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
Dear Halcro: +++++ " +++++ " We all know it is not black and white.... " +++++

especially in audio....+++++++++

that is what I posted and yes there are several solutions to be " there ", I agree with Thuchan.

The critical point/subject is to know and decide when to " stops " for start the " final " FT almost endless job.

How can we determine that " today " is the right time to stop buying main audio hardware and start that FT?

I think there is no one answer but several ones according our each one priorities.

I take at random that because my system shows the source digital true reality/glorious at the same time that shows the analog glorious too then this was/is the FT threshold I 'm looking for.
I'm not telling I'm right deciding this, of course I could be wrong but I did not had other criterium to decided about. Certainly that the coming time will tell me if I was wrong or not but even if I was wrong I think that I losened nothing because my audio work was and is a FT one to improve.

Pun intented from you and other persons interested on this system " find out/finding " FT threshold. This is a new subject for me and my very first " intent " about so I think is more easy that I been wrong that been correct: I really don't know but the whole FT concept is there and " open " to opinions.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Hello David,
Yes, that's very interesting isn't it - the relationship between compliance and HF resonance. To be honest, I've never owned a Shure cart although I'm somewhat familiar with a few. Wasn't there an earlier version of the V-15V with lower inductance? That might have been the one they used for 4-ch. I have no first hand knowledge of this and read that results were sometimes imperfect. The M24H sounds interesting. Do you have one of those?

A high inductance cart like a M97 really holds no interest for me, but I understand the appeal for those on a budget. I'm not trying to be elitist, just stating my preference. I like a clearer more detailed presentation and I invariably find high inductance carts to sound veiled. Even before I knew the inductance of a Stanton 681, I didn't like the sound. I also think the veiling is less obvious on budget systems.

The Stanton 980LZ is an interesting comparison to an 881. They're both MMs of somewhat similar design with interchangeable styli. There was a HO version of the 980, but I never heard it. I wish I had bought one of each when they were available. I was advised that the LO version was quite a bit better. The inductance is < 1mH and output is 0.3mV. Some people think it might be the best MM ever made, at least a contender. I think mine might be limited by the styli I have for it. I'd like to get a Soundsmith ruby/micro and try it with that, but it will have to wait. I have a Pickering D3001, a .2 x .7 elliptical and a Jico shibata. They both sound pretty good. The lack of inductance gives a potential for increased clarity w/o veiling, IMO.

Many modern HO carts seem to be cleverly designed to balance higher output/increased inductance, with optimised body materials, cantilever coupling and behavior etc, that sells carts. I really see no attempt being made to duplicate or improve on the vintage MM/MIs that are preferred by Raul and the other posters on this thread. If I seem to qualify all my statements it's because I haven't heard all the carts talked about, and have no frame of reference. I think the Nagaoka MP50/500 has similar inductance as a 2M Black. I've never owned either. But hearing them briefly, they seem pretty good.
Regards,
fleib
P.S. additionally and as an aside - I will shortly be testing the following Styli as well:

ATN15ss (Beryllium)
ATN152LP (Beryllium)

It will be interesting to see what happens with these... the cartridges for which these were intended are mid inductance (450mH) although low inductance models were also available for both (350/370mH) - the measurements will tell the story.

bye for now

David
Hi fleib/Neo

not offended by any means...

I measured the 1000e with SAS N97xE mounted (I also tested it on an Me105p and Me75p).

I measured it varying the resistance -10k/22k/46k/82k/100k ohm and the capacitance 60pf/250pf/420pf/535pf.

The electrical variances shift the electrical resonance - this is predictable and modelable. Those aspects of the performance that shift in frequency as the loading varies are electrical.
The model is imperfect - and I am getting some variations from the model (a real world inductor does not quite behave the way a theoretical perfect inductor would - also the signal acts as an inductor biasing current, and in turn influences the output signal - so there are a range of areas still being investigated to understand why the electrical model is imperfect) - but overall the behaviour does follow the model - and the resonance rise, as well as the drop post resonance do reflect the model.

But there is part of the measured response which does not follow the electrical model, and it is freqency static.

ie: this resonance may vary somewhat in magnitude as the electrical damping is applied to it via the loading - but it's frequency does not shift with the loading.

This fact points to it being a mechanical and not an electrical phenomena.

Doing the same tests with Ortofon OM20, and AT440MLa (and others) shows similar interesting properties - the electrical behaviour again is very similar to the Shure/SAS (taking into account differing inductances etc...) but the Ortofon and the AT have their own differing resonance - which again is fixed in frequency. (identifying it as mechanical)

One might assume that the resonance is caused by something else in the TT system - but if this was the case a larger variance would be expected, and the frequency response charts, when compared to those published in audiophile publications, would differ. (ie the resonant flaws in my system would be visible when comparing the plots to those taken by other instruments).
There is no variance - the overall F/R plots/profile are identical - the difference is that in my case I am taking the analysis further by calculating the difference between the theoretical electrical model and the actual performance - this difference exposes the low level non-linearities (caused by the flaws in the model) - but also the very high level resonances.

I have a strong feeling that different SAS styli may be tuned for different resonances (using the tension in the wire connecting the rear of the cantilever). And that Jico tunes this resonance to match it as closely as possible to the original manufacturers setup, as this is required to allow a cartridge to be relatively neutral at its specific recommended loadings. Without that I expect the results would be all over the place.

This I must stress is an assumption, and induction.
The Boron with tension wire design of the SAS stylus should easily be capable of a resonant frequency well outside the audio range.

But if you mounted such a stylus onto a M97xE - a high inductance cartridge - the F/R profile would almost perfectly follow the electrical model.
In an electrical model, with a high inductance cartridge at mid to high capacitance (the normal M97xE setup) your HF drops off dramatically and sharply quite early. - it would not sound Neutral at all - it would sound dull and wooly/warm.

