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
E tu mi fili Brute? Then the MM thread should die. Long
live the (old) king! And I want my Glanz G5 back my dear
Briton. You only pretend to (still) believe in the MM
kind. Seduced by the diamond cantilever perhaps? I own
the Sony XL 88 D with the cntilever AND stylus made from
one piece of diamond but my Kiseki Goldspot with the
'ordinary' boron cantilever sounds better. Besides diamonds
are for the ladies. The boron is more male kind of material
according to me.
Indeed, Quo vadis, Raul? I'm pumped about receiving a Pass Labs XP-25 phono stage later this week. This unit spans the wide gain structure of 53db-76db, enabling comparison between MM/MI and LOMC through the same phono stage without the variable of a step-up. So far I've been using a modified 48db ARC PH-2 for MM/MI and a modified high-gain hybrid Atma-Sphere MP-1 for LOMC. So far the .12mv AT ART7 reigns supreme.
Lewm,

Yes, it is a MC but I know little else about why it seems so different.

Oops, just read Dgarretson's post. A little wiser!

As always...
My post should have read "just read Dover's and Dgarretson's posts..."

Sorry
Lewm,

It does beg that question but I think both mediums continue to offer a great deal. My Axel revamped Acutex 420 STR still amazes and is currently sat across from my Highphonic D15. Not too shabby!

As always...
Dover,

Your post has proven very enlightening and helpful. Yes the D15 does like solid state but I'm now in the process of changing the settings on my Essential phonostage. If that does not bring out the very best in the cartridge, I will be surprised: it's doing a fine job at the moment. However, I might still try a particular headamp that was recommended for the job 'if' I feel there might be more to get out of the Highphonic than my amp allows. I do doubt this at present as the Essential was designed (according to its designer) to undertake just such a task. Fingers crossed!

I see your points about it sounding more "unconstrained" and that is what made it's presentation seem quite unfamiliar compared to various other cartridges. Yet, I'm not really certain about it sounding "a little thin". I think this might be the case in comparison to the Glanz G5 when coupled to the Audiocraft AC3300 and its AP300 armwand (I've still not heard the MF61) but that gives a very robust image.

As I say, I'll know more once I have things set up so as to make me certain that I am getting the very best out of the D15. I'm also awaiting the arrival of an Audiocraft AP-2 lightweight armwand and will try the D15 on this in contrast to my green dot Morch DP6 (in which it currently sits). Once that and the gain adjustments on my Essential are explored I will hopefully be able to report back with some more useful impressions.

As always...
Nandric,

:~)

I don't mind keeping this kind of company with such a fine lady. I might be a bit of a lovestruck fool but she's already got me changing my World to accommodate her!

The things we do for love

You'll have to tell me more about your Kiseki but my spare G5 will never lighten your doorstep again. Hope all goes well over in Holland.

As always...
Well like Dgob and Dover (?) my comrad Don and I were also
intriqued by Carr's story about the Denon 1000 A and even
more so by the designer who started with some others the
Hyphonic (Hiyphonic)'brand'. There is this metaphor about
'science and art' but also about the capability called 'tálent'.
I assume that the technical knowledge involved by designing
MC carts is not 'rocket science' while those MC carts look
qua construction, say, very similar. But I also assume that
by the so called 'tuning' of an cart the ears are involved. We
all know that some among us have better hearing than
the others but I have never noticed that those with 'good
ears' are called artist. Those are ,say, different individual capabilities.
So speaking for example of Raul I am convinced that he has
the capability (aka 'good ears') to judge carts while his
'theoretical capabilities' were never convincing to me at
all. The problem for Don and me was to somehow discover
which of those Hiyphonic carts are designed by this
talented guy with 'good ears'. We both own the AC-3 and
still search for the AC-5 and AC-6. Alas the 'diamonds'
are above our means (grin).
Dear Dover, deed you forget to add the amplification of
the preamp to the amplification of the phono-pre? I have
no trouble to amplify my Ortofon MC 2000 with 0,05mV
with my Jasmine + Marantz PM 11S amp.
Nandric,
The Jasmine phono uses J-farts to amplify LOMC's, giving the MC input 70db of gain exclusive of line stage gain. I find them a little too coarse and noisy for my taste. With cartridges around 0.12mv unless you have very high gain, clean and noise free, in my experience dynamics are usually compromised, even if there is sufficient gain.

