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
I am in complete agreement with Nandric re the subjects of nature vs. nurture and of how we hear; with some qualifications.

I think that his use of Chinese Opera as an example of how nurture comes into play is a very good one; and one that I can relate to. Because of what I do for a living I have to (am forced to?) spend time listening to musical styles that would otherwise not interest me. In the case of Chinese Opera, and in spite of the fact that I am an avid opera fan in general, I had always found this music very difficult and, at best, grating to my aesthetic sensibilities. I would periodically have the opportunity to, reluctantly, listen to some of this music, and the only thing that kept me from running out of the room was the simple knowledge that there is value in all ethnic musics and that dislike of any one was usually a reflection of my lack of understanding of the culture. About ten years ago I had the opportunity to spend a few weeks in China. Well, after being immersed in the culture, eating the food food as it is meant to be, learning a little bit about its customs, and most importantly it's language (which has an important connection to the music of all cultures) the music suddenly took on a different meaning. I no longer feel the need to run out of the room.

Re the mechanics of "hearing": obviously we all have somewhat individual hearing apparatus. Individual, from the standpoint of having somewhat unique physical characteristics which will necessarily affect things like frequency response perception. But, all of our hearing mechanisms are ESSENTIALLY the same; albeit, with somewhat different sensitivities in specific areas. Most importantly, as concerns how this relates to music listening and audiophilia in general, those differences are irrelevant; assuming a reasonable amount of functionality, of course. And this is why using live music as a reference is so important; and is unfortunate how often it is dismissed. If my hearing has a deficiency (dip) in it's response at around 10k (for example), then that same deficiency will be there wether we are listening to our stereo or to a live performance. It follows then that if we relate what we hear to the live music experience, then those differences become irrelevant. IMO, of course.
Nandric, Your illogical responses are tedious, and I doubt if others are still interested. Looks like I opened a can of worms, but once opened there is little alternative but to deal with the mess.
*'I have refuted those statements' or 'those
statements are OBVIOUSLY fals' is not much of an argument.
Imagine one ear medical specialist in China. If every single Chinese has different hearing capability there would be no way to state any 'general rule or statement' about hearing there. To be true in your interpretation he would need to examine all Chinese before he can make any general statement about their hearing capability.*

1) I already refuted those statements in previous posts.
2) ALL (your word) Chinese do not have the same hearing capability, just as ALL of us do not hear the same. That does not mean there are no generalizations that can be made about hearing such as average hearing loss for a particular age group.

Regarding your more recent statement, just because you don't have cancer yet, doesn't mean you won't contract that disease if you continue smoking. Even if you quit you might be unfortunate and still get cancer because of previous smoking. There are often exceptions to a medical correlation such as smoking and cancer. That does not mean the correlation is false. Your mistake is misapplying the rules of logic, and smoking for 60 years. Hopefully, you quit, which should increase your prospect for greater longevity.
If you want to continue this conversation maybe you should send me an email.

Raul already posted about the 50ANV tracking ability, or lack of. How many hrs do you have on it? I suspect the compliance is too high for the weight, or the suspension needs a long time to loosen.
Regards
Dear Fleib, From your use of the expression 'logical' it follows that you are totaly innocente of any logical knowledge. You probable never heard about quantification
logic. This follows from your comment about smoking and cancer. I wrote that 'according to quantification logic' my case would refute the causal connection made by medical
researchers. But they use statistical not logical evidence. What is 'statisticaly significant' is, uh, important for them not the reasoning like 'for all x Fx&Gx'from quantification logic. That is to say that each member of the given set satisfy the conditions Fx & Gx. If just one member does not satisfy those conditions then the whole statement (aka universal statement) is false. In our ordinary language this kind of reasoning is also not used.
With 'all' people mean 'most' , 'what is usualy the case','exceptions confirm the rule' etc. Your further 'arguments' that I still can get cancer probable even after my death is pathetic. So because you assume, according to your 'logic', that I deny this medical evedice you add on to your own further 'arguments' without realization that I deed not deny the medical evidence at all. The context was 'what is usualy the case', the 'normal hearing capability', etc. You are so focused on 'hearing differences' that you lost my main point (nurture versus nature) which Frogman had no difficulty at all to recognize . Obviously because he knows what I was talking about while you missed the whole point.

