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
Dgarretson,
*A single arm for cartridges of all compliances.*
45g horiz eff mass can be increased. Why would you want to?
I've heard the theory that increasing horiz eff mass can be beneficial, but this is extreme. Many carts are less compliant vert than horiz, so results would be very arm specific. Isn't there a list of carts that work well with the arm?
Regards,
Fleib, I agree that it is preferable to minimize the horizontal mass of a linear tonearm, considering that in all cases this mass is greater than that of a pivot arm. Nevertheless, since I have not yet tried any very low-compliance cartridges with Trans-Fi, I'm leaving open the possibility that increased horizontal mass may make sense for some cartridges. IIRC Poul Ladegaard, the inventor of the concept linear arm that spawned Trans-Fi, mathematically modeled that horizontal force operating on the cartridge cantilever on a linear arm of up to 300gm is still minute relative to a pivot arm of typical off-set and overhang. So in theory at least, there should be no damage done by experimenting with more horizontal mass.

The ability to separate the adjustment of vertical effective mass from horizontal mass has been helpful. While holding VTF constant I can hear significant changes in performance as the front and rear counterweights are spun out from the pivot point. Stubborn tracking and sibilance problems that cannot be eliminated by adjusting VTF can be resolved by varying vertical effective mass. The stock Trans-Fi short wand sounds good with all of the medium- and high- compliance cartridges I have tried. However, the variable- mass arm broadens the sonic palette of each cartridge and deals with the occasional seemingly intractable tracking problem.
Dear Dover, Raul and all,
First time poster here, delurking to enquire further about explorations with so called DJ cartridges. I've often wondered if this particular breed may contain some gems, but have always been put off trying due their typically high recommended tracking forces. Dover, you state your favourite is the Tonar Baktrak with a new spherical stylus from the Expert Stylus Co. It strikes me that the Expert spherical tip - being less complex to produce than the other audiophile approved shapes - is not the magic ingredient here, and perhaps not your reason for the Expert Stylus job? Did you specify a more compliant suspension or different cantilever material? What tracking force are you using? Are any of the discussions about the Tonar among the EMT fanatics in English? This ilk of cartridges are ostensibly a gift to audiophilia if their promise holds true, being cheap, widely available and current manufacture. Please enlighten us.
Dgarretson, That's interesting. Lateral cu and eff mass are largely ignored in consideration of arm/cart matching, whether in SQ or resultant resonant frequency and trackability, but they certainly effect performance. Most of my experience is with pivoted arms, and eff lateral mass has different implications in a linear arm. Nevertheless, tracking is 3 dimensional, and I think the discrepancy between
45g and _? might be problematic.

What is the range of vert eff mass you're talking about, any calculations?
Even with the variable mass scheme, is 45g preferable to lower horiz mass?
Regards,
Fleib, I'll run through calculations of optimal vertical mass as I mount the next few cartridges on the wand. So far I've been placing the front and rear the weights by ear. The wand can be pretty much anything from almost massless to massive-- one or two negligible 6"x 1/8" alum cantilevers(3" rear projection + 3" front projection), one or two rear counterweights @10gm, one or two or no front counterweights @5gm, and a std. headshell that plugged directly into the pivot has minimal inertial mass relative to placement at the end of a conventional pivot arm.

I've tried it with as little as 35gm horizontal mass and as much as 100gm-- approximating the range of horizontal effective mass from ET to Kuzma airline. So far less horizontal mass sounds better in all instances. This does not hold true for vertical mass.

I mounted an Audio Technica ART7 today to an Ortofon LH6000 magnesium headshell. After several hours it's clear that ART7 surpasses DLS1.
Dgarretson,
Art 7 surpassing the DL-S1 isn't at all surprising to me. The DL is a nice natural sounding cart as long as your phono pre gets along with it. I keep reading about people having to load it 20 - 3o ohms. It tends to interact badly with phono stages. 0.15mV, 30 ohms to start out with can be a problem if your load effectively cuts the output in half.

The Art7 on the other hand also has very low output, but R is 12 ohms and 8uH should be less problematic. Of course it has all the other stuff that AT is famous for, boron/LC etc.

