Dear Dean_man/Headsnappin: The ZE/X has a round male to female stylus/cartridge mount against the other Empire models that comes with square hole instead round. Be carefully what you buy it.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Headsnappin, according to the 1000ZE/X owners manual (you can download at Vinyl Engine), the following are in the same line: 999VE/X, 999TE/X, 999SE/X, 999PE/X, 999E/X, 999X, 909E/X, 909X, and 90EE/X.
According to turntableneedles.com, searching briefly by cartridge number it appears that the only one of these that used the 236 stylus style was the 1000ZE/X. The 235 etc stylus styles for the rest of the line aren't cross listed with the 1000ZE/X. And, searching by stylus number it appears that the results are the same. But some of the styli for this line 'look' to be the same style as the 236. There may be a more comprehensive way of looking/researching but in the end one may never truly know until one tries?
In that regard I recently ordered a non-standard NOS stylus for an Empire 999XE/X body I have (entirely different line from the 1000ZE/X, but a cartridge that another poster has commented very positively on) that I believe will fit. It was a gamble and in a few days I'll find out if it was a good one...
Jim |
Does anyone know which Empire cartridge bodies can use a 1000Z/EX stylus? |
Lewm, how do you like the TLZ compared to the latest crop of favorites? Or at least, compared to your carts? If anyone else wants to chime in, feel free. I really like my Azden but need a cartridge to share the load with, kind of a daily driver. |
Raul ...time to put down your HiFi...and get yourself well..if you don't have your health you have nothing!
BTW I would not do any critical evaluations when you are sick ...IMO |
Regards, Raul: As to the Acutex, further searching finds references to your 320-3 as the cartridge of choice for several who commented on cartridge selection, but the primary market seems to have been in Japan for the high-end examples. Acutex provided a number of generic cartridges supplied with TT's such as Akai, Hitachi and Aiwa in the 80's, those with a square stylus holder are unremarkable but in 1983 through 1993 the LPM (lowest possible mass, 4.0gm) high-end design was produced. Acutex claimed the highest separation figures in the industry at that time, cross talk is undetectable.
The visual impression is of a flimsy body, the pyrimidal stylus holder is unimpressive to the eye but the tapered boron cantilever supports a tiny and very clear modified Shibata stylus, they were not inexpensive cartridges when new. BluesBro's (IIRC) offers a NOS 320STR at $290(+-), styli are $90(+-). How does the LPM 412STR sound? Out of the box, hf's are brittle, the mids grainy and the bass muddled. After several hours the suspension settles in revealing accurate and well defined highs, bass gains extension, is tight and very apparent without being overwhelming. There is a sense of the "smiley face" presentation found in the past when equalizers were a common component and most were set with the sliders higher at the extreme ranges. With additional exposure and acclimation to the character of the Acutex LPM 412STR, it's most impressive feature is the soundstage. Awareness of speaker location diminishes, presence and energy displace the distraction of a mechanical interface. Detail and drive at the extremes of response coupled with a warm and nicely layered midrange result in a thoroughly entertaining presentation in which my attention to the gear is secondary to the enjoyment of the performance.
The LPM 4xx series is a later version, your TOTL 320-111 would be a step above the 310, 312 and 315 designations. The 412's midrange wakes up at 100K ohms and 350pF total capacitance, positive VTA just above level and tracking at 1.2gm on a 9gm mag. ADC headshell. The leads are OEM and of unknown material. The chart that came with the 412 shows the X20 series has a flatter response through 45KHz and I would guess a lower capacitance figure might be appropriate.
If articulation, dynamics and MM warmth is prefered to a cool and analytically exact presentation, your Acutex might be worth a listen. My ancient SS rig, usual disclaimers, etc.
|
Dear friends: We are on delay, no? we don't have yet the cartridge of the week!!!! and Downunder is thinking why is that.
Well on the serious way I test three different cartridges: Technics EP205C MK4, Audio Technica ATML 180-OCC and Grado Amber The Tribute.
All these cartridges are in mint condition but fully " broken ".
All the cartridges were mounted on the Grace G-940 tonearm, with positive VTA/SRA, 100K on load impedance, no added capacitance and no antiskating.
Technics EP205C MK4 was mounted in an Ortofon magnesium 9grs headshell. The Audio Technica ATML 180-OCC was mounted in the Audio technica MG-10 10grs magnesium headshell. The Grado Amber The tribute was mounted in an original Nagaoka 10grs magnesium headshell.
VTF was 1.25grs for the Technics and Audio Technica ones and 1.5grs for the Grado.
I don't want to make a review on each cartridge ( that I think each one deserve it but I don't have the time to do it. ) so I will try to be concise about.
I compare it against my reference the Technics EPC 100C MK4. First than all I have to say that all these cartridges are more similar than different, yes its quality performance are at the same level. We can leave for ever with either of these three great cartridges. Are so good and so similar that I can't for sure make a choice.
