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
Guess what. I don't hate digital, and I too just purchased a new device, an Oppo BDP105. I bought it to replace my highly tweaked Sony SCD777ES, which I have owned for a decade. But, alas, the Sony developed a fault that no one can fix. The Oppo was a "compromise" choice, because I could not figure out how to wade through all the baloney on the internet these days surrounding digital components. I figure that if I don't like it for audio, I still have one of the world's best DVD and BlueRay players for video. I've listened to it with standard RBCD, and so far I like it very much. It allows direct access to its very high quality internal DAC via USB, so I plan to connect to my Mac laptop and test hi-rez downloads, which should be fantastic. But, Raul, the difference between RBCD via the Oppo and a top quality LP via a great cartridge, tonearm, and turntable, is not in bandwidth, distortion, noise floor. Obviously, digital kills vinyl on all of those measurable criteria. But vinyl has an elusive quality of "real life", for want of a better phrase, that I have not so far heard from digital. Also, vinyl can transmit very low level ambient cues that are sometimes lost in digital. I may change my mind when I do get finally to hear hi-rez computer downloads into the Oppo DAC. One should always keep an open mind.

The Sony has been broken for so long that I cannot really say for sure that I remember how it sounded, but I venture to guess that the Oppo on RBCD is just as good if not better.

By the way, I am less than 80 years old.
Dear Lewm: If I remember the Oppo comes with the SABRE 32bit DA>C so it has to performs very good.

Now please buy the Gladiator LP and the old Gladiator CD and compare it and I'm sure you will understand in better way what I'm talking about because I'm talking too o0f " real life ": what if not?, I'm talking of " live music/even ".

Now, not all RBCD sounds good, probably more are mediocre than good ones recordings.

The OPPO as my Denon are universal players and maybe you could have the opportunity to test a DVDA, please do it because IMHO this format is supeior overall to the LP experience.

I like to compare digital/analog first than all not thinking on all the effort/work/money that I already put on my analog system and not thinking on all the analog software I own. I like to make digital/analog comparisons with out all those analog baggage that is so weighty that could interfer with my sane judgements.

I really try to be unbiased about, like some one that never heard it any of those two mediums but for the first time.

Some of you could think that I'm not hearing first rate analog quality performance but I can tell you that at least I'm hearing very good analog quality level performance tthrough my system and IMHO I'm sure of that because when I swtich to digital I hear the digital superiority changing/re-set nothing in the whole system set up when years ago I had to make some re-set in the system set up to " enjoy " digital, not today.

Now, it's my take that in a home audio system the main target is try to achieve the highest bass management on the source medium. I worked hard to acomplish it and still working on.
Well, in this sole regards the analog source experience can't even the digital one. That " real life " you are refering when we talk on bass management the analog source is far away from the real life than its digital counterpart.

We are talking here of definition, transparency, pitch, dynamics, transients handling, power, quality and quantity of that bass and everything with lowest distortions that contaminate the less the audio overall signal than the analog experience.

Lewm, maybe you can try this now that you have the " latest " digital techynology. Let me explain: in that TW thread that you are participating I posted that to prove our each one reaction/sensitivity to tiny speed changes ( not fluctuations but different but constant speed changes, example: 33.37 to 33.39 rpm. ) we try for a week to listen not to 33.33 but 33.39 ( the ones with a pitch control TT can do it ) and after that week listen again to that 33.33 rpm and tell now what you liked more: after that week.
Well, listen for a whole week to the best digital format you have access and after that week compare the same digital recording to the LP recording and then come back here and share your experience.

Please don't argue about but better than that some time in your future try it. The only thing you can lose is one week of your time but you really don't lose nothing but I'm sure you will learn " something ".

Don't misunderstood: I still support the analog experience but I support too the digital one for different well gained reasons.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lewm: Last night I was " disecting " some analog/digital recordings and ( at least in the ones I heard. ) in all of them digital beats its analog counterpart.

Foreigner 4: I have the LP, CD and DVDA and both LP and CD are a caricature of the great DVDA recording: you really never heard Lou Graham at its best as in this DVDA, this guy voice really shine: some people said that Lou only knows shout but can't sing, well in Foreigner 4 DVDA I would like that those Lou's detractors try to " shout " as Graham did it: WOW!

Btw, this recording showed not if M.Jones is a great guyitarist because IMHO it's not but a great composer alond LG.

Take G.Benson Breezin that's a great Benson recording. I own the original pressing and the OMR from Mobile Fidelity and again the DVDA recording beats both LPs with " real life " sounds.

I have the Concord label original LP and re-release from analog masters LP of LA4 ( Just friends: Almeida, Brown, Hamilton and Shank. ): there is no analog contest, the DVDA is clearly a superior source.

REM: Losing my religion track, three formats: LP, CD and DVDA. Even that the recording in all formats is not the best out there the DVDA one still at the top.

Do you like or remember: Donald Fagen?, well Steely Dan LP,CD and DVDA and you know what the DVDA beats the other formats again.

I have some CD-like digital recordings made it by Classic Records Label advertized as: " master tape sound " 24/96 DAD.
I took one of them that happen I have a today audiophile LP re-release: Rachmaninoff Symphonic Dances with the Dallas Symphony Orchestra. Both recordings: LP and DVDA are good ones but ( I think ) due to the bass content on the recording the >DVDA transmit in deepest way the music emotions. Here the LP recording is near the DAD one but still behind it.

I don't know if my Denon player is something especial because I have nop other digital today player at hand but even the DTS/HDS digital recording of Santana/Abraxas beats the LP recording.

What can I say with those overwhelming
evidence clear evidence of the DVDA format against the LP one? and my Denon is a humble digital today entry level.

I will follow making analog/digital comparisons because I'm fortunate enough to have several recordings in both formats ( LP/DVDA ), even I don't knew I have it because for years I think don't touched. I never imagine to own those 24/96 CD-like DADs by Classis Records a nice discovery.

Of course I'm happy and enjoying digital better than ever thank's to that Denon universal digital player.

I hope you can have a chance to hear one of those DVDA I name it here and compare to its LP counterpart.

Have fun.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Nandric, Raul & Lewm,
I am happy to learn we are all youngsters.

Nikola, I heard that 60 is not very old today. You know I am far away from this and always questioning myself if it is no better jumping from a bridge when the time is right. But some people told me I am not allowed to do this...

Agree with Raul that Audio is an old business. I was "enlighted" (:-) when I was starting using my Western Electric SUT from the 40ies of last century in one of my phono chains - with the EMT R80. Some told me you will not hear really much as it cuts off at 12.500 Hz. Being very honest I like this sound very much. It is in no way a kind of vintage sound as many might bring into connection with bassy or smooth only.
I had a similar experience when I got my Neumann cart some three years ago.

