Prof, You can pretty much tell what it is from the output. The old 4-ch carts were 2.7mV, approx. - 350mH and 500 DC.
The desirable 15/20 family were all 2.7mV, but inductance ranged from 350 to 450mH. The 20SS was actually 450 (according to Dlaloum).
The TK9/10 family and the AT22 - 25 were probably some of the lowest inductance MM's ever made. Output is 2.2mV, 85mH, 240 DC. Get out your load resistors. Regards, |
Regards, fleib: Old Toshiba went kaput a while back, took out such saved data with it, some of which it is now not likely to be recovered.
Learned tonight that snoring may lead to early memory loss and Alzhimers. Double whammy, 'puter crashed & the IIRC's aren't as accurate as one might wish.
Have both TK9LC and AT22 equipped with the lower mass ATN25 stylus. both seem a little distant. Think it's a loading issue?
Thanks again for the data.
Abrew 19, thread will make 12,000 posts soon.
Peace, |
Hi Prof, Distant? An unexpected description. Loading issue is doubtful, more likely a worn tip, especially if you're using the same stylus for both. I guess it's possible the magnets could be weakening, but less likely.
The elliptical tip has the smallest contact area of any, including spherical. AT advised checking an elliptical after 300 hrs. I used to check them with an AT scope (made the Shure scopes look like toys). Never saw one worn out after 300, but at approx. 500, some were.
Not sure of your exact situation with these. Those stylus assemblies are rare. I'd try a transplant or send it to Soundsmith for evaluation. Peter knows what he's doing and he's honest, although putting an OCL on a beryllium cantilever is $450, it might be worth it. He did a great job with my Genesis 1000 - sounds like new.
If this is a relatively unused stylus that should not be worn out, try the usual loading tricks. The ATN25 doesn't have quite the extended response of LC/ML, maybe adding capacitance will help?
BTW, they say those little band aids on the bridge of your nose help with snoring. Many of those studies are BS anyway. Look on the bright side, as you age you'll probably lose memory anyway. Regards, |
Lewm, no I am not really a novice, but maybe I sound like it in my posts! Lol
I have a job plus other interests, so I don't have the time nor the interest to read through a 235 page thread. I'd rather read a book. But I say 'Live and let live' so you guys carry on. |
Regards, Fleib: You wrote: "Get out your load resistors." Just teasing, sorry if it was overly obscure. Again, thanks for your response.
As it is easier to let the cat out of the bag than to put it back in, MM phono section is 2.5mV sensitivity. The low output of the TK9/10 is the likely culprit. At 2.7mV, the AT 15/20 carts offer more (as opposed to distant) presence but I've observed that carts with 3.5 to 5.5mV output play with authority. There are, however trade-offs. (BTW, styli for the TK9 & AT22 are fairly new, less than 100 hrs.) Otherwise, a less refined cart seems preferable in long-term listening. Excessive emphasis on critical listening might intrude on enjoyment of the recording?
About those trade-offs: Faraday states that "a voltage is induced in a circuit whenever relative motion exists between a conductor and a magnetic field and that the magnitude of this voltage is proportional to the rate of change of the flux". In compliance with the laws of conservation of energy, then would not any increase of magnetic attraction affect leading and trailing transients, dynamic sweep will most likely also suffer? Compliance/mechanical damping, effective tip mass, cantilever length, cross-section diameter, length and rigidity are factors to be taken into consideration. Overall, a balance of entertainment value versus the audiophile goals of transient snap and decay, tonal accuracy and extraction of detail and nuance seem unavoidable.
"DJ" carts with their 5-9mV output, thick cantilevers and rugged suspensions in comparison to the "audiophile" qualities may lead one to conclude that there is an inverse relation between emf and SQ. A balance of entertainment value versus the audiophile goals of transient snap and decay, tonal accuracy, the extraction of detail and nuance as well as integration with the system and listening environment are factors to be considered.
Equipped with the ATN155LC, the Signet TK3Ea meets many of the entertainment/audiophile requirements (on the ancient gear I listen with). The TK9/AT22 extract the finest detail and nuance but remain, well, distant.
Peace, |
Timeltel, Although interrelated, I suspect it's really a problem of too little gain, rather than sensitivity. Sensitivity is the amount of voltage required for full output. Voltage varies with velocity, but assuming a high quality stage, if you had more gain it should be less distant - louder and hopefully, not noisy during quiet passages.