Regards,

Dear Nandric, We're in agreement about your nurture vs nature thesis, no problem with that, unfortunately that's not what I was addressing. In English, the use of the plain language word "all", is a precise and distinct quantifier from the word "most". This is not a nuance of semantics, the words have different meanings. In rereading your posts I see that we're probably in basic agreement about hearing differences, but the application of formal logic to a plain language discourse serves to complicate misunderstanding. As you say, there is no counterpart for the inverted A (all), that means most.

I've previously stated that sometimes I misunderstand what Raul is saying, just as you misunderstood what I was saying about smoking. The notion of contracting cancer after death might be funny if the subject matter wasn't so tragic. I apologise for misunderstanding what you meant in any of the disputed statements. It's obvious to me that the tower of Babel is responsible for the confusion. Let this be the last of it.
Regards,
DGOB,

All I am suggesting is that if you enjoy the Acutex M420 and what it is doing there is more to to be heard. In my system this cart gets driven to clipping very quickly. The specd output of 3.2Mv is sounding more like 7Mv. In a similar fashion amplifier tube 5751 is 30% the gain of a normal 12AX7 (yet was one of Stevie Ray Vaughn's favorite tubes) and allows you to hear other components colorations more clearly. If you find yourself hamfisted at the soldering iron or non parlay DIY here is another even less expensive solution allowing you to lower the noise floor, get a little more headroom and hear more of what this M420 has to offer:

http://www.goldenjacks.com/

-20db of gain at the volume pots.
Dear Indieroehre: No, we can get and can't hear " 100% neutrality " ( not even in a master tape ), this is only a " perfect target ".

What I went to explain is that ( everything the same ) when we achieve: accuracy, low/cero distortions and neutrality what we will hear will like it.

A very good experience that IMHO we need to have is to attend at a recording studio and live the whole recording experience, this is perhaps the more learning experience we can have after the live music experiences.
This helps a lot to understand what we are hearing in our home audio system.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Hi friends and special Nandric as owner of Glanz mf series. I have a nos Glanz 31l here. I hear only a quiet tone from both sides. I changed cables , headshells, tonearms, put it on several TT's, I have no idea. I set in the stylus till it snapped. what else can I do. stylus ist top. I have no idea anymore. I have no other Glanz mf body or astatic to check it. at the part where stylus get contact to body, there is something like aluminium folia. it is pushed back a little bit, there I see the end of the copper wire. I think this is not normal. as someone tried to put replacement from front instead of from above and pushed the material away. I can send pics. If someone wants to help me for example with a picture from the contact area please email to jekyll2000@web.de

regards. Knut
Dear Frogman,

".....If my hearing has a deficiency (dip) in it's response at around 10k (for example), then that same deficiency will be there wether we are listening to our stereo or to a live performance. It follows then that if we relate what we hear to the live music experience, then those differences become irrelevant. IMO, of course."

Bingo!

In addition...I can no longer cite the text where I first read this, but in the end human hearing is considered a psychological phenomenon because we must interpret what we hear. Hence, in the end our auditory perceptions are subjective, not absolute.

Jim
Travbrow , Sometimes refinement can definitely be overrated, but if you get a chance to hear the Acutex 315/320, do so. All the boogy of the 312 plus added texture.

