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,
Have you used your other Ruby on the 505?
Compliance should be the same as original, unless Soundsmith also worked on the suspension. Max VTF is 2.0g?
Unless specifically told otherwise, I'd increase VTF. Too little can cause loss of bass and momentary mistracking.

I had a DL304 with a broken cantilever. It went to Soundsmith for a level 2 (same) and came back an entirely different cart. It had detail and high frequency resolution it never had before, but it was also extremely sensitive to VTA/SRA. That cart comes with an aluminum cantilever and a special elliptical tip, so it was a more radical change.

Speaking of VTA, have you tried different arm heights? The angle of the stylus with respect to the cantilever might have changed. I'd try it at 2g or close to it and adjust arm height like it's a new cart. Good luck.
Regards,
Hi Tim, I do plan to call SS one of these days, after I gather a bit more information.

Audpulse, I certainly will do as you suggest, mount the Grace LC in some other of my too many tonearms. But I had wondered whether someone here could point to the DV505 as being a mismatch for the SS LC stylus, for some obscure reason. Apparently not.

Fleib, I had a lot of prior experience with my OEM Grace Ruby in this very exact same set-up; it sounds divine. I need to go back to it for reference, though, because it is possible that the Acutex sounds even better. This is my Beveridge system. The Bev speakers will reveal differences equivalent to the difference in comfort level achieved by inserting a pea under a dozen mattresses, and I'm no princess.

Nandric, Do you know of anyone who can re-tip with ruby/sapphire cantilever and elliptical stylus or something closer to elliptical geometry?
Dear Lew, I re-tipped just one of my MM carts but many of
my MC carts. The one was Goldring 800 one of the carts of
the month. When I inspected Axel's work I was surprised to
see how this is done. The new cantilever/stylus combo was
put and gluead in the remainder of the old (original) cantilever.
Think of the (ususal) one piece cantilever in
an MM stylus holder. I think that the end of the cantilever
is soldered at the end of its holder. In contradistinction
to the MM kind by the MC's there is this 'joint pipe' as Jcarr
called the thing. On this ,uh, 'pipe' the cantilever, the coils
(bobbin), the suspension and the tension wire are fastened,
By the usual retip the old cantilever is removed
(with some solvent) and the new cantilever/stylus combo put
and glued in this 'pipe'. This retip method is obviously
more easy to do then the 'real retip' by which the new
stylus is gluead in the old cantilever. That is why
the 'real' retip is more expensive. However not all MM
carts are as I just described. My ADC TRX for example has
also a kind of 'pipe' behind the cantilever. My guess then
is that MM carts with exotic cantilevers can't be soldered
at their end like aluminum kind. So some kind of 'pipe'
behind those cantilevers may be neccesary. I hope this is
the case with your Ruby. I was so disappointed with my
Goldring re-tip as well with Raul's 'refreshment' of MM
carts that I decided never to do this again with my MM carts.
Regarding your question. I have seen fantastic work done by
Torlai (Italy; www.torlai.it) and Dominic from Northwest
in the UK that I can recommend both. Axel accepted so much
work so he has no time to read and answer emails so
misunderstanding and errors are unavoidable. I am truly
sorry to say this but the truth should be served.

Kind regards for my English teacher,
Dear Nandric, This particular Grace Ruby I bought from someone on eBay for a low price. The price was low, because it was completely lacking ANY cantilever, and of course therefore it lacked any stylus. By inspection, it appeared as if someone had taken a tweezers and simply yanked the cantilever out of the red carrier that inserts into the main body of the cartridge. However, the cartridge body itself was in brand new condition, as was the red removable assembly. It seemed as if this vandalism was performed neatly and before the cartridge had ever been used. I can only wonder whether the virtues of the Grace elliptical cartridges (the Ruby, the F9E) hinge upon the use of an elliptical stylus. So far, I cannot recommend an LC stylus for this guy.

