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
Halcro,

I only had LOMC,s at the time so I don't know what would have happened with any other types.

Regards,
Don
Dear Henry, If I remember well this DM-10 preamp was terrible expensive. Back then I was convinced that a typo was made by the last 0. I own the Basis Exclusive which is
not, uh, cheap, but no problems at all with <0.2 mV carts. The strange thing however is that Schaefer , the owner/designer of the ASR gear, recommend symetrical in
but 'RCA' out. This does no look logical but there are the so called 'deviant logics' . The Dutch mathematician Brouwer was one of them. His logic and mathematics are called 'intuistic' but should be called 'constructive' actually.In his opinion we construct mathematical proofs and reasoning. So in this sense we all may be called 'constructive'. We all 'construct' our own system according to our own intuition?

Regards,

Having recently aquired a titaniaum based cantilever and knowing full well aluminum cantilevers that are off center can be tweeked just once back to the factory specs. I am wondering about the viability of attempting this with titanium? Does titanium have memory? or snap? That angel sitting on my right shoulder says don't even think about it. But the devil on my left shoulder says go ahead it's only 2-3 degrees. All feedback from those that know or have experience with this sort of thing will be considered. I guess some stylus/cart esp as rare as this one just need to go to Axel. He can fix anything.
Tubed1, First the good news. Axel corrected my AT 180 'bend' cantilever for cheap (30 euro). The bad news you may get from our comrade Don. As a aircraft engineer he is familiar with titanium and, if I rememebr well, very sceptical about this material for the cantilevers.

Regards,
Dear Griffithds: Seems to me that that is " failure " in the preamp design. The unit I used is fully balanced input to output and I can use it through XLR or RCA connectors and does not shows that kind of problem. The Lewm unit performs fine too.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Raul,

Have you tried unshielded Balanced cables? That is what was giving me problems. The phono cartridged when connected in balance mode with unshielded cables create hum. I wasn't in the mood to buy and rotate various thousand $ balanced cables (unshielded), to see if I could discover a set that would work. I was told by both Victor (BAT), and Bob (Graham engr.), to go a different route (than unshielded),so I did. Based on Victors comment that he could not discern any difference between single ended or balanced connection from the cartridge to the phono stage, I repeat, FROM THE CARTRIDGE TO THE PHONO STAGE, I chose the cheaper method, single ended! I could have went with balanced(shielded), but if I was not going to hear any difference (from the cartridge to the phono preamp), Why waste the money!
Please reread all that was just stated above. It does not say that he could not hear any difference in the signal after it passes thru his balanced phono stage! The problem had nothing to do with what happens once the signal enter the phono stage. A signal being received by the phono stage that is carrying hum will pass that hum along into the phono stage, as part of the signal! That's not design flaw! If you have a phono stage that filters out part of the signal, then you have a flawed phono stage. My phono stage is not a filter! My comment (question), at the beginning of this thread, was whether a phono cartridge wired in balanced mode was truly a balance signal? Quasi-balance it what I have read it really is. Meaning sort of balanced. Can something sort of dry, really be called dry? Can something be sort of round? Can a signal be sort of balanced?
A point was made earlier about being careful about believing what a manufacture says when he calls his product balanced. I don't believe a signal that is "Quasi- sort of", can not be truly called balanced. If you wish to think of it as semantics, well that's your right. I'm an engineer, it either is, or it isn't!
Correction:

"can not be truly called balanced."

Should have read, can be truly called balanced.

Regards,
Don
Tubed1,

To answer your question, "Does titanium have memory", the answer is yes. The only way to change the shape (form) of titanium is with heat.
The outcome in trying to straighten a titanium cantilever without the use of heat(lots of heat), would not be what you would consider successful. The cantilever, if sent to a re tipper, would not be bent to correct, but reposition.

Regards,
Don
Dear Halcro,
I just bought a malfunctioning TT101 in the context of a QL10. I got the Victor tonearm and plinth along with the TT101, at a price about equal to the value of the Victor tonearm alone. Yes, I am bragging. I have the hubris to think that I or Bill Thalmann can fix the TT101. But we'll see. Of course, there is a chance I bought a boat anchor plus a tonearm.

Guys, I don't want to argue further about whether cartridges are "balanced" or not. Don, for all I know you may be correct about some or all of those vintage cartridges you mention, because they ARE vintage, and as I said myself, some of the older cartridges do use a common ground strap. All I can say to that question is that when I owned the Ayre p5Xe, I used it exclusively for these vintage MM and MI cartridges and always in full balanced mode, and it was always dead silent.

But this has nothing to do with why you (or whoever it was that is using a BAT VK10) need a special plug when using the RCA inputs. I think this has to do with grounding pin3 of the XLR. In an XLR, by convention, pin2 carries the positive phase of the signal, while pin3 carries the negative phase and pin1 is connected to audio ground. If you run single-ended, pin3 has got to be returned to ground. That's probably what that plug does. My guess is that inside the VK10, the "hot" pin of the RCA is returned to pin2 of the XLR. Then the "ground" side of the RCA must be connected to BOTH pins1 and 3 of the XLR.
Dear Griffithds: Yes, I used the KimberKable KCAG with no problems but for what you posted seems to me that that hum through an unshielded tonearm to phono stage cable is not culprit of the phono stage but the air pollulation at your place that induced that hum to those unshielded cables.

Try to put in a different position/direction those cables and see what happen. If the culprit comes from the cables because unshielded then changing ist position will change the hum intensity and I can say you that exist one position where exist no hum. The cable ground wire that normally is connected to the phono stage ground connector is important too on its position.

Of course could exist other reasons why in your place is happening what is happening that I can't say for sure.

Regards and enjoy the music,
}R.
Dear Don, I just read your long post addressed to Raul, wherein you talk again about "quasi-balanced". In fact, one of the best ways to avoid or cancel hum is by using balanced connection, from the cartridge to the phono stage (as you stipulate), IF the phono stage is truly balanced from RIAA input to output.

Can you find out more about your VK10? I am guessing it is not balanced at its input, only at its output, which is entirely possible. But it's just a guess.
I did some reading on the VK10. Although I found nothing that directly addresses my question about the circuit design, I did find plenty to convince me that the VK10 must be truly balanced, from input to output. There was one mention of a built-in step-up transformer, presumably for LOMCs. If there IS a SUT in there, then using that may render the input to SE mode. So, I can only think that Victor was just reporting his subjective opinion, when he stated he could not hear a difference between SE and balanced inputs.

The argument about the inherent nature of a phono cartridge is of a different nature. It cannot be a matter of opinion; a particular cartridge either is or isn't balanced. As I said, some older Decca cartridges just have 3 output pins, only one of which is ground. Thus the grounds for the two channels are indeed strapped together, and the cartridge is single-ended. I don't know of any other cartridges, new or old, built like that, but I guess there must be a few. In the vast majority of cases, the two "ground" pins on a cartridge are isolated from one another. The ground pin, in the case of a moving coil for example, is connected to one side of the coil. The hot pin for that same channel is connected to the other side of the same coil. At either end, you would see an identical signal that is 180 degrees out of phase with the signal at the other end. This is the essence of a balanced signal. True, as Victor pointed out, there is no ground reference; a cartridge can be used equally well in SE mode for that reason. But as soon as you connect a cartridge to a balanced phono stage using an XLR connector, you have provided the ground reference for the (balanced) signal. End of story.
Hi Lewm,

I use an Ayre K-1xe preamp with the differentially-balanced internal phono section (very similar to the P5xe you previously owned). My tables/tonearms all have the traditional single-ended phono cables with RCA connectors, so I am currently using RCA-to-XLR adapters since the K-1xe only accepts XLR inputs.

About the same time as the discussion started here about balanced phono sections, I started investigating converting my phono leads from single-ended to balanced. I found a reputable custom cable manufacturer that is willing to make a 5-pin DIN to dual XLR cable for me for $100 and I found a wiring schematic for a 5-pin DIN to dual XLR cable on the Ayre website. Their recommendation is a little different than what you say in your post above: "In an XLR,...pin 1 is connected to audio ground." On Ayre's schematic, pin 1 on the XLRs is left unused and cable shielding from all four signal conductors is tied to the separate ground wire from pin 3 of the DIN connector.

Does this make sense to you? Will it still result in the same level of hum/noise rejection as using pin 1 for audio ground?

I appreciate any help you can offer.

Best,
Dave
I sure am not going to challenge the wisdom of Mr. Hansen. If he says to do it that way, do it that way. However, the DIN plug is at the upstream end of the cable. For sure, at the DIN plug side, all grounds have to go to the one pin on the DIN connector that is available for grounds. There are 5 pins in a DIN plug. Two each are available for, respectively, the positive and negative halves of the signal from the cartridge, for each of the two channels. I guess you are saying he does not ground the shield(s) at the XLR end, but instead he sends a separate wire from that ground pin on the DIN to the body of the phono stge. Probably he's right; in fact that may be what I do myself.
Dear Lewm,
I just bought a malfunctioning TT101
You are one brave 'cowboy' :-)
In what way(s) is it malfunctioning?
I really hope that Bill Thalmann can resurrect it for you. Perhaps he may become a Victor 'guru' as well as a Technics one?

Good Luck and please keep us informed?
To add to the confusion there are RCA ÍC's also called 'symmetrical'. The wire used for connectors have 2 or 3 'leads': left, right + shild . By 'symmetrical' RCA connectors the 3th (shild) wire is soldered on one side only together with the 'negative half' of the wire with the intention to use the shild as the real shild and not as conductor. By the symmetrical phono-cable there is,uh, the asymmetry between the (3 lead)wire (x 2=6) and the DIN 5 connector.So for those who like to make their own cables there is the puzzling question what to connect (solder)with what? If 'we' connect the 'pins' 2 and 3 on the XLR connector then the 3th (shild wire)) can be soldered to the pin 1. This way we have a similar 'construction' as by the RCA 'symetrical' kind: the shild is soldered on one side (XLR side) only and function as the shild and not as ground or conductor. What then about the ground on the Din 5 connector? I have never seen a symmetrical (XLR) phono-cable with a separate ground connector. So while there is an obvious shortage of connectors on the Din 5 side in relation to 2x3 'leads' side it seems to me that the 'ground' on the Din 5 connector is not used at all by such (XLR)cables. One can imagine the (soldering)problem by the attempt to connect both shilds to the tiny Din 5
ground connector. If this make sense than Mr. Hansen should provide his customers with his own symmetrical phono-cable by which the Din 5 ground,as a separate ground connector, should be connected to the phono-pre and by which the shild is not connected to any connecor.
I think some of the confusion here is the result of contradictory terminology. The phono cart has a (+) and (-) side, I.e. (+) and (-) sides of the waveform, and that's why it's inherently balanced. The - side is often referred to and sometimes used as the ground, but not in a balanced input. The ground connection in the preamp DIN plug should be connected to the tonearm ground, not the - side of the cart. If the cart has a grounding strap, it should be defeated for balanced connection.

There is a popular way to hook up single ended cables sometimes called "balanced". This is 2 conductors and shield. 1 conductor is + and the other is -. The shield is connected to - (ground) on the source end and floats (not connected) on the receiving end. This would only be appropriate for balanced if the source end was connected to the arm ground ONLY and receiving end connected to ground.

The 5-pin tonearm DIN plug has the connections in a U configuration. The one centrally located at the bottom of the U is the ground.

What's the big deal about balanced phono connections, 6dB of common mode noise rejection? You guys running 30' tonearm cables? Unless the parts in both sides of the preamp are perfectly matched, and not almost perfectly, performance is worse. How many shades of black?
Regards,
Nikola,
It was inaccurately reported and I repeated it, that the cantilever on the AT-20SL and SLa is beryllium. It is described as tapered aluminum at LpGear where they have the orig replacement needle.
Regards,
Dear Fleib, Sometime one should keep his strong believe
intact. I was convinced that the AT 20 SL stylus was some
aluminum alloy. But my comrade just got a visitor together
with his (visitors) microscope with two 'values': the
first one $2500 the second 200 x magnification. There is
no way to contradict both: the comrade as well as the
microscope. Besides my comrade is an engineer while I am
only a lawyer. Whom would you believe better in
any technical matter?

But now 'something totally different': to what connector
should the the Din 5 (arm) ground connector be connected
in the XLR connector? If at all that is.

Regards,
Fleib, You wrote, "Unless the parts in both sides of the preamp are perfectly matched, and not almost perfectly, performance is worse." Can you explain? If there is not perfect matching between the two phases, then one does not get optimum CMR, for sure. But why would performance be "worse"? It is not so in my experience. Using a balanced tube phono stage, I am quite sure that matching is not perfect, but I nevertheless perceive a benefit. For one thing, hum is usually common mode, and there is clearly a better S to N ratio with balanced as regards that common bugaboo of phono (hum).
Dear Fleib, I forget to ask for myself. I was realy stunned with the results achived with the AT 12s stylus as a donor for my TK 7 Su. If Henry could hear the result I am sure he would gladly exchang one of his 155 CL for my 12 S stylus. Now in my perception the donor should be of less value than the patient. I am talking about inanimat objects so please no moral objections. 'Especialy' not from some Mexican who addresses us as 'my friends' but also squeal many of us by the moderator. I would prefer to be excepted by his addresses. Say: 'dear friends, Nandric excepted'. Now can you name some AT carts which are cheap but also have beryllium cantilevers? The 'dark side' is more exciting than I could dream beforhand.

Regards,
Dear Henry, I will keep you informed privately. Not too many here would be interested. I won the thing (Victor QL10) on eBay. The seller says it spins too fast and cannot be made to spin at 33 using the adjuster. After exchanging messages with him, I ascertained that he was feeding it 120V/60Hz, instead of 100V/60Hz. I am first of all keeping my fingers crossed that when I plug it in to the correct voltage using a step-down transformer, it will actually be OK. (Of course, it's equally likely that he fried something irreparably.) I will also for sure change out all the electrolytic capacitors, regardless. Seems he bought it at an estate sale, has no idea about audio or record players. However, he was very compliant and cooperative when I gave him specific instructions how to pack it for shipment. It will come to me in 3 separate boxes. It's on the way now. What I always liked about the TT101 is the coreless motor. My experience with the L07D convinces me there is something special about turntables that use coreless motors.

Good thing is that the entire service manual is available on Vinyl Engine, all 56 pages. I printed it out and will have it available for Bill, should it come to that. Bill probably would not touch it without the manual. I increased my bid, once I found out that I could get the manual in English. (I had visions of trying to convince my son to translate it from Japanese, not an easy task.)
Nikola, I figured that the orig cantilever is aluminum (tapered?) or LpGear would say so and charge more for beryllium. Since the price is already $200, who knows?
The 20SS stylus is available at Stereoneedles for the same money.

I don't run balanced phono but I believe the tonearm ground should be hooked to the ground pin (#1) on the DIN plug on each channel.
Regards,
Dear Fleib, I am certain that the AT 20Sl cantilever is 'tapered' and probable aluminum alloy of some kind. But the price you mentioned is not what I would call a 'cheap donor'. Regarding the balanced phono-cable there is a problem by your assumption. The Din 5 'ground' need to be split in two separate wire to be connected to both XLR
pin # 1 connectors.It is not easy to put just one wire in those Din 5 connectors. BTW for those who are sufficiently brave to try to solder the Din 5 connector my advice is to buy first headshell 'tags' or 'çlips'. Then solder the cable wire on one side of the 'tag' and then push the other side on those tiny Din 5 connectors. Then solder them together. Those Din 5 connectors are the same dimension as the carts connectors. But this job is really unpleasant to do.

Regards,
Hi everyone! I got sidetracked by the 'Tapes project' and the R2R 'world'
Then got caught up in the 'new' cheap and cheerful 'giant killer' DACs
So my TT has been gathering dust as of late.
Jumping back in with both feet as is my custom, I purchased a Decca Maroon, on a friends insistence that it would synergize with my Lenco, but also, as ever I've been looking into this thread for 'flavor of the month'
I missed out on the astatic mf 200 on eBay, but I did get an Acutex M310iiiE, so I now have the Azden ymp 50e, the Acutex, the Decca, and other mc FR 2, and Clearaudio Maestro. The MC are being sent for retipping. The Decca lasted 5 days and the Acutex has replaced the Azden for now. I am enjoying it but not immensely so. Not yet broken in of course, but it is apparent that it delivers more detail than the Decca, and more air, fuller bass, in short, it handily outperforms the Decca in my rig.
Still I need to get a 'special' MM and see what the fuss is.
So I jumped on the cheap NIB Astatic MF 300 stylus on eBay and I course I cannot find the cartridge body anywhere.
Any hints as to where I can find one would be greatly appreciated!
Cheers
Harv
Nandric,
You could split the ground wire after the tonearm connector.
Regards,
Hi Harv, You can use the Astatic MF 300 stylus also with the Glanz series: 71,51, 31, and probable 20. I expect to receive from Italy one of the Glanz carts made in honor of
some Italian sailing ship 'Azzurra' . The seller is a dealer in Italy and has more samples for sell. I will need about 10 days to test the cart. Then I hope to know if this cart has any merit or ,at least, if it has the same 'generator' as the mentioned 71,51 or 31 models. If
you still have not find the right 'body' till than you can contact me. The cart is 50 euro + postage.

Regards,
Lew, Re: Balanced.
The duplication of parts in each channel of the preamp serves to amplify the positive and negative sides of the same waveform. Not talking about common mode rejection, what about those different sides of the same signal?

IMO when it comes to additional parts, degradations, and colorations, less is more. There's no such thing as a good part. Some suck less than others.
Regards,
Nandric/Fleib,

Perhaps this will help clear up the confusion on the 5 DIN to XLR wiring recommended by Ayre:

http://www.ayre.com/acc_phono_schematics.htm#phdin

Dave
Dear Dlcockrum: The configration I use fron DIN Pin 5 to XLR is ( this is the way are the connectiion in the XLR connector. ):

Pin 2 +signal and Pin 3 -signal ( on XLR ), Pin 1 not connected and the cable shield connected to the XLR ground connector. Obviously the Din Pin 5 ground wire to the phono stage ground connector.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dobar dan, Nandric.. I will keep in touch. I found a guy on ebay with a body, waiting to hear back.
Newest problem: I introduced a TVC preamp into my system, and now my phonostage (Bottlehead Eros) is noisy... the preamp somehow brings the hum in the stage to the forefront. It is too much.
I'm considering going with a SS or battery powered Phonostage, I'm just going nuts trying to get back to that magic I had with the rebodied, ss ruby denon 103r with cinemag SUT... the grace f9 was very close.
Hxtl, Dobar dan, The guy 'with' the body or, better, the body is not sufficiently described. Which body? I.e. which Astatic or Glanz model? I am only sure about the first 3 mentioned as the 'top of the line'. You should use at least MF 300 or Glanz 31 for your MF 300 stylus.

Regarding the balanced phono-cable. I mentioned to have never seen such a cable with a separate ground wire.That is to say the wire connected with the pre-ground. If
nobody else have seen one than where in the XLR connectors is the Din5 'ground' connected? If 'wherever' than both XLR should have a 'common ground' (aka the same Din 5 ground connector).
Nandric,
Check with the manufacturer for correct configuration. Apparently the ground can be strapped internally to the tonearm ground post. The standard record player pinout is
L = #3, R = #5, and #2 (center) is usually ground.
But the manufacturer can wire it however they want and it seems to vary.

http://pinouts.ru/Home/DinAudio_pinout.shtml

http://www.allpinouts.org/index.php/DIN_Audio

Regards,
Thanks Fleib, Actually Vidmantas the owner/designer by the
Reed is a good friend of my but I somehow ovelooked him
by my quest. I made many balanced IC's and just finished
my own phono-cable. But I never used balanced phono-cables
despite the fact that I own the Basis Exclusive pre.

Regards,
Dear Fleib, Your argument about duplication of parts sounds exactly like one that I heard several years ago from someone who is associated with Mapleshade Audio. That was their argument against balanced anything. With all due respect, I guess this is a matter of seeing a glass as half empty or half full. As I see it, there is no doubt that a balanced circuit requires twice as many parts as does an SE circuit. However, the signal per se does NOT travel through twice as many parts as does the signal traversing an SE circuit. As you note, the positive and negative halves of the signal are treated separately. Thus, so far as the full sine wave or complex wave form that is music is concerned, it has not been "processed" by twice as many parts.

One analogy I came up with is: suppose we have 10 coffee beans. You and I, as positive and negative halves of a balanced circuit, have been given the job of taking them from the dining room into the kitchen. I keep 5 and give you 5. But there are two doorways into the kitchen; you use one, and I use the other. Assume the 10 coffee beans are an audio signal. Now, once those 10 beans are in the kitchen, would you say that each element of the signal has gone through two doorways? No, the 10 beans each saw one doorway. Same as if we both used the same (SE) doorway.

The net effect of a balanced pathway in terms of parts is no different from an SE one, so far as parts can introduce nonlinearity and distortion. This is always assuming that capacitors and resistors are as well matched as possible. Further, in an amplifier, treating the signal in balanced mode from input through to the typical P-P output stage has the enormous advantage that no phase-splitting is needed. Surely you would agree that phase-splitting, necessary to feed a P-P output stage in any kind of amplifier, is almost always a flawed process.

But this does not answer my question to you, which was how can slight mis-matching of the gain elements in a balanced circuit, which is always there with tubes, I admit, result in fidelity that is "worse" (your word) than SE? You may be correct; I think I read such an argument put forward by Mark Kelly on AA. Iv'e never heard a problem even using imperfectly balanced tube gear. I do agree that CMR is reduced from ideal when gain is mismatched for each half.
Hi Lew,
On the face of it you make a good case, but IMO you're wrong.
You say, **As you note, the positive and negative halves of the signal are treated separately. Thus, so far as the full sine wave or complex wave form that is music is concerned, it has not been "processed" by twice as many parts.**
This is completely incorrect, or nearly so.

In your analogy the 10 coffee beans are split in 2 and taken to the kitchen by separate doors. Maybe each bean goes through only one door, but do they arrive at the same instant?
You hold the beans loosely in your hand and I hold them tightly in my sweaty grip. Same temp?

The analogy depends how you look at it, your 10 coffee beans, single ended are only 5. Seems to me there's a difference between regulating the (-) side of the signal, and amplifying it with duplicate parts.

A consumer balanced phono stage tends to be very expensive and made with the "best" parts etc. That's why it's good IMO and not because it's balanced. Tubes are a special case because they're noisy and inappropriate for phono amplification now that there are superior devices for that. You get common mode noise rejection where it's not needed, at the input using a short cable. That is noise common to both sides. Tell me this, what happens to things that are not common to both sides, differences?

I didn't have the pleasure of reading Mark Kelly's post. He probably shed more light on this subject than I. Please don't think I'm anti tubes, I have a wonderful custom tube amp built by Dan Fanny. But when it comes to phono.....
Regards,





Dear Fleib, I now recall that Kelly's issue with tubes was this very one of the problem of matching them in a balanced circuit. Mark went on to design and implement a balanced circuit wherein the imbalance is automatically compensated for. His own home-brew phono stage is thus balanced and uses tubes for gain. So, you cannot use that to support your argument.

Of course, if the parts on one half of the circuit are grossly defective or poorly matched, which is kind of what I read into your bit about "sweaty hands", then a balanced circuit will not work optimally well. Nor will an SE circuit. Thus I label your argument not relevant. Also, if you really think that tubes are obsolete in audio, we don't have much to talk about, because we are too far apart in our mindsets. Having said that, I should also admit that in my own balanced phono stage, I implemented an MAT02 bipolar transistor at the input. This device has two sections that are matched within a gnat's toukus. Everything else downstream from the MAT02, right up to the speakers, is tubes in full balanced mode. No phase-splitting is ever done. You would like the sound, I think. It would be great if any of us could ever get to hear the others' systems. No weapons allowed.
Lew,
That's interesting about Kelly's phono. I wonder how many others have that imbalance compensation circuit, zero, maybe one or two? How about yours?

You read into my argument? You missed the point. It's about circuit topology and uneven exposure to heat, especially with tubes. Things like resistors and capacitors change value with temp.
Admittedly, much of my objection is theoretical, but why make things overly complicated? Many of the tube units have SUTs and I don't like them either.

Now I think tubes are obsolete? You didn't finish reading my post. I have a tube amp (among others). I don't think tubes are a particularly good idea on phono, so sue me.
Maybe you forgot, I'm the guy who had direct drive OTL electrostat tube amps - big high voltage cap tubes. The amps put out 50KV with banks of storage caps, another Dan Fanny creation.
Your running Soundlab? Bet it sounds great.
Regards,
Hi Raul,

I see that you have left me unable to respond or help you to answer your series of accusations. I will therefore try to get the key party to respond to you directly concerning the issues that you suggest I have instigated. Hopefully, that will put your mind in a better place.

I will wait a couple of days in case you would rather that I did not attempt to bring the truth to light. If you are fine with me trying to assist in this way, then there is no need to respond and I will post on Wednesday.

You have left me truly bewildered.

As always...
Hi Raul,

I'm not certain if my last post on the Essential review page might help with your anger or understanding:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?rprea&1187459855&openusid&zzDgob&4&&

As always..
Fleib, (Yes, my main speakers are SL 845PXs with drastic mods to the input stage of the spkrs.) As Nandric is fond of reminding me, I also have a pair of Beveridge 2SWs in my basement. For 6 months Bill Thalmann has been working on their direct-drive amplifiers. (Well, he is not doing six months worth of work; for 5 months they just sat in his shop. The poor man is overwhelmed with work fixing all the broken direct-drive turntables in the US.) Anyway, Bill will probably be finished with the Bev amplifiers this week, and I look forward to hearing the speakers, finally. I have a pair of transmission line woofers that I built myself maybe 40 years ago, using the old KEF B139 woofer, and I plan to take those out of mothballs to provide bass for the Beveridges. Maybe I am a pessimist, but I predict I will find out there is something amiss with the Beveridge ESL panels and then need to fix THAT before I really get to know what they can do, but the jury is out.

The MAT02 takes the worry out of any noise that might be created using an all-tube phono stage with LOMC cartridges (a lot of which gets cancelled anyway in balanced mode). I can't prove it to you, unless you come over to listen, but the phono is DEAD quiet with ANY cartridge you care to throw at it. The irony is that now I am enamored of these much higher output cartridges, I have been using an SE tube phono stage to amplify their output, because the MP1 has too much gain for them. The outboard phono feeds the MP1 linestage section for MMs and MIs. So, in that case I am only balanced from the linestage on to the speakers. By the way, Raul told me that he uses the very same MAT02 at the input to the phono in his phonolinepreamp. In my case, it is the bottom half of a hybrid cascode, using a tube at the top. The plate voltage matching is within 1%.

I still have the 550ML stylus we all bought from LP Gear. I have not opened the box and was planning to return it. But I looked at it yesterday (the box is transparent plastic), and the color of mine is a deeper, darker blue than is the one that was photographed and shown here to be carrying an alu cantilever and probably elliptical or spherical stylus. Then Dave bought the "real" 550ML and showed us that the color of the stylus assembly is a darker blue than is the bogus one. Could it be that just by luck, I got a real 550ML stylus assembly? I wish I could figure it out without opening the box. Did anyone else get something different from the one that was "exposed" here on the thread as not original?
Audio-Technica AT155LC on eBay:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/CAPSULA-PARA-PLATO-AUDIO-TECHNICA-AT155LC-/261219874267?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_186&hash=item3cd1eaf5db
I won´t bid on it so...
Good luck
Dear Lew, Glad to hear that those Beveridge 2SWs are at
last fixed. I thought that those have their own bass drivers?
To be honest I have not much trust in your own
'Ikea' subs. You should know that those Beveridge 'stats'
are very popular in Germany. Such that there are repair
shops for them. So you can eventualy get rich if
their transport to Germany is cheap. I hope I will be the
first one to hear how they compare with the SL 840 PXs.

Regards,
Nandric, they did originally come with their own subwoofers. But those would now be 30 years old, and they sucked in the first place, according to those who have heard them. Moreover, there is a bass amplifier built onto the chassis of the direct-drive tube amps; it does not elicit admiration for quality of its construction, either. I don't have the original subs and won't use the built-in woofer amplifiers. I don't know what you mean by "Ikea" subs. I built those things out of high-density fiberboard (HDF) that is one-inch thick, and then they were covered with formica. (This is 1970s technology, I admit, but not an IKEA kit, either.) I need some modern "stuffing" for my TLs, however. If I fall in love with the speakers, I will get better subwoofers.
Dear Lewm: Not exactly, we don't used in the phonolinepreamp. What I posted is that those MAT02 comes in my ML 20.6 monoblocks by design.

Regrads and enjoy the music,
R.
Lewn, return the 550ML if it is still possible to get your money back. With the picture showed on the net, I showed it to two respectful re-tippers and they both agreed that there is nothing exotic about it; that it is bonded, elliptical tip and aluminum cantilever.
Thanks, Audpulse. Fleib, I think, already told us as much. I was just wondering whether LP Gear may have had a mixed batch, some of which were genuine 550ML and some like the ones you and I and others were talking about. Mine is definitely a darker blue color compared to the photo posted here earlier.
Lew, I think you should open it and determine if it is, in fact an original. This should have no affect on
return-ability, as long as it's not damaged. Raul tried his and can now return it if he desires.

If it is a beryllium/ML, it is worth more than $200 IMO. Only a few ATs had such a stylus and they are mostly unavailable and fit 100 series. I think the 550ML was the only round plug beryllium ever made. If you have a PC220 or 440 body results might be better than good.
Regards,