I have no idea what you're running, but for example if 40dB of gain were increased to 50dB with the same sensitivity.....
You might be able to compensate elsewhere. Line stages vary from about 10 to 20dB, and of course speakers. Regards, |
Fleib,
This comment about line stage, or pre-amp 'gain' is something most people do not think about. I have for years, been using a 'passive' pre-amp. These lack in the gain department. I never paid much attention to what the amount of gain that this section of a system provided until I got heavy into low and 'ultra' low M/C cartridges like the Ortofon MC-2000. Output of 0.05mV. Gain is the name of the game if you want to hear this jewel at anything above a whisper! We tend to only focus on what 'gain' is provided with the phono stage but one must also consider line stage gain as well. I had to go to a Head Amp (Denon HA-500), to boost the signal to a high enough level without hum for the time I spend with the Ortofon. I have 92 db's of gain coming into my passive pre-amp. My BAT VK-10SE would only provide 80db's. Not enough to boost the Ortofon to acceptable levels. All because of 'lack' of sufficient gain in the line stage. I learned this lesson the hard way! |
Griff, I'm also not a big fan of line stages. Your solution for gain is certainly novel. The BAT has built-in SUT's for additional gain, consequently you're running a head amp + SUT + phono stage?
Regards, |
Fleib,
No, I am only using the M/M portion of the BAT. There are several gain stages in the BAT. You have to ingage the Lundahl's SUT through the use of dip switches. I have max. 60 db's of gain from the BAT if I stay only in the M/M portion of the phono stage. From it, I add the 32 db's of gain from the Head Amp. I did try it as you mentioned above but got far to much distortion. Regards, |
I have a similar love/hate relationship with electronics in combination with the excellent MC-2000. Even +76db of Pass XP-25 is at the margin for normal and higher listening levels. It is a very quiet SS design, but still generates noticeable hiss with a .05mV source.
Griff, I never much cared for the sound of the SUTs used in VK-10. Admittedly mine was not an -SE. Maybe BAT improved their SUT in subsequent iterations? |
Dgarretson,
My VK-10SE started out as the VK-10. I've had it a long time. I agree with you that I also did not care for the original SUT's in the VK-10. The last trip to BAT for upgrades, replace them with the Lundahl SUT's. They are using the the LL9226 chips. Much improved I must admit. A friend of mine (Nandric on this forum), uses the Jasmine phono stage. It has 70 db's of gain and has no problem running his MC-2000 to very loud levels. But he is using a Marantz per-amp that must have phenomenal gain. His volume knob doesn't even reach the 'noon' position before you reach maximum listening levels. I am somewhat crippled with what is available with a 'passive' pre. as far as gain assistance! With the gain added by your pre-amp, you are probably a little under the gain levels that I'm at. There is 'some' gain BTW in a passive pre. But far from what would be considered average. Regards, |
That's interesting with the Jasmine. With XP-25 as input, my modified Atma MP-1 tube line stage is totally silent at about half of its range of attenuation. This is the position of the volume control that the MC-2000 requires when played loud. So the slightly noisy background is definitely traceable to the XP-25.
I need to move some equipment around to try the MC-2000 with the MP-1 hybrid phono section. It has the Lewm mods, yielding slightly more gain than the XP-25. |
BTW, I'll admit to being candy-assed to let a little hiss get in the way of appreciation of top quality vinyl playback. Years ago at an audition at Sound by Singer in NYC a salesmen said as much to me while demoing a VDH Grasshopper through a somewhat noisy TOTL Quicksilver(?) tube phono stage with the volume control full up. This was humbling. TOTL vinyl entails compromise. |
Got in my new to me Technics EPC 205 mkII H body. I removed my friends EPC 207C body and installed the 205 mkII H. Comparing both with a Jico SAS stylus I heard no difference in sound or output. So if you are looking at these, and want to put a SAS on one I would buy which ever is cheapest.
From what I've read the 205 mkII S version is the same body as the H version as well. The H version had a higher output stylus body with stronger magnets. I also have the EPC 205 mkII L version body and find it a little too low on output to be ideal with my phono stage. If your MM stage can put out 47 db or more it should be plenty for the L version. If not I recommend one of the above. |
That's good to hear Sarcher30. I have seen those 207C's. I did not know that the 205C SAS or for that matter, the regular 205C stylus would work in one of them. |
Dgarretson,
I hear ya, but when you can have the best of both worlds, volume and no hum, sure does make life worth living! (grin) Regards, |
Can't no one say nothin' about Astatic for my benefit.