Fleib, can you think of a reason for my finding, i.e., do the electrical characteristics of a particular MM determine in any way its particular suitability for stylus shape? We do know that the cartridges made for quadraphonic tend to use Shibata or closely related stylus shapes. Perhaps it was a bad idea in the first place to put an LC stylus onto an "elliptical" cartridge.
Dear Lew, I own the Grace F9e. Like by Technics U 205 mk3 the cantilever is fastened or centered with an tension wire in its cantilever holder. This kind of cantilever and suspension is irreparable. My Technics stylus was ok but the suspension was defective. Axel nor Andy were able to fix the problem. But if your suspension is ok and there is this pipe behind your cantilever one new cantllever/stylus combo should be possible to fit in. My sample has aluminum cantilever and I see no 'pipe' behind the cantilever. So my sample can't be repaired because there is no way to put a new cantilever in place of the old one. To do this one would need the right cantilever with provision for
the tension wire, tension wire and fastening screw or glue for the fastening of the tension wire at the end of the cantilever holder.
Lew, a few years ago I had my F9-E Ruby "re-tipped" by Peter. I chose his $250 ruby-cantilevered "contact line" option. That was prior to his introduction of additional options specifically for the F9, which btw (in response to one of your questions) include elliptical profile/aluminum cantilevered choices, at low cost.

Right from the get-go it was apparent that Peter's $250 ruby CL retip resulted in better sound than I had ever heard in my system previously. The most notable improvement being better harmonic balance in the treble region, particularly evident on well recorded classical piano music.

I've been using the cartridge in a vintage Magnepan Unitrac arm, with VTF set at 2.0 grams.

Also, I recall member Mofimadness providing glowingly positive comments about the same $250 F9 retip option. His comments were one of the two reasons I made that choice, rather than opting for the $350 "optimized contour" CL version. The other reason is that I had some concern (pretty much just based on intuition) that the "optimized contour," described as "closely resembling the actual cutting stylus," would cause VTA/SRA to become more critical than I would prefer. I am pretty much a set it and forget it type when it comes to VTA/SRA.

Hope that helps. Best regards,
-- Al
I have SS's $500 turn-key F9 assembly that includes extruded alum holder, new-production suspension, ruby cantilever, and OCL stylus. It's been awhile since I've had it mounted, but I recall that it sounded great with no anomalies. Maybe this a good time to revisit it. SS recommended 1.5gm VTF.
Lew,
I guess you have your answer regarding tip suitability. A line contact will tend to be more sensitive to SRA, depending on the minor radius or the width of the side contacting the groove. Micro styli are usually even more sensitive. They often have a smaller side profile and even greater vertical contact.

If you're so inclined I think you ought to try 2.0g. Normally with a new cantilever/tip max VTF is recommended, at least at first. If you still can't get it to sound right get in touch with Peter. He's a great guy and stands behind his work. If he makes and sells a whole new stylus assembly, I think he'll be able to figure it out.
Regards,
FWIW, I did play with VTA/SRA, to no obvious avail. There were slight differences but no real "cure" to the problem.

The sound quality is a bit reminiscent of what happens with low VTF. So it might be worthwhile to try raising up to 2.0g.
I will throw caution in the air if you try raising the VTF to 2.0g. Be very careful because if the LC tip was put wrongly you could cause damage to the cartridge.
Will not raise VTF until I've spoken to Peter.
Would in any case raise VTF by 0.1g increments from the present 1.6g.
Hi Jcarr,
My response to this following statement about the 305MC seems controversial and I wanted to comment further:

"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."

I think, if the cantilever is very rigid and the tip is overly long and the tip mount rigidity is suspect, then it would be the tip that would tend to rotate and not the cantilever. Use of the phrase "twist the generator torsionally" implies the cantilever.

I'm not saying this is a good thing and perhaps it's not what you meant, but that's how I read it.
Regards,
Lewm, I would send it back to Soundsmith to make sure all is well with the cartridge. If it is OK, then tweak away at getting it to sound right. If you still don't like it, sell or stomp on it.
Hi Fleib: Cartridge suspensions should only allow vertical, horizontal and 45-degree flexing modes, but in reality nearly all cartridge suspensions also allow twisting, and if a given suspension doesn't contain a tension wire, fore-aft motion as well.

If you measure crosstalk on an oscilloscope using a test LP, you will see that it causes the test signal waveform to break apart and spreads the sections over both channels rather than one. Breaking a waveform apart is never a good idea for sonics, since doing so generates high-order distortion products which are unpleasant to the ear. For this reason I consider cartridge crosstalk to be a type of distortion, rather than merely a channel separation problem.

