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
Lew,
That wall wart is 12VAC, not DC. He does that to have greater voltage on the rails - headroom and probably more effortless/exact sound? I think the higher quality pieces that use ICs have 18VDC or more. It might depend on the devices being used and the design.

It's probably not hard to build an AC supply. I've never built one. I've also never heard either piece. Fremer had a caveat about the midrange and all I ever read about the Vista was accolades and amazement, but reading ain't hearing.
Regards,
Lewm, why not try an EAR834 - cheap and cheerful and ripe for modification if you feel like it. In standard form it has a very easy sound - very musical.
Regarding the reinforcement plate that was previously discussed in connection with the Lyra Atlas, I should add that the plate was nominally conceived of primarily for mechanical reinforcement, but it does also improve stylus mounting precision.

Because of the benefits in durability and stylus mounting accuracy, everyone that uses Ogura-made boron cantilevers now uses this system (even though it results in a slight increase in tip mass). A Google image search reveals that this list includes My Sonic Labs / Air Tight, Dynavector, Lyra, Koetsu, and undoubtedly more.

The older cartridge models won't have this, but the newer ones do.

kind regards, jonathan
Anyone have experience with a strain gauge cart/system?
That would include Panasonic, Win, and now Soundsmith.

Displacement based rather than velocity, seems to eliminate a lot of problems with magnetic pickups.
Regards,

Mosin if you are still around, this is your territory regarding Fleib's request.
Raul dissed the early Soundsmith strain gauge for its reported failure to conform closely to RIAA equalization (or at least to meet Raul's personal stringent rules on that subject). Peter Ledermann rebutted, and a heated discussion ensued. I have since heard that the latest SS strain gauge does a better job of adhering to RIAA. Regardless of all that, I too would love to hear a good one in my system, be it Panasonic, Win, Soundsmith, or whatever.
I remember one of those discussions in which Peter accused Raul of being an undeclared manufacturer. It was true. Raul's objection seems ironic considering the amplitude response anomalies of magnetic phono cartridges.

Getting rid of the RIAA correction network is a gigantic leap forward in preamp SQ, if it's justified. I suspect it is. Soundsmith claims response to 70KHz and < 10o phase discrepancy in the audio band. There's no such thing a good sounding capacitor. Some aren't quite as bad as others.
Dear Audie,
Did not receive either an email to my Yahoo or a message via Audiogon, so far as I know. Please try again. (I will check Audiogon "MyPage" as well.)

Dear Fleib,
You make a valid point re Raul's obsession with RIAA hyper-accuracy. I always thought it was a way of pointing out obliquely the shortcomings of tube-based phono stages, as compared to his Phonolinepreamp. Because no tube-based phono stage can achieve and maintain the level of accuracy that Raul deemed to be a sine qua non. (The key word being "maintain", because as tubes age, the exact correct values of R and C needed to achieve perfect RIAA will also change.) Anyway, it only bothered me when he "talked down" to those of us who prefer tubes, implying that we "like" distortion. I actually miss the SOB.
it's much more simpler when you have 2 tt's connected to one phonostage switchable mm/mc sufficient and than you can simply swap turntables whre one with mc cartridge and another one with mm.
tired listening to mc cartridge? mm is waiting for ya on different tt.
Lew,
I think the overall amplitude response of the phono preamp could determine RIAA accuracy regardless of filter considerations. The values of RC might remain relatively constant (although values tend to change with temp) but an aging tube could render RC values, moot.

Roger Modjeski said, every phono stage he ever saw had a simple RC network which is the inverse of EQ applied to the record.

The inverse RIAA has 3 time constants, 75us, 318us, 3180us that correspond to 2122Hz, 500Hz, 50Hz. There's a shelf between 500 and 2.122K, but I think one constant is normally used in filter design.

You can see how phase and amplitude are joined at the hip. Peter's SG has < 10o audio band phase error from cart to output. That implies some amplitude error, but what's the amplitude/phase error of your magnetic cart? At high frequency resonance there's a phase reversal approaching 180o in magnitude. The phase nonlinearity will normally extend down to 1 to 8KHz regardless of amplitude response. Phase clues are crucial for image localization and a sense of reality.

I think Raul is a nice guy and a tenacious investigator who didn't realize the implications of his actions. No point dwelling on that. Peter Ledermann is a nice guy too. We're lucky to have the input of Peter and Jcarr. I think this thread would have died out long ago, if not for Jcarr.

Regards
Fleib,

"I think this thread would have died out long ago, if not for Jcarr".

Here! Here! Certainly that is my perspective.

As always...
Evidently Roger Modjeski never "saw" an LCR type phono circuit.

