Dear Ecir38: I always support ADC cartridges I like it but I don't own the MK2 but the MK3. Whom I know has very good experience on your cartridge is: Dgob and I hope he can put some fresh light on it.
About your Grace it is with out doubt a fine cartridge too and IMHO the E version could be better than the L one. The Grace manual states that the best F9 model is the: 9F and second one the 9E. Even the 9E according with that manual states that the 9L share the same elipthical stylus shape with the E model and not a Linear contact like the F and U Grace models.
Maybe Timeltel has a up-dated information about that this Grace manual:
http://www.vinylengine.com/library/grace/f9.shtml
Anyway, Grace is really good and if you can find the original Ruby one better yet.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Timeltel, I don't know about you, but I am sure I will never hear a 2db difference in output that occurs above 15kHz. However, do you think that because you know the measured frequency response variations, you might be biased to hear the two cartridges in different ways? I note that your descriptions of their respective sonic characters correlates with the measurements you describe.
I have had to make some repairs to my system and so have not yet had a chance to compare the 315, 320, and 412, all of which I acquired thanks to your help. But I will let you know when I have some feel for these Acutex offerings. (Raul, I bought all these Acutex cartridges and styli because I felt so bad about not having a Technics EPC P100C. Now you've made us all feel deprived, because none of us own an AKG P100LE. By the way, does the P indicate that this AKG is a P-mount type?) |
Regards, Raul. Several comments were made concerning the ZLM stylus, perhaps three weeks ago. It is entirely possible that I had misremembered and the comment was made by another. Apologies.
The Acutex: the 315 diamonds' profile is 0.3 x 1.6 x 0.6, compliance 38x10-6, fr. resp. 20-40khz, tip mass given at 0.6mg.
For the 320, stylus profile 0.3 x 1.6 x 0.5, compliance 42x10-6, fr. resp. 20-45khz, tip mass 0.5mg. The lower tip mass for the 320 is due to the diamond starting from a rectangle rather than a square before the modified Shibata "tri-radial" STR profile is ground. As the 320 "Vital" is wider than deep, Acutex stated stylus weight is reduced by 40% and also has a positive influence on the integrity of the stylus in it's nude mount.
The 315 rolls off slightly below 50k. The 315 is flat from 50hz to 2k, then a 2dbl drop to 15k at which point it returns to flat through 20k.
The 320 stylus is a consistent 2dbl high from 20hz to 2khz. and again from 12 to 20khz with a slight drop off between, practically the opposite of the 315, but they are never more than 4dbl. apart.
The 315 is warm and relaxed with no evidence of confusion, however the 320 is more articulate. The 2dbl. increase above 15k with the 320 is apparent with an A/B comparison and the smaller tip mass is evident in transitions and decay. Slightly heavier, the 315 does demonstrate more energy and encourages one to listen into the selection. The 320 is crisp and agile in the groove and has the same quality of voice so attractive in the LPM 315-111STR.
A purist (esp. for classical, "Mozart Serenade in G" is inspirational) would have to say the 320 is better but for extended listening I find the 315 very pleasing.
Ecir38: There is currently a NOS stylus for your Grace F9-L, (gold body/clear holder) offered on Ebay, the F9-L cartridge is of higher output than the F9-E and these line contact styli are rare. Should you wish to consider expanding your collection, there is also a Sonus V with stylus, no offers after three days. Another of the Peter Prichard (after leaving ADC) designs, this one is being offered as a "DJ" cartridge. This is unusual because they have the reputation for quality sound but I have read Mr. Prichard didn't approve of the resonance generated from a tie wire and so the cantilever sometimes falls out. NOS styli are not expensive should you wish to consider it. Disclaimers, etc. |
Lew and Ecir, that is exactly correct at 6.5 grams. I like it so far.
Again though, can we come up withany carts. that are either no longer made but more current then the ones being discussed, or how about from what is currently being made in MM ?
Thanks,
Wayne |
Raul - I have purchased a Consonance Opera Droplet turntable and stand (175 pounds). Plus a Moerch DP-6 tonearm. I'm getting back in the game and am interested in Moving Iron carts. I'm most familiar with the Soundsmith carts. I'm a big jazz fan (90%), the rest rock. What do you think of a low output "The Voice"? That's the budget I'm thinking off. How about a phonostage. Should I consider a higher output moving Iron or magnet so I can but a less expensive phonostage? Thanks. |
Dear Birdliver: I think you already know me, every time I see a good cartridge opportunity I share here through a post.
