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
Thuchan,

Impressive system. Outside of friends who are dealers, I have never seen a wider array of noted equipment.

Well done
Thichan, It's those doubled-up smiley faces that follow your post that has me worried. Do you plan this for the "Tongue in Cheek" Forum?
Dear Thuchan: From my part there is no problem about. A welcome thread.

Audio experiences always are interesting and " learning " ones.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear all - is anyone offended if I start a thread titled "Who needs MC when we have MM?" :-) :-)
Dear Dlaloum: Yes, there are some important aspects with some cartridges that benefits from added capacitance. I did not ( yet ) any measures to know if what I'm hearing is " right " about linearity.

The best way I can explain it is to describe my simple process that I follow to discern about the capacitance cartridge value set up:

I made the whole cartridge set up and quality performance playback with 100K loading impedance and with no added capacitance other than the one in the IC phono cable it self ( 150-200 pfs. ).

Here I describe the LPs and tracks on those LPs that I use to cartridge set up:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1246451558&openflup&93&4#93

well, if after the innitial cartridge set up ( overhang, VTA/SRA/VTF/AZ/etc. ) with no added capacitance I can't heard that left percussion sound on the left speaker on that Eagles track then I change from cero pfs to 450pfs. and see what happen.

Till today all the cartridges I tryed and that does not reproduce that percussion left speaker sound now with the added capacitance the percussion sounds comes alive.

From here I listen the same track again but with 100pf lowered ( that's it: 350pf. ) looking for changes in quality or SPL on that percussion sound and if there is no changes then I go further and now I try again with 200pf lower and go on till I heard any single change.

When I heard that change then I evaluate if that change goes against overall quality performance and if goes against then I return to the latest capacitance set up and I left in that way to confirm in a second step and through other LPs the overall quality performance improvement because that added capacitance.

For this I use at least the P.Barber track on that link and the 45rpm version Side one track one on Rickie Lee Jones: " it's like this " recording. At this stage I confirm if everything is for the better and not " exaggerated ".

I'm not only trying to heard those Eagles track percussions ( something like: sshhsh... ) but a clear definition and overall transparency improvement that I can confirm through the other LPs.

It is to tempting to left the capacitance value at its highest number and here is where our each one knowledge audio/music level plays a definitive role to decide the " right " capacitance loading number.

In all cases when I achieve the " right " capacitance value I heard too a very positive and tiny/small bass improvement.

I did not tested many cartridges about and only when I finish with the more important ones I will report on the subject to be absolutely sure.

What I already experienced about could be change with other cartridges so I'm not saying there is a rule down there. Too many factors to " write " rules on the subject. Even I have to re-check all the cartridges tested in that way because I want to be absolutely sure that what I'm hearing is " right " to my system.

Btw, this is not the best time in México city to make/made these cartridge tests because the room temperature inside our homes is lower than the " ideal " one for the cartridges due that here in México city we don't have " heating " items like in USA because here the temperature does not goes so low like there but goes lower that what cartridges likes.
Yes, I think that with 23° celcius degrees things could change.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Dlaloum, Can you provide a URL for your post on VE? Thanks, and thanks for sharing your work effort.
Hi Raul,

with the various capacitances and cartridges, what was the difference?

Was there a quantifiable aspect to it?

I have just finished testing my Shure 1000e/SAS across 5 Capacitances and 5 Impedances (25 tests in all for 150pf, 250pf, 350pf, 500pf, 700pf, 22k, 47k, 62k, 82k, 100k), I posted the graphs on the VE loading thread...

There are clear differences in Frequency Response linearity, and the resonant peaks (both of them, electrical and mechanical) are present - although they are too close to each other for most of the measures to seperate out until the C drops to 150 when the mechanical resonance just starts to peak out independently. - All 25 possibilities show a different compromise between frequency extension, and linearity - some have a mid suckout, others a high peak, high C's show a suckout with a F/R dropoff within the audible range....

So what I am asking is whether in your loading test there was some aspect that could be identified on a technical measure to assist in zeroing in on the best setup.... (or perhaps zeroing in on your preferred setup...)

bye for now

David
Dear Downunder: On the capacitance loading MM/MI subject IMHO there is no " best compromise ".

Certainly exist a relationship between cartridge internal inductance and loading capacitance but almost always exist along system own performance and this make that in many ways capacitance loading could be system dependent.

In the last few months where I take care seriously on cartridge capacitance loading I set up capacitance values from 50pf tp 450pf ( added to the own capacitance value in the phono IC . ) with no precise single value prevalent. So we need wide flexibility on capacitance values. The difference when the capacitance value is " right " makes a difference for the better and not in tiny way: it makes a difference!.