No matter how rigid the cantilever and secure the the stylus tip mount, the flexible nature of the cantilever suspension allows the cantilever and stylus to rotate as a unit, leading to worsened crosstalk. As opposed to normal crosstalk which is due to misalignment of generator and stylus, crosstalk such as this is dynamic in nature, and increases and decreases as the LP groove modulations rise and fall.

Therefore, although a cartridge with a lurking dynamic crosstalk issue will probably measure OK and sound OK on simple music, on big orchestra peaks, congestion and imaging problems may occur.

The farther the stylus protrudes from the centerline of the cantilever, the more effective it is as a crank, making it easier for the LP groove to twist the cantilever and generator around (with the suspension acting as the pivot). A very short stylus reduces the level-dependent twisting effects by being less effective as a crank. At the other end of the cantilever, a large surface-area boss (typical of many MCs and the Audio-Technica MMs), combined with a large diameter damping system will act in a similar manner as a disc brake, reducing cantilever and generator twisting.

Although not much can be done with rigid cantilevers (sapphire, boron, diamond etc.) to reduce the twisting effects other than shortening the distance that the stylus protrudes from the cantilever centerline, it is possible to design an alloy tube cantilever to circumvent this effect - if the cantilever is made with a kink in it (corresponding to the VTA angle) which starts to bend a little farther back than is normal for alloy tube cantilevers, the patch where the stylus contacts the LP groove can be placed directly on the cantilever longitudinal axis. This avoids the dynamic crosstalk issue by removing the crank effect of the stylus.

In more ways than one, it is easier to make a high-quality phono cartridge when the cantilever is made from a ductile material rather than the rigid, brittle materials that are commonly viewed as "better". Rigid cantilever materials have no "give", meaning that the slot, hole or surface for the stylus mounting must be made larger than the stylus, and this necessary oversizing forces the mounting tolerances to be poorer. A ductile cantilever material can be fitted with an undersized mounting hole so that the stylus is press-fit into place, and this will help keep the position (front-to-back, side-to-side) and angle (azimuth, SRA) of the stylus closer to the intent of the cartridge designer. And since the ductile cantilever can be bent without damage during forming, it is possible to cancel out some of the geometrical effects that would otherwise occur (per the above paragraph).

Returning to rigid cantilevers, please look at this.

www.accuphase.com/cat/ac-3en.pdf

If you compare the photo of Technics cantilever to the cantilever cross-section drawing in the Accuphase AC-3 pdf, the Accuphase drawing suggests that the contact point between stylus and LP groove was kept closer to the center axis of the cantilever, and it also shows that the stylus block passes through both upper and lower cantilever walls, which should help keep consistent stylus mounting accuracy.

This doesn't mean that a long stylus only has downsides to - it confers advantages as well. A longer stylus makes it feasible to reduce the cantilever length (for a given cantilever rake angle), so if the designer's top priority is to reduce cantilever length, a longer stylus (and/or higher cantilever rake angle) will be effective.

Most notably, a longer stylus will be far more resistant to jamming due to dirt accumulation than a shorter stylus would be, and this is important for a volume-sales product that may see a fair amount of casual use. Back when Lyra was making cartridges with 0.06x0.06mm stylii (smaller than what is on the Technics, and up there with the Denon DL-1000A), we'd get back cartridges where the user claimed that the stylus was broken off. In many cases, the stylus was intact and perfectly fine - it was simply that the tiny stylus size made it prone to vanish in accumulated dirt, and once that happened, the cartridge wouldn't play - the cantilever would just slide across the LP as though the stylus was missing.

Here is also a link for the AC-1 pdf. You can see how it used an alloy tubular cantilever which was bent into shape (although for crosstalk purposes it would have been better if the bend started a little further back).

www.accuphase.com/cat/ac-1en.pdf

FWIW, tubular cantilevers are not more rigid than rod cantilevers of the same material, unless the outer diameter of the tubular cantilever is larger than the OD of the rod cantilever. But a larger OD will cause the stylus to protrude by a greater distance from the cantilever centerline, which we have seen is a disadvantage when it comes to crosstalk.

Finally, allow me to point out that most design choices in a phono cartridge bring side-effects. Very few design choices only confer advantages with no negatives. As one example, it is no accident that the great majority of phono cartridges ever made have converged on a cantilever length of around 6mm. Any designer can specify a shorter cantilever, but doing so brings direct and indirect performance penalties which need to be carefully considered, and doing so also inevitably forces design work-arounds in various areas which may upset the balance of the design as a whole.

On a different topic, here is an online simulation tool for RLC circuits.

http://sim.okawa-denshi.jp/en/RLCtool.php

It allows for the user to enter their own values for resistance, capacitance and inductance (thereby making it feasible to do a simple electrical modeling of an MM, MI or MC phono cartridge), and it can show the phase response, step response, overshoot and other parameters in addition to the frequency response. This is a nice tool to complement Jim Hagerman's cartridge loading page, to get a better idea of phono cartridge behavior in the electrical domain.

Hope this was of interest.

kind regards, jonathan
Jcarr
Thank you for the informative post. I am interested in your view on cantilever flex on eccentric records. My experience with a tangential air bearing tone, the Eminent Technology ET2, is that even with the horizontal mass reduced significantly by using a totally decoupled counterweight ( in the horizontal plane ) I can observe the cantilever flexing back and forth as the arm moves in and out. I have observed the same phenomena with conventional pivoted arms including my Naim Aro, Dynavector 501 and FR64. An argument has been put forward that because the frequency of oscillation navigating the eccentric record is so low, that the cantilever and arm move as one and the cantilever does not flex. Kuzma uses this for his rationale on employing a very high mass arm. Bruce Thigpen has stated this would defy physics. My own physical observations with low compliance MC's ( Koetsu Black, Denon 103 Garrott among others suggests lateral flex occurs when playing eccentric records. What is your view or experience on this.
Hi Jcarr,
Yes indeed most interesting.

"Cartridge suspensions should only allow vertical, horizontal and 45-degree flexing modes, but in reality nearly all cartridge suspensions also allow twisting, and if a given suspension doesn't contain a tension wire, fore-aft motion as well."

Microscope photos of grooves show walls that vary from 45°. (BTW for ° sign hit Alt + 248) I've only seen a few such photos, but most seem consistently steeper. It seems to me the motion would be within an arc of 90°.
To confuse things further there is also simultaneous vertical angling of the groove. I haven't quite gotten my head around the possibilities, but motion doesn't seem limited to vertical, horizontal and 45° flex modes.

My point about the MC305 was if the stylus mount isn't rigid. I guess it doesn't matter much, performance will still be compromised. I don't have experience with this cart or have lab test to verify if this is actually the case.

Interesting links of the Accuphase carts. The Monster cantilever/tips look like the AC3, but without the beryllium in the middle. About 6 months or so after the 1000 came out there was some kind of change in the cantilever and response was extended past 100K. I think diamond dust coating was added at that time and a change in tip mounting. This was back in '88 and I can't remember the details. Original response was to 75K. Thanks for the calculator it looks interesting. I'll have to check it out.

Hagerman's calculator for HO carts is of limited value for loading purposes. The mechanical performance overwhelms the electrical and shunt capacitance combined with inductance serves to lower high frequency resonance. Someone (not Hagerman) assumed there is a phase shift at electrical resonance, but this appears to not be the case. Phase shift occurs at high frequency resonance. Just thought I'd mention it as there seems to be a lot of confusion about this.
Regards,
Dear Fleib, If you and Jcarr continue with revealing the complexity and faults of carts I will buy a CD player (grin).
Hi Fleib:

>The mechanical performance overwhelms the electrical and shunt capacitance combined with inductance serves to lower high frequency resonance.

Overwhelm is not the appropriate word. I have some experience designing MM cartridges (for other brands), and in a nutshell, what you do is counterpoise the electrical parameters against the mechanical performance. The client commissioning the design is not always open to a wide range of output voltages (or cantilever materials), so the designer may need to operate within a fairly limited range of inductances and moving masses, but the general idea is to manipulate the electrical parameters to counteract what goes on in the mechanical domain, and vice versa.

>Someone (not Hagerman) assumed there is a phase shift at electrical resonance, but this appears to not be the case.

Not sure why you think that electrical resonance won't cause a phase shift - normally it does. I see electrical phase shifts all the time in my work with amplifiers, and I see the same at ultrasonic frequencies with MC cartridge loading. Nevertheless, just to double-check the situation with MMs, I entered Werner Ogier's first schematic from the following page into my circuit simulator (which I use on a daily basis).

http://www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/load_the_magnets_e.html

I see a frequency peak at 8.05kHz, and at the same frequency the phase has shifted by about 50 degrees (compared to 20Hz). Incidentally, the phase shift starts occurring at a much lower frequency than the electrical resonance peak occurs at, which is again what I would expect (and have observed many times). At 4kHz the electrical phase has shifted by 21 degrees, at 2kHz the electrical phase has shifted by 10 degrees, and at 1kHz the electrical phase has shifted by 5 degrees.

>Just thought I'd mention it as there seems to be a lot of confusion about this.

I accept your word that there is confusion about this, but I honestly don't understand why this should be the case, as any well-practiced EE knows that both resonances and filter poles will normally have accompanying phase shifts.

The Oikawa RLC calculator limits the number of components that can be used to 3, and unfortunately 3 components won't allow you to resistively load the phono cartridge that you are simulating. A full-fledged circuit simulator is far more powerful and flexible, but the Oikawa simulator is considerably better than nothing (smile).

kind regards, jonathan
Jcarr,
My comments are based on an article that appeared in Audio magazine 3/83. It's called Phase Testing in Phono Cartridges, by Kevin Byrne of Ortofon. In the article there are actual plots of amplitude and phase. These are measurements not calculations.

Phase vs amplitude is shown for the MC200 with varying amount of damping. There are also plots for 5 unnamed MMs.
The MC200 has a boron cantilever and primary HF resonance is 27KHz. At that frequency there is a phase shift approaching 180°. We don't know what the MMs are, but all had phase shift close to 20KHz.
The MC200 phase discrepancy extended down to 7 - 8K, The worst case MM phase was down to 1 - 2K.

This is the only measurement of phase vs amplitude I've seen. I have a copy on a PDF. I can't post it here, but I can send it as an attachment on an email. It would be interesting to read your comments.
Regards,
My experience with test LPs is that they often don't agree; sometimes the differences are minor, sometimes they are bigger. Use two different test records (of good quality) and you'll get two different frequency response curves. Likewise for crosstalk, distortion, IMD etc.

This could be because cutting lathe amplifiers almost never contain resistors that are accurate to 0.1%, or capacitors that are accurate to 0.5% (according to the LP cutting engineers that I have spoken with), this could be because the RIAA lookup tables (that an EE would use to help design phono stages or cutting-lathe electronics) in various engineering articles didn't always agree with each other. Whatever the reasons, differences between the RIAA EQ curve (as defined by equations rather than look-up tables) and what individual cutting lathes are wont to produce should be expected.

For example, two days ago I received a set of test measurements from a highly-regarded tonearm manufacturer. These were of the Etna, tested in his latest tonearm. Comparing his measurements to Stereoplay's Etna measurements, and you would think that a different cartridge was involved. This doesn't necessarily prove that either test is better, or less valid. But it is proof that test measurements do not always give the same (or even similar) results, and this is neither unique nor a surprise.

OTOH, the differences between cartridges tested at the same facility should be comparable (unless X cartridge was tested in January and Y cartridge was tested in August). For example, going back to the HiFi News group test, the lift in the presence band shown by the 17D3 does not appear with any of the other 6 cartridges tested, so that particular observation may be applicable to situations outside of the HFNRR test.

Then again, the important question is - how much of these measured differences are apparent to the ear? Based on my own experiences (including blind testing with various listening panels), I don't think that there is a single answer. What I can say is that cartridge body construction (materials, shapes, voids, densities etc.) and magnetics have a big impact on the subjectively perceived frequency response. A measured frequency response that sounds neutral with one body construction may not provide the same subjective response with a different body construction.

Conversely, the same measured frequency response (or very similar) may not sound the same at all if the body construction or magnetics are different.

Case in point - the Delos and Kleos have very similar frequency response measurements, but they sound strikingly different, and that includes the treble range. The Kleos has a very pure and quiet-sounding top end that is kind to worn records, while the Delos sounds more exuberant at the top, and is more likely to reveal that a given LP has seen better days.

So why the sonic differences from such similar FR measurements? First, the magnetics are different on the two - a permalloy armature on the Delos as opposed to a chemically purified iron armature on the Kleos. Second, the Kleos is machined from a harder alloy than the Delos, and adds internal resonance traps that have been strategically placed to prevent the spent mechanical energy (originating from the stylus and cantilever) from being reflected back into the coil region, and funnel that energy into the headshell and tonearm.

As another example of how materials and construction can affect the subjectively perceived sound, normal LPs are mastered on an lacquered disc, while DMM LPs are mastered on a copper disc. This change results in a very different sound for DMM (as compared to traditional lacquer-based LP masters), to such an extent that the choices taken during the mastering processed need to be changed (or at least should be changed) in order to produce acceptable sound quality.

Measurements are very useful, but due to differences in test LPs, LP groove diameter (of the test track), operating temperature, tonearm setup and whatnot, it can be misleading to read too much into the importance or validity of one particular test. My recommendation would be to perform multiple tests in multiple setups, and hope that the average of those multiple tests will provide some objective understanding.

And, there is much more to the sound of a cartridge than what test LPs are designed to measure.

kind regards, jonathan
"This could be because cutting lathe amplifiers almost never contain resistors that are accurate to 0.1%, or capacitors that are accurate to 0.5% (according to the LP cutting engineers that I have spoken with), this could be because the RIAA lookup tables (that an EE would use to help design phono stages or cutting-lathe electronics) in various engineering articles didn't always agree with each other. Whatever the reasons, differences between the RIAA EQ curve (as defined by equations rather than look-up tables) and what individual cutting lathes are wont to produce should be expected."

Wish I could have cited that paragraph to Raul in connection with my several arguments with him about the necessity for absolute RIAA accuracy in a phono stages. For a given LP, a slightly inaccurate phono RIAA filter might serendipitously result in a "flatter" frequency response during playback than would a "perfect" phono RIAA filter. This was in the context of his insisting that only SS phono stages are worth thinking about, because of the probability that they would be more RIAA-accurate than tube types. This is not to say that I support sloppy RIAA design; I only maintain that the long term accuracy of a very well designed tube phono stage is sufficient.
There's an old thread on VE - Cartridge Loading Explained.
For anyone interested in this subject:
http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=6674&sid=a26d56af50fa28225f39fa0073dbb465&start=60

In response to a comment about electrical models (Hagerman and a Spice electrical model), Werner (same one as on TNT) said:
"And both are near-useless as they don't take the (inevitable) cartridge's
mechanical resonance and treble losses into account. With MMs this is all
happening around 10-20kHz, and electrical resonance (through loading) is used to compensate for this."

"Mechanical resonances and mechanical treble losses (how fast can you wiggle a given mass?) don't show up in electrical models of cartridges. Both phenomena happen between 10 and 20kHz with MM cartridges.

Sadly cartridge manufacturers don't publish the electrical equivalents
of their products mechanical properties."

People who used electrical models for loading inevitably had to abandon those results. The part that's tricky is capacitance. As a general rule I keep capacitance to a minimum and use resistance loading as much as possible. In the case of the Ortofon M20FL Super, 53K and around 250pF was preferable to 47K, 400pF. Capacitance lowers high frequency resonance and normally augments treble just as it did in the TNT M97 article, only not as extreme. BTW, the M97 goes through a remarkable improvement with a Jico SAS stylus.
Regards,
Nandric,
"If you and Jcarr continue with revealing the complexity and faults of carts I will buy a CD player (grin)."

Is that another one? Maybe you should get one of those Denon all-in-one DVD players that Raul likes so much.
I take it you sold your AT170 ? Do you have a favorite cart? What is your favorite(s) and why do you like it more than the others?
Feel free to wax poetic. I'm genuinely curious.
Regards,
Dear Fleib, Because of Jcarr I was polite. I should address you only and rephrase my 'menace': If you continue with revealing the shortcomings of (all) carts I will buy a (SA) CD player. Now regarding Raul and my favorite carts I like the distortions of my TRX II, AT 150 ANV and Glanz/Astatic 61 of the lesser kind and Kiseki Goldspot, Miyabi, Magic Diamond, LP S, Shiraz , EMT LZi (thanks Thuchan) , Blue Oasis and Shinon Red boron from the better sounding kind. This also imply that I disagree with Dovers 'theory' that MC carts are prefered by persons who like 'exaggerated' (+ 3 dB at 20 Khz ?) high frequency. I am totally deaf for anything above 11 Khz.
Addendum. Fleib ,I forget the DVD player. Not for me.
I think that music is meant for our ears while violence,
love stories and other adventures for our eye. Besides I
always listen to the music with my eye closed. This way I
can imagine to be the singer in front of me. Even with Maria
Callas. This way I discovered the female part of my personality.
I also discovered that one need a special kind of art to enjoy
a life performance. I have seen Pavarotti and Montserrat
Caballe with my own eye. The mentioned 'art' is the art to
pretend to like what you see.
08-20-14: Nandric
This also imply that I disagree with Dovers 'theory' that MC carts are prefered by persons who like 'exaggerated' (+ 3 dB at 20 Khz ?)
I have never said that and do not subscribe to that theory.
I think we like record players because of the differences and the possibilities those differences afford. Not all differences are assets or shortcomings, sometimes they're just different. Different flavors, as Jcarr said.

Understanding something about how cartridges work can enhance enjoyment. Knowing how to load certainly helps, and seeing a frequency response graph can give us a better idea of response, than a purely subjective review without it.

I thought you'd talk about what you like about some of your carts, instead of making another list. We all have our preferences and our personal rankings may or may not coincide with someone else's preferences. Years ago I thought MCs were better than MMs, now I don't think either one is superior. They're different. I tend to like accurate carts, but nothing's perfect and there are other aspects of performance. To each his own.
Regards,

Years ago I thought MCs were better than MMs, now I don't think either one is superior. They're different.
This....👍😘
Dear Dover, See Dover 07-13-13: ''the essence = does one prefer the 'rising high end' of the MC carts or...''

Halcro, I amdire your creative mind but your punctuation innovations are not yet explained to me by Lew. However I deed recognise the hammer symbol which you introduced instead of your question marks . I assume that the intention of this hammer is to give more force to your MM arguments?
Nandric, I think Halcro is indicating his agreement with Fleib, as regards the idea that both MMs and MCs can have merit, and cartridges should be evaluated on an individual basis, not based on their mechanism of action. I agree with Fleib, too
08-21-14: Nandric
Dear Dover, See Dover 07-13-13: ''the essence = does one prefer the 'rising high end' of the MC carts or...''
Nandric, that was a proposition, not a personal view, for the purpose of discussion. If you read the post in full I pointed out that not all MC's have rising top end. Indeed my Koetsu Black ( current model ) has no rising top end and my Dynavector Nova 13D is only 1 db up at 20kh. I suspect that the ensuing step up device or phono stage probably generates more variation in ones perception of top end than the actual cartridge, hence the wide variation in opinions on said same cartridge in many instances. Same with tonearm and its set up, the impact on the cartridges "sound" or sonic signature is significant in my view.
Nandric, The symbols I see, on Halcro's post, on my home computer are a Thumbs up, and a smiley face smooching. On my older beat up work computer I just see blocks of goobledygook. Your computer must see it as a Hammer???? It might be time for both of us to update.
I see 2 rectangular objects like windows... well my computer is 4 years old. Actually I have never really trusted computers, that´s why I prefer analog :)
Acman3, There is this old (confused) conecption about the
difference between 'quality and quantity'. Well if one is
an obssesed collector of carts the savings must come from
somewhere. Besides I think that the 'good old punctuation'
is already very complex. BTW my laptop is 'as new'. Only 4
years young.
Dover, I am usualy joking but if you want me to read your
post 'all the way' you should write shorter stories. And I
am sorry. I should write that I disagree with the proposition
but agree with Dover. I think that nobody has problem with
the subjective preferences for either; MM or MC. But this
seems not to be satisfying so the strategy is to assume
better technical capabilties for either kind.
Some among us even evented new punctuation signs to make
their 'point(s)'. I just learned from Acman3 that those are
to find on the new laptops.
I would also keep the old laptop and buy more cartridges or tonearms! I think you have your priorities correct. Who cares if you can't see the symbols, when your listening to great music,
Dear Acman3, There is this old prejudice about 'absent-minded' teachers. My English teacher explained those new punctuation signs but, alas, in the wrong thread.
By accidence I discovered his expalanation in the 'Vintage DD turntables'. The new punctuation signs are called 'emoticons'.
So, I would think, one reason more to save my money for a new cart instead to buy a new laptop. Thanks for your support. I also hope you like the MC's more than the other
kind?
Enough theory already. I want more cartridge recommendations. This thread used to be cartridge of the month/week. I know there are others out there awaiting my ears. MM/MI/MC bring it on!!! Donde es el Mexican?
I have had a lot of very expensive phono cartridges. Including but not limited to, goldfinger, atlas, xs-1, PC-1, 9000 and now an Anna. My favorite the atlas but the Anna very very strong competition. Betters the atlas in a few ways. So it was much to my surprise when I came across this thread and bothered to read some of it. Long story short I bought a grace ruby used and the bought a soundsmith stylus ruby-OCL(red) for $500. After proper set up and dialing in on my pass labs Xp-25 phono stage, wow! What a shock. All this for about $750, no way. I have compared repeatedly to the Anna. Anna a little smoother and some of the bottom tighter. I have been in this hobby for a long time and I have made some very good purchases but none better then the grace ruby. Now I am looking out for some other potentially great mm's. Live and learn. But don't get rid of your atlas's or your Anna's. Still in my view the best you can do. Just not for the money.
Pkoegz, In a similar context I addressed our (rich) member
Thuchan with the story about his compatriot Marlene Dietrich. She was wondering why the American women are so badly clothed. 'At present' (the 60is) she stated ' one can get decent clothing for only $ 100000'.
Nandric,
"The whole country is covered with manufacturing towns... a region of fire; reeking with coal-pits, and furnaces, and smelting-houses, vomiting forth flames and smoke." The squire is apt to wax eloquent on such themes.
"He had the genius of taste except at certain moments when the Massenet slumbering in the heart of every Frenchman awoke and waxed lyrical."

