Who needs a MM cartridge type when we have MC?


Dear friends: who really needs an MM type phono cartridge?, well I will try to share/explain with you what are my experiences about and I hope too that many of you could enrich the topic/subject with your own experiences.

For some years ( in this forum ) and time to time I posted that the MM type cartridge quality sound is better than we know or that we think and like four months ago I start a thread about: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1173550723&openusid&zzRauliruegas&4&5#Rauliruegas where we analyse some MM type cartridges.

Well, in the last 10-12 months I buy something like 30+ different MM type phono cartridges ( you can read in my virtual system which ones. ) and I’m still doing it. The purpose of this fact ( “ buy it “ ) is for one way to confirm or not if really those MM type cartridges are good for us ( music lovers ) and at the same time learn about MM vs MC cartridges, as a fact I learn many things other than MM/MC cartridge subject.

If we take a look to the Agon analog members at least 90% of them use ( only ) MC phono cartridges, if we take a look to the “ professional reviewers “ ( TAS, Stereophile, Positive Feedback, Enjoy the Music, etc, etc, ) 95% ( at least ) of them use only MC cartridges ( well I know that for example: REG and NG of TAS and RJR of Stereophile use only MM type cartridges!!!!!!!! ) , if we take a look to the phono cartridge manufacturers more than 90% of them build/design for MC cartridges and if you speak with audio dealers almost all will tell you that the MC cartridges is the way to go.

So, who are wrong/right, the few ( like me ) that speak that the MM type is a very good alternative or the “ whole “ cartridge industry that think and support the MC cartridge only valid alternative?

IMHO I think that both groups are not totally wrong/right and that the subject is not who is wrong/right but that the subject is : KNOW-HOW or NON KNOW-HOW about.

Many years ago when I was introduced to the “ high end “ the cartridges were almost MM type ones: Shure, Stanton, Pickering, Empire, etc, etc. In those time I remember that one dealer told me that if I really want to be nearest to the music I have to buy the Empire 4000 D ( they say for 4-channel reproduction as well. ) and this was truly my first encounter with a “ high end cartridge “, I buy the 4000D I for 70.00 dls ( I can’t pay 150.00 for the D III. ), btw the specs of these Empire cartridges were impressive even today, look: frequency response: 5-50,000Hz, channel separation: 35db, tracking force range: 0.25grs to 1.25grs!!!!!!!!, just impressive, but there are some cartridges which frequency response goes to 100,000Hz!!!!!!!!!!

I start to learn about and I follow to buying other MM type cartridges ( in those times I never imagine nothing about MC cartridges: I don’t imagine of its existence!!!. ) like AKG, Micro Acoustics, ADC, B&O, Audio Technica, Sonus, etc, etc.

Years latter the same dealer told me about the MC marvelous cartridges and he introduce me to the Denon-103 following with the 103-D and the Fulton High performance, so I start to buy and hear MC cartridges. I start to read audio magazines about either cartridge type: MM and Mc ones.

I have to make changes in my audio system ( because of the low output of the MC cartridges and because I was learning how to improve the performance of my audio system ) and I follow what the reviewers/audio dealers “ speak “ about, I was un-experienced !!!!!!!, I was learning ( well I’m yet. ).

I can tell you many good/bad histories about but I don’t want that the thread was/is boring for you, so please let me tell you what I learn and where I’m standing today about:

over the years I invested thousands of dollars on several top “ high end “ MC cartridges, from the Sumiko Celebration passing for Lyras, Koetsu, Van denHul, to Allaerts ones ( just name it and I can tell that I own or owned. ), what I already invest on MC cartridges represent almost 70-80% price of my audio system.

Suddenly I stop buying MC cartridges and decide to start again with some of the MM type cartridges that I already own and what I heard motivate me to start the search for more of those “ hidden jewels “ that are ( here and now ) the MM phono cartridges and learn why are so good and how to obtain its best quality sound reproduction ( as a fact I learn many things other than MM cartridge about. ).

I don’t start this “ finding “ like a contest between MC and MM type cartridges.
The MC cartridges are as good as we already know and this is not the subject here, the subject is about MM type quality performance and how achieve the best with those cartridges.

First than all I try to identify and understand the most important characteristics ( and what they “ means “. ) of the MM type cartridges ( something that in part I already have it because our phonolinepreamp design needs. ) and its differences with the MC ones.

Well, first than all is that are high output cartridges, very high compliance ones ( 50cu is not rare. ), low or very low tracking force ones, likes 47kOhms and up, susceptible to some capacitance changes, user stylus replacement, sometimes we can use a different replacement stylus making an improvement with out the necessity to buy the next top model in the cartridge line , low and very low weight cartridges, almost all of them are build of plastic material with aluminum cantilever and with eliptical or “ old “ line contact stylus ( shibata ) ( here we don’t find: Jade/Coral/Titanium/etc, bodies or sophisticated build material cantilevers and sophisticated stylus shape. ), very very… what I say? Extremely low prices from 40.00 to 300.00 dls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, well one of my cartridges I buy it for 8.99 dls ( one month ago ): WOW!!!!!!, so any one of you can/could have/buy ten to twenty MM cartridges for the price of one of the MC cartridge you own today and the good notice is that is a chance that those 10-20 MM type cartridges even the quality performance of your MC cartridge or beat it.