At least that's what I experienced on the subject in my system. I will continue with " newest " tests with all those top cartridges where in the past were tested with no added capacitance. I will try too that when I already tested all those " importants " cartridges to report on the subject.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Halcro,
I agree with your philosophy; it is best to run everything direct into one single phono stage or full function preamp (In the old days, the word "preamp" meant a linestage + phono stage; now we have to say it explicitly). However, my MP1 has no MM stage per se, only high gain for MC. I revised its input so I can switch between two different gain levels on phono, but even so the low level is still a bit much for most MMs. That plus the geographical limitations associated with having 3 tts up and running (5 tonearm cables won't all reach the MP1), have caused me also to own a second outboard phono stage, dedicated to MM. I chose the Ayre p5Xe, to maintain balanced circuitry throughout my system, but I am looking always for something better or "different". The Ayre then runs into the linestage section of the MP1. I have the distinct impression that the MP1 phono is inherently a bit superior to the Ayre, which makes me feel good, because I have made extensive mods to the MP1 circuit. To answer DU's question, I would like to see selectable capacitances of zero, 100pF, and 250pF, at a minimum. I would like to see selectable resistive loading for MMs of 28K or 33K, 47K, 68K, 100K. This is just based on reports here that the gaps between these Rs make a difference in some cases. One "problem" with the Ayre is that it was really built with MC cartridges in mind and has no easily accessible way to change load R and no way at all to change C, unless I start drilling holes and adding switches, which I am wont to do.
Hi Shane,
4 of the 6 arms have balanced XLR terminations so I don't have to worry about connecting a bunch of grounding wires.
I simply have all the plugs ( with colour-coded electrical tape distinguishing the various arms), lying beside or behind the DM10 preamp.
It takes me literally 30 seconds to unplug one set and plug in another.
The FR-66s which has RCA terminations has it's ground wire permanently connected to the preamp so it can be plugged in and out in 10 seconds.
This gives me the most direct and purist phono connections with no outboard stages and interconnects.
Incidentally there is only one phono input into the DM10. It's either balanced or unbalanced........you can't have both connected as they both lead to the same output stage. You can switch this stage between MM and MC and once again, it's either/or.......not both. You can select between 3 gain stages for either MM and MC and for MM/MI cartridges there is an infinitely adjustable loading up to 60K Ohms and infinitely variable capacitance from 70uF to 430uF.
For MC cartridges the loading is fixed at 220 Ohms as the signal is so small, Bruce Candy did not want to put active devices in the signal path and doesn't believe that loading for MCs is as important as for MMs.
Halrco

Sounds like the FR tonearms must give out pleasant sounding resonances and distortions like tubes that many people prefer to listen to music with, including yours truely :-)

BTW, how do you listen to all your tables/tonearms with only two phono cards in your pre ? or have you bought a new phono ?

cheers
Hi All

MM phono stages with the ability to change capacitance are far and few between, so most are fixed.

If you could choose one value, what would be as the best compromise for most MM carts out there. 100pf, 200pf or ???

a bit like 100ohm seems to be the standard resistive loading for MC's.
I have 2 turntables of different ‘persuasions’, 8 tonearms (counting the Hadcock GH228) and 18 cartridges and have been listening to high-end vinyl for 35 years.
If I understand correctly, Raul is proposing that I can’t detect ‘distortions’ or ‘resonances’ caused by the FR-64s and FR-66s in the playback of these cartridges using the same phono cables, phono stage, preamp, interconnects, amps, cables and speakers?

If we concentrate on MM/MI cartridges (because of this thread), I’ve listened to 16 cartridges on virtually all 8 of my arms.
When I hear the majority of the MMs sounding poorly on the Graham Phantom II and certainly not at their best on the DaVinci 12” Ref Grandezza, I imagine I’m hearing an arm/cartridge mismatch whether it be “resonances”, “distortions” or some other artefacts?
When I hear 10 of my cartridges sounding virtually indistinguishable between the Grace 940G, Micro Seiki MA-505s and FR-64s, am I hearing “resonances” or “distortions” in the FR-64s?
But when I hear 4 or 5 cartridges sounding somewhat better in the FR-64s than any of the other arms I’m suddenly hearing “resonances” and “distortions”……which I’m naïve enough to actually like?
This is peculiar logic to say the least?

As others have said on various occasions……….if one cannot hear the ‘truth’ of the FR-64s/66s tonearms it is a sad loss, but to violently proclaim these arms to have “resonances” and “distortions” which are “pleasing to the ears” is a statement of infinite perplexity?
Lewm

I think at this juncture you need to satisfy your curiosity and simply purchase a FR64s along with a small stock of head shells if you don't already have on hand.

Just a comment on this subject,and I will go away. With this near endless parade of MM MI including MC cartridges and not forgetting a line up of tonearms available and head shells to choose from, for anyone willing to participate your work is cut out for you. Looking at it from another angle, it would not be difficult, speaking for myself, ending up all over the map and possibly missing the target.

For those of you with similar afflictions may I suggest, choose your favorite table preferably one with multi- arm capability, add any highly recommended cartridge or ones to your liking then focus on head shells where applicable and listen.....easy?


Now for some A** kissing, Raul I know your a man of integrity and I appreciate your work over the years.

Mark
Thanks, Raul. Your candor is always appreciated, even, I hope, by those who do not always agree with you. I know it is from the heart. I did not know those threads were deleted. That is silly; I enjoyed the debate, and it was conducted in a civil fashion. It is sad that even in this venue that has no potential to harm anyone, one must fear censorship.
Raul, Why would you want to stop talking about FR tonearms if you have been asked. You have not been censored in the past and you clearly have an opinion based on using them.
I am more than happy for you to discuss more about how full of resonances that FR tonearms are and how this effects the music IYO.

I think we are more than capable of determining the validity of your synopsis.

Dear Lewm: Certainly I did/do not tested all the cartridges out there ( MM/MI or MC. ), even not all the ones I own, but till today I can say that every cartridge I tested sounded from " decent " to excellent level.

Could be cartridges that can perform bad but I have to find it yet. I think that some way or the other all cartridge designs are good and if we find a bad one maybe could be due to a poor excution/build quality design.

In the opther side and talking on the Fr tonearms I appreciate that this time could be the last time to touch the subject in this thread and not for any other thing that because at least three other threads where that subject was discussed on " hot way " were deleted and I don't want that that could happen here and this thread disappear because of that.

Yes, I was one of the persons that puts " fire " on those deleted threads but I can't see or stay " dead silence " when some one try to take advantage on good faith's people in that subject or any other one.

I owned five times those tonearms, I still own a 64 one and enough is to say that I own it mainly to be certain that our tonearm design should not performs in that way.

Lewm, its resonances especially at hf extreme makes " alive " and nice sounding performance that IMHO is away from reality. This is what it likes people along other resonances on the other frequency extreme.
I don't like this level of quality that has nothing to do with music: it is to colored. Some audio systems are not good enough for you can aware of this or just you like those distortions: me no.

