My experiences mirror those of Fleib and Griffithds. I have two Victor Z1 and one X1/IIE bodies and styli http://i.imgur.com/kdZ6QOZ.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/W0EFgRB.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/DOtiqTR.jpgI have the original elliptical stylus and cantilever of the X1/IIE and the original Shibata on beryllium for one Z1 as well as an original spherical for the other http://i.imgur.com/5JKvL0a.jpgI also have the SAS Shibata on boron replacement stylus which fits all of them http://i.imgur.com/0cshL30.jpgI have listened extensively to all cartridges on three different arms with a multitude of different headshells and whilst the X1/IIE is superb when mounted in the right headshell, the Z1/SAS is slightly better albeit with a more pronounced lower and mid-bass output. Like Fleib and Griff, I have difficulty in telling apart the X1 and Z1. It is only the original spherical stylus on the Z1 that is noticeably inferior in my system. |
Raul, I also have a NOS Beryllium cantilever for the Z-1. I have not used it do to the excellent results I receive from the SAS. I also have the X-1 mKII so what would be the point? These are being run by a highly modified phono stage with resistance set at 100K. It is beyond any doubt that it is quite a find for the meager price of it parts! Regards, |
Dear friends: I can't be sure but my speculative opinion is that the X-1 cartridges with the Victor denomination and the X-1 with the top plate JVC denomination are not exactly the same or performs the same.
Of course this is not the first time that my experiences are different from the ones of some of you .
I read the Dover post and he talks about the Victor X-1 and he compared against Koetsu and Glanz and he found out that the X-1 ( overall ) is an inferior one.
My experiences with my JVC X-1 and MK2 is the other way around.
Anyway, enough for now on this topic.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Raul,
I find it quite interesting what you have stated in regards the Victor and JVC. It has been my understand that they are the same company. I have heard though that the Victor Nivico, the stylus replacement arm of Victor might have been something other than what it appeared to be. I do understand that you feel, ''enough for now on this topic'' but if there is additional information that pertains to this topic, I am sure many of us would like to know. It is the Shibata tip that allowed JVC to develop the CD4 channel medium for public consumption. The format itself, the CD4 might be a dead horse, never to be ridden again, but both the Shibata and the 100K resistance loading remain with us so this JVC/Victor/Shibata history is a bit interesting. When you add in the re-discovery of the X-1 (or Z-1), it makes one wonder if there are perhaps other un-discovered gems out there just waiting to be stumbled upon. Regards, |
Raul, welcome back, good to see you enter the fray again.
After you stopped replying several folks ask about you but no one seemed to know. Some assumed you simply grew tired of the trials (or found musical nirvana and saw no reason to press further).
If you came back in the interim, sorry, I missed it. I've not seen you respond until the past couple of days. |
Dear Pryso: "
Some assumed you simply grew tired of the trials (or found musical nirvana "
Thank's to ask, as a fact I received several/many emails asking for that all were really appreciated. Things are that I'm to busy and need focus on what I do day by day.
Tired by the trails? never I could think that other/some agoner's maybe could be " tired " of me. found musical nirvana? well I'm still in its quest, as all we know an endless target.
Regards and enjoy the music, R.