Tube, you rebel. :-)
Dear Raul, I was reading above your remarks about the B&O MMC1 and 2. I own an MMC1. I am deep in thought about ways in which to strengthen its structure, especially when used in a conventional headshell. I think we are only able retrieve 60% to 80% of what those cartridges (and the MMC20CL) could really do, were it not for the contraptions used to mount them in a headshell. Too many connectors, too little rigidity. Do you have any ideas?
Hi Acman 3, The designer/producer of this frightening linear 'Terminator' bought from me the Acutex 420 as well the 312. He was impressed with both. The 312 can still be get by the same Italian seller btw.
Dear Lew, Axel told me that he was (former) dealer for the
B&O carts and 'cose'still has some parts in his stock. But
according to him those mounts are difficult to get and are
expensive. As far as I know Peter Ledermann produce them
and probable can do something for you. He need to solve the
same problem, I would think, by his 'recreations' of the MMC series.

Regards,
Dean man, Frege struggled his whole life against psychologism in logic ( back than 'the art of reasoning') and stated that everyone has his own pain while nobody can
feel the pain of one other. Wittgenstein reposted : than we can't talk about pain with each other. Not to mention medical profession (Lew I have pain in my soul). Ergo: we
can't talk about music, carts, or whatever? But what then with Frogman's culture and 'my' nurture?
Dear Indieroehre, Alas I do not own the whole Glanz series.
Well the Glanz 5, 31 l and 31 E. I also bought the stylus
for the Astatic MF 300 which will fit all the 'corpuses'
(thanks Lew) but is meant for the MF 300 or Glanz 31 E.
I very recently made some 'barter transaction' with my
comrade Don such that for his Precept 220 without
stylus I promissed to him the 'whole Ganz 31E' with the
mentioned MF stylus as added offer. He may have more
of those styli very soon but I am not allowed to say how.
Anyway you have a possible solution for your problem.
I know that Lew will advice against but you can
check your cart with a cheap digital Voltmeter.
If the coils are ok the only thing you need is a new stylus
(from Don). Don I hope you will not think of me as a traitor?

Regards,
Dear Dean_man,

at first I was mystified by your, seemingly, contradictory comments. You seemed to be agreeing with my premise; then, in your second paragraph contradicted it. I realize now that you misinterpreted what I said. Please correct me if not the case.

When I said that "those differences become irrelevant", I referred to the differences between the hearing capabilities or sensitivities of various listeners; not, the differences between the sound of our stereos and of live music. My point is simply that the more one relates what we hear from our stereos to the sound of live, the LESS subjective our auditory experiences become.

I have said it many times, and IMO it is not a question of better/worse or have to/don't have to: It is fine to keep all of these discussions about the sound of our precious stereos to simply what it is we prefer and like the most. But, as soon as we open that huge can-o-worms by making comments about how this or that is better, is more or less accurate, etc., we have to follow it by asking "compared to what?". The sound of live is the only valid reference. Yes, not all live sound is the same. But, the gulf between the sound of live and that of the best stereos is so huge, and there are so many and important common threads within all the varieties of live sound that it remains the only reference. No, I don't believe it is subjective. Now, being able to express ourselves and describe in a way that others can relate to is another matter altogether.
Hi Tubed1,

Massive thanks for the feedback. I'll read and consider the suggestions properly as soon as I have a chance (pressed for time at the moment). I really look forward to comprehending and attempting the changes.

As always...
Dear Frogman, It is called 'mental map' or 'orientation'
but there are huge disatvantages against concepts and their 'opposite' construction by our mental orientation. So we qaurell about 'subjective' versus 'objective'; 'materialistic' versus 'idealistic' points of view. But concepts are substituted for sentences
or statements or propositions as the basic units for any logical, sematical or linqustic investigation or analysis.
Consider conjunction between sentences or propositions. Without any negation of individual psychology, preferences or whatever individual, we have our native language, culture, rules of behaviour, own poets, writers, warriors, heros and even the national footbal representation of which we all are assumed to be proud. So obviously there is
no cotradiction between our 'subjective part' and our collective cultural, etc, part.I.e, it is not one OR the other as by concepts but one AND the other as by the conjunction of sentences.