Original Shure M97xE styli overcome this by having a mechanical resonance in the middle of the HF range, compensating for the electrical drop off, and resulting in a neutral albeit not very extended F/R.

Now if we look at the V15VMR - we have a low inductance cartridge, specified for low to low-mid capacitance - and we have the advertising info from Shure in the 80's/90's telling us that its mechanical resonance is around 33k. (it was never great for CD4.... and the mechanical resonance explains why - the resonant peak would generate phase anomalies right around the area of the HF carrier at 38k... it might work, but not an ideal design for CD4 - which is why Shure had a specialised CD4 cartridge....M24H)

Given resonance at 33k and a very flat F/R through low inductance and capacitance - one would expect a very flat and neutral F/R across the audible spectrum - and that is what all listeners tend to report.

People who have purchased the SAS VN5MR also report this result - which implies that the Jico VN5MR SAS has a different resonant frequency from the Jico N97xE SAS.

Unless someone is willing to loan me a SAS stylus for testing (one designed for an appropriate low inductance cartridge!) moving from inductive logic to actual measurement will have to wait till I bite the bullet and get a SAS for my V15V...

It also means that anyone considering a Jico SAS stylus for their cartridge (and there are many SAS styli availabel for many different cartridges!) - should assume that the stylus will be "tuned" to match that specific cartridge. - With all the potential flaws that this may entail.

In a perfect world, I would take a low inductance body, set it up in my low capacitance setup (60pf) - resulting in very very flat electrical response within the audio range - then request a SAS stylus with the resonance tuned as high up as possible.... and I would have my customised perfect cartridge.

In the real world, when you order a SAS it comes (I believe) tuned to match the tonal imperfections of the cartridge it is designed to mate with.

Bye for now

David
there is always not only one solution but many
I think Raul, that even you would have to agree with Thuchan here?
At least in the world of audio?
Hi David,
Your measurements are fascinating and I applaud your efforts in this time consuming endeavor. If I may be so bold to make a suggestion, I think you need to reexamine methodology and/or equipment. Your ears are more sensitive than your equipment and should take priority in reaching conclusions, IMO. I question these high frequency resonance figures, in particular.

It's difficult to draw conclusions with limited samples and limited equipment, so any deviation from manufacturer specs should be treated with suspicion and conclusions confirmed by ear, on a particular sample.

I don't know how you measure high frequency resonance, but from my limited observations I don't see or hear how it could be right. Are these secondary resonances?

In studying the Ortofon phase vs amplitude measured response (paper from 1983), these results don't seem possible for primary high frequency resonance. If a cartridge has response to 40K or 50K, it's not going to have a high frequency resonance at 23K, as far as I know or have observed. If a SAS boron/microridge has a high frequency resonance at 17K, that resonance is caused by something other than stylus/cantilever.

I hope I'm not offending, by posting this. It is my intent to help, not embarrass. I've been wrong before. Please correct me if I'm wrong again. I just don't see how it is possible. The electrical output of a cart is primarily determined by the mechanical. This is clearly shown by the limited viability of using electrical models to determine loading. If a cart can be used to decode 4-ch information encoded at 30K, like a V-15 sometimes was, then that similar boron/micro has a HF resonance at 17K? A 15/20SS at 23K? If a DL-S1 has response to 50K or more, you can see the limitations of an aluminum cantilever and a special elliptical stylus. I believe HF response falls off sharply, above HF res.

I think you're really getting somewhere with your analysis. I also think you're experiencing the limitations of the equipment your using. It is possible for capacitance/inductance to lower the HF resonance, but I question these results.
Regards,
fleib (neo)
Dear Raul,
sorry for my bad English, what I meant is you seem to have arrived in Audio Heaven (Nirvana) while I am still walking around from tree to tree to find some cool air in the shadow like Buddah did. Sometimes my belief is supported and gets more foundation, sometimes I am in despair...

there is always not only one solution but many - maybe only one which is really superior at least based on technial data. so black is not black and white is not white. I apologize for becoming a little philosophical. Don't take me too serious today...

best & fun only. - Thuchan
Raul/Thucan,

I am interested by your comments on "the path" to hifi perfection. I have been mulling over a point that you (Raul) made recently about the distinction between the recorded event (using close field microphones whose sensitivity exceeds our personal hearing abilities) in contrast to the experienced live event (where our seating positions and the acoustics of the venue play such a major role) with our limited hearing capacities.

I was wondering if this does not mean that there are two potential paths? The first would be to obtain the exact sound of the recording and would seem more difficult to be certain of on a record by record basis unless one was at the actual recording sessions or could reliably reproduce these as a control test using R2R and a suitably accurate music/hifi chain. Even this test is obviously subject to the intitial quality of each recording process.

The second (which is where I feel a lot of "audiophiles" take residence) would be to try to obtain the sound that is most reminiscent of a favourite live venue and/or personally experienced performance (or, as is often the case, an amalgamated memory of the various live venues at which the listener has become familiar and from which arises his/her perception of "a" live event and, consequently, of what is an accurate or good portrayal of a given recording).

If the latter is the objective, it would seem that the school of "whatever rocks your boat" would be as valid as the school of "this is accurate to the recording". No?

As I say, just some possbily pointless reflections on common concerns.
Dear Thuchan: +++++ " being on the quest all the time may look like still searching for the path of believe and disbelief :-) " +++++

this " searching for the path " " disturb " me because I understand that almost any one of us know in a more or less precise way that " path ". Maybe you wanted to say something different or maybe I have a misunderstood here.

+++++ " We all know it is not black and white.... " +++++

especially in audio but a critical factor to achieve that FT system threshold is that you knew very well that " black and that white ". I can be wrong but IMHO we can't do it with out it!