With regard to cantilever materials, in my experience Boron cantilevers do tend to sound more natural than diamond cantilevers, however, one needs to consider the context in which the materials are used. The diamond cantilevered Dynavector Nova 13D that I have has balls down low so I am not sure how this fits your gender association model. The Dynavector reference system in Japan in the 80's on which the Dynavector cartridges of the day were developed was ruler flat to well below 20hz.

I do agree on the Kisekis. A friend had the entry level Bluespot, and despite being 7-8 years old at the time, it sounded better than many more modern MC's. It could be that the Sony X88D that you have is past it's sell by date as it was highly regarded by a friend of mine who reviewed it for TAS in the 80's along with the Highphonic MCR5, Denon DL1000, Stax ECP & Accuphase AC2 cartridges and concluded it was superior to these other cartridges by a considerable margin.

Dgob, fyi, at the time then SAEC 407/23 arm was very popular and recommended by Highphonic for the review. This combo sounded thin. However the Audiocraft MC3000 fleshed out the Highphonic. Use of dampening on the Audiocraft made the sound more diffuse and was eschewed. Adding mass around the Audiocraft pivot point to load it up enhanced the soundstage focus and dynamics.
Dover,

Many thanks again: "the Audiocraft MC3000 fleshed out the Highphonic." That supports what Tommy from Topclass suggested about the AC3300 LB with AP-2 armwand being a good match. Problems with the postal service mean I'm still awaiting the shipping of my armwand though.

Regarding the damping, I have found similar. I never use any damping on my AC3300 with the AP300 armwand (nor on my Morch DP6) and so it will be great to see how the D15 works in its new setting.

Any more information or suggestion warmly welcomed

As always...
Where is Raul these days?

Finalising his long awaited tonearm?.

Seems his arch enemy Dert is doing quite well with Alignment guage, headshell, tonearm and now cartridge.

Anyone heard the tonearm or cartridge?

cheers
Hi Folks,

There's another D15 currently for sale at Topclass: http://www.topclassaudio.com/web/eng/used_product.jsp. Not the cheapest but a rare opportunity nevertheless.

As always...
Who needs Raul this time since we now have the time to enjoy all the flavors of the months that have been collected when this topic was the hottest thing on the Audiogon forum. Personally for me, I enjoy his absence and my wallet has taken a rest. Raul where ever you are, please stay away a little longer and appear back in fall.
Hello Dgarretson,
*Indeed, Quo vadis, Raul? I'm pumped about receiving a Pass Labs XP-25 phono stage later this week. This unit spans the wide gain structure of 53db-76db, enabling comparison between MM/MI and LOMC through the same phono stage without the variable of a step-up. So far I've been using a modified 48db ARC PH-2 for MM/MI and a modified high-gain hybrid Atma-Sphere MP-1 for LOMC. So far the .12mv AT ART7 reigns supreme.*

I suspect Raul is running out of great vintage carts to rediscover. The HO field was relatively easy. Look at current offerings. There are only a few companies even trying to make a great HO cart.

Recently, despite the name of the thread (or does that allow it?), MCs became superior. This afforded the opportunity to rediscover another group of carts, and there was J. Carr's list.

Nandric thinks Raul's skill is in evaluation, not technical matters. I think it's neither. Raul has the tenacity of a bloodhound and we're all on the hunt. Hunting is the sport and the prey changed monthly. Now people cry, "Where's Raul? We have nothing to hunt."

Raul's listening to his DVD player
wouldn't you agree that it's better?
years ago I had a Kisiki Blue
lush and romantic, but I was playing the Who
I'm curious about your incoming Pass
and performance with Art cart
exceedingly good or somewhat crass
and will it capture your heart?

Regards,

Hi, I read several times in this long thread very good things about the Lustre 801 arm. Because I recently bought a VPI TNT JR table without arm, would like to use a Lustre 801. what I need is, in your experience, what is the best pivot to spindle exact distance before drill any hole. Thanks in advance for your help with this matter.
I forgot to mention that I have a SME 309 old aluminum arm, but looks like the lustre would be a better option (?) .... what do you think? ...
Thuchan

Hi there. If anyone has hear the tonearm or cart of Raul, I would gladly like to know their thoughts :-)

I was really asking about Dertonarms tonearm and cartridge. Have you heard them yet?
I don't think this thread was ever about cartridges exactly, but experiencing great affordable carts together with fun like minded people. Do card players meet year after year just to play cards? Some do , but most meet for the friendships and fun.