Regards,

Nandric,
You are a good and thoughtful comrade. You did not reveal my soon to acquire styli source so you are still held in high regard. I will know soon if I am rewarded with riches.
If I do, I will contact Indieroehre.
Regards
Don
Dear Nicola,
Thank you for your comment about SoundSmith. But perhaps you misunderstood me. I have all the proper B&O hardware to mount my MMC1 in a conventional headshell. My lament is that said hardware "sucks", as Frege might have put it, if he were ever to have made a definitive statement. There are too many electrical contacts in the signal path, and the mounting components are made of, shall we say, cheap plastic. In the modern era of titanium-bodied cartridges and the like, the B&O hardware amounts to a joke. So far as I know, Mr. Ledermann can supply a replacement piece (when he has them) for the B&O adapter (for $50!!!!), but I don't think it is any more rigid than the original. What's needed is a complete re-thinking of the adapter design and then to re-make it of truly rigid non-resonant materials.
Hi Nandric,

"Ergo: we can't talk about music, carts, or whatever? ?"

Of course we can talk about all of those things and exchange points of view and experiences and opinions!

In adding to the post by Frogman I was simply trying to point out (and apparently not as successfully as I would have liked), that human hearing is by its nature an interpreted and subjective thing.

No hidden meaning intended!
Dear Frogman,

"...having somewhat unique physical characteristics which will necessarily affect things like frequency response perception."

And,

"...Most importantly, as concerns how this relates to music listening and audiophilia in general, those differences are irrelevant; assuming a reasonable amount of functionality, of course. "

I was agreeing with you, not trying to start a fuss :)
Indieroehre,

There is a Astatic MF300 up for bid on ebay. It is my understanding that the Glanz and the Astatic line of cartridges were the same. It sounds like from your description, that you have a good stylus but need a body. With the 300 body,you will give up a couple of db's of separation which I doubt you would even notice. Other than that, the spec. sheet for the entire line of Glanz (or Astatic), is the same. This statement is based on page 11 & 12 (specification pages), of the manual that can be found on Vinylengine, Glanz MF Series instruction/owners manual download.
Regards,
Don
Dear Nandric, yes I measured it. Zero. Coils are dead. if you have a mfg body you don't need please let me know. Thanks. Regards. Knut
Indieroehre,

While on the Vinylenginge web site, also look up Astatic MF 200 instruction/owner manual download. You might laugh when you start to read and notice the wording and pictures in the Astatic manual is the same as what is in the Glanz manual that you just read. Do yourself a favor and get the MF 300. Put your stylus on it and just enjoy the fact your Glanz is back!
Regards,
Don
Dear Dean man, The statement after 'Ergo' was the conclusion by Wittgenstein from Frege's thesis. I assume on the contrary that we already enjoy our sharing of information , individual experiences and opininions. This however does not imply consensus about individual valuations of whatever. And we are assumed to share the same hobby which, uh, imply some kind of 'common love affair'. The case with Wagner, Lew and me is the 'exception which confirms the rule'? I would think that we in the West have so much choice among composers and music kinds that we are so 'spoilt' that we too easilly dismis some composers or music kinds. As Frogman discovered in China one should be cereful with his own prejudice. BTW Lew is much more influenced by Twain then his mother regarding Wagner (grin). I alas forget his quotation of Twain.

Regards,
Frogman, no prolem st all. Thank you for making those important points about perception.