I try that any information I have not stay only with me. Some times maybe I forgot on something important information to share but if this happen was not on deliberate way.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Timeltel: Which are the main differences between the LPM 320 and 315?, thank you in advance.
Btw, I nerver heard/hear the ZLM, only the Astrion.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Just wanted to give a big Thank You to Raul and the couple handfull of regular contributers throughout this thread.
Did frequent visits to this thread for a while but was always overwhelded by it size. This past Monday and Tuesday brokedown and gave the whole thread a read while making notes along the way. Problem is I am going to need another ebay account just for saved searches now, just kidding.
Don't have much to contribute right now since only have two MM/MI cartridges. Currently using a F9L cartridge with F9E stylus. I have a nos ADC XLM MKII which hasn't showed much interest here but look forward to see how it performs against the F9 in the near future. Will probably purchase a Ortofon M20FL while they are still around.
Brad |
Dear Lewm: I never ask to VdH but now that you mentioned I will do with my next cartridges.
Yes, I heard it along two different cartridges including Allnic one. Even I posted about in other thread a time ago.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Lew, the 3009 series II improved with fixed headshell is 6.5gm. The 3009 S2 series II improved with removable headshell is 9.5gm. The normal complaint with these ars is that the head headshell will ring. The detachable one may be better so you could use differant material and weighted headshells to accomidate the cart you would use at the time. I'm pretty sure the armtubes are aluminum. I have used the 6.5gm one with a grace F9 with good results and did't notice any ringing in the headshell so the ringing has not been my experience.
Currently using the SME III with the F9 which is even lighter than those two. The sme III comes with differant options of weights so medium carts can be used two. I have not experienced this but one fault I have read is that the headshell on the sme III is samll so something like a grado may not fit. The F9 is just fine.
Brad |
Wayne, I would have thought that the SME 3009 had a much higher effective mass than 6 or 6.5 gm, given the S-shaped arm tube and the fact that the arm tube is made of metal. Can you confirm that number? If it is correct, I might consider buying one. The SME III does have a very low mass, and I have one friend who is happy using it with a Pickering MM cartridge. Sounds excellent to me, too. But he likes one of his other inexpensive tonearms even better. The cool thing about this is that the megabuck tonearms are generally on the mid to heavy side, so one need not pine for them when using these cartridges. Raul uses a few tonearms that are not very expensive at all, like the Acos Lustre and those Audio Technica ones he mentioned. The ADC and Black Widow carbon fiber tonearms, like the Sumiko, are "dirt" cheap (as long as you don't use a professional landscaper). |
Right now I have a VMS20E MKII on my SME 3009 Series II IMP w/fixed headshell. This arm I believe has a mass of about 6 or 6.5. It would seem this SME not to be popular with many, but I am sticking with it for now. Most of the carts discussed here are a good match for this arm.
What about some other MM such as the OM 40 super that is not quite as old as some of the carts. discussed here. Are there any others that are not current, but another group not as old as some discussed ? What was made in the last 15 years or so that is worthy.
Lastly, for those also wanting a good MM, but not necessarily wanting vintage or an alternative to vintage, that is currently being made, worthy of looking at, that would also work with a lower mass arm like mine above.
I also have a new Sumiko MMT laying around unused, but that takes the arm all the way the other side of the mass spectrum. I do undertsand that we are saying that the old resonance charts may not tell everything, but for some of us looking for a good result that cannot experiment at the level some do, still need to have something as a guideline. |
You make an excellent and valid point, IMO. After 30 years, we don't know what we are working with in terms of compliance. John Ellison, over on Vinyl Asylum, developed a very easy way to determine the resonant frequency, if one knows how to hook up the output of the turntable or the preamp to a computer screen with a time vs frequency amplitude display. Working backwards from the actual resonant frequency and knowing the tonearm effective mass, one could determine whether the compliance has changed over time or not. However, the fact that many of these cartridges have no problem with relatively high mass arms does suggest that compliance may have changed. What about your cartridges that have been lately rebuilt by van den Hul? Does vdH give you any data on the expected compliance after their rebuilds?
I was interested on the other thread to note that you do not seem enchanted with the Allnic phono stage, as many others are. Have you heard one? I am curious. |
Dear Lewm: One factor that I think is very important with HC cartridges is the pivot bearing friction. If this is true normally the unipivot tonearm design has lower bearing friction that other pivot tonearm designs.
