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
Yes, Acman3
Glanz 31L (line contact) equal to Astatic MF200 (shibata) according to Nandric experience. The MF200 raved by Raul before he discovered mega rare MF2500 (older and better model).

The Glanz top and very rare models: MF61 and MF71L
If the 31L is so good i can expect 61 and 71 must be simply amazing.
The Glanz top and very rare models: MF61 and MF71L
If the 31L is so good i can expect 61 and 71 must be simply amazing.
Not necessarily.....
I had the 31L, 51L, 71L and M5 (integrated headshell) in my system all at the same time....HERE
Not only was I underwhelmed by them all (considering the hype)...but the M5 was a mangy animal insistent upon excising any manner of realism and joy from the grooves it encountered.
M5
In the end I kept the 51L as sounding perhaps the best of the lot (albeit there was little audible differences between it and the 31L and 71L in my system).
The left channel stopped operating after about 6 months of 'forced' ownership and luckily I don't miss it...💩
I have both the Glanz MFG61 and the Victor X1 with the original Beryllium cantilever/Shibata stylus. From my testing thus far the Glanz 61 is smoother in the top end and more refined than the Victor X1. I have not heard the Glanz Halcro refers to above and cannot comment on those.
The X1 on my Platine Verdier/FR64S has a similar balance to my Koetsu Black, but is etched through the mids and a little brittle in the top end. The Koetsu sounds more relaxed and is more refined. The MFG61 mounted on a FR64S on my Final Audio VTT1 is much smoother and more refined than the X1, sounds like you are sitting a few rows further back in the hall.
Everybody talking about SAS stylus as an upgrade over originals on several cartridges: Garrott, Victor/JVC, Shure, Technics and others. I have mentioned before that my experience with SAS is limited to the one made for Technics 205 series and to be honest i preffer the original stylys on Technics 205c mk4 and it was far more enjoyable than SAS. The only problem is to find original technics stylus in decent condition of suspension.

After this experience i'm not a fan of jico sas in my system.

As for the Glanz upper models i will report a bit later.

But with the cost of Glanz 31L in stock condition it is a winner at the moment. On Zyx Live-18 headshell it looks like they are made for each other, integraded very well. I will upload pictures later.
Dover (and possibly others), is the MFG61 unusual in that it has a low compliance? Otherwise I have to wonder whether your impressions of its sound are "colored" by the fact that it is mismatched with the FR64S. I know Raul convinced many that the "rule" about matching compliance and effective mass is made to be broken, but I have to think there are some limits to the heresy he championed. Since all these judgements are subjective, it is nigh impossible to know where the limits apply, however.
It would be nice if someone can email me Glanz MFG61 manual or any tech specs ? chakster45 on gmail

Lewm, this is not a low compliance cartridge, but higher compliance than 31L (which is a mid compliance itself).
Lewm - short answer is I don't know because the Glanz MFG61 came in the original packaging minus the specs sheet. I ran the Glanz MFG61 in the FR64S with a light headshell and 170g counterweight to lower the effective mass as much as possible. Cantilever looked reasonably stable and centred in this set up. I also run the X1 with the 170g counterweight on the FR64S which was an improvement over the standard counterweight. If the Glanz MFG61 sounds better in a low mass arm than what I experienced then it would be an extraordinary cartridge.
I brought up the question of arm mass numerous times on this thread. I'm unconcerned about low frequency resonance in the warp region, it either tracks or not, but I think there are SQ consequences using a high cu cart on a high mass arm.

VE has FR64S listed as 35g eff mass. Is this correct for the stock arm? I've heard the arm sound great with some moderate cu carts, but I wonder about high cu.

It could be no change using a high quality arm 1/5 the mass, but I suspect otherwise. Eff mass is the same as MOI (moment of inertia) and even with low bearing friction the mass seems to slow down response and make it sound different. What might be authoritative with one cart might sound thick with another?

I think Raul was right concerning low frequency resonance, but that's not the only consideration. Peter Pritchard advocated 6.5Hz. Maybe this was for his 50cu carts, but the Sonus arm has 4.1g eff mass. MOI is extremely low. Hard to imagine how extreme mass wouldn't make a difference.