On the other hand I curruently experience that the audio arena is very active & creative regarding new inventions on headshells, arms and carts. Not so much on TTs. It will become an interesting year in Audio. Maybe the High End in Munich will give us some new insights, too. Also about new MMs? Let's see. I will keep my eyes open.

Raul, my proposal is "go on" , maybe concentrating a bit more on MIs, too.
old Deccas (different versions, Mono), Soundsmith etc. Which are the differences etc.

Next question is: How much is enough?
the difference between RBCD via the Oppo and a top quality LP via a great cartridge, tonearm, and turntable, is not in bandwidth, distortion, noise floor. Obviously, digital kills vinyl on all of those measurable criteria.
That statement is not correct

1. Digital is 20hz - 20khz, analogue has a wider bandwidth than this.
2. Distortion - well thats debatable. One could argue since all digital is a calculated approximation based on sampling that none of it is correct. This comes back to what is your definition of distortion.
3. Noise floor. There is an argument that you can hear into the noise floor with analogue, whereas digital just chops off below the noise floor. If this argument is accepted then analogue can have a wider dynamic range.

What I find most perplexing about digital is that I have heard an Ipad blow off many 10-12k digital front ends. How can this be ? What message does this send about spending big money on digital.
Roscoeiii,
It is the Signet TK-7LCa.
Unfortunately.....as there were fewer than 999 samples ever produced and those that were are over thirty years old........it is almost impossible to find one with an original Signet Line Contact stylus in usable condition?
The AT-155LC stylus is a workable transplant......but even these assemblies are now discontinued.
One of the advantages of the MMs over the LOMCs I find......is the ability to fine-tune the synergy within your specific playback system via adjustments in the Loading and Capacitance.
A disadvantage in these days of pretentious high-end 'wishful' phono stages......is the lack of attention to maximising the quality of the MM circuitry?
This may explain the preference for LOMCs amongst many high-end users?
Digital verus analog; the scope of an question. Not to stay
behind we all try the CD, the SACD and DVDA. But the first
question or dilemma was: how many LP's I own and what am I
supposed to do with them all if I chose or prefer digital?
The SACD was not invented by accident. Nor the DVDA. But
apart from the investment needed to at least approch the
LP collection we already owned there was the disappointment
with the improvement achived with the SACD and DVDA. In my
case I only got a few SACD which were better while the most
were indistinguishable fom CD's. Not to mention the price
difference and more in particular the available choice.
My feeling was that I was cheated. But the consequence
of my choice was to try to get my analog gear as good as
possible. That is why I own , among other, so many tonearms and carts.

Regards,
My take is that digital mis a lot more accurate, " natural "/non-colored and lower distortion alternative where we are nearer to the recording and nearer to the live event.
My take is......that this statement is one man's opinion.
And perhaps just as valid as his opinion on valves vs SS?
There has never been a digital playback that I have heard......which sounds remotely like the 'real' thing.
Perhaps I am not putting that clearly?...........never, ever, ever...have I heard a digital playback which has 'fooled' me into thinking that's about as close to a 'live' performance as I can get.
Yet many times......no.......hundreds of times.....I have heard vinyl sound so spookily close to the 'real' thing.....that I've gasped in wonderment.
Raul speaks of the CD Gladiator.
After less than 6 minutes of listening to this on my system......the 'Eject' button on the remote is just never close enough.......
If this is what Raul thinks 'live' music sounds like......it perhaps explains a lot about his cartridge preferences?
Raul can produce all the facts and figures he likes to 'prove' his claim about the superiority of digital.......but there are equally many facts and figures which prove the superiority of analogue.
But who needs 'facts and figures' to prove this particular argument?
It has been raging unabated for 30 years, and if Raul was right......vinyl would have died 20 years ago as we all feared it would?
Instead...it is the CD which has 'died' whilst the vinyl disc is being produced in greater and greater numbers.
Michael Fremer never wavered and nor did I and enough audiophiles who continued to carry the baton.
There are more and better turntables available today than ever before....and also tonearms and cartridges the likes of which we couldn't imagine 25 years ago?
So Raul.......you can claim whatever you want about the mythical 'superiority' of 'digital' over 'analogue'.
You can also claim that 'black; is 'white' for all I care.
It doesn't make it so.....and indeed it is NOT so.
And this poppycock about changing the rest of our systems to 'accommodate' the horrors of digital?...........perhaps that is your problem?
Raul, I doubt that everyone will agree with your findings regarding DVD-A vs LP. I happen to prefer my Steely Dan and Donald Fagen LP's to their DVD-A counterparts. The LP's are more dimensional and more natural sounding to me in my system.
Raul - whilst I regard your cartridge comparisons as invaluable, I do wonder how well your analogue is running. I have a friend with a Technics SP10 will all the mods being touted around this forum, $15k arm/cartridge, and another with bog standard Micro RX5000 ( with air bearing )/$10k arm/cart - the Micro is in another league - particularly in terms of high frequency purity and extension. There is no loss of drive compared to the Technics. I also have another friend with both the Acoustic Plan and an SME20 - again the SME20 is a significant step up from the Acoustic Plan. The Denon DP100 compared to my Final Audio auditioned in the same system compresses dynamics and overloads with complex music - its coloured. So in my experience the Micro should be the best of what you have, but obviously you disagree.
Is it possible we are back to "people hear different"? Some people's turntables are driving them crazy with speed errors that others cannot detect, while others are saying the pitch of a certain instrument was off, and another cannot detect that. Others are hung up on bass management. Oh, that's a different story. Sorry couldn't resist.

Is it possible that some hear problems with digital while others don't?Some are bothered by gaps in sound,they shouldn't be able to hear?

I developed my theory, when I thought back on my lifetime of listening to music. Like most of you, I listened to music all my life, all the time. On the radio and latter with vinyl, 8 track, and cassettes. When digital came out I bought into the hype, and purchased a CD player. Looking back, I also quit listening to music as much at the same time. I could not listen to digital very long and even though I thought it sounded better than my cheap record player something was not right. That went on for most of 20 years, buying all the new CD's, but not being able to really listen to them.

Then I purchased a turntable and I have been sitting and listening to music again. Can't seem to get much done at the house anymore, but enjoying music as I use to a long time ago.

Still listen to digital, but I rarely get though a CD without taking it out. Does something I hear in digital bother my brain? I personally think it sounds good, but just can't listen.
Dear Halcro: Here you are again with nothing to win and all to lose,ok!

++++ " just as valid as his opinion on valves vs SS " ++++

I don't know your opinion but if you are for tube that's fine for me. The tube/SS subject is not a contest because for that we need two similars contenders and there both are way different ones. Those audiophiles that supports tube electronic technology IMHO do it because ignorance of what happen down there.

Btw, ignorance is the mother of all wars.