Other characteristics is that the builders show how proud they were/are on its MM type cartridges design, almost all those cartridges comes with a first rate box, comes with charts/diagrams of its frequency response and cartridge channel separation ( where they tell us which test recording use it, with which VTF, at which temperature, etc, etc. ), comes with a very wide explanation of the why’s and how’s of its design and the usual explanation to mount the cartridge along with a very wide list of specifications ( that were the envy of any of today MC ones where sometimes we really don’t know nothing about. ), comes with a set of screws/nuts, comes with a stylus brush and even with stylus cleaning fluid!!!!!!!!!, my GOD. Well, there are cartridges like the Supex SM 100MK2 that comes with two different stylus!!!! One with spherical and one with elliptical/shibata shape and dear friends all those in the same low low price!!!!!!!!!!!

Almost all the cartridges I own you can find it through Ebay and Agon and through cartridge dealers and don’t worry if you loose/broke the stylus cartridge or you find the cartridge but with out stylus, you always can/could find the stylus replacement, no problem about there are some stylus and cartridge sources.

When I’m talking about MM type cartridges I’m refer to different types: moving magnet, moving iron, moving flux, electret, variable reluctance, induced magnet, etc, etc. ( here is not the place to explain the differences on all those MM type cartridges. Maybe on other future thread. ).

I made all my very long ( time consuming ) cartridge tests using four different TT’s: Acoustic Signature Analog One MK2, Micro Seiki RX-5000, Luxman PD 310 and Technics SP-10 MK2, I use only removable headshell S and J shape tonearms with 15mm on overhang, I use different material build/ shape design /weight headshells. I test each cartridge in at least three different tonearms and some times in 3-4 different headshells till I find the “ right “ match where the cartridge perform the best, no I’m not saying that I already finish or that I already find the “ perfect “ match: cartridge/headshell/tonearm but I think I’m near that ideal target.

Through my testing experience I learn/ confirm that trying to find the right tonearm/headshell for any cartridge is well worth the effort and more important that be changing the TT. When I switch from a TT to another different one the changes on the quality cartridge performance were/are minimal in comparison to a change in the tonearm/headshell, this fact was consistent with any of those cartridges including MC ones.

So after the Phonolinepreamplifier IMHO the tonearm/headshell match for any cartridge is the more important subject, it is so important and complex that in the same tonearm ( with the same headshell wires ) but with different headshell ( even when the headshell weight were the same ) shape or build material headshell the quality cartridge performance can/could be way different.

All those experiences told me that chances are that the cartridge that you own ( MC or MM ) is not performing at its best because chances are that the tonearm you own is not the best match for that cartridge!!!!!!, so imagine what do you can/could hear when your cartridge is or will be on the right tonearm???!!!!!!!!, IMHO there are ( till today ) no single ( any type at any price ) perfect universal tonearm. IMHO there is no “ the best tonearm “, what exist or could exist is a “ best tonearm match for “ that “ cartridge “, but that’s all. Of course that are “ lucky “ tonearms that are very good match for more than one cartridge but don’t for every single cartridge.

I posted several times that I’m not a tonearm collector, that I own all those tonearms to have alternatives for my cartridges and with removable headshells my 15 tonearms are really like 100+ tonearms : a very wide options/alternatives for almost any cartridge!!!!!!

You can find several of these MM type cartridges new brand or NOS like: Ortofon, Nagaoka, Audio Technica, Astatic, B&O, Rega, Empire, Sonus Reson,Goldring,Clearaudio, Grado, Shelter, Garrot, etc. and all of them second hand in very good operational condition. As a fact I buy two and even three cartridges of the same model in some of the cartridges ( so right now I have some samples that I think I don’t use any more. ) to prevent that one of them arrive in non operational condition but I’m glad to say that all them arrive in very fine conditions. I buy one or two of the cartridges with no stylus or with the stylus out of work but I don’t have any trouble because I could find the stylus replacement on different sources and in some case the original new replacement.

All these buy/find cartridges was very time consuming and we have to have a lot of patience and a little lucky to obtain what we are looking for but I can asure you that is worth of it.

Ok, I think it is time to share my performance cartridge findings:

first we have to have a Phonolinepreamplifier with a very good MM phono stage ( at least at the same level that the MC stage. ). I’m lucky because my Phonolinepreamplifier has two independent phono stages, one for the MM and one for MC: both were designed for the specifics needs of each cartridge type, MM or MC that have different needs.

we need a decent TT and decent tonearm.

we have to load the MM cartridges not at 47K but at 100K ( at least 75K not less. ).

I find that using 47K ( a standard manufacture recommendation ) prevent to obtain the best quality performance, 100K make the difference. I try this with all those MM type cartridges and in all of them I achieve the best performance with 100K load impedance.

I find too that using the manufacturer capacitance advise not always is for the better, till “ the end of the day “ I find that between 100-150pf ( total capacitance including cable capacitance. ) all the cartridges performs at its best.

I start to change the load impedance on MM cartridges like a synonymous that what many of us made with MC cartridges where we try with different load impedance values, latter I read on the Empire 4000 DIII that the precise load impedance must be 100kOhms and in a white paper of some Grace F9 tests the used impedance value was 100kOhms, the same that I read on other operational MM cartridge manual and my ears tell/told me that 100kOhms is “ the value “.

Before I go on I want to remember you that several of those MM type cartridges ( almost all ) were build more than 30+ years ago!!!!!!!! and today performs at the same top quality level than today MC/MM top quality cartridges!!!!!, any brand at any price and in some ways beat it.

I use 4-5 recordings that I know very well and that give me the right answers to know that any cartridge is performing at its best or near it. Many times what I heard through those recordings were fine: everything were on target however the music don’t come “ alive “ don’t “ tell me “ nothing, I was not feeling the emotion that the music can communicate. In those cartridge cases I have to try it in other tonearm and/or with a different headshell till the “ feelings comes “ and only when this was achieved I then was satisfied.