You know that eff mass and weight are different? I don't know how that 45g figure was derived, and of course linear vs pivoting can't be directly compared, but to estimate the vert eff mass of a straight arm, first remove the counterweight and cart then weigh the front on a platform scale with a nonmagnetic platform. Prop up the platform so it's close to the level of the pivot. This gets you very close on a straight pivoting arm. I think it would be the same for vert eff mass on yours.
Regards,
Fleib, I gave the DLS1 a good run at 30R and 100R and need to return to it once more at 20R. This is straight into a modified AtmaSphere MP-1 with at least 75db gain. The DLS1 acquitted itself with honor, however as you suggest the ART7 is much more forgiving. At an initial 100R there is fine detail, holographic imaging, and tremendous jump factor. In a different league from DLS1.

The lateral/horizontal effective/inertial mass of a linear tonearm is the same as its weight on a scale. Depending on choice of wand and air sled this runs from 35gm-100gm in my set-up.

Thanks for your empirical approach to measuring vertical inertial mass. I'm mostly an empirical guy. I'll try that and add calculated inertial mass with counterweights placed at optimal distances from pivot as determined by ear.
Dgarretson,
*The lateral/horizontal effective/inertial mass of a linear tonearm is the same as its weight on a scale. Depending on choice of wand and air sled this runs from 35gm-100gm in my set-up.*

Come again? The air sled is part of the horiz eff mass? I would guess PSI conversion + eff mass of the arm. Now I'll have to take a look and see what you're talking about. You realize of course that weight and mass are two different things. Gram/ounce vs newton. Effective mass is the same as moment of inertia or the resistance to change angular velocity around an axis. The calculation is different for a parallel motion. Guess I'll have to see what that's about too. It doesn't make sense to me that the weight of the arm + sled = eff mass.
Regards,
Dgarretson,
Cool looking arm, like someone gone berserk with an custom erector set. In the horiz plane it doesn't matter whether it's technically eff mass or not. You obviously have the right approach, but minimizing horiz weight might not always be right solution.
*Horizontal resonance is typically between 12-16hz, vertical 5-7Hz.*
www.trans-fi.com/terminatortonearm.htm

Now we're talking resultant resonance and the former seems high while the latter is low. Cart cu isn't specified and this is even more confusing. Normally weight is increased to raise eff mass and decrease res frequency. Do you use a test record(s)? Perhaps another approach might be helpful. You could try to optimize the vert res frequency 8 - 12Hz, then add or subtract weight horiz to max performance.
Regards,
Dear friends: As time goes on the FR MCX-5 improved to very high quality performance levels. IMHO you have to live this FR experience.

Btw, beats in very easy way my Denon DS1 and many other top LOMC ones and certainly several of our beloved vintage MM/MI cartridges, highly recomended.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Fleib, I have a Hi-Fi News test record with horizontal and vertical resonance tracks that may be helpful moving forward. Thus far I set up by ear, running out the front and rear counterweights while holding VTF constant and adding just enough effective vertical mass to reduce audible distortions. Too much mass and sound deadens and soundstage collapses, similar to over-damping effect.

In all honesty, adding horizontal mass doesn't much alter performance. With respect to an optimal range of horizontal effective mass, it seems like Bruce Thigpen of ET came to a similar conclusion. ET(which is a result of some rather sophisticated mathematical modeling) targets horizontal effective mass around 35gm-- about as low as can be obtained in a linear arm. On the other hand, at an audio show Franc Kuzma mentioned to me that a 100gm lateral mass is "no big deal."

The lighter-than-stock custom carbon fiber air sled on my Trans-Fi was partly conceived to off-set the addition of front and rear counterweights. The tonearm's horizontal mass is the sum of all moving parts.

I think it's neat that, unlike every other tonearm extant, the vertical mass of this one can be varied without changing horizontal mass, or vice versa.

Mark Kelly/Quiddity posted elsewhere that he was working on a front counterweight, but had issues with resonance anomalies that occurred when the weight was positioned at a nodal point along the arm wand. In my arm I've attempted to prevent this by hanging the counterweights on separate cantilevers detached from the headshell. Of course, by plugging the headshell directly into the pivot bearing there is no "wand" to resonate per se, other than the headshell itself. Absent a wand, this provides an opportunity to hear the resonant behavior of the headshell itself.
It is 8:49 AM and the moderators have once again marked me as safe. I do not expect much but please tell when this gets posted.

