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
Raul,
Since when does someone else define your evaluation?
Perhaps you've already heard a PC550ML and deemed it no improvement, but this would be surprising considering the 550 was the TOTL.
I don't blame you for being reluctant to attempt a transplant. The 160 stylus is rare and desirable, but not so much on a 160 body. Not to say it's bad, but is it better than an ATN152ML on an AT440? (which admittedly is quite good)
You wouldn't have to risk your 440LC stylus, merely find another stylus carrier that fits. Still, it's a daunting task. If you've already heard the PC440 with a beryllium/ML, perhaps you could try it again on your new set-up.
Regards,
The SHURE ULTRA 500 was designed to improve the already successful V15V-MR, namely a "high end" version of the model. The 400 and 300 series are refined versions of the ML HE 140 and HE 120, respectively with Micro-Ridge stylus with Masar-polished contact areas. The ratio of stiffness to effective mass of stylus shank is very high in the 500 and 400 as both have a thin wall tube beryllium cantilever, whereas the 300 has a thick wall tube beryllium cantilever.
The effective mass of 500 is 0.165 mg (I must admit I did´t remember it´s that low, nice surprice after all these years) and 400´s is 0.190 mg.
The large metal body of the 500 is heavy resulting in total cart´s mass of 9.3 g, all other models are much lighter. This heavy mass adds stiffness and controls vibrations very well resulting in excellent sound quality. There may be more sophisticated techniques compered to the V15V-MR inside the
body also but I wouldn´t know.

The specs seem quite similar to the ML HE 140 but the ULTRA 500´s are better: wider and flatter response, lower measured distortions, lower channel balance. In trackabilty also the ML HE140 gets the highest measured values of 30 cm/s and 100 um (test record SHURE TTR-117), referring to the test in HIFI 6-7/1986 that I mentioned earlier in this thread. Yes, in the golden days they really meticulously measured the performance/technical levels of cartridges. Sadly this was the very last profound scientific cartridge test in my country´s magazines, in 1986 !
Also listening tests easily confirmed ULTRA 500´s superiority over others. I have not experienced the ML 140 HE but I totally agree with reviewers on the 500´s audio quality. I can translate the comments for those who are interested...

I have enjoyed my ULTRA since 1989. It has always sounded superb in my system that has gradually improved over the years. I´m still improving my TT and I haven´t found ULTRA´s quality boundaries so far. Very rhythmical and no negative issues whatsoever, never has had in fact. Raul once said: "... sounds superb everywhere." This is the only thing I can´t agree more with him, with all respect to the great searcher.

The Jico SAS has a quite similar cantilever design as the original. It also features a telescoped cantilever within a special aluminium rod. The cantilever is boron. The diamond tip is a selected natural single-crystal octahedron. Even the recommended VTF is exactly the same 1.2 g so "neutral" comparison between the two designs is justfied.

The Jico SAS fits perfectly the ULTRA and gives even slightly better performance (in micro details).
Most importantly, it does not change tonal or any other balance, it just adds some information. A superb hybrid, and a very successful one.
Anyone have an extra Signet TK7Ea or TK7LCa body they are not using that they are willing to trade for one of my AT 155LC bodies?

Jack
Just to add one small detail to Harold's awesome boatload of info. The Ultra 300 and 400 stylus are available and the 140he, Ultra 300 and 400 stylus are interchangeable.
Dear Jbthree: I own the P77/stock/and Jico one but unfortunatelly I do not yet given the opportunity to shows me its " top " quality performance.

I'm to busy but I know I have to do it, we will see.

Regards adne enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Fleib: I would like to follow your advise but I don't decide it yet.

Now, after check the 155LC and 160 ML then I just tested the 20SS and I was not surprised what I heard against the 440LC against the 155/160 and that is that the 20SS performance is nearer than the 155/160 to the 440LC performance.

I think was you who posted that maybe the 440 has near-similar motor than the 20SS, this could be but we can't be sure because the LC stylus was used for AT in the 155 product line and the ML one with the 160 and Signet TK10 when in the 20SS times the stylus was the Shibata.

I want to test my TK10MLMK2 to compare it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Harold-not-the-barrel: I really appreciate your wide Shure top cartridges explanation.