|
griffithds 12-03-2015 7:53pm
The format itself, the CD4 might be a dead horse, never to be ridden again, but both the Shibata and the 100K resistance loading remain with us so this JVC/Victor/Shibata history is a bit interesting. Another lasting benefit of CD4 technology is half-speed mastering. That was how they could cut the CD4 masters with response out to 40Khz. Some time after Quad died MoFi and some others used the lathes at half-speed to reduce inertia artifacts in the high treble of their stereo masters. Although the Shibata is still with us, it seems to be making a modest comeback as well. The Shibata is what distinguishes the Ortofon 2M Mono SE (nude Shibata) from the standard 2M Mono (nude conical). |
Ottoman, Interesting manual of the MF100. I notice on page 6 inductance is 90mH - remarkably low. Reminiscent of the Signet TK9/10 series of 85mH, but quite different design. Thanks for posting it. Regards, |
johnnyb53,
Very good point. I had forgotten about half speed mastering. There has been a lot of things that came out of that short lived format. In regards to the Shibata. In many respects, I prefer it over some of the other advanced profiles. It presents more of a sweetness or romantic presentation than a profile like lets say the "Vital Line'. A sweetness in which I find quite pleasant. Whether that sweetness is more distortions or not, doesn't matter to me. After all, this entire hobby is about the enjoyment of music and not the enjoyment of equipment measurements! Regards, |
Griff, I believe that sweetness has to do with phase. The shibata tip has a different facet on the back as on the front. That makes the contact area curved as the record spins. Ortofon has been using the shibata for a long time to voice their carts. If you check out their Cadenza line the Black is boron/shibata. The Bronze is aluminum/replicant. The Blue is ruby/FG70, and Red is Aluminum/fine line. Seems a little odd to have a shibata TOTL over the replicant. Stumbling on tip dimensions at LpGear, they claim the vivid line has the exact dimensions as the Jico shibata. Regards, |
Fleib,
Interesting comment in regards to the LpGear's Vivid Line. Back when we were experimenting with transplants to the ClearAudio Virtuoso, a couple of my transplants consisted of the LP/Gears Vivid Line and also the Jico Shibata. I much preferred the Jico in the Virtuoso. At the time, I also had a Azden YM-P50VL. The Azden was also Vivid Line. That stylus on the Azden had to be perfectly aligned to preform correctly and I spent many hours adjusting it. My opinion of the Vivid Line had been formed based upon the experience I had with the Adzen. When set up wrong, it, the Vivid Line would sound at bit tinny. LP/Gear also sold the Jico Shibata so I wonder who was selling them that Vivid Line? Perhaps Nagaoka. Jico buys their tips from someone. I think that someone is also Nagaoka? This makes me wonder why LP/Gear would offer the same stylus but under two different names? That Vivid Line from LP/Gear was also cheaper than the Jico Shibata. They must have been buying direct from the source and was therefore getting it cheaper than what Jico would sell them the Shibata for. That just might explain why even though it was the same as the Jico Shibata, they gave it a different name. Sorry for the rambling Fleib. Just thinking out loud. I think I need to revisit that Virtuoso and that VL transplant. I do recall that I never had the problems getting it set up correctly like I ''always'' had with the Azden. It not being an actual ''Vivid Line" but actually a Shibata would explain that also! Regards, |
Griff, Even though these vivid and shibata have the same tip dimensions (6/75um), the shibata still has that different facet, front to back. The vivid should sound more like a fine line or LC without the curved contact area. It's been my experience with different carts, that a shibata will slightly soften the extreme high end. I also think this is reflected in Ortofon voicing. Looking at the 2M, the Bronze is fine line and Black is shibata. They share the same generator. It seems widely accepted that the Bronze has a more relentless quality and the Black sweetens it a bit. The cantilevers are the same. The Cadenza Black is a shibata paired with a boron cantilever, perhaps to sound less analytical? Now AT has a 33Sa - shibata. I assume this is to tone it down slightly but not as much as the 33EV. Jico has a great reputation for quality, although their regular offerings are limited to straight aluminum cantilevers and bonded tips. I don't know if the Vivid mfg. QC is as good, but most seem happy with results. As far as the actual source of a diamond, it's hard to say. AFAIK, Namiki and Ogura supply almost all the advanced cuts. These will often come to the cart assembler/company already mounted on the cantilever, especially if it's exotic. Jico probably mounts the diamonds themselves for their regular replacements and perhaps Namiki for SAS? Don't assume too much on this topic. That MP50 you mentioned a while ago might have a stylus made by Ogura or Namiki. If Nagaoka makes bonded replacements, it might be better/cheaper for them to outsource the stylus. Regards,. |
It's a great news that Mr.Iruegas is back right before the X'Mas.
I'm really looking forward which new/rare discoveries Santa has brought to the game, we've been waiting for it. It is also cool that i have finished reading this thread from begginingt to the end not so long ago, but it's still growing! Appart from spectacular Glanz MF 61 (which was not the Raul's discovery, but absolutely the best in my opinion) i'm now waiting for Ortofon M20FL and original Garrott p77 before the New Year, hopefully. It's a shame that i have missed Garrott p88 MC from Michael Fremmer (his review sample) just because the pc was too slow in the last few second of auction (next time i will bid only from iPhone). Anyway that was the reeson to buy original P77 few days later (what a great find). I've been looking for decent sample for quite some time to put my hands on legendary vintage product from Garrott Brothers.
Speaking about Garrott i would like to add this info i've recently received from Australia regarding the difference between old p77 and new p77i.
