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
Dear Dgarretson: Seems reasonable your opinion on the Precept 550 but my suspicious rigth from the begining was because I supposed that sharing the same 440 motor the top of the line 550 must performs better than any of the 440 versions and that does not happen even after several playback hours. Something is not right down there, I have to re-listen it.

Ijn the other side it is really weird that exist no single reference and a picture of the Precept 550ML CARTRIDGE all over the net! and that other than Fleib no one posted yet he owns or knows about.

Is it real that Precept 550 cartridge or never existed?

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Dlcockrum: Yes, the MF-200 is still a winner against almost any other cartridge.

It beats my 71L and in many ways better than the MF-100. I pointed out the great cartridge tracking habilities that the 71L/MF100 has not. That cartridge tracking habilities is part of the performance differences in between.

The Astatic ones are the newest cartridges coming from same design as Glanz. Glanz is very good too but till today I don't find out the Glanz that can beats your MF-200.

Now, we have to remember that all these cartridges are vintage one and could be differences even between same models because differences on cartridge suspension because the age.

Anyway, good that you are enjoying the MM/MI alternative.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Stonedagainagain: ++++ " Sounds infact very close to a VdH Colibri platinum " +++++

this is the greatest compliment I heard on reference to the Astatic MF-200, that Colibri Platinum not only is the top VDH of all Colibri's but a pricey and top cartridge performer but any today standards, good.

I'm sure that your B&O MMC1 will gives you high pleasure level on playback as could gives you your MC2000. On this one I hope Axel could leave it as " original " and if yes then the challenge with this Ortofon is its very low output level that if you has the right high gain phono stage you will be surprised on its quality performance.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R
Dear Fleib: Looking to the Acutex line maybe that 312 price could be a fair one, take a look to this Acutex brochure:

http://www.vinylengine.com/library/acutex/phono-cartridges.shtml

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Thanks Fleib, I'm checking it out. looks like I am on my own indeed in this adventure.

Nandric.....True Axel is a cart god, I however want to venture forward with a steady nerves and a scalpel in hand. Take a look at your Acutex Cartridge. Remove the stylus assembly and look at the bottom of the plastic magnetic well that surrounds the large cannon magnet. The compliance screw is now staring at your eyeball just begging to be released and supplanted w/ a 15 degree stylus of choice. Interesting note, when setting up a vintage cartridge know the era it was produced: Stylus rake was standard 15 degrees from 1958 or so and changed in the late 70s/early 80s to 20 degrees with the advent of the Ortofon 20. Aptly named Ortofon had many firsts.
Raul, I've never even seen a picture of a PC-550, perhaps I was referring to the stylus. However, all the stylus sellers list that model as top. They also list the PC-100 as bottom and stylus plastic color is unknown. The quality level of the 550 stylus we purchased looks like it should be on the PC-100.

The Acutex 312 stylus is listed as a bonded shibata on alum cantilever. I have no experience with Acutex, but it seems to me Axel can provide a superior replacement for a little more money. I've reached the conclusion that in the pursuit of excellence it is a false economy to buy anything but the best. Sometimes it's difficult to know exactly what's best, but I get the impression that Axel voices the cartridges.
Regards,
Dear Raul, How many winners do you actually have? Your exaggerations are very difficult to follow. I already mentioned your curious comparising method: 'John is tallest
guy in the class but Peter is even taller'. This make no linquistic sense. If you think that MF 200 is better than MF 100 or Glanz 71l or Glanz 31 l then something must be wrong with your MF-100 and Glanz 71 ,and because you don't own the Glanz 31 L you can't possible say anything about this one. There are 3 of us against your opinion: Vetterone, Dgob an I. You can't dismiss our opinion so easilly. You are only figuratively speaking the Pope. But not all of us are Catholic.You should temper your temper in my opinion.
Regards,
Dear Fleib: +++++ " I've never even seen a picture of a PC-550... " ++++

I thinked ( my mistake ) that when you postede about the 550 stylus replacement was because you knew of the cartridge model too. Could be a lot weird that exist a top stylus replacement with out no top cartridge model, don't you think?