Certainly you are " married " with the ULTRA 500 and I think for good reasons. I will try to test the 500.

Now, the ML HE140 was a cartridge that never had the Shure promotion as the V or the 500 and in reality only a " few " owners really appreciated. As you I can't compare it against the 500 but IMHO the 140 performs better than the VMR.

You posted: ++++ " cart´s mass of 9.3 g, all other models are much lighter. This heavy mass adds stiffness and controls vibrations very well .... " +++++

maybe this cartridge body characteristic is the " culprit " for better quality performance. We have to remember that in a cartridge our enemy are: unwanted resonances and vibrations and the cartridge body build material and dampening construction is critical on its quality performance level.

Seems to me that right now only Acman could help about because he owns the 140 and the 500, we will wait for his experiences about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Thanks jbethree for the tip on the A&R body, which I ordered. Now about the stylus: Jico has three , two of which are more expensive and have Japanese names (of their master craftsmen?) attached. Any ideas about which is better?

http://stylus.export-japan.com/index.php?cPath=88&osCsid=nmk8hofpu6vfml9e6v8tmutso4
Dear friends: I'm following testing MM/MILOMC cartridges in my new set up ( as Fleib named, he is right it's a new set up. ) and till now all the cartridges quality performance improved a not for a short margin.

Trhough this set up tests the MM/MI cartridges are nearer to the LOMC cartridges, seems to me that now the analog system is handling in better way the resonances/vibrations and accuracy that means in many ways lower distortions, the MM/MI quality performance today especially in the bass management is way better with less overhang more precision and with the natural tightness, grip and power that gives the right foundation to the LP music reproduction.

Yes, I'm exited because of that that IMHO is a new discover, I think I'm discovering the " real " quality performance level of each cartridge.

The turn was/is for the Wilson Benesh that I reported is a good cartridge but today I can say for sure that's not good but excellent one.

The other cartridge I'm testing is my long away LOMC cartridge reference Ortofon MC2000 and it's an overwhelming experience as ever where you don't want to sleep but to enjoy 24 hours this kind of quality MUSIC sound reproduction. As with the MM/MI ones the major improvement is in the bass management that before this new set up could be ( if any ) its weak side, today all the bass frequency range is a real reference and this characteristic makes that all the frequency range improved.

Not easy to explain all these experiences I'm experienced because are " new " for me and I could think that for every one so even that I have to use the same words that in the past those words/adjectives have a completely new meaning.

Btw, with this level of quality performance the " perfect " VTA/SRA cartridge set up is more " difficult " to find out because the range of position where the cartridges sounds best is wider and now I appreciated the testing proccess I have for years and that now I'm refine it because I need to do it.

I will follow testing MM/MI/LOMC/HOMC cartridges. I want to hear the Technics EPC 100MK4 and the JVC " Holly grail " and the FR MCX-5 as the Astatic MC 2500. Well I want to test every single cartridge I reported in the thread. Yes, I need a lot of time for I can do it. We will see.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Maxson: Thank's for your post because I own the JICO but I was unaware that exist three versions. I will see it to know about and wait for the Jbthree answer to you.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Jack i have a signet body .. I do not want to trade for it..

if your interested in purchasing it contact me offline

Lawrence
Dear Maxson & Raul,

RE: Jico SAS STYLUS 1, the two other models, Akazonae and Yatagarasu are decorated with hand applied Japanese Lacquer. It is purely cosmetic, just to make the object more beautiful. Functionally the same as the plain SAS STYLUS 1, although it may add a bit more mass. Nice, but probably not a good idea if one intends to remove the stylus guard.

John
John, I personally think that the other two models were painted with a damping material but if your tonearm can handle the resonating frequency of the SAS STYLUS 1, then you do not need any of the other two.
Dear Audpulse:

My information comes from Jico. I mentioned the stylus guard because of the possibility of cracking or scratching the lacquer. It may indeed provide some damping but I do not think that was the intent. Making ordinary functional objects more beautiful seems very Japanese to me.