My Grace 940 and Satin tonearms are unipivot and works very good with MM/MI's but I can say almost the same with other non unipivot designs.
There is something that's " worring " me on the whole subject: due to so many years that these vintage cartridges were build how can be sure that still are HC ones or maybe " more " HC? How the aged affect or affected that compliance factor?
I say this because the AT 1503 tonearm is a medium to high mass tonearm design and I even use headshells on the 12 grs figure and with all that " mass " almost all my cartridges that I test it there performs fine. Even with all the tonearm reserach that I already made it in our self tonearm design I don't have precise answers on the whole subject, especialy the: why's
I know that you are more technical oriented that other persons ( I believe in science too. ) and you want to have clear answers that IMHO today no one that I know has it.
Lewm, it is not only the cartridge compliance what is related but: stylus shape, VTF, cantilever size/build material, etc, etc. All these parameters and some other ones ( even recorded LP velocity or inner/outer tracking grooves. )have influence on how good a cartridge handle tonearm " mass ".
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Raul, Thanks for sharing the info on the Empire 4000d/111. I just bought one for $350. as you said. I think you're right that these opportunities will disappear before long and I appreciate the info that you pass along here. Thanks, -bird |
Raul, On the tonearm issue, you have said that the standard correlation of low effective mass with high compliance is only a gross way to determine what combinations of tonearm and cartridge will perform optimally. Is or are there one or more tonearms that you think are particularly excellent with these high compliance cartridges? I gather you like some of the Audio Technica ones, and I appreciate Dgob's suggestion re the Moerch. (Actually, Moerch should have been on my original list; I forgot about that one.) The ADC tonearms are quite cheap when available and are lowest possible effective mass; are they any good? |
Dear Halcro: The Empire seller answer to me was after you already bougth it, sorry.
My post about was not for you or other person could feel bad, it was with the only attitude that some persons could take advantage of this cartridge on sale before disappear.
I want to leave very clear that I don't have any kind I repeat any kind of relation with this cartridge seller or any other cartridge seller btw.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Lewm,
You might also want to try the Morch DP6 green spot (or red spot for not-so excessively high compliance models). A joy to use and to hear with MM/MI's. |
As regards tonearms, I have long thought that we should discuss what tonearms work best with these rather high compliance cartridges. Modern tonearms tend to have been designed with low compliance LOMC cartridges in mind, so not only are the good ones very expensive, they are also probably not the best choice for MM/MI. Here are some low mass tonearms I am looking at: ADC LMF-1 and LMF-2, Micro Seiki MA707 (which has adjustable effective mass), Infinity Black Widow. I can also put a very lightweight headshell on my Dynavector DV505. Can anyone comment on the relative merits of these and/or does anyone have some other suggestions? I know Dave Garretson has taken steps to lighten up the arm wand on his Transfi, too. |
Hi Halcro, If it makes you feel any better, you are not alone. I, too, paid $450 for the cartridge. I also asked the seller for a second cartridge at a discount, but didn't receive an answer to my offer. Obviouly, Raul has a magic touch.
Now, please don't construe this to mean I'm not happy with my purchase, I'm thrilled to have the 4000D, but at the same time, I am an old bird on a budget and every $100 counts. Cheers to All and thanks to All for this valuable thread, -bird (long time lurker and believer) |
Btw, this same week he sold one sample on ebay at: 450.00+shipping.
Well thanks Raul. I'm the idiot who paid $450.00+shipping instead of $350.00! |
Raul: In the spirit of sharing information, your and Aolsalas' opinion of the ADC ZLM stylus came late. I'd ordered one two days previously and after twelve days (20+ hours) listening with several different tonearms and turntables I have to agree with both of you. Timbre, weight, and tone is good but due to the cantilever's apparent lack of rigidity there is an objectionable congestion in the mids and a lack of refinement in the hf's. Transients, and especially decay need improvement. There appears to be good information from the stylus but the cantilever just seems s-l-o-w. Best results on an ancient Dual 1219 idler. EPA-250 & EPA-500H tonearms were too revealing of the ZLM's lazy response. Tonally, a nice effort from ADC but no winner's cigar.