"
Hello Misha, The principal difference between the two Cartridges is the Stylus Assembly. The Ps-77i is fitted with a Micro Scanner MKII diamond and tuned accordingly. The Ps-77 uses a Micro Tracer Diamond. The sound of the MSMKII is more extended at both ends of the Audio spectrum therefore sweeter treble and deeper bass with overall flatter Frequency response."
Thanks and kind regards, Philippe Luder | Managing Director
|
Griff, Regarding Jico and SAS - I'm not sure about the development of the original SAS stylus and its application, but a Shure replacement stylus might have been it. The SAS tip looks identical to a microridge or microline. I believe tip dimensions are 2.5 x 75um. Ironically, the Shure SAS replacements give flatter response in the higher inductance models. This would be the V15III, and IV, and some older models like the M91 or current M97. As you know, I didn't do this testing, the info comes from David Dlaloum who is retired from posting, at least for now. The quality of SAS is first rate whoever does the actual manufacturing. These are nude single crystal tips precision mounted on a boron cantilever and with a tension wire. Unfortunately, just as the SAS doesn't seem to be as well suited to the V15V, it's not a great alternative for all models. Fortunately, it sounds wonderful on the Victor Z1 models. Z1/SAS has speed and resolution reminiscent of the TK10ML II. It might not be the perfect cart. I found a slight lack of linearity going soft to loud, but this is one of the most enjoyable new (to me) carts I've heard in awhile. Thanks to you and Nandric for bringing it to our attention. Regards, |
Hello all,
I would certainly like to second the "welcome back Raul" sentiment and to thank him for all his stellar cartridge recommendations; which make up about half of my collection.
Finally found the time to set-up properly and dial in my Victor Z1s/SAS hybrid. I ordered the Z1 stylus (clear body) instead of the Z1s stylus. Here's what it did not like: too much positive VTA which the Acutex 320 and 312 LOVE! or very much anti-skating. I finally settled on barely +1 degree VTA and 0.5 gram anti-skate with 1.3 grams VTF.
This baby makes music! It has a real life like quality that I rarely hear since I switched from Maggies to Martin Logans. Could that really be Bryan Ferry or Elvis Costello in the other room. Bass is deep, quick, and firm. The soundstage is deep and forward as well as wide with a life size height. Seems to almost verge on bright but I have only played about 6 sides so far.
When fully broken in this should be a contender for my top cartridge, along with the Empire D/III brass arms, Astatic MF 200, the aforementioned Acutex 320, and the Goldring 800/Astatic hybrid. I really like Shibata stylii. It easily bests my only MC already, a Denon DL-S1.
Between Jauce and Jico the total investment was just under $200.
Thanks to everyone for the great recommendations & LET'S DANCE!
Best,
John
|
...did I forget to mention Becker & Fagen? |
Dear jbethree: As I posted years ago the JVC ( X-1 MK2. ) along the MF-2500 are stellar performers.
Sooner or latter on the net , I hope, can appear for some of you can delight with.
Good that the Z-1 " dance " for you. Btw, the presentation of the JVC against the Denon you name it are just different and maybe the JVC does not beat it. I like that Denon and I like my JVC and MF, maybe different kind of " like ".
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Two Astatic MF-2500 sold on ebay recently. Hope we can read some comment about them here sooner or later.
If it was top Astatic model ever made i have the feeling that Glanz top model beats them all. This is only my suggestion. Since these brands are clones of each other, there is (however) no clone of glanz 61 in astatic line. I believe that was a step forward (and probably the last step in technology) in the glanz line of MF cartridges to create something special (tip mass and cantilever materials on MF 61 are different from anything else in Ganz or Astatic production).
The Astatic mf 200 equal to Glanz mf 31L is a good one, but the 31L with shibata is not even close to Glanz 61 (it's a day and night in quality of performance, own both in mint condition).
|
Dear chakster: ""
If it was top Astatic model ever made i have the feeling that Glanz top model beats them all. This is only my suggestion. Since these brands are clones of each other, ...........................
The Astatic mf 200 equal to Glanz mf 31L is a good one, ...... """"
Where do you read or who told you that Astatic cartridges are clones of the Glanz? In my understood Astatic ( that's a very old corporation. ) only took the Glanz patent ( moving flux. ) and that's all about.
The " clone " you name it: MF 200/ mfg 31L is a good example that those cartridges are not clones. The output level on both cartridges is different 4.2mv vs 3.5mv. Inductance 90 vs 110. VTF: 1.75grs vs 1.25 grs. Cartridge weight: 6grs vs 5.5grs. Frequency response: 10hz to 20khz vs 20hz to 20khz with a 2 db deviation in both cases and I can go on with those differences. As you can see far away to be clones.
