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
Welcome back David....👀
Your contributions have been missed...😥
Fleib has 'held the fort' on behalf of the cartridge 'boffins' in your absence..👏
Part of the theme of this thread has always been value for money, and the ability to achieve true top level "High Fidelity" performance at price levels that are at least an order of magnitude lower than the current TOTL market, and frequently several orders of magnitude lower!
It's timely to remember this important fact for most 'high-end' audiophiles still believe the road to Nirvana resides in the next 'new' $8,000 LOMC cartridge...👀😷❓
There is a hint of snobbish 'elitism' I fear, in the total rejection of vintage cartridges by some....especially of the MM variety..😥❓

And speaking of which....there has even been some displayed on this Thread with a palpable absence of discussion about the once ubiquitous Shure V15/III..❓😎
The imminent scarcity of some of our favourite MM cartridges....and the discussion on the JVC X1 and Z1 illuminates this....limits the opportunities for those yet to enter the vintage MM market...
I have tried several of the modern production MM and LOMC cartridges like the Cleraudio Virtuoso, the AT150ANV, the ZYX Universe, Lyra Titani and find them lacking in the sheer emotional content available from the best of the vintage models..👀❓
A year ago...I bought a Shure V15/III with original stylus virtually NOS....and its performance astonished me...😘
Better than my original Garrott P77....😜
With the replacement to the Jico SAS stylus....the Shure and Garrott both leapt in performance to a level difficult to achieve with most other cartridges...👍
Now there must have been millions of Shure V15 cartridges produced in its lifetime...so that the possibility of finding one is very good although the craze for these beauties world-wide has now pushed the entry price to around $300-$400.
With a SAS stylus at $130....this makes for a great MM experience at $400-500...👏🎶
Happy hunting...😀
Acman3 - I just picked up two of them! Get them while they are there!!

Don, no worries I am not in a burning hurry, and will be VERY interested in your feedback.

I have experimented with a bunch of the Shure bodies, at various inductances, and came to the provisional conclusion that it was all in the styli.

BUT- I got hold of both V15III and V15IV bodies... so I now have bodies of the same family in the same inductances (500mH) in both laminated and non laminated form... to get an understanding of how much difference the core structure makes.

My gut feeling is the X1 is likely to be a notch further up the performance chain than the Shure's....

Waiting with bated breath for your review!(yep I am going blue in the face)

Hi Halcro, I typed the above before reading your posting... my measurements always indicated that the SAS would match best at default manufacturer loading with a cartridge around 500mH... and it has worked very well in my Shure 1000E (p-mount member of the family, physically identical to the V15HRP, 500mH) - question is how much better is it once you mount it in a metal body, and use a laminated core?
The V15V I have (with SAS) requires quite extreme loading (27k 700pf) to achieve neutrality - leading me to approach it with some caution and to avoid generalising on that basis!

bye for now

David
Hi Halcro, the main cost for the Shure is the stylus, so if you find a body and the Jico SAS, you could get in cheap. Also, some may have an old body, and thanks to your recommendation, just need the money for the Stylus. Great deal!

I started on the Shure Road with the 140he( thanks Tom) and the Ultra 500, so I too missed the V15, so maybe I am one of the snobs? NAAAH! A lot of the cartridges were cheap, and very good! That Goldring with the Jico stylus was and is very good, and the ADC xlm we were discussing, can be had cheap if you buy the stylus for $55 and locate an old body.

I actually like hunting for these old impossible to find treasures, sorta like looking through old vinyl, for that hidden lost Gem. Someone once called us MM/MI cartridge collectors, "hoarders''. i guess I've been called a lot worse.:)

Thanks for the V15 info! I will check it out.

I also would look forward,to Don's Victor x1 comparisons, if he has time to report.
Hi Acman,
I started on the Shure Road with the 140he( thanks Tom) and the Ultra 500, so I too missed the V15, so maybe I am one of the snobs?
I too was introduced to the Shure 140HE by the Professor and was mightily impressed...👀😎
The V15/III/SAS is even better IMO and if I were sentenced to live only with it.....I would not be upset....😜
To All,

I have spent the day with the Z1-S with the SAS stylus. The suspension definitely was alittle stiff! I had my doubts at first listen but after several hours, I am once again stunned!. The SAS is $133. The Z1-S can be found often for cheap. Hell of a combination.
Halcro, this combination gives the listener the same 'shock' we felt the first time we heard our beloved P77 with an SAS.
This is just a 'heads-up' recommendation. The Z1/SAS has that same 3D depth that I found so magical with the X1. The comparisons that I eluded to in an earlier post will follow soon.
David, take a breath. You will need all the air you can find because the X1 will spare very little due to its incredible presentation.
There is something special about this style generator system. To many different cantilever and stylus profile combinations are producing the same clarity and 3D effect that I am finding so enchanting.
How in the World did we miss these in our quest?
Don,
The SAS is $133. The Z1-S can be found often for cheap.
Ehhh....where....❓😋
I've seen it come up a lot on ebay.... sometimes bundled in with other cartridges, rarely on its own.
It has such a low stand alone value that people don't bother trying to sell it - they usually bundle it with a TT or other cartridges.