Regards,
Jim
Dear comrade & Indieroehre, One of the problems by such huge thread is how to find the earlier post. The advantage however is that one can post the same answer again. As I already posted 'somewhere' in this thread the Astatic and Glanz were 'simple' importers suggesting by their brand name to be more than that. Mitachi Corp. from Japan, the inventor of the Moving Flux (MF)technique (or technology?) produced the same carts for both. The so called 'generator' and body are the same but I compared only few of them. So I am sure that Astatic MF 100,200 and 300 as well as the Glanz 71,51 and 31 have the same generator and body. The difference is between styli caused by what Astatic and Glanz ordered by Mitachi. So while MF 100 and 200 got Shibata stylus and MF 300 Elliptical, by Glanz there was choice between line contact and elliptical for all mentioned models. I and Vetterone were not able to hear any difference between MF 200 (Raul's former darling) and Glanz 31 L (Glanz thread , owned by Dgob).
On ebay however the difference can be huge. I sold my MF 200 for $375 while I got the Glanz 31 L (from Italy !!) for 40 euro. This may be called the 'force of knowing'. So dear Indieoehre you will understand my reluctance to say if my Glanz 31 L is for sell(grin). I think that I was already very kind for my comrade but such conduct can lead by repetition to Cyprus scenario( grin). BTW Raul had a very strong inclination to deny my findings and that is why WE in Holland say: 'love makes one blind'.

Regards,
Dear Nandric: IMHO no one can deny your findings, what your ears perceive is what is mperceived. What any one can is to be in disagrenment with you.

Now, that again we are talking of Astatic I have to test that " marvelous " and unique MF 2000 that because the Precept, the ANV, the Pioneer 550, the X-1, the Phoenix and the like I did not give the time that Iknow the MF 2000 deserves. I will try to do it by this weekend.

In theory the Astatic MF-2000 is the " holy grail " of all Astatic/Glanz cartridges, we will see.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear griffithds: I made a very brief test with that Mission Solitaire and if I remember did not like it what I heard but fact is that I never gave it the time and fine tunning any cartridge deserves, some time in the future I will try again.

I remember that I bought a Jico SAS stylus replacement that in theory fits that Mission, the Sumiko Pearl, the Garrot one and I think the Grace F9 but I never tested any thing about.

I would like to hear your experiences with the Solitaire ( when you have it. ) that is a rare cartridge finding ( and for that bargain price it almost does not matters how the cartridge performs. ), we don't see it often on ebay.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
If the winner of that eBay´s JVC X-1 is an Agoner please tell us its performance quality ?
Raul, Your wooden clamp improves sound with your mat with the same material but is too light to flatten concave records. My ORACLE clamp does not improve sound with the Reso-Mat but weights 233 grams and flattens concave records. I understand that many Reso owners (probably all) agree with me.
As always, thank you both.
Dear Harold-no-the-barrel: I don't use the lightly clamp to flatten records but only to change the resonance frequency in the laquer/stylus/mat damping it.

I don't know the original X-1 MK1 but my X-1 with MK2 stylus is outstanding and thios could be a misunderstood: it is overwhelming in any single cartridge performance characteristic. Btw, I paid for that MK2 stylus in NOS condition: 300.00 Euros and don't disapoint me in anyway. I'm still in the fine tunning steps because I want to " fix "/achieve something I " know " I can find out.

I will compare against the MK1 stylus version performance when arrive this second X-1 sample from UK. So stay tunned.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Don, dear Nandric, thank you for so much help in my situation. I think you felt my sadness. It was my third try with Glanz. All three came with a damage. Two went back to seller. This one I keep because of nos stylus. Now I have hope again to find Glanz body. I'll only have to wait. But to give up? No. So thanks again. Another good reason to be in this community.regards. Knut
Dear friends, meanwhile I test an old guest here. The B&O SP-12 with elliptical tip. It is in the same league as the Precept pc220. It involves hole body, has full bass management, fantastic midrange, brutal dynamics and perfect timing. I feel I draw Raul out with my statement. " you have to check your system and so on".
But just a moment. Amps are the same but Precept plays in Mission tonearm with Garrard 401, B&O on TT-71 with 7045. All cartridges I mounted on the Jvc combination played from this time in first division. So I'll will change the Precept over to the JVC. But I wait for wooden headshell. I will tell you if Precept beats the B&O. Then I also have the Pc440 stylus still in its box. But until then SP-12 is my new champion. Regards.
Dear Raul, You remember Dgob's obsesion with those Glanz 5
and 7? His Glanz thread was the most remarcable in our
forum; all question asked and all answers were from one and
the same person. He wrote a kind of poems for both like a
young writer not able to chose between Silvia and Maria.
It could be the case that your MF 2500 is a version of those
but without the headshell. Like your beloved Technics
205 mk 4 which was also made in both versions?