The Astatic MF 2500 was an earlier cartridge than the MF 100/200, even its inductance value is different in between and IMHO the 2500 is the best performer in the Astatic catalog and way better than the MFG 71L. I can't talk on the 61 till I heard it.
As I said Astatic is an old and experienced corporation and did not to copy/clone Glanz in the way you posted.
Yes, I can be wrong and the best judge about obviously is you.
Regards and enjoy the music, R.
|
Sorry, error on VTF, 31L: 1.5grs is the right value. |
Dear friens: How could be that two " different " cartridges with different specs and different people cartridge design voicing can sounds/performs the same ( as the MF 200 vs MFG 31L ) for many of you? or that could performs so nearest, for some of you, ( like the Z1/SAS vs JVC X1-MK2 ) when both are way way different in all parameters ?
Maybe each one of us have a different explanation. I think that in a " perfect " audio world that can't happen but in our real audio world and talking of cartridges quality level performance and with vintage ones could happen many things:
- down-graded ( anywhere. ) cartridge sample because natural aged . - damage in the cartridge samples. - too many hours of play on that sample. - cartridge set up not fine tuned in one or both of the vs cartridges. - different SPL on audition where the cartridges has different output levels as the ones I mentioned.
- Non sufficient audio system resolution level to discriminate. - Not enough training in our ears/brain to really make the discrimintating very hard process during an evaluation comparisons. - that we want to hear ( that way for any reason. We are biased in that " route ". ) what in reallity we are not hearing. - because is the " new " toy. - obviously, different audio/music priorities. - and several other reasons that you can think about.
Something that's " weird " for me is that after the last 2-3 years ( that I was out of this forum. ) I follow reading from many of you that still exist many differences in your cartridge samples quality performance and mines
Perhaps I did not grow up. Who really knows.
I would like to know and maybe others too to know your overall opinion about. What's happening down there?.
I really appreciate ( from all of you. ) and need and want to know it and learn about. What " link " or " links " I'm not taking in count or still I do not give enough importance. Thank's in advance.
Regards and enjoy the music, R.
|
Dear Raul, the answer is very simple: I've learned about Astatic vs. Glanz right here on the forum reading posts of owners of the both models (and many other models of these two brands). Guess you've been away for quite some time, but it was discussed before between several members you know.
So let'e get back to this question to find out is that truth or not.
I have Glanz mf31L, mf71L and mf61
I really need help from someone who can email me manual for Glanz 61 (chakster45 on gmail). |
""" ...
( like the Z1/SAS vs JVC X1-MK2 ) when both are way way different in all parameters ? """" even the cartridge body design/construction and stylus/cantilever holder are different!!!!!!
same cartridge body resonances?????
R.
|
Dear chakster: I think that you have to re-read what I posted to you again. Here it's:
"""
The " clone " you name it: MF 200/ mfg 31L is a good example that those cartridges are not clones. The output level on both cartridges is different 4.2mv vs 3.5mv. Inductance 90 vs 110. VTF: 1.75grs vs 1.25 grs. Cartridge weight: 6grs vs 5.5grs. Frequency response: 10hz to 20khz vs 20hz to 20khz with a 2 db deviation in both cases and I can go on with those differences. As you can see far away to be clones. """
Please let me know where you can " see " ( read on those numbers. ) that both cartridges are clones?. For me it's a" disturbing " ( for say the least. ) statement.
""""
the answer is very simple: I've learned about Astatic vs. Glanz right here on the forum reading posts of owners of the both models .... ""
WOW!, I don't expect this kind of answer because I know several of the gentlemans posting here for years and many of them know about " cartridge differences on numbers ".
With all my respect to you I think that what you read it was a misunderstood or a " fault " from you and if not then what you read it was totally wrong.
Regards and enjoy the music, R.
|
or I'm totally wrong. Could you put some light about?
R. |
Sure, some quotes below:
01.11.13: Nandric "Dear Raul, ... Glanz and Astatic carts are made by Mitachi Corporation. Even the boxes are identical. The only difference are the styli: Shibata by MF 100 and 200 and line contact by Glanz 7131. The corpusses look to me also identical..... I compared MF 200 and Glanz 31L and was not able to hear any difference. Vetterone made the same conclusion (Glanz thread). The Glanz 31 L is much better than Glanz 31 E ..."