Where are the differences?, IMHO at both frequency extremes. The ATML 180-OCC when I start to hearing it impress me like an EPC100C MK4 clone, but over more time of play I can discern that the bass mainly was different than in the Technics one: with a little less weight and definition, in the other side the highs on the AT are the nearest to the Technics on this three cartridges under test ( btw, I test the ATML 170-OCC stylus with either AT cartridge body ( 170 and 180 ) and the sound was exactly the same. Now against the 180 stylus the 170 is clearly inferior. ), maybe if I was not heard the EPC100C MK4 the AT could be " The Best ".
The Technics EP205C MK4 has the Technics signature sound but on the warmer side, its main difference with the EPC100C MK$ is at the highs where in the 205 seems to me that does not have the endless extension of its big Technics brother. In the bass it has the bass weight but with a tiny overhang.
Grado Amber The Tribute, this was a nice surprise to me. I can't find nothing wrong with this cartridge ( my commentes on the other cartridges performance is not that something is wrong with them. We are talking here of the very top quality performance and that differences are tiny ones and against other " lesser " cartridges these ones have nothing wrong or nothing to ask for. The EPC100C MK4 is a very demanding reference and high challenge/unbeatable to any other cartridge I know. ). Its bass side is the best of the bunch but not exactly as the EPC100C MK4. The highs are extended/airy and seamless.
Both, Technics 205 and Grado are a little better than the AT " handling " the clicks/pops on recordings, these cartridges are more " silent " than the AT. As a fact with this top quality performance level you don't care and are not aware of those recording " noises ", the enjoy level is to high!
All these three cartridges under test IMHO belongs to 10 level on the cartridge ladder quality performance and only one step down to the 10+ EPC100C MK4. Yes all them are better IMHO than the Azden and Empire.
Grado The Tribute is a current model so is easy to find/buy it. The Technics 205MK4 time to time appears on ebay or here on Agon and the Audio Technica ATML 180-OCC is more difficult to find due that was build for the Japanese market and in minor scale Europe.
It is delicious to test/enjoy these kind of cartridge quality performance level that till a few monts ago was unknow for all of us.
Fortunatelly we " discovery " the MM/MI analog source alternative that permit we can have this unique opportunity that no LOMC I know can give, touch or even dream about.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Raul, You are an gentlemem; you could ask:' why deed you bay 4 MM carts when you have no MM inputs on your phono-pre?' Ie such behaviour 'may' look very strange... Well first of all when ever you recommended some cart they become not only much, much more expensive but nearly not more available. So I learned to be very fast. This way I got 2 P-76 for ONLY $100. And only a week later I had the feeling that I become 'rich' for only $100. I will not mention my 'succes' with my shares...Then you proclaimed some 'Technics' to be 'the best of the best'. This 'pope' as you know from my emails was 'impossible' but I got the second best (the cardinal). The Ortofon on the other hand was 'a piece of cake'; I live near Germany. This all dear Raul I deed in preparation for my 'new' Basis from 2010 wich has also the MM inputs. My actual one is an 'old horse' from 2009 but well 'golden one'. So Raul those MM carts only look cheap . I hope I will not go bankrupt because of you. Kind regards, |
Dear nandric: Thank you.
Btw, which 4 MM cartridges?
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Raul, I never participated in your topic because my Basis Exclusive 'Gold' has no MM inputs. But because of you I already bought 4 MM carts. I like to express my hope that you will be as soon as possible healthy . Ie in your own thread. Very kind regards, |
Dear Timeltel: Thank you and thank you to Lewm too.
If I remember I own two Actex: the LPM and the one you mentioned, I have to say that I don't hear/heard either yet but I will try to do it ( at least with the 320-3 ) in next 10 days. It is interesting your findings/experience with Acutex, we will see how performs the 320.
Regrads and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Raul, I am very sorry to learn of your recent illness. However, it is good to learn that you are recovering well enough to get back with us. |
Regards, Raul: Sympathy for your bout with pneumonia, glad you're on the road to recovery.
I recently shopped for an inexpensive NOS pickup, selecting an Acutex LPM 412STR for $45.00. The cartridge was intended only for initial evaluation of used lp's, eventual destruction of the stylus was anticipated. After several hours the bass firmed, the hf's began to gain definition and the soundstage developed. More attention was given to the character of the cartridge and after several weeks it has become a daily driver. Perhaps the vitals will give a sense of the presentation:
Fr. resp: 20-35KHz Separation: 30dB @ 1KHz Channel balance: within 1dB @ 1KHz Stylus: STR (modified Shibata, leading face is undercut) Compliance: 24 x 10-6 cm/dynamic Output: 3.5m V Graphed response shows a 2 decible raise at 20 and again at 20KHz resulting in energetic bass and crisp hf's. The midrange is articulate and clear. Overall it plays somewhere between the lushness of the Azden and the sometimes excessive analytical presentation of a Shure V15-111/SAS stylus. I am pleased enough with the Acutex to have sourced replacement styli. While researching I was refered to your original post, the Acutex 320-111 is mentioned there in the nearly-greats. Response for your 320-3 is 20-45KHz, separation is greater and compliance is higher than the LPM 412STR, output and VTF are also slightly lower. Have you had time to revisit your Acutex? Please pardon the length of this post, the Japaneese built Acutex had not been mentioned by other posters and those who prefer a more detailed cartridge with an energetic character may find it pleasing.
|
hi................................................... |
Dear Lewm: +++++ " because Raul seemed to go off on a tangent ...." +++++
not exactly ( please read my last post. ). I really have deep interest in this thread and all the contrubutors that share with us their very value experiences.