All the tests were made with a volume level ( SPL ) where the recording “ shines “ and comes alive like in a live event. Sometimes changing the volume level by 1-1.5 db fixed everything.

Of course that the people that in a regular manner attend to hear/heard live music it will be more easy to know when something is right or wrong.

Well, Raul go on!!: one characteristic on the MM cartridges set-up was that almost all them likes to ride with a positive ( little/small ) VTA only the Grace Ruby and F9E and Sonus Gold Blue likes a negative VTA , on the other hand with the Nagaoka MP 50 Super and the Ortofon’s I use a flat VTA.

Regarding the VTF I use the manufacturer advise and sometimes 0.1+grs.
Of course that I made fine tuning through moderate changes in the Azymuth and for anti-skate I use between half/third VTF value.

I use different material build headshells: aluminum, composite aluminum, magnesium, composite magnesium, ceramic, wood and non magnetic stainless steel, these cartridges comes from Audio Technica, Denon, SAEC, Technics, Fidelity Research, Belldream, Grace, Nagaoka, Koetsu, Dynavector and Audiocraft.
All of them but the wood made ( the wood does not likes to any cartridge. ) very good job . It is here where a cartridge could seems good or very good depending of the headshell where is mounted and the tonearm.
Example, I have hard time with some of those cartridge like the Audio Technica AT 20SS where its performance was on the bright sound that sometimes was harsh till I find that the ceramic headshell was/is the right match now this cartridge perform beautiful, something similar happen with the Nagaoka ( Jeweltone in Japan ), Shelter , Grace, Garrot , AKG and B&O but when were mounted in the right headshell/tonearm all them performs great.

Other things that you have to know: I use two different cooper headshell wires, both very neutral and with similar “ sound “ and I use three different phono cables, all three very neutral too with some differences on the sound performance but nothing that “ makes the difference “ on the quality sound of any of my cartridges, either MM or MC, btw I know extremely well those phono cables: Analysis Plus, Harmonic Technologies and Kimber Kable ( all three the silver models. ), finally and don’t less important is that those phono cables were wired in balanced way to take advantage of my Phonolinepreamp fully balanced design.

What do you note the first time you put your MM cartridge on the record?, well a total absence of noise/hum or the like that you have through your MC cartridges ( and that is not a cartridge problem but a Phonolinepreamp problem due to the low output of the MC cartridges. ), a dead silent black ( beautiful ) soundstage where appear the MUSIC performance, this experience alone is worth it.

The second and maybe the most important MM cartridge characteristic is that you hear/heard the MUSIC flow/run extremely “ easy “ with no distracting sound distortions/artifacts ( I can’t explain exactly this very important subject but it is wonderful ) even you can hear/heard “ sounds/notes “ that you never before heard it and you even don’t know exist on the recording: what a experience!!!!!!!!!!!

IMHO I think that the MUSIC run so easily through a MM cartridge due ( between other facts ) to its very high compliance characteristic on almost any MM cartridge.

This very high compliance permit ( between other things like be less sensitive to out-center hole records. ) to these cartridges stay always in contact with the groove and never loose that groove contact not even on the grooves that were recorded at very high velocity, something that a low/medium cartridge compliance can’t achieve, due to this low/medium compliance characteristic the MC cartridges loose ( time to time and depending of the recorded velocity ) groove contact ( minute extremely minute loose contact, but exist. ) and the quality sound performance suffer about and we can hear it, the same pass with the MC cartridges when are playing the inner grooves on a record instead the very high compliance MM cartridges because has better tracking drive perform better than the MC ones at inner record grooves and here too we can hear it.

Btw, some Agoners ask very worried ( on more than one Agon thread ) that its cartridge can’t track ( clean ) the cannons on the 1812 Telarc recording and usually the answers that different people posted were something like this: “””” don’t worry about other than that Telarc recording no other commercial recording comes recorded at that so high velocity, if you don’t have trouble with other of your LP’s then stay calm. “””””

Well, this standard answer have some “ sense “ but the people ( like me ) that already has/have the experience to hear/heard a MM or MC ( like the Ortofon MC 2000 or the Denon DS1, high compliance Mc cartridges. ) cartridge that pass easily the 1812 Telarc test can tell us that those cartridges make a huge difference in the quality sound reproduction of any “ normal “ recording, so it is more important that what we think to have a better cartridge tracking groove drive!!!!

There are many facts around the MM cartridge subject but till we try it in the right set-up it will be ( for some people ) difficult to understand “ those beauties “. Something that I admire on the MM cartridges is how ( almost all of them ) they handle the frequency extremes: the low bass with the right pitch/heft/tight/vivid with no colorations of the kind “ organic !!” that many non know-how people speak about, the highs neutral/open/transparent/airy believable like the live music, these frequency extremes handle make that the MUSIC flow in our minds to wake up our feelings/emotions that at “ the end of the day “ is all what a music lover is looking for.
These not means that these cartridges don’t shine on the midrange because they do too and they have very good soundstage but here is more system/room dependent.

Well we have a very good alternative on the ( very low price ) MM type cartridges to achieve that music target and I’m not saying that you change your MC cartridge for a MM one: NO, what I’m trying to tell you is that it is worth to have ( as many you can buy/find ) the MM type cartridges along your MC ones

I want to tell you that I can live happy with any of those MM cartridges and I’m not saying with this that all of them perform at the same quality level NO!! what I’m saying is that all of them are very good performers, all of them approach you nearest to the music.

If you ask me which one is the best I can tell you that this will be a very hard “ call “ an almost impossible to decide, I think that I can make a difference between the very good ones and the stellar ones where IMHO the next cartridges belongs to this group:

Audio Technica ATML 170 and 180 OCC, Grado The Amber Tribute, Grace Ruby, Garrot P77, Nagaoka MP-50 Super, B&O MMC2 and MMC20CL, AKG P8ES SuperNova, Reson Reca ,Astatic MF-100 and Stanton LZS 981.