Regards,
Could be wrong, but I did not think eff mass of FR64S was quite THAT high (35gm). I assumed it was in the 20-30gm range. Some of those data on VE are suspect, at best. Of course, one variable is the choice of headshell. I think the FR headshells can be quite heavy. So, maybe with the heaviest FR headshell, the eff mass of the FR64S could exceed 30gm. And if so, one can only imagine what is the eff mass of the FR66S, which some here have used with MMs. (I own an FR64S, but like Dover, I use it with a light-ish headshell. Only so far with a Koetsu.)
Maybe it's a mistake. They have the 64FX listed as 20g eff mass. I thought they were the same except for internal wire. Perhaps that number should be for the 66?

I just hooked up my 980LZ - what a nice cart. Wish I had a better stylus for it. I suspect this would be a good candidate for stylus/cantilever upgrade, a Soundsmith level 2 or 3 might be just the ticket. Anybody try something like that? It will have to wait till I get the Z1 squared away.
Fleib,

I have both the 981LZS and the 981HZS. On the HZ I am using the D3500e stylus with excellent results (Stanton recommended replacement). I mention this because there is a NOS D3500e stylus for sale on flee/bay. Not cheap but it just might be the last NOS we'll see. Mine has very low hours of use so I will pass but in your case, I think I would go for it!
Regards,
Don
Looks like our Italian friend is selling the Acutex 412 for $55. A very good price if you didn't get one a while back.
Hi Don,
Yes, I have a D3001e - .2 mil nude elliptical. Sounds good, outperforms a Jico D81 shibata.
I'd rather try for something better. A .2 elliptical has the smallest contact area of any tip. All things being equal, will wear out fastest. I'm not thrilled with Stanton QC anyway and not sure about Pickering.

I can't help thinking this cart can deliver more. I already have the Pickering stylus holder, maybe it will improve with a ruby LC or micro.

Ever see David Dlaloum's web site? Check out the Pickering 7500 - same as 980LZ:
https://sites.google.com/site/zevaudio/turt/cartridge-comparison-list/pickering-xlz-7500-s

Regards,
Acman3

Hi Danny, I bought an Acutex 312IIISTR from the Italian seller. My friend and I were both highly impressed with the sound of such an inexpensive cartridge even in its day. Do you think the 412 is better? I have the Acutex 420, which is a little dry and analytical when compared to my very musical 320.

BTW my SAS for the Z1 is in LA customs, so it should arrive this week.

John
John, I personally like the Acutex 312 more than the 412, but saw the Acutex 412 for such a low price and thought I would point it out. They are both pretty good.

I remember some liked the Acutex 412 better than the 312, but if you didn't like the 420, I would suspect you wouldn't enjoy the Acutex 412, but......
Regards, Jbethree: A comparison of the LPM 312 and 412 illustrates the qualities one might expect when describing typical qualities of a moving iron relative to a comparable moving magnet cartridge. In spite of being MM (as are all the 4xx series) the 412 retains the width and depth of soundstage demonstrated by the 3xx tri-pole Acutexes (Acutexi?) but is somewhat brighter.

As Acman3 (hi, Danny!) wrote; "They are both pretty good.".

Peace,
Mmmmmm Acutex. One wonders what other Tri-pole design cartridges are out there? I know there are others.....
I've been using an Acutex LPM320STRIII (heretofore to be known only as "LPM320") for quite some time now on my Lenco with Dynavector DV505 tonearm. The Acutex alternates with a still original Grace Ruby. At first, the Grace had the edge, but lately, after putting many more hours on the LPM320, which was NOS when I first mounted it, it has really blossomed. It now competes with the Ruby, but that I think is in part due to the fact that the Ruby is heading for a new stylus. (I also have that other Grace Ruby with the new SS OCL stylus that sounds BAD; I need to send it back to SS.) Has anyone tried the rocket-ship mount on the Acutex LPM series? Raul declared it was a downgrade from the P-mount, but I have to try it some day, just because it's so cool looking. I've got an M320 too, just sitting.

My 980LZS, also purchased "used", seems to be deteriorating a bit, but I've got an NOS 981LZS to replace it. The old-timer 980 got whupped by an Ortofon MC2000 (ex one of our colleagues here) riding in my L07D. What a quaint old collector type I have become!
Hola!

I have forgotten, are the 4xx and 3xx styli interchangeable using the same body? I think I remember they were not.

John
The styli are not interchangeable, as the 3xx series are IM where as the 4xx are MM

I found the 412 in my system was grossly too bright, and there were harsh sibilances even with resistive loading tuned down. Tried dampening fluid and playing with anti-skate and alignment to no avail. It has a nice soundstage and character though
Ok, it's 1st of october and i can name new cartridge of the month now.

Seriously the GLANZ FM-61 is probably the best find so far! Thanks to all contributors in this thread.

This one beat every MM/MI i have owned before (including Technics 100cmk3 and 205cmk4, ADC Astrion, Glanz 31L ... ). This GLANZ 61 Moving Flux design sound way different from nice Glanz 31L. The MF 61 (by MITACHI CO., LTD) is their rarest and best cartridge with ultimate highs (this extended highs remind me a bit of top of the line technics). This is my new favorite cartridge.

It's been said before on here about GLANZ 61 by others:

"The MFG-61 with its special tiny stylus tip and boron cantilever may very well be the finest of the GLANZ MF carts."

"The MFG61 is certainly in MY top five or six cartridges. Don't have a 71L, Glanz 5 or 7 to compare so I will try to describe its sound relative to the MF200/MFG31L. It is more refined than the MF200 (which I like a lot) and slightly faster. Better leading edge attack and decays. The highs from the 61 are more three dimensional than most any other cart I own. Don't think I have ever heard better reproduced cymbals. Vocal textures are heavenly. The bass is where the 61 is suspect, at least with the five or six hours I have put on it. The deep bass does not have the control I like to hear. Powerful but a little wooly. It was NOS when I received it so it deserves another 20 hours to be fair. For all I know it may have the distortions of a Salvador Dali painting but it sounds good to me." - Steve Dobbins
Need a new stylus for my ancient ADC XLM mkII, bought new in the 70s with a Philips 312 TT. Hasn't been used in 35 years.

The ViVid line stylus from LPgear looks promising, believe it is made for them by Jico. Does anyone here have any experience with the ViVid line or LPgear?

Thanks, John
I have dealt with LPgear on several occasions with no problems at all. Their Vivid Line is available for several different cartridges, one being the AT 95. I have transplanted that AT Vivid Line into a Clear Audio Virtuoso with excellent results. It does take careful set up to eliminate IGD (inner groove distortion), but once you find the sweet spot, you will be quite happy with the results. Well worth the money!
Regards,
Jbethree,
LP Gear says the vivid line is from someone other than Jico. I'm guessing Nagaoka, said to be the largest manufacturer of styli in the world.
The price of Jico shibata is now about $140 and Gear is replacing all the Jico shibata with vivid and they claim identical tip dimensions.

I have read a couple of complaints, but mostly raves.
Turntable Needles might have a shibata if you decide on one of those.
Regards,
Some interesting read below from posts about our favorite stylus's.

muovimies said: ↑
AFAIK the actual manufacturer of Jico styli (at least the diamonds, perhaps the cantilever as well) is Namiki, what their relationship with Jico is I have no idea - it's possible that Jico is their subcompany for making the rest of the stylus assembly or marketing the aftermarket styli, or it could be Jico is a completely separate entity that just happens to source their stuff from Namiki. Namiki also makes the AT styli, and interestingly enough the last I checked Jico doesn't offer advanced styli for AT carts. Also the SAS looks very similar to the Audio Technica MicroLine stylus - it seems either it's identical or a variation of it.
Namiki Jewel make (and originally designed in the 1980's) the SAS/ML/MR stylus tip - all pretty much the same thing, with different names by the companies Namiki supply it to. Microridge is Namiki's original name for it, SAS is Jico's name for it, and Microline is Audio Technica's name for it. Other companies including Dynavector, Grace, Lyra, Shure and a few others I've forgotten used Namiki's microridge name as well, but Namiki is the only company with the technology to make the most advanced ridge-type shapes. They almost certainly have agreements with cartridge manufacturers which buy their tips that they don't supply them to aftermarket manufacturers to make cheaper aftermarket styli for their cartridges, as it wasn't until Shure stopped making microridge styli (due mainly to their beryllium cantilevers no longer being available), that Jico offered SAS styli for the Shure V15's (III, IV, V and Vx) which had previously had Shure MR styli. Likewise, you'll notice that Jico doesn't offer SAS stylus options for AT cartridges which have ML tips - they're obviously prevented from making them by Namiki or AT, or both, since they have the technology, and the Namiki-made tips.

Namiki also made (and helped design with JVC) the Shibata tip for JVC (and others) in the 1970's. So it's almost certain that they make other stylus tip shapes as well as the advanced shapes.

muovimies said: ↑
Shibata is patented by another company, was it Victor / JVC if I recall correctly? I don't know how long patents like that are valid in Japan, but if they still have to pay for making it and using the name, that might explain the relatively high prices of Shibata styli. The "VividLine" dimensions seem very close to the original Shibata dimensions (VividLine 5x76µm vs Shibata 6x75µm) so I think it's possible the VividLine is a clone/variation of the Shibata shape that they don't have to pay any royalties for. There's also a 2nd variation of the Shibata stylus with a smaller major radius (something along the lines of 50µm) that is used at least by Ortofon in some of their cartridges.
Yes, it was JVC, who designed (in conjuction with Namiki) the Shibata stylus for the CD-4 quadraphonic system they designed with RCA, and it was named after the JVC engineer responsible, Norio Shibata. While testing it, JVC discovered it had advantages for stereo reproduction as well, including lower distortion, lower stylus wear, and lower record wear, so they patented it.

That's the reason why many other cartridge manufacturers had to design similar extended line contact tips, to avoid paying higher prices to use the Shibata, so we had Hyperbolic (Shure), Hyperelliptical (both Nagaoka and Shure used that name), Parabolic (EEI/Elite Electronic Industries), Pramanik (B&O), Quadrahedron and Sterehedron (Pickering and Stanton), Van den Hul (A.J. van den Hul), PARabolic Oval Cone/Paroc (Dr Weinz). Ortofon have sourced stylus tips from a number of different suppliers over the years, including Fritz Gyger, van den Hul and Namiki (who made the Shibata).

muovimies said: ↑
Btw. I think there at least used to be another big company still making styli besides Namiki, I think it was probably Nagaoka since they also marketed a lot of replacement styli in the past - don't know if they still do in Japan. Probably they at least make their own diamond tips. Ok here's a quote from their website: As the main manufacturer of this kind in Japan, we produce diamond styli. The machining process involves first joining a diamond to a metallic titanium shank in a vacuum deposition furnace, then polishing the diamond to a circular cone and shaping the tip to a radius of 15 microns.
Like a lot of companies which diverted into audio equipment manufacture, Nagaoka were originally a jewel company like Namiki, cutting jewels for watch bearings, and it was a natural progression into cutting diamond stylus tips, as a lot of the Swiss stylus masters (e.g. Fritz Gyger) did.

It was rare that cartridge manufacturers made all parts of their cartridges – most contracted out parts to specialists, and the only manufacturer who made everything in their cartridges was Nagaoka. In 1981 they made more than 70% of the styli on sale in Japan, despite only having a 5% share of the Japanese cartridge market (source Nagaoka’s International Operations Director, 1981). So the styli they made also appeared in many other Japanese cartridge brands, although of course they didn’t say who! So it’s a fair bet that they still make styli for other manufacturers too, although being a large company, audio isn’t the only thing they do.

Regards,
Acman3,

I discovered it on one of the forums that I visit quite some time ago. I do not remember which one but due to all the information contained within, I filed it away in a folder on my laptop under stylus!
I do wonder why there was no mention of Denon/Highphonic in that discussion. They use on some of their cartridges a cantilever made of aluminium, magnesium, titanium, and Silicon Carbonate. I have often wondered who makes that one because I have found it to be an excellent cantilever. Andy of Needle Clinic, can provide that one also but has not revealed where he gets it. Hopefully there is someone who can chime in with some additional information to fill in some of the blanks! (grin)
Regards,

These Goldring 800 replacement styli are once again available. It's been quite awhile since this was the cartridge of the month but it is still a tremendous bargain combo. Not the last word in bass impact but it tracks like crazy, the imaging is high and deep with lots of air around the instruments. Just listened to 'Born to Run'. Bruce and the Big Man never sounded more real. It has a Shibata type diamond tip, made by Astatic.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/GOLDRING-NEEDLE-D110ESE-FOR-CARTRIDGE-G-800-SUPER-E-USE-ASTATIC-GO-100-QD-/221886116799?hash=item33a97173bf
Griff,
The company left out of that post is Ogura. They make the stylus/cantilever on many high end carts including ones from Lyra, Dynevector, etc. Most of their tips are generically called linetrace or micro types. They make a tip called pathfinder - might be the same as PA ?

Anyway, it seems Namiki, Ogura, and Nagaoka are the big 3.
I think Nagaoka might make bonded styli exclusively. Even the boron MP300 has a bonded stylus and maybe the MP500 ?
It could be that Jico gets SAS from Namiki (made to spec) and others from Nagaoka, but this is conjecture. They are jewel setters.

I read that the patent ran out on the microridge, but who else would tool up to make it? The shibata II was probably patented around the same time as microridge. With the resurgence, cart manufacturers might be scrambling for contracts?
Patents usually don't stop an audio manufacturer anyhow. They just call it something else.
Regards,
Jbethree

I had Axel install one of his last Beryllium/Shibata cantilever's on a Goldring G800. It is one of the cartridges that I will never sell. NEVER! That cartridge truly has a great generator. I might have to buy one of these Astatic's to keep (just in case). (grin)
Thanks for the tip!
Regards,
Neo,

I have a Nagaoka MP50 Super which is a square shank nude mounted 'in' a Sapphire tube but this is not something currently being produced. I think Nagaoka is capable and does produce anything that the market requires, just not on their current line of cartridges.
Your comments in regards to 'patents' is a good point. I bet with this new wave of vinyl interest, they are scrambling to just fill the contracts that they already had! Sort of makes me smile! (grin)
Last night i have mounted Glanz MF61 on Reed 3P "12 and was blown away. Before i have tried Glanz in my second system on lighter arm, but with Reed (18g effective mass) it's much much better.

The only think is missing is the manual of this cartridge! Would be nice if someone can share (chakster45 on gmail).

Griffithds,

Four out of ten have sold since I made my post. I hope fellow forum members snap these up. I agree that the G800 has a great generator.

Best,

John
Jbethree, thanks for the notification about the availability of replacement styli for the Goldring 800. I've had an 800 body for a few years now, waiting.

I have thus far played only a few LPs with one of these Astatic NMR "Quad Diamond" styli, but am very glad I picked one up. At this very early point it sounds like a winner combination.

Thanks again.
Dean_man,

I'm glad you're enjoying it. The bass is better than I originally thought but not the very best. Love the detail and separation. Wish the soundstage was somewhat wider but still well worth the money.

John
http://d1c51ih66j7l74.cloudfront.net/api/file/57xq1aMGRK2VvsmmXwFk/convert?cache=true&fit=max&h=630&rotate=exif&w=840#DSC09416.JPG

http://d1c51ih66j7l74.cloudfront.net/api/file/mjukPmolSi6kz2bTSRcp/convert?cache=true&fit=max&h=630&rotate=exif&w=840#DSC09418.JPG

http://d1c51ih66j7l74.cloudfront.net/api/file/cnU5gM6eTkGRRbQClrt2/convert?cache=true&fit=max&h=630&rotate=exif&w=840#DSC09422.JPG

http://d1c51ih66j7l74.cloudfront.net/api/file/7qiH54YKTiOqFUH0M5EN/convert?cache=true&fit=max&h=630&rotate=exif&w=840#DSC09425.JPG