In my case I was a little out of " action " due that for the last month I was in " bed " for a pneumonia that is a critical/delicate illness. I just be on final recover about. I have to say that with pneumonia your energy is totally down.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Funflyer: Well that the Azden performs so well in that secondary system tells a lot of things on the Azden " pedigree ". On the 1080T I don't have that " larger than life " cartridge performance characteristic you experienced, good cartridge too.
You have very good cartridge " arsenal ", I hope than in the future you can find an Astrion body is IMHO worth to have it its main cartridge characteristics differ a little over the XLM you own. Btw, the AKG Supernova is an AKG P25/35 MD with VdH stylus, I have both and preffer the non VdH model.
About how the thread " it has ended up " IMHO the thread was and is building by all of us and not by " 3-4 private discussions Agoner's ", now this is an open forum and an open thread where through the time we already had discussions on different topics and some times not mainly on cartridges. As I say a thread is a " building " by all of us ( inluding you ) contributions. The people decide by it self when post here but we can to push about or in what direction/topic could have to go the thread. I can give you an example, I posted 10 days ago trying to follow what Halcro and other persons opinion on cartridge distortion importance and till today no one of you cares about, I mean not that do not care but that don't post trying to share their experiences or trying to make a wide distortion subject discussion. Here it is the post:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&2036&4#2036
can you tell me why no one ( including Halcro ) makes/made a comment about?, btw that post is open to discuss.
In the other side, the thread is a long one and " energy " over time change.
Lewm point out that I even start a new thread about the Technics 100C but my target more that talk about the cartridge ( where exist a formal review. ) was to know how the people react/think on " the best " audio item figure/assertion.
Anyway, every person contribution on the thread always is welcome as a fact what IMHO we all need are those other people contributions that can enrich our each one know-how.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear friends: Those looking for a top Stanton cartridge here it is at low fair price:
http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?anlgcart&1277302260&/Stanton-881-mk-II-S
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Re the Amber Tribute, your theory makes sense. Please stop tempting me to buy that XTZ; I already have the TLZ, darnit. |
Dear Lewm: It seems to me that Grado makes The Tribute expresely for Amber, like a current model.
About the XTZ ( top of the line ) and the next down step in the Z line the TLZ maybe you are right about how near is its performance each to other.
If that is true then this TLZ ( for the price ) is a must to go:
http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?anlgcart&1277073392&/Grado-TLZ
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
I think "Amber" is the name of the Australian vendor who still apparently has some NOS Grado Tribute cartridges to sell. At least that is what I came up with after I did a search using your terminolgy, Raul.
My TLZ, which was the Grado top of the line prior to the XTZ, is due for a re-evaluation, now that I know how to align a cartridge in my DV505. Back when both cartridges were in production, I don't think there was thought to be much difference between TLZ and XTZ, and in fact the XTZ stylus will fit the TLZ body. |
I forgot to mention that this Grado is the close/nearest quality performance cartridge to the Grado Amber The Tribute that is a Grado current model and that cost 2.8K dollars! and a top quality performer.
That vintage Grado is very hard to find.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear friends: +++++ " http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?anlgcart&1277130372&/Grado-XTZ " +++++
Recomemded!!!
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Funflyer. Thanks for your input. I agree with you that the thread has become a little too focused on minutiae, and perhaps I am a major culprit in that trend. Please know that I am totally aware of it. To some degree, I went ahead with my posts to keep the thread alive, because Raul seemed to go off on a tangent in his preoccupation with the Technics EPC100C, for which he started an entirely new thread, in fact. This is Raul's perfect right, but the rest of us were deprived of his weekly or monthly "discoveries", which were previously the life's blood of the thread. In fact, thanks to Raul, we have a huge backlog of cartridges to talk about in greater detail, not just the Azden P50VL. I wonder what happened to the AT20SS, the Astatic, the Grado Tribute, the B&Os, the AKG P8ES, etc? How do they compare to the Empire/Azden/Ortofon cartridges of more recent interest? The thread could go on forever with that much fodder. So if my recent posts were of little to no general interest, I apologize. But don't go away. Stay with us. I personally am still wrestling with the question of whether the best of these MM/MI cartridges are indeed competitive with the best of the MCs. Too bad that it is very expensive to buy exotic MCs with which to make comparisons. |
Hello. I've been reading this thread for some time, and even posted some time back. In response to the question whether anyone else is playing with the Azden, yes, I am. But my assessment is hardly as well developed as those of the principles here. I wish I could comment intelligently, but due to ongoing house remodeling, I am limited to listening in a secondary system in a room of less than desirable acoustics. Nonetheless, I think the Azden is brilliant. Seemed a bit bright initially, but it has calmed down considerably. Wonderful sound stage and very smooth, but with a great sense of immediacy and correct "speed." Before the Azden, I was using an Empire 1080LT, which was just as enjoyable, but a bit larger than life. On a tertiary (garage!) system, I currently have the Ortofon M20FL, another lovely cartridge, but it seems a bit polite in its current environment. I have no experience with the 1000ZEX or the legendary Technics - maybe some day. Egged on by this discussion, I've played with a number of other cartridges and have gotten excellent results with a Shure V-15 IV (with SAS replacement stylus which I like much better than the original,) an Astrion stylus on an XLM II body, the B&O MC20CL, the AKG P8ES (wish I could audition the Super Nova,) and a few others.