Lewm, please don't make I talk in deep on the subject. I respect Halcro and other FR owners but that is not my level of excellence.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
That's a great idea, Trav, but the poster should qualify his statement by listing all the tonearms that were compared in order to arrive at the mystical Nirvana for a given phono cartridge.

Raul, I apologize if I put you on the spot regarding the FR64S. Feel free to ignore my open question, if you would rather not comment. One reason I myself discounted the FR64S was due to its rather imposing effective mass of 35gm, which would in theory be a hindrance with high compliance (but not according to Halcro), but I recently discovered that the FR headshell alone accounts for at least 20gm of that amount. So in fact the 64S can be made into even a medium mass tonearm by use of a very lightweight headshell.
How about a list of arm and headshell/cartridge combinations that perform at the 10++? level,that way folks that have a certain tonearm model could look for specific cartridges or vis versa,or does this depend on the rest of the system?



Is there any cartridge, save for a truly broken one, that cannot be made to sound decent or even good, if one has a large enough supply of tonearms and headshells and the patience to try them all? This is not a rhetorical question.

Raul, Given the favorable experiences of Halcro and some others here with the FR64S tonearm, have you reconsidered your opinion of it? Thanks.
Dear friends: Last 2-3 weeks I was and I'm enjoying two of my latest cartridge " members " that I bought in the last 2 months. These are the Micro Seiki LF-7 and the Excel ES-70EX4 and for the moment suffice is to say that both already made that I don't " miss " or have to remember cartridges quality performance like the Acutex, Empire D3 and even the 100CMK4, yes both are that good. I think a in deep review is on order.

In other side last week arrived a second sample of the ADC25 an yesterday I mounted and tested all day long where the cartridge showed that the design was a good one but not " good enough ".

I was not fully satisfied with its performance till today that I decided to mount it on a different headshell ( same G-945 tonearm. ).

Yesterday was mounted on a first rate SAEC headshell and today I changed to what for me was ( that's what I thinked. ) a " poor and shame " of AT headshell: thin aluminum with several tiny holes in the top plate/side, nothing to remember other that " you don't want to use it ".

Well what a nice surprise, this cartridge/headshell combination really match and works " on heaven ". Suddenly cartridge life comes and I not only heard it but feel it.

This is an additional experience on the importance to match any cartridge with the right headshell/tonearm more than with the " right TT ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Lewm: +++++ " "I need them all" to get the best out of all those cartridges. " ++++++

yes till appear one " universal " tonearm where each cartridge could/can performs at its best.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
I agree. I don't think there is a single tonearm that combines all the qualities we might think of as desirable. So, ohmygod, this means we all have to own several different types of tonearms. So, when your wife or significant other says why do you have so many tonearms (Lew), you can say "I need them all" to get the best out of all those cartridges. Of course, that can lead to questions regarding why one might own 10 or 20 cartridges, so perhaps one should not go down that road with one's wife or significant other. But among ourselves, we know we are normal humans. We are the only ones who know it, however.
Regards, Raul, Halcro: Ran the TK9. The unmarked stylus I think all concluded was an ATN22. Initially mounted on an ADC LMG 6.5gm headshell, the performance was overly polite, absolutely uninspiring. Tepid. Boring. Travbrow suggested 1.3gm VTF, an improvment. The cartridge bloomed when mounted on a Lustre 12gm mag. shell. Silver leads exchanged for thick Ohno PC-OFC copper, the total ran 5gm past Techniques' reco, EPA-250 arm required the aux. weight to achieve correct downforce. Further improvment but still an imbalance and hesitant bluring in initial attack. Examined, the cantilever block was off to one side. The cantilever was catawampus, did not hold to the center of the body/coils. Gently wedged the cantilever block into alignment, snugged the screw, little things matter. 200pF shunt, (OEM IC's are 47pF) and 100k res, VTF at 1.4gm. Takes a while to warm up, then it's sublime.

Henry, you may be ruined by the TK3/155LC. Neither the Sig. TK9 or sibling AT22 have the hf crispness, midrange clarity and bass drive of the TK3 or 5"LC". The TK9 and AT22 integrate the performance, a Bently Arnage, not the Murcielago you've been enjoying. Please experiment with the TK10, give it five hours at 1.5?gm with your prized Barry Manilow collection to wake it up. What this cartridge series lacks in excitement it makes up for in composure. Very importantly, calibrate your catawampasity.

BTW, a TK7e/Akai rebranded 180SS stylus is working nicely. Sharing many of the qualities of the TK9e or AT22, VTF and headshell needed to be fine tuned before coming to conclusions. Thanks for reinforcing this, Raul.

Peace,
Dear Lewm: IMHO that could be a " simple " anwser but I think things are not so easy.

The tonearm/cartridge behavior/relationship is not an easy " system " but a complex one because so many factors involve or that have influence in the overall quality performance level.

The " system " is more than the sum of its parts because almost each part has its own sub-system, example: the cartridge stylus it is not only a " cartridge stylus " but part of a sub-system cartridge that is configure by: stylus and stylus shape, cantilever and cantilever build material and cartridge suspension ( compliance ) and this sub-system is part of other sub-system configure by coils, yoke, pole piece, etc and then the cartridge body.

On each single cartridge there are differences on the behavior on each cartridge sub-system that makes per se umpredictable/uncertainty quality performance when you mated with the other cartridge sub-systems and " worst " when you try to mate the cartridge with an external sub-system name it tonearm.
That's why is so important the cartridge voicing for through that voicing " tame /flavor " its quality performance level desired.

The tonearm is too a set of sub-systems: bearings/pivot/damping type, arm wand/headshell/build material/damping/effective mass, counterweight and tonearm mount where all these sus-system have its own behavior independent on the cartridge.

To all these we have to add all the " forces /parameters " that exist when the stylus hit the first groove on LP playback where everything happens in a " dynamic " whole system and where there are other factors that have a critical influence in the tonearm/cartridge overall performance: accurate tonearm/cartridge set up, impedance/capacitance loading, VTA/SRA/VTF/Azymuth, stylus shape, antiskating, room temperature, TT own distortions and TT tonearm arm board,etc, etc.

All these parameter/factors has its own influence in the whole cartridge/topnearm performance quality level.

As you can see not an easy task and no easy answers other than " test and error ".

High mass tonearms performs better?, could be with some cartridges but with other cartridges medium mass tonearms could be better or even low mass tonearms.

Today IMHO there are not precise answers that can give us certainty.

Now, your statement that a " good point to start is to have a good tonearm design " is IMHO a good point to start but whom define which is a good tonearm design? where are those tonearm standards that define a good design? it is better a tangential tonearm or a unipivot one against a gimbal one?

I have no precise answers to that. The best we can do for now is: " test and error " and then test again.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Raul, Thanks for that post. I take what you say very seriously, and I did take Halcro's critique very seriously also. So, what are we left with as a consequence of your, Halcro's, Dertonearm's, Syntax's, and several others who must be regarded with general respect, collective observation that the matching of tonearm and cartridge is apparently quite unpredictable. Maybe it is safe to say that "good" tonearms are a starting point to mate with "good" cartridges. But is there also a trend in favor of high mass tonearms vs any others? I am about to stick a nickel on the Triplanar headshell to get the mass up a bit.
Dear Trav, Yes, the differences are only in effective length (9 vs 12), effective mass, and cost. And yes, I suppose that because the FR64S is shorter than the FR66S, and because of the resulting lower effective mass of the former, the FR64S would have a mathematical advantage vs the FR66S with high compliance cartridges. But there was another thread here comparing FR tonearms to Ikeda tonearms, in which the FR66S was touted uber alles. And FR tonearms in general were said by some to be superior to the Ikeda's. (Mr. Ikeda also designed the FR tonearms before he went on to form his own company.)

The "S" designation is said to be crucial; it means that the tonearm is made of stainless steel. The plain FR64 and FR66 are made of steel. There is a later and lighter, lower mass version made of alu, called FR64fx. Even the FR64fx has effective mass = 20gm, if used with FR headshell. So it is also in the category of a high mass tonearm.

Woofer pumping can be the result of tonearm/cartridge mismatch if the resulting resonance point is too low, below the desired 8 to 12 Hz range.
Dear Lewm, Timeltel, Halcro and friends: For many years trough the forum I posted several times that we have to understand what that tonearm/cartridge res0nace frequency " figure " means but not be so " anal " to take it as a must to have if we want good cartridge quality peformance level, even when people ask I told them please try it and forget for a moment on that resonance frequency subject. I'm not saying it is not important because it is: more on this latter.

You can read through my official forum reviews that for example the Technics P100CMK4 that is a high compliance one I mated with my AT 1503 tonearm along an aluminum 15grs headshell that made for a total of 35grs ( with out cartriudge weight. ) of tonearm effective mass, not the best match on that resonance frequency figure. Even that performs just great.

Both, Acutex LPM 315 and Empire 4000DIII, were reviewed on the Grace G945 that is a medium mass tonearm but with the Acutex I used a 12grs headshell. Both performs great too.

After the Empire official review I mounted in the AT 1503 and Lustre GST-801 both more in the high mass side than medium one where I used with an aluminum 18grs headshell and you know what: performs just lovely and maybe better, in either tonearm, than in the Grace. So does not surprise me what Halcro report on that cartridge through a high mass tonearm. Anyone that followed this thread knows that I tested several high compliance MM/MI cartridge in the high mass AT tonearm with very good results.

I posted several times too all the factors/parameters that has influence in a tonearm/cartridge quality performance level other than that resonance frequency figure, are so many that this is the main reason why we can't take only the resonance frequency tonearm/cartridge figure like the parameter to match a cartridge with a tonearm.

Now, every thing the same a cartridge will perform better if that resonance frequency is nearest 10hz. I already tested using the same build material/shape headshell but with different weights, this I did it using AT aluminum Technicard 13grs, 15grs and 18grs headshell models.

There are many things that " escape " to our today knowle3dge on the subject and where " theory " seems not works in precise way and with absolute certainty.

On the Signet TK10ML2/3 my experiences in other tonearm than our own design told me that the cartridge is not only sensitive to VTA/SRA as any ML stylus shape but sensitive to the headshell build/weight material. I tested in different tonearms using the AT MG10 headshell ( magnesium/10grs. ) and in no tonearm like it, then I change it to an aluminum and heavier cartridge and the " light " really shine. This same experience was repeated with the AT ATML170/180 OCC cartridges.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

I have a take on this cartridge performance subject: when we are talking on top of the line cartridges and we don't have top or nearest top quality performance then we have to try with other tonearm, other headshells, other internal tonearm wire, other tonearm IC cable, re-set cartridge/tonearm set up ( impedance/capacitance too. ) or even try with an un-orthodox VTA/SRA/VTF and if nothing works then maybe there is a cartridge failure that preclude to hear what that cartridge could shows if was in good condition.
Hi Halcro and friends,

What is the difference between the FR64 and FR66 besides eff. length,mass and price?If they both have the same bearing type etc. shouldn't the FR64 be better for high compliance MM.

Do you have woofer "pumping" when playing warped records?I thought this is an issue caused by a arm/cart "mismatch".
Dear Lewm: +++++ " It is quite likely that sonic happiness is something different for each of us. So, it is difficult to know how to evaluate each others' opinions of MM/MI cartridges. " +++++

IMHO not quite. It is obvious that we all have differences in the quality system performance due to many factors: room treatment/no-room treatment, tubes/SS/hybrid electronics, speakers, music sound knowledge and discern level and of course each one priorities.

Even all those factors I think that what each one of us have and are hearing at home is ( according all those factors and factors?s limitations. ) a music/sound that sounds like music and that appeal not only us but to other people that comes and hear each one audio system. I think that we have more even " sound " than bigger differences and that's why everyone that own the 4000DIII or the P100CMK4 agree ( even with those differences in audio systems. ) on its high quality cartridge performance.
If those system differences were " bigger " then some of us maybe already reported a lower cartridge quality performance.

So, each one of our audio systems has limitations but IMHO inside/between those system limitations its quality performance is the " best " we can achieve, I hope.

Facts through this thread tell us that a good quality performance cartridge ( that the ones I named or other ones out there. ) will has that quality performance level regarding the audio system and always that the cartridge/tonearm was with the right set-up.

Yes, we have differences " level's differences " but what is good everyone can tell it and what is wrong everyone can tell it too.

I trust in all and each one of your opinions in the MM/MI quality performance level and always take it seriously.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Halcro,
As I lay in bed last night, I realized that I need to know what headshell(s) you are using with these various cartridges. It's possible that a very light headshell (i.e., <8gm weight) would permit use of a high compliance cartridge on the 66S. The stock FR headshell is quite heavy, as you must know. Are you using different headshells with each of these very different cartridges? And the answer is......?
Regards, Halcro: Wash the octopus, drain well... and use the water in the garden.

The TK5ea is slightly more resolving than the 3ea, four coil, 6n's OFC copper winding instead of the production wound 3ea's 5n. Hand wound coils for the 5ea, individually tested and inspected before leaving the craftsman's bench. Nice catch.

Working from memory, the Signet TK7SU, 7ea and 7LCa are 2.7mv output, the TK9 & 10 are 2.2mv out, 550 ohms impedance. These excel in subtlety and rendition of low level detail. There is (IMHO) a consistent trade-off when exchanging between the three roughly described categories in a previous "long" (hi, Lew) post, refinement for involvment or articulation. Travbrow suggested a higher tracking downforce, following his recommendation of 1.3gm (or more) VTF may help. Also, either it's the ear or cartridge, seems to take a while to warm up.

On thin ice here, when reading between the lines of an earlier exchange between Lew and Frogman regarding cartridge output/phono in, you may find some insight. Hopefully, Raul will chime in.

Peace,
Dear Halcro, Laws of physics are supposed to govern the interaction of tonearms and cartridges, Dertonearm notwithstanding. And, apart from reputedly superb bearings, the 66S has no mechanism for ameliorating resonant peaks, etc, that are supposed to arise at all the wrong places in the audio spectrum, when compliance and effective mass are not in tune. But who can take issue with your happiness at these seeming mismatches? Not I, certainly. This all reminds me of a Cole Porter lyric, but I cannot quite put my finger on which song is lurking in the back of my brain this evening.

(Maybe its Rodgers and Hart, from "I wish I were in love again". Something about the fine mismating of a him and her, only in this case it's a tonearm and cartridge.)

I wondered, what is the effective mass of a Granezza 12-inch? One thing is clear to me now; the Triplanar is actually too light (mass = 11 gm) for really low compliance MCs, but that is not in violation of expectations. This I think is the reason my Koetsu sounds surprisingly better in the L07D tonearm than in the Triplanar, despite the fakachta wiring in the L07D. But I don't know what to make of your direct experience in the other direction.

Sorry, don't own any Signets and have not yet played with AT20SS. Perhaps Raul or Timel?
Dear Lew,
The colour 'confused' becomes you. It is also the colour that suits me when it comes to cartridge/tonearm matching.
As you rightly point out, the Empire D4000/III has very high compliance (30x10-6 dyne) yet sounds superb in the FR-66s......but then again, I have yet to find a cartridge that doesn't sound it's best in this arm?
The Empire 1000ZE/X which has lower compliance (20x10-6 dyne) sounds wonderful in the FR-64s which theoretically it shouldn't?
The FR-6SE which has the same compliance as the XV1s (10x10-6 dyne) also sounds sublime in the FR-66s so that's quite a range of compliances (complianci?) for an arm to handle without losing composure?
At the moment I have the ZYX Universe in the FR-66s and if I imagined that the DaVinci 12" Ref Grandezza was a wonderful match for this cartridge, I need to revise my thoughts on LOMCs in the light of this cartridge in the FR-66s.
The sound is almost as good as most of the top echelon MMs such as the AT155LC and Technics EPC100Mk3 (albeit at 5-10times the price)?
But that's why I posit that the arm is more important than the turntable in the ultimate hierarchy?

Regards Herr Professor Timeltel. Grilled octopus drizzled with balsamic is a particular favourite of mine.
I am more puzzled by the Signet cartridges as I have recently inserted a TK5ea and TK10ML into my system with mixed results.
The TK5ea displays most of the typical Signet traits I hear with the TK3/155LC with a confident overall balance, believable midrange and robust bass output but the TK10ML sounds to have had a lower-end castratostomy? Add this to a somewhat 'missing-in-action' midrange and I have a cartridge which I am happy to assign to the FR5 leather-bound cartridge holder.
I understand that the micro line stylus requires careful VTF, VTA and azimuth and I have done my darndest in these respects. I have also tried most of my arms(FR-64s, Grace 940G, MA-505s, FR-66s) but continue to hear the same traits with each and every one of them?
It puzzles me as there appears to be a lot of hype surrounding this particular cartridge?
Your comments would of course be very appreciated?
Regards and Happy New Year
Henry
Timeltel, I want to listen to the 320 on a consistent basis in order to hear how or whether it changes character during break-in. My 315 is a used stylus assembly, so I don't know whether it will be 100% up to standard, anyway, so no rush with that. Acutex touted the Saturn V as the ultimate headshell for use with their cartridges, so I am also having more thoughts re inserting the LPM320 body and stylus into the Saturn V. Also, the 320 has very high compliance, 40X10E6 dyne.cm. I wonder whether a super-light tonearm, like the Black Widow et al, is in order. Right now, it's in the DV505 in a 6-gm Denon magnesium headshell. This would give very low mass in the vertical plane but the same old high mass in the horizontal plane, which is part of the design principle of the Dynavectors.

I read elsewhere that Halcro is using the Empire 4000D/III (presumably also high compliance) in a Fidelity Research FR66S, possibly the highest mass tonearm in the modern era. What's up with that, Halcro? And it sounds great.... Color me confused.
Regards, Lew: That wasn't a long post, just a preview of the first chapter of my new book. (-;
Acutex got it right with the LPM 320. Have you tried the 315 stylus yet? A source of a different color, don't be quick to judge. I remember Raul commenting on taking two weeks of listening before coming to a conclusion, the 315 has qualities not ordinarially encountered. 100k res. if you can.

Peace,
Lew,
I agree that there is so much difference that getting to where we like is bound to involve different tools.

FWIW, titanium cantilevers were, as far as I have read, made first by Technics in the very early 70s. The first generation 205C had a titanium cantilever, as did the later 101C (introduced somewhere between 100CMk2 and Mk3). I think the 205CII-X also did, which may be why some people actually prefer the IIX to the Mk3. I think Audio Technica had at least one or two carts with titanium cantilevers, and AudioNote (or whoever made theirs) had/has a few with titanium cantilevers, as did Pioneer in the 70s and I believe ADC as well.
Hi Lewm,

The Acutex 320 is not the only cartridge that has a titanium cantilever. In fact, the ADC MC 1.5 cartridge, produced in 1982, also had a tapered titanium cantilever but a carbon fiber body as well.
In reality, we have very little common ground even among our analog-happy selves. There is Halcro with high-end transistors and a 3-way electromagnetic speaker, me with all OTL tubes and an ESL, Raul, with his multi-amped system of selected different drivers, etc, etc. It is quite likely that sonic happiness is something different for each of us. So, it is difficult to know how to evaluate each others' opinions of MM/MI cartridges. One can only do the experiments in one's own space.

Timeltel, I am not sure I "get" the thesis of your long post above. Are you trying to say that by looking at a spec sheet we can to a degree pre-determine how a given cartridge will sound? Probably there is some truth to that, especially when it comes to the lesser quality types, but I would not let such an analysis get in the way of actually listening to any worthy candidate that comes highly recommended by members of this august thread. ("August" because now 3 years old.) Having said that, I read about Acutex 320, AFTER listening to it. It's actually a moving-iron or induced magnet type (I am sure you knew that, T), with very thin titanium cantilever and stereohedron/shibata type stylus. It also uses a 3rd rail to cancel cross-talk between L and R channels. The designation "LPM" stands for Lowest Possible Mass. This is very sophisticated stuff, so no wonder it sounds so good. I am unaware of any other cartridge that uses a titanium cantilever. Apparently also their styli were made by Ogaru (sp?) in Tokyo, who make/made styli for many other brands.

I am having great fun now switching back and forth between Acutex on Lenco and Stanton 981LZS on L07D. Two very different sounds, both very good. Obviously, I like "distortion", Raul. Actually the major difference is in how each treats the soundstage. The Acutex emphasizes the main performer; the Stanton gives a lot of peripheral detail and kind of melts the featured performer into the soundstage.
Regards, Halcro: Henry, you failed to mention VTF, headshells, leads, IC's, isolation devices, clever little clocks and teleportation tweaks. I understand some go so far as to render their TT's "nude" and then proceed to garnish it with arms enough to attract an amourous octopus. ;-).

Peace,

Hi Inna,

I had the Shelter 501 it had a nice midrange but lacking in highs(treble) and lows(bass),also It never tracked inner grooves that well in my set up,with some of my records I couldn't even listen to the last track.This was before I got a MinTLP protractor so maybe I never had it aligned right.

For cheaper you could try one of the many mentioned vintage MM models.Unless you only want a current made model,here's a couple that might be better and cheaper than the Shelter and Ortofon.

Empire 4000DIII Gold,I think the ebay seller may have some left but stopped listing them.

There is a Astatic MF100 and Shure V15 IV with SAS listed here at Audiogon right now you could try,plus many more models that are mentioned on this thread,you just need to hunt them down.

Nice informative posting Timeltel.
As for choice of MM cartridges over LOMC being a form of "tone control"?..... Aren't all our individual choices in audio a form of "tone control" or at least a striving for a combination producing a synergy which suits our ears and preferences?
From tubes to SS in amplification, from stats, planars, horns, dynamics in speakers, from analogue to digital, from belt-drive to DD drive to Idlers in turntables?
Do we call these one and all......."Tone Controls" ?
Regards, Inna. Thought I'd throw this one out, just so others don't think you killed the thread:

It's downright comical, my mid-fifty's friend, doing the air guitar thing while listening to the most lifeless, screeching, undynamic and tuneless mid 80's Brit New Wave lp's imaginable. He owns hundreds. An I.T. geek with a near-by university, he's ditched his TT and gone 100% digital so occasionally he'll ask for a copy to CD, rendered on my fairly decent Sony CDR. In the audio console, just below the Sony is a Pioneer CT-F1000, a one production-year casette recorder. Designed for the Pio. Spec series, it'll do a good job with the media, metal tapes are practically indistinguishable from the source, accurate to 18k Hz.

Anyway, at the bottom of the stack of audio gear is a Pio. SG-9500 EQ, another of the Spec related components, the sliders modestly arranged in the classic smiley-face configuration, +4 dbl. at the extremes. It's switched into the audio chain perhaps once a month, for rare low volume background music and when recording the scraping noises my friend mistakes for music.

CD's seem uninvolving, an allusion to the actual performance but I understand there's hope for digital playback. CD's still don't connect with the primeval urge to merge with the music, the juxtaposition of the MM's warmth on one side, digital winter's cold on the other, a barricade to the rhythms and harmonic inflections penetrating the soul. MC's are needlessly complicated and any superiority is debatable. Period. This leaves MM cartridges and tape, which misses with the hisses. Output impedance is a fair candidate in considering a MM/(not so much)MI's (etc.) character. The higher the impedance, the more apparent it's analytical qualities or brightness. Those above 1200 and approaching 3200-3600 ohms are progressively more so, add a nude ME/ML stylus on a micro-mass cantilever and those who value low-level detail will rejoice. Others may observe edgyness, a glassy presentation or brittleness. Impedance values between 500 and 1200 ohms produce a more resonant midrange and bass, or warmth. It then becomes the responsibility of stylus and cantilever to navigate the groove modulations to render hf response, this assembly must possess the agility to adequately relay speed and accuracy in transition and detail. Consider the figures for cartridges generally described as "refined". Almost always 550 ohms or less, 3.0mv output or less and typically equipped with a stylus profile containing the description "micro" or "minature". Several in this category require additional gain for adequate input at the power amp, hello Lewm, Frogman. For sheer excitment, a Shure M44E: 9.7mv, 630 ohm impedance, .4 x .7 elliptical on a pencil thick alu. cantilever, 1.75-4.0gm VTF, cap. 400-500pF. This is a bass monster, enjoyed by those for whom subtle detail is not a concern. A happy medium is 550ohm impedance, 3.5-5.0mv output, .15mm LC or long Shibata stylus, nude mounted on a berillium cantilever at 47k and (nom.) 150pF. Select other values to suit your taste or system. EQ'ing is a "band-aid", choosing a cartridge for it's unique qualities and in reflecting one's preferences and system needs obviates these concerns and makes connectivity with the music inevitable.

As to C. & R., wether or not this is a form of EQ'ing is a matter for another discussion. Exchange a different stylus profile in the same cartridge, conical for ML as an extreme example, FR is impacted and I believe an experienced listener capable of deliberated adjustment will think it justifiable.

In the new and following years, may you all "live long and prosper".

Peace,
All right. Without more of a rocket science could you please tell me the differences in sound that I can expect if I mount Goldring 1042 MM and Shelter 301 or 501 MC on my Spacedeck/Spacearm? I don't want to buy both at the same time. The phono stage is Simaudio Moon LP3. It has two gain settings, 40dB and 60 dB, capacitance can be 0 or 100, and resistive loading 100ohm and 47kohm.
I would guess that Goldring would be more balanced, dynamic, punchy and coherent; and Shelter more transparent, faster and sophisticated. Am I correct? Actually I am inclined to try Goldring; this thread influenced my plans.
Dear Dlaloum and friends: In VE we can find out this impedance/capacitance/inductance MM/MI cartridge set up in two-three separate threads. I participated in one of them, the " results " were coming from that hagerman calculator and a VE other calculator.

My take there and here is that we can have some " signs " through those calculators but not a real and true fact on that critical cartridge electrical set up.

There are many factors that affect those measurements: accurate tonearm set up, accurate cartridge set up, which tonearm and/or headshell we choosed I mean characteristics, which tonearm internal wire we are using,tonearm phono IC, which geometry approach tonearm/cartridge set up we choosed ( Löfgren, Stevencon, etc, etc . ), which signal test LPs we choosed, which phono stage and its quality performance and accuracy level, which, which..., and which....

I take it all the charts/diagrams that shows frequency response in some of my cartridges and I found out these information:

- all the top of the line cartridges shows through the FR charts a deviation from 20hz to 20khz at +,- 1db.

- - measurements were taked with an ambiente temperature around: 20° to 23°.

- the test signal recordings they used were JVC TRS 1007 and 1005 along CBS 151 and 130 and with the Technics the SFC TR100 test LP that I assume comes from Technics ( btw, I own all those test recordings but the Technics ). Something weird/curios is that Ortofon and Shure that had/has its own signal test recordings don't use it but the JV or CBS ones.

- no one but Technics and Denon ( DL103D ) pointed out the load impedance and capacitance that were used on that FR measurements.

- normally on those vintage cartridges even if I had the cartridge manual I can't find/read the true and real cartridge inductance value even not the internal DC resistance or impedance.
There are cartridges like the Micro Seiki that not only does not have information on these electrical parameters but even you can't read in the manual specs nothing about load impedance and capacitance set up manufacturer advise.

Now, in all thise FR charts we can see an almost flat line response with lower deviation that that +,- 1 db. My question is: how these guys achieve those results? I mean which analog rig they used and if all of them used the Stevenson tonearm/cartridge approach that was the " normal " one in those times by Japanese " people ".

IMHO to achieve that " nice " FR charts everything must be near perfect!!! and we don't know ( at least me. ) all the factors that surrounded that " near perfect " set up.

This open for me another question: is it in reality that that +,- 1 db FR cartridge deviation comes 100% from the cartridge performance it self? or in reality the cartridge FR has no measurable deviation ( by it self ) and that deviation comes from ( adding. ) each analog audio link used to made that FR cartridge response measurements.

Who or whom has the precise and true answers?.

All these factors and many more makes things complicate and a hard task and time consuming to achieve the right information and the right answers on the whole subject.

Yes, I think that today we have to trust in our skills to have accuracy ( top level: 100%. ) on cartridge/tonearm set up, to trust in the accurate system electronics specs and performance level, to trust in our whole experience in music and audio and to trust in our skills to discern what is right or wrong and what is " wrong but I like it ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Oh yes - dynamics... I have a friend who is a very good percussionist.... listening to radio in the car the other day - I caught the end of a track which had great rhythms.... lo and behold - it's my friends band.

I havn't mentioned some of my other measurements - I was recording a specific set of tracks with various cartridges, and then adjusting the average (RMS) volume level to match perfectly (including channel balance)... this process removed many of the differences... but not all - fundamental differences remained.

When looking at the statistics which CoolEdit pulls up on these tracks, the peak values can differ quite markedly... so we have setups which initially sound identical but at a closer listen (and investigation of the data) I find that ... as an example...

Cartridge Av RMS Max RMS Peak
Sony XL-MC104 -23.96db -7.4db -0.62db
Benz MC1 " -7.9db -1.12db
Shure 1000e/SAS " -7.85db -0.98db
AT12Sa " -7.58db -1.4db

None of these are low end cartridges... 2 fine elipticals, 1 Shibata and 1 SAS/MicroRidge/Line Contact

When I made these recordings I did not have the wherewithal to adjust loading properly for each cartridge.... when tuned properly I expect the peak variation will increase between best and worst..... I also don't think that the measured difference will be very large... we are talking the fine details here. We tend to be aware of these fine differences although they are hard to pin down.. and therefore I think we identify some of these by their symptoms ... ie better rhythm, timing, dynamics.

Another thing (which I cannot comment experientially on... only by hearsay) is that the table / arm are likely to have a greater impact on rhythm than the cartridge... especially the table.... And the immeasurably small microdetail - which the ear can pick up but instrumentation may not - are very sensitive to arm, table damping, platform etc...

The other thing I feel (ie gut feel, and the conclusion of reading many articles going back 30 years)... is that there is a lot to be gained from the High Compliance / Low Mass school of turntable design.... and much of that gain is precisely in rhythm, dynamics and microdetail. (obviously along with HC/ULM you need very light effective tip mass, and cantilevers that have resonances outside the audible range.... etc...)

I find it telling that the ADC cartridges that had the highest compliance ended up getting a reputation for "collapsing suspension"... frequently (usually!?) caused by being mounted in a mid to high mass arm.... These are the same cartridges that were also supposed to be legendarily good (ZLM / Super XLM II) - and they were also those designed to work with CD4/Quad ....
Anything that can go to 50KHz should be able to make a meal of 20KHz and hit the beat without breaking a sweat....

But then as now, you have to spend the time setting these up right (Reviews of the ADC's did make the point that they were setup sensitive...) - so electrical loading and mechanical loading both have to be right to make them sing.

I think ultimately the factors that led to the success of MC's were (in no particular order) - reduced sensitivity to capacitance, increased robustness/ability to handle higher VTF and heavier mass tonearms (fat fingered punters putting them on inappropriate arms are less likely to end up with a destroyed cartridge... ), and (of course) fashion...(but platform shoes have already made several comebacks .... so there is hope for MM's - although I think MC's are more the "platforms" of cartridges and MM's the brogues... but there is no acounting for fashion)

MM/MI is far more awkward to set up - getting capacitance down low enough to be able to best take advantage of them requires some effort, and low C cables are not readily available (at a reasonable price).

You can make a MM sound like an MC - but you have to get the C down to 100pf ... or lower.... and then raise the impedance.... and .... but that's why this thread is here isn't it!

Note that the cartridge showing the greatest dynamic differences in the list above is an MC (Sony) - but this same cartridge fails to track a +16db 300Hz tone.... is some of that peak tracking distortion? (the track I used has some very dynamic percussion on it....)

The close second place Shure 1000e (MM) with SAS stylus tracks just about anything with ease....

Both were setup wrong ... the Shure in that setup was showing HF rolloff from around 13k, and the Sony - well I never got around to measuring its F/R... They were both running at circa 650pf and 47k at the time. Which is wrong for both of them - although it is a common situation .... standard 47k/220pf phono stage with normal (audiophile brand) interconnect (1.5m - measured it the other day at around 400pf) ouch.

Today's High output "standard" is 47k / 400pf (roughly), and in the early 80's the "standard" was either 47k/400pf or 47k/100pf (like the sony's specs) for the quad cartridges... the reality is of course that cartridges have hugely varying requirements. (eg: Shure M97's purportedly do best at 62k/100pf....)

Bye for now

David
I've spent the last 2 days working on the phono stage... I hope to be able to get back to listening and the front end in the New Year...
You are definitely correct; when the phono or system gain is marginal, any MC is likely to suffer by comparison to any HO cartridge, This is definitely not the case in my system, so something else must account for it. And I say this with true uncertainty. I am just reporting what I do hear, for whatever reason. One thing is this: the MCs I have on hand do not appear to track percussive instrumental lines as well as the MM cartridges do. This difference seems to subtract from the ability of the MC types to convey the rhythm that is an inherent quality of the relevant instruments, especially piano. Or maybe because the two good MMs I described sound more "real" to me, my mind is freed up from thinking about the quality of the reproduction and can instead concentrate more on musical lines. I really must try to hear my low compliance MC cartridges in a tonearm of higher effective mass than the Triplanar (or maybe add a gob of bluetac to the headshell). Perhaps then they would track better. But the Triplanar is certainly no slouch and would be regarded in most ways as superior to the DV505 and L07D tonearms.
Lewm, the essential consideration which I did not allude to in my previous post, is the need for correct gain structure in one's system. I am not familiar with your amplification components, so I am not commenting on that. However, I have found several times over the years, that if my phono preamp did not have sufficient gain for truly adequate amplification of a MC's low gain (compared to most MM's), and then enough input sensitivity at the power amp, the resulting sound can indeed sound anemic, even when the result is "enough" volume. A MM with much higher output can then sound more rhythmic in comparison. I experience this when I use my extremely inefficient Stax F-81's, as opposed to my very efficient Paragon Regents. My Regents are so efficient, compared to my Stax electrostats, that I can actually use a passive preamp (Audio Synthesis) with excellent results. I am convinced, however, that as a group MC's exibit more of the energy, and rhythmic agility that sounds realistic to me (with my chosen components, of course).