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear friends: You can't see this " baby " often. Very good top of the line:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nagatron-9600E-Cartridge-Hyper-Elliptical-Stylus-NOS-/320691847786?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4aaab9426a#ht_1014wt_1139

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Regards, Raul: "Different kinds of fun" come with the Empire 8000X/VE, grand bass, never a sibilant in the mids. The hf's are there but somewhat reticent in presentation, like a beautiful but bashful child. With the 2000E (red) stylus it'll not impress one intent on critical listening but the potential is there, enough so to consider upgrading the stylus and fabricating a wood body to replace the extremely microphonic clip-on mount. Looking forward to your next revelation and somehow not surprised to hear it too is an Empire.

Dlaloum: Hi, David. Your posts have made interesting reading in the past week or so, may I add some thoughts? It seems one way to identify cantilever resonance would involve testing one assembly and then comparing a different cantilever material in the same cartridge, the variance between the two would then be significant. I cannot but think what is being measured is not exclusive to cantilever resonance. In a similar matter, I would be extremely interested in a comparison between headshells of varying construction and as you would be doing all the tedious setup I would find it even more rewarding. Please recieve my comments as those of an uninvited "back-seat driver"!

By the way, the Technics EPC-U25 mentioned to you earlier remains an uninspired performer. In spite of (of perhaps because of) the new replacement stylus that came with it. Inspection confirms it as a nude elliptical, however the diamond is very dark and unpolished. One of three cartridges picked up recently for the headshells they were mounted on. The third is an ADC PSX-40, a very slender sleeved cantilever and fine, clear diamond of unknown hours. The ADC shows promise enough to have ordered a new OEM replacement stylus but not sufficently impressive to request a spare, yet.

Peace,
The formal scientific definition of "synergy" is to say that the sum of the effect of changing two or more variables is greater than what could be expected from adding up their individual effects. If 1+1=2, that is an "additive" effect. If 1+1 = more than 2, then we have synergy. I have to say that it would take an astute ear to hear the difference between an additive and a synergistic effect, where something so subjective as the sound quality of an audio system is concerned.
Dear David, I am reluctant to recommend the 'HIFI 79 Studio' in Holland because I have no experience with them
yet. Just posted my AKG 8ES 'super nova' for a retip. It is however a regular 'Hi-Fi' shop. Delivery between 4-6
weeks. The usual retip, as I understand it, is not some
'rocket science'. They buy all kinds of cantilevers with
the stylus on from their supliers and put the whole thing in the tube of the cart. So you can get all kinds of cantilevers and styli from aluminium till ruby as well elliptical, line contact and F. Geiger styli. My point is this: they are cheaper than the rest. Anyone can 'check'
with an 'cheap cart' and than decide further.

Regards,
Dear Geoch: I understand you in " deep " but that's why we are " here ".

Yes, tubes is a more complicate " task ", fortunately ( for me. ) I left that tube stage too that for the time I had it I enjoyed.

Of course you can't " regret it ". We are still ALIVE and following " ripen " on the whole audio/music subject.

This audio/music stage/era that I'm living is with out doubt the one that gave/give me the greatest music enjoyment times: and counting!.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Timeltel: Good that you take it some days for a different kind of fun.

For now I can't speak on the 8000 but in a few days I will tell you other Empire model that could put " on shame " the 4000D3.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Dgob: Never mind. I'm not totally satisfied with the MF-100 on the Grace tonearm, it sounds good but only good not" great " as I remember this cartridge can shows last time when I mounted in the AT tonearm.

I will try ( I can't say when. ) again following your advise ( thank's. ) and in the AT too.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
I'm using NOS AT15SS and can attest that this is magnificent cartridge. It is mounted on Audio Technica 1010 tonearm. great match. The tonearm seems to be designed to carry this cart. Even that manual shows AT15/AT20 mounted.
Cartridge manual tells that spec difference between AT15SS and AT20SS is 33 vs 35 db in channel separation.
My cartridge response plot shows the same linearity as AT20SS spec.
I guess that AT15SS is a lot like AT20SS and many AT15SS are up to the AT20SS spec. Of course the number of cartridges marked as AT20SS is much less. This how marketing product range works.
I seriously doubt that AT did any more selection when producing replacement styli and marking them as AT15SS or AT20SS. This I found when my AT15SS original cartridge stylus outperformed NOS Original replacement AT20SS stylus.
Hi Raul,

I particularly like the idea of a self designed cartridge.

I have been disappointed somewhat by the SAS stylus - when I found the mechanical resonance to be within the audible HF range (13-17k Hz). (this being for a SAS M97xE stylus)

The original Shure V15VMR claimed a mechanical resonance at 33kHz, the Technics EPC-100 claimed a resonance above 50kHz...
With mechanical resonance so high up, the audible range becomes predictable, and driven primarily by electrical parameters (inductance/capacitance) which are more easily controlled for an optimal result.

With this in mind I wonder whether any of the stylus/cantilever manufacturers out there provide specifications for the resonant frequency of their styli?

Has anyone measured some of the Soundsmith retip/recantilevers with the Ruby cantilever to identify their resonant frequency?

What do Expert Stylus Co. in the UK provide in the way of cantilever? (and VdH in Holland?)

Has anyone measured other alternative cantilevers ?

We have a wealth of superb cartridge generators available to us - most without styli.
It is relatively easy to get hold of an AT15, or V15V, or 999 .... but getting the the ideal stylus for them is a whole different matter.

What are your thoughts on this?
How would you approach the problem of the stylus/cantilever for your own cartridge design?

bye for now

David
Dear Raul, thanks again for the invitation, next time I am in Houston I will have a good list for potential visits and as I do know the time a Continental Plane needs reaching your home is not that long we might have a chance exchanging ideas personally.

Of course interpretations from the distance are always somehow fuzzy. A system which might look very expensive or even is designed very nicely not necessarily needs to sound great.