Fleib, I was not arguing your point. I know how most RIAA networks are built and why. I don't think Raul made up the issue of the non-compliance of the Sound Smith strain gauge to RIAA; I think it was measured and reported by some reviewer, and Raul took it from there. If I can fairly recount Peter's rebuttal it was mostly that the reviewer was in error, the deviation was not so extreme as reported, and that +/-0.1db RIAA accuracy (Raul's sine qua non) was unnecessarily strict (an idea with which I agree, for several reasons including the one you posit). The fact that latest iterations of the SS strain gauge are said to have "improved" RIAA conformity suggests there indeed was some issue which has now been addressed. But anything I have written here is hearsay or "read"-say. Apologies to Peter if I've got it wrong. YMMV, etc. I certainly have no informed opinion, because I have yet to hear any strain gauge, let alone the SS one. I'd love to do so.
Lew,
"Evidently Roger Modjeski never "saw" an LCR type phono circuit."

I think Roger was referring to commercial products. Up until recently there were only a couple of expensive stages using LCR and he probably didn't see the circuitry. I fail to see the point. My point is, if a phono stage is better with the inclusion of an inductor, it would be much better if you could eliminate RIAA compensation entirely. Wouldn't you agree?

Getting back to RIAA accuracy, how would you go about measuring this? Perhaps with a signal generator at the input of the phono stage? Or, you could use a test record, plot amplitude response and subtract cart error? That seems a little messy. You'd have to make sure the cart amplitude response is measured at test velocity, and ambient conditions are duplicated.

Okay, how would you measure RIAA accuracy of a phono stage without RIAA compensation? My response wasn't argumentative, it was holistic. The strain gauge is being held to a higher standard. You can only measure the entire system, cart to pre out. Any EQ in SG preamp is dedicated to the device. But you know this. You want me to point out Raul's shortcomings.
Regards,

Lewm et al,
I spent an evening listening to the Soundsmith strain gauge cartridge when Peter visited New Zealand. From memory we listened to the Voice, then the Sussuro and finally Peter put on the Strain Gauge.
My impression of the cartridges were quite positive - the moving irons were grain free and had a very easy sound. The strain gauge cartridge with the matching phono was even more grain free, almost eerily so. Peter stated that the strain gauge output approximated an inverse RIAA and that you could almost play it with a straight high gain input ( no RIAA ). However he did not not recommend this.
The only thing I found odd with the Soundsmith strain gauge was that when I asked him about stylus replacement, he demonstrated how to, and I was quite surprised that it seemed to be held in by magnetism, which left me wondering about what effect this has on the sound. Same with the blue led light - I would have thought this could affect sound quality from such a small signal.
My overall impression was a very grain free and pure sound, but from what I heard I did not get an impression that these had the speed of say a Decca, Ikeda or top flight MC..
It's a shame we don't get test reports anymore. The subjective crap we get today is no better than reading an advertisement or a manufactures' glowing description of their product. Remember the days when reviewers were often given the test samples? I think all completely subjective reviews should have a warning label:
Abandon all hope - Ye Who Enter Here

1980 Dynevector Karat Diamond, Ruby:
http://www.cieri.net/Documenti/Cataloghi/Altri%20marchi/Dynavector%20-%20Moving%20Coil%20Cartridge%20Test%20Reports%20and%20Reviews.pdf
*My overall impression was a very grain free and pure sound, but from what I heard I did not get an impression that these had the speed of say a Decca, Ikeda or top flight MC..*

Interesting comment, or impression as the case may be. I haven't heard the SS strain gauge. Years ago I briefly heard the Win SG and my impression was of a sound being somewhat different than what we're used to. Transient response (speed) seemed exemplary in an accurate sort of way rather than having a big overshoot on initial attack and drawing attention to the leading edge, but this was a brief encounter. Lab test reports would go a long way to dispelling all the myths and misconceptions.

Myth - Top flight MCs are faster. Faster than what, average MCs, MMs ? Designs w/o cantilever not withstanding, what exotic MC is as fast as a 205C ? I had a TK10ML2 and it was fast as lightning.

What good does it do for a subjective reviewer to list equipment used in an evaluation, as a basis for comparison? Do you have the same $40K phono stage or cables with built-in filters?

This thread has gone full circle, from top flight HO carts to MCs that are superior. I was unaware of this thread 6 years ago when it began. Raul showed up on VE and proclaimed MM/MI superior. We had a running debate in which I said that neither was necessarily better. Evaluations were completely subjective so it became ridiculous. The word distortion was misused a lot.