Vetterone "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."
01.11.13: Storyboy "The Astatic is a very good cartridge but I do not feel that it is in the same domain as these Glanz. Coil windings, materials used, coupling mechanisms and output are distinct across them. And the G7 is, as you note, rated at a whopping 4.2mv. For testing purposes this means that you have to elevate the gain/volume control in order to place the other two on an equal footing when it comes to sheer scale and definition. The Glanz are simply better at retrieving detail than the Astatic and the G7 is better than the G5 on this aspect: once correctly set up and runin! .... Incidentally, the G7 comes as close to repeating the accuracy that I detect with my Technics P100c MK4 as any cartridge I have heard. The most notable difference between the two is the Glanz's transient speed and dynamic impact."
02.26.13: Nandric "Dear Raul, When we the 'ordinary people' make an ranking among our carts this means among 10 or so which we own. The 'best' in this context means the best of the 10. We can't compete with your + 100 carts. With this 'reduction of complexity' or simplification my ranking is: .... 6) Glanz31L (=AstaticMF200) ..."
|
Dear chakster: So, you have no facts and only:
"
The Astatic is a very good cartridge but I do not feel that it is in the same domain as these Glanz ... " just feelings with no real/objective facts that can confirm that opinion.
In the other side no one saids are clones. Example:
"""
Coil windings, materials used, coupling mechanisms and output are distinct across them. """ and even this gentleman has no single reference that confirm his words but " saids " are different and no clones.
"""
Glanz and Astatic carts are made by Mitachi Corporation. Even the boxes are identical. The only difference are the styli: Shibata by MF 100 and 200 and line contact by Glanz 7131. The corpusses look to me also identical. """", this gentleman said are differences but the cartridge body and box. Did he ( or you. ) knew/know the whole internal specific cnstruction?.
chakster if we see two Honda Civic cars where one of them was modified to participate in a real race car to improves its performance : could we say that both are clones just because the looking is the same? or could we say are clones when those cars has different drive/running/design specifications?
I can tell you that for me makes no sense to say are clones. I think are differents.
Again, I think that you are not carefully reading or you have a misunderstood on the FACTS and explanation I gave you in my first post about . You need to read it again and read too my second post where I began: "" Dear friends """
It's weird that not a single gentlemans of the regulars in this thread posted, yet, to help you or help me on this very critical subject.
Seems to me that till now I'm not wrong, yet.
Regards and enjoy the music, R.
|
Take it easy, Raul Maybe brothers or even twins is a better word, i don't mean they are 100% identical inside in construction and specs, but as i said people like Nandric can't hear ANY difference between Astatic mf 200 and Glanz MF31L. Some other people said Glanz are much better desing.
Talking about extra rare Glanz 61 I would say there is nothing like that made by Astatic in their top of the line cartridges, i've seen the specs of Astatic 2500 (frequency range 10 - 40 000, tracking force 1.5 , Line Contact stylus, Inductance 120, Output 3mv, weight 5g). Those specs are closer to Glanz than to some other Astatics, right ?
As for the specs of all Glanz they have listed 20 - 20 000 frequency range for all their models (31,51,71 ...) except the very low costers.
I'm curious about Glanz 61 vs. Astatic 2500
|
Hi Raul,
Yes the Denon DL-S1 is a great cartridge and in the MC world a relative bargain at the $600 + change from Comet Supply. However, with the music I listen to it was somewhat reticent and laid back.The frequency response is very smooth and linear, quite easy to listen to but not visceral enoughl for my favorite rock albums and lacking output volume.
Really like the Victor Z1s/Jico hybrid so far but it has not supplanted some of the other vintage MM classics yet.
Merry Christmas,
John |
Dear chakster: Exist many audio subjects where we learned or understood in not the right way.
It's almost imposible to have even " twins " as you named on cartridges not even with cartridges coming from the same manufacturer.
Audio Technica, Stanton, Sonus and other manufacturers are a good example on my statement. Example: In the MM AT 20 series all the models ( " top of the line ". ) has same motor and loks identical but are not the same and does not performs the same, in that series the 20 SS were " hand selected " because best stylus polished and specs performance on play. Stanton had the 980 and 981 ( same everything. ) where the 981 was " hand calibrated " to meet exactly cartridge specs and in the Sonus Dimension 5 happens the same with the calibrated version.
In other cartridge manufacturers they do the same ( for the top modelñ ) and don't " disclose " it.