Finally got around to mounting my A & R Cambridge with the Jico SAS 1. My first reaction playing 'Aja' was that no other cartridge has ever sounded so much like an SACD. Followed by "The Best of Diana Krall'; Same reaction. However, Wilco's 'Summerteeth' and a few others recordings did sound more like analog.

Sounding like an SACD is not really a criticism, they are noted for their amazing reproduction of string instruments like piano and guitar. I love my multichannel SACDs, the 2 channel ones not so much.

Just posting to see if I am still a pariah.

John

John
Dear Jbthree: Good.

++++ " Sounding like an SACD is not really a criticism. " ++++

agree and maybe is the other way around: a compliment.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Fleib: You was right when posted that with the Monster Alpha Genesis 1000 any action to " improve " it trhough changes in cantilever/stilus was not an improvement but the other way around.

The cartridge very high quality performance level belongs to its original design that change for the bad with a re-tipping.

We are in the last self design tonearm refinements and I have mounted two last prototypes and last week I mounted, fine tunned and tested again the Genesis 1000 and my first words were: WOW WOW WOW !!!!

Was so high that " expression " that I gave a call to my friend that own a ZYX Universe ( same designer for the Genesis 1000 and the ZYX Universe. ) he bought this year and yesterday we mounted the Universe for a " fast comparison " ( 6 hours. ).
Both cartridges mounted in similar tonearms, everything the same.

It's not surprising that cartridges sounds more alike than different with some trade-offs on each side and if I have to choose in between probably I will go for the Genesis 1000 for its " better " tonal balance.

The distortion levels in both cartridges are really low and the sound reflect that with a dynamic level that almost no one MM/MI I heard can compete ( maybe the Astatic 2500 ).

If any one of you can put the hands on the Genesis 1000 in original status please do it, is very good experience and IMHO an additional confirmation of what J.Carr years ago posted here when he said LOMC has lower distoritons than MM/MI designs. In those times my take was the other way around, maybe for the excitement of the new ( for me ) discovery of the MM/MI alternative but today with more calm and more overall experience I can say that LOMC still has the node with out diminish the MM/MI alternative.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R
Dear Dgarretson: Nothing yet about the DTi?, thank's.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
F.: I forgot, I checked the original Genesis 1000 against a modified one: no contest.

R.
Dear Lewm: It's weird how you " react " to some of my posts about measurements where you almost never agree with: seems to me that you just don't care about and I respect that.

When I post any " superlative " measurements you answer that the " phase linear had that kind of " superlative measurements and sounds like a crap and I can agree with ( that is not the subject. ).

Here/next I posted a poor manufacturer spec on a TT under thread evaluation and your answer was now the other way around:

++++ " For all we know, EMT were unusually honest among manufacturers, such that their specs look worse only because they represent reality more than those of other brands. " +++

So, you are " against " great measurements and " support " poor ones . In this last case seems to me that you are looking how " defend " a poor audio manufacturer spec.

I appreciate if you can explainn something about because for me exist a " controversy " in between. Probably a misunderstood for my self but I want to be sure.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Raul, you seem to contradict yourself depending on the subject to your benifit. You agree that the THD wars with solid state amps didn't always provide a better sounding experience. When Lew argued in the Copernican View of the Turntable thread about testing going nude your response was he just needed try it out and listen before giiving an opinion.

I would have to agree with Lew that you can't trust any manufacture to publish true specs that aren't skewed to their benifit. In fact if one had the equipment to verify those specs they would be hard pressed trying to duplicate them. In the end in the consumers real world our ears are our only option.
Dear Ecir38: Maybe you are right maybe not, let me give you my comments about:

when we were talking on the naked TT subject we just never mentioned nothing about measurements because even today does not exist.
In those times Lewm had the opportunity to do it and that's why I said that if he did not experienced can't give an opinion: no aviability of measurements in between and if I remember the disagreement there was because the stand alone tonearm base where ( again ) no single measures exist.

About the THD amplifier figures Lewm was talking of old japanese items with " fenomenal " specs that where not reflected as good quality performance and I agree: SS on those times were almost " terrible " but that changed overtime for the better.

I respect your opinion but I think there is no real controversy for my self down there, at least I can't see it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dgarretson, thanks for the report on the Art 7. I really enjoyed the review since I have a Denon DLS1. I noticed that the specs on the ART say that the load should be over 100 ohms. I know that my Denon wouldn't start to sing until I loaded it to 200 or 500 ohms.

Bob
Dear Rsimms: ++++ " wouldn't start to sing until I loaded it to 200 or 500 ohms. " +++++

due to the DS1 cartridge characterisitcs we can say that's not a " user friendly " item and needs a very good phono stage.

I tested my sample with 100 ohms and 400 ohms and always returned to 100 ohms where in my system performs very good but as your experience with I read it that some other owners had experiences as you and others that runs 100 ohms.

In the other side we have to take in count that for a LOMC cartridge we can consider the DS1 as a high compliance/low weight one and needs to be mated well with the tonearm.
Of course that as any cartridge we have to take care on its overall set up becaus ethe cartridge is very sensitive to VTA and VTF changes. All in all I think the DS1 is a good LOMC cartridge.

Anyway, the ART 7 Dgarretson experience is really good. I will wait to find out a second hand unit before pull the trigger for.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Harold-not-the-barrel, I picked up that Shure Ultra 500 that has been taunting me. How are you loading your Ultra 500. Have you tried the Jico stylus? I have tried the Shure 140he and thought it was good, but haven't listened in a while. Any thoughts?
Rsimms, the ART7 is still breaking in and so far I've tried only 100R loading. It shares the DLS1's low distortion and good tracking. It surpasses DLS1 in timbre and spatiality. I don't think there is any area where the DLS1 is quite its equal, though all in all they have similar traits. More to say after things run in.
Dear or shall I say brother Acman3, Evolution finds its ways and another encounter of a SHURE the Ultra and a Trans-Fi mighty linear tracker was inevitable in History. The meeting of Spirits.
I´m very proud of you. You couldn´t had pick up a better bargain in audio. The best Shure Bros. ever did.
I´m using flat VTA and 150 pF/47 kOhm but probably 100 pF/100 kOhm is better. The Jico SAS is as good as an original and slightly even better, both track 100 um anyway.
Finally there´s something really interesting in this thread !
Distortion is a damning word, as is intermittence. Of greater concern might be the reemergence of digital media as the preferred source, by none other. Redbook proved to be inferior and is now fading away, but not before exacting a heavy toll. What about vinyl?

Now we are enjoying a resurgence a vinyl spring as it were, but look at what we lost. Now, $10,000 cartridges milled out of a solid block of titanium with the same old boron rod cantilever? You can't use a boron tube if no one makes them. What about record pressing and the cost of getting a decent copy, if they exist at all. I'm not making a qualitative statement about Atlas, I'm just sayin, look where we were and look where we are now. What if this isn't the vinyl spring, but rather the vinyl fall? I'm sure there will be enthusiasts for a long time, eventually with ever decreasing numbers. Products are made just as long as people buy them. I wonder how long it will be before we're like grandpa in the attic playing with his model trains.
Regards,
Dear Acman3: Well, audio life is a day by day learnbing proccess and through that proccess in the time almost any single audio subject is explained in better ways that n the past when our ignorance level was higher than today.

Dgarretson once posted: " hey, I have the right to improve(d) my self " and this is what happened in my case with the advantage that today I have three cartridge alternatives ( when in the past: only one. ): MM/MI, LOMC and HOMC that I enjoy.

Regards and enjoy the usic,
R.
Dear Acman3/friends: I think I'm not posting something really different on my LOMC cartridge preference these days, more than two years ago I posted that my reference cartridge was a LOMC: the vintage Ortofon MC 2000.

Now, after tested several vintage LOMC cartridges and today ones that preference is confirmed ( for today ). I don't have yet the opportunity to hear the Atlas and the Anna but almost other today ones ( Goldfinger, ZYX, Koetsu Coral, Titan i, Orpheus, XV-1s and the like. ) and my preference on LOMC is for the vintage ones where its sounds ( overall ) has better balance, some of the today LOMC are to unnatural especially in the high frequency range.

But I don't diminish the MM/MI alternative in any way, right now I'm testing ( in the new/finished tonearm. ) my Precept 440 LC and I can tell you that I can live with for ever!!!

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Raul, I have a little more time to respond today. When you made the statement that you had made a full circle and had decided LOMC were better than MI/MM that scene passed through my head. I laughed about it on so many levels for the next few days. It was meant as much for the people who have followed this thread as much as for you. It was never meant to question your audio journey.

Enjoy the music

I was able to transfer the AT ml160 stylus into the Precept body. Image is slightly off centered, but sounds very promising. I will keep you all informed after I get it correct.
Poem. By Henry Gibson

The fashionable audiophile has no answer,
Distracted by analytical pale and shrill;
The record does not meet the arm,
With MM carts we'll no longer deal;

The industry is anchor’d now in digitals' sound,
With all others we're closed and done;
Should one furtively the ADC from the arm strip,
Then conformity comes in with object won;

Exult, O strings, and ring, O bells!
The Garrott tracks with enthusiastic tread,
Invest the deck with what you please.
Opinion shifting like the winds.
This ship now sails on a different head,

If consistency a virtue surrendered,
Questions now of past opinion are rendered,
So cue up your AT and hear the bells;
Match cart to arm, the bugle trills;

For fifty years bequeathed the final wreaths;
Exaggerated death of the moving magnet cart?
Can't leave the records in their sleeves!

This arm beneath your hand;
Is a dream that on the deck,
A MM Caruso, a MI Pavarotti,
Not digital cold and dead.

So listen as you please,
When all is done and said,
To the rhythm rejoice,
Remember:

This pleasure is all in your head!

;)

And,

Peace,
Hello professor since my failed buy of epa 100 fell through I've been looking. Well I was able to get a 250 arm and 500 base. Knowing your use of this combo wanted to get your thoughts on that beast. My concern is the connection between arm and base. As always your thoughts knowledge are so welcomed.

Always love Henry Gibsons wit.

Mike
I think Henry Gibson's poetry is mighty fine,
and that he died in 2009,
But if he were here today,
I'm almost sure he would say,
Those audio poems by Timeltel are not nine.
Regards, Stltrains: Arm connection is good, be sure to keep the fixing screw tight or the arm will hummm. Neutral/damped enough to identify the sonic footprint of headshells or cables. In spite of the "proprietary" configuration of the supplied cables, suggest you experiment. IMHO they can be improved upon.

For cartridges with a metal mount I like the Ortofon LH-8000 Japanese Oak headshell on the 250 arm. With a plastic mount you might prefer a metal headshell, the mid-weight ADC magnesium model works well with the arm.

Also have the EPA-500H arm, seems to have a resonance boost in the upper bass, rarely implement it.

Peace,
Regards, Acman3: Unpublished works, Danny. It's probably best they stay that way.

Intend to revisit the Shure ML140HE, the Garrott/SAS and AT13Ea/155LC mongrel are getting a lot of play.

Peace,
Pretty good, wish I could write poetry

sonnet 2.0 by milton cummings

who is to say I can not hear
the butterfly take wing
or the faint echo sing
ahead of sound I fear
tis trivial a nothing my dear
the glorious tone does ring
in our den she does sing
the last refrain end nears
exalted medium thou please
apollo sweet tempo and tone
like none on earth I fear
come my man between my knees
hurry throw to me your bone
a moment to free the needle dear

who be dear the needle or me
always first in thought you know
i wait for needle and juice flow
a moment and desire not flee
and my love, the retipping fee
i love to mess with you so
to the bed we should go
but wait my love for me to p
and while I do set the cd low
as you command my sweet
forgot which button to push
take remote to bed I go
o sweet love feel thy heat
and cacophony as we gush

Regards,
My sense of humor Fleib has thoroughly provoked,
Henry Gibson's poetic license should be revoked---

Peace,
Hello professer and thanks for the info. The stock cable was not provided so I'm going to use one of Eric's home brews. I have a fair number of cartridges that fit into recommended types. Hopefully all arrives in top shape so I can have some fun with a new toy.

Happy labor day to all of you labors

Mike
Dear harold-not-the-barrel: About the Ultra 500 you posted:

++++ " The best Shure Bros. ever did. " +++++

I heard it several years ago. Maybe you can tell me how the Ultra compares against the 140 HE that I own. I understand that both share the same cantilever/stylus assembly: is it a difference in design on both cartridges other than its cartridge body? because share it similar specs.
Years/months? ago Timeltel posted on specs but I can't remember if he mentioned about design differences.

The 140 HE is very good performer and for what you posted the Ultra/Jico " even better " ?.

The question is for everyone with that experiences in those cartridges. Tahnk's.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Acman3: Curious that you mentiones the AT 160 and Precept at the same time that I'm re-testing some cartridges with our new tonearm including the Precept 400LC that I posted about.

Well, I tested the 155 and 160 ( original stock. ) and my 440 LC beats those almost " easy ".

I'm interested in your test on the 440/160 assembly. We will see.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
There seems to be an AT20SLa...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/DUAL-CS-704-SEHR-GUT-ZUSTAND-LIMITED-AUDIO-TECHNICA-AT-20S-GOLD-AVI-FILM-/281097383331?pt=Plattenspieler&hash=item4172b5ada3

Stoner, Are you listening your AT-ML180/OCC ?
Dear Timeltel: I own all those Technics tonearms and my preference is for the 100MK2.

About the EPA 500 with the straight arm wands I never noted that " boost in the upper bass " but maybe because I never gave it a long run time testing.

I think that almost any analog item designed by Technics is a " guarantee " of good performance and very good quality products.

I think that Dgarretson ( I can't remember who one else. ) own thge 500 but I don't remember his experiences on it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Professor,
What about meter, iambic pentameter and all that. Do people still write that way? Seems hard enough as is, and I've got to say...

task be hard as looks
deceive mine untrain eye
dream prize warm pie
sweet confection cooks
for gotten meter gadzooks
to street must fly
fear thee red flag high
o no ny toe doth hooks
my ride and rear I fear
fine and fee is woe to me
could be worse appear
r w d left in first gear
tis nary penta meter
facial pie and poor betsy dear

How's that 13Ea working out, less transparent than other LC/ML but sweeter?
Regards,
Raul,
The 155 and 160 seem to share the same motor. If you could transplant the ATN160ML into a round plug, you might improve the PC440.
Regards,
Regards, Fleib: LOL.

13Ea/155LC. Good dynamic swing.Tonally balanced, "sweet" without conveying congestion. Very easy to listen to for extended sessions, imaging is noteworthy. Cohesive in character, does Steely Dan well.

The Garrott is more aggressive in transients, upper mids & hfs. A good cart for instrumental recordings. I need to thank Halcro again for bringing the Garrott modified Cambridge cart to my attention.

include the TK7LCa & some might think it a very pleasing trio of MM carts.

Peace,
Regards, Raul: Last used the EPA-500H on a SP-15 TT, much preferred the EPA-250. The difference between the two arms is noticeable. The 500H arm still has an ADC RZL set up on it, not listened to for two years.

I've not tried the 500H arm on the JVC TT-71. Equipped with a Boston Audio Mat-2, I'd not be surprised if response differed.

The EPA-100 mk 2 is admired by many.

Peace,
Dear friends: Right now 11K posts in the thread with the last from Timeltel and 6.3KK views and counting thank's to all of you valued contributions.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Fleib: +++++ " If you could transplant the ATN160ML into a round plug, you might improve the PC440... " +++++

thank's, the advise probably helps the 440LC to change to a 550ML status and this could be ? an improvements.

Normally I don't like that kind of self-task with my cartridges, in the other side Dgarretson post on his NOS 550ML experiences was not to " emotive " about and my LC sample is just great.

Acman3 posted that he already made the transplant you are suggesting and is important to know his opinion even that he does not own the LC.

My 440LC improved its quality performance ( as all the other cartridges I'm testing. ) trhough the new set up with our finished tonearm that between other things permit the tonearm and cartridge/tonearm set up with an accuracy down to " 0 tolerances ". This sole experience is the " Experience ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Cambridge P77

This seller seems to have a cache of NOS motors.

I really like my P77-Jico hybrid.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/A-R-Cambridge-P77-Moving-Magnet-Cartridge-/161100124102?pt=UK_AudioTVElectronics_HomeAudioHiFi_Turntables&hash=item258250cfc6