Who needs a MM cartridge type when we have MC?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

we need a decent TT and decent tonearm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
rauliruegas
Hey, Lew: Most sincere apologies if anything written offered offense, your post was (obviously) wholly in the information seeking mode. My "last sentence" was just a reflection that without being able to become personally acquainted with your outfit, there was no way in which I could give meaningful input.

The figures relating to "recommended" capacitance only a matter for reflection. Hell, I fiddle with cap./res. to my own satisfaction, I'm entirely convinced there's so much going on in mechanical influences relating to harmonics that adhereing with exactitude to the Nth pF can be counterproductive, shutting off one's ears to spite one's own pFace, so to speak.

No argument here with tubes/SS either. "No one to please but yourself". To paraphrase a much more knowledgable recent contributor, character is flexible in either arena. It would be either chauvenisticaly unmannerly or a demonstration of ignorance to suggest otherwise. I'll confess to an abundance of breaches of both.

Most sincerely, Peace.
Dear Lewm: I forgot that I loaded the great Azden P50VL with added 250pf.

Btw, I writed " great " because today the " emotions " surrounded me ( again ) in the last two days that I decided to try it again, all I can say is: WHAT A PHENOMENAL PERFORMER, yes with capital letters.

I did not heard the Azden for at least 12 months ( when was the month's cartridge. ) now and its great quality performance along that my SLFL goes really lower through that time now this cartridge is showing me things that I was unaware the Azden could do it. This IMHO is a cartridge that honored MUSIC and honored any " best " audio system out there.

Now, I'm not sure which cartridge I will make a " formal " review because I have other cadidates ( including the Shure M140HE ) but I'm taken by this Azden.
Halcro, pity that your sample is out of work/specs because IMHO this could be the " top dog " in your cartridge arsenal.

Lewm, I think that if you can't have two independent selectors for impedance and capacitance then ( after a test between 47k and 100k in that tube phono stage. ) your choice could be a fixed impedance ( either: 47k or 100k. ) with all the capacitance value options you decide.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Lew, I am realy sorry; I thought that the argument was
about the sound. Regarding pragmatics one can also mention:
no need for a heating system and also add some aesthetical
argument like the beauty of the tubes glow.

Regards,
Nandric, You are reviving the argument. Bad. I will give you one surprisingly pragmatic reason why I generally prefer tube equipment: I know enough about it to build and repair it myself. I will leave out the other reasons while also insisting that I have shown in practice (Parasound amp and Ayre phono stage) that I am not at all close-minded when it comes to solid state. If it's good, it's good.

Timeltel, I guess there may be another term (i.e., other than "Miller") to describe the natural input capacitance of a solid state device, but it does exist. And I think it's even of a magnitude not terribly different from that of a vacuum tube used in a gain stage. That's all I was talking about above.
Dertonearm, I completely agree with every word you wrote. I also think that verbal arguments on the subject of tubes v transistors are about as worthwhile as arguing about one's religion vs another's. That's why I never intended to "go there". I am not sure I understand Timeltel's last sentence, but I hope he gets the point. Enough said. Apologies all around.

Now I have to go back and see what Nicola wrote.
Dear Dertonarm, If your argument is valid why should
anyone, except the masogist, buy a tube anything?