Abrew19, The secret of most of us is that we don't have to read these 235 pages of posts, because most of us were on the thread from the beginning and read the posts at a leisurely pace as they accumulated during the past few years. We've got a "feel" for the contents, but the details do fade over time. Glad you've got a job, though. And glad you have no objection to this geezer cracker-barrel discussion of old things. |
Lewm,
To address your question, The order of preference is as you stated. I own the MF-100 and the MF-300. The MF-100 reminds me of the ADC ZLM in regards to its performance attributes. I've not done the comparison but it is said the the MF-200 could be the preferred cartridge, over the MF-100 in some systems! There were models by Glantz that were the same as the Astatic's. I do not recall what those model numbers were but I am sure there are people (Nandric), who would know. I recall there being a Glantz thread which covered alot of information about the cross referencing. Regards, |
Lewm,
Never heard the 100. IIRC, Raul expressed his preference for the 200 over the 100. 200 is clearly more refined than 300, but I like the 300 for rock and roll. The presentation/stage of the 300 is huge; it reminded me of the Acutex 420str. Don't hold me to it, but if I already had that Acutex, I wouldn't be in any rush to find the 300. As for the 200, I looked for a replacement stylus for what seemed like forever. Then, out of the blue, Acman3 sent me one (thanks, again!). I reviewed it on this thread somewhere; maybe you can get Abrew19 to find the exact page :).
Although there were none to be found during my search for the 200, mysteriously there is a veritable cornucopia now on the bay. At the asking prices, I wouldn't hesitate to grab one, except for one reason: the suspension on these astatics seem especially frail. I've had 2 fail prematurely on me, and my present 300 is riding low. Yikes. YMMV.
Good luck finding a mf2500. I have the generator, but the line contact stylus seems to be unobtainium. |
I've never heard one, but I'm wondering why there not much love for Shure carts on this thread? How do they compare to some of the better carts talked about here. Mostly curious about the V and Ultra 500 with a Jico SAS. |
Sarcher30,
I think it is from 'over' hype! They are a good cartridge. So are the Grado's. But due to their rivalry and hype, both have suffered. There are followers of both and you would not go wrong to own either brand, especially the models that you have already mentioned. As for the Grado's. Put an 8MZ stylus on one (find a G1+ body), and you will understand what I have just stated. I'm not stating that they will somehow magically transform your system, but only that they diffidently will compete with what is available! Regards, |
Sarcher, the Ultra 500 is one of my favorite cartridges, but there are not very many out there. Don't forget the Ultra 300 and 400 when searching. There are a lot of NOS styli, due to scarcity of actual cartridges. Another Shure which uses the Ultra stylus is the 140he. A little laid back, but I like them all!
I have not heard it with the Jico SAS on the Ultra 500, but have heard from others it is awesome. I have only heard the 500 with the VN5MR. |
Sarcher, You are quite right about the lack of 'love' here for Shure cartridges. In fact I wrote a post here about just that nearly a year ago. If you visit other Forums, you will see the great love for the Shure V15 in all its configurations....especially with the addition of the Jico SAS stylus. HiFiDo has about 10 Shure V15 cartridges for sale every week of every year...and they are snapped up for $400 each. I consider the V15/III/SAS about the best 'bang-for-buck' MM cartridge easily available for the modern audiophile..😎 |
Sorry.....I meant to say HiFiDo sells V15s for $300.....not $400 👹 |
Is Axel still around? Has Two of my cartridges for almost a year, didn't reply to my last week. |
Travbrow,
Yes, he is still around. He has just returned from a vacation. Answering emails is not one of his specialties. His turn around time has gotten even slower than what Sound Smith's was when it was at its worst. Andy at 'The Needle Clinic' has been turning them around in a couple of weeks. Regards, |
Thanks for the feedback on the Shure carts guys. The Victor Z1 and P77 I have coming should keep me busy for awhile. Will have to investigate the Shure's one of these days. |
They say you have to kiss many frogs before you find your prince...🐸 Luckily with vintage cartridges...that adage doesn't necessarily apply..😍 Over the last six years the majority of the fifty or more used vintage cartridges I have bought have given me much satisfaction as well as knowledge. As one's ears become keener and more selective, the purchases become more informed and perhaps esoteric......and through Forums like this....newly discovered gems can be unearthed. And so it was that through the words of Griffithds and with the help of Banquo...I acquired a Victor Z1 and Victor X1/IIE. There is no 'burn-out' with phono cartridges as each new model promises to deliver a unique experience... In the case of these Victors....that is exactly what occurred...👅 I know the majority of 'high-end' audiophiles sneer at the very thought of a humble MM cartridge and smugly write a cheque for the next $8,000 LOMC panacea to their vinyl playback, and if one compares the current available range of production MM cartridges...I may agree with them. But the simple fact is that the art of MM design and production reached its zenith 30 years ago and some of those models are simply better than the very best current LOMCs produced and certainly better than modern MM design. Why is this so...❓👀 Possibly for the same reasons that some turntables and arms designed and produced 30-40 years ago are better than those of today...😎 In the world of analogue audio, it should be remembered that many great minds, many great companies and more funding than can be imagined today were concentrated towards the ultimate betterment of the analogue chain..🎼 |
I'm in the middle of reading this thread, but couldn't find the opition about modern production of Garrott for example.
