contact with any rubber. The theory, at least as I understand, is more in absorption and dissimilar metals not allowing resonance. It kind of sets off my BS meter, but the table has performed great, so maybe it works???

I ordered the Reso-mat, as it is quite reasonably priced. I like the idea of pigskin. I think there is an old football in my son's old room. :)
Just a quick comment on cartridge output specifications. They are commonly listed for either 5 cm/sec peak or 3.54 cm/sec RMS at 1 kHz, but the number should be the same, because a sine wave with an RMS value of 3.54 cm/sec has a peak value of 5 cm/ sec. In other words, even though 3.54 and 5 are two different numbers, they are just two ways to describe exactly the same thing.
Acman3,

I agree on the Silencer platter. It does make a big difference to the resonances and lack of feedback from the platter (BS factor not withstanding). However, when I tried it naked with various clamps, it slightly raised the pitch while (possibly, 'consequently') increasing clarity/separation. It is the way that the manufacturers recommend its use though, so...

As always...
Dear Fleib: Yes, appears that 5.0cm/sg is the today norm to measure cartridge output level.

I just bought a VdH Colibri wood and I was thinking a lot before pull the triger because the cartridge had a 0.5mv+ ( I prefer lower output in the Colibries. ) but the offer was very good and I bought it.

Arrived and I listening and found out that the output was lower than the specs and when I read it the in-box specs its output level is referenced to 5.0cm/sg when my other Colibri ( that I own from several years. ) is referenced to 3.54cm/sg.. So the manufacturers just changed.

Btw, I always liked the Colibri and recomend it and this Wood version is no exception: a great performer, better yet than my other Colibri. and that several other top cartridges.

Regrads and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear friends: I bought an Audio Technica AT150ANV. I think that I only read one post on an owner of that Anniversary cartridge version.

I don't know how good really is but in the past AT never dissapoint me, the latest Precept experience confirm about.

I don't receive yet but the cartridge has at least to good characteristics: sapphire cantilever and titatinum body. I understand that this is the first time AT used sapphire as cantilever build material in any of its cartridges.
In the past they used ruby and diamond in the AT37, AT1000 and TK100.

In the other side the titanium body build material was used only in the ART1, at least is what I remember.
I own all those cartridges that are very good performers.

If some of you already had the AT150ANV experience I invite you to share those experiences with us, certainly I will do it as soon I listen it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
}R.