It was standard on almost the entire low to middle end range of JVC tables - so there are a lot of them out there somewhere...

Being laminated core type, it should be on a par with the V15III...
What you say David it exactly what I have discovered. While waiting for the Z1-S to arrive from my comrade Nikola (Nandric), I saw a listing on the Japanese Auction site (Jauce), which contained 3 of the Z1-s. All without stylus's. I considered bidding on them but at the time I did not Know anything about the Z1. I was only familiar with the X1. I can kick myself now because they sold for 6800 Yen ($56). This is for all 3 of them!
Because they are unknown, they are considered to have no value. No one notices them because no one has been looking for them!
Regards,
Audie, I always tried to remain calm when in a discussion with Raul, but you would have to admit, or you should admit, that it was Raul himself who was often the provocateur. To disagree with him is to admit that you must have an inferior system. To be using tube gear is to be someone who likes distortion. This is not to say that I do not find him interesting, informative, and even amusing at times. I would welcome his reappearance.
The good thing about picking up multiple Z1's (or V15III's or ...) is that you can then hand pick the best matched one...

I find it remarkable home much variation there can be between left and right on some of these vintage TOTL cartridges - V15V, AT150 and a few others...

There clearly is a good reason to have a hand picked premium series...

some examples

Early ADC 250mH bodies
1) 252/264mH 366/368ohm
2) 271/273mH 357/350ohm (EXCELLENT)
3) 228/239mH 365/365ohm
4) 260/256 361/358 (Very Good)
5) 249/261 371/373

or Shure V15-III
1) 499/497 1394/1397 (excellent)
2) 496/506 1349/1392
3) 548/530 1412/1363
and V15IV (same core as III, different mount, hand picked?)
4) 531/529 1398/1413 (very good)

I don't mind a bit of variation in the resistance - it will alter the balance a touch but not a big deal.
A variation between the channels on inductance on the other hand means that there will be tonal variation between the channels, mostly in the high end - and that is a no-no.

I have several Z1 bodies, which measure as follows:

1) 375/378 481/480 (excellent)
2) 390/393 490/463 (Good)
3) 344/374 461/70 (BAD)
4) 340/371 468/476 (BAD)

I try to find an example with inductance of the two channels within 1% of each other...

With rarities like the X1 we seldom get the opportunity to select the better body!

Also - looking at period doco about JVC cartridges, there is a X1 and an X2 cartridge, specs seem almost identical, difference is as follows:

X1 1.7g VTF / 2.7mV / 6g
X2 1.5g VTF / 3mV / 7.5g

The X1 and X2 (sometimes noted as X1 and X1mk2?) have very very similar specs - difference between them is unclear, and the data I have is in German (which I can muddle through only roughly...)
Both have magnesium bodies, same spec needle and cantilever and same frequency response...
X2 claims an anti resonant housing (explains higher mass?)

By positioning on the page (highest spec to lowest spec), the X1 would be assumed to be superior to the X2.... (also numbering, JVC numbered their top models 1, then usually worked down the numbers to lower models hence Z1/2/3/4 - same bodies with lower spec on the needle) - but reading the specs the X2 gets anti resonant treatment that the X1 doesn't?

Anyone out there with more info?