There are other ones that are really near this group: ADC Astrion, Supex MF-100 MK2, Micro Acoustics MA630/830, Empire 750 LTD and 600LAC, Sonus Dimension 5, Astatic MF-200 and 300 and the Acutex 320III.

The other ones are very good too but less refined ones.
I try too ( owned or borrowed for a friend ) the Shure IV and VMR, Music maker 2-3 and Clearaudio Virtuoso/Maestro, from these I could recommended only the Clearaudios the Shure’s and Music Maker are almost mediocre ones performers.
I forgot I try to the B&O Soundsmith versions, well this cartridges are good but are different from the original B&O ( that I prefer. ) due that the Sounsmith ones use ruby cantilevers instead the original B&O sapphire ones that for what I tested sounds more natural and less hi-fi like the ruby ones.

What I learn other that the importance on the quality sound reproduction through MM type cartridges?, well that unfortunately the advance in the design looking for a better quality cartridge performers advance almost nothing either on MM and MC cartridges.

Yes, today we have different/advanced body cartridge materials, different cantilever build materials, different stylus shape/profile, different, different,,,,different, but the quality sound reproduction is almost the same with cartridges build 30+ years ago and this is a fact. The same occur with TT’s and tonearms. Is sad to speak in this way but it is what we have today. Please, I’m not saying that some cartridges designs don’t grow up because they did it, example: Koetsu they today Koetsu’s are better performers that the old ones but against other cartridges the Koetsu ones don’t advance and many old and today cartridges MM/MC beat them easily.

Where I think the audio industry grow-up for the better are in electronic audio items ( like the Phonolinepreamps ), speakers and room treatment, but this is only my HO.

I know that there are many things that I forgot and many other things that we have to think about but what you can read here is IMHO a good point to start.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
rauliruegas
Dear Lharasim: Maybe I do it. Not the same cartridge but a " new " cartridge that can at least even the AKG quality perfromance and maybe that can beat it.

The importance to hear/heard so many top cartridges is that my quality music/SOUND REFERENCE ALREADY CHANGE FOR THE BETTER AND this new reference be the one that will be take it in count with a cartridge voicing final build design.

Well, this kind of challenges are the one that I like it.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Jorsan: This could help you:

http://www.vinylengine.com/cartridge_database.php?m=Benz+Micro&t=mc&mod=reference&sort=1&Search=Search&sty=&ovlo=&ovhi=&can=&dclo=&dchi=&stid=&masslo=&masshi=¬=&prlo=&prhi=

Regrads and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Thank you for the great info, Kcc123.

A related question is:

How much better sound can one get from ligher weight(4-7g), high compliance MM/MI carts with considerably more expensive arms?

I own:

Pickering XSV 5000
Stanton Epoch II
Ortofon VMS30E MKII
Micro Acoustics 530MP

all 4-6.5g weight and relatively high compliance.

I see used arms such as Graham 1.5Tc/2.0/2.2 and Triplanars which have an effective mass of 11g that straddle the low mass/medium mass range in tonearms. A used Triplanar VII costs $3000+.

If I'm committed to the-above mentioned cartridges (I am), can considerably more potential be gotten from these carts with arms like the Graham or Triplanar? FWIW, I have a Technics SP-10MKIIA on the way to refurb and use in this setup.

Raul and others have made the point that this discussion thread is also about matching these great carts with synergistic arms/tables. I'm willing to consider a larger tonearm investment if the consensus supports it.

Please share your experiences, pretending that cost is no object - though it is!
Im sure this question does not belong here but Im sure that with your experince, you can help me: I just bought a Benz Micro REF cartridge, the first model that they sell ( my cart was bough in '94); problem is that the owner does not have the manual; is possible that someone has it or maybe could provides me with all the techincal information?; as you can imagine, I need it to configure my phono preamp. your input will be apreciated. thanks in advance.
Hello Raul, maybe you should considering re manufacturing this cartridge so other people may have a chance to play with greatness!!

Once these cartridges are gone so will be its technology lost forever

Good Listening!
Dear Lewm: The P8ES VdH is a nice AKG cartridge but different quality performance level from the P100-LE.
This one is " seated " over the top where every other cartridge " salute with a reverence "!

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Thuchan: Good. This one is recommended too:

http://www.pickupnaald.nl/?page=shop/flypage&product_id=4160

as for the Premium ones ( like those five samples that are at the " reviews " place. ) you need to " fish " it through ebay over the time, patience is the name for you can put your hands on any of them: Worth the effort!!!

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Sorry!
The AT 1120 arm does offer a fluid damper pot, though the counterweight is different.The mounting plate is an SME type.
Hi Jb0194,
I have the AT1100, 1120, 1010 and Signet XK50 (the Signet XK 50 is essentially a select AT 1100) arms in my collection; they are similar in one way but different in others.
For instance, both the AT 1100 and 1010 arms have their vertical motion pivot axis in line with the stylus tip and 8cm back extension behind the pillar. The 1010 offers a variable counterweight damping facility (a dynamic balance weight called a “gyrobalance”) as opposite to a fluid well damper pot on the 1100. The 1100 comes with a low mass straight arm tube with the higher mass S shape arm tube as optional .The 1120 is a simpler and refined version of the 1100 without the fluid damper, also the vertical pivot plane is located below the stylus tip, giving an increase in trackability. Its straight arm tube has a fixed carbon fiber headshell. The arms are interchangeable in their pillar mounts though differ in details. And lastly, they also differ in effective mass, the AT 1010’s 16 grams is the heaviest, the AT 1100 is 6 grams with straight arm tube and 12.5 grams with S tube, the AT 1120 is only 5 grams.
The SME III(5 grams) is also in my tonearm collection but it is a completely different design. In terms of sound quality and user friendliness, I prefer the AT 1100 to the SME.
Hi Lewm, in the words of a Monty Python skit, "how sweet it is to be an idiot"!!

Cheers,

Alex L
Dear Raul, thanks a lot, will start the quest. You know I recently discovered the Moving Iron field with some good results, at least with the Sussuro. I will be in contact with Halcro too, he became MM addicted I guess. Why not!
Hi Raul,sounds like the AKG 100-LE was an all out attempt to produce the very best,the price(back then)indicates it was not easy to produce such a great cartridge,and only makeing 50 samples.It's a shame all these years later nothing is better at any inflated ridiculous price.I can not understand why todays high-end MC cartridge cost so much,and is the main reason I went back to MM.

Hi Lewn,I think we are a tiny group that enjoys these cartridges.Most still think or "know" MC are always better,heck I see people recommend low end HOMC over TOTL MM cartridges a lot these days.
I am a virologist by trade (I.e., I do research on viruses). After 30 years in this field, I see that work done 20 or more years ago (some of it by me) is being repeated by the younger group of scientists, only using more modern technology to prove the same thing we already knew. And such papers are nevertheless accepted for publication in important journals. The new technology makes the old finding itself seem new. This is the human condition, I guess. Ergo it does not surprise me at all that there is such merit in vintage audio gear, everything from cartridges to speakers.

But does this thread really represent a "resurgence" of interest in MM/MI cartridges? Insofar as there is little evidence that important cartridge makers are paying any attention, I thought we were more like a lunatic fringe group.
Hi Raul, echo Dean_man's comments above - how good is it for us that can't do what you do, but the sharing through this thread allows us to tap into or near the top end without burning big $ through accepting current norms.

I work as an engineer in a very specialised area (nothing to do with electronics) and you would be absolutely amazed at what was known 40 yrs ago but forgotten today and being re-learnt the hard way! The MM/MI resurgence is very reminiscent of redisocvering the forgotten.

Thank you for your passion, regardless of who agrees or not.

Cheers, Alex L
Can anyone share experience using these MM/MI carts with an Audio Technica AT-1100 arm? I believe Audiocraft was the manufacturer. Its higher mass sibling, the AT-1010, appears well-regarded but the AT-1100 has little "press". Both arms are of very similar, perhaps identical, design except for armwand/headshell. By description they both were thoughtfully engineered during the golden age. How might the AT-1100 compare to low mass competitors of its era, such as the SME Series 3?

Thanks in advance to all.
Dear Thuchan: Welcome a board, never is to late.

Even that most MM/MI cartridges are " friendly " IMHO the FR66 is not the best match for them. In the other side the Cobra/Copperhead are very good with MM/MI cartridges, here you can read what Halcro a Copperhead owner posted about:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&2565&4#2565

so almost any MM/MI cartridge could works fine in the Cobra/Copperhead.

Here are some fine cartridges that you can try with:

http://www.lpgear.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=LG&Product_Code=BOMMC2&Category_Code=B_O

http://www.lpgear.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=LG&Product_Code=NAGAOKAMP500&Category_Code=NAGAOKACART

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Raúl/Mis%20documentos/Grado%20Amber%20the%20tribute.htm . Look for Grado The Tribute.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Bang-Olufsen-B-O-BEOGRAM-3000-MMC-1-Cartridge-/120607348083?pt=UK_AudioTVElectronics_HomeAudioHiFi_Turntables#ht_572wt_1137

this auction is for the TT that comes with the B&O top of the line MMC1 cartridge. The MMC1 is a B&O hand selected MMC2 cartridge. You can ask/pictures the seller in which condition is the cartridge and if it is in good one then this is very good offer( bargain. ).

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Raul, thank you for the brilliant review of the AKG. The odds of running into one of these are pretty slim, so I really appreciate the opportunity to read about it. I'd love to hear it someday but in the mean time I'll be pleased to continue with my little arsenal that was acquired as a direct result of this thread :)

Jim
Being a latecomer to this thread what would you recommend to be the best matching MM for the FR-66s /Fr-66fx or the Cobra/Copperhead?
Dear Raul, That is one phenomenal review (of the AKG P100LE). A few months ago I picked up an AKG P8ES vdH II. How would that one relate to the P100LE. I wonder since in both cases the stylus was made by vdH. My cartridge is very similar in appearance to the P100LE, except it lacks that red insignia on the forward aspect of the stylus assembly.
Your reviews are becoming even better Raul. Congratulations.
I envy you the AKG P100-LE and wish you could sell me your 'spare' one?
How much did you pay in 'NEW' dollars if I might ask?
Dear friends: If you are interested now is ready the AKG P100-LE review. Click on my moniker " reviews " to read it.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Thanks, Raul. I think I have a used AT15Sa plus an AT20SS stylus. I also have a bunch of Acutex stuff to audition.
Dear Lewm: +++++ " on the 20SS review " +++++, here:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ranlg&1280374200

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Lew, With just several hours break-in after mounting the AT15SS body, the AT20SS stylus sounds so much better than the(identical in appearance) AT15SS stylus, that I question whether my eBay-purchased AT15SS could have been NOS as advertised. The AT20SS stylus does it all: airy detailed treble, expansive soundstage, weighty and controlled LF, lots of color & dynamic contrast, and most of the feeling of honesty. One of those moments where one says "Enough."
Raul, Where is Dave's review of AT20SS? I've got an older ATxxSS cartridge that fits the AT20SS stylus, and an AT20SS stylus as well but have not auditioned the combo yet.
Dear friends: For those with interest on the AT 20SS/15SS now you can read the latest experiences that Dgarretson posted on the 20SS review with the 20SS stylus replacement in his 15SS cartridge.
IMHO worth to have that original ( NOS ) 20SS stylus replacement, even if you don't have the cartridge ( 20/15) yet!

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
What's interesting is that there is such a large number of possible combinations that one cannot with confidence say any particular cartridge is bad unless it is grossly defective. There is always the possibllity that the right tonearm and tt can make any particular cartridge sing.
Dear Lewm: Yes, I agree: it is better with MM than with LOMC low compliance cartridges, maybe because these ones puts more " pressure " to the pivot due to that low compliance.

It is in some ways a frustration that we can have a true and precise answers on so many questions about tonearm/cartridge/TT whole subject.

Regrads and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Raul, In my very brief experience, I came to the general impression that the RS-A1 is exceptionally good with MM/MI cartridges. Or to put it another way, whatever faults the RS-A1 may have, it does work best with MM/MI cartridges. Do you agree?
Dear Halcro: I have on hand the RS-A1 and three other unipivot tonearms along the SMG-212 that along other vintage and today tonearms ( including the Schroeder. ) I tested with LOMC and MM/MI cartridges. No I don't had yet the opportunit to try the Cobra/Copperhead in my system and as you said not easy that I can have it but I will look for it in some way.

I don't know if you remember in some other thread when we were talking about effective mass, VTF and pivot tonearm bearing friction, in that time some other persons and me point out of the importance of the " mass " that the cartridge/tonearm were " seeing ": in reality the cartridge does not see only the VTF but the tonearm " bulk mass " around ( I can't explain very clear because I don't have the right words. ) and this " bulk mass " has influence in many ways like tracking.It is the same at pivot bearing design where it is not only important a low friction but low " bulk mass " to move. What I really don't know is in which way this factor has its influence and how we hear/heard that sole " influence ".

Our tonearm design is not a unipivot one but we are using jewels at the bearing like Cobra.

++++++ " It happens that the Copperhead/Cobra overall is a better WHOLE match to cartridges. " ++++++

this is an easy answer, the Copperhead makes that those cartridges performs better.

The real subject is: why? and for this " why " I don't have a precise answer because IMHO it is not a individual factor the one that can give the right answer but many factors like the ones I posted along that low mass at pivot/bearing tonearm and other ones. Almost all those " factors " when one change all the others " response " change and what we heard change too.

As a fact there are many differences between the Copperhead and the other tonearms you own, a hard task for any one to find the precise answer about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Raul,
It happens that the Copperhead/Cobra overall is a better WHOLE match to cartridges.
Well......not quite.
As I explained, with LOMC cartridges, the Copperhead is not better than the DaVinci or Phantom II on all of them, and even when it might be on one of them, it's not by that much.
It's only on the MM/MI cartridges that the Copperhead is totally in a different league.

Nothing about the design of the Cobra/Copperhead suggests to me why this should be.......except when I read Mark Doehmann's description of the 'low arm mass over the pivot point'?
Now I wonder Raul, if you have experimented with this feature in your 3 year-long study into tonearm design?
Also, if you have not personally heard the Cobra/Copperhead arms with MM/MI cartridges, you may be missing a helpful 'clue' to your own designs?

I realise there are few people with Cobra/Copperhead arms out there who can verify this observation but I thought that if this 'low-mass' feature could possibly be an explanation, there may be other arms out there with a similar feature with which to try out this experiment?

A perfect arm for this feature seems to be the Schroeder arms where the mass at the pivot point is not increased in any way over the rest of the arm.
If anyone out there has a Schroeder and a vintage MM/MI cartridge it would be interesting to receive their feedback.

Following is a list of potential arms which could also prove/disprove this theory:-
SCHROEDER
WELL TEMPERED (only 1 model I think)
MICRO SEIKI MA-202 & MA-303
THOMAS SCHICK 12"
ORTOFON SMG-212 12"
REED 12"
47 LABS RS-A1

If you could also possibly beg borrow or steal one of these arms Raul, it would certainly be an interesting experiment and one that could possibly help you in your 'ultimate' arm design?
Aolsala,

It's wonderful having the benefit of your years of experience added to the already present contributors. Please share your insights into "Empire" which was a competitor while you where an engineer for Stanton. I look forward to hearing your knowledge.

Sincerely,
I'm sorry: this is what had been writed :

"""" It happens that the Copperhead/Cobra overall is a better WHOLE match to cartridges than your other tonearms. """"

and at the post end:

"""" Certainly we can't go in deep about....""""""""

Raul.
Dear Halcro: The relationship between tonearm an a cartrridge is very complex due to so many factors that have influence.

It is not only the horizontal/vertical cartridge compliance along the tonearm effective mass that are more " numbers " than predict nothing about quality performance.

The cartridge is a very sensitive " microphone " that takes any single " vibration/distortion/noise " that are not part of the music recorded on the grooves and are those unknow " vibrations/distortions/noise " the ones that colored the full picture.

Where comes those VDN factors?, comes from the cartridge it self and from the tonearm cartridge and TT interaction. In each one of these links we have different kind of VDNs.

The tonearm is critical/crucial to damp/eliminate/lowering or change all or part of those VDNs. The simple list of VDNs is almost infinite: cartridge body build material, cartridge body shape, cartridge horizontal/vertical compliance, cantilever shape/build material/size, stylus shape/build material, cartridge mount screws build material, headshell shape/size/build material, tonearm whole build materials design and geometry/shape, bearing type, arm mount base, feedback on each of these links, etc, etc.

Each one of these " factors " has different kind of influence/color in the final picture, it is through all these factors where the different designers can: damp/eliminate/lower or change the " frequency resonance/response and find the mix that makes less harm to the cartridge signal.

Through our tonearm self design in the last three years of research and tests we found that one of the factors with a main importance in a tonearm is in the tonearm build material. This factor can makes the difference against other tonearm design factors like bearing, arm mount, internal wire, etc, etc.. That's why we are taking so long time to finish our tonearm, right now we are very close to.

It is true that the kind of bearing/pivot has an important influence but if a tonearm design has a low bearing friction, fast bearing response to movements and smooth movement then you are " on target ".

If you analize your Continnum it has at least two characteristics that makes the difference ( for the better ) against your other two tonearms: build material ( that is a especial blend. ) and shape choosed for damping.

It happens that the Copperhead/Cobra overall is a better WHOLE match to cartridges.

The fact that you like many of us " can't hear any more LOMC cartridges " has IMHO no direct relation with tonearms ( alone/it self. ) but with the quality intrinsic LOMC cartridges performance against what we prefer: the " different " MM/MI intrinsic quality performance.

As I said the cartridfe/tonearm whole subject is really complex and not easy to analize and not easy to measure or modeling a computer simulation to achieve precise answers. Certainly we can go in deep about in this thread and certainly not through my post that is mere enunciative.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Downunder,

You may be right in that the adjustment of damping may well help the sound of the Phantom II with MM/MI cartridges as the Copperhead has no damping at all.
But seeing that the DaVinci has no damping (although it has a double gimbal bearing system) yet still suffers from poor matching with the MM cartridges, I don't feel like removing all the fluid from the Phantom well just to experience some slight improvement when the Copperhead offers such immense superiority as it is?
Besides, the damping in the Phantom is fine for the LOMCs which I still have mounted on my other 2 arms.
Montepilot,

I did install the M20FL on the Copperhead and it performed far better than on the Phantom II (as all my MM cartridges do).
It was almost as good as the Garrott P77 but just missed out on the P77's
three- dimensional 'air'.
Both these cartridges exhibited the realism and beauty of the MM/MI character but they did not make the Universe or XV1s 'unlistenable' as is now the case with the Empire 1000ZE/X. Here is a link to a review I wrote on the P77 in relation to those LOMC cartridges with the conclusions towards the bottom Garrott P77
This is why the Empire in the Copperhead in my system, has caused me to re-think the 'common' wisdom of the high-end reviewers and preachers?
The Signature III is not sensitive to capacitance but the voicing of the interconnect makes it very particular indeed. It is sensitive to resistance so in some preamplifiers as low as 12k to 10k ohms would be ideal matching.

Enjoy the music!
Halcro

One area of the Phantom that is critical to performance is the damping fluid. Unfortunately changing the level of damping is a royal PITA.
Have you played around with the damping fluid on the MM's

My exclusive P3/P10 have integral dampinmg fluid and a dial, so easy to dial in on what sounds best with each cartridge.

cheers
Aolsala, I can respect your experience, history, and opinions. But one thing you said really caused a double take -

"publications such as AUDIO, High Fidelity, Stereo Review, etc.. I have all of these in my collection and very informative reading indeed."

We had an internationally known high end store in San Diego in the '70s, Audio Directions. One of the owners had strong opinions regarding magazine reviews. He felt only two bits of information in reviews had any relevance; the component dimensions could tell if it would fit on your shelf, and the weight would suggest if the shelf might be strong enough to hold it. ;-)

I think the reviews by Richard Heyser in Audio were an exception but I still have a few copies of some of those magazines and most reviews read like manufacturer's ad copy.

Now enough of all this, back to the OP on MM cartridges . . . what's the latest discovery?
Halcro,

Did you ever install the Ortofon M20FL Super on your Copperhead tonearm? If so did you find that it also outperformed your top MC cartridges on the DaVinci & Phantom? The M20 Fl super and ME super are now sold out on the Ebay German website, but they still have a very good supply of stylli.

Thanks for your input.

Regards,
Aolsala, You jogged my memory of the XLM. I too remember now about the sample to sample variation, which was quite broad (ranging from very good to very mediocre). I supplied an English dealer with several samples, purchased in bulk from a local discount house (in the Washington, DC, area). He and I noted that one or two of about 10 samples were grossly defective right out of the box. But they were so inexpensive that one never thought to complain about it; just buy another.
Regards, Aolsala:

Interesting read about the Sig. 111, thanks. Tonearm/cartridge matching is a constant concern and not an insignificant factor. Insights are always welcome. Relating to the suggestion you make about the use of copper IC's, would this be a capacitance or a cartridge voicing concern?

Incidentally, "preaching to the choir" is an oblique way of saying "heard it all before". Also, a very small apology is due, and offered.

Peace.
Downunder,
Funny that you should mention tubes because that is as close to a description of the differences I hear when playing MM/MI cartridges on the Copperhead compared to the Phantom and DaVinci.
There is no single facet or area of difference.....it is a quantum leap in overall performance that is akin to listening to an entirely different system which puts your old one in the shade.
The air, transparency and depth sound like the very best valve preamps and amps whilst the soundstage expands enormously. Combine this with an almost total lack of audible distortions which are now just too evident on the moving coils.