Sometimes the details are not to be seen from images etc. Nevertheless you get a glimpse of understanding of the user`s philosophy. Changing or modifying a system - no matter what kind of amount on money or intelligence you do invest - means "you are in the working status". Not doing anything means "you are in the sleeping mode". This doesn`t mean good or bad, proper or improper but it could indicate as Geoch assumes that you "have arrived" since five years. You are a lucky man. All we others being on the quest all the time may look like still searching for the path of believe and disbelief :-)

We all know it is not black and white, at least those who are not dedicated to a certain church, showing the wonderful attitude to learn from others, as you do.

You are right this hobby keeps us young even if we are nearly getting a club of "wise and grey haired gentlemen" from which the kids never would take an advise. Maybe we are living on a remote and distant island, at least me...

Best & Fun Only - Thuchan
Dear Thuchan: Well: how can I say?, let me add some subjects that I don't posted in my last post:

I started my FT system " trip " many years ago when I been aware ( taken in count. ) that with what been out there ( audio items. ) I never could acomplish my home system quality performance targets.

After several steps to be nearest my FT threshold I decided to design a Phonolinepreamplifier which the one I could live " forever ".

After this critical step and when ( IMHO ) I knew with certain that for a " long time " nothing could " touch " it ( the unit in my today system. ) my next step was into the tonearm design after knewed nothing out there could help to attain my targets.
I ( along Guillermo ) almost finish it and today, like with my PhonoLineP, I know with certain that nothing could " touch " it for a " long time ".

I already give the very first steps for a self cartridge design because no one I know fulfill my targets today. When this audio item comes " alive " must have a quality performance extremely hard to beat in a " long time " or never comes " alive " from my part and I will take it what is out there.

Amplifier goes next but maybe TT first ( I can't say it. ) and if God give me the joy to still alive then I will try speakers.

+++++ " but life is changing all the time or are we becoming too old for rock`n roll to young to..." +++++

fortunately the AHEE already puts its rules where one of them ( and the AHEE does not even know it. )is: high end grow up very very very slow.

Do you think that my very old speakers and amplifiers are too " old " for rock'n roll?, you already has the invitation to confirm it or not.

Thuchan, I always support that our audio/music hobby ( quality level performance. ) depends mainly not on money but in our ( each one ) knowledge-skills/ignorance level that at the same time define our audio/music targets to be achieved.

I know that what I'm posting could be something " new " for you or could be something you are not experienced yet so could be that you don't agree with me but IMHO I think there is no reason why you could not agree.

I can tell you a simple example: while the Micro Seiki TT " stage " or the Technics/Denon " stage " is something that many people are " discovering " in full I left those " stages " ( as many others ) years ago and " running " to improve and grow-up.
I can say the same for digital source ( yes Halcro " blame " ( in good shape, he is my friend. )for this my digital " attitude ".).

Do you know what?, IMHO I feel like a 25 years old person but with all the knowledge and maturity of an old man as I am and this is fasinating to me and give me the exictement to go a head!, I can't lose only win.

My whole " process " to be HERE it is not only a long one ( and not finished yet. ) but a learning one and it's full of many subjects and " detail " on those different subjects that maybe I need a " book " to explain it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Thank you Raul for your explanation, now I understand that you have reach the acceptable level before 5 years, while I'm almost in the final meter of the race. Using an all tube set-up is confusing. The quality but also the personality of each tube (even the regulators, not to mention the rectifiers) but especially in the gain stages & buffers are a whole world of difference. The transformers, the caps and most of all the resistors & the hook-up cable is another world to consider in conjunction with the previous of the tubes. It seems good to have this kind of multi-choices, but in reality it is time consuming, expensive and dangerous. Because in the process, you pass from many dissapointment steps that can direct you in a wrong path. It is a puzzle with countless pieces and sometimes looks like a problem with different credible solutions, but you can never be sure that you offer the best of them. All this effort must done of course without changing speakers, or cables, or anything on the source during the componentry choice. I know I'm closer now. I feel the vibe every time I push the 6 power switches ON, but I'm exausted my friend. And if my wife or my kids want to listen to some music, it is impossible to make it happen if I'm off the house. Do I regret it? Considering the time, effort, expense & dissapointments...Let me listening some more and I'll tell you NO!
Thank you my friend for your gift to inspire people like me
Come on Raul, you are investing in your new tonearm and other projects which I do understand. Maybe regarding the amps I might have a new idea - just an idea, psst - will not motivate you to leave your philosophy but life is changing all the time or are we becoming too old for rock`n roll to young to...

Best & Fun Only - Thuchan
That's why there is no new hardware in my system in more than 5 years past.

Raul.
Dear Geoch: +++++ " Of course as Raul have propably meant, we may try to finetune our items by changing some of their innards, (if I get it right) but not everyone has technical knowlege and soldering abilities to experiment with this and is not right to violate the warranty of a pricey "hi-end" amp or speaker. " +++++

my " fine tunning " approach goes " deeper " and beyond what you states.
Let me try to explain ( I hope I can do it in away you and other people could understand it. ) what I'm refering to:

when we mount a new cartridge ( and I mean new one. ) we make the overall set up with out real " fine tunning " because at least we have to wait for the cartridge suspension settle-down but after 20-40-100 ( whatever. ) hours then the cartridge is ready to start/begin the cartridge FT work and why I'm saying " start "?: because over more playing hours not only the cartridge will shows full to specs but we will be full in " synergy " with the cartridge quality performance level: we knew exactly how the cartridge performs and is in this very first moment when we really start the FT work with minute changes on VTA/SRA or VTF or Azymuth or load impedance/capacitance or...or......
This FT work is a FINAL work: the end.

For we can translate these FT work to the whole audio system first we need to have some audio/music system " estrategy " to define when the FT system work will start ( like the one Dlaloum has ):

++++ " My philosophy is to get each step in the chain as technically "right" as possible, so as to minimise the dependency on "synergy". " +++++

any one decide which one be his " audio system strategy FT approach " and the Threshold to start the audio system FT work.