First, the Gladiator example is only that an example where a CD beats its analog/LP counterpart but: where I affirm that the Gladiator sounds as live event, don't put words in my mouth and please read what I posted before react with no sense as you did it.

Always that I talked ( in this trhread or other threads ) of the superior digital technology that puts us nearer to the recording and nearer to the live event I always talked of DVDA ( 24/192. ) digital format never on RBCD: GOT IT!!!!!!!

Now, for any one of you could refute my statements first than all has to own the latest digital technology on DACs and this means 32bits/192 and up DACs. Do you have it?, then close your mouth or shout with the right foundations.

Yes, IMHO your digital ignorance level is to high to try to argue something with out clear foundation because your player I think has not the latest digital technology. My entry level one has it and not only that Denon is perhaps the today pioneer on digital recording ( Denon PCM. ) and digital design and manufacturer PCM recording items and a very old audio analog/electronics manufactuer and that's why I choosed over the Oppo or other entry level digital manufacturerers.

Whom really are you speaking of digital?, it was not a surprise to me that you react for the "nt'h " time in exactly the same way as you did here: This was your latest post on digital this year, remember?:

+++++ " 01-26-13: Halcro
When it comes to audio.....I don't let DACs, transports or computers enter my listening room.
I am a strictly analogue (vinyl) buffoon. " +++++

Do you think that I can take you seriously on a digital source discussion?, certainly not. You are just unaware of what today means music digital source.

Pardon me but I don't want to start a " war " because the wide differences on our ignorance level on the digital source.

TK7Lca?, maybe not even on analog. I don't want to touch your heavy system distortions that you are unaware but this is not what you posted where accept you can't be aware of cartridge differences through top rated headphones ( AUDEZE LCD 2 ) ?:

++++ "
I was interested in hearing the sound of my 'System'....with the room 'effect' taken out of the equation?
A major disappointment!
Not only did I not enjoy the 'music in my head' experience......but I found that my speakers....at even low volumes.....gave me more information about the recordings than the head-phones.
I am able to distinguish the differences between cartridges, arms and turntables quite readily with my speakers.....yet am unable to via the headphones? " ++++++

I understand that in your 3-way speakers the woofer goes up to 950 hz to crossover the midrange. Do you know wich is the IMD and THD generated level sole by these woofers. Have you an idea? Please forget it, never mind and not important to any one but you.

These are some arguments why analog can't be a challenge to the today digital source, please let me know your arguments against it other than: " I like it or I don't like it":

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

+++++++++++ " ++++++ " that I heard what vinyl was really about: it was the smoothest, most organic, and 3d sound that ever came out of my speakers. I had never heard anything quite like it. All of the digital I had, no matter how high the resolution, did not really come close to approaching that type of sound. " +++++

I agree, the digital can't approach that type of sound. IMHO : Why can't approach it?, because analog/LP is totally faulty.

The analog signal is heavily manipulated, let see it:

when recorded and to be cutted ( LP. ) the signal must be equalized according to the RIAA standard and this means and equalization that goes from 20hz to 20khz +,- 20dbs!!!!!!!this deemphasis means added distortions, phase chnages, non-linear anomalies, added noise, additional stages where the signal have to pass through.
Then the signal is trasfered to vinyl with all imperfections where does not exist a perfect cutting system, here there is several kind of signal loses: certainly what is in the recording was not what was recorded before all that proccess.

When we want to hear the LP in our audio system that analog signal must be recovery through the phono stage for we can attain a flat frequency response ( just like exist ( with out RIAA eq. ) in a digital medium. ) so inside the phono stage that signal pass again for an additional RIAA eq. ( this time an inverse eq. ) with all the heavy degradation: distortions, phase problems, added noise, colorations, etc, etc, etc.

Inside that phono stage the very low output signal must be amplified ( sometimes 10K times!!! ) to a level where the preamp can handle it as it handle in "; natural"; way the digital signal that has a lot higher output level. Through the high gain proccess the signal pass through 3-5 additional stages that continue degrading the signal continue adding more distortions ( of every kind ), nothing of this happen with the digital medium. That very low output signal characteristic makes that the signal be extremely sensitive to be degraded by everykind of " pollulation " ( electrical/magnetic. ) where the higher digital output signal is a lot less suceptible of that kind of degradations.

All those is what happen to an electronics level now we have to add the worst of all the signal manipulation:

a cartridge to " read " the recorded information, a cartridge is a rudimentary " instrument " for say the least. Cartridge designers make some kind of " magic "/tremendous efforts for the cartridge can makes its critical/titanic job.

A cartridge is an " unstable " tool, everything affect its performance: kind of cantilever and cantilever build material, stylus shape and with which kind of quality was builded, room temperature, kind and quality of cartridge suspension, cartridge motor design, cartridge body resonances, cartridge ridiculous pin connectors, etc, etc, each part of the cartridge degraded the original signal with out exception.

After that the cartridge must be mounted in a tonearm for it can ride the LP and one of the first challenges that the signal has to deal with are the " stupid " tonearm wire connectors to the cartridge and then the in ternal tonearm wire and the the additional IC between the tonearm and the phono stage. In all those links the signal continue degrading, this does not happen in the digital alternative: so no signal degradation.

But the worst for the " end " ( sometimes I think the analog medium is: endless of problems. ):

now the stylus tip hit the LP grooves and at microscopic level that stylus tip start a heavy fight against the grooves/its compliance and tracking habilities to stay in the grooves to be in touch always and this happen almost never ( especialy with low compliance cartridges as the LOMC ones. ). The stylus tip is " jumping " generating distortions and harmonic distortions. All this " fight " is transmited through the cartridge body to the tonearm which start to resonate ( adding distorions, non.linear anomalies, atc, atc. ) according those cartridge self resonances and according the cartridge compliance/tonearm effective mass.

But all the information captured by the cartrdige has not only a doses of tracking distortions becuase non-perfect cartridge tracking habilities but distortions because the stylus tip never coincide with the grooves never coincide on how the grooves were cutted!!!!! not even in a linear tracking tonearms.

Why is that? for several reasons: the LPs comes all with waves that preclude a perfect alignement trhough all the LP tracks. There is no perfect tonearm/cartridge set up it doesw not matters which geometry alignment we choose: Baerwald, Lofgren, Stevenson, etc, etc, in all them there is tracking errors for a pivoted tonearm and that tracking errors means added distortions in the signal path. Btw and talking of set up there is no perfect cartridge set up_ VTA/SRA/azymuth, overhang/etc, load impedance, load capacitance, etc, etc. All these parameters all the playback time are changing because all the LP imperfections including different LP weights, excentricity LP " center " hole.
Don't forget the TT speed unaccuracies, speed unstability, rumble, wow&fluter, platter resonances, TT bearing ones, tonearm/TT mount board feedback and of course system SPL feedback that affect every analog rig.