On the moving coils, the Copperhead was not better than the Phantom with every cartridge whilst the Universe suits the DaVinci a bit better than the Copperhead.
This is why I am so puzzled by the complete transformation of the MM cartridges in the Copperhead and the total domination of it over the other arms?
I truly saw this site and was curious. That is why I responded. Many of the distinguished individuals are rediscovering vintage cartridges indeed. It would be appropriate if they can also dig their curiosity in the readings of the 60s, 70s, and 80s in publications such as AUDIO, High Fidelity, Stereo Review, etc.. I have all of these in my collection and very informative reading indeed.

Lived with many of the cartridges all of you mentioned. Some in my estimation are better than others.

The only way one can determine a product is to make it subject to rigorous A-B comparison.

For example, when I had the original XLM I truly marvelled with the transparency and purity of this cartridge (for its day). When I heard the BSR revision XLM III and Super XLM (non-Pritchard) the cartridges lost their proper focus, immediacy and naturalness that the original had. If I did not make the comparison, they were OK. But, Violin sound just suffered and sounded veiled in comparison -- all of this with the same tonearm and components. So I would have to say that when the reviewers in the Absolute Sound had what they had to say, and at the time I fully agreed with them.

I have some audiophile friends which had these cartridges and also had similar experiences to mine.

Please note also that no two original XLMs sounded completely alike. That was very unfortunate. The original XLM I bought back in 1971 from Dixie Hi-FI (which I paid just $29 for it) was absolutely gorgeous. Never have heard London CS-6563 sound more translucent. When I bought another one from another dealership, it was not bad but didn't have the magic of the older one. Therefore, sample to sample variations...once more..

Manufacturer tolerances were very hard to achieve in those days (sometimes they are even hard to this day!)

Timeltel:

I am not preaching gospels just going through the chapters in the history books, which I can probably fill a long disertation here.

As far as The Signature III: It is a difficult pickup to install. It demands a very inert tonearm (todays tonearms are much better than ever before). If you can find one you will be rewarded by one of the best holographic experiences in cartridge design. It is not damped therefore minute undulations in the grooves will excite the cantilever assembly and the dreaded and famous belly-dancing that Grados were famous for would occur. In my estimation, the ideal tonearm should be made out of cork or bamboo (try Schroeder). Once this is accomplished the dancing will stop and you will be waltzing the dance on your own, not the cartridge. It should also be used with very pure copper interconnects (not silver) - tangential tracking is very beneficial.

Results: Outstanding purity, dimensionality and truthful timbre without sizzle or brightness. It is one of my true treasures and a bargain now if you find one in good shape. Compare to many Moving coils I find the Siggie III properly installed even more satisfying. However, please note, another dilemma: Sample to sample variability as well.

A hand-made product by the legendary Joseph Grado.
Halcro

can't listen to MC's anymore. Sounds like you need some tubes in your system to soften the blow :-)

I do know what you mean with the typical MC sound (tipped up upper frequencies) - luckily the A90 has none of that MC sound - very smooth, flat frequency, where the XV-1 can sound a tipped up in the treble in direct comparison.

I don't think Bob Graham ever designed his Phantom by using MM's. Lucky I have a couple of other tables that play MM's just fine.

If you can't get the Axden working, I'll come over and pick it up and try in my Exclusive P3 :-)

BTW, in what way does the Copperhead sound better than the Phantom - it seems like on every cartridge. I am guessing the Davinci souns better with MC's as it is a litle more forgiving/musical than the Phantom?

cheers
Tim, Could not remember whether the Citation preamp was #11 or #12 so took a shot at it. Thanks for correcting me. Good to know you felt the same about it as I (and others I knew) did back then. As to the cartridge, the one I owned was definitely the first version, the XLM. I'd like to have it back for a listen on today's gear.
Well, at least Raul and Aolsala agree that it is the whole quality of the arm, not just the mass, that affects the sonic result.

In the mid-70s I bought a new XLM II, in part influenced by HP. At the time I had a Phillips turntable and arm (202? 212? I just remember the green lights in the touch-sensitive buttons). In spite of my later opinion that it was not a very good arm, it was relatively low mass and I thought the cartridge sounded wonderful - detailed, deep, and dynamic. I also had Stacked Advents (those thanks to HP after a couple of years with single Advents) and HK Citation 11 and 12. Lew, the preamp was the 11. It included a 5-band equalizer. I was very disappointed and got rid of that quickly. The 12 amp sounded great but did not stand up to driving the 4 ohm load of the double Advents and after a repair I replace it too.
Dear Aolsala: +++++ " I can summarize this in one sentence:

" TO EACH ITS OWN" +++++

you already " summarize ", IMHO useless/futile to go on with the subject.

Btw, the thread and the people that posted and post knows that here does not exist a " contest/competition " attitude with winners and loosers, there was or is no a single looser only winners.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Aolsala, You wrote, "Cartridges in the late 70s and early 80s are truly better than anything in the 60s. I am sorry but speak with any engineer in cartridge design and he will agree." I guess you may be feeling battered by now, but as far as I know, this thread has mainly concerned itself with cartridges from the 70's and early 80's, and I don't see where anyone ever wrote that cartridges from the 60's were inherently superior to them, ("Inherently" is the key word; some early stereo cartridges did get good reviews here.) I do recall when the ADC XLM(?) was nominated king of the hill by HP. I bought one and found it to be not so wonderful (but not bad) in my own system (yes, with all the qualifications about the ancillary equipment of those days). Back then, a lot of the stuff reviewed in TAS was accessible in terms of cost, and I and my audiophile friends often auditioned items recommended by HP. (These days, who could afford to do that?) We usually did not agree with his recommendations. The HK Citation 12 preamp is one example I remember well. HP thought it was the greatest. We thought it was shrill, the epitome of bad transistor sound.

Halcro or anyone else, What are you hearing with the Azden that you deem to be due to "RF"?