bye for now

David

Hi David,

Nikola (Nandric), is quite fluent in German. Perhaps you could send a copy of it to him for translation. I also would like to hear what is said.
You make a very good point about being able to hand pick the best of the bunch by buying multiple bodies. I wish now that I had bought those 3 just to do this hand picking!
I have seen more of the MK2 versions on various sites than I have of the original. I have yet to see an X1 or a Z1 on a US auction site. Nandric found my X1 on the European market. All of the X1 MK2 versions that I run across, are on the Japanese auction markets. This fact does make sense because the 4 channel music market really took hold in Japan. Quad records and equipment still can be found and bought there (Used of course).
The Japan auction site is where I bought both of my X1 MK2's. This is also where Nandric got his 'NOS' JVC X1 MK2. The "Lucky Bastard"! (grin)
I have found that the Z1-S with the SAS stylus is every bid as good as the original X1(or X1 MK2). I'm not saying identical. There are ever so slight differences but I am not anal retentive so the enjoyment I receive from either of them is equal! This really is good news, because this Z1-S body can be found on any auction site around the World.
For general information purpose. Their are 3 versions of the X1 or Z1. The X1 or Z1 are Beryllium cantilevers with a Shibata tip. The 'E" version or MK2'E' is elliptical, and the 'S' version in spherical (conical).
The JICO SAS stylus is a must if you expect the Z1-S to perform at the same level as the X1.
I hope you have kept those Z1-S bodies with the better measurements David. You could be in for quite a surprise.
BTW: It needs to be stated that the X1 and Z1 stylus's are not interchangeable. The brass round tube that inserts into the cartridge bodies are of different diameters.
One thing that puzzles me is the fact that JICO has chosen to provide the SAS only for the Z1. As David has stated, the X1 is suppose to be the top of the line with the Z1 being #2. The best replacement stylus that JICO sells for the X1 is the Nivico DT X1 MK2. I have one of these and consider it as good as the X1 original.
JICO also has a Shibata replacement for the Z1. It is the DT-Z1. But for only $33 more, you can buy the SAS with the Boron cantilever and the Super MicroRidge stylus. Doesn't make much of a business sense to me for them to have both?
Tracking versus tracing. My comrade Don and my friend
Fleib are both obsessed with styli and cantilevers. I think
that 'our' Raul, despite of his learning curve, missed the
difference involved. He assumed that 'tracking capability'
is somehow very important. This 'capability' we all can
check with our simple test records. I myself was always
satisfy with 60 microns 'pure'. That is to say without any
'buzz' from the right channel. This capability is a
function of complience. Tracing on the other side is
the capability of the stylus to 'trace'the groove wall accurately.
Tracing in this sense is chifly a function of the stylus design.
Reto Andreoli ,the obstinate Swiss and a young student by
brothers Bross ,has deviant opinion in this regard.
For his Magic Diamond cartridge he designed a peculiar
shape which was then produced in Zwitzerland. By
looking for extra arguments in order to sell my sample on
Agon market I come this article across: www.iar-80.com/page
62. In this review he got an ravishing , uh, review. I think
I should remove my 'Magic' from the Agon market (grin).
David,

Have you been able to determine in your research, what the bodies on the Z1's are made of? I ask because what slight differences I am hearing between the Z1 and X1 resembles to me to be of the resonance kind. A very slight,perhaps some type of 'phase' abnormality. Not sure, but it is very slight and only noticeable in a direct A/B comparison.
I have some of those carbon fiber shims and I am thinking about inserting one of them between the Z1 and the head shell to see if I can eliminate the slight differences that I hear between the Z1 and the X1.
Before anyone goes off thinking that there is a problem here, there's not. I'm just curious as to what possible differences there must be for JVC to designate a new cartridge and designating it the Z1.
Regards,
@Halcro,
Are there any noticeable differences between the different generations of Shure V15's? Does the Jico fit all generations of the V15's?
You have to tell Jico that you want the SAS stylus for the V15.
As far as I know....this stylus will then fit any of the V15 variants...❓👀
I know some who like the other versions of the V15...😗
As for me....give me the V15/III or nothing....😜
The Shure V15 replacement styli are not interchangeable.
The V15III takes the VN35HE replacement and the V15IV is the VN45HE. It would be easier to see the different models at LP Gear, rather than Jico site. They have a separate category for Jico.

You'll probably get better results with the III or IV models paired with SDS. Dlaloum is probably the world authority on these and it seems they will work better on the higher inductance models due to an unusually low (for boron) resonant frequency.

Regards,
Fleib,

I have a SDS in use on my VPI turntable. Used as a speed control. What purpose would it serve with a Shure V15?
(grin)

Regards,
World Authority - hmm I may get a swollen head!

I have gone to the bother of doing substantial measurments on 3 different SAS versions (N97xE, VN5MR, VN5xMR), with a collection of different Shure bodies...

My conclusions (in a nutshell) are that the SAS styli best suit bodies with an inductance of around 500mH (which includes the V15III and V15IV)

Lower inductance bodies (such as the V15V and V15Vx) require substantial and dramatic loading changes to get the frequency response close to the neutrality that the original OEM stylus achieved (at manufacturer Spec loading)

The main resonant frequency on the SAS is circa 28kHz - which is not unusually low for boron, but an extended series of measurements focused on frequency / amplitude response and different loadings (I measured at 5 or 6 different C loadings up to 720pf, and ran the test for 4 or 5 different R loadings)

Conclusion was that with the lowest inductance Shure bodies (V15V - 320mH) it needed a low R (26k to 30k) with a high C (600 to 750pf).

I did get some V15III's and IV's to do similar tests, but have not got a round "tuit"....

My modelling and my testing with 500mH more basic Shure bodies (1000e, V15HRP), seems to indicate that at that inductance, the SAS should provide relatively neutral voicing (as per the original Shure's) with close to original Spec loading. But like I said - I have not tested the theory with the V15's yet!
Tracking Vs Tracing... interesting distinction...

If tracking is poor, there is not much point having superb tracing abilities.