Raul performed a great service to the community by reawaking to the potential of HO carts. I doubt if he will show up on this thread once again, for obvious reasons. His contribution is noted.
Regards,
****Raul performed a great service to the community by reawaking to the potential of HO carts. I doubt if he will show up on this thread once again, for obvious reasons. His contribution is noted.****

I know some will disagree (Raul?), and I may regret this comment a bit later after my first cup of Sumatra wakes me to reality; but, from my often overly-romantic vantage point, Raul has an obligation to show up on this thread again. I do hope he is well and that there are no extenuating reasons for his absence.

Raul, donde estas?
Fleib, Frogman, others, I totally agree the contributions of Raul. Before I discovered this thread(3 years after it's start), there is nothing anybody can do or say to make me look at MM/MMI cartridge. I was totally sold on MC and The Absolute Sound Magazine helped to drive home my believes. I will say that in this country, I was among the first to listen to an ALLERTS cartridge and it became my benchmark cartridge though I could not afford it then but was always dreaming of owning it one day.
Look at what Raul has done. For the cost of a top flight MC, I have been able to acquire at least ten MM cartridges that will hold it's ground to an ALLERTS.
Hopefully Raul will show up here again but at the moment, I will not like to see him. I have stop chasing the flavors of the month and now start enjoying some of the cartridges collected and very soon I will start thinning my collections.
Raul please if you are reading this, stay away much longer.
Audpulse, It is rather the other way round. This follows from your own arguments: the enormous amount of 10 MM carts which you intend to reduce to a more managable unknown number while you are not anymore interested in the 'flavors of the month'. Your sense for logic is as surprising as your arguments. Nobody will miss your absence in this thread while many want Raul back. Even if we get henceforth the MC flafors of the month.
Fleib,
We have no argument as regards RIAA accuracy. In my initial post I merely recounted the interaction between Raul and Peter Ledermann, who took umbrage when Raul categorically dismissed his SG cartridge because it was reported by a third party (Stereophile???) to be a little too inaccurate (Raul's criteria) at one or both ends of the audio spectrum, in terms of RIAA. I have no dog in this fight. My comment about LCR phonos was really only a snide one in response to your Modjeski quote. My salient point was that we don't need an authority such as RAM to tell us that most RIAA networks employ a series of RC filters to achieve the 3 "shelves" in the RIAA curve. The rare ones that don't use RC usually do use LCR filtering. My apologies for being snide. If I were to hear the SoundSmith SG, I would judge it on its audible merits only. Further, during my Raul-inspired wanderings in the MM/MI world, I have come to believe that there is much to like in MI cartridges, and so I am more than ready to believe the Susurro and its brethren are very very good.

As to cartridges sounding "fast", I never know what that means. I think it's like the Supreme Court definition of pornography; I can't define "fast", but I know it when I hear it. Some say "lean" cartridges sound "fast". Go figure. But no one should say that MCs are fast because of low mass; MI cartridges as a class are lower in moving mass and should be "faster".
Nandric can you please go re-read my post again. There was no indication from me about reducing 10 MM carts.
I am just a simple reader of the thread and once again I did not put any importance on myself in this thread. I care less if you are missed in this thread and cannot understand your negative tone of people not missing me.
I share other reasonable peoples concern about missing Raul in this thread.
Pick your fight with somebody else.
Lew,
No apology necessary. I was trying to point out Raul's apparent lack of understanding without stating it again, and I didn't intend to label you as such.

The function of preamp inverse RIAA EQ is to playback a record with flat response, as if the curve was never applied.
Within a preamp if RIAA accuracy doesn't apply, as in a different system without reverse EQ, then the comparison is absurd. The SG must be evaluated as a system and RIAA accuracy is part of system response. It doesn't exist as a separate measurement. If you want to compare to a magnetic system, then compare response from cart to pre out - total response which includes RIAA adherence.

Have you ever heard Modjeski's direct drive electrostatics? Just wondering. I haven't. I used to have big mono OTL tube amps for electrostatics. They were designed by Dan Fanny of AHT. Each had 4 high voltage cap tubes and they put out 50KV. We had banks of storage caps wired in series to make the necessary voltage.