John
Regards Raul & all, A happy marriage indeed.
Exactly, a heavy and large metal body of a cart tames resonances very well, and when coupled directly to a metal arm (Trans-Fi) surely enables the best sound. Many heavy metal body carts such as the Audio-Technica ANV models are superior performers:
https://www.google.fi/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CEIQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slideshare.net%2FRadikalTR%2Faudio-technica-50th-anniversary-cartridges&ei=JaQsUoiMAYGo4ASXw4DoDg&usg=AFQjCNEQEvQcWEukyMNl4HIIsAIZrrBdYg&sig2=WYus6ZLxesMF-GPzzPOgqw&bvm=bv.51773540,d.bGE

IME the SHURE ULTRA 500 performs superbly on the SME III´s plastic headshell as well. Due to heavy mass of 9.3 g and high compliance of 31 cu it performs best with very light effective mass tonearms, obviously the SME III´s 4.5 g titanium-nitride super rigid S-shaped wand is the best pivot arm, also Infinity Black Widow with 3 g (but so rigid) wand fits nicely.
Dear Jbthree: Thank you, the SAS 1 is the one I own.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Professor many thanks for all of your knowledge and assistance regarding technics epa 250 arm. Also Eric your handy work getting this awesome vintage arm to mount in your home made pod was sweet. This has aallowed me to enjoy a solid gold musical weekend.

Mounted a tk7cla on a technics light head shell. Very slight rise in the tail tracking at 1g and the magic began on Friday. I have high regards for micro 505 but with 7cla mounted on both there's no comparison. The music is flowing and with out any fatigue on long sessions. All of the qualitys we all expect from our hobby.

A fine addition again many thanks guys.
Mike
Regards, Stltrains: De nada. Most would agree with Raul concerning the general quality of Technic R&B gear. The Signet is a favorite, good to hear you're enjoying the arm/cart combination.

Should you wish to do so, substitute an ATN155LC stylus for the OEM Signet. Under magnification my example of the Signet stylus is slightly longer than the AT, brilliant under a light and absolutely colorless. You'll need to listen closely to detect a difference.

Peace,
Dear Stltrains: Technics vintage tonearms are hard to beat, the Lustre GST-801 is a contender for an a challenge for any tonearm.

Good that you own the 250, not easy to find out.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Professor I will give 155 an audition as soon as I get enough of the sweet sound 7cla is delivering and the smile comes off my face. My goodness you said a mouth full with that slight laid back statement with 250. I know I've found the contender for the 155/160 triplaner combo.

Raul it took me a adventure for sure to arrive with 250/500. A flop with a epa 100 that cost me deneros for nothing. Thankfully 250 came through clean. The luster is on my list I'm thinking its going to be tougher than the technics though.
Dear friends: AT 150ANV AT 150ANV AT 150ANV !!!!!!!

whom said that today cartridge MM/MI designs are not as good or better than the vintage ones?

between other persons I think I did it.

A few months ago I bought this latest Audio technica MM/MI top of the line design and I like it what I heard through my brief listening time. Certainly I did not gave enough time to have a more precise opinion on it but that already happened in the last 10 days.

I tested again in my new set up and compare it against other top AT/Signet vinatge cartridges: AT 20SS, 180 OCC, 160/155, Precept 440/LC, TK10MLMK2 and MF-2500.

No one disappoint me but today the AT 150ANV seats appart even you can't say is an AT/Signet cartridge and for good reasons: cartridge body build material, cantilever build material and some especial motor characteristics.

The AT 150ANV performs nearer to today top LOMC cartridges with the lower colorations I know from any MM/MI I experienced, especially in the kind of bass management.
This is a welcomed characteristic because permit that all other frequency range shine with applomb/true, perfect tonal balance, precision, rythmum and that elusive natural agresiveness and power/dynamics that only the live music has.

From those bunch of cartridges only the Astatic ( 440LC/TK10MLMK2 a step behind. ) shares some AT150ANV characteristics but can't even it.

The AT150ANV is not as good tracker as the 20SS or the MF-2500 or the Precept but a decent tracker.

One unique characteristic is that the different reproduced sounds coming from different instruments or group of instruments and from different positions/place/layers in the audio system stage has not only clear and precise definition but an astonishing palpability as if you were " there ". The kind of level of this experience is shared but no other cartridge I heard.