While people talking about benefits of vintage MMs, we still have so called upgraded versions of the classic MMs like Garrott P77i vs P77, Nagaoka MP50 vs. MP500, Audio-Technica AT155LC vs AT150MLX vs. AT150ANV ..., also old Signet TK7 vs. Audio-Technica AT7V etc.
Laterst versions of Garrott use the most complicated stylus profiles.
If someone compared vintage classic models vs. modern upgraded models of the same series, it would be nice to read about in this thread.
And the question about vintage ADC for experienced users: Does the super rare ADC Astrion is superior to rare ADC TRX 1,2,3 ? |
I have the AT150ANV and the AT7V and have compared them to their vintage brethren. Whilst the AT150ANV sounds similar tonally to both the AT155Lc and the Signet TK7LCa....it somehow misses the ability to convey the emotional impact of the music. In fact...if I had to summarise the single greatest difference between the fine vintage cartridges and their modern equivalents....it's this general inability of the modern versions, to raise goosebumps..⚡️ The AT7V is really a cheap entry model which lacks refinement and polish. |
Back in the day analog reproduction was all there was for the consumer, and records were pressed in the tens of thousands, even millions of copies, so why wouldn't most efforts back then be concentrated on analog?
Even with the resurgence records are now a specialty product and record playing is more of a hobby, but I doubt if the best tables/arms 30 years ago better all of todays'. If you were considering being a cart manufacturer today, would you want to compete with the big guys for a non-existent mass market, or tout your hand made $8K MC and hope you can survive or even thrive?
Japanese MC's started flooding the market in the '70s. The characteristic rising high end complimented many primitive speakers, and in all honesty some have superior imaging. This is due to that rising high end and/or more extended high frequency resonance, plus low inductance. Of course there are exceptions, but the situation was worsened by incompetent and corrupt reviewers who defined the gestalt. MM/MI carts require more careful loading, not less, and without it performance suffers.
On page 233 in this thread Dlaloum mentions Shure V-15/SAS. He says the V15 III and IV are best with SAS. |
Chakster,
To answer you question in regards the the ADC Astrion. It is better than the TRX I. I prefer the TRX II over the Astrion but we are splitting hairs here. It could be nothing more that production variations because they are quite close. As far the the TRX III. Never found one to buy so I can not say. Regards, |
Thanks Halcro I wonder how do they perform against fabulous Technics EPC-100cMK3 ? I forgot who shipped his Technics to Alex for suspenssion replacement / "refresh" etc, but i'm still not sure about my own EPC-100cMK3 which perform very well (but maybe could do better after Alex service).
However, In my experience i didn't like modern Jico SAS stylus on my EPC-205cMK4 (the original technics stylus deliver what you're talking about).
Anyway i preffer my high output vintage Argent MC500HS to both of them. |
thank you Griffithds That's what i heard before about TRX-2 and Astrion, seller also preffered TRX-2. |
Chakster, Any problems with tracking or the suspension on the MC500HS? There's not a whole lot of information out there. Apparently Argent went out of business after a few years.
Tracks 1.8 to 2.2g, 1.9mV, boron/HE ???
Thanks, |
Fleib, absolutely no broblem to track all bands on HiFi Analog Test LP with 2g tracking force. I must say the sounds really opened up on Reed 3p tonearm with much more air and details. Before i have tested it on several arms including EPA-100 and Schick. It was much better on schick than on EPA. This cartridge really rocks and do some magic.