I can go on and on and on with all the " thousands " degradation links where the analog signal must pass but as an example I think is enough.

Gentlemans, IMHO it is a " miracle " that we all after all those kind of degradations we still can enjoy the analog sounds!

+++++ " it was the smoothest, most organic, and 3d sound that ever came out of my speakers... " +++++

these and other adjectives that we audiophiles used to use when refereing to LP quality performance experiences does not comes in the recording in the original recording , those " characteristics " are a result of the heavy degradation that suffer the analog signal, degradation that does not exist in the digital alternative so that's why both mediums sounds different. Of course that digital has its own trade-offs, well I prefer it: is truer to the recording.

That we like it the analog alternative does not confirms and does not means in any sense that is right, IMHO is wrong almost dead wrong.

I prefer digital HR for music sound reproduction at home because I 'm nearest to the original sound that passed through the recording microphones with lower " artefacts " than in the analog domain.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R. " +++++

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Seems to me that when you hear the " word " digital you put in panic in the same way almost all of us analog guys were when appeared " the perfect sound for ever "/CD that fortunately in those old times that panic disappears very fast due to the starting digital technology imperfections but times changes and today things are really different. Please don't be in panic and like today Nandric and I enjoy both alternatives some day in your future.

Please stay calm, learn and then come back to a more serious discussion a non-biased discussion.

Regrads and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Sarcher30: Your digital item was released in 2007 and starting the marketing in 2010 and has not the latest digital DACs and in the other hand Linn is supported by the DSD SACD and not directly the PCM DVDA this fact alter a little what we are hearing.

Now, in the same way that exist bad analog recordings exist bad digirtal ones, example the today Telarc 1812 DSD ( format DVDA ) that's terrible for say the least or Faith Hill " Cry " title or the 24/96 DAD Classic Records: Pictures at an Exhibition with the Saint Louis Symp. Orcht.

In the other side DVDA from: Artificial Intelligence ( from motion picture ) very good as the recording for: Jane Monheit " Dream with me ".

Btw, the Fagen recording I was refereing it is: Two against Nature.

Sarcher30, today digital source is extremely demanding to any audio system where you can hide nothing because the very low distoritons on the digital medium so many times what we don't like it is not the digital format but in reality what we don't like it is the " true "/naked real system quality performance level that through analog all those " system imperfections " are hiden and we can't aware of it due to the higher analog distortions. Please think a mom,ent on this with out any source alternative bias.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Is it possible we are back to "people hear different"?
I know many audiophiles who can't tolerate the sound of digital reproduction for a period of time.
I have also read the writings of many reviewers and contributors to Audio Forums who are similarly intolerant.
I have never read nor heard of.........anyone who can't tolerate the sound of vinyl on a turntable (source material being adequate of course).
For those who can hear it.......there is definitely an artifact of digital sound reproduction which is tantamount to 'distortion'?
I think that Raul is an complex person who would rather die than not tell what he thinks is true. The problem is that what he believes to be true is actually true. I already mentioned many times my scepsis about his philosophical and logical convictions but, like Dover and other, trust for 100% his carts valuations. I own the Sony XA 5400 ES and many CD's and SACD's. However I need to consult the user manual when I occasionaly use the damn thing.

Regards,
Dear Professor Timeltel, Is the digital still 20-20000 Hz (24 bits & 192 kHz sampling frequence), after 3 decades ?
Please enlighten us by your scientific knowledge.
We need your wisdom more than ever now !
Raul is really a complex person. Sometimes I do not understand his crusades against good products he is owning like the Micro or the SAEC WE 8000. Either his items are not usable anymore (maybe cheap buys :-) and he developed a certain love/hate relation or he wants to express that he has reached a certain level which has elevated him above all others - reaching the kingdom of NO DISTORTION.
But if this is the case by what products? by which table, Acoustic Solid?

I have not really understood how he is comparing in his system of not usable or just okay analogue parts the quality of so many different carts? Maybe he plays a trick on himself.

To be on the good side I do assume he is hiding some super gear coming along with his new tonearm. Is it true?
Dear Harold-no-the-barrel: Maybe that's a mistake. One of the oldest digital recording items was the Soundstream used ( between other labels. ) by Telarc and its frequency recording range was/is: 0hz to 22khz where the Denon one goes to 24khz, both running at 16bits PCM approach. These is what Soundstream/Denon stated.

Yhat 192khz number means that the recording record frequencies up to 96khz PCM when the DSD format goes beyond 100khz and both start at 0hz.

There are some contradictions on those numbers and people that said is 20 to 20khz but what you can measure are those numbers.

One " problem " with the RBCD was its limited high frequency range that goes " only " to around 22khz against near 50khz that in theory analog can goes. Today that does not exist any more and even through oversampling DACs and digital technology advanced a lot.

This digital " everyday " improvements makes for me never buy a high price player/DAC because in very short time is obsolete due that that fast digital development where each time a new DAC appears quality performance level goes up.

Where player technology goes not to fast is when we talk about the player's transports even that is in continuous development goes slower.

My ignorance level on the whys " inside " digital technology is very high but improving through self and other learning process.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Sarcher30: Your digital item was released in 2007 and starting the marketing in 2010 and has not the latest digital DACs and in the other hand Linn is supported by the DSD SACD and not directly the PCM DVDA this fact alter a little what we are hearing.

Now, in the same way that exist bad analog recordings exist bad digirtal ones, example the today Telarc 1812 DSD ( format DVDA ) that's terrible for say the least or Faith Hill " Cry " title or the 24/96 DAD Classic Records: Pictures at an Exhibition with the Saint Louis Symp. Orcht.

In the other side DVDA from: Artificial Intelligence ( from motion picture ) very good as the recording for: Jane Monheit " Dream with me ".

Btw, the Fagen recording I was refereing it is: Two against Nature.

Sarcher30, today digital source is extremely demanding to any audio system where you can hide nothing because the very low distoritons on the digital medium so many times what we don't like it is not the digital format but in reality what we don't like it is the " true "/naked real system quality performance level that through analog all those " system imperfections " are hiden and we can't aware of it due to the higher analog distortions. Please think a mom,ent on this with out any source alternative bias.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
My experience with digital mirrors Dannys. My last system from the 70s with Thorens TD 125 and SME 3009 improved and i think a Decca red was retired and the magical CD was let into my music world. By the time i bought a truck load of CDs most of my lightning was done with outside playback in the swimming pool yard area through Bose outdoor speakers. My sit down listening through my Infinity Holosonics was not as enjoyable and i basically got away from enjoying music and got back into Lional model railroading.