Regards,
Dear Lewm, indeed. It's not tube vs transitors. Both can deliver top results. One can design a solid state preamp to sound romantic and "tubey" (ever heard an original Kaneda ss ? More romantic sound than you will ever hear from any tube based design). And there are triode and pentode preamps out there delivering ultra clear and super low distortion ( and only 2nd harmonic if at all) sound.
It is always about good design vs bad design.
Designing audio components is not a religion and it is not about a "camp".
Cheers,
D.
Dear Timeltel,
What's up? First of all, I made no statement about a preference of tubes vs solid state. As I am sure you know, ss gain devices have Miller capacitance too. I was only discussing Miller capacitance. I happen to own an Ayre p5Xe as well as an Atma-sphere MP1, and I like them both. In fact I also modified the input stage of the phono section of my MP1 to a hybrid cascode, with an MAT02 bipolar transistor on the bottom and an ECC99 vacuum tube on top, to get more gain and less noise vs the all-tube stock circuit. The amount of phono gain I have now is staggering. Even the lowest output Ortofon MC does not strain the system. Unfortunately, there is TOO much gain for most MMs, even when I cut back the gain by a little trick inside the dual-differential cascode topology. Thus I am using the Ayre for MM/MI cartridges. I am still trying to figure out where it was that I may have dissed transistors. I don't love them per se, but I don't dismiss or disrespect them either. By the way, the selector switch I am going to install is for a third (all-tube) phono stage I just bought, because it is kind of a legendary piece, out of production for 10 years. I am going to see if it can be made to outperform the Ayre with MM/MI cartridges.

As to my expression of surprise at the amount of added capacitance you suggested, it was only that - surprise. I in no way meant to indicate disagreement, because I have no opinion on this subject. Even if I did, opinion does not count where there are facts available. You are correct in pointing out that I did not do my homework by consulting tables apparently available on VE. That is because I did not know such tables were available. Had I done so, I probably would not have been surprised to read your recommended load parameters. Meantime, thanks for the factual input in your previous post. I take your guidance in this matter seriously. But there is no need to get into a tete a tete on tubes vs transistors.
Regards, Lew(m), and an addendum. There was something about your post that kept nipping at my attention. I finally realized it was your reference to the Miller effect, which would indeed explain why you might find a lower shunted capacitance preferable to mfr. (or typical) applications. Such considerations are just one more factor to take into account when communicating, sometimes it seems if one asks a question of two audiophiles, expect three answers.

I'm confident that after the prerequisite agonizations and sufficient propitiation to the deities of the electron, you'll resolve this to your satisfaction.

Peace,
Regards, Lew(m): Scientist! Anyway and again, but since it's you: 100% SS, I happen to prefer neutrality to "romantic". Overly analytical or bloated don't turn my crank either. YMMV.

Phono stage is FET followed by RIAA eq. to within 0.02dB, arrayed in a cascade-connected three stage direct coupled complementary SEPP design. THD is -0.03%. Short circuited, hum and noise is 87dB. I hope this is O.K. with you?

Lew, my element of surprise is in the other direction, in that from the nature of your post the apperance is that you consider typical working cap. to be less than 200pF?

Reco. cap. for the Azden YM-P50VL, 100-300 pF. ADC XLM-11 is 275 pF, the AKG p8E, 400. Empire 200Z: 300. Ortofon VMS20: 400. And, of course, the Shure V15-111, 400-500, as are many other Shure Cartridges. These are mfg. figures, documented and available with a minimum of research.

Cruise through the listed recommendations given in VE's cartridge databank for cartridges with output in the 1.5 - 3.5mV range. When given, capacitance loading will be anywhere from 100 - 500 pF. For those above 3.5mV output, it's much the same. In the higher output group, the general tendency is for AT associated cartridges at a recommended 100 - 200 pF, Ortofon and Shures from 300 to 500.

Stanton and Pickering apparently decided on a compromise, settling on a nearly universal 275 pF a typical capacitance for consumer grade decks in the '70's. This is why many had soldered-in connectors (and p-mount tonearms), it detered the average homeowner/listener from making uninformed modifications.

If you find reason to vary from well established loadings be my guest. I'd not presume to critique from a "remote listening" to your system and you have no one to suit but yourself. If, on the other hand, it should give you something to consider then I'm pleased to have shared the information.