"HS" means High Output & Sapphire Cantilever. With output like that it's possible to use even MM imput on my preamp, but the magic starts only when i use MC imput on my WLM Phonata phono tage (with automatic impedance).
The cartridge sounds so lound that even with my 5W per channel triod tube amp (WLP Minueta) paired with Zu Druid MK4 (101db) i always use minimum volume control (almost nothing at late night sessions).
The cartridge is very obscure and i know it's nothing in the internet, except one image of their catalog page with all models listed with spects. Argent diamont is the top of the line. My 500HS (sapphire) also available as 500HR (ruby).
With this cartridge i just enjoy music and happy to listen more and more. I have tried Zyx Airy, Zyx 4D Premium, AT-ART2000 ltd, Technics EPC-100cmk3, Technics EPC-205cMK3 and MK4, Denon DL-107, Ortofon SPU GM Classic MK2, Ortofon SPU Spirit Ltd ... etc.
The tonal balance of Argent 500HS (on Reed 3p) with slam of high output i like the most.
I'm still not sure it was made in USA or in Japan for Argent. Compliance listed as 8x10-6 (but i don't know at 10Hz or at 100Hz). Anyone?
There must be an article in Absolute Sound Mag (Vol.8, number 29, March 1983) on page 170. If someone can scan and upload it would be nice :) |
Chakster,
Interesting comments in regards to the SAS and your comparison with the Technics MK 4. I find just the opposite. I even have a MK 4 with good suspension but in need of a new tip in which I refuse to have repaired. The reason being is why pay $400 to re-tip something that will not sound as good as a SAS which can be bought for $133. It just sits in the original box wasting away! |
Yep Griffithds If the SAS for 205c MK3 is an improvement I can't say the same about 205c MK4 which is a much better cartridge with stock technics stylus. It was not easy to find 205c MK4 in absolutely perfect condition (suspension/stylus). I have tried 4 good working samples and only ONE of them was absolutely amazing (like new).
Now i have only upper model 100c MK3 and i hope Jico could release their SAS stylus for this extremely rare 100 series. I really want to hear full potential of this cartridge. Sometimes i even start thinking of suspension refresh and retip of my 100c MK3 (Alex in Germany can do that, i asked him several times). But i would prefer to find one extra original 100ED3 stylus just to make A/B test with my used 100ED3 stylus. Sometimes i just want to sell my 100c MK3. it's a big question to keep it and invest more or to sell it. That headshell intergated version is not for my main system anymore (since i sold my EPA 100 tonearm). but for second system it's such a great MM cartridge. |
Chakster,
I bought a NOS (new old stock), Technics 205C MK IV stylus from Foxtan about 5 years ago. I now own 2 of these MK IV stylus's. They both can be outperformed by the SAS. Perhaps it is the SAS that is the 'ONE' that is a cut above the rest? Regards |
It's a matter of taste then. To my ears original stylus of 205c MK4 has very pleased presentation, sweet, delailed (especially in the upper range). My sample also came from Alex Tan. However even used 100c MK3 goes much deeper in the bass with better soundstage and more organic presentation than sweeter sound of 205c mk4. That's why i only keep100c MK3.
Jico SAS stylus looks too ugly on the beautiful 205c mk4, but this is just aesthetic point of view of course. Original Technics 205c MK4 is their best design IMHO. Looks a bit like lipstic from the colorful 80s era. Jico SAS with that big black front pannel kills everything aesthetically.
In terms of sound SAS is full of details etc but somehow boring, maybe it's just me.
P.S. My flat mate who tested those Technics with me also voted for full original 205cmk4 and 100cmk3 (his own cartridge is Sony XL55 MC). Jico SAS replacement was new from Japan btw. |
Chakster,
Your first mate and I would agree. My MK IV (original) also preforms better than the XL-55. That was why I sold the XL-55 and bought the XL-88. Just so anyone who reads this thread understands. There is not doubt that an original Technics, weather it be the 205C or the 100C are great cartridges. But its styli profile is only an elliptical. Only so much information can be removed from the record grooves with this profile design. This is why the conical got replace by the elliptical, and why the elliptical has been replaced by several generations of profiles since. Regards, |
This is very interesting fact:
"The earlier Pyramid stylus - released in the late 1950's appears to be the first attempt at a Line contact stylus, however at that time there was no pressing need for it in the market, and the concept appears to have failed commercially, and disappeared with very little trace. The idea was then resurrected with the release of CD4 and the Shibata.)"