Then early into the new millenium my wife noticed the Thorens in storage and we broke it out. Cleaned it up read up on what cartridges were available and bought a MC Blue Point evo and phono amp all new to me from my MM/MI days. Well that started the fire on came a brand new system in the home theater mode. Rotel processor and Denon 3910 player with AV123 RS-1000 tower speakers RSC-200 center RS-500 surrounds. I had the best of both worlds 2 channel for my analog fix and digital for all else. I was back into sit down musical enjoyment after a 15 year lapse. Unfortunately hurricane Katrina washed all of that gear and everything else out in 05.

I did learn one thing from all of this i could not enjoy sit down digital playback in the 2 channel mode. Dont know if its because of our differences in how we hear music but digital is not for me when im ready for serious music listening.

From where vinyl playback went and where it is today with digital taking a setback i would have to say most prefer the very listenable sound of analog to the edgy choped sound of digital IMO.
Mike
Dear Stltrains: +++++ " digital is not for me when im ready for serious music listening.

From where vinyl playback went and where it is today with digital taking a setback i would have to say most prefer the very listenable sound of analog to the edgy choped sound of digital IMO. " +++++

for serious listening?, seriously?

edgy choped sound?, this sound as you are in the 70's but IMHO with the latest digital msource that normally does not happen. Your and other people digital complaints were the same I had for several years till I started to learn and to test over the years to attest the digital improvements.
The digital " myths complanint " is something like the SS electronics: that were true in the started years but not today but everyone that learned that way today are suffering the tube distortions because they don't be aware that SS improves over the years, with digital is similar attitude a wrong attitude from my point of view/experiences.

What I think is that you need to be seriously about digital and taake the " bull by it horns ": buy a today digital entry level as my Denon and some digital software where DVDA can help you and then give a seriously listening to digital.

Warning: digital is for every one, is it your system digital ready?.
Please don't blame digital in case you don't like it but first analize where could be the " problem " if at all.

Digital as MM/MI or LOMC ask for the right set up and deserve no less attention that the one you give to your cartridges set up.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Analog lovers: IMHO digital is ready for any one of us and the main questions are:

Am I ready to digital mentally/unbiased? and the second one:

Is it my audio system ready to digital, ready to shows digital at its best to enjoy it?

IMHO we need a Yes two those questions for we can talk or better yet to start first than all: understand what is happening down there and then enjoy it.

Both music sources are way different so we have no single reason not only to compare in between but expect that one could sounds near/similar the other. If we are waiting that IMHO is a big mistake: to each medium what deserve.

The only matchinmg characteristic is that both mediums makes " sounds ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Halcro, I found it interesting that you still choose the Signet TK7lca to the AT150anv. I think the 150anv is more detailed in all areas, but the Signet does sound like LIVE music, on my system.

Good ear on catching they sound more alike than different. What do you find lacking in the AT 150anv? It is probably my favorite cartridge, but may be to strong a personality for some on their systems. If I had to rank the Signet/ At / Precept, I would currently say:
AT150anv - by a hair
Signet 7lca
Precept 550
Signet 10ml
At 20ss
Signet TK7su

The AT150anv also has the advantage of being available, at least for a while anyway.
Digital! - Here I need to take up the cudgels for Raul. It is of course possible to produce a very fine sound by using excellent digital products and match them with a good preamp. But the most important thing in a digital chain is proper Time Alignment. Without my atomic clocking I can hear digital but I am not enjoying as I do with my analogue chains.

Raul which clocking device are you using?
Raul, Really!!!!

I did not like the sound of the Denon player and picked a much nicer Marantz SACD player. It sounds great , but I don't listen, and now it misreads. I have 1000's of SACD and good redbook CD's. I am looking at a much better Dac, and we will see if you are correct, but have my doubts, due to actual history.

I will continue to spend my money on what I enjoy ,and you can be as hard headed and condescending as you want.
Raul I hear your passion and sense your excitement with your digital revelation. I'm glad you are enjoying another front end source.

I'm not 80 and hope to live that long. I have settled down with my vinyl playback front in. I have a outdated oppo 980h that hasn't been plunged into the audio chain in years. I have 1000s of LPs to enjoy where as my digital collection is small. I don't doubt what you described with your new Denon sound wise. Not going to say never will return to digital but for now my LPs are just sounding to darn good. I not only enjoy the sound but the mystique of vinyl playback. From finding those lost lp gems in record stores to cleaning them for playback. To cartridge variety, setup and playback. Along with the flexibility of tailoring the sound of our prized vinyl to your liking through vtf/vta. Throw in a big album cover to easily read and enjoy and in most cases some fine art work and pictures. Yes vinyl is in my fabric and that's a hard thing to change.
Mike
Hi Acman,
It's really becoming harder and harder for me to actually choose a favourite cartridge these days.......as many of the ones I have, are so closely matched and appreciated?
I agree with you that the AT150ANV is very very good......and is available new today (a blessing for analogue lovers everywhere)....and the Signet TK-7SU is mighty close to the 7CLa.
The TK-7CLa meanwhile.......deserves the very best arm and appears to really like heavy ones like the FR-64s and FR-66s.
It gives less than its best in the Micro Seiki MA-505s?
But the ZYX UNIverse is still very competitive and both my Axel modified FR-7f and XV-1s give much enjoyment.
There is also an old TK-13Ea with bastardised 155Lc stylus (I think)....which the Professor sent me.
This is a revelation (particularly in its soundstage) and needs more play time for proper evaluation?
Then there's the Fidelity Research FR-6SE which gives new meaning to the term....'bass slam' when mounted in the FR-64s on the Victor TT-101.

So many cartridges.....so much time {hopefully)???
What a problem to have? :-)

Regards
Henry
Dear Raul, We are assumed to share the same passion but passion is a tricky 'magnitude'. It may be called 'intensity magnitude' which are measured in gradations. It may be the case that your passion is near,say, 'obsession degree' while this can be different for other among us. In my peculiar social backgroud revenge is considered to be more important than sex. I assume because of the Turks or the Germans... Anyway such feelings are also transfered to us like language and other customs. Nobody can chose his parents nor the mother country. Well I was cheated with the CD, then with the SACD then with different 'top players', the last one the Sony I mentioned. From a proud Serbian warrior you can't expect to try again. Besides I am already wrestling with 'your' AT 150 ANV, my new Glanz 71 L, Benz LP S, Magic Diamond and Kiseki blue Goldspot while waiting for my Shiraz and 'your' JVC X-1.To add more difficulties to this state of affair is like application for an asylum. Even for a brave Serbian warrior. Those passions may have
some direction but are very unpredictable qua results. That is to say that the rooms in an asylum are so small that this would imply the end of this passion.

Regards,
Dear Acman3: Yes, really.

Now: +++++ " I did not like the sound of the Denon player and picked a much nicer Marantz SACD player " ++++

are you talking of the same Denon model I own?. In the other side, for whatever reason I prefer the quality performance level of the DVDA over the SACD.