To me fast refers to transient response. Some might argue that a phono cart isn't designed to play square waves, nevertheless it seems to reveal quite a bit about response. That's why lab tests have square wave scope photos. Today we don't even get a frequency response/separation graph. Moving mass (cart) tends to correlate with rise time.
The SG is said to have extremely low moving mass, but I don't know about the rest of the generator. It's also claimed that conversion of mechanical energy is more efficient with less stray vibrations and jitter.
Regards,
As with most descriptions of the sonic attributes of gear, for a description to be meaningful and complete it must relate to the music. While I am sure square wave response is an important consideration when discussing the speed of a cartridge, I suspect that it goes beyond that and that there are other considerations when assessing wether a cartridge is "fast". The reason I say that (and I admit that my technical knowledge pales in comparison to other contributors here) is that I have looked at test graphs of gear that show very good square wave response and still the gear does not allow the music to sound correctly "alive" and with that elusive sense of being a coiled spring ready to pounce at any moment. To me "fast" means more than just good transient response during the initial attack of a note or percussive sound, but also the ability of the cartridge (or any gear) to sustain that energy from point-in-time A to point-in-time B (micro-dynamics) in order to give music it's proper forward impetus and sense of "groove" and excitement; while at the same time unravelling the rhythmic interplay between musicians or rhythmic nuances of a solo performance. I think some do confuse leanness with this ability because some lean cartridges seem to get the leading edge of the note right; but, they can still sound rhythmically flat and uninvolving. As Lewm says "we know it when we hear it".

Interesting that this should be the subject being discussed along with the subject of Raul and his absence. The very few times that I have had disagreement with Raul it has been over this very subject. It has been my impression that Raul has a very good sense of the subject of timbre and tonality in gear, but was a little late coming to the party as concerns ability of gear to correctly portray rhythm. After several debates on the subject he did take up the "correct rhythm" banner. One of the few times that I have disagreed with his assessment of a cartridge had to do with this very subject and the ATML170OCC; a cartridge with beautifully correct tonality but that to my ears sounds rhythmically uninvolving. Even his preferred Sumiko Celebration MC exhibits rhythmic politeness to my ears but with beautiful tonality.

I think that very generally speaking a large part of the appeal of MM's (for me, anyway) has had to do with their resistance to sound lean and ability to portray a sense of tonal density. Also very broadly speaking, the downside has been their more sedate and rhythmically polite qualities compared to MC's. Of all the MM cartridges that I have purchased directly or indirectly as a result of this thread that does not exibit at least some degree of this rhythmic politeness is the Acutex 420 STR; hence my enthusiasm for it in spite of less than perfect (but still good) tonal qualities.

Raul, donde estas?
Frogman,

"Of all the MM cartridges that I have purchased directly or indirectly as a result of this thread that does not exibit at least some degree of this rhythmic politeness is the Acutex 420 STR; hence my enthusiasm for it in spite of less than perfect (but still good) tonal qualities".

I agree. Except that mine returned from Axel with a tonal and timbrel accuracy that has to be heard to be believed. A highly recommended "refresh"!

As always...
Thanks, Dgob. That has been at the top of my audio "to do" list since you first commented on it a while back.
Square waves indicate much more than initial rise time which is indicative of speed. How about the ability to stop, another aspect of speed. Fast and clean is the description. Wouldn't a cart with "superior" transient ability also tend to have less phony sustain? The problem with purely subjective reviews is frame of reference.

"Correct rhythm" (PRaT?) could be as much a table or system aspect as that of a cart. Could it be a friendly anomaly that imparts a live sounding coloration? A lab report hinges the subjective on reality and would tend to keep a professional reviewer honest. Maybe they're not all dishonest, but they all, without exception, have a vested interest.
Regards,
Fleib, You asked whether I have ever experienced one of Modjeskie's "direct-drive" ESLs. In fact, I am the owner of a pair of Beveridge 2SW speakers with their original direct-drive amplifiers, built and signed by RM in 1979. The amplifiers are THE most finicky fussy pieces of audio gear in my entire experience, but perfecting them is very rewarding. The speakers are very very special when the amps are happy. I can compare them directly to my highly modified Sound Lab speakers driven by my modified Atma-sphere amplifiers. I know it's wretched excess, but I love them both.
Hi Lew, That explains a lot. It's amazing what the high end consumer will put up with in pursuit of perfection. These half-assed designers do their R & D on the customers dime and then get nominated for sainthood by the press. Not Modjeski specifically, companies like ARC and CJ made giant amps that blew up with regularity. You could pretty much count on it. They run the tubes too hot and apparently don't know how to regulate a circuit.

Modjeski currently sells an electrostatic system for $12K. Hopefully he's learned a thing or two since '79, but I don't know anything about it. That's why I asked.

My AHT direct drive amps were completely reliable. The only time one stopped playing was when a high voltage wire got disconnected from the panels. Fix the wire and it's playing again without a problem. Too bad for us Fanny got out of the audio biz.
Regards,
It was not my intention to indict RM for the instability of the Beveridge direct-drive amplifiers. I really don't understand the circuit well enough to critique it. But it's fair to say that some pretty smart EE types who have worked on these amps have also been stumped on occasion. As for me, I brought some of my problems on myself by substituting parts that just cannot be substituted, as it turns out. Even replacing an original capacitor with a physically larger capacitor can de-stabilize the amplifier, just based on physical size. I have learned my lessons the hard way.
Lew, I'm not a circuit designer, EE, or even a tech for that matter. My comments about ARC and CJ amps come from seeing models with serious reliability problems. This was years ago. My experience with Music Reference is with a preamp, also years ago that was nice. It didn't sound goosed up, rolled off or selling off it's colorations. IMO RAM tubes are the best matched in the business and worth the money, depending on application.