You cannot achieve good tracing, if you are mistracking!

So tracing is only relevant when the stylus is performing WITHIN its tracking capabilities.

In terms of tracing, there is not a lot to choose between a high quality 0.2mil eliptical and an exotic line contact...

The Shibatas, and subsequent Vdh, FG, ML designs, do no better than a 0.2mil eliptical within the audio band. (in theory)

In fact the more basic HE's and Shibatas have a side radius closer to 0.3mil... and the 0.2mil elipticals are superior!

Another aspect that has substantial impact is the level of polish on the needle, the reduction in friction, reduces vinyl roar/noise, as well as improving a range of other audible performance parameters.

The Denon DL103 is a prime example of a relatively "broad" needle (conical/spherical) where the level of polish/finishing on the needle is such that performance becomes competitive with much finer styli which should theoretically have superior tracing abilities....
A top quality 0.5mil conical vs a rough 0.3mil eliptical, the conical will be the better performer. Even though it will not trace frequencies over 12kHz effectively, and will have a lot of distortion at the higher frequencies due to tracing problems, within its tracing abilities, which include 95% of audio, it will perform better.

But a well finished ML/MR on a tracking champion like the Shure V15 series has both bases covered... (and the SAS is also well finished and an excellent tracker).

Having a stylus / cartridge that can only track 60microns, implies accepting that you will never be able to hear undistorted dynamic peaks... cymbals, rimshots, 1812 Canon shots - there are plenty of examples where although the overall level of the recording is well within the 60u, the peaks will be pushing that tracking ability.

For what we think of as a High Fidelity transducer, I think that is just not good enough.

I fact, in my own biased opinion, all those MC emperors, who cannot achieve better than 60u tracking ability... they are definitely wearing no clothes.

The best MC's have much better tracking than that, and we should not accept under par tracking in exchange for other aspects of performance, it implies increased wear to both needle and record from miss-tracking, as well as decreased dynamic abilities and increased distortion.

One of the reasons so many of these fantastic classic MM's sound so good, is that they have great tracking abilities, combined with great tracing abilities - do the fundamentals right and the rest has a chance to fall into place.

Once you have good tracking and tracing, then you can focus on other issues - resonance control, voicing, reducing magnetic losses etc...

A basic AT92e is a wonderful cartridge that gets most of this right - add a decent quality line contact needle to the mix, and you are 90% of the way to the perfomance of a high end megabuck cartridge... all for around US$100.

The incremental steps beyond that, cost ever increasing amounts to achieve (price doubles for each tiny step up... gets expensive real quick!)
But in the vintage cartridges, this price/value equation does not apply, and we can purchase cartridges with performance on a par with the megabuck brigade, for much lower prices...

Although many of the bargains are drying up now, (in now small part due to this thread) there are a plethora of relatively unknown classic cartridge bodies that can be fitted with a newly purchased SAS - so for under $200 you can easily get a cartridge that steps into true high fidelity record playing.

bye for now
David
World authorities are like philosophers. To refute one, one
only need to read some other.
I vividly remember how proud I was when I got 90 microns
tracking ability from my combo Ortofon MC 30/FR-64 (without
'S' = aluminum tube). But then I come the authority Van den
Hul across warning against such objective. To get such a
result one need to increase the anti-skate force till the
'buzz' from the right channel disappears. Well that is how
I got my 90 microns. I used then some German test record
by which 50 microns is mentioned as 'normal' for 'normal
records'. But I have no idea how many records are made with
canon shots. I do however remember that Raul was also very
fond of Tchaikovsky. He always mentioned those canons by his
praise of whatever cart. He obviously missed the
distinction involved between 'tracking' and 'tracing' and
conseqently used those canons to shoot at flys. As a rational
but amateurish person I decided to chose between
the Germans and my own compatriot Van den Hul for 60 microns.
My other argument is that according to me canons have nothing
to do with music.
Nikola, Since you are a semanticist at heart, I know you will appreciate the fact that a "canon" (sic) is "a general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged" Whereas, a cannon will blow that stuff out of the water.
Nikola may be more than a semanticist. A canon in music is the repetition of a musical motif in a certain sequence and at specified times using strict imitation. Tchaikovsky used the cannon as a musical instrument with it's own voice and scored in a way that met the requirements for a canon as described above. ;-)
Lewm&Frogman, Since Frege's canon that the sense of a word
is its contribution to the meaning of the (whole)sentence
it is not usual to ask for the meaning of a word on its
own. This is the called 'contextual approach' in logic,
linguistic and philosophy of languge. But for the so
called languge purist even one single letter counts. You
get from me the extra 'n' for your 'canons' to shoot at
me. Your contributions can be called Pyrrhic victory.
Hi Nandric, canon's are not the only form of extreme dynamics - jazz rimshots also qualify, cymbals can often be remarkably extreme in their peaks too...