I agree with Nandric when he said that some SACD counterparts sounds the same as the RBCD and this fact I never encountered when speaking of DVDA.

Yes, the big problem is that now the DVDA is almost defunct but still we can get some hundred of titles.
Yes, I will put my hands on " all " the ones I can find out. I need to make my digital library in the same way I builded the LP one.

Btw, how many hour do you already put on the 150 ANV? and: do you tested with different headshells or in more than one tonearm?

Precept 550: same questions that with the ANV, could you help? Thank you in advance.

About the Precept that means you don't have yet the 440 stylus sample, right?

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Thuchan: +++++ " Raul which clocking device are you using? " ++++

Thank's for that because you put a in good shape very long smile and laugh right now. As I said thank's.

I can speak a lot about but maybe some other time because I'm writing an additional post on the music source mediums.

I'm still laughing in a great spontaneous way!!!!.Good.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear friends: First than all I'm not against LP per se, I'm an analog guy as any one of you with the same passion for analog music as you have. So please don't misunderstood me because my digital source posts. I'm not against analog: how could can I?, makes no sense. Please read this:

++++++++++++++++++++++++

WHOM TOLD US OR WHOM CONVINCE US THAT LP IS THE RIGHT WAY TO LISTEN MUSIC AT HOME ?

NO ONE, for the last 60+ years was the only alternative that we heard and not because is the right one but because was the ONLY ONE out there.

All of us are accustomed to it accustomed to its nature imperfections and we over the years don't care in any way of those imperfections because we are accustomed to the medium and in the other side we have no other choice.

In my latest post to Halcro you can read some of those analog imperfections that if there is no other alternative maybe I never " figure " or think in deep on that critical subject but for many years existed other alternative: DIGITAL one ( Halcro, please don't panic! ).

When Digital started that " perfect sound for ever " was a WAY statement that we really don't understand and some of us still don't understand today.
Unfortunatelly that " perfect sound for ever " was not exactly true because we were comparing it to our beloved LPs and the sound was way different. For many years I can't hear CDs because the terrible high frequency format reproduction: almost always I heard a " hammer/drill " through my ears. This today disappears.

IMHO when we have no choices we must hear the only choice we have at hand but the fact that we are hearing to it does not means is the right medium the right way to listen but only that is the only one and that we have no alternative.

That's what today I think: we all were and are hearing a wrong alternative not the right or better alternative to capture the live event and that that live event be reproduced at home with the lower signal degradation.

If that's true IMHO is a mistake the worst one to compare the DIGITAL vs LP because there is no single reason to both performs similar.

IMHO we have to compare today best digital to what the micros ( near field: 0.5m to 3m.) capture and what could be?:

the venue? soundstage? deep? pace? soft sounds?: certainly not nothig of those characterisitcs exist in a live event in a near listening field that's where the micros are on the starting recording process.

What is captured are: power, natura agresiveness, " brutal " dynamics, faster faster transients, definition of music notes and harmonics, pitch, tremendous rythmum, wide frequency range, exceptional bass management, natural balance and the music " emotions " real ones. All that with out additional " artefacts " that always came/comes with the LP experince.

I'm not talking here what we like and what we don't like it because what we like is almost always what we are accustomed to hear. Digital is a totally different experience where we have to START to learn in a way to understand why we are listening through what we are listening with out comparing to the LP experience. We need an unbiased attitude as if never heard it through analog and as if digital was the only choice as we listening LP when was the only choice.

Fortunatelly for all of us today exist a real great additional alternative in the DIGITAL source in the same way that for all of us we have today a real great alternative to LOMC cartridges with the MM/MI alternative.

Sounds good for me that now I have more choices to enjoy MUSIC at home with great expectations on the DIGITAL one because it is only starting his " maturity " age and we have to expect great improvements in the near future improvements over the great today quality performnce DIGITAL can shows us with its latest technology.

I said near future because digital grow up faster than we can wait/imagine. There is no single doubt that the new fortcoming DACs and transports will makes all of us to flight to the real unique music/sound home heaven quality perfomance ever that never could be matched by the LP becuase LP is a different way different alternative.

I'm not stupid as no one of you and it is only a matter of time for all of us main everyday music source be DIGITAL in front of the LP alternative.

Please don't argue, " call you back " in two years ( maybe less. ). In the mean time I go to enjoy my two music home sources/alternatives at its best!!!!.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear friends: The other " great " digital expectation I have is that the whole digital recording process be improved because IMHO the people responsable of the recording process are people trained and accustomed ( as us ) to the analog source recording process and maybe the digital one could means to make some " changes " down there ( I don't know for sure because I'm ignorant on the whole recording process. ) as maybe that recording process needs new recording machines/items starting for a new kind of micros. Don't you think?

IMHO all these and what I posted before on digital alternative is for me part of the digital medium learning curve and certainly each one of us have each one digital learning curve. Where are you, which your position on that learning curve?

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear nandric: I think there are no secrects here but only that DIGITAL is a way different " history " and if in some way we like to study we like to learn learning " history " can improves our overall culture. Don't you think?

Why refuse to do it just from the start with out even " thinking "?

Regards and enjoy the music,
R,
Dear Thuchan: ++++++ " I do not understand his crusades against good products he is owning like the Micro or the SAEC WE 8000. " +++++

I used SAEC 8000 and 506 tonearms for 18+ years and comparing it to other great vintage and today tonearms with several cartridges in several TT options. Along those years I learned a lot on audio and learned about those great looking SAEC tonearms and that's why I don't use it any more. How many years do you have on the SAEC experience?. I took 18 years to be sure to be aware that were not so good as I was thinking. I already posted somewhere the whys about.

Why you don't understand me?, easy: this is what you posted today in other thread:

++++ " running a TSD Anniversary in the Ortofon RMA 309 via a Western Electric 618B SUT to the EMT JPA-66 phono stage. This is my DreamLine " ++++++

and that's why you can't understand. We are different, where you like heavy distortions I'm at the oposite side where I'm not very tolerant to any kind of distortions.

IMHO your EMT JPA-66, WE SUT ( I owned reciently and fortunatelly sold . ) and RMA309 are reference for distortions for a way colored quality performance far away from a natural accurate low distorted quality performance I'm acustomed to enjoy.

We like different kind of " distortions " different kind of quality performances. Not because we hear different but because we like different due to each one music/sound experiences that are different from sometime now.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Dover: +++++ " The Denon DP100 compared to my Final Audio auditioned in the same system compresses dynamics and overloads with complex music " +++++

Two way different TTs and maybe both with different tonearms too. How could you be so sure that the culprit came from the DP-100 where maybe ( I don't know ) could existed the possibility that was more accurated?, hard to say.

Btw, I prefer my Denon or JVC DD TTs to the SP-10s.

IMHO for whatever reasons my system is running just fine and improving, including analogue. At least I can't detected problems/distortions against other top systems.

Look, IMHO the best tool we have to rank any system distortion levels is when you runned the digital alternative then you will know where you are: like it or not, it not your choice it is what you have and the good news here is that you have a big big land to improve where this " improve " means too that you will enhance the analog alternative too.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Dover: +++++ " The Denon DP100 compared to my Final Audio auditioned in the same system compresses dynamics and overloads with complex music " +++++

Two way different TTs and maybe both with different tonearms too. How could you be so sure that the culprit came from the DP-100 where maybe ( I don't know ) could existed the possibility that was more accurated? could be? hard to say and hard to be absolutely sure on your statement but I respect your opinion because that's what you heared for whatever reasons: right?

Btw, I prefer my Denon or JVC DD TTs to the SP-10s.

IMHO for whatever reasons my system is running just fine and improving, including analogue. At least I can't detected problems/distortions against other top systems.

Look, IMHO the best tool we have to rank any system distortion levels is when you runned the latest digital alternative then you will know where you are: like it or not, it's not your choice it is what you have and the good news here is that you have a big big land to improve where this " improve " means too that you will enhance the analog alternative too.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear friends: I'm following enjoying my digital/analog same tittle comparisons.

Took the turn to the Symphony Of a Thousand by Mahler with the Utha Sym. Orcht. under Abravanel batute. This is an original recording under the very well regarded Vanguard Label ( Stereolab ). I own several recordings from Vanguard and normally are good ones.

The LP is an audiophile re-issue direct from the Master tapes where the digital counterpart is the 24/192 DAD version.
Here I have no doubt that if almost any one of you listen to these versions you will prefer the LP one if for no other thing because it is warm a not edgy at freqency extreme where the DAD version is the opposite: a little edgy and more real with out that false warm unexistence in live events.
Is it that little edgy characteristic a wrong/bad one?, I don't think so. What I think is that it is in this way as is in the recording and the DAD is faithful to it. Why can I assume that?, read it the next comparison. Btw, as almost usual the digital version makes the right justice to the recorded bass frequency range even that the LP in this recording is very good.

Next, I listening again to the 45 rpm Analogue Productions re-issue on the original Turnabout vox recording of the Symphonic Dances by Rachmaninoff against its 24/96 DAD counterpart. Everyone of you that own that LP knows is a very good LP by any analogue standards and shows analogue at its best ( perhaps only second to D2D LP format. ).
Here the digital showed no single sign of edgy sound over the frequency range and as always shiny on its bass management handled. Where are the basic differences in both mediums/alternatives: the digital one ( believe it or not ) has more " body " more " hey it's like a live even t "., for example the " pandero " ( name in spanish of the spanish percussion round small instrument played with one hand hold it and the other hitting the rounded wood ring and the circle covered/linning tomove several pairs of metal tyny cimball-like. Got it? ) has a tiniest sound trhough the LP than the more " complete " digital sound. Same happen with the wind instruments that have that natural agresivenes where the LP is more rounded and soft.

All in all both performances are very good but again the digital is at the top.

I'm not a fanatic of the Cello music/instrument but after heard the 24/96 DAD of Baker works under the Cello Janos Starker skills maybe I could change my way of thinking on that instrument. Good recording.

Those of you that have today digital players could test three DVDA ( 24/96 ) from Teldec label: Orff Carmina Burana with the London Philarmonic under Mehta batute, Ravel Bolero Orchestra de Paris under Martignon and Barenboim and the Berliner with the Beethoven No. 9

Of course I will follow listening/testing DVDA especially the latest recordings that are DVDA native ( 24/192 not 24/96 ) format.

Btw, other reason to follow with digital is that exist a lot of music recorded only in digital formats, great music that even if we want it we can't heard it through the analogue format.

So, we music lovers must follow the MUSIC in any single format we can find out and things are that today exist a lot of great MUSIC through only in the digital alternative and we have no other choice!

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Raul, My problem is that I always try to be funny because our disputes look (sometime)to religious wars. Your problem is that you think that what you believe is the
right religion. My 'intensity scale' apply also for the convictions. One may say some are more 'fanatic' than other. My position regarding analog versus digital is pragmatic. In Europe we already have Spotify (see Google) the digital music library with nearly all recordings ever produced. For 10 euro pro month one can subscribe. I ,or more true, my son fixed everything needed for me 6 months ago. We bought the best sound card for the PC we were able to find. That is to say : while the available choice is about the music and not so much about the quality of the reproduction for those records that are very good one should have the best sound card available. Because of this 'new service' or possibility I don't need to mess with new DVDA players or records. I am not sure if Spotify is available in Mexico or the USA but I am sure it will be in the near future.

Regards,
Raul - as 2 of my friends run only digital, one of which is state of the art, I have used one of the systems to help develop my own analogue system further. We have a matched set of records & digital recordings for cross referencing. It has been very useful even though the analogue is better, and I dont listen to digital at home much. I can only listen to simple recordings on digital, anything like full orchestra in my view is where digital collapses.
Dear Dover: I understand and yes digital source helps a lot to fine tunning any home audio system. As you said through a top digital source.

+++++ " anything like full orchestra in my view is where digital collapses " +++++

well it can collapse under any kind of music but that IMHO is not a digital characteristic today and could depend more on the DACs aged/vintage.

I don't know if you own that Mahler 8o. recording that IMHO is extremely demanding as could be the Beethoven Nine or even C.Burana. In my humble Denon I can't detected that.

In the other side there is that posibility you touched when the reccording was not up to the task.

Digital is extremely intolerant with " errors " not only inside an audio system but inside the whole recording process.

In the digital Mahler recording I can hear an " artefact/ "/sounds, I can't identify what can be, on the right speaker side and this unknow sounds it is not present in the LP performance.

I think that to listen to digital source we have to have a latest player with the latest DACs, this is critical.

Obviously I'm enjoying my entry level Denon player that for 700.00 gives me a lot more than analog can. I can enjoy not only DVDA but CDs DVDV and SACD in an unexpected very high quality performance and additional a first rate Blue Ray, so I win in both areas: audio and video for " peneauts ".

I still have an old Rotel CD player and the Denon one I was using before the 2012. Yes, with the Rotel digital is almost unlistenable, things improves a little with the other Denon and improves fully with the 2012. Main differences are the DACs and the way lowered the jitter and other improvements but the DAC is where reside the main difference.

I know that maybe in less than six months I will have to change my 2012 for the latest one but for 700.00 that is not big deal for any one of us.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Nandric: I think that all of us are in the same way about: what we belive has the rightness till something different/better can make my way of thinking.