Good discussion on tonearms, think it best to start within compliance/mass parameters, go from there if potential improvment is suspected. I have a concern about delicate suspensions on a high eff. mass tonearm, 'nough said. Nandric (regards, Nikola) always has well deliberated comments. Headshell material has an influence in resonance concerns, I've been trying cartridge isolators of different compositions recently. Metals, wood and fabric all influence a cartridges' character, some like maleable metal, the Orto. M20FL, burlap and a 12gm. headshell, silver leads. Grace F9-E and -L on cherry next, a few peices of cocobolo, walnut and oak to play with too. Matter of opinion if any are an improvement, entertaining exploration for a retired instructor/cabinetmaker when it's too hot to fish for trout or play on the tractor.
The Acutex LPM 320-111STR is top-notch. Brilliant extended hf's, sweet mids and strong bass. At 250pF transients are delicate or impactful as recorded thoroughout, decay seems as if it will extend into the next cut. The LPM 315-111STR is still lush at 300pF and remains a favorite, LPM 312-111STR & the last of the breed LPM 412STR are in your face rockers. Has anyone else sampled one?
|
Dear Kcc123: Well some one is wrong: M. Colloms or B.V Pisha of Audio.
The measurements on Audio magazyne those times were IMHO like the " Bible " over High Fidelity and Stereo Review. In the other side maybe the tools to made the MC2000 dynamic compliance measures were different from both magazynes or its " references " or both.
This is what you can read through Audio magazyne and with this , for my part, I finish this useless subject:
" Using the Dynamic Sound Devices DMA-1 Dynamic Mass Analyzer, the arm-cartridge mass was measured at 31grs and the dynamic vertical compliance at 30cu... " Audio magazyne, December 1984. page #86.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Raul,
Just as a reference, according to the measurements by, technical reviewer, Martin Colloms in Hi-Fi Choice (no. 20), the dynamic compliance of the AT 24 was 28 cu and 24cu for the Ortofon MC 2000(no. 38). |
Dear Kcc123: I give you this information about, it is not so important to continue a debate that is almost useless because the critical subject IMHO is that you agree too that what you heard/hear is what has importance and not that resonant frequency value.
From the Audio review in the MC2000 this is what you can read word by word in the review:
" The arm-cartridge dynamic mass was measured at 31grs and the dynamic compliance at 30cu "
Using VE calculator the AT-24 has in theory 15-16 cu on dynamic compliance.
Anyway, as you agree: ears say all.
regards and enjoy the music, raul. |
Dear Lewm: I never had on hand the Gold version but evrything seems to me is similar to the non-Gold one. I can't be 100% sure that the Gold version has the same quality performance than the one I own and reviewed but I think has to be very near if not the same.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
But, Raul, you did not think the "Gold" version was as good as the other; correct? I have an NOS Gold version but have not auditioned it yet. I am slow. |
Dear Raul,
I had an AT 25 many years ago which was a version of AT 24 with integral headshell. The dynamic compliance of both cartridges at 10 Hz was about 28cu which, by any standard, could be considered as high (higher than Ortofon MC2000 which is 24 cu) indeed. I also have an AT 30 in my cartridge collection and the compliance of it is 17 cu, a figure in the medium to high category. I wonder why you think that the AT 24 is low to medium compliance. I fully agree with you that the effective mass of a tonearm and compliance of a cartridge cannot tell you the whole truth about the actual performance; nevertheless we still have to rely on some theoretical figures as a guideline.
I have many times used my low mass arms(for example, Mission 774 , Grace 707mk1/mk2) with low compliance cartridges or medium to high mass arms( the Micro Seiki MA 505S, Helius Aureus and SAEC 308L) with high compliance cartridges, the results have been very satisfactory so far. And, like you, I don’t believe in text book numbers but actual facts and experience. |
Dear friends: W A R N I N G !!! IMHO a very good news: maybe for the last time you will find and kept your hands in a NOS Empire 4000D3 Gold.
The seller still has some in hand that he told me/email me ( I ask for. ) can put on sale for any one of us at: 350.00 + shipping.
You only have to be in touch with him here asking for the cartridge at that price ( you can mention me if you want. I don't have ANY relationship with this seller other that help everyone. ):
jenright@empirescientific.com
Btw, this same week he sold one sample on ebay at: 450.00+shipping.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Nandric: Your post comes at the same time that mine.
I think that in that subject the target is on quality performance and IMHO this is what we have to looking for. Now if tonearm/cartridge resonance frequency theoretycal target coincide ( at random ) with that quality performance level then even better.