It's interesting how this thread has developed and where it has ended up. Now, it seems to be a nearly private discussion among 3 or 4 A-goners who are comparing notes of a few cartridges in their particular systems. Not bad, but less helpful overall than the initial thrust of discussion. Which leads me to a couple of comments, recapping what has certainly been said before:
1. I think that the synergy among components (especially cartridge-arm-table-phono stage) is far more important than any single component. There is no "best" cartridge - except perhaps within a specific environment of other components. Though some single components are clearly better than their peers, even those seemingly "best-in-class" (to steal a major airline's overused - and blatently false - catch-phrase) can sound miserable if poorly mated to other components. My personal experience with a Decca Super Gold VDH cartridge in an ET-2 arm is a clear example (and I am now certain that disastrous combination was due to severe mass-compliance mismatch issues.)
2. Some seem to be amazed that these cartridges-of-years- gone-by are as good as they are proving to be. In fact, I find it more surprising that these cartridges were "submerged" for so long and to such an extent that they are STILL available today - both occasionally "new" and on the used market. The CD-digital effect I guess - FINALLY wearing off. Most of the models that have garnered such praise in this thread date to near the end of the golden age of vinyl. Let's recall that until the mid to late 70s, MM cartridges were undisputed kings - not only because of production costs, but also because the MC model had been viewed as a dead end due to problems with noise from amplification of their feeble signals and high frequency resonance issues, as well as markedly inferior tracking abilities. MCs only got a second lease on life because of exotic construction materials and stylus profiles. MM manufacterers were relatively slow to adopt the same sort of new manufacturing techniques. Why should they when they were on top? Of course CDs changed everything - just as the MM makers were experimenting like the MC crowd had done for the previous 10+ years. Most of the MMs which this thread loves are products originating from the very end of burgeoning MM cartidge manufacture - at a time when the exotic construction techniques were just spilling over from MC to MM world.
Again not surprisingly, re-tips are now apparently a growth industry, as those who repair old cartridges make them BETTER than they were new - again using exotic cantilever materials and stylus shapes - if the basic motor is intact and properly functional. I imagine that if vinyl continues its resurgence, that we will again see great advances in the MM world, Right now, it looks like only Ortofon, Grado, and Audio Technica really care to bother with making quality MMS and advancing the art - and their latest offerings are undeniably superb. In the 80's there were dozens of fiercely competitive manufacturers - no wonder we have gems from that time.
3. Finally, as has also been mentioned before on this and many other threads and sites, it's the MUSIC which drives us. I am recurrently amazed at how wonderful analog sound can be when done properly. It's never quite the same as live (I went to the opera last weekend and sadly, my system is still a pale imitation of that experience of live, unamplified music.) But when everyting is just right, reproduced analog (OK, and sometimes even digital - don't hate me!) sound can be truly arresting and almost able to transport the listener to another state of reality.