The canon shots are the "gross" end of the peak repertoir, but there are a lot of finer more delicate contributors to our musical picture that require quite extreme dynamic abilities.

Note I am not saying that tracing is unnecessary - far from it, but I AM saying that tracking is key...

With regards to anti-skating, those of us that use a linear tracker, do not concern ourselves with such trivial and irrelevant bagatelles...

I am quite certain that most of this august group have seen the charts that Shure published, after studying and measuring the peak tracking requirements of hundreds of records...
The information was first published as part of the marketing for the V15II I believe (although it may have been earlier) - but it does demonstrate where the tracking peaks lie, and what sort of envelope of tracking performance a cartridge needs to achieve. The point at the time was that the V15II would achieve it obviously, but so could many of its highly regarded competitors from Stanton/pickering, Ortofon, Grace, ADC, Audio Technica, etc.... (all of our favourite MM's!)

A top tracker will usually also be a high compliance cartridge...

IF your cartridge has a more limited tracking "envelope" then there is a group of records that this cartridge will never be able to properly reproduce.
And given that this group of records is also the records that are most likely to be high fidelity high quality recordings, it all seems rather self defeating to me.

If you take a look at the manual for the V15IV (at http://cdn.shure.com/user_guide/upload/1817/us_pro_v15iv_ug.pdf )
On page 4 the trackability chart is displayed.

I am less interested in the plot of the V15IV's peformance than I am in the instances of records that are above that plot - there are at least two instances that have velocities of over what appears to be 80cm/s, with a whole bunch of other recordings ranging in the 40 to 70cm/s.

It would be nice to have some data as to which recording was which data point, but it does not matter, as many more difficult recordings were released AFTER this chart was made (including the Telarc / Kunzel Canons...) - and therefore the number of recordings that push the boundaries has increased substantially since then.

Are you really proposing that it does not matter if a cartridge cannot play all these recordings without mistracking? And by definition, the cartridge would perforce damage the record each time it played it!! (given that mistracking is the single greatest cause of record damage)

bye for now

David
Hi David, Lucky me you obviously had no problem to understand that I was referring to the real cannons.Those wich are used to kill people. Reference is our connection with the so called reality. The corespondence theory of truth assume the relation between languge and reality. So meanings of words on their own will not do.I assume that Lew is not reaserching the meanings of microbs but the creeps themself , write about in statements such that his colleaque can check his findings about the creeps and
not about the meaning of the names we use to refer to them. In some sense 'cannon as a musical instrument' can be understood as a referring expression but I have never seen one in any orchestra. So, probaly, only Frogman was able to see them. I hope he does not teach his students in the art of playing this isntrument?
My only problem with your argumets is the 'if' which you use like a real philosopher. 'If the tracking ability is not sufficient there is not much one can do with tracing'. But why this assumption? The point I made was that tracking is a function of complience and tracing a function of the stylus (shape). Those are 'different animals' I would say. The complience difference between carts is connected with the theory (?)or belief that tonearm mass and complience are mutualy dependant. That is why we see low comliance carts (5-10 um/mN), moderate (10-20 um/mN) and high compliance (> 35 um/mN). We assume that cart producers know what they are doing. I own some of those low complience carts which are not able to track better as 50 microns but I myself was not able to hear any mistracking. Probably because I don't consider cannons as musical intsruments and don't care how they 'sound'.
The other 'if' is about the tonearms. Aka if you own an lenear tracker you don't need to worry about the anti-skate. But the problem is that most of us don't use lenear tonearms and may need to use the anti-skate. You are of course free to ignore us but this would be not kind of you(grin).


Transient Peaks are at the heart of the music.

The orchestral crescendo's, the massed chorus + Orchestra in the final movement of Beethovens Ninth Symphony, and a plethora of other examples... all these peaks, whether delicate items in a softer composition (cymbals in a Jazz band), or loud complex items such as a full orchestral crescendo, these are the heart and soul of the music - the accents, the moments of most intense emotional content.

These moments are absolutely NOT the time to fail and fall into sibilance, or other forms of distortion! (although I do know some people who cannot stand too much emotional tension, and tend to always do something to "break" the moment.... )

Although as a general rule high compliance designs track better, this is not fixed - consider the MC Anna, with compliance at 9cu and VTF of 2.6g, it is definitely a low compliance design - but tracking is specced at 80um - so it is a good tracker as well.

But this is a megabuck cartridge, so one does expect high performance.... what is less expected is that the Ortofon OM40 (at less than 1/10th the price) has even better tracking ability (90um).

And Ortofon MC designs in the same price bracket as the OM40 are tracking at a mere 65um (MC1 Turbo).

Still if even the prosaic MC1 can achieve 65um - why would one accept a cartridge that barely makes 50um?

Also worthy of note is that tracking ability is also frequency dependent - Ortofon measures at 315Hz, if you look at the chart I mentioned earlier for the Shure V15IV, you will note that the distribution of tracking peak requirements is highest in the high frequencies (where effective tracking is ALSO dependent on tracing ability)

Typically cartridge tracking abilities peak at between 1k and 4k and start dropping thereafter... being able to achieve a certain value at 315Hz is no guarantee of being able to do the same at 15kHz. (although typically 315Hz and 15kHz are both similarly down on peak capabilities...)

Still I think one of the key items in the sheer ease of the sound provided by the MM/MI designs we discuss in this thread is their high trackability - on average noticeably better than even multi-megabuck MC's.

It is very difficult to engineer a high tracking ability MC, (or at least a reliable one...) - whereas it can relatively easily be done with an MM/MI design.

bye for now
David

(continuing to wave the flag for MM/MI)
"Transient Peaks are at the heart of the music"

No, sorry, this is misuided. The heart is soft, and it is loud. It is transient and it is sustained. It is whatever the creator and listener define. It is a language with many words that do not only swear and scream.

Canon shots are hard to trace and track because they hold a wide frequency band with great impulse in the groove. Can your tires withstand a monster pothole without cracking the rims? Mine won't, so I try to avoid the subject. Small and medium ones are quite doable. If I'm off roading, I take my Jeep.
Well this thread started on 01-15-08 and the most of us
still need to guess about the right VTF and anti-skate.
The so called 'recommended VTF' between, say, 1,5-2,5 g
make no sense. If one looks at Jan Alearts specs one can
see what is possible. Anyway the issue is pretty important
and our 'world authority' Dlaloum contribution welcome.
The problem is that the other 'world authority' warned
against such values as 80-90 microns. This of course under
the assumption that anti-skate force need to be (much)
increased to get those values. Too much anti-skate however
is the worst case scenario. I own many MM carts which can
reach such values as 80-90 microns. But I am not sure what
to think and need to make some choice. Those of my MC
carts which can reach 70 microns with 2g VTF are not
the problem. Those which need + 3 g. to reach 60 microns
are. But what to do with MM carts which can reach 90
microns but with a scary amount of anti-skate? For those
I chose 70 microns. For the low compliance MC carts I am,
as I already mentioned, satisfy with 60 microns. If our other
'world authority' Fleib would be so kind to give a lecture
about styli shapes we will cover both: the tracking and tracing issues.
**If I'm off roading, I take my Jeep.**

That's where the analogy breaks down. Going to change vehicles midstream, or carts mid-record? What if you're driving in your car and don't happen to see a larger than medium pothole?

While 50um will fall short of tracking some passages that are less difficult than cannon shots, most carts do at least a little better. David's Ortofon examples are exaggerated. A 2M Blue tracks at 80um, but so does a Quintet Bronze, so you don't have to get Anna to achieve 80um.
Windfeld seems to be their best tracker - 100um @ 2.6g and 16cu. Trackability (Shure's term?) isn't just high cu, it's more complex.

Regards,
Dialoum

Quote: "Still if even the prosaic MC1 can achieve 65um - why would one accept a cartridge that barely makes 50um?"

I don't know of anyone who is using a cartridge that barely makes this 50um?
It has been agreed that to track today's vinyl productions, you need to be able to track a 50 microns test signal 'without distortion'. I think this is what Nandric was eluding to. This is not a 'barely acceptable, but a pure test signal. I use a test record and use the 60 micron pure test tone thrush-hold to set up my VTF. I view this in the following way. Why track my records at 2 grams VTF (or more), when I can get this 60 microns pure at 1.2 grams. If a pure test tone can be arrived at with this setting, why punish 99.9% of my records with it set at 2 grams just to track cannons? Perhaps you do not feel that an increase of 40% VTF makes a difference in record wear?
BTW: I haven't played that cannon track in 10 years nor do I intend to!
The point is, if you're going to track and trace canon shots properly, grab your jeep. Otherwise, a careful choice in wheels will do the job.
On the subject of VTF in particular and cartridges in general, you guys might want to read the summary of a talk given by Mitchell Cotter to the Boston Audio Society in 1977, when men were men.
Here.

You need to scroll down until you find the summary of his presentation. Cotter says for every cartridge there is one and only one "correct" VTF, the one that sets the VTA correctly. (I don't think SRA had entered into the lingo as of 1977.) He also says some interesting things about MC vs MM. For example, MCs are inherently more resistant to stylus drag, in the respect that stylus drag tends to pull the whole stylus/cantilever assembly forward from the cartridge body. As of 1977, most MCs were far superior to most MMs in resisting distortions caused by this effect, but there were some exceptions among MMs. And Cotter seems to have preferred MC cartridges to MM ones, but 1977 was still early in the battle.
Canon's Canon's why the focus on canons?