IMHO many of those very old " rules " has to be changed/improved according our " new " knowledge and " new " audio items/technology..
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Kcc123: I can't corroborate/confirm your statement that the 1100 is better than the 1010 sole because the tonearm effective mass, I don't have the 1100 on hand.
I posted several times in different threads including this that through my tonearms/cartridges experiences I found that important as is the tonearm/cartridge resonance frequency there are many other factors that are even more important for the final tonearm/cartridge quality performance. One of those factors is the overall build material on the tonearm and cartridge and how good can /could match.
If you read your 1100 operation manual you will read that Audio Technica mated the tonearm with the AT-24 cartridge that is not a high compliance one but more in the low-medium level as is the AT 30 that AT put as example for the resonance frequency subject.
Here it is what I'm talking about:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
02-05-10: Rauliruegas Dear friends: I want to share with you what IMHO and through my experiences maybe could help with the cartridge/tonearm frequency resonance match, please read this link:
http://forums.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1265063971&openflup&6&4
I know that some of my experiences on the subject goes against the theory but a fact tell me more than theory, I know that maybe when we are inside the resonance frequency the performance could be a little different and this is not the subject but that maybe we don't have to follow estrictly all the audio " rules ". The tonearm effective mass where I mounted those Ortofon's is 22grs.
Btw, I have on hand an Audio magazine review of the LOMC Ortofon MC-2000 ( high compliance type. ) made by B.V Pisha where I can read:
" the MC 2000 wasmounted in its magnesium headshell with a Technicsa EPA-A250 ( S shaped tonearm. ) attached to the Technics EPA-B500 base mounted on a Technics SP-10MK2 TT.
The arm-cartridge low-frequency resonance for either channel measured a surprisingly low 5.1 Hz. The vertical resonance was also at 5.1 HZ.
The arm-cartridge dynamic mass was measured at 31grs and the dynamic compliance at 30cu.
The Ortofon MC2000 encountered no difficulty in trackingall the test bands on the Shure ERA III/IV Obstacle Course as well as level 6 (!!!!!) of the Shure ERA V trackability disc that it is a rare commercial analog record that has peack recorded velocities exeeding 15 cm/S.
I was quite impressed with the MC2000 sonic clarity and transparecy of sound, as well as the well defined and tight bass. However, when the arm-cartridge low-frequency lateral and vertical resonance measured 5.1 Hz I was wholly surprised and rechecked my test procedure. >I finally accepted the 5.1 Hz figure as correct.
At no time did I encounter any problem with mistracking or distortion during the many additional hours of listening I did with the MC2000, despite textbook claims that such low resonance would cause these problems. """""
I own this cartridge and can confirm any single word on that review but the measures take it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Today I almost don't care about tonearm efective mass when I want to test any cartridge: I just tested and see what happen and decide about. The relationship between tonearm/cartridge IMHO is more complex than tonearm effective mass, I have a lot of examples about.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Kcc123, I don't believe Raul will be impressed with your argument based on eff.mass. One can change the eff.mass by using lighter headshells. I am not familiar with AT 1503 but well with AT 1010. To my mind an excellent tonearm for MM carts. Regards, |
Raul ,
Thanks for the response, cartridge already ordered, we will see ... |
Dear Raul,
The sonic performance of the AT 1100 and AT 1120 tonearms is superior to the AT 1010 and 1503, when partnered with MM /MI cartridges, with which the AT 1010(16 grams) and 1503(20 grams) are handicapped by their high mass.
The AT 1120 and the straight arm tube version of the 1100 give excellent results with many MM/MI cartridges, including the Technics 205C mk3, Ortofon VMS 20mk2, VMS 30mk2, 530mk2, M20FL Super, ADC TRX2, XLM mk3 Improved, Empire 2000mk4……, a performance very close to the superb Mission 774 Original tonearm (5.5 grams).The Mission has a very neutral but slightly dry sound in its presentation.