That's what I think we're all looking for - the majic. |
Thanks, Dave. Adjusting VTA to neutral gives an improvement in the sound of the Azden. The lower mids and mid-bass filled in quite nicely and edginess was ameliorated. Also the sound of a clapping audience became more "real". I don't quite have the guts to go to negative VTA just yet. In summary, aligning with Stevenson geometry appropriate to the DV505 plus neutral VTA sounds much better than Baerwald geometry with positive VTA. Next I will change the load resistance to 100K from 47K. I am currently comparing the Azden in the Lenco to my Koetsu Urushi in the Kenwood L07D. In the Kenwood, the Urushi sounds better than it ever did before and does compete with the Azden. However, bass detail with the Azden is superior, I believe at this point. Kenwood is special, I think. |
Thanks Travbrow, It's certainly starting to sound like it's well aligned. It just barely fits the headshell. It is pretty square and not twisted as some others have experienced. The cartridge is NOS so I'm guessing it just needs some playing time to settle in. I think I'll use the same tractor and get the longer leads again for the M20e. |
Hi Sonofjim,I use the Technics EPA 500 tonearm and the Mint protractor also.The only cartridge that I tried so far that needed slid way back to align was my Azden.Mine is rewired with longer leads,the stock leads would not be long enough to mount the Azden.I never tried the Ortofon so can't say about that model.I thought Yip used the null points and overhang specified by Technics for the EPA 500. |
I'll take a look at the manual but it's not sounding bright now. Initially, straight out of the box it did. I assumed it needed some warm-up/break-in and maybe a little more VTF. Both of those appear to be working. I just played it several more hours this morning and it sounded quite good, pretty well balanced. I'd hate to mess with it just now. |
Sonofjim, strange, M20FL and M20E is by no means bright. Very smooth sounding cartridge. Can you please align it as per Technics manual and report back here. |
I just mounted the M20fl super on my EPA 500 a501h wand this weekend using a Mint tractor specifically made for the EPA 500. I finally got the overhang and alignment right but it was complicated by the depth of the M20fl and the fact that it had to slide way back in the headshell to get the overhang right. This required longer headshell leads to allow enough slack(luckily Clearaudio's leads are 5mm). Is this because my Mint tractor is Stevenson? If I had Yip make a Loefgren would this put the cartridge forward by a couple mm as Downunder says? The M20fl sounded bright initially but with VTF adjustment and only around 10 hours of break-in it's already shaping up nicely. The next cartridge to set up is the M20e super on the a501e. Would I be better off spending $80 on longer headshell leads again or $90 on a Mint tractor with Loefgren geometry? |
Dear Halcro: The whole distortion subject is something where the AHEE ( Audio High End Establishment. ) almost never wants to argue. Why? I can't say but the subject is a critical and very important in the quality performance in any audio link and that contribute for the better or worst in the overall audio system quality performance.
We have a lot of examples where we are " fighting " and trying to lower distortions: matching tonearm/cartridge, TT platforms, subwoofers system integration, tonearm and cartridge set up: VTA/VTF/SRA/Azymuth/overhang, testing different cables, room treatment, speaker position, testing different kind of electronics, speaker/amplifier impedance matching, etc, etc.
Normally when we made system changes we are unaware but in our choose the distortions ( different kind ) are in strong way involve and are what " tell " us which " road " to take . There are different kind of distortions: IMD, THD, rumble, noise ( signal to noise ratio ), " colorations ", phase shift and many others. Some of them and depending on its level are more agressive to our very sensitive ears/brain and to our each one distortion tolerance and this is what makes so complex to identified specific distortions on specific audio problems we identified like distortions.
Normally what makes ( mainly ) that an amplifier goes in clipping situation is not only the high " volume " but the high distortions elsewhere in the amplifier processed audio signal, as lower the audio signal distortions as higher we can push the amplifier SPL response, almost the same that happen with a lower distortion cartridge.
Normally and where our ears are more sensitive is at the high frequency range and is here ( mainly ) where we can detect more easy those distortions.
What we hear at home I mean the SPL of what we are hearing through each one audio system is not only " music " but a high content of distortions. What happen when we change an audio link: cables, electronics, TT platform, room treatment or the like where we attain lower distortions?: that with out changing the preamp system volume what we heard/hear with this lower distortions item(s) change is lower SPL and we can/could feel we are loosing some kind of " life " in our system performance even we can think that now the system performance is on the " dull/dark " side. No the system does not loose " life " but loose/lowered distortions that in the past puts a false feeling of system " alive/life "/shine that was against the music against what is on the recording and against a full music enjoyment. After sometime ( around one hour ) hearing this new system experience step by step we are aware of this reality: that today we have better system quality performance with lower distortions and where we can take additional 3db-5db+ on the system volume hearing with out any sign of fatigue in our ears or any sign of additional aggressiveness in the audio system whole performance and we now enjoy better than ever our beloved LP's.
Every kind of distortions even the ones we can't hear I'm sure can measure and sooner or latter someone will do it. In the mid-time we can trust in our ears.
I can't say for sure if a LOMC cartridge is or has inherently/by design more distortions than a MM/MI cartridge but I can say for sure that more audio stages where the audio signal must pass on always add more distortions and the LOMC cartridge signal ( normally ) pass for additional gain stages that a MM/MI cartridge so here we can say that the LOMC cartridges comes with more distortions. The other side is that normally the MM/MI are better trackers than the LOMC ones and here too exist an additional distortion source.
I think there are many other factors around distortions and around MM/MI " lower " distortion performance against LOMC cartridges and I'm sure that you or any one else could share their experiences/know-how on the subject with us.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Lewm: ++++++ " Some would say that the very excellence of these relatively inexpensive cartridges when inserted into your top quality tonearms on your top quality turntables proves the supremacy of the arm or the turntable in determining the quality of vinyl reproduction. It's a circular argument that could go on forever. " +++++
I'm a firm believer that the " quality "/grow up/better designs in cartridges, turntables and tonearms in the last 30+ years almost " grow up with out significative changes for the better and that's why many of us are using vintage turntables, tonearms and cartridges. You are a good example on this: Technics SP-10, Kenwood L070, Lenco, DV-505 and go on, I'm another example of that.