I certainly was not focusing on them!

As I pointed out, there are plenty of excellent recordings that push the boundaries of tracking and tracing ability - outside of the famous canons!

Also I am not a big proponent of spec engineering and spec marketing...

The fact that a cartridge requires an extreme anti-skating setup to successfully negotiate a particular test record, does not mean that the cartridge should be set up in this manner for normal use!

Rather (to my way of thinking) it is an indication of the cartridges capabilities under extreme circumstances.

If one cartridge is capable of passing the highest level torture test of tracking on the HiFi News test record, where another one is incapable of the same regardless of setup/configuration, then you have a very clear indication that one has superior tracking abilities.

It is likely to perform better on any of the records that have more demanding tracking needs.

There are a bunch of parameters that come into play with both tracking and tracing... the arm geometric tracking error, will directly affect tracking ability.
This also means that a test track which coincidentally resides around the peak tracking error of your specific arm setup geometry, will show cartridges performing worse than on your friends identical turntable/arm configured with a slightly different alignment schema.

If you wanted to accurately measure tracking ability, the test track would need to be located close to the geometric null of the arms alignment... (or perhaps more practically, the arm/cartridge would need to be realigned to place the null on the test track location).

The other interesting thing about the "null" is that at that point one frequently requires far less anti-skating (and depending on cartridge / arm often none at all)

Under normal circumstances where the TT involved is not a linear tracker, and the arm has not been adjusted so the null and the test track coincide, the test can only be used as a relative data point to compare with other cartridges tested on that same setup.

Do I have cartridges that rank as poor trackers, but that sound really nice... Yes I do.
But I also approach these cartridges with greater caution... in the knowledge of their inherent limitations.

bye for now

David
Does anyone know if Satin was the manufacture of some of the Sony cartridges. Perhaps it is the other way around. Sony manufactured for Satin?
Curious minds want to know! (grin)
Regards,
****Transient Peaks are at the heart of the music****

****No, sorry, this is misuided. The heart is soft, and it is loud****

Well, neither comment is quite correct. IMO, the heart of music is in how truthfully or seamlessly the dynamic swing from soft to loud and back is reproduced; not just wether it can get to loud without distortion. In my experience some cartridges can get to loud fully and without (much) distortion, but leave out the fine dynamic gradations in between. That is what gives music the excitement and it's swagger or rhythmic groove. This has been the big dilemma for me with the mm vs mc issue. In my setup, mm's tend to distort somewhat less at the musical peaks, but mc's tend to have a better sense of aliveness and dynamic surprise; more of music's rhythmic impetus is heard on the way to loud or soft while still being generally very acceptable, if not not quite as good, re distortion at the peaks. The tonal issues are a different matter that has a lot to do with system tuning. In most of my systems over the years, mm's have tended to produce a tonal fullness that is closer to real.
I believe most.of.the Sony MC's prior.to the xl-mc series were satin. The xl-mc's were pure Sony, and were the basis for a number of other non Sony high end efforts too.
Sony XL series? I know how popular this series is. I own
XL 44L, XL 88 L and XL 88 D (D= diamond cantilever/stylus
combo). The problem however is they are irreparable. The
body is glued togehter from two egual parts and can be only
opened by cutting the body. Morita san the designer of this
series is somhow connected with Jico styli. My comrad Don
used the occasion to ask how to open the body. The answer
was : the cart will be destroyed. My XL 88 D is by Axel
for longer as one year now. He has no idea yet how to open
the damn thing.
Frogman - have you tried the low output MM's (eg Pickering XLZ7500)?

I ask this because one of my interesting observations was that there was a noticeable and measurable difference in the midrange and lower high end, between using the same D7500 needle in a LO body and a HO body.

This implies that this difference is down to the magnetic "circuit"

My assumption is that when running LO, the poles (and magnets in the case of MC's) are taking a hugely lower level of magnetic energy - hence there is markedly reduced magnetic distortions (eddy currents, hysteresis, and such).

What I measured was that the high midrange, low high end trough which is present on all the MM's I have measured, is reduced from a 3db drop to a 1db drop (1db is within the error margins of the measuring method, so it may be down to zero - but I don't think so, as MC's seem to show approximately the same 1db drop)

So I know that some of the signal is no longer "lost" in some form of distortion.

The next question, is that given that we are in the real world, the energy is never lost, but merely converted - so where have those 2db of additional signal gone - much of it will I assume re-appear as various forms of distortion (more analysis needed).

I think you might find that such a LOMM has the same sonic "feel" as you describe for MC's.

At 3mH this family of cartridges are relatively high inductance compared to MC's - but a couple of orders of magnitude lower than most MM's.

It is also possible that some of this benefit would also accrue on designs like the AT25/TK9 (88mH) or the EPC100 (85mH) - but being an order of magnitude higher than the "true" LOMM's, I don't think so.