I have met many good people on this thread. I count them as my friends, Including Raul. We just ran out of carts I guess. When Raul switched to MC the cost of the experience went higher.

Other people showed their true nature over the years. They seem to come back like circling vultures. To kick the dog while its down.
Acman3, I too have met many good people on this thread that I can count as friends. We all or some of us may have had our differences but I am grateful to Raul for this thread. I can now boast of having many good cartridges as a result of this thread. Without it, I will say that I will probably have four or five cartridges to show off. As far as running out of cartridges, I do not think so. Like I said before, who needs Raul now when we have time to evaluate all the flavors of the months that have been collected. My wallet just got out of ER, so please Raul stay away a little longer
Hi Nandric: In every phono cartridge that I have seen, the cantilever rod is joined to the pivoting part of the cantilever assembly by means of a slightly larger tube called the "joint pipe". Joint pipes of different length make it possible to change the length of the cantilever rod, while keeping the same total length of the cantilever assembly.

Sony's XL-88D used this technique to good effect. The normal XL-88D was a "budget edition" that achieved its retail price of 150,000 JPY (in 1980) by using a longer-than-normal joint pipe to drastically shorten the length of the diamond section. The "real version" was called the XL-88D Custom, and this had a more normal-length joint pipe and consequently a much longer diamond section. The asking price (again in 1980) was 350,000 ~ 370,000 JPY, and you had to be a very good customer of Sony to even be told that this version existed. A total of 7 pieces were sold (smile).

Sony made another cartridge called the XL-88D Custom, but this was an SPU-style unit headshell design.

http://www.hifiwigwam.com/showthread.php?81546-One-the-best-cartridges-ever-made-Sony

In practice, no naming confusion occured because the most of the SPU-style XL-88D Custom owners were never aware of the "other woman", and there were only 7 owners of the "real" XL-88D Custom.

Information courtesy of Yoshihisa Mori, who headed Sony's cartridge division (and later Sony's SACD operations).

I think that we should continue this thread and keep it healthy, but it would be far more interesting and useful if it encompassed all kind of cartridge operating principles.

In addition to the various direct-scan cartridges by JVC and Neumann, what about FM cartridges?

Electret cartridges (Technics, Panasonic, Micro-Acoustics)?

Electrostatic cartridges (Stax)?

Optical cartridges?
www.ds-audio.biz

There are still many interesting cartridge designs that are worth sacrificing your wallets and credit cards for (grin).

kind regards, jonathan
Hi Jcarr,
Wouldn't this joint pipe usually be heavier than the cantilever material, especially boron or beryllium, and increase eff tip mass? I've noticed that AT MM don't seem to have this joint pipe while Jico replacement styli do.

Talking about tip mass, could you explain the relationship between high frequency resonance and tip mass? Specifically, calculating tip mass from high frequency resonance peak.
Thanks,
Jcarr -
The Sony my friend Warwick Mickell reviewed for TAS in 1983 was described as X88D, not XL88D. Warwick, who was living in Japan, was loaned the cartridge directly from Mori. He describes a precariously long cantilever (diamond) that made him extremely nervous. Do you think the "X88D" was a typo ??
Downunder,

yes, have them both. very happy with them. I have a special version of Dertonarm's tonearm being able exchanging tubes. this is really serious stuff, also the cart - and for that price. I also compared with Lyra. And Jonathan' designs are some among my favourite ones.

I am not shure what happened to Raul. No one is able telling me. I would love to see his designs he promised showing at RMAF 2013. Maybe this year...
Hi Nandric and Jonathan,
there was a Sony XL-88 (without D). I was able to get one in a virgin condition some years ago and compared against the XL-55 Pro and the XL-88 D Custom (both in near mint condition as well - www.AudioCirc.com)
While the Custom is detracting more information than the XL-55 Pro the XL-88 seems to me the more balanced one - regarding the whole frequency band.
Fleib: The joint pipe is usually made from aluminum or duraluminum, which although at 2.7g per cubic cm is heavier than beryllium (1.85g) or boron (2.46g), is certainly lighter than diamond (3.5g) or sapphire (4g). Keep in mind that a component that is closer in to the pivot (such as the armature and coils of an MC or the magnet of an MM) will affect the effective mass less than another component farther away from the pivot. The joint pipe must extend all the way back to the pivot, and in many cases it is what the magnet or armature are secured to.

Counter-intuitively, increasing the joint pipe length can raise the resonant frequency rather than lowering it, and this is because a shorter and lighter joint pipe can allow the cantilever rod to flop around at its root, while a longer and heavier joint pipe will result in less overall flexing.

Even among AT MMs, those that use a thin rod cantilever will most likely have the joint pipe, while those that use an aluminum pipe cantilever may be able to do without. This is because the suspension components (wire, dampers) come in specific sizes that need a stepped interface to mate with the significantly smaller diameter of a rod cantilever (a boron rod is 0.28mm in diameter). I don't think that the issue is company practice (AT vs. Jico).

Depending on how you calculate things, cantilever length has a more significant effect on HF resonance than tip mass. And while there are other equations that relate tip mass to HF resonance, these are only relevant if all other things are equal, which usually they are not.

For example, a designer can use a longer diamond tip (with higher self-mass) to extend the vertical reach of the cantilever and reduce the overall cantilever length, and this may increase the HF resonance. On the other hand, doing so will probably result in poorer crosstalk characteristics at high frequencies, as the longer stylus will start to allow torsional twisting in addition to horizontal and vertical movement. IOW there is no free lunch, but if a designer is simply interested in raising the HF resonance point, there are various tricks and tradeoffs available.

Also, HF resonance is affected by the overall cantilever stiffness (as can be seen in the longer joint pipe example above), and by damping. On the surface of things, using more damping to flatten things may appear better, but in practice doing so usually triggers more distortion. Experience shows that a rising HF response is less offensive to the ear (as it is a simple boosting of whatever is already present on the LP, which, given the 1/f spectral distribution of most music, may not be much) than distortion, which synthesizes new HF components that do not exist on the LP, and in the case of IMD will result in inharmonic distortion at lower frequencies that are particularly grating to the ear.

I find that cartridges sound better when the designer puts in a honest effort to increase cantilever stiffness while reducing moving masses, but does not try to steamroller the last few dBs into total submission.

kind regards, jonathan
Jcarr, Thanks for your response. As it turns out, the AT carts have a joint pipe of sorts. On the front of the structure that holds the magnets, there's a short tube. It appears as if the cantilever goes through it, then makes a turn and goes into the suspension wire housing. The replacement styli have a longer tube and adhesive in front of that, between the cantilever and tube. It doesn't look too good under magnification, but you've explained the function. When we transplant cantilevers from one plug (part w/compliance screw) to another, the magnets and joint pipe go along with it and I assume the OEM cantilever is somewhat fixed in there. I think it can be coaxed out of the assembly.

On a different subject, I saw PDFs of reviews of Atlas and Kleos that appeared in a German magazine. They included Test Factory graphs and data. I'm not fluent in German, but I was wondering about the photo of the diamond mounting platform on Atlas, and the tradeoffs. I assumed it is for structural rigidity and to prevent rotation in any direction. Your response illuminates this a bit further and when designing a cart you can vary cantilever length to accommodate the platform. If you don't mind, what is effective tip mass of Atlas?
Regards,
Thuchan

Good stuff. Who makes the cartridge for Dertonarm? Obviously to Daniels spec criteria.

Cheers
Downunder,
I think the machinery parts are made in Germany while the core technology comes from Japan. He assembles on his own site near Munich.
Thuchan - thanks

Very interesting that Daniel is assembling/making his own cartridges. good stuff
Hello Fleib, Sorry for the delayed response regarding Pass XP-25. It's been running in for around two weeks, and if attendant improvements continue, a light verse review may be in order.