I wonder which stylus profile people use for retipping top of the line Technics 100c series mk3 and mk4 (eliptical), those who want to keep it close to the original (as someone described here earlier). If the original Technics naked stylus was laser mounted to boron cantilever i guess modern profiles are just glued to the boron cantilever ? Correct me if i'm wrong.
Technics mk3 spects are: 5Hz to 100 kHz (20Hz ~ 15 kHz ± 0,3 db) Eliptical 0.2 x 0.7 mil / 5 x 18 um
range of eliptical profiles are: Eliptical 0.4 x 0.7 mil / 10 x 18 um - budget styli Eliptical 0.3 x 0.7 mil / 8 x 18 um - quality styli Eliptical 0.2 x 0.7 mil / 5 x 18 um - premium styli *
"When they developed CD4 Quad 4 channel recordings, they needed to be able to record and play back frequencies up to 45kHz - more than twice the highest goal frequency attained with the eliptical styli. Also the very fine corrugations in the groove required for 45kHz could be more easily worn away, so a design was required that could 1) track much higher frequencies and 2) Reduce wear on the record. "
and now we have all these:
Shibata "large" design 6 x 75 um Shibata "small" design 6 x 50 um Hyper Eliptical (various sizes!) Stereohedron 0.3 x 2.8 mil / 7 x 72 um Line Contact (various sizes) Fine Line 8 x 40 um These are all much the same. Micro Line 2.5 x 75 um Micro Ridge 3.8 x 75 um VanDenHull 4 x 70 um FritzGeiger 5 x 70 um SAS 2.5 x 75 um Paratrace 4 x 70 um
Source: https://sites.google.com/site/zevaudio/turt/stylus-shape-information |
"Whilst the AT150ANV sounds similar tonally to both the AT155Lc and the Signet TK7LCa....it somehow misses the ability to convey the emotional impact of the music." -Halcro
Yep, looking at vintage AT155LC spects (1982) i found it superior to latest AT150ANV (and AT150MLX).
--------------*** AT155Lc SPECTS--------------
Frequency Response: 5-35,000 Hz *** Channel Separation: 32 dB (1 kHz) Tracking Force Range: 0.8-1.6 g Stylus Construction: 0,12 mm, Nude square shank Recommended Load Impedance: 47,000 ohms Output: 5 (mV at 1 kHz, 5 cm/sec) Channel Balance: 0.5 dB Stylus Shape: Linear Contact Cantilever: Beryllium Compliance: 16 (100Hz)
--------------*AT150ANV spects. --------------
Frequency Response: 10-23,000 Hz Channel Separation: 30 dB (1kHz) Vertical Tracking Force: 1.2 - 1.8 grams Recommended Load Impedance: 47 k-ohms Output: 4 mV Channel Balance: 0.8 dB (1 kHz Stylus Shape: MicroLine™ (ML) Cantilever: Sapphire Pipe Compliance: 10 (100Hz)
--------------*AT150MLX spects--------------
Frequency Response: 10-30,000 Hz Channel Separation: 30 dB (1 kHz) Tracking Force Range: 0.75 - 1.75 g Stylus Construction: Nude square shank Recommended Load Impedance: 47,000 ohms Output: 4 mV Channel Balance: 0.8 dB Stylus Shape: MicroLine™ (ML) Cantilever: Gold-plated Boron Compliance: 10 (100Hz)
Now i wonder how all these MM sounds compared to my ltd. Audio-Technica MC design (which i like). Is is worth to try AT MMs (i'm not sure).
-------------- AT-ART-2000 spects --------------
Playback frequency range: 10 - 50,000Hz Output voltage: 0.4mV Channel separation: 30dB (1kHz) Output balance: 1dB (1kHz) Stylus pressure: 1.6 - 2.0g Coil impedance: 12 Omega (1kHz) Direct current resistance: 12 Omega Load resistance: Head amplifier: 100 Omega or more Trance: 20 Omega or more Coil inductance: 50 mu H (1kHz) Stylus: Angular MicroLine™ (ML) Compliance 9 (100Hz)
|
Chakser,
I own everyone of the cartridges you mention except the ART 2000. The ART that I own is the new 9. It is 'by far' the best cartridge when compared to everything that we have discussed. It is also better than many that we have not! Regards, |
Chakster, Interesting specs.... Why do you imagine manufacturers of current model MM cartridges are building them to lesser standards than past ones...and certainly lesser standards than current model LOMCs...? Is there some sinister plot...❓👹 |
I guess so ... Otherwise i don't understand why people retipping old cartridges to the new standard when totally new cartridges available and claimed to be better. Ferefing to you own comment the old ATs are better than new ATs. Same we can see looking at their specifications (if it means something).