The other low mass arms which I consider, among the best, are Grace 747 and Hadcock 242(6.5 grams). The Audiocraft AC 3000 Silver Ltd (with straight arm tube), though not a very low mass arm, also offers an admirable performance with some MM/MI cartridges as well. |
My listening experience is in agreement with Raul's; HOMC cartridges as a class have never sounded as good to me as LOMC or MM/MI types. I have owned a couple of Blue Point Specials, a Benz Glider (original version, I think), and a Transfiguration Esprit. Maybe that's why I was so blown away by the Koetsu Urushi, when I switched to it from the Transfig Esprit. Obviously it is possible that there exists one or more HOMC cartridges that is in the same class with the other two types, but it must be a rarity. |
Dear Weseixas: Usually I answer posts in this thread as coming inn and as I have time to do it and usually too I try to give always an answer, even if late.
Yes, I like it a lot that Grado The Tribute and yes loaded at 100K.
Lewm, already give you a precise answer on what you ask. I'm only would like to add that IMHO a HOMC cartridge is the worst of both worlds: MC and MM/MI.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Kcc123: I'm, joined to other people tank's for your Audio Technica tonearms information.
I owned the 1100 with straight arm wand and own the AT 1010 along the AT 1503.
I can't remember very well the performance atributes of the 1100 but the 1010 ( removable headshell design. ) is really good. Between other characteristics has in its design different set up antiskating device for different cartridge stylus shape.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Travbrow: AKG made a wonderful work for say the least.
So if they did it means to me that some other cartridge manufacturers can. The issue is: why not yet?
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Lewm: You experiences along the Alex one about " old technology/subjects " are facts that are repetitive in many " life areas " and certainly in audio like this time the MM/MI subject.
+++++ " I thought we were more like a lunatic fringe group " ++++
well some one in other thread already posted that we are " lunatics ", the curious about is that that same person latter on recommend a Nagaoka MM cartridge to other Agoner!!!!
Certainly we are not lunatics but people that found that sometimes looking back our eyes to the " history " can be and is a well rewarded full and " new " experience.
IMHO we " lunatics " are living a " Golden era " in cartridge/audio quality performance that never before and IMHO we have to take advantage on this fact till last.
In the other side is pity that only a few of us can have the opportunity to enjoy and to improve the happiness of music reproduction through the MM/MI alternative.
This very rare opportunity is just " there " and any one can take it!!
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Has anyone heard the Empire 2000E/IV? |
Dear All,
Just for those of you who are interested, I would confirm Raul's suggestion and point out that I have only seen two other AKG P100-LE cartridges for sale and these were on Yahoo Japan and eBay UK.
Happy hunting |
Dear Lewn,
Thanks for the response, I'm sticking with the MM and Grado, so i will go ahead with the Grado ...
Hello Raul , Your silence speaks volumes and tells a lot ..... thanks
Regards.... |
Dear lewm: Not today.
Raul. |
Dear Weseixas, The Grado cartridges under discussion here have included the TLZ and XTZ and the one called "Amber Tribute", which Raul likes a lot. Another one is the Signature III (or something like that). The TLZ and XTZ are purely vintage devices, whereas there is a company in Australia that at least was selling NOS Amber Tribute cartridges. I have read negative comments on the Gold. The Denon is an MC and so has not been discussed. The Clearaudio like the Gold is a current offering and also has not been discussed here, though I have read elsewhere that it is a good one.
Raul, Have you actually compared the Stanton 981 LZS and HZS head to head? |
Dear friends: Surprising that this Stanton top of the line cartridge appear in only one week twice. It is very good opportunity and IMHO better than the LZS low output model:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Stanton-981-HZS-/200507414216?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0#ht_704wt_1137
I hope the winner share its experiences with when is ready to.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear halcro: Thank you. No my spare P100-LE is not on sale, at least for now.
I think that with patience you can find it in Japan Yahoo/ebay or Germany ebay.
I was not found mines on USA ebay but in UK ebay ( I think. ).
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Hello Raul,
Looking on your original list here: ------------------------------------------------------ "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." ---------------------------------------------------------
I'm looking at Grado amongst others( fond of the sound and in house for years ) do you still recommend 100K loading on this cartridge and are you still OK with the sound ?
Models looking at :
1.Grado Statement Platinum1 Wood Body 2.Grado Gold1 Prestige Series Phono Cartridge. 3.Clearaudio Aurum Classic Mk2 4.Denon DL-160 Phono Cartridge ( HO, MC )
Any opinions on the above would be appreciated ..
regards, |
I just read up on the Trans-fi arm. A very interesting design! |
Jbo194, FYI the Trans-Fi Terminator Pro leaves my Graham 1.5tc in the dust, both with medium and high-compliance cartridges. |
|