You might be interested in this thread by Roger about OTL amps. Some guy named Ralph (handle Atmasphere) joins in:
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=126867.0

Regards,
Jcarr, I've been wondering about tubular boron cantilevers and why no one is using them. I assume they were made by Namiki because Nakatsuka used them in the '80s with the microridge. I don't think he currently uses them with ZYX, although I believe one model has a diamond cantilever like a Dynavector.

Namiki won't make them any more?

Regards,
Accuphase AC-2 designed by Nakatsuka with tubular sapphire cantilever:
http://www.accuphase.com/cat/ac-2en.pdf

Regards,
Fleib: Namiki still keeps stocks of tubular sapphire cantilevers, and possesses fabrication abilities for the raw sapphire material (I believe). OTOH they do not have any more tubular boron cantilevers, and I do not believe that Namiki were ever capable of making the raw boron material or fabricating it into tubular form. Studying the patent literature on tubular boron suitable for use in phono cartridges reveals that the majority are by Matsushita (Panasonic).

If you (or anybody else) knows of a material manufacturer who can fabricate tubular boron with an outer diameter of 0.3~0.5mm, or anyone possessing reasonable quantities of the same, please let me know. FWIW, the same applies for boron rod with an outer diameter of 0.3~0.4mm. It would be welcome news for Ogura and Namiki, and by extension all manufacturers who use their products.

OTOH, a tubular cantilever will have a larger outer diameter than a rod cantilever, and using a non-tapered tubular cantilever means that either the stylus must be longer (and therefore heavier), or that the stylus will be mounted to the cantilever only through one of the cantilever walls, which will compromise the mounting rigidity of the stylus and lessen the amount of recorded information that the stylus can pass on to the cantilever.

kind regards, jonathan

PS. The AC-2 is several decades out of production. Accuphase's current offering is the AC-5, which uses a Namiki-made boron rod cantilever and MicroRidge stylus.

http://www.accuphase.com/model/ac-5.html
Hi Jcarr, Thanks for your reply. Boron tube cantilevers were used on some of the Monster carts, and some had sapphire tubes. They had microridge styli and that's why I assumed Namiki. Maybe they were sourced from Matsushita. Some Technics carts had boron tubes.

The boron tubes cantilevers are tiny and flatten out on the diamond end. They also had a diamond dust coating - not exactly sure about the function, rigidity?
Regards,
Hi Fleib: Cantilever assemblies can be built completely by the cantilever manufacturer, but it is not unusual for the cartridge manufacturer to provide raw materials and/or prefabricated components so that the cantilever manufacturer can complete the cantilever assembly properly per the cartridge manufacturer's design.

If the cantilever manufacturer has stocks of the appropriate raw materials and is able to fabricate these properly, it is usually easiest for the cartridge manufacturer to ask the cantilever manufacturer to source and make everything. But if the cantilever manufacturer doesn't have the needed materials or capabilities, where the cantilever's internal components come from and how they are made is up to the ingenuity and resourcefulness of the cartridge manufacturer. In the latter situations, neither the cartridge manufacturer nor cantilever manufacturer may be willing to reveal where what internal component originates from.

Regarding tubular boron cantilevers, have a look at Denon's DL-1000A, which at 0.077mg had probably the lightest moving assembly ever used in an MC cartridge (and that includes the Monsters).

DL-1000A

visual comparison of Denon DL-305 and DL-1000A cantilever and coil systems

The DL-1000A's cantilever (on the right) measured an outer diameter of 0.3mm with a wall thickness of 0.023mm and a length of 4mm.

DL-1000A cantilever and coil detail

In this third link you can see that the stylus end of the tubular boron cantilever has been "flattened out" by shaving off one of the cantilever walls (due to amorphous boron's notable lack of ductility, I wouldn't expect much else). As spelled out in my previous post, processing a tubular cantilever like this causes the stylus to be mounted to only one of the cantilever walls, compromising stylus mounting rigidity and reducing the amount of LP groove information that the stylus can pass on to the cantilever. This is acceptable if the goal is to reduce effective tip mass and extend measured frequency response, but it is much less desireable if proper transients and dynamics are to be obtained. FWIW, the DL-1000A never had a reputation for realistic-sounded transients and powerful dynamics, but this could have been partly down to the 0.1mV@5cm/sec. output giving most phono stages a hard time.

Regarding diamond dust coatings, we supply diamond-clad boron rods to Ogura for inclusion in our upper-model cantilever assemblies. Our goal is to suppress out-of-band (ultrasonic) resonances and increase rigidity; I assume that Nakatsuka-san's goals were similar.

kind regards, jonathan carr
Hi Jcarr, That's very interesting stuff and the DL-1000A cantilever is a remarkable example of precision manufacturing. However, it appears to be quite different from Technics' boron tube cantilevers and would seem to support the notion that there was more than just one source.

While the Denon diamond mounting method cuts off the bottom tube wall, it appears as if Technics left the entire bottom of the cantilever intact, except for possibly drilling through the bottom wall only.

This is a listing for an EPC-305MC The photo on the bottom right is a close-up of the cantilever/diamond. This can be enlarged like an EBay photo.
http://www.audiounion.jp/ct/detail/used/57667/

The cantilever on the Monster cart seems different than both of these, which makes me wonder why something like this could be manufactured 30 years ago, but is unobtainium today. I guess the prospect of making this would be seen as a risky investment in the digital age.
Regards,
Hi Fleib:

>it appears to be quite different from Technics' boron tube cantilevers and would seem to support the notion that there was more than just one source.

Could be. It also could be that the boron for Denon and the boron for Technics were both made at the same facility, and the differences that we are seeing in the cartridges is the result of different stylus mounting philosophies and techniques.

Comparing the stylus to the cantilever on the Technics suggests that the stylus is v-e-r-y long, and has an ample cross-section (at least 0.12mm by 0.12mm by the looks of it), both of which will add to tip mass. I would expect inferior high-frequency crosstalk performance from this design in comparison to Denon's DL-1000A, as the Technic's extra-long stylus will allow the LP groove to twist the generator torsionally in addition to the normal 45-45 motions.

Also, I don't see where the 305MC's stylus protrudes from the upper wall of the tubular cantilever, which means that either the stylus is only secured to the lower cantilever wall (compromising stylus mounting rigidity), or that Technics completely filled the forward part of the tubular cantilever with glue, and allowed the top surface of the stylus to contact and bond to the inner surface of the upper cantilever wall. The latter option would increase tip mass and worsen measured frequency response, but would probably sound better.

>The cantilever on the Monster cart seems different than both of these

Please locate a photo and I will try to analyze.

>makes me wonder why something like this could be manufactured 30 years ago, but is unobtainium today.

Simply put, the amorphous boron materials are no longer available. Namiki and Ogura possess sapphire fabrication and processing capabilities, as both of these companies make low-loss precision optics (sapphire glass and crystal) for the telcom industry, and supply the watch industry and meter industry with jeweled (sapphire) bearings.

Now if there were wide-scale industrial demand for small-diameter amorphous boron rod or amorphous boron pipe, it would encourage the likes of Matsushita to invest the millions of dollars required to re-start amorphous boron production. But that isn't the case, and I sincerely doubt if any cartridge manufacturer today is profitable enough to finance such a project.

Perhaps there is a university laboratory somewhere that could make precision amorphous boron on a small scale (where the bill would be hundreds of thousands of dollars rather than millions), but otherwise I don't see much chance that amorphous boron suitable for use in cartridges will be manufactured again. I hope that I am wrong.

BTW, I should mention that laser cutting or laser drilling has been largely avoided for these boron cantilevers. These cantilevers were / are preferably made of amorphous boron, because amorphous is physically more rigid than the more common crystalline form. Laser cutting or laser drilling applies enough heat to the amorphous boron to convert it into the weaker crystalline form, thereby weakening the cantilever precisely at the stylus joint where it needs to be strongest.

kind regards, jonathan carr
Hi Jcarr,

**Comparing the stylus to the cantilever on the Technics suggests that the stylus is v-e-r-y long, and has an ample cross-section (at least 0.12mm by 0.12mm by the looks of it), both of which will add to tip mass. I would expect inferior high-frequency crosstalk performance from this design in comparison to Denon's DL-1000A, as the Technic's extra-long stylus will allow the LP groove to twist the generator torsionally in addition to the normal 45-45 motions.**

If you further magnify the photo the stylus seems to be supported at the base by a conical shaped metal structure, like the top of the Washing Monument protruding from a volcano. The light reflecting off this structure is perfectly straight, suggesting a structure and not glue.

I don't know the 305MC tip mass, but the 205C Mk3 is 0.149mg. Holy vanishing mass Batman!! More likely to rotate compared to the DL-1000A ?
Poor high frequency crosstalk in comparison - it looks less likely to rotate.
Considering the tube is a much more rigid structure than a rod, the entire cantilever is less likely to twist the generator torsionally, than a more rigidly mounted tip on a flimsier rod cantilever. Separation specs are good on the 205C Mk3. Check out post #8.
http://www.hifisentralen.no/forumet/vennetra-der-hifimerker/66200-technics-matsushita-electric-trading-co-ltd.html

These photos aren't easy to locate and I have yet to find a good shot of the Monster tip. Matsushita probably dumped their boron tube technology like Shure dumped their MM operation except for a couple of machines they sent to Mexico for M97 and DJ cart production. Technics even abandoned the 1200, although demand seemed high. Maybe the motor got too expensive to make?
Regards,
Dear Fleib, Your interest, not to say obsession, with csntilevers is well known while you are lucky that 'we have' a person with endless patience and nearly as much knowledge who can answer your question. My hyphothesis however is that styli are much more important. My experience with Gyger's (aka Van den Hul) is that those sound the best regardeless the cantilevers in which they are used. Even between Gyger's one can hear differences such that Gyger I is the best, Gyger II the second best while Gyger 'S' is like ,say, Shibata. 'Aka' Van den Hul is the story behind the Gyger. He designed mentioned I,II and 'S' for Gyger and probably stipulated to use them under his own name but without marking them as Van den Hul I, II and 'S'. Even Touraj from Roksan who modify EMT 15 into his Shiraz obviously missed those facts and praised Gyger II as the best stylus there is. BTW his upgrade contribution consist in construction of the body for the EMT without any change to the rest of this cart.
Well my 'hypothesis' can also be called the 'introduction' for the discussion about the styli such that we can prevent 'your cantilevers' to become as extended as the MM thread is(grin).

This is a group test from '06. There are amplitude plots for Clearaudio Concerto and VDH Grasshopper 3.

I think you'll find it amusing.
http://www.highend.cz/old/productpages/clearaudio/testy/2006-09ConcertoGrasshopperHiFiNews.pdf

Regards,
Hello Comrade, While I'm obsessive when it comes to cantilevers, I'm obsessive compulsive with styli. Before each play I use a soft brush three times from back to front. That's three times only, no more no less. Every other side (sometimes more) I use a firmer bristle black brush with cleaning fluid. With some gain on the preamp so I can hear the results, I brush three times from back to front. If it doesn't sound clean, then I repeat the entire procedure including dry brushing.
You know what they say, a clean stylus is a happy stylus.

The Ortofon Candenza carts are interesting examples of voicing styli to cantilevers.
Red - aluminum/fine line
Blue - ruby/FG70
Bronze - tapered aluminum/replicant
Black - boron/shibata
The transition from Blue to Bronze seems especially interesting. With the replicant tip they revert back to aluminum. The boron on the Black is paired with the sweet sounding shibata.
All of these have response to at least 50KHz (-3dB) and the Black is 60KHz.
Regards,
Dear Fleib, With your way to clean the styli you actual
do the job which should be done by the styli producers:
polishing. One of the myths by the Kiseki carts is that
the (more expensive) models are polished with human hair.
No myths were involved by substitution of Gyger I for II
and then 'S'. The first mentioned were so difficult to produce
(aka polish) that Gyger asked Van den Hul to design a more
'simple'shape for the production. Because this Gyger story
was published in the German Magzine 'LP' after my purchase
of the Ruby 3 ,uh, 'S' I had the illusion for a whole year that
the 'S' was a kind of upgrade for the I and II. The 'secret' of
those 'old-fashined' EMT 15 may be the fact that the
used stylus was/is the Gyger II.
The only cart I know which is praised as having Van den
Hul I stylus is Coral MC 81. Our Mexican comrade wrote to
me to try to get one. I got one but in American clothing
as MIT I for the whole $250 on A'gon market. Some Aussie
with such distortions in his system which one could hear
all the way from Mexico was willing to exchange one of his
best MM carts for this MIT I. He got one from me to test for
free.BTW never heard anything from this Aussie since. I was
so obesessed with Gyger I stylus that I bought 3 of those MIT I (grin).
Hi Jcarr,
If my last response to your cantilever analysis seems reactionary, it's because your comparison with the 1000A seemed entirely inappropriate. Increased tip mass compared to the lightest ever? I fail to see your point.

You've been most helpful with information about cartridge construction and I thank you for that once again, but it seems not everyone is interested in cartridge construction.

On another forum we had discussions about imaging and whether "superior" imaging came from better phase linearity or from a rising high end. Any comment?