Peace,
Thanks, Timeltel, Raul, and everyone for your interesting responses. I must say I am surprised at the (high-ish) amount of capacitance Timeltel has found to be optimal with various different cartridges. Also, as regards the inherent capacitance at the input, we must also consider Miller capacitance. Here or elsewhere I was recently reminded that Miller is equal to the sum of the plate to grid and grid to cathode C multiplied by the gain, for a common cathode tube input and probably also for a standard analogous transistor input, that can add a fair amount to the 75pF we allocate for cables. So I have to ask Timeltel whether he uses tube or solid state phono and what brand. (Pentode or cascode input shields the grid from Miller effect, so there we do not have much input capacitance due to Miller.) What type of load C sounds best: polystyrene or silver mica? The latter seem to be popular these days for use in RIAA equalization. I only wish I had room for two rotary switches, one for load R and one for load C. Won't fit.
Regards, Raul: It was a dark and stormy night-.

N120HE: Nude Hyperelliptical .0002 x .0015", alu. telescoped shank cantilever.
N140HE: Nude HE .0002 x .0015 microwall/Be cantilever.
Tracking, 1.00gm optimal, 1.25 max. Add .5gm if stabilizer brush is down.
Shure didn't do Shibata, they called it "HE" instead.

The 140 stylus was found eighteen or so months ago, the cartridge about a year ago. The 120 stylus several months later. Distracted by the Acutex then an exploration of the Signet carts, the ML140HE rested in a headshell until your mention several weeks ago.

It was a dark/stormy night, so out came the 140, with the N120 stylus still mounted. Hey, this sounds much better than I remembered. Two sides later the N140 stylus was installed.

Rivets sizzling in the cymbols, check. Tambourine, the percussive impact and initial clatter of the zils, check.
Violin, strings have that woody resonance, the rasp of the bow, check. Woodwinds reedy, flutes overblown, check. Brass, electronica, keyboards yep, they're all there and well behaved, no pushing/shoving/confusion/crowding, check.

Bass? Resolved and defined, initial attack to the point of atmospheric concussion, then lingering with the note as it modifies/moderates, convincingly aggressive without distraction. And tonality, neutral without loosing immediacy, voice is natural, did I mention the quality of the bass?

It was a dark and stormy night but as you promised a review of the cartridge, I thought to, rather than take the wind from your sails to just trim the rigging in advance.

The only question I have about the Shure is will you choose to report or find it meritorious of a "formal" review.

On the application of capacitance you wrote: "I'm using the cartridge capacitive load as a critical and very important way for a cartridge " final fine tunning ", said " final " means that we have to take care in deep on these capacitance load changes: not so easy as it " sounds " but when you made the " right " capacitance load cartridge set up you know immediately that that load is " right " against other values." Totally agree. Some might say the same for varying resistance.

Peace,
Dear Lewm: Obviously that the " right " impedance/capacitance cartridge set up depend mainly on how good is the overall cartridge/tonearm set up, this tonearm/cartridge set up is the main step ( critical one. ) for you can achieve the best of " that " cartridge performance. The other important subject is with which tonearm/headshell the cartridge is mated.

Regrads and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Lewm: Till today I'm still " married " with 100K and I don't tryed ( yet ) a higher one, Dgarretson can help you here because he has a impedance load selector for as higher as 250K and I assume he already tryed higher than 100K loads.

In my set up these are the added load capacitance values that I use with some cartridges:

AT ML-180 OCC: 50pf. , Micro Acoustics MA-630: 400pf, Technics 205CMK4: 350pf, Sonus Dimension 5: 350pf, Signet TK10MLII: 150pf, Nagatron 9600: 100pf, Excel ES70XE4: 450pf, Micro Seiki LF-7: 150pf, ADC 25: 450pf and Empire 750LTD: 300pf.

My advise is that if you can leave capacitance alone and independent on the impedance selector.

Those cartridge capacitance loads were " found out " after several tests with several capacitance values, I don't found out a " rule " for this subject ( other that the process I follow to do it. ) where everything were made through my ears " measure tool ".

I'm using the cartridge capacitive load as a critical and very important way for a cartridge " final fine tunning ", said " final " means that we have to take care in deep on these capacitance load changes: not so easy as it " sounds " but when you made the " right " capacitance load cartridge set up you know immediately that that load is " right " against other values. IMHO we need a " process " that can works for each one of us. Till today mine always works and tell me what's happening and what's not happening.