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Raul, surely you saw the empty Precept 550ML box on eBay a few weeks ago?

550ML

AT must have built at least one...
Raul & Fleib,

I posted some photos of the purported PCN550ML on AA at

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/vinyl/messages/104/1048687.html

Sorry for the mediocre quality of my digital microscope, but at least the photos do appear to reveal a facetted profile.
Dear nandric: I understand your " mix-up " but I think that that mix-up could be only in your mind. Let me explain it:

Do you tested in the same tonearm combination in the same session the: MF-200, MF-100 and Glanz 71L?, if you did it then perhaps you could be right and my 71/100 are not up to specs and if you did not then you can't understand that and that's where your mix-up came.

My both MF-100 against the 200 on the tracking hability subject were beat it as was and is the 71.

Why the top of the line are beated by its little brother?, well I posted this kind of experiences with different cartridge lines.

In the other side remember that your home audio system music reproduction priorities are different from mine.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Vetterone, Glad to see that you are still interested in this hobby . However I expected some support against the Catholic church. Then what about your Glanz 61 against the JVC X 1 and /or MK II? I want mention the MF-200 because we already know what this one is worth.

Regards,
Dear Vetterone: Finally a " light " down there, thank you: appreciated.

That's the same kind of double box where I received one of my Precepts, I think the 220 in original box.

So, there is no doubt of the 550 cartridge existence and the issue is " only " about that 550ML original stylus replacements that some of us bought.

Btw, what do you think on that 550 stylus issue?

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Dgarretson: Maybe could be better to keep my stylus sample: don't you think?

Thank you to enriched the subject.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Nandric, my well read friend, sorry I have not been able to reply to your numerous friendly jabs here and on the Glanz thread. I have been too busy building my ridiculously priced plinths and also working a new similarly priced tonearm. Plus my old cars seem to be disintegrating before my eyes from non use. Can't let that happen.
If I may, let me correct one thing you attributed to me about the MFG 61. I did not say it was "the best". I did quote from the Glanz booklet that the 61 was the "most prestige model among GLANZ MF cartridges". Not trying to make you feel bad or envious, just trying to be informative.
The MFG61 is certainly in MY top five or six cartridges. Don't have a 71L, Glanz 5 or 7 to compare so I will try to describe its sound relative to the MF200/MFG31L. It is more refined than the MF200 (which I like a lot) and slightly faster. Better leading edge attack and decays. The highs from the 61 are more three dimensional than most any other cart I own. Don't think I have ever heard better reproduced cymbals. Vocal textures are heavenly. The bass is where the 61 is suspect, at least with the five or six hours I have put on it. The deep bass does not have the control I like to hear. Powerful but a little wooly. It was NOS when I received it so it deserves another 20 hours to be fair. For all I know it may have the distortions of a Salvador Dali painting but it sounds good to me.
Dear Nandric is it a idea to send your friend Axel the 550? He can say for 100% sure what kind of diamond cut or cantilever it has. Perhaps he is willing to write one sentence back to you. So there is a argument for refund. Regards. Knut
Dear Raul, I also understand your 'mix up' for the simple reason that you own much more carts than I so you should be more easily 'mixed up' than I . I don't even believe that you own any Glanz cart whatever despite your collection. You never mentioned any of them while even a blind person can see that they are the same as Astatic. All the bodies are the same while the model is marked on the stylus and not on the body. Would you be so kind to post to me the picture of your Glanz 71 L to convince me that you own one?
Those are very difficult to get and why should you then own one? Your arguments go from bad to worst and are based on your presupposed authority of some kind which you attributed to youself. In other threads it become also obvious that your 'evidence' means the same as your opinion ( FR 64/66 thread). As my comrade stated some time
ago the king has no cloths.