The questions is also a comparison of MM vs. MC of the same brand (Audio-Technica) when the price for their 150ANV (MM) is similar to the price of Limited Edition AT-ART2000 (MC). I can confirm that the last one is amazing cartridge, but i never checked their MMs.
So why do we need MM when we have MC (for the same price) ? |
So why do we need MM when we have MC (for the same price) ? So you believe that MCs are better than MMs at equal price levels...? |
I have had many cartridges re-tipped. But I am using this word in a very broad sense. Actually a new cantilever also came with this 're-tip'. Never have I stayed with the original profile if it was a M/M. I have always 'upgraded' the profile. Sometimes with a Shibata. Sometimes with something more exotic. All depends on what I wanted as its end results. Personally I think the cantilever makes the biggest change overall. I also prefer the Shibata profile. It adds a bit or romance to the presentation. (grin) I don't believe there has been a 10, 20, 30+ fold improvement in cartridges over the last couple of decades yet the prices have increase that much and more. Yes, I understand that if you sell less, you have to charge more but this spiraling upwards of prices began way before the market reduction of sales which was due to the CD. I think the word 'greed' fits in here quite nicely. The SAS from Jico is a very good example of what is wrong with the cartridge pricing. They Sell the Technics 205C SAS for $133. Try to find a re-tipper willing to mount a Boron cantilever with a Micro-Ridge tip for that amount of money. A cartridge dealer usually wants at least 50% of the original selling price to get a repair. Why such a difference between Jico and the rest of the industry? Surely Jico is making a profit at $133. Clear Audio has a cartridge. The Virtuoso. Sold for $900+. It turned out to be a Audio Technica AT 95E. The AT can be bought for $30! Yes, Clear Audio made a few changes to the AT 95E, but to charge 30 times the price of the original AT is just 'GREED'. We buy these old M/M cartridge due to value. There has been very little improvement and what improvements have been discovered can be applied through a new cantilever/stylus. Weather it be through Jico, an original off of ebay, or re-tipping, it is as good if not better that what can be bought today and done so for far less money. |
Answering your question i can clearly say that all MC cartridges in my arsenal are better than vintage MMs i have tried. But i'm in the beggining of the road, i do not have much experience as you guys. I wish i could find decent MM design to compete with my MC (for example my favorite vintage Argent MC500HS high output sapphire cantilever with hyper elliptical stylus).
Audio-Technica MC ART-2000 ltd (boron, micro line stylus) simply blown away all top Technics MMs like selected 205cmk4 and used 100cmk3. With ZYX CPP-1 Pre-Pre connected to MM stage this AT ART-2000 MC sounds even more detailed. The price of this MC is not much higher than their top MMs (no matter vintage or new in $300-750 category). This Argent MC on the right tonearm also blown away all the technics top line. Before i have tried them (MCs) i thought these MMs are fantastic.
I'm not talking about my ZYX Airy or ZYX 4D Premium here, cos the price is much higher.
I'd like to check top Glanz/Astatic, Garrott, Signet/AT line people advised on here, but do you think they really can compete with top of the line MCs ? It's hard to believe.
I have starded another thread about exotic Bamboo cantilever of Madake by Miyajima. If you think cantilever is very important i wonder what do you think about organic bamboo cantilevers :)
|
To be honest, untill this thread i have never expected people re-tip budged MM cartridges so often (along with cantilever and suspension replacement). I alway thought re-tipping is for MC (due to their desing) or just for very rare expensive MMs like Technics P100CMK4.
At the same time i have seen so many re-tipped MC cartridges on sale after the customer got it from re-tipper. It's quite often people broke the tip or cantilever on original MC, then they pay for re-tip (often SoundSmith or VDh) and after it's done they just tryin' to get rid of the cartridge (even if they say it's much better than the opriginal of course :) Which make me think than original desing means something important (at least for MC). No?
Still curious how good is the original motor of Technics 100cMK3 and who can make re-tip, new cantilever and suspension to make this cartridge much better than original and place in at the top leven MM even made ? |