IMHO the cartridge capacitance load subject not only is critical ( maybe more than load impedance ) but makes a paramount difference if the audio system has the resolution for you be aware of those differences.

Good that you are taking care on the whole cartridge load capacitance/impedance subject, good luck.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Regards, Lew(m): The Shure V15-111 is the only cartridge (in my posession) with a reco. cap. of 400-500 pF, at 100k it can sound somewhat glassy with a SAS stylus, 47k tames it. This is not so pronounced with an "e" or "he" profile.

At the other end, many of the AT's gain the edgy "house sound" some find objectionable with cap. above 200pF. Many others, such as your Azden YM-P50VL or Acutex 315-111 would do well at 100k/300 pF total.

If exclusive to MM cartridges and presented with six options, 33/100, 47/100, 47/200, 68/100, 68/200 and 100/200 might be some combinations worth your consideration, there are of course others. Presuming a nominal 75 pF for tonearm and IC's, the option of higher cap. connectors would aid in "filling in the blanks" for cartridges with output impedances requiring higher pF's. 47/100, 47/200 and 100/300 are the settings I most frequently visit and of course multiple IMHO's apply.

Sounds like you've given this a lot of thought. Have you read through the lengthy but quite informative "Near-zero capacitance effect for phono cables - method" thread at VE?.

Peace,
Dear Thuchan, Thank you, but you are talking about MC cartridges, and you are quite correct, added capacitance is never desirable with those. However, for reasons which are too arcane to re-hash here, having to do with the fact that MM cartridges have far more inductance than MCs, sometimes one does want to add a capacitative load to the MM input, with some cartridges and at some values of load resistance. (Note that we all agree that 47K is not optimum for every and all MM or MI cartridges. Some definitely like 100K better. Some like less than 47K.)

My "small loading tablet" will be a 6-position ELMA or Shallco rotary switch.
Great Raul, this will become a hot summer. Dertonearm's turntable and your tonearm being launched. Exciting. I am selling some very nice tonearms right now I would have never separated from but life goes on...

Lewm, I never used capacitor loadings when matched my carts. I put different resistors on my Boulder modules. In the end it might be the best if you are flexible enough to change the loadings precisely which means you need to have a small loading tablet carrying the resistors. On average you might get a good compromise with 100 ohm, 220 ohm, 560 and 875 for most MCs.
Question for Raul, Timeltel, Dialolum, or anyone: I am going to re-wire my phono stage so as to provide variable loads at the MM input. I am thinking that 100K is the max load ever needed. Do any of you disagree? Do you ever use load resistance greater than 100K to good effect?

Also, on a more ethereal level: I have room on my selector switch for combining a fixed resistance with some added capacitance. Do you ever add capacitance when using a 100K load? If not, what amounts of capacitance are typically effective with a 47K load, where 47K alone (with no added C) is not already optimum. I have a 6-position switch. I am thinking: 100K, 68K, 47K, 47K + X capacitance, 47K + Y capacitance, 33K, respectively, for the 6 choices. Any better ideas appreciated.
Dear Thuchan: Yes, this 2011 the tonearm will " see the light " and yes we take very serious the tonearm designer responsability for that tonearm comes with a 100% accurate/user friendly universal protractor for any owner does not needs any after market protractor on cartridge/tonearm set up.

When you and other people will have our design on hand will understand our statements about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear banquo363: Universal, yes that's the whole main target that put Guillermo and I in this excited and learning project.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear pryso: No there are no pictures ( yet ) and we are sheduled by some day in next July/August.

We want that this tonearm be my last tonearm for years to come and we must be sure it will be in that way, this is why we are delayed with.