In the old times I begin in analog with MM/MI cartridges and change to LOMC ones not because it sounds better but because my ignorance and the AHEE that push so hard into LOMC myth.
Today where we really take advantage to start again the MM/MI alternative is with better electronic, speakers and cables that is where IMHO we really have changes for the better over the years.
The importance of the source/cartridge in the analog/system chain is a common sense subject. For me the source still is at the very front importance place in the audio chain, I respect but don't agree with other people that think different.
What makes this subject so complex is that that source needs a lot of audio links around for we can hear it and one way or the other all those audio links are very important too, are so important that the source quality performance depend on them but this can't means IMHO that some of all those audio links are more important than the source/cartridge.
Anyway, this is one favorite topic where we audiophiles like to argue about.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Lew, yes VTA with the tail of arm wand just slightly down in back on Trans-Fi. While the wand's pivot point is just 2" from the stylus, the 4" of wand protruding behind the pivot is the reference point for sighting purposes. Thinking about VTA with this arm is not too different than for a conventional pivot arm, except that the shorter wand has a wider range of adjustment. |
Lewm,
"So one has to believe the instrument that resides between one's ears."
:~)
Spot on |
Dave, To me "negative" VTA means that your tonearm pivot point is slightly lower with respect to the headshell. Do we agree on the jargon? Is this in your Trans-fi tonearm?
Halcro, Yes, my wife now regularly pops into the living room around midnight to give me that "do you know what time it is" look, because I am playing the music LOUD, and I love it. Her appearance usually means my listening session is over after "one more song".
IMO, the technology and the interest in measuring distortion from phono cartridges has not moved forward very much in 50 years. Plus we know we perceive distortions that have not been quantified or related in a linear way to common measurements of distortion. So one has to believe the instrument that resides between one's ears. |
I guess there are two Lofgren alternatives (A and B), one of which is quite similar to Stevenson. So as Downunder says, that Lofgren would also "work" with vintage Japanese tonearms. (By "work", i mean you can align your cartridge with the grid on the protractor, and it will also be lined up with the long axis of the headshell.) |
Dear Raul and Lewm, This IMHO is due that the MM/MI performance has lower inherent distortions or at least the kind of distortions are less agressive to our mind/brain and this sole characteristi makes a " diffrence " for the better. I am now undeniably aware of the existence of these 'distortions' with MC cartridges compared to MM/MI but I don't know what they are? Surely if they are so audible, they must be measurable? And yet I have never seen or heard mention of these distortions by anyone anywhere except on this Forum? And if these clear source 'distortions' can't be scientifically verified by measurement or explanation, what hope is there for all the other distortions added throughout the reproduction chain? for more than 10-15 hours of playing I was hearing the cartridge around 3db up to what is my normal everyday system hearing. I was unaware of this because the cartridge so low distortions ( one of the lowest cartridge distortion-free ones. ), then I return to my normal SPL. This is another 'proof' of a great cartridge in my opinion, and can only be heard with those cartridges that 'eliminate' the distortions we have come to accept as 'normal' through the almost complete reliance on MC cartridges over the last 20 years. Isn't it wonderful to be 'encouraged' to turn up the volume by the absolute absence of 'distortion'? |
Hi Driveman
I only have the Stevenson & Loef for my P10 & P3. With some cartridges the Stevenson had no alignment room at the back of the headshell, so Yip made me a Loef which gives you a couple more mm's to play with. I prefer the Stevenson as it seems a little cleaner, pure sounding. I think the Micro 282 has the same alignment specs to the P3/10 tonearms.
Re the Technics EPC-P100CMK4. Looking very close, there is a hairline crack in the same area, however mine does not extend to the top of the plastic and is only a few mm's at best long. My cantilever is slight to the left as you look from the front, but that is easily solved using the MintLP tractor by aligning to the cantilever, not cart body.
How do you like it? Mine is sounding great and is getting better and better. I have slowly been adjusting the tonearm damping in the P3, which makes a big different to the sound and getting it very close to just leaving it. BTW, yea, it does not seem to go to the actual photo. you will see in the middle of the page - Here's a link to the home page. just click on the home page and it seem to go to the beginning. You should be able to view any/all of my photo's there by just clicking. let me know if that works.
cheers |
Lew, I preferred Azden around 1.2gm, level to slightly negative VTA, and 70-80K loading. |
Raul and Halcro, Some would say that the very excellence of these relatively inexpensive cartridges when inserted into your top quality tonearms on your top quality turntables proves the supremacy of the arm or the turntable in determining the quality of vinyl reproduction. It's a circular argument that could go on forever.
I quite agree with you both about "horror records". I have a couple of those that were out on my stack of LPs I am now playing, because I was thinking of discarding them completely. Without exception, I find that these sound at least tolerable with the Ortofon or the Azden, and in most cases the cartridge can bring out some good quality that was not at all evident with my high quality MC cartridges.