""
Glanz 61 I would say there is nothing like that made by Astatic in their top of the line cartridges ... """
why should exist that? Astatic took only the patent and that's all. As I said the voicing of Astatic cartridges was do it from a totally different gentleman than for Glanz cartridges. This subject is critical to understand the whole cartridge design.
Do you think that Lyra just send to Scan-Tech ( Lyra manufacturer as was Mitachi for the Astatic. ) what they want with out makes a deep cartridge voicing to know if what ST did it meets the Lyra " specs "? or we can think that through that voicing and modifications on the cartridge on its building characteristics is what permit Lyra to have the final product. That's the way things happen.
Every thing is impórtant in the design/building of a cartridge and its deep voicing could be one of the higher importance.
Regards and enjoy the music, R.
|
Dear Raul, I have no idea whether the Glanz mf31L and Astatic MF200 are brothers from another mother, or not. But one could take the specifications you quote for each as a way of proving they are not the same and turn the data around to use as evidence that they are or may be the same. None of the numbers you mention are likely to be statistically significantly different from one to the other, could all be due to sample to sample variation, especially the difference in inductance, which by another way of looking at it is not different. Anyway, this is not so important; even if any two cartridges do start out "the same" in design concept, they could still end up sounding quite different, as you say also.
As a bystander in the discussion of Glanz vs Astatic, because I own no examples of either brand, can someone remind me which of the Astatic MF series was finally judged to be the best, after the MF2500? Was it the MF100 or MF200? I gather that the MF300 is a pretender.
In a completely unrelated question, I was recently going through my stash and came upon an NOS Stanton CS100, still in its presentation case. I am a big fan of the 981LZS, but I had come to believe that the CS100 was not so beloved on this thread. Can someone enlighten me? Otherwise, it's a candidate for re-sale, in order to raise funds for the purchase of a mono cartridge.
|
Dear Lewm: In that Astatic series the top of the line is the MF 100 that's IMHO is very good neutral performer where rhe MF 200 is very good too with more " drama ". You can't go wrong with any of those two Astatic's.
In the other side, I owned the CS 100 that many of us ( as me . ) could think the best of the best Stanton but the 981 calibrated beats with some " easy ". For some people is the top one but IMHO not on quality performance.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Well, i will remind Raul's previous statement to Lew and to everybody:
05-02-13: Rauliruegas: "I tested the Astatic MF-2500 and compare it against the MF-200 both JVC X-1s, the ANV, the Precept 440LC and Pioneer PC550 and the MF-2500 outperforms all them in almost any single cartridge performnace characteristics."
P.S. I wish Raul to find Glanz MF61 in the future (Steve Dobbin's top 5 cartridge).
|
Chakster, In fairness to Raul, he was comparing the MF100 to the MF200, to answer my specific question. He is not saying that either is superior to the MF2500.
Raul, Can you clarify what you say about the two Stantons. I know you do not share my fondness for the 981LZS, but I cannot be sure here whether you are saying that the CS100 tops the 981LZS or that there are "other" cartridges that top the 981LZS. My admiration for it remains undiminished. However, I would not venture to claim it is "the best".
|
Dear Lewm: The Collector's Series 100 was one model that in theory was the top of the line in the Stanton catalogue ( over the 981. ).
Nowe, we can't compare the HZ with the LZ because are different cartridges that IMHO both outperforms the 100. If I remember Stanton gave the model name ( 100 ) because they builded 100 cartridges but this I can't confirm 100%.
Anyway, you already have it just listen and decide about.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: On the JVC X-1/Z-1/SAS topic and when all of you have very diferent quality performances experiences than me I always re-think what's happening with what I heard and in the last days I was busy listening both JVC cartridges through my own evaluation/comparation process.
First I would like to know whom of you own the X-1MK2 where you can read in the top plate: JVC X-1 ( not Victor. ) and in the stylus holder 4 channel.
Now, after my listening days my opinion is that the Z-1/SAS still is a mid-fi cartridge and not near the overall performance, stellar one, I experienced with the JVC X-1 MK2.
What do you think of my latest evaluation about? why exist so high differences on these experiences with your collective bias?
Your answers be appreciated.
Regards and enjoy the music, R.
|
Chakster, Right you are. I remember Raul declaring the MF2500 the best MM/MI cart in the universe, and any other universe for that matter. Page 207: **Dear friends: No doubt, the JVC X-1MK1 is not anymore the second best MM/MI but the third best.
I