Regards,
Indieroehre,

There is only one bid on the Glanz. I will assume that the bid is yours. I do not want to tell you how to bid, but I will say this, ask yourself "just how bad" to you want that Glanz. Then enter your highest bid amount accordingly.
Regards, and good luck!
Don
Nandric: No, it is not. The MF-2500 specs are diferent and the builded year(s) was before. Seems to me this 2500 is " unique " in the Astatic line.

Btw, the difference for the better is bigger that what you think with the stand alone cartridges against the performance with the integrated headshells " brothers ", no doubt about and please don't insist about.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Indieroehre: I own samples of some B6O series cartridge models but no one from the oldest one SP you are experienced. I always was tempted to buy one and never did it, it is something that now that you mentioned maybe is time to do it.

I have a lot of respect for the B&O designs: first rate ones.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
I'm fortunate enough to own a Technics EPC-U205CMK3 cartridge (the variant for normal headshell mounting). I simply love & adore this wonderful little MM cartridge. I also own 2 highly rated MC cartridges - Denon DL-304 & Ortofon MC Jubilee (used via CineMag CMQEE-3440a SUT) but to these ears the EPC205 is simply better and a more satisfying listen.

It has been fitted with the superb SAS stylus from JICO Japan. How nice a company like this exists. I can't say for sure but I feel pretty certain that this EPC205/Jico combo can't be bettered by todays best MM offerings either (2M Black, MP500 etc.). So I'm happy to say that I've found my cartridge for the future.

It's mounted in a complete SL-1000MkII package - SP-10MkII drive & EPA-100 arm (even with the original headshell) in lovely and heavy "obsidian" plinth. Together with the cartridge this is all complete and original 1978 Technics package (apart from the stylus obviously).

The MC cartridges may be more "hi-fi" in some ways but they destract and dismantle the music and once the Technics MM is fitted again everything just falls into place and the ears and brain can relax again and enjoy the music.

Just wanted to share my thoughts. :)
Krenzler, thanks for mentioning you Technics EPC-u205cmk3 with the Jico SAS. I never liked my Mk3 with the Jico, so maybe there is a problem with my stylus. I do love the 205mk3 with it's stock stylus. What resistance are you listening at ? I always found the MK3 with Jico sas to be to bright sounding, but may try another, just to get the technics working again.
Dear Raul, You change the resonance frequency of the mat/vinyl/cart combination to achieve better sound to please your taste, correct me if I´m wrong.

I think differently: I do not want to change anything in frequency response & dynamic response. In fact I have never wanted to a hear sound that pleases me. I want to know the real sound that lurks deep in the groove. The real signal and nothing is more interesting, don´t you think too. I just want to get rid of the resonances that reflect from vinyl back to cartridge. Oh yes they always do, unfortunately.
The Reso-Mat does exactly that: it does not change any response, it does not emphasis nor diminish the signal from record. And that is the wonder of Vic´s Reso-Mat: it does not change the signal itself at all but allows resonances vanish into air and not reflect back to cart. Most things in mechanics are simple, also this.
I have posted this earlier: enter the Reso-Mat and the amouth of quantity & quality in vinyl play is breathtaking: no other tweak in 25+ years has been so "colossal". Not even close.
This revolutionary idea from the swinging 1960´s the Transcriptors platter, its modern implementation the Reso-Mat is the most important invention in vinyl play after the direct drive, IMHO.
That why I call the maker Vic the Magician. He is the real genius in modern research & deveploment in our beloved business. One of the very very few.
And Poul Ladegaar, the inventor of modern tangential air bearing tonearm. Of course.

I can hardly wait for your report of the JVC X-1.

As always, thank you.
Dear Don, in the moment I have no cart in my watchlist. I wait for the one right Glanz moment. I just work on diy wood headshell and try not think of Glanz cartridges whole day. But it is not easy to keep relaxed. Regards
Dear Raul, imho from older production only B&o SP-12 is worth a try. Then of course 6000, mc20en, cl , MMC1/2. Regards
Hi Acman3.

I've never heard the original stylus so I can't compare. My only option for the future will be the SAS stylus. But I don't find it bright in any way - not in my setup.

It's loaded at standard 47k ohm so nothing out of the ordinary there. Could it be perhaps that your overall capacitive loading is higher (bringing resonance down into audible frequency)? My Graham Slee Reflex phono is supposedly at 100pF and together with the arm cable my guess is somewhere not far from (Technics max recommended) 200pF altogether.

The EPC205 has relatively low internal inductance of 240mH - not as low as the Grados but lower than most MMs at the 500mH mark (and certainly the 2M Black which is at 630mH).

http://www.hagtech.com/loading.html

http://translate.google.dk/translate?sl=ja&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=da&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Faudio-heritage.jp%2FTECHNICS%2Fetc%2Fepc-205cmk3.html

My speakers are Tannoy 15" Monitor Golds (from the 60's) in big hulking 9 cubic feet Lockwood Major cabinets. These will certainly not be as bright and "spotlit" sounding as many modern more "hi-fi" sounding slim speakers. Could be a factor too?
Dear Krenzler: Yes, that Technics 205MK3 is really good and the MK4 even better. Its overall performance is very near the EPC 100CMK4. Lucky you own that 205.

I never tested with the Jico/SAS stylus, good that you have success with because I read it in other forums where some persons ( as Acman3 ) were not so lucky with where other are very satisfied like you. Is dificult to say why those differences about.

++++ " The MC cartridges may be more "hi-fi" in some ways but they destract and dismantle the music and once the Technics MM is fitted again everything just falls into place and the ears and brain can relax again and enjoy the music. " +++++

that's an MM/MI characteristic but the problem IMHO is not that the LOMC " maybe more hi-fi " but that those cartridges are a lot more demanding with some " extreme " needs that are not easy accomplish it by tonearms/phono stages and when those LOMC cartridges needs are not fulfilled then we could think are in the hi-fi side and maybe that's what we could here but the culprit IMHO does not came/comes from the cartridge it self but for what is surrounded under playback.

The LOMC alternative is very good too and as the MM/MI one has its own demands that we have to fulfil for the cartridges can shows at its best.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Acman3: +++++ " just to get the technics working again... " +++++

that means the Technics stylus is out of work?, if it's in this way maybe could be a good option too to re-tip it additional to give more playback time to your JICO/SAS.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Mission Solitaire, (Raul, per your request)

I scored 2 cartridges that week. The Mission Solitaire ($45), and a Nagaoka MP11 Boron ($41). There is know doubt, the Nagaoka is a winner! The Mission, well, I'm not so sure.
First, I also own the Garrott P77, the Grace F9e and the Jico SAS stylus that you (Raul), mentioned in your post above. The Jico SAS does fit into the Grace but the shaft is too long. Almost double in length when compared to the Grace. It is also too long for the Mission in addition to being to big in diameter. But in the Garrott, well both fit and performance are amazing. Transforms the Garrott into what reminds me of the AT 155LC.
As far as the Mission Solitaire, I ended up setting the tracking force at 1.9 grams with the VTA flat. I know absolutely nothing about the Mission Solitaire, so everything I will say will be based only on what I'm hearing. It seems to be a great tracker, with no problem with the dreaded "sssss" or inner groove distortions. What brothers me is that the sparkle seems to be gone from all performances. The high frequencies are there but the sparkling overtones are not. I tried it in both my main full range floor standing speakers and my mini-monitors, with and without the sub. I was not that fond of the Mission in the main system. The cartridge came across as if I had an equalizer in the system and had applied a little bass boost while also rolling off the upper frequencies. The cartridge sounded best with the mini-monitors (without the sub woofer), even though it still had the rolled off sparkle of the high frequencies. It was a more balance sound with the roll off being at both extremes. If I had to compare it to some other cartridge, it would be a Shure M91ED, or even a Denon 103R. Just a good middle of the road cartridge. The words "work horse" comes to mind. It does have great pace and rhythm though (that boogie factor). I wondered if perhaps the real problem isn't with this cartridge, but just that I have spent to much time lately with really great cartridges . The Precept 220/550ML, the ADC ZLM, AT180ooc, Signet TK10ML, Technics U205C MK4. The Mission Solitaire just isn't at that level. After spending some time listening to several records, it really does start to sound good though. It kind of grows on you. It's all what you get use to I guess.
I know I have used the word rolled-off but in addition, there's more to it than that. It's more in line with what you would hear with the Denon 103's. The Denon's conical stylus glosses over the high fequencies thereby eliminating some of that sparkle.
Considering the performance level that I had been comparing the Mission to, I decided to un-mount 3 of the 5 cartridges (I only have 5 arm wands), and in their place, mount a Pickering XV-15/750E, a Ortofon OM20 super, and a Grado G1+/8MZ. I wanted to see how the Mission would compare at this lower performance level.
I was rather surprised at how similar the Mission sounds to them from about mid-range down. Going the other way, mid-range thou the high frequencies, the Mission just falls flat. There seems to be a gentle slope from about 10K all the way out to what ever. It's just not as refined/detailed as the Ortofon, Pickering, or the Grado. So where does that leave the Mission Solitaire? If I had to rate the last four cartridges in a 1 to 4 comparison, it would be 1) the Pickering, 2) the Ortofon, 3) the Grado, and 4) the Mission Solitaire. I detect slight mid-range distortion (lack of clarity), with the Mission that is just not there with the other 3 cartridges. I'm not talking about tracking distortions, but distortions of resolution. I thought it just might be a worn stylus on the Mission, I did spend some time looking at its stylus under a hand held 60X microscope. At that level, I could see nothing that would make me suspect a worn stylus. The stylus was quite clean, the cantilever was straight, and the suspension is in excellent shape. The other 3 are known to have low hour usage, so given the condition of the stylus and the suspension, leads me to believe perhaps low hours are also on the Mission. The cartridge strikes me as a above average entry level cartridge rather than a mid-level cartridge in need of a stylus replacement. I then went looking in my arsenal for something even of a lower performance level. What I found was the ADC QLM 32 MKIII. After comparing those two, well, the Mission still comes in 2nd place.
The Mission Solitaire is a great cartridge for what I paid for it ($45), but I doubt if it will ever find its way back mounted on one of my arm wands. I own far to many other cartridges that I would rather spend time with. This is one of those cartridges that's from our past, and should remain there!
Regards,
Don
Dear Don , I also owned the soiltaire. I tried to use the same stylii as you did. The did not fit into the Mission . So I don't believe the Grace, Garrott, Mission generators are the same. This statement we can find in other forum. So what, Mission solitaire stayed two weeks, for me it has nothing I want from a good cartridge. So I sold it. But at same time I bought a Nagaoka MP11boron as you did. With my Schick tonearm is sounds fantastic. Perfect with this high mass arm. Fine at low end, superb HF, magic voice performance. The Stilton MP11 boron betters it because of better material for the body. And Stilton used a special 3-point connection for stylus holder to cartridge body. Also worth to look for. Regards. Knut
Wikipedia knows nothing about Poul Ladegaard ! What a shame !
Well, nothing new really. This is not the first time when world ignores its true pioneers and intellectuals... and certainly not the last.

If I had better writing skills I would write a poem about Poul the Inventor.

Nice holidays to all