Regards,
Dear Knut, Sorry for my mentioning this but I was just involved in 'mix up' blames with Raul. What you 'mixed up' is the 'holy' question of ownership. The 550 ML in casu does not belong to me but to my comrade Don. My intention
is to post tomorrow this 'suspicious entity' to its legal owner and not to Axel. While the postage cost to Germany are much lower than to the USA I would not bother for Axels
opinion even with the involved postage cost but in relation to my comrade Don the situation is different. It is my duty to post his stylus back. If I am well informed he will try some surgery of the most complex kind: the transplant. I only beg the Almighty that he will not use the 155 cl as a donor.

Regards,
Dear nandric: This is your first and last time, with out excuse, that I permit you with out back insulting you that I'm a liar, period.

This is the ebay confirmation of the auction I winned last December where stated that Glanz cartridge.
My ebay moniker is: silviajulieta.

The original ebay email is at disposal of any one in this thread but you:

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

Here's your order confirmation

Hi silviajulieta,

Here is a summary of your recent order. You can also view your updated order details in My eBay.

Thank you for shopping on eBay!

Go to order details
Order details
You completed checkout on Dec-10-12
Ship to: Payment details: Total:
Celeste Bermúdez. PayPal GBP 265.00
642 Palomar St
Ste 406-149
Chula Vista, CA 91911-2626 US

Item title Price
Shipping price
Qty Item total
GLANZ MFG-71L - TOP CARTRIDGE - STUNNING SOUND!! ( 390507274513 )

Paid on Dec-10-12 GBP 255.00 GBP 10.00 1 GBP 255.00

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

I posted about and posted on the Glanz comparison against MFs.

Rgeards and enjoy the music,
R.
It's dangerous to suppose that there is any cartridge that Raul has not either owned or heard. Usually, in fact, he owns it and has heard it.

Meantime, I have some anxiety regarding the NOS 550 ML stylus assembly. Mine is blue, like Dave's. I infer that it will look the same upon close inspection. Fleib, whose judgement I respect, seems quite certain that what is shown in Dave's photos (to be seen over on AA) is neither beryllium nor ML. (Or perhaps Fleib inspected some other sample of the same item.) What next?
Degarretson'

"Sorry for the mediocre quality of my digital microscope, but at least the photos do appear to reveal a facetted profile."

I want to be sure I am correctly understand your quote and what I see in the photo.
This term facetted profile, is meant to say this is "not conical"!
Is this a correct definition of as to what your were inplying?
Regards,
Don
Nikola,

"If I am well informed he will try some surgery of the most complex kind: the transplant. I only beg the Almighty that he will not use the 155 cl as a donor."

After Flieb's comments about disintegrating beryllium cantilevers during transplants, I decided to contact the retipper (Andy at NeedleClinic), in Washington state. A 3 hour drive from me for advice. He also feels it would be smarter to have a retipper do the transplant. He stated he didn't care if I chose him or someone else (he mentioned Axel), but due to the fragile nature of beryllium he felt best to leave it up to a professional! I have a tight fitting round post AT housing that is without stylus. I intend on having a beryllium/LC or ML mounted in my Precept. If it gets proven beyond a doubt (see DGarretson's AA photos), that the 550ML is a fake, then I will have Andy do the transplant with hopefully good results! If the results are not to my liking, I can always have Andy retransplant the 155LC back into its original housing. "Life will be good" either way!
Regards Comrade,
Don
Look at the pictures on Asylum. See how the end of the cantilever in front of the diamond is folded over and the end of the cantilever is curved? This looks the same as aluminum. The only way that could be beryllium is if has another metal covering the beryllium which is folded. If you look at other pictures of beryllium and aluminum cantilevers from the same angle you'll see what I mean. There's no mistaking this.

I stated that I didn't have enough magnification to tell the cut of the diamond. In the pictures it seems to be an extended contact type. In the last pic it looks like a shibata, but that could be the angle. It might even be an early micro line, but it's bonded, not a nude square shank and the cantilever isn't beryllium. Based on the results I was getting, it might sound half decent loaded down, like an AT-440ML, only it's of lesser quality.
Regards,
Fleib,

I have several beryllium cantilevers and they all look the same. Not a single one of them look anything like the pictures on AA. Damn near everyone of my Alum cantilever do look like what is pictured. Crimped and bend. Definitely Alum. But it's not conical, nor can it be the 4x7 mil. PC110. Doesn't look like the 2x7mil. 220 either. Could it be the 440 shibata?
A lot of Audio Technica's shibata's were on Alum.
Regards,
Don
Commrade Nandric, heh, heh (and I do have the distinction of first noting you as a comrade, as we all are here)

"Tubed1, I owned some of those Acutex from different series but have no idea what you mean by 'screw'. There are no screws like by AT styli."

Please keep in mind this is the Acutex M3xxx shortnose series of cartridges, not the newer 3xxx LPM longnose which has a completely different configuration.

I don't get it "Idem his boron option". Typo? Could you please translate. Are you damning Axel's boron option or encouraging that this may be a solution to the Acutex shortnose in place of the OEM M320 titanium cantilever? Or is this simply another form of twisted Urkranian/Dutch humor? Seems to me tititium would be stronger than boron, although I am unsure as my residency as a cartridge surgeon is about to begin how it would sound in comparison.
Don,
I don't understand how a PC440 could have a beryllium and presumably nude square shank LC, while the 550 has aluminum and bonded whatever it is.

I know of at least one instance where AT made a bonded ML on a straight alum cantilever. It's the 3472ML - P mount stylus. Dk green plastic, will fit the CA with plastic trim. I haven't tried it. IMO these ATs need exotic cantilevers to really excel. That's what sold me on the 550.
Regards,
You guys have convinced me that Dave and I were bamboozled. I have not even removed that purported "550ML" stylus from its NOS container. I will be asking for a return of funds in exchange for a return of the item.
Fleib,

I didn't mean to imply that "it" was correct, just suggesting Audio Technica cantilever/stylus possibilities. There is no doubt in my mind that it is not what it is claimed to be. But considering I own one, I sure would like to know what the hell is it and whether it is even worth $50 let alone the $200 we paid!
Regards,
Don
Don, I took a bunch of photos other than those posted to AA. Despite the weakness of the microscope, the photos reveal something more sophisticated than a conical or elliptical profile. As far as I'm concerned, based on sonic performance as much as the pictures, this "550ML" is a keeper despite ambiguity on whether the tube cantilever is beryllium or aluminum.
Fleib,

I didn't mean to imply that "it" was correct, just suggesting Audio Technica cantilever/stylus possibilities. There is no doubt in my mind that it is not what it is claimed to be. But considering I own one, I sure would like to know what the hell is it and whether it is even worth $50 let alone the $200 we paid!
Regards,
Don
Dgarretson,

You might be right but I will not be able to make a determination until my friend Nikola, returns mine. I lent him it with an Akai RS180 (cherry picked AT14S), to demo in his bare Precept 220. He like to Akai so much that we made a comrade gentlemans swap!
BTW. Your photos were very much appreciated. It's rather flustrating sitting here reading all this when my stylus is sitting in the Balkins soaking up the sunshine. (grin)
Regards,
Don
Agree with Dave on the Precept. Sounds good. Maybe we overpaid, and were misled, but regardless of profile and cantilever material, I will keep mine.

I am still curious about what exactly we have though!
Actually, the Precept 550ml sounds a lot like the Garrot p77 I regretably sold. Great midrange, highs slightly rolled off, causing slight loss in dynamics. In the room presence!
Acman3,

I still have my Garrott Bros. P77. It is something you never forget. Did you ever get one of the Jico SAS1 stylus for it?
I have got one and like it so much ( sound so close to the 155LC/152LP you would swear that's what you were listening to), that I had to go over onto the UK site and buy a A&R P77 to install "it" in. That way I could mount both of them for a quick and easy swap. Speaking of which, I haven't heard it in awhile, think I might just mount the Garrott now! Thanks for the reminder!
Regards,
Don
Thanks to Don mentioning his Jico SAS stylus transplant on his Garrott P77 a while ago.........I ordered one to try in one of my two original 30 year old P77s.
I was a little hesitant about this transplant as I had sent one of my Garrotts to Axel to build and fit a new stylus assembly with his nude shank Micro Line stylus pressure-fitted into an aluminium cantilever......and compared to the original (worn-out) Garrott stylus assembly in my other body.....it was a big disappointment.
This has been the only failure I have experienced in four or five Axel re-builds?
To cut to the chase......the Jico SAS assembly in the Garrott P77 is everything that Don says......and maybe more?
It raises the performance of the P77 to that of a true contender and I strongly recommend it to anyone with an original Garrott (Dover?).
The SAS profile is a real mystery to me as I had not read any reviews or comments on this particular profile?
Does anyone have thoughts on the benefits of this stylus?
Hi Halco,

Your experience with Axel's rebuild is the 1st unsuccessful report that I have heard about his work! Perhaps, I stated that incorrectly. It worked but didn't produce the results expected! I have had until recently, always felt the better the cantilever and or stylus, the better the results.
This Precept has changed my mind in that regard. I have earlier in this forum reported that I trimmed the 20SLa housing to fit into the Precept 220 body. Should have produce excellent results. It raised the performance of my Signet TK7SU to new heights so why didn't it do the same in the Precept. I at first thought perhaps it was just a fluke until another member of this forum trimmed to fit a 20SS for his Precept and also had unsatisfactory results. Why? To me, this runs against all logic! It sure makes you realize that their is more to building these things than just a bunch of parts.

Regards,
Don
Comrade Tubed 1, 'idem his boron option'. No typo; idem (dito) means 'the same' (is the case with). The context was the increase in retip prices by Axel because his Japanese providers inreased their prices with 100%. Axel was very disturbed with this increase for obvious reasons.
Don tald me about his beryllium retip in his Goldring and made me very envious (grin). My retip was the usual line contact/aluminum which was as succesful as Henry's P 77.
Sometime I talk to my self and this time it was: 'imbecile you could get the Goldring elliptical stylus for $25.' The benefit is: for this kind of money every cart is 'entiteld'
to sound bad. I.e. no sorrow.
Regarding your 'lesson' about the 'short nose' Acutex and your instruction where this 'invisible' screw is hiding I must say that Fleib's report about his bending of beryllium
and other cantilevers was very convincing for me. Not sure if he lost $500 or $ 600 with his lessons in surgury but I 'got the picture' as you Americans are used to say.

Regards,
Dear Raul, I am sorry but I have no idea what you mean by:
'this is your first and last time that I permit you'...etc.
BTW I am not able to find in any of my statements the word 'liar'. What I deed find was first your patronizing way of commenting my findings about the Glanz
carts as well the dismisal of the opinions of Dgob, Vetterone and myself.
Because I very recently got the Glanz 71 l I reread the whole Glanz thread searching for whatever info. There I also come across your 'opinions' about the Glanz carts. Your 09-11-99 contribution makes clear that you had then no idea about the connection between Glanz and Astatic. In your comment on 01-30-10 you stated:'I don't want to follow on this Glanz subject...I think I already write my opinion /warries'(sic!). By your post from 05-20-12 you wrote:'I dont have any Glanz anymore'. There is no info about any Glanz that you owned /tested but your prejudice about Glanz and your praise of your beloved MF 200 was very clear already then. I am not sure if Dgob or Glanz or both caused your aversion against the innocent trade mark 'Glanz' but everyone can check for himself in the Glanz thread and more in particular your 'arguments' based on ear.
My statement which caused your anger was:''I don't believe that you own any Glanz cart''.
According to Lew 'it is dangerous to assume that Raul does not own whatever cart'. Thanks Lew for this 'introduction'. Lew is of course joking in his cryptic way which originated in the time he wanted to become writer. Otherwise this statement or assumption would imply that Raul owns or owned all the carts ever produced.
What also my be colled 'çryptic' or even illogical is the fact that Raul bought the Glanz 71 L despite his 'opinion' in general about the Glanz carts. I own 4 of those. I must
admit not an impressive number but my quess is that nobody else has more. Those are: Glanz 5, 71, 31 L and 31 E. In my opinion only the 31 E is 'lesser' than MF-200. The 31L equals the MF-200 on 'all fronts' while the Glanz 71 L and Glanz 5 are better.

Regards,
Halcro,
The SAS tip is virtually the same as a microridge or
microline. It has a boron cantilever which is the main difference between it, and what Axel made for you. This would be similar to the difference between an ATN440MLa and an ATN150MLX.
Regards,
Thanks Fleib,
I suspect that the reason for Axel's 'failure' is the poor fit of his plastic stylus body?
It seems to only contact the cartridge body at a single unstable point which allows the whole assembly to 'rock' or 'flex'?
The boron cantilever with the microline stylus of the Jico SAS assembly......allows a much more refined and detailed presentation than the original micro-tracer (whatever that is?) stylus in a highly rigid dual tube cantilever?
Regards
I will work some more with the Precept/AT20ss combo when I get home. It did snap in good, but blu tac is worth a try.

The Professor in his post on 4-26 gives hope that the ANT-155lc will work well in the Precept. He mentions the Precept's output impedance is around 1200 ohms. This may be the problem with the ATN-20ss as that cartridge shows to be at 500 ohm output impedance on VE.

BTW, Professor Timeltel is still being monitored by the KGB, and his post are being rejected as not " having in depth answers" and not worthy of being posted .
**BTW, Professor Timeltel is still being monitored by the KGB, and his post are being rejected as not " having in depth answers" and not worthy of being posted.**

That's troubling. It was the prof who pioneered the beryllium transplant from a 100 series (155LC) plug into the round plug of the 13Ea.
There was some controversy on Karma about the specs of the PC220/440. Because the output is 4.2mV, Timeltel and I thought the generator is similar to the 12E, 13E, 13Ea. They have 4.2mV and 1200 ohm impedance. Someone on Karma said he had one and DC was < 500 ohms. This would make it more like a 20 or even a 12S(a), but with greater output. Could someone with a PC220 or 440 measure DC resistance? It would help in identifying the generator and if it actually has an AT counterpart. It's not that I doubt the info from Karma, but it would be good to have verification.
Regards,
For those needing proof of the Precept 550's existence, I bought the used box on e-Bay. I have a 440 with 550 stylus, and I just uploaded the user info and specifications that were in the box to VE. It should appear in their database in a few days.
Dear Halcro: Your experience with the Axel Garrot re-tip , IMHO , is not because Axel. I already had the same kind of experiences in more than one cartridge model where I asked Axel that " terrible ": pressure-fitted into an aluminium cantilever.. This is the real trouble and obviously that the cartridge was not voiced in that way.

All my " pressure-fitted " ....cartridges changes its performance for the bad, even I had to re-tip it again. Obviously is part of our learning proccess.

Btw, I own that Jico/SAS for my P77 but I never mounted because of time. Right now I'm immerse in the Astatic MF-2500.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Funflyer, The problem is not the existence of the Precept 550 but its identity. Are there more 'versions' than just one? There are many names refering to the same thing (corefering terms) and there are obviously different objects refered to with the same name. We are , I think, talking about different 550 styli. Some with aluminum cantilever and conical stylus, other with 'line contact'(?) stylus and beryllium cantilever (?). Those are obviusly not the same objects. The one I 'inspected' has aluminum cantilever and black industrial diamond of conical shape. To put it otherwise there are fake 550 ml
styli. Why should this be so surprising in our modern world?
Dear Fleib: I could do it because I have " all " Precept versions and almost all ATs/Signets. I try to do it today/tomorrow and compare other this thread measurements from other persons.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear friends: I'm not on the transplant fun game, at least not yet and if for no other thing because I have no time to test several non-tested cartridges in line and I can't take my time for those " great " transplants.

What I would like to do is to give a new opportunity to that 550 taking the time to fine tunning and see if something changed after all that stylus playback time but first this Astatic MF-2500.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Dgarretson/friends: +++++ " this "550ML" is a keeper despite ambiguity on whether the tube cantilever is beryllium or aluminum. " +++++

I just received a RMA# for my 550 return to LPGear but I think I will delay it till I test it again. Thak's for your advise.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.