I try every single advise/experiences all of you share here and in other threads to tame that " religion " and if I have to change I change. I repeat that I take " action " on other audiophile/music lover experiences and tested, I never test " words " but facts.

Btw, the Denon 3313 is inside your budget:

http://usa.denon.com/us/product/pages/productdetail.aspx?pcatid=avsolutions(denonna)&catid=bluerayplayers(denonna)&catalog=denonna_us&pid=dbt3313udci(denonna)

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear friends, Last night I listened my 41 years old c-cassette "Demons and Wizards" by Uriah Heep (Island Tapes ZCDI 9193, UK 1972) with my Nakamichi RX-505 deck. The power of that performance was quite frightening even for an analogue recording, eventually I had to lower the output a few desibels to match the level to normal.
I mean: the original (near "natural"), no-noise reduction, no-compressed sound from that humble tape.
I felt my whole body rocking with the music, it had the musical pulse so strong. Then I listened the same on SHM-CD (a Japanese Super High Mapping ?) at the same volume level with my 24 bit "professional" CD player.
It did not have that musical pulse at all, it sounded anemic ,"compressed" as the digital always does for me. It did not rock anymore. I listened all my early 1970´s, pre-Dolby c-cassettes by UH and went stunned, especially "Look at Yourself" was frightening with cheer power. Also, there was plenty of details and nuances I could not have expected from c-cassette. Wow !
I will not buy a digital sound anymore, except certain uber rare (vintage) recordings that are not available in analog format.
My "professional" 24 bit player has proved to be a joke. And that is not funny !
Furthermore, one RI LP of "D & W" (Bronze BRNA) can´t match the "performance level" of my good old cassette tape.
I´m so glad that Philips invented the little and consumer frienly cassette !
24 bits is not enough, we need much more...
This is my humble opinion.
Dear friends: I'm not trying to convince that you change from analog to digital for day by day music listening. far away from there.

After the Harold-not-the-barrel post it is clear for me that some of you really understand nothing of my main subjects in what I posted and if some of you don't understand that's up to you. Stay where you are because is where you belong.

Now, for the ones that understood my digital posts as Dover, Lewm, Nandric and several more I would like to insist that digital IMHO is the best tool we have today to know the real quality performance level each one audio system has.

For we can use it that digital tool we need to own a TODAY 32bits/192 DACs player ( with all respect: not a 24bit " professional " or a cassete machine. ) and some DVDA or some CDs.
Through my posts you have a DVDA choices and latter when I be at my place I will give a list of CDs that could help about.

The rewards in this digital experience is that when your system is digital ready ( and you know what I mean with digital ready. Yes, maybe you have to make some changes/modifications " here and there ". ) and you start to enjoy digital recordings then your analog experience in your system will not only outperform what you are listening now but you will have the best quality performance in your system ever and obviously you will enjoy the analog alternative in a non-imaginable wayand you can do it with the audio system you own today.

I have to insist here that the primary main target is to have the top bass management you can and the only way/source to really know about is through digital source.

Gentlemans, my main target is to be at the last analog quality performance frontier along the digital alternative too. IMHO we can't approach that last analog quality performance frontier with out the digital help as a tool.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
The only thing I take away from the above few posts is that I agree with Raul on the notion that a high quality digital source is very valuable to use as a reference in order to know what is happening in our analog rigs. For many months I was without a digital source due to the inexplicable malfunction of my Sony CDP. During that period I made a few important changes to my system, but I did not feel that I had enough data to evaluate them until I could re-establish a digital source, which I finally did do by purchasing the Oppo BDP105. This is not to claim that the 105 is an "ultimate" digital source that could not be bettered; it is only to say that implementing the 105 in my system has finally enabled me to understand much better what else is going on with new cartridges, phono stage modifications, and amplifier and speaker upgrades. This is because digital is reproducible from one day to the next and from one CD or SACD, or DVDA, or internet hi-rez source, to the next. The qualities are a dependable constant. Also, digital is great if you want to read a book or need background for a party. (Kidding Raul, sort of.)
Dear friends: For those interested on the digital tool to improve your today quality performance level these CDs could help you and I think you can find out easy. All are Original Picture Soundtracks, obviously that there are a lot of other CDs than can help but these ones is a good point to start.

- The Day After Tomorrow
- The Mission
- 1492 Conquest of Paradise
- The Thin Red Line
- Memoirs of a Geisha
- Gladiator

all are demanding recordings and Gladiator is " extremely " demanding.

I'm sure that when you can enjoy those CDS and especially the one from the motion picture Gladiator you will " live " on analog heaven: NOT BEFORE.

The main target is to lower system overall distortions elsewhere the audio system. As you go tolerating in better way Gladiator or other CDs as your system quality performance level is improving from sure, in the same way as less tolerating are your ears with those CDs as worst and lower is your system quality performance level and it does not matters that you think: " I like it ". Sometimes we could like crap/trash, so what?.

Simple as that. Lewm posted simple as that:

+++++ " implementing the 105 in my system has finally enabled me to understand much better what else is going on with new cartridges, phono stage modifications, and amplifier and speaker upgrades. " +++++

Btw, my LP/digital comparisons were using the JVC X-1MK2 and Transfiguration Phoenix cartridges.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Acman3: +++++ " and you can be as hard headed and condescending as you want. " ++++

to many posts to read and I really been unaware of your statement that seems you are a little " angry " with me.

I really can't understand thw whys. Where am I so wrong to wake up those kind of bad emotions? because that's not in any way my target.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Raul, You use very often the abbreviation OMHO but in the wrong places or statements. If you would use OMHO by your 'convinctions' nobody would have any problem with your statements. We all agree, I think, that our tastes and preferences may differ. Even so and because of our empathy we also like to hear or read what other prefer and why. For example Lew's electrostatics while he thinks to love the piano music...

Regards,
Dear Nandric: Thank's. Now:

++++ " OMHO but in the wrong places or statements. If you would use OMHO by your 'convinctions' nobody would have any problem with your statements. " +++++

certainly I need your help to understand exactly your always welcomed advises. These two statements came from the same post ( one of my latest posts ): please enlight me what is wrong and why ( thank you in advance:

+++++ "I would like to insist that digital IMHO is the best tool we have today to know the real quality performance level each one audio system has. " +++++++

+++++ " IMHO we can't approach that last analog quality performance frontier with out the digital help as a tool. " +++++

obviously that those are my today convictions.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Raul, You answered your own questions. By including the IMHO by those convictions nobody will object against. BTW we started with the assumptions that we should compare our systems with the real thing (live music), then to compare different drive systems and TT's and now by comparing digital with analog in order to know what our analog reag is capable of. However the most of us who have decided for analog may be assumed to have already compared with digital. You point is then that we need to try again I assume?

Regards,