When this happen then means that you already decide that each audio link in your system will lives inside the audio system almost " forever ".
This is that the audio links fulfill your audio expectatives/priorities on the whole audio system chain.

When you are there a change on hardware can't give you a better quality performance but only a different one because you already acieved your system " FT threshold".

It is here where the " serious " rewards will comes, rewards on quality performance level: almost inimaginable improvements.

If it's true that part of the FT work could be what you states is not necessary a must to do it instead what Thuchan touched on the subject always is welcome along: minute changes on speaker positions, minute changes on your seat position and what you use to seat it, a re-set of your room interactions, room temperature, etc, etc.

Btw, the meaning of the audio item Synergy in an audio system is a word ( synergy ) used by the AHEE ( Audio High End Establishment. ) to hide all the " imperfections " in a system or in a single audio item, example: you change a real better speaker cable in your system and things are that now you don't like what you heard it and decide to return to the old cables because you think that this one makes better synergy and IMHO this is un-true.

IMHO the real fact is that when a better audio item ( really better. ) goes in the system chain and we don't like what we heard is because that " new " audio item always tell you that something is wrong/hide somewhere that audio system and not that the " new intrusive " is not " up to the task ". Many times these new intrusives " undress " your system.

IMHO the word Synergy has a true audio meaning when we are talking of electrical system impedance loading through each audio link. THis electrical system impedance match IMHO is a must to have.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Regards, Raul, all. So, Axpona and then further south for two days at the tight infield road track at Daytona for SCCA (Sports Car Club of Am.) competition were really interesting. For those with an interest in such, a race prepared Subaru WRX shamed all other entries including numerous 'Vettes, Porches and BMW's. And, a certain vintage RX-7.

Returned to find an ADC mag. headshell from a succesful ebay transaction had arrived with a stylus berift Empire 8000 X/VE already mounted, an unexpected bonus. Found I already had an OEM 2000E stylus to fit. With the .3 x .7 elliptical it plays much like the Azden YM-P50VL without the the "VL"'s subtle hf finesse and speed. Bass is very solid with bottom-end transients well defined. Even at 300pF shunted cap. & 100k res. mids are warm, the Empire classic lushness to the point of near euphonia. Hopeing for a little more in the hf's.

Wondering if anyone knows the cartridge--- with a finer stylus (Shibata? .2 x .7 elliptical?) would the 8000 sound twice as good as the vaunted 4000D-111 ;-)?

Peace,
Dear Eckart,
Welcome to 'The Dark Side' :-)
The Empire 4000D/III is a fine cartridge with many likable traits IMHO.
There are also many other vintage MMs out there which bring other strengths to the table (pun intended).
There is a thought, sometimes voiced here, that those with SS gear seem to like MM/MI cartridges whilst those with tubed gear seem to prefer LOMCs?
With your highly refined tube systems, it will indeed be interesting to hear your further thoughts on the Empire when you have played it for awhile?
As you say......"Fun Only".
Cheers
Henry
Dear all, Finetuning is always a necessary method to improve combinations and lines of High-End units, e.g. rewiring of old school tonearms, isolation issues, electcrical issues and so on.

But sometimes you have to enter new fields and maybe also test new hardware. I did with the EMT JPA 66 phono stage. Thanks to Henry and Raul I got an Empire 4000 D/ III and having it adjused via the "finetuning" calibrations on the EMT I now know that this is a very serious contender for some MCs.

best & fun only - Thuchan
Raul,

I know I have been pressing you to retry the Astatic MF-100. However, I have done so because I was surprised by my own experimentation with it. Your response is brief and the quality of exploration is therefore obviously not as deep as it might have been.

If you get the opportunity/time, do try it with the lightest tonearm you can find. I think it might still surprise.

Happy listening

As always
Dear friends: A nice price for a very good performer:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nagaoka-MP-50-Phono-Cartridge-Stylus-Needle-MP50-/260772913226?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3cb746e04a#ht_1160wt_1139

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Hi David, congratulations for your heroic experiments.
I've found that this "unintended equalisation" extends to the time domain also, as well as in the freq response and this contributes to the final perceived tone of the mismatched components. So, we have to extend our search to matching the power amp with the actual x-over and speaker units also. I have experienced this very clearly when I had the Sonus Faber Guarneri together with Goldmund monoblocks/line pre/phono stage. It was a huge crusade for many of us here in Greece to figuring what was going on with these 2 brands/actual model units. We have found the best synergy in pairing : Guarneri/Jadis Defy 7 and Goldmund/Proac Response series. Some components due to a strictly unique & viciously personalised tuning at their design process, can drive the customer to build his whole system according their idiosyncrasies, but while this could arise either from some technical misunderstandings or perhaps from an intention by the mnf to build a "different, more sophisticated & exotic" component (I don't bite this!), it is always possible to find a matching partner that together they can reproduce glorious results. Unfortunately this "synergy" thing that we used to accept as a normal procedure when we choose our set-up, is the epitome of our corrupted times where the research is displaced by marketing & "objects of art". Me too, I firmly support your statement about "unintended equalisation" but since we were not manufactures to apply our findings, neither we can purchase everything we have an interest for, and make our bench and listening tests afterwards, we can only suggest to every enthusiast to stop reading the magazine's reviews and never proceed to buy a thing without prior listening in his home. Of course as Raul have propably meant, we may try to finetune our items by changing some of their innards, (if I get it right) but not everyone has technical knowlege and soldering abilities to experiment with this and is not right to violate the warranty of a pricey "hi-end" amp or speaker.
BTW have you ever try a current mode pre-pre with no caps in the signal path? At this configuration the cartridge is shelf biased as it is an integral part of the circuit. I'm curious for your results on this topology.
Regards
George
Dear Dlaloum: I can see your point, good.

++++ " My philosophy is to get each step in the chain as technically "right" as possible, so as to minimise the dependency on "synergy". (which I believe to be code for unintended equalisation in most cases!) " +++++

yes this is " all about ". IMHO a time-life work. I'm on this " stage " from some years now. Over the last times what I'm doing is fine tunning my audio system with out changing main hardware.

This fine tunning task is not only a " creative " one with good fun " charge " but IMHO the one that it is not only worth to do it ( a must I have to say. ) but where the quality performance rewards are beyond Nirvana beyond what we never imagine we can get/achieve.

It is an exciting stage because all we can or could find out is NEW: nothing that we already experienced elsewhere.

This fine tunning system stage IMHO define very clear/precise where you really are: are you still changing/buying hardware? if yes then IMHO you are not still on this almost final exciting stage and you are not because you are not satisfied with what you heard in your system : you are depending on that " synergy " that you very clear states.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Raul, 'Because this is very confusing'. You selected
this part from my possible 'fremeworks' to explain the behaviour of the 'ordinary people' , those who seek advise
in our forum. Ie from their perspective and not from the
perspective of the so called 'specialist' or'authority' as
I named them. I somehow think that you are medical doctor.
If so you can imagine a patient who is confronted with two
contradictory opinions of his doctors. This is what I meant
with 'this is very confusing'. To my mind this is very similar with our 'Dr. R; Dr.H and Dr.D'. Respectively 'specialist' for carts,'nude projects' and tonearms in the perception of the 'ordinary members', that is. We all want the best cardiologist for our heart, the best lung specialist for our lungs, etc.,etc. And this is what I mean with 'the division of labour'. In the actual world this may be 'wishful thinking' but I realy think that this is a smart strategy. I never heard anyone stating:'' I don't care what kind of doctor I will get.''
So the strange thing is that understand every single sentence you wrote from your perspective but this is not the answer I exspected because you abviously misundertood what I wanted to say. We in Europe thought for very long
time that 'authority' and 'truth' are the same. So Aristoteles 'ruled' for more than 2000 years, till Galileo.
Since Galileo we (I hope) are aware that those are different 'animals'.

Regards,
Hi Raul

I considered organising a calibrated Mic, and doing the whole end to end thing...

But room EQ is a whole different beast - and the associated psycho acoustics are critical. (so reflections delayed by a certain amount of time will not affect imaging, but do affect overall tone, etc...)

So I have left that aspect of the environment alone for now.
I do a substantial amount of listening using headphones - as these are a very critical tool, but also because I share my home, and do not have a specialised listening room!

At this stage all my measurements are in a simple loop that has Cartridge/TT/Phono Stage and ADC (Analogue to Digital Converter).
The ADC is connected via a 10m digital cable to my media PC, where I can then measure/analyse and manipulate the data.

I am absolutely certain that everything can be taken another notch up using Room EQ, but the amount of time and effort involved in this hobby is infinite and the amount of time I have available is strictly finite. (some time needs to be reserved for actual listening too....)

I have yet to do a full calibration test of the JLTI phono stage I am now using - I did this with my previous Creek stage... but so far have taken the JLTI on trust and reputation. At some point when I have an afternoon free I will test the JLTI (attenuated output from my DAC providing signal into the phono stage, output into my ADC for measurement)

My philosophy is to get each step in the chain as technically "right" as possible, so as to minimise the dependency on "synergy". (which I believe to be code for unintended equalisation in most cases!)

Once each part is as well set up as possible/viable - then final polishing is potentially provided using Digital EQ. (for room effects as well as for frequency response defects...)

Also once the signal goes digital it obviously needs to be kept that way until it comes out at the power amp....

bye for now

David
Dear Nandric: +++++ " Because this is
very confusing " +++++

do you know, mainly, why IMHO does not exist an audio mathematic model/tool that could give us precise answers that we are looking for in any audio subject?

because the first " task " is to list all the parameters/factors that has influence in direct or indirect way and not only this but its relationship in between.

do you know that other than temperature the air density on site/place could be one of those factors?

it is logic that when you, me or other person analyze some audio subject almost always we left many factors away/out because we did not knew about or because we can think are not important or we think has no influence.

Normally I like to put things in perspective, my perspective, that could be different from yours or other people because each one of us ignorance level is different. A forum like this permit that each one of us learn or at least confirm what each one of us thinked on an audio subject.

Nothing in audio is so simple as we want to think. Yes, it is not rocket science but the complexity comes for so many factors/parameters where any audio subject is sorrounded.

If you read the latest posts on the Downunder thread about the tonearm/cartridge protractor you can see/read " things " that with all respect has no commom sense or at least don't take in count all the variables: almost all the persons there thinks that in playbak ( dynamic ) what we are hearing depends in specific of the protractor accuracy on set up with out taking in count other variables that have influence.
I don't or did not posted about there because people could think that I want to put some " ice " in ( no drinks. ) the thread warm 's party mood and certainly this is not my attitude but to put things on perspective a different one. I don't want to " touch " about in this thread if I decide then I will post there.

Anyway, as I learn on audio subjects as my point of views change according.

I think that was Dgarretson who posted here ( to a question of mine. ) something like this:

" I change because I learned/grow-up. "

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Dlaloum: Good work again.

I'm with you in that both frequency extremes should not affect the midrange range when we be testing impedance/capacitance values: equilibrum could be the word here.

If I remember the 15SS has the same 20SS berylium cantilever and everything is similar on both cartridges but that the 20SS was hand-calibrated.
Well I just heard it ( three weeks ago. ) and I loaded with 400pf-450pf ( 300pf+cable capacitance. ) at my usual 100k on impedance mounted in the AT 1503MK3.

Now, I think that I have to measure the FR deviations that are arriving to my ears because according your calculations I can see taht achieve flat frequency is not an easy task but at the " end " what IMHO is important is what is arriving to my ears.

Now you really put me in some trouble because I need a first rate microphone ( that I don't have. ) and obviously the hardware/software tools to make it in very precise way.

I made measures time ago of my room/system response but nothing to accurate and this time I want to be accurate as the tools and my skills permit it.
Unfortunately I don't have the time to do it in the short time but this is a target to achieve.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Hi Raul

thank you for your response.

Let me first say that from a pure listening (the ears rule) perspective, my vintage Quad ESL57's fed from my Quad303's are among the sweetest speakers I have ever heard.
They do not extend far up or down - but the midrange is superb. I have also owned the 63's and 989's - so as a listener I am definitely of the religion that midrange comes first and damn the bass/treble if it affects the midrange.

Having said that - a certain stubborn perfectionist streak persists.... and Nirvana can only be achieved with perfectly linear response within the audible range... so the midrange must remain its beautiful self, and we need to refine, add, and do that which is required to complete the audio spectrum. (even if at my age I can no longer hear past 15k consciously.....)

Having recently received a stylus for my AT20SLa (ATN15ss)

I ran it through a measurement cycle (measured F/R using pink noise at 4 capacitances and 5 resistances - 20 combinations).

Then I take the data and plug it into an excel spreadsheet where I combine an electrical model, calibrated with the measured performance (to estimate the mechanical resonance) - and then interpolating from the measurements.
Using this I can then use excels "solver" to try out an infinite series of possible R/C values in a search for the lowest possible variance in level within a given frequency range.

So far my best results (numerical modeling - no listening involved... as I am trying to winnow the possibilities down to 2 or 3 for listening) - this table shows the total variance in db for each capacitance/R combination (so +/-1db = variance of 2... etc...)

VAR VAR VAR VAR VAR VAR
1) 20 - 20K Hz 8.76 8.88 7.81 8.63 7.81 16.38
1) 30 - 18k Hz 5.89 5.98 5.36 5.80 5.36 12.69
1) 100 - 15kHz 2.94 2.94 2.37 2.90 2.48 6.04
1) 700 - 15kHz 1.72 1.76 1.26 1.68 1.27 6.04
1) 1k - 15kHz 1.71 1.76 1.26 1.68 1.05 6.04
1) 50 - 13kHz 3.07 3.07 3.07 3.07 3.07 4.83
1) 50 - 15kHz 3.07 3.07 3.07 3.07 3.07 6.69
PF Tot 76 58 409 104 380 100
R Tot 34 36 27 33 26 97

At no stage (even with limited frequency range) does a numerical approach start to point the way to 100/100 (I have included the 100/100 values for reference - or to be precise the 100/97)

Also as I have mentioned before there is a low end hump goin from 100Hz to 700Hz with a peak of around 1db around 300Hz... so this is factored into all the above measures when including that frequency range. (so far this is common to all the MM/MI's I have measured)

Cantilever resonance on the ATN15ss peaks at 22.5kHz but its influence goes all the way back to 6kHz.
This is why getting the audible range flat seems to be best achieved with R <47k and C around 400pf.

What are other people's experiences with this cartridge?

(At 60pf/97kohm I measured +1.4db@10k, +5.5db@16k +9db@20k)

Is the issue perhaps that it has become fashionable to have a rising high end (in the style of many MC's)?
And perhaps those makers that have pursued that profile have been most successful.... (hence the expiry of Technics/Matsushita in the cartridge game?)

In my search for a combination that achieves a flat linear response - I appear to be swimming upstream against the flow of audiophilia!

bye for now

David
Dear Raul, As far as I know you was the first to mention
the similarity of our hobby with fashion. In some other thread I refered to the first MC cart wich coused the MC
'stile' : the Supex. Than we have also the Linn-LP-12 wich
coused the 'conviction' that belt-drive is superior to all
other kinds. There should be many more examples of the same
phenomenon. There are different 'frameworks' to explain such behaviour: 'leader-followers'; 'mass-psychology';
'inclination to belong to some group', 'division of labour
(the experts)'; 'novelty expectation', etc.
It should be obvious , it seems to me, that manufacturers
will follow whatever 'fashion' is actual. While all of those 'frameworks' make (some) sense my preference is for
'the division of labor'. We all are accommodated to this 'actual world' by experience and (consequently) our expectations as well as anticipations are 'preconditioned'
Ie 'the A knows much more about b than I do, so...'
In our forum this should be 'visible' by our 'authorities':
the R for the carts, the H for the 'nude projects', the T
for the tonearms, etc.
So we (the rest) don't like the situations in wich R contradicts H or T or the other way around. Because this is
very confusing. Ie 'confusing' in the context of division
of labour and expectatons entailed in it.
Regards,
Dear friends: Another Denon S1 source:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Denon-Audiophile-DLS1-DL-S1-Moving-Coil-Cartridge-/140536944203?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20b8a7964b#ht_1375wt_1139

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
somebody asked earlier what the differences between Audio Technica AT22/23 and AT24/25. I think that difference is in diamond. AT22/23 uses 0.12 mm square diamond with 0.2x0.7 elliptical cut and AT24/25 uses 0.08 mm diamond with 0.2x0.8 elliptical/line cut.
Dear Acman3: Due to my address error two packages were " losted somewhere in USA and in one of them comes the TK7, fortunately yesterday I found it and I think that next week I could put my hands on it and then I report about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Nandric: I applaud the David effort or any other person effort on almost any audio subject.

I'm not an expert on cartridges about how determine the cartridge " tone ", due that I'm only an amateur about it's complex for me to figure what is in reality happening. If my post does not reflect this then I confirm that applaud David effort and that for me is still more complex.

I would like and I think that all of you will appreciate if an expert could share with us his experiences and knowledge about. Yes, I'm thinking in J.Carr, who one else but him: thank you in advance.

Anyway, IMHO a cartridge is a set of sub-sets " systems ", I mean sub-set a cantilever/stylus, other cartridge suspension, other coil/motor , other cartridge body , etc, etc. and IMHO each sub-set has its own " weight " in the final cartridge " tone/voice ". I'm not saying it is eaxctly as I said and that's why we need the J.Carr knowledge on the whole subject.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Raul, You are somehow always 'balancing' between the
'incredible complexity' and 'symlicity'. The latter are
connected with general statements about all carts from the
60is as well as the (general) assumption that no or very
litlle progress is made since. So J.Carr, van den Hul, Jan
Allaerts, Lukatschek, etc. are selling old stuff in a new
package at best. But they all are experimenting with the 'old method' of trial and error with all kinds of materials: wire,magnets,alloy,styli,cantilevers,etc.,etc.
You own,if I am correct, some Allaerts cart(s). So you should know their technical specifications and I have never seen such specs. by any cart whatever. Are those irrelevant?
'Sciance' consist meanly also of this 'old method'. The reason is simple: without trying you get nowhere.
So I was glad to see that at least someone (David) made some efforts reg. cantilever materials. To me this is the only way . So in my philosophy we should encourage and praise him for the effort and not, like some philosopher, invent problems for the sake of argument only.
Regards,
Dear Dlaloum: Thank you for share with us your very interesting cartridge research.

IMHO the MM/MI cartridge " world " knows very little on several subjects as the one you mentioned or at least there is no specific information over the net. Whom have those kind of cartridge information could be the cartridge designers and maybe not either them.

There is no doubt that the cantiilever has a specific " weight " for the cartridge " tone/signature " along some other important cartridge factors by design.

The research you attemped is a hard task and very difficult that knowing " measures " on electrical/mechanical resonances we knew how the cartridge will " sound ". This is: the frequency response in an amp can't tell us almost nothing about its " tone ".

This " hard task " that depends by the cartridge " playback environment " ( how it's surrounded. ) makes " things " so complex that this is why no one really makes with a scientific " process " the whole research to predict not only the cartridge behavior but its precise playback " tone ". I could say that there are so many factors with direct and indirect influence in that subject and due to its relationship in between we could have hundreds of factors to control and to identify in a given mathematic model ( Nandric unfortunately things are not so easy as we want it to be. )

++++++ " Overall the effect that I am seeing from 100pf/100k is improved smoothness through the low to high midrange - followed by a level rise which varies depending on cantilever design (and cartridge inductance) " +++++

unfortunately I don't have the inductance value on my cartridges and I did not take its measure. What I take care is that any change in capacitance value does not affect that midrange frequency range in favor of the high frequency range.
With out the right tools ( other that our ears ) is difficult to stay " there ": to many variables and difficult too to know what in reality we are hearing: where resides the frequency deviations and how these deviations correlate with what we are hearing.

+++++ " To achieve something approximating a flat frequency response in many cases requires that a lower R load be used, and in some cases a high capacitance so that the electrical drop off in response is balanced by the mechanical resonant rise in response to achieve something close to a flat frequency response. " ++++++

several cartridges specs are 47K with 300pf-450pf. In no single case I readed lower than 47K as a manufacturer spec but I readed from audiophiles here ( I think Halcro and Dgarretson, can't be sure about. ) and in VE that report good results around 25K-30K even I tryed ( years ago ) 30K with no success but only by ear and with a lot less experience than today.

About your Technics example: I have on hand the frequency response chart of my 100CMK4 that shows flat response ( I mean flat dead flat with no deviation. ) to 20khz loaded at 50K with 100pf ( I want to assume: total capacitance. ). The cartridge bandwindt is: 5hz to 120khz.

Now if you see the Grace F9F information in VE you could see that the measures were taken at 100K with 80pf with a peak of 2.5/3.0 db at 30khz and flat to 50khz.

The Empire 4000D3 goes to 50khz loaded at 100k and 100pf ( I think Acutex and the Dimension 5 has the same behavior. ).

I own these cartridges and that " improved smoothness through the low to high midrange " you are talking about is there.

Yes, cantilever build material has a specific sound but the own cantilever design ( length, tapered or not, hollow or solid, how thin, etc, etc. ) contribute to that cartridge tone/color.

Thank you again.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Hello Raul, Did you get to listen to the Signet TK7su with and without the AT20ss? Any thoughts?

Danny
Audiofeil, please share your impressions when you can. I would also be very interested in knowing your impressions re the perceived output of the cartridge vs. the actual output spec (mV). The stated spec is .15 mV, which would put it in dangerous territory for my setup. In my experience some cartridges seem to output more (sometimes much more) than the rated spec, regardless of the groove velocity standard used to measure output. In my setup .2-.3 mV output is on the cusp of being inadequate.
Just ordered a DL-S1 from Comet for $509.

Wanna hear what all the buzz is about.
Dear David,
I agree with our friend Nandric.
Very interesting and valuable measurements and conclusions. I also hope you will expand thereupon?
Perhaps the Professor (Timeltel) will have some thoughts on your studies?
That is if he survives his race around Indianapolis?!
Best
Henry
Raul, glad to hear that you like the DL-S1 as well. I bought mine from Comet Supply for USD$525 delivered. Comet listed it as out-of-stock, but my sample arrived in 10 days.
Raul, I think there is a business called "Comet" in the US that is selling new DLS1 for less than $600. I thought I read that on Vinyl Asylum, where the DLS1 is also getting favorable mention, from Dave G, as well as from many others.
Dear Ct0517: +++++ " Is this in your opinion a good representative of a quality MM out there.... " ++++++

certainly IMHO it is but as good the Sonus Gold is there are better MM/MI cartridges The 20SS that you name it is one of them and right now you have the opportunity to buy the Sonus " big brother " to the Gold: the Dimension 5, this one you don't see it very often on sale ( this is the second time I saw it in the last 10 years!. ) and IMHO is the best Pritchard design ever ( former ADC designer and Sonus owner. ).

You can see it at Agon cartridge auctions.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.