So far(only tested at the 76db setting with the ART7) it is doing well indeed. The noise floor is incredibly low and jet black. All details are resolved and separated with suavity. No SS glare or grain whatsoever. Maybe a bit over-smooth-- initially a slightly recessed treble that is slowly opening up with break-in. Lots of dynamics and swing. Bass articulation surpasses the modified MP-1. No crass in Pass...
Hi Dgarretson,
That's good news. I was wondering how the Art-7 and XP-25 were getting on. I was also wondering if a spec sheet came with the cart. There seems to be a discrepancy with the specs on AT site. It lists inductance as 25mH. I don't think that's even possible with an output of 0.12mV. Maybe it is, but I think it may be a typo and should be 25uH?

The 50ANV has the same output and inductance is 7uH.
Are you using this on a Terminator?
Regards,
Dover: I expect that the X88D was a typo for XL-88D. It could have also been a prototype, but XL-88D production started in either 1979 or 1980, so probably a typo rather than a proto (smile).

BTW, Mori-san is now doing a cartridge project with Takai-san of Final Audio. The cartridge features Mori's hallmark figure-8 coil, and I assume that the armature is non-permeable. I know that both Mori-san and cartridge were in the Final Audio room at Munich this year. I'd have loved to listen to Mori's latest, but unfortunately this year I decided to stay at home because I wanted to make more progress on design and development work.

Fleib: Before going further, I think that it is better if you first gain a basic understanding of what cantilever design is, next an understanding of the various issues that influence cantilever design (which may not be obvious to someone who doesn't design cantilevers). Talking about numbers without understanding what they mean and why will confuse rather than enlighten.

Please take a look at the following illustration of a cantilever cross-section. I wanted to find a better drawing, but thise was the best that I could come up with on short notice.

http://www7a.biglobe.ne.jp/~yosh/images/4209669.jpg

#1. cantilever
#1a. joint (or joint pipe)
#2. stylus
#3. armature (probably magnet for this particular cartridge)
#3', 3". suspension wire sleeve
#6. damper
#7. suspension wire
#8a, 8b. suspension wire holder (or stopper pipe)

The movement of the cantilever is accomplished by pivoting around the free section of the suspension wire (visible in the center-left section of the damper). But since the suspension wire is being pulled constantly by VTF and the drag of the LP groove on the stylus, it needs to be glued and crimped in place. There will be four such crimp / glue sections, at the heads and tails of the suspension wire sleeve and the stopper pipe, respectively.

Since a pipe cantilever is hollow inside, it is feasible to extend the pipe all the way back to the rear face of the armature, as we see in the linked drawing. But with solid rod cantilevers, the designer is forced to end the cantilever before the suspension wire sleeve (due to the presence of the suspension wire and the crimp), and use the joint pipe to connect the two elements together.

To envision what a solid rod cantilever would be constructed like, imagine that the outer diameter of the suspension wire sleeve is made equivalent to the outer diameter of the cantilever, with the tail of the cantilever rod touching the head of the suspension wire sleeve (more accurately it would be the crimped end of the suspension wire). The inner diameter of the joint pipe is made equivalent to the outer diameters of the cantilever rod and suspension wire sleeve.

The length of the joint pipe is up to the designer, which confers an additional measure of control over rigidity by setting the distance over which the joint pipe overlaps the cantilever (thereby creating a double-walled structure). Extending the joint pipe forward adds mass as well as rigidity, and it is up to the designer to make his choices, and to ponder why.

Choosing less than maximum cantilever rigidity (either via cantilever or joint pipe), along with allowing a bit of excessive movement in the suspension pivot, tends to make for a cartridge that is both easier to voice and easier on the tonearm. Conversely, reducing cantilever transmission losses and shortening the free length of the suspension wire tend to create a more peaky cartridge, in many cases with a visibly rising peak at the top end. However, when it comes to picking up everything that is on the LP, there is no doubt that a more rigid cantilever and a more tightly defined pivot point are superior.

When it comes to this kind of choice, it is very much about the designer's philosophy regarding sound reproduction, and to some extent, his subjective sonic preferences. And maybe it also depends on how much importance he places on measurements. A designer (or cartridge builder) that likes a smooth and friendly sound or wants perfectly flat measurements is likely not going to choose a super-stiff cantilever and super-short suspension wire.

Eddy currents can also affect the frequency response, again with some measure of lossiness or high-frequency core losses being useful if a flat frequency response is a high priority for the designer.

Measurable frequency response is affected by stylus tip mass, cantilever resonant characteristics (material and dimensions), overall cantilever length, overlap between cantilever and joint pipe, tightness of suspension pivot point, damper characteristics, eddy losses in the magnetic system, etc.

Measurable frequency response is also affected by the room temperature, and the LP groove diameter.

The subjective frequency response is affected by the cartridge body construction (materials, shape, presence and locations of voids etc), coil and armature materials and processing, choice of glues and bonding lacquers, and so on. In addition to everything above.

Regarding the Atlas's stylus mounting platform, it is a reinforcing metal plate added specifically to make it much harder for users to shatter the diamond stylus block, or break the adhesive joint bonding the stylus to the cantilever.

Until around the year 2000 I was using Ogura PA stylii with blocks that measured 0.06Wx0.06Lx0.5mmD. This is a comparable size and mass to what was used inside the Denon DL-1000A. The stylii had nice performance, but more than a few of the cartridges were returned to us because the diamond block had shattered, or the glue joint had failed. In many cases the failure was visibly due to user abuse (or perhaps abuse inflicted by their tonearms), but we did eat the rebuild costs for some of these cartridges. Eventually we came to the regrettable conclusion that the 0.06Wx0.06Lx0.5mmD diamond block size was simply too delicate for the kind of treatment that our cartridges were being subjected to in the field.

For this reason, from the Clavis Evolve 99 onward we shifted to a somewhat larger diamond block that measures 0.08mmWx0.12mmLx0.5mmD, and this is the size that we still use today (with the exception of the Delos, which uses a Namiki stylus rather than Ogura). It has been more rugged than our older 0.06Wx0.06Lx0.5mmD size, but our service records still showed that more cartridges that we would have liked were being returned due to breakage of the glue joint or of the diamond block.

The additional metal plate that you saw in the Atlas photo is a means to further increase the ruggedness of the larger-size 0.08mmWx0.12mmLx0.5mmD and of its glue joint. Hopefully this time it will be enough.

You are welcome to calculate the stylus tip masses if you feel so inclined.

kind regards, jonathan
Hi Fleib, the ART7 owner's manual specifies coil inductance at 8uH(1 kHz). In recent years I've been using only Terminator. At some point I need to compare it to my Technics EPA-100 and Kenwood L07D tonearms-- however Terminator performance has been so good that there is no hurry.

BTW all resistive and capacitive loading functions on XP-25 are relay-controlled from the front panel. This is a welcome feature. Somewhat surprisingly, ART7 performance is quite consistent across all settings from 47K to 100R. This cartridge has few quiddities to be addressed with loading. It is certainly not peaky, as is sometimes generalized about AT cartridges.
Jcarr,
Again, thanks for the explanation. Here's an illustration that's easier to see, although not quite as detailed:
http://www.coolgales.com/brochures/AudioTechnicacartridgesbrochure.pdf

I guessed the metal plate is for stylus/cantilever stability in-groove, and a performance feature. Considering the cost, wanting to keep the diamond in place is certainly understandable. The tip mass isn't bad. I was just curious.

On an unrelated topic, are you familiar with Miyajima Labs?
He has a patent on a cross ring design which looks interesting.
Regards,
Hi Fleib: The Audio Technica pdf doesn't show the all-important cantilever internals, and the drawing itself requires additional notation before it makes sense.

The "flexible suspension filament" is only flexible across a very limited length between the forward end of the metal pipe enclosing it (the stopper pipe) and black molded piece that carries the magnets, a section that is hidden in the AT drawing. The free length of the suspension filament is very important for cartridge behaviour. The shorter this is, the more accurate the pivot but the peakier the top-end response and the bigger the stress on the tonearm becomes. The longer this is, the less accurate the pivot becomes, but the extra mechanical losses tend to make for a flatter frequency response, and less stress is imposed on the tonearm.

Also, the "compliance adjustment screw" doesn't set the compliance, but rather locks the suspension stopper pipe in place (and therefore the entire cantilever assembly) once the compliance has been set. The stopper pipe will be mounted inside some kind of tubular structure, and the compliance is set by sliding the stopper pipe (along with the entire cantilever assembly) back and forth inside the tubular structure. There will probably be a flat wall or ridge directly behind the 360 degree radial damping element, allowing the damper to be compressed to a greater or lesser degree by moving the stopper pipe. IOW, setting the compliance most likely simultaneously sets the damping.

And in the AT drawing, unless the cartridge has a separate mechanism for adjusting the magnetic pole-piece positioning, moving the stopper pipe will alter the position of the magnets within the pole-piece gap, thereby affecting magnetic linearity and possibly the output level. "Setting the compliance" in this case does far more than just setting the compliance.

Yes, I am familiar with Miyajima Labs. What I find most interesting about the designs is the pivot concept, which reminds me of the Glanz cartridges of yore. Although neither the design tradeoffs nor the style of sound are quite to my tastes, I can still respect these cartridges.

Also, it is important that many different philosophies of cartridge design and sonic taste exist in the market. To have just a limited range of design philosophies and sonic preferences would not be very interesting, and this would probably lead to early stagnation of the cartridge market. To have active and healthy competition between multiple manufacturers of rather different design philosophies is not only good for the customer, the increased level of interest is also better for the manufacturers.

kind regards, jonathan
Hi Dgarretson,
Thanks for the spec. That makes sense, it's virtually the same as the 50ANV. That XP-25 has some heft. It comes in one 55lb box. I take it this is the first cart you've tried with it? 76dB of gain is quite a bit.

It's been my experience that MCs react differently to loading, at least ones with "normal" inductance. Capacitance loading usually isn't critical as with MMs.
AT MM need less than 200pF total, 150pF is optimal. That includes tonearm wire and cable so it's not easy to achieve. Clearaudio says 100pF.
Too much capacitance will lower high frequency resonance and usually make it brighter while rolling off the extreme high end. Too little and treble droop worsens. So I think it's important to follow mfg recommendations.
Resistance loading also has more affect on MMs. Back in the day there were preamps with options for MMs, even continuously variable up to 100K.

Frequency response doesn't seem to chance much with MC loading. What changes is size vs focus/detail. For awhile in the '80s the guys at TAS were using 47K on LOMCs, so naturally I tried it on a couple of carts. The sound got larger than life. At first it seemed amazing, but soon wore thin. Focus and detail were sorely lacking.
Regards,
Hi again Dgarretson,
Hope your Pass is settling in. I've heard the XP-15 and it seemed pretty damn good, and I imagine yours is better.

I was thinking about HO loading and Sonus came to mind. Capacitance loading for 47K is < 400pF, yet < 250pF for 100K (4-ch) operation. All 4-ch carts were low inductance. Most had shibata styli and low capacitance kept the load from interfering with ultrasonic performance and rear ch retrieval.

Depending on the cart, raising the resistance load from recommended (47K) often makes treble response peaky and those jagged lines of an unsmoothed amplitude response graph, exaggerated. A certain amount of capacitance is used for voicing and reducing it too much often exaggerates droop to peak differences. Loading down (resistance) a MM is very affective at taming an overly bright cart. Ironically, preamp manufactures give all kinds of options for MCs and virtually nothing for MMs where it's more important.

Sonus specs:
http://www-f9.ijs.si/~margan/Audio/Sonus_Manufacturer_Specs.pdf

1977 review Audio Magazine:
http://www-f9.ijs.si/~margan/Audio/Sonus_Blue_Label_Audio_Apr_1977.pdf

Tribute to Peter Pritchard:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/peter-pritchard

Regards,
Hi Fleib, Thanks for the info on Sonus. You've persuaded me to revisit the Sonus Blue/Gold after diminishing returns set in with ART7. My distant recollection is that with ARC PH-2 at 100K load, the Sonus Blue Gold had peerless timbre but lacked heft relative to others. This will be an opportunity to explore the cartridge at 47K through five detents of capacitive loading from 100pf to 750pf.

I've identified the 47K load resistors in XP-25. I may do a light modification to the unit to allow plug-in TX2575 resistors above 47K in this position. Too bad that with a plethora of stock loading options, Pass omitted values above 47K.
Hi Dgarretson,
Sorry to hear that combo didn't work out. Do you use the MG-1 as a full function preamp with phono? You said that pairing with ART7 was your best.

I suspect the Sonus might be better at 47K (heft-wise), but it's nice to be able to try it. Plug-in resistors is an elegant solution and nude Vishay is the best IMO. Looking forward to hearing how all this works out.

I must admit, I never had good results at 100K, but that's phono pre and system dependent. Whatever works.
Regards,
Hi Fleib, for me it's always been a modified 48db ARC PH-2 for all MM/MIs, which except for Stanton 981LZS, have too much output for the high gain structure of my modified Atma MP-1. It will be interesting to revisit the 981LZS in the context of the XP-25's wide range of capacitance adjustments.

I think I only heard the Sonus Blue/Gold loaded at 100K.

This morning I switched from ART7 to AT20SS, setting the XP-25 to 53db, 47.7K, 100-200pf. After accumulating a drawer full of MM/MIs courtesy of Raul's thread, this is my first opportunity to directly compare a MM/MI to a LOMC through the same phono stage, tonearm, and wires, without resorting to a SUT.

Still running in the AT20SS, but in spite of its obvious virtues the ART7 shows more refinement.
Sorry, after a couple hours of break-in and tweaking I'm eating meals of crow. The AT20SS is a great cartridge and a reminder of Raul's

Slap upside the head
By starting this thread.
It will be interesting to see if capacitance loading does anything with the 981LZ. Although inductance is < 1mH, that's quite a lot for a .3mV output. To possibly save you some time, it seems to have better response loaded at 1K ohm or greater. Loaded down it's a bit dull. I wonder if it's the right choice for Pass after your experience with ART7. You might have better luck with a livelier LO. Maybe Pass needs more playing time. I guess you'll find out.

I must admit, I'm extremely fond of the 20SS. It's just so eminently listenable. I keep going back to it as my go-to cart for everyday fare. Most of my records are less than perfect recordings/pressings, and the AT does a great job of resolving, without undue emphasis on imperfections.

No denying Raul's contribution
it's other issues with no solution
Regards,

We had this discussion a year or more ago, when Raul was afoot. I mentioned that loading down the 980LZS below 1000R was a no-go in my system for exactly the same reason you mention, Fleib. It sounded dull and bass-heavy. At that point, Raul jumped on me. Anyway, like you, I load the 980 at 1000R, happily. For conventional HOMM cartridges, I usually start at 100K ohm for load, and work down from there, but I have never tried less than 47K.

Dave, Are you intimating that you may prefer the AT20SS to the ART7?

Now that I have two systems up and sometimes running, I feel the need for another phono stage, and I want it to be flexible as is Dave's XP25, but cheaper. Have any of you heard the iFi iPhono? It's getting a lot of raves ever since Fremer gave it a rave, but an endorsement from one of you trusted friends would go a longer way to convincing me to buy one. The price is certainly right.
Lew, a couple of hours into it the AT20SS really woke up and uncovered the XP-25's potential. It's possible that this is due to cartridge performance, or perhaps to a significant quantum of break-in of phono stage resulting from 20x greater output of AT20SS vs. ART7. I'll switch back to ART7 in a few days and find out. By then XA-160.8 monoblocks will have arrived...
Hi Lew, If you're thinking inexpensive, you should consider the Vista Phono 1 Mk2. I've never read testimonials like this for such an inexpensive piece. They say it beats just about anything up to $1K. It has plug-in resistors for load and gain - up to 70dB. Capacitance is fixed, but you can order it however you want and insert additional caps with the load resistors. Default resistance is 47K, but you can customize that as well. If you order 1 Meg as default, then any resistor you insert becomes the load. It's $300. I was going to order one for an extra phono, but I'm trying to downsize.

This is about the size of a bar of soap. The wall wart is 12VAC out. That might be difficult to upgrade. Of course it's not a high end piece, but could be a very useful tool. Just Google Vista Audio phono or go to Audio Circle.
Regards,
Thanks, Dave and Fleib.
No comments on the iFi iPhono? I think I could build a killer power supply for it that would ramp up the performance. I could probably do the same for the Vista Phono (which I have never heard of until this moment). It's not hard to beat a 12V wall wart. I built an outboard PS for my Klyne 6LX/P that really works well. (The 6LX originally differed from the 6LE in having an outboard PS, in the first place. I re-capped the audio chassis, in addition to building a no-holds-barred outboard PS, sent it to Klyne for latest voltage regulators and upgrades to phono.)