I would still like to know how you guys are running the Azden: VTA, VTF, load resistance. Perhaps no one else has an Azden in play. |
Dear Halcro: +++++ " that it is easy to forget (in vinyl), the first link in the chain is the cartridge, and if ever I needed to be convinced of the hierarchy in Cartridge, Arm, Turntable, Phonostage, Preamp etc, I now know that Cartridge comes first. # +++++
I forgot to comment about in my last post.
I agree with you. Right from the very first time I came to Agon I support that in analog the main importance link is always the source: cartridge. In those times and even today there are many people that think and post in this forum a preference for a different audio system link: I respect all of them but IMHO all them are just wrong..I know that every single audio system is important but the trasducer source/cartridge and speaker/room are IMHO the most important and critical. For me the source is the " king " and all the other audio system links his " royal subordinate ".
No I don't want to open a controversial window about, there are several threads where we can read on the subject, but other opinions are welcome.
The other important subject in your Empire post is:
+++++ " I suggested that 'great-sounding' records were perhaps not the only analysing tools we should be using and that 'Horror Discs' could provide some valuable insights into a system or component? " +++++
I can't be more alike with this post.
In the case of this Empire cartridge and in other few top MM/MI ones that " test " IMHO confirm that low very low distortion MM/MI characteristic where due to it we can enjoy almost any " Horror Discs ". The LOMC cartridges unfortunately are not a good example of it but the other way around due to its " unique " distortions that are so agressive and that only increase the each one recording self distortions and that in the " Horror discs " makes almost unlistenable not to say impossible to enjoy it.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Halcro: Reading on your Empire 1000 ZE/X post I take: ++++ " How can 'it' be right and everything else be wrong? It is like an epiphany. When you hear it you simply know. There is no room for doubt. " +++++
this is something that I experienced with 3-4 different cartridges and that was dificult to me to explain through my posts because how to explain something that you don't/can't hear it yet in your system and that you understand it in the way I'm hearing?
I think that many of us, one way or the other, already had this kind of audio experience. My main point here is that this kind of experience ( in my case ) is more repetitive with this MM/MI analog source that with any other audio link ever. I can't remember when this happen(ed) with me on LOMC cartridges. This kind of experience has to be consisten over time. Why I say this?, because many times in the short " time " we can think that the " new " experience is that one but over time this can change to a more normal cartridge/audio item behavior/performance.
IMHO it is not ease to discern when you have that " different " audio item """ When you hear it you simply know """". But IMHO when your experiences, music/audio know how and audio system resolution are rigth on target then you know it and """" There is no room for doubt. """""
Btw, one characteristic that many of us already discern on the MM/MI analog source against the LOMC analog source is that the LOMC one ( some way or the other ) has a touch of " mechanic/analitical/non-natural " performance where the MM/MI is the other way around. This IMHO is due that the MM/MI performance has lower inherent distortions or at least the kind of distortions are less agressive to our mind/brain and this sole characteristi makes a " diffrence " for the better.
The Empire 1000 ZE/x is a case on subject: for more than 10-15 hours of playing I was hearing the cartridge around 3db up to what is my normal everyday system hearing. I was unaware of this because the cartridge so low distortions ( one of the lowest cartridge distortion-free ones. ), then I return to my normal SPL.
This is a great cartridge and I understand every word in your post where you explain the cartridge performance experience. Good that you are happy about!
I just mount my Audio Technica ATML 180-OCC and I will report sooner about. All I can say this time is that if you find it just buy it with out ask.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Hi Downunder,
So between the Stevenson and Loefgren alignemnet protractors, which do you orefer for your P3 and the Phantom. I had Yip make me a Stevenson and a Bearwald for my Micro Seiki Max282 but have not had a chance yet to try and determine the difference. BTW your Flickr link does not work. Also on my EPC-P100CmkIV cartridge, there is a hairline crack on the plastic top edge and front of the stylus mounting body. It starts on one edge but stops as it gets to the screw holding the stylus moutning piece to the body. I don't think it would affect the sonics but wondering if you see the same on your unit. I guess you scored the better of the last 2 of these beauties. |
But the point of my long-winded post was that in this particular case, where a tonearm designed for Stevenson geometry was set up with a protractor designed for Baerwald, I had to twist the cartridge in the headshell in order to make it line up with the grid on the Baerwald protractor. I thought this was the correct thing to do. In the particular case of the DV505, it was not. In fact, in any situation where there is a significant deviation between the headshell offset angle for one geometry vs the other, the end user has to twist the cartridge (clockwise or anti-clockwise when viewed from above) so it does not align with the long axis of the headshell. I certainly was not trying to imply that the Stevenson geometry by itself was superior to any other. In fact, this is the very kind of controversy I seek to avoid in my desire not to be anal about cartridge alignment. But I guess you knew what I meant. Just to be careful about this factor. It's probably best to use a protractor designed for your particular tonearm, which is the point that MintLP and many others are trying to make. I was actually behind the learning curve, I now know. |
Dear Lewm: The Stevenson against B/L needs not only a change on the overhang but on the offset angle like you point out and like you point out ( I agree ) a B/L geometry cartridge set up we can do it even if the tonearm was designed for Stevenson geometry. So always is open to what we decide about.