Just a couple of thoughts - and if you have or can get hold of one of the Stantering LO bodies, I would very much like to hear your feedback

bye for now
David
David,
"At 3mH this family of cartridges are relatively high inductance compared to MC's - but a couple of orders of magnitude lower than most MM's." ?

980/7500 = 0.3mV, < 1mH.
Approaching 1mH is a lot of inductance for .3mV. Typical LOMC inductance is 20uH. I'm not sure if this is the reason these seem to sound like a MM (to me) despite low output.
I can't quite put my finger on what it is.

In the BAS link provided by Lew, Cotter talked about moving coils vs. moving fields (bottom page 20) types. He attributes superior MC info retrieval to torsional affects on MM cantilevers, their being more susceptible to stylus drag and the cantilever rotating.
Seems to me in '77 this conclusion is more of a distinction in cantilever/stylus design and material, than generator types. Still, the question remains. Is one type superior, and why?

Regards,
I own both the 981 LZS and the HZS. Much to Raul's surprise, I preferred the LZS. There was some discussion way back in this thread somewhere. I wish I could say 'why' but I can not. David, I find your comments in this regard, quite interesting because it is in this very frequency range that you discuss, is where I find my preference of one cartridge over the other. To me, I felt the LO version more lent its presentation towards the M/C spectrum of sound. Not that I found anything to dislike with the HO version. But if forced to choose one over the other, I would have picked the LZS. The whole idea of this cartridge design was to replicate a M/C. I feel it accomplished this idea better in the LZS. Why? I don't know but you David, may have discovered it!
Regards
"The whole idea of this cartridge design was to replicate a M/C."

What gives you that idea, the low output? Did Stanton say that was a design goal?

The suffix LZ and HZ relate to impedance (Z), like a microphone. A low impedance mike requires higher gain like a LO cart. Inductance is the number of turns on the coils and relates directly to impedance.
Stanton designed the cart to work into a MC phono input, that much we know, but to say they were replicating a MC assumes too much IMO. They were made to compete.

The only thing the 981HZ and LZ had in common is both were TOTL and both had stereohedron tips. Stanton made 3 different LZ models. Stanton product catalogue:
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/mbrs/recording_preservation/manuals/Stanton%20Product%20Catalog.pdf

neo
I believe most.of.the Sony MC's prior.to the xl-mc series were satin. The xl-mc's were pure Sony, and were the basis for a number of other non Sony high end efforts too.
The 981's and 980"s had the same styli, but the 981's came with their individual calibration test results.specific.to that body and needle....

The L bodies are low inductance / output and the H bodies are high...

The shared styli are what makes for an interesting way of differentiating the generator behaviour.... Both types are top performers... But they do sound subtly different.
Fleib,

A Quote from :"The Handbook for Stanton and Pickering Phonograph Cartridges and Styli"
by Richard Steinfeld

This is from page 20. Low-Impedance (Low Z) Cartridges

Quote" The concept for these cartridges was contributed by Walter Stanton himself. Walter Stanton did not like the moving coil principal that's been so dear to many audiophiles. Stanton reasoned that the performance of the best moving coil cartridges was due, not to special physical properties, but to their electrical characteristics. Why not turn the moving coil concept, in essence, "'inside-out?" In other words, make a moving magnet cartridge that shared the electrical qualities of the best moving coil cartridges." End of Quote"!
Neo, I hope this answers your question,
"What gives you that idea, the low output? Did Stanton say that was a design goal?
There is much more said in this regards Neo but I don't intent to quote the entire chapter due to the possible copy right infringements!
BTW: If you, or anyone reading this post doesn't have this have handbook, you should contact Richard for the purchase of one. A factual read of one of our greatest cartridge designers.
Regards,
Neo,

The product catalog you state is rather dated! Stanton had an entire line of even higher (TOTL), cartridges after the 981's. They were called the Epoch. I also own one of those. The Epoch II LZ8S. The last Epoch produced and the 'actual' Stanton TOTL cartridge was the Epoch II LZ9S.

Regards,
David, thank you for the very interesting information and the recommendation. No, have not used of the low output mm's; although I have always been intrigued by them for the very reasons that you describe.
David,

The more time I spend with this JVC X1, the more I am convinced it is the best M/M I have ever heard. They'er times, during certain passages, that I just can not stop smiling. It is so smooth and dynamic that it just begs to be listened to. You are in for quite a treat when yours arrives. I packed it quite well so unless some UPS trucks runs over it, you should receive it in great condition.
I am currently using the original stylus which is the same one you have. I must say that I heard no difference between it and the JICO replacement. I am not referring to the JICO SAS because that stylus is for the Z1 version only. That one is 'as good' if not better and even cheaper to construct (find)!

Regards,