http://d1c51ih66j7l74.cloudfront.net/api/file/hBQkRhpRou3ti3gimMmS/convert?cache=true&fit=max&h=630&rotate=exif&w=840#DSC09429.JPG

http://d1c51ih66j7l74.cloudfront.net/api/file/42oKu1MtSjalJY9Ml7ql/convert?cache=true&fit=max&h=630&rotate=exif&w=840#DSC09430.JPG

http://d1c51ih66j7l74.cloudfront.net/api/file/sgPj42brR5isYaMerND7/convert?cache=true&fit=max&h=630&rotate=exif&w=840#DSC09434.JPG

http://d1c51ih66j7l74.cloudfront.net/api/file/htRTBH1Qvam1kG0lTueS/convert?cache=true&fit=max&h=630&rotate=exif&w=840#DSC09437.JPG

http://d1c51ih66j7l74.cloudfront.net/api/file/V2KO7Qo5RtWrUywQouyW/convert?cache=true&fit=max&h=630&rotate=exif&w=840#DSC09439.JPG

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Here are some photos of the manual for the Astatic MF-100 as well as the cartridge mounted in an Astatic headshell, plus the case and box.

I'm a huge fan of the Astatic MF series. A relative of mine gave me their turntable and the cartridge attached to the tonearm was an MF-100 and I've been hooked on Astatic MF cartridges ever since; although I still own several other brands of cartridges besides Astatic.

The MF-100 is probably the best phonograph cartridge I've heard so far but I won't be surprised if another cartridge makes its way into one of my tonearms and takes the Astatic's place. There are so many cartridges out there and I've only listened to a small portion of them so far.

The Astatic cartridges that I currently own are: 2 MF-100s, an MF-100MR (I have the manual for the MF100MR, if anybody wants photos of it just let me know, it's almost identical to the MF100 manual though), an MF-300 (just the stylus but it still fits on the other Astatic MF bodies), an MF-2501 and some other cartridge by Astatic that I can't find any info about with the model name IM-25P. (The box claims it's an inducted magnet P-mount cartridge). The only other IM series cartridge I've seen online is the IM-10E. If anybody wants me to post a photo of the IM-25P just let me know.

The stylus for the MF-300 seems to give records somewhat of a different sound (at least to my ears). My guess is that it's probably because the MF-300 has an elliptical stylus instead of a parabolic shibata stylus like the MF-100.

I tried bidding on that Astatic 2500 back in May of 2014 but was outbid at the last moment. I haven't seen another MF-2500 since then, at least not to my knowledge. I still want one. If anyone has one they're willing to sell please let me know.

Paul
^^^^My Post above is about the Astatic MF series.

I didn't realize that it would show the link to one of the photos in the title.
Hello Ottoman78, I have a NOS MF-100 that I haven't listened to in awhile, as well as an SME 3012 as referenced in your photographed OEM doc. I'll mount it shortly for comparison to my current reference Ortofon MC2000 and AT ART7 MCs.
Two carts for sale:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/231749676413?rmvSB=true&afsrc=1&rmvSB=true

http://www.topclassaudio.com/web/eng/used_product_details.jsp?gid=7825
Dear friends: I can read that many of you are motivated enough for the JVC X1 cartridge.

lLewm posted that I never talk about but I did it years ago on this forum and what I posted was:


" I bought a JVC TT/tonearm that came with a JVC cartridge already mounted. When arrived and to my surprise that cartridge was/is the X! top of the line that sounds really good and that I was looking for for years and never get it. Was a surprise because cartridge when mounted we can read its model because it's in the cartridge top plate.
Well, in those times I found out in Europe the last and only one in the world NOS MK2 stylus that Nandric made me the favor to bought it for me and this is the version I have.

The Z1 that I own too is really a very low level cartridge it does not matters that in theory both has same cartridge motor. Difference is night and day on quality performance. Same with the SAS stylus that I have.

Normally top/premium manufacturer cartridges ( same other model motors ) are truly different because its quality construction/materials and very tight tolerances even the stylus is different in quality because are hand selectd as the whole cartridg is, stylus is better polished than the other models.

My X1-MK2 is a serious challenge even to the  Astatic 2500.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Well, in those times I found out in Europe the last and only one in the world NOS MK2 stylus
Perhaps mine is the illegitimate 'forgotten' one from Japan?
http://i.imgur.com/DOtiqTR.jpg
From where incidentally.....they were all made and sold initially 😜

Some months ago I bought a Signet MR5.0 ML  I really bought it for the beryllium/ML stylus, hoping it still has life.  The MR5.0 series has a  490mH generator similar to a 440/120 or a 155, 160 etc. 

I lucked out on that one.  The stylus sounds good on another body, but the old generator does not.  It does not measure well either.

My experience with the Victor carts is quite different from Raul.  I've only tried one X1 on extended loan. It had an original beryllium/shibata I believe. The Z1/SAS dramatically outperformed it. It wasn't close.

Maybe the X1 wasn't at its best or maybe Raul's Z1 performed like my MR5.0. 


Dear Halcro: Yours is not the XI.MK2 but the IIE that was not the latest version  and top of the line . Different models for sure.

Maybe you could fine another NOS MK2 like mine but I try very hard to find out another sample with out luck. Try it and if you are lucky a get one you will see and heard the differences on both models.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Fleib: Problem with vintage and even today cartridges is something that I think you posted: there is no two exactly the same.

Through the years in this thread I posted many times the differences on two same model samples in my system.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
   A few years ago, Nandric scored a NOS X-1 MKII.  It was I who purchased it for him from the Jauce auction site in Japan.  It was therefor sent to me and I forwarded it to him.  I spent quite a bit of time listening to it and did determine that it sounded better than my X-1 MKII.  Mine obviously must of had much use.  But when compared to the Z-1 SAS, the differences were not that apparent.  I spent many hours trying to determine their differences. In the purest sense, the X-1 is slightly more open sounding.
But overall, they are so close in performance to each other, that I had on several occasions, had to get up and go over the the turntable to see which of the JVC's ( whether it was the X-1 or the Z-1 SAS), that I had mounted.  But finding a good X-1 is nearly impossible.  Finding a replacement Beryllium cantilever actually is impossible.  But finding a
Z-1 is easy with an unlimited supply of SAS stylus's available from Jico. For me then, the decision as to which is the more desirable (the Z-1 SAS), becomes quite easy to decide.
   The X-1 has a Beryllium cantilever.  Japan stopped manufacturing the Beryllium cantilevers due to environmental reasons. So JVC stopped producing the X-1 and came out with the Z-1 which has a Borron cantilever. Same generator, same stylus, but they removed the flip down stylus guard from the body.  It became their new top of the line cartridge. So what you really are comparing between the two is the difference between the Beryllium/Shibata and Jico's Borron/MicroRidge. 
Regards,
Dear friends: The Halcro sample has no Shibata stylus but eliptical one and its construction/specs are different because the X1 with shibata stylus was designed in that way for 4-channel that needs a wide open frequency response at the up part of the frequency spectrum.

Exist real differences between the Z-1 and X-1 shibata stylus and where both were marketed with berylium cantilever in Japan?

Yes and not only because the higher X-1 price but because true different performance that we can see and read here ( we can read that both models were not available in Canada and USA, at least according with the information. ):

file:///C:/Users/Rub%C3%A9n/Downloads/ve_jvc_x1%20(4).pdf 

The Halcro version is totally different, even does not " say " JVC but Victor and does not has the 4-channel sign.

JVC designed several MM cartridges ( more MC than MM ) and exist too the Z-4 models and the 4-MD models ( I own the top one on this series. ).

As I posted I was and am lucky enough to get the X-1 and latter on the MK2.

In the other side, the quality of all the SAS stylus replacement were manufactured to an specific price point ( IMHO not top quality. ) and many times with out to much knowledge of the cartridge overall charactheristics.

You can read read here what's happening about and the experience of that Agoner is exactly the one I had with the same cartridge with dedicated SAS replacement:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/telarc-1812-revisited-2 

Regards and enjoy the the music,
R.