Time for you to wane lyrical and (just)stop!
Pkoegz, I am a supporter of G. Marx: "if you don't like
my principle I have other''. What about this chef by Maxime:
'nothing can compare with a good cooked potatoes'.
I would prefer prime rib with green peas. But in some other
domain some may prefer the simple Grace above Anna.
Pkoegz, Perhaps you have seen my posts several days back where I noted my (current) puzzlement as to how to judge my Grace Ruby cum SS OCL stylus. It had a promising first few hours in my system and then became and remains rather shrill and irritating, compared to my other completely OEM Grace Ruby and compared to another very good MM (or IM), the Acutex LPM320. So, I have questions for you: What tonearm are you using? What VTF? Did you have the opportunity to listen to your Ruby prior to the re-tip, with its standard elliptical stylus, and if so, how did it compare? I guess also it's relevant to ask how you are loading the re-tipped Grace; I am using 100K with no added capacitance, which works great with my OEM Grace. Thanks.
Does anyone own the JVC X-1? This cart is one of the best
MM carts I have ever heard. Alas I broke the cantilever by
my attempt to straithen the thing. I thought that the
cantilever is made from aluminum but it is a kind of metal
rod. Are there any replacement styli available?
Dear Nandric,

In addition to philosophy we now share the misery of having broken a TOTL Victor cantilever. In my case, the X-1/ii (I thought it was clearly the best MM I had heard in my system). I believe both use beryllium rods. AFAIK, no vendor sells NOS replacements. pickupnaalden sold their last x-1/ii needle a day or so before I broke mine :(. Your best bet, in addition to the one Pbnaudio linked to, is to visit yahoo japan. I believe I saw an x-1 a month ago. Good luck.
Dear Bangue, This is my third MM cart with the so called
'tension wire' behind the cantilever. Grace 9 and Technics
U 205 mk 3 the other two. Jcarr mentioned tension wire in
one of his previous post. I think that this tension wire
may 'explain' their superiority. By JVC there is a kind of
'joint pipe' behind the cantilever but very difficult to
reach. Otherwise a re-tip would be no problem at all. My
sample has about 3 mm of the original cantilever left so
I will ask Axel to glue a new cantilever/stylus combo on
this 'stump'.
My Technics EPC-P100CMK4 is listed for sale at ebay. 130 hours use and suspension rebuild from Axel. I think a few may be still trying to find one so thought I would mention it here.

Regards