Other welcomed characteristics is the almost unexistent noise floor due that the usual cliks/pops and the like are reproduced at very low level against other cartridges.

There is no frequency range that call your attention over others but only the MUSIC enjoyment only the easy flows of MUSIC when everything is just " right " when you don't want anything else but following the enjoyment. This happens with any kind of music and at any SPL.

Listening throught this AT 150ANV you could think that distortions already evaporated/gone.

It's clear to me that with this kind of cartridge design the audio system quality performance level is limited only by the audio system owns/self limitations not because the AT 150ANV. So, as better nthe audio system as greatest the MUSIC enjoyment.

If you are not " impressed " with your 150ANV then maybe is time to " change "/rethink your audio system.

If you can do it a favor: buying it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear friends: I would like to know which are your latest experiences with the AT 150ANV. One of you owns two samples and one of them was retipped by SS and could be interesting to know how it compares against the original.

Appreciated your contributions about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Whatever Raul is up to, the AT ANV cartridges are not to be taken lightly. They are certainly excellent value relative to new-production alternatives at any price. After 50+ hrs. break-in my AT ART7(a derivative of the 50ANV) is still relaxing and opening up. It is among the top MC and MMs that I've heard, and an excellent value at around $1.2K. Consideration of TOTL new-production cartridges from mainstream manufacturers like AT and Denon is consistent with the democratic values and unorthodoxy of this NOS MM/MI thread. If I hadn't just spent precious Yankee dollars on an L07-D TT I would be compelled to jump into a 150ANV to compare to the ART7. Might do it anyway.
"might do it anyway". Why, because you just like to spend money?
The Shure 97 will take you where you think you want at a lot less.
How dare you kick a thread while its down, or maybe dead, or at least starting to stink.
I have not heard the Shure 97, but it is a good segue into the Shure Ultra 500. This cartridge is as good as Harold says. Quite different from the AT/Precept sound that has been called neutral. It is balanced all the way from lows to highs. I tried setting my arm with a little more positive VTA and it started dissecting the music to much, so I'm back to Around Harold's recommended flat level on the Trans-Fi tonearm. A really good tracker!

The stylus does not appear as new as I would have hoped, so I will join the hunt for real Vr5 stylus. I have not had good luck with Jico, but I will see what the SAS sounds like due to our friend Harold's recommendation.

The Shure 140he with the Ultra 300 stylus is also very good. I will have the get the Ultra 400 stylus for this cartridge.

Both are really good and if you ever find one get it.
One last point. The Audio Technica 150 ANV is a very good cartridge, and at $675 is a good deal. It is a beautiful cartridge. A work of art.

Dgarretson, It's not a good tracker as Raul said. I have more trouble on the Terminator than any other cartridge at tracking, but sounds good on the arm.
Perfect, brother Acman the Third ! Well done... and said.
Good luck for finding a NOS VN5MR as they are getting extremely rare. And you can buy a Jico SAS for very reasonable price from Japan.

Dave the Messenger, and all brothers in Trans-Fi tonearm,
As you are men of wealth why won´t you try an AT ANV MC too.
There are several for sale on eBay for ridiculous low prices (for MC).
I´m afraid I won´t be able to as I´m spending my precious euros upgrading my TT and I just bought a certain exceptional vintage MM cartridge...

I also own the AT 150ANV still in unopened box. I guess it´s my next duty to experience this new generation MM cart, a work of art, as you say.
However, I think Nandric prefers the AT-ML180/OCC over the 150ANV in his system. We should remember that he has a superb quality TT and TA as well.
Dear Acman3,

RE: Chopin123, I'm going to paraphrase Randy Newman here: "He may be a troll but he's our troll." As far as the thread dying or stinking that could be from one of the Majah Playahs here switching teams. Or perhaps there are no more MM sleeper cartridges left to rediscover.

Best,

John

John
Dear Harold, while I and some others decided not to participate in this thread because of Raul the case of carts valuation should be above personal animosity. Despite
my objections against the Mexican I still think that he has a 7th sense for the MM carts. I am not sure if this apply for the MC carts also but the most of my MM carts I have bought are recommended by the Mexican. However non of his MC recommendations because all of them are my own choice. Well I also bought the AT 150 ANV because of his recommendation and while this is my most expensive MM cart I never regreted this decision. The only caution made is about its complience but I use the FR-64 s for all my tests so I have no problem with that whatever. The AT 150 ANV is without any question an fantastic cart. My is not yet 'broken in' but I think it is as good as my AT 180
which I regard together with my Glanz 5 as my best MM carts.

Regards,
I just mounted an A&R P77 with Jico stylus today, and I'm really loving it. Compared to my memory of the AT150ANV, it is more articulate, has more air, more bass. But once it's run in, I'll do a more careful comparison.

I've got a lot of other MMs thanks to this thread:

Empire 750LTD
Empire EDR9
B&O MMC20CL
Ortofon M20FL Super
Azden YMP50VL

Also

Grace F9E
ADC TRX1
ADC XLMII/XTIII

But the A&R/Jico--with no break-in--seems to be the best so far.
Hi Nandric,

Glad to see your contribution: enough to make me read and contribute here again. Anyway, glad to see you're still enjoying the Glanz G5. I know I'm going back into the dark history of this thread but I'm also glad to see my earlier recommendation of the Shure 500 has received some endorsement from other positive experiences. Those who enjoy the Shure really should give the Glanz G5 or G7 a listen (if you come across one).

Farewell

As always...
Dear Nandric, Glad to hear your comments again about the top MM performers of AT. Keen to hear your further review of 180 vs. ANV.
Dear Dgob, Glad you revisit this thread after a while...
Unfortunately I haven´t had retipped my ACUTEX M320 IIISTR yet to make comparision to the ULTRA because Axel is very busy at the moment and Dom´s asking price for retipping with a boron cantilever is way too much.

I would very much like to experience a top GLANZ Moving Flux cartridge, a very special design. I had the MFG-310LX in mid 80´s. It sounded very good in my then humbler system. The expensive SHURE V15V-MR was just a bit better at the time.
Dear Harold, Glanz and Astatic are the same carts. The moving flux technology is invented by Mitachy Corp. in Japan. Glanz and Astatic were simple importers. As far as
I know the Astatic 100 match the Glanz 71 and Astatic 200 the Glanz 51 and 31 L. The only difference are the styli which Astatic and Glanz ordered by Mitachy. Astatic 100 and 200 Shibata; Glanz 71, 51 and 31 line contact and/or elliptical. Vetterone and I were not able to hear any difference between the Astatic 200 and Glanz 31 L. I kind of promissed my Glanz 71 l to my friend Dgob but if you are interested in 51 L or 31 L you can ask.

Regards,
Hi Harold-not-the-barrel,

I look forward to reading your feedback on the Acutex when it returns. My (post-Axel) M420 STR still amazes me.

Good luck with the Glanz. I am really only certain of the G5 and G7 but if others in their range can meet those standards, I can't see how you will be anything but delighted.

Good luck and I look forward to hearing of developments.

As always...
Dear Nandric, Ironic, is it not, that you are using a tonearm Raul dislikes greatly to evaluate a cartridge you bought because of Raul's recommendation. And you like it. Anyway, I hope all is well. I have no animosity against anyone.
Dear Lew, I also own the Lustre 801 which Raul admires
but this one does not fit on my SP-10 plinth. The fact
that the FR-64S fits I would not call 'ironic' but rather, say,
'accidental'. Neither apply to my new Reed 3P which
I just got from Vidmantas. I am however not sure if this
one fits 'some' Balkanes. As the new possessiom may
suggest I am doing well. Thank you for asking.

Kind regards,
Dear harold-not-the-barrel: As Nandric posted you can get Moving Flux cartridge design from Astatic.

I own/owned and heard all the top MF cartridges and today nothing comes near to the Astatic MF-2500. As a fact almost no other MM/MI motor design even this quality performance cartridge level. If you want the best of the best MF then look for the 2500: very hard to find but not imposible and worth the effort and patience to get it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Maxson: Prety good cartridge arsenal you own. I think that you are the third person here that " fall in love " with the AR 77/SAS that I own but never test it, I will do for sure.

Yes, could be interesting that you give a listen ( again ) to the 150 ANV that between other things needs over 50-60 hours of play before settle down and start to " shine ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear MF design advocates: I own the Micro Seiki LF-7 that seems to me is a moving flux design too. Micro name it " variable flux " and its characteristics are close to the Astatic/Glanz ones.

Tomorrow with more time I will try to test it and see if the stylus is interchangable in between those cartridges. We will see.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Nandric, I appreciate your offer, I may very well try your MFG-51L in near future, thanks. But first I must complete my TT project and then experience the 150ANV. I wonder how the MFG-610LX would compere to other top cartridges, does anybody have one ?
Raul, I knew your praise for the ASTATIC flagship. I keep searching for it too because of the unique Moving Flux technology. Thanks again.
Hi Raul, I actually have 3 AT150ANV's now.;) You're right it is not the best tracker but it is the clearest sounding cart I have heard. To my ears it is less colored than most MC's or MM's I've heard.

As for the Soundsmith rebuild I went for a level 3. Initially the sound was very similar but once I dialed it in it's better than stock. More 3 dimensional. I think this because of the stylus profile. With a level 2 rebuild I'm guessing it would be pretty much the same as stock. Still not the best tracker though.

I tried the SS rebuild and stock ANV stylus on a AT150MLX body and it is very similar sounding to the ANV body. I would still give the nod to the ANV body though. For those that have a MLX already getting a Soundsmith level 2 or 3 rebuild will improve the sound allot IMO.

Sean
Dear friends: According with the specs manual the Micro Seiki LF-7 is very similar to the Glanz 71e ( elliptical stylus. ).

As the Astatic/glanz de LF-7 is a low impedance design with 3.2 mv on utput and 1.3 grs. on VTF and 5.4 grs. as its weight.

I have to test it to know more about this Micro Seiki " variable flux (MI ) " cartridge. More to come.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Sarcher30: So, now you own not two but three 150ANV, I understand very clear why you did it.

Yes, seems to me that if we own the AT 150ANV we will need " nothing " in the future and we could " die " happy with.

+++++ " is the clearest sounding cart I have heard. To my ears it is less colored than most MC's or MM's I've heard. " ++++

with different words but your experiences with the cartridge are similar of mine. I talked of low very low distortions ( even to the level of " disappeared ". ) .

The SS rebuilded: more 3 dimensional?. Well, the original 0ne impressed me because that palpable characteristic level it has so: something better than that could be an exponential " orgasm " ( if this exist. ) !.

I really appreciated you shared those great experiences with this top top cartridge winner. IMHO a Reference for say the least.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
and thank you to brought here the first time because you were who " moved " me to buy it and no regret about!!!!!!!!!

R.
Maxon, amazingly I bought almost the same collection of cartridges as you from all the cartridges recommended on this site. I don't have the ED9R, F9E, or TRX1, but I did add an Empire 4000DIII/Gold, AT7V, and Technics 205C IIX.

Unfortunately my auditions of this collection continue to be delayed. Non-audio interference plus needs for rebuilding two tonearms and work on Technics DD tables need to be completed. Fun days ahead.
better bass management. ) and surpassed only by the 150ANV on that AT/Signet lines. So, higly recomended.

Btw, if you can't find the MF 2500 exist other two models: the MF 2501 ( elliptical. ) and the 2502 ( 0.5 mil spherical. ).

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear friends: I don't know what happen. Here I go again:

I tested the Micro Seiki LF-7 and compared against the top MF cartridges and other top performers and I have to say that the LF-7 quality performance is quite remarkable.

I can't find out information that could confirm if shares the MF design ( I speculated about only in my other posts. ).

The MS surpass all other moving flux ( MF ) cartridge designs but the Astatic MF 2500 but even here the bass frequency range is handled in better way on the transients and time decay that puts the performance nearer to the live music experience in this regards.

The Precept 440LC performs close to the LF-7 but the bass management is best served by the Micro seiki one.

The LF-7 shares the same tracking abilities than the Astatic ones and this means: extraordinary.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.