For those unfamiliar with Lyra measurements referred to previously, here's a review with some measurements:
http://www.fastaudio.com/workspace/uploads/downloads/stp_04_12_sd_atlas.pdf

Thanks again for your input.
Regards,
Comrad Nandric Esq.
The VE cart database lists the MC-81 as having a shibata stylus with a beryllium cantilever, and the MC-82 (gold body)as having the VDH stylus. Is this possible? The listing also has the MC-82 as having a boron tube cantilever, which I suspect is the real source of its greatness. [couldn't resist]

Does this story need revision? Is the MIT I the same as the Coral MC-81 or 82? Maybe the database is wrong and the VDH belongs to the 81?

Regards,
Fleib,

I also have a couple of these MIT I cartridges. It is neither a re-badged Corral 81 nor is it a Corral 82. It is both! The body/generator of the 81 with the cantilever/stylus of the 82.
And my Comrade and brother Nikola was smart to have bought 3 of those. They are amazing to hear and worth far more that its purchase price.
Comrad,Sir Fleib, There are believes which are stronger than facts. Facts are assumed to be the same as true statements. Well your cantilever ranking is based on true + scientific statements.Say: 1. beryllium, 2 (tubed) boron, 3 ordinary boron, 4 aluminum alloy and 5 fake sapphire. I am like those who say to prefer blonde but are married with a brunette. Among my best (of course) LOMC's there are Magic Diamond, Miyabi Standard , Shiraz (aka EMT 15) and Ortofon MC 2000 all with aluminum alloy cantilevers. Despite of this, say, hearing impression I do believe that tubed boron cantilevers are the best. Whenever I see whatever cart with a tubed boron cantilever on ebay I can't resist buying them. Is (are)then my MIT I carts with tubed boron cantilever(s) and Van den Hul (aka Gyger I) styli the best I own? No. The best are my Kiseki Goldspot and the Sony XL 88 D (btw you forget to rank diamond cantilevers). Confusing? I don't think so because I like to own as many carts as I can afford while the consquence of such obsession is the need to accept different cantilevers and even different styli (grin).
Hi Jcarr,
I located a photo of the Monster tip right here on Agon:
http://app.audiogon.com/listings/cartridges-monster-cable-alpha-genesis-1000-2014-06-21-analog-italy

In anticipation of your response, this is what you said about drilling through boron tube:
**I should mention that laser cutting or laser drilling has been largely avoided for these boron cantilevers. These cantilevers were / are preferably made of amorphous boron, because amorphous is physically more rigid than the more common crystalline form. Laser cutting or laser drilling applies enough heat to the amorphous boron to convert it into the weaker crystalline form, thereby weakening the cantilever precisely at the stylus joint where it needs to be strongest.**

On a different subject, the guys here don't comment on the test reports and now that Atlas amplitude response is posted, any comment? It seems to me this "flavor" is completely by design. Kleos looks virtually identical.

High frequency resonance at 20KHz ?
Response rise starts at 7KHz and is +6dB @ 20KHz
Seriously?

I never heard Atlas, but I bet that image jumps right out at you. Congratulations, you've invented 3D phono and everybody seems to love it. Most of the older people who can afford it probably can't hear above 7KHz anyway, so it's sort of a hearing aid cart. Brilliant design and one that won't go out of favor if or when the vinyl resurgence declines.
Regards,
At the end of this MC survey there are 5 amplitude plots.
http://www.fastaudio.com/workspace/uploads/downloads/stp_08_10_sd_tonabnehmer.pdf

Is the classic rising high end part of the appeal?

Regards,
07-13-14: Fleib
At the end of this MC survey there are 5 amplitude plots.
www.fastaudio
Is the classic rising high end part of the appeal?

This may well be the essence of the thread - does one prefer the "rising high end" of a moving coil, or does one prefer the rolled off high frequency and phase problems of the moving magnet.
As I understand it moving magnets have an electrical resonance within the audio band which results in a rapid rolloff of high frequencies and also phase non linearities within the audio band. Moving coils have an electrical resonance above the audio band. The rising high frequencies in a MC can be damped, but this will be at the cost of phase non linearities - so you take your choice, nothings perfect.

Some folk may be more sensitive to phase non linearities and others rising or falling frequency response, so their choice of cartridge probably reflects that.
This may well be determined by either or both of ones listening preferences and system, or even long term listening biases.

With regard to your generalisation of rising top end MC's I note that in your post dated :
07-05-14: Fleib
This is a group test from '06. There are amplitude plots for Clearaudio Concerto and VDH Grasshopper 3.

You have omitted the graph for the following -
Koetsu Black,which apart from a 1db dip at 10k has no rising high end
Allaerts MC1B MkII which has a high frequency falloff

My Dynavector Nova 13D is up 1 db at 20k and my Koetsu Black is flat at 20k. To all intents and purposes the top end is no more prominent than either of my Shure V15vmr & vxmr or Glanz MFG61.