Price?, no we have no precise idea yet.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Raul,
maybe not only in theory you are a perfect candidate for a universal protractor as you know of course. Looking forward to your coming tonearm! Will it be a universal protractor you are providing with? And much more importantly do you plan a time window in 2011 for launching your tonearm?
When my tonearm be ready I don't use any more any other tonearm I own or is out there and I will put on sale all those tonearms.

That's quite a statement given your previous assertions on the importance of cart/tonearm matching. It implies that your tonearm design is 'universal' in that it matches every available cartridge. Wow. I know I won't be able to afford your tonearm, but like most others am looking forward to reading about it and enjoying it vicariously.
So Raul, the obvious questions -- how soon do you expect production, and have you posted any specs/pictures of your "final" prototype? Oh, and projected price (US$) would be good to know too.
Dear Lewm/friends: In theory I'm a good/natural " candidate " for the DT protractor due that I have several tonearms/cartridges.

In normal conditions I should already order it but things are that with our tonearm design IMHO we don't need and after market protractor.

Our tonearm's protractor not only is 100% accurate and user friendly but has all what we need for any cartridge set up.

When my tonearm be ready I don't use any more any other tonearm I own or is out there and I will put on sale all those tonearms.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
I supose this points to the approaching decrepitude of many of us on this thread but I also use the Feickert with my reading glasses on and magnifying glass firmly in hand. It works fine with these aids!

I doubt that ultra alignment variations make an audible and consistent difference: considering degrees of arc variations on cantilever straightness, centring of holes in our records etc. However, if I did not have the Feickert then Dertonarm's protractor would sound a wise bet.
Lew, and other "elder eyes" like myself; it seems some sort of vision enhancement is a requirement for any cartridge alignment.

I also have a (metal version) Dennesen that I've used for many years. I use it with a 2" magnifier (marked 1/2" on the handle?) to sight both the stylus tip into the "tiny dimple" and to align the cantilever with the appropriate grid lines. Prior to that I used a DB Systems protractor but found the back and forth adjustments a bit tiresome. I've never used a Feickert or Mint LP, but for myself, I cannot imagine using any protractor without the aid of some sort of magnifier. Note I can read fairly small print uncorrected at 12-18" but must have correction with objects less than 6" away.
Raul, For me it's ease of use that attracts me most to DT's protractor and the fact that I so far never invested in a Feickert or a MintLP type. I own a Dennesen that I bought maybe 25 years ago plus two of the Turntable Basics protractors, for different size spindles. That, plus the Stevenson protractor that I downloaded from VE for free, is all I have. This is partly because, like you, I have my doubts that super-precision makes much difference, but also because neither the Mint nor the Feickert addresses problems I have just seeing the tiny lines and the stylus and cantilever. I gave up using the Dennesen several years ago just because I cannot see the tiny dimple engraved in the alu base, nor the grid lines. This is not because I am vision-impaired in any real way; it's just normal presbyopia. When installing a tonearm, I do use the Dennesen for accurate pivot to spindle distance setting but not for aligning cartridges. Plus the Dennesen, or at least MY Dennesen, appears to have been cut for the smallest of the 3 possible spindle diameters. It won't fit over the Lenco spindle, for example. The TTB is really easy to use, but I am never sure that the line from the spindle is really pointing accurately to the pivot point. If you get that wrong, the alignment goes way off. It looks like the DT product solves all these problems in one go. Plus, if I bought the DT, I could sell my Dennesen and recoup at least a fraction of the cost. (I guess this sounds like I am talking myself into it.)
Dear Lewm: Well Halcro is that person and I'm sure he will come back here to share his experiences and I think that like me you or any other persons trust on Henry.

I like the protractor and its build quality level but for me ( for one or 20 tonearms ) the main subject is quality performance improvement ( over MINT/Freickert or other protractors out there. ) level that I can hear it.

If the DT protractor fulfill that main target this sole fact justify its price and with all what " surrounded " the protractor then I could say : it's a bargain, but not before know that's a real improvement on quality performance.

I have to say that I'm almost " sure " that the protractor can/could fulfill that main target because Dertonarm has the skills to fulfill it through his protractor design/execution .

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
My apologies to all for not having read the description in sufficient detail. It is there for all in gory detail. It all makes perfect sense now. Now I'm curious about the 'more benefits not apparent on first sight'... :^)

It certainly looks like a really top-notch design, especially useful for someone who has a boatload of arms.
You don't get 23 templates.......you can choose 4 out of 23 (or probably 30 by now).
Anyhow.......I think it looks promising and I've put my order in for the first production run.
I'll let you know how it compares to the Mint when I receive it.
In any case, I prefer the Feikert to the Mint for various reasons.
Dear T_bone, the opportunity to get any extra template(s) is a standing option for owners/users of the UNI-Pro to adapt to new tonearms they may add later to their collection.
Each Mint is made for a specific tonearm - I can hardly be blamed for offering the same.... ;-) ...
With the initial set do come 4 templates - FREE CHOICE by purchaser - of a total of meanwhile 30 individual templates for most all tonearms of today - and yesterday.
Any extra template is US$69 INCLUDING worldwide AIRMAIL.
Of course it can only work with the UNI-Protractor - it is part of a system which can only be used in conjunction with it's core parts.
Furthermore you get a true direct overhang template, a true vertical azimuth template, the 1st true center locator which is NO-touch-working AND works with round bearing houses.
And a few more benefits not apparent on first sight.
Best,
D.
If it comes with all 23 templates, it would make sense for a few of us, but one thing with the Mint is that when you sell the arm, you can include the protractor with it.

Wonder why the templates are also $65 apiece... Can't really use a template without the device and you seem to get all the templates with it in the first place...
Dear Lew, Your arguments in casu are as if you were a professional logician/mathematician. But despite of this I don't believe that Dertonarm will be glad with your post.
Namely it also logicaly follows from your argument that
only those with,say, 4-5 tonearms should be interested.

Regards,
I agree Lewm, and if the DT protractor nails down perfect pivot to spindle distance that is a big plus. Easier to use and the ability to try different null points are more benefits compared to the MintLP. I don't think that just because the tonearm manufacturer may have specified null points slightly different than Bearwald (lofgren A) or the other "universally accepted" methods the tonearm will sound any bettter useing them though. It is the precision of the alighment that is important and the DT seems that it may be the most precise way to set up a tonearm and align the cartridge.

Dear Raul,
"This new protractor puts ( everything the same. ) the cartridge stylus position with more accuracy that any of the other protractors out there?, if yes then I want to " see " the comparison and if there are improvements on quality sound reproduction or could be that the difference in accuracy is so tiny that the audio system can't " resolve " or we could not hear it.
IMHO these questions are critical and I think we need precise answers about from protractor's owners."

Translated into what we call plain language, you want someone else to buy one, make a careful comparison to Mint et al, and tell you that Dertonearm's protractor is decidedly better. Whom are you going to trust to do that?

By the way, think if you had to buy 4-5 Mint protractors for your 4 or 5 different tonearms. That's $400 to $500 right there, if I am correct in thinking the Mints cost $100 each, and you still don't have all the other neat features that help the tremulous and/or the vision-impaired to do the job right. It seems to me that for the owner of multiple tonearms, the DT protractor is not so expensive after all.
Dear Downunder/all: This is information that I have on the protractor:

" The UNI-Pro's lines and spots are all laser hairline - the sharpest possible.
It's template is true mirror - 3 mm deep parallax. Each template is concave laser-cut to 1/100 mm. The actual "sweet-spot" is 1 single laser shot only. I thought it made little sense to make a spot larger than the stylus itself.
The cross-hair lines are all laser cut - the lines around the needle spot are in a half arc to accommodate the parallax aid lines when actually checking the cantilevers position as well as the cartridge body's azimuth. Furthermore there is a 8 mm vertical azimuth template to check at every possible point across the tangential curve.
The UNI-Pro comes with 3 precision machined POM-adapters for the TT spindle itself. Each adapter has a different center hole to accommodate different spindle diameters ( 7.05, 7.10 and 7.15 mm - others on request ...) so to precisely center each template without even the faintest play.
The template fixed over the spindle adapter then is surrounded by the UNI-Pro's main frame with the positioning linear drive and the magnifier slide.
The UNI-Pro's main frame fits over the template without the faintest play - due to the precisely cut frame and the special concave cut of the mirror templates.

The micrometer driven linear drive allows precise positioning of the locator arm relative to the desired "null point" (each mirror parallax template comes with an individual figure to dial in at the micrometer).
This is to precisely tri-angular any desired geometry.
All this is done in less than 2 minutes.
The magnifier-slide puts the magnifier in exactly the correct position to focus in on the stylus.
You can directly take a bearing on the cantilever and determine whether it is really in right angle to the arc.
I will certainly not mention any other alignment tool here in comparison.
What I am sure about however is, that the UNI-Pro is the first truly universal alignment instrument as it gives the very same precision to ANY pivot (and tangential ...) tonearm of ANY mounting distance and ANY effective length (14" and less that is ...) and ANY geometry.

For important individual tonearms like Technics EPA-series, SAEC, Fidelity Research 64 and 66, DaVinci, Exclusive, Ortofon RMG 309, SME V, SME 3012, Audiocraft 300/3000, 4000, Dynavector, Triplanar, Reed, Talea and several others are individual templates available all made based on the geometry specified by their designers.
All made to the same 1/100 mm tolerance.
A matching P2S-template with 1/100 mm precise readings will be introduced on Audiogon on February 25th.
It will come together with a goniometric tool to determine off-set angle of unknown tonearms.

The UNI-Pro is all precision milled, made and assembled in Germany.
All mirror parallax templates are laser cut here in Munich/Bavaria.
The micrometer linear drive is custom made here in Germany too. "

Btw, Downunder I understand all what the protractor has around it but for me the first main important subject is which advantage on precision/accuracy brings me against MINT/freickert/Denessen and other protractors.

This new protractor puts ( everything the same. ) the cartridge stylus position with more accuracy that any of the other protractors out there?, if yes then I want to " see " the comparison and if there are improvements on quality sound reproduction or could be that the difference in accuracy is so tiny that the audio system can't " resolve " or we could not hear it.
IMHO these questions are critical and I think we need precise answers about from protractor's owners.

I hope they can share those information/experiences with all of us in this forum.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
HI Nadric, It does spindle diameter as well.

" It further incorporates 3 spindle adapters to accommodate and perfect
center every spindle diameter from 7.05 to 7.20 spindle diameter without "play".

WE should probably start posting in the Uni Protractor thread, now that mods have allowed.

The perfect gift for the analog OCD

cheers
Nandric, When using a Mint tractor the first step as I remember is to set the overhang by using the outside and inside of the arc? Correct? Is this not accurate?
Downunder, You should also add the measuring tool for the spindle-pivot distance. Mint tractor presupposes that this
distance is already 'perfect' or exact. However Mint tractor is the only one I know of wich also accounts for
the spindle diameter. I had no idea that spindles differ in
this regard but learned about that from Yip (Mint LP). This was my primary reason to order two of them(Triplanar, Reed2A) for the spindle of my Kuzma so to speak.

Regards,
Raul

One distinct advantage Derts protractor does have is that he has produced individual aliignment templates for tonearms like the Exclusive EA-03/10, FR 64-S, 66-S, Ortofon - all of which are based on the geometry specified by their designers, not the standard B,L or S.
Only Dert has gone to all that trouble. Mint is unable to do that.
Shane, please do that if possible. I searched all over the forum for the review with no luck.
Dear Lewm/Downunder: Agree looks as it cost.

I think one of the main " questions " could be: which advantages give us against ( example ) Mint-LP protractor?, I mean if I already own a MINT protractor that was made in specific for my tonearm/TT geometry specs and that put the cartridge stylus where in theory belongs in my set up: what advantage on that set up could give me that good looking and very good build protractor? ( everything the same, this is ( example ) Baerwald IEC that's ( I think ) how the MINT comes. ).

I know that the Dertonarm's design has additional " tools/options " or even Azymuth or other cartridge set up needs but all these is not what I want to know but a bis-a-bis comparison looking for differences and accuracy set up with the MINT against the DT.

Obviously that Dertonarm could comes here and make an explanation where we all know he is very good doing it.

As you Downunder I would like that a non-biased owner of that device make the comparison against the MINT-LP protractor and could share his experiences with all of us.

In a mechanical device like this IMHO the only way to be sure on improvements or mere differences against other protractors, like the MINT-LP, is under system tests with both protractors on hand, this experiences/facts will be the ones that speaks for it self.

Anyway my congratulations to Dertonarm and wishes for success!

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Downunder, where is your post on the protractor?
It looks to be better than any that I own, price notwithstanding. The problem is that I do own 3 protractors already. The built-on magnifier is a neat idea, IMO.
Lewm. It will be interesting if the mods approve my post re Dert's universal tractor.

Expensive yes, looks impressive yes. At least he has put his money where his mouth is.
Will be interesting on any user reviews (other than Syntax).

Anyone buying one ?
Dear Rich, Dertonearm's tool (you will pardon the expression): It looks VERY nice. It's expensive.

Dear Nikola, I think you might be right that when I wrote something about any audio gear being an "investment", I was making fun of myself. I do not seriously believe this. However, the vintage stuff does hold its value, at least. A friend of mine who is very well known in the business was just telling me last night that a Fidelity Research FR66S was available on eBay any time for $600, in 2005. They now regularly appear there for $6000 and much more.

As Raul implies, I too would never take any advice from Sam Tellig regarding an ultimate audio system or ultimate audio components. He does after all call himself the "audio cheapskate". These guys who write for the audio magazines are just like you and me, only they may write better and/or may have even a bigger addiction to audio gear. Only a few are technically knowledgeable and worth reading.
Dear Nandric: +++++ " According to some reviewers the amps with less power sound better then the 'big guns'. Sam Tellig and Art Dudley for example. You will be not impressed I quess but the saving involved by avoiding the JC-1..... " ++++++

IMHO ST and AD are not very good reference on that subject and that subject only means that if in the same amplifier manufacturer line the lower power model sounds better than the higher one ( everything the same. ) then there exist a drawback on the design or execution design on the high power amplifier.
IMHO a good designed amplifier performs good regarding which power gives you.

I agree with Lewm about:

+++++ " I think of amplifiers as a means to an end, and that an amplifier has no importance except to drive the speaker properly. Hence to me the amplifier/speaker form a closed system, much like the tonearm/cartridge. " +++++

the " key " on that statement is: " to drive the speaker properly ", that could means many things but one critical one is to achieve: matched electrically, just like room/speakers match.

Btw, " avoiding the JC-1s?: well IMHO maybe you need to learn/ask ( him ) why the Soundlabs owner/designer recommend those great amplifiers with his ESL speakers or hear those amplifier on a good founded with audio system.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Lew, I like to think that I am a careful reader but
when I read your post I need to keep continual in my mind that you are a great admirer of Mark Twain. So when I come
across your statement that you regard your collections of
turntables, tonearms and MM carts as investment I was realy astonished. I deed read this statement 4 times over. I somehow forget Twain and when I recollected this fact I realy thought: this one is a typical Twain story.
However by looking at the prices of those old DDTT, some of
the old tonearms and more in particular of the extending list of the MM carts I needed to correct my own opinion.
Ie it may be the case that your collection is indeed a good investment. However this does not apply for the amps.in my opinion. The rule there is: the older the cheaper.
This was my reason to refer to the 'minimalist philosophy'.
I would never dream to give you a technical advise. In economics however everything is allowed.

Regards,