Does not exist a perfect geometry pivot tonearm/cartridge set up any option we take ( B/L/S/P ) has its own trade-offs. Some permit lower inner grooves distortions/tracking error with a little higher distortions/error in the other parts of the LP/recording some others are better outside than at inner grooves: trade-offs, nothing is perfect in a pivot tonearm. Which is better?, IMHO no one only different and each one of us choose which/what one likes.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Yep. Nearly all the vintage Japanese tonearms and/or turntables with dedicated tonearms do use the Stevenson geometry. However, I am not sure that using the Baerwald or Lofgren geometries with these tonearms will bring on the problems I experienced, just because of the unique design of the Dynavector tonearms. I had read an article on VE about the desireability of twisting the cartridge in the headshell, if that is needed for proper alignment, and I very smugly said to myself, "I knew that". That's what I've been doing all along with the DV505 (which I have owned for about a year and which is the test bench for these vintage cartridges), because the TTB protractor is Baerwald. But then I started thinking about what happens at the stylus tip when a twisted cartridge encounters a warp or just tries to track a complex musical passage. When stylus and cantilever are at an angle to the vertical pivot, there are new forces generated that are not in the vertical plane. This could screw up the reading function of the cartridge. Indeed, I had been tolerating this problem of channel imbalance, and once in a while on some LPs I was hearing some odd distortions that were not present when I played the same LPs with an MC cartridge mounted in my Triplanar (i.e., Baerwald to Baerwald). These phenomena occurred with all 3 MM/MI cartridges that I have thus far auditioned, so it could not have been due to a cartridge defect. I then glommed on to the concept that when I twist the cartridge, I am also increasing the offset angle which gives more skating force which could account for the R channel dominance (and in retrospect, that's where I heard the distortion). If I had not read the article on VE, I might never have made the connection. I contacted the author, and he agreed that "twisting" is not a good idea for the Dynavector, because of that short arm tube in the vertical plane. With a "normal" pivoted tonearm, the nasty forces would be less and probably less noticeable. Paradoxically, in his article he was recommending the "twist" (only if your protractor and your tonearm are designed for dissimilar geometries, of course), because it reduces tracing distortion.
The built-on tonearm of the Kenwood L07D must also be Stevenson type. You can get a clue about the geometry from the offset angle of your headshell. I believe this is discussed in the very same article on VE about twisting the cartridge. The Stevenson geometry requires the least headshell offset angle, I think. I was thinking of having MintLP make me one protractor each for the DV505 and for the Kenwood, but the free Stevenson protractor on VE seems to work fine for now. I printed out a 1:1 image and laminated it myself between two thin pieces of flexible plastic. And here I am a person who tries not to be anal about cartridge alignment.
So will some of you guys tell me how you are running the Azden to wring out its best performance? VTA, VTF, load resistance? |
Lewm
It seems that almost all of the Japanese tonearms use Stevenson alignment. My P3 / P10 certainly do.
I have had Yip at MintLP do up a Phantom & P3 Stevenson & Loef mirrored alignment tractor and they are fantastic as you can align to the cantilever every time. Makes a noticable difference
highly recommended
cheers |
Hi Halcro
Do I ever agree with Raul? :-)
In all seriousness, with the Technics EPC-P100CMK4 I pretty much concur with Raul.
It is a wonderful cartridge and along with the Ortofon A90 the two best cartridges I own.
I was pretty lucky to get one of the last two NOS in existence. http://www.flickr.com/photos/13641350@N08/4439753573/
Now, Has anyone tried the Technics EPC P 540 or 550 from Thakker ? or going to - C'mon guys
Yes I know that it was only a mid range cartridge, but so have lots of the MM carts folks have been buying, trying and luving.
http://stores.shop.ebay.com.au/William-s-Stylus-Shop_Technics-Cartridges_W0QQ_fsubZ1293365012QQ_sidZ190774482QQ_trksidZp4634Q2ec0Q2em322
cheers |
So, based on Lew's discovery of the alignment mis-match with his DV arm, I'm wondering if there is a simple way to identify the alignment utilized in the design for any given arm? Could it be something as simple as observing if the cartridge requires more than slight offset relative to the headshell?
I would think this may not be a problem for most common pivoted arms but would appreciate comments by anyone with a better grasp of design engineering.
Thanks if you can offer enlightenment. |
Dear friends: for those that are still interested on Pickering/Stanton cartridges this one seems a good opportunity:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Pickering-XSV3000-Cartridge-Stylus_W0QQitemZ130382224827QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item1e5b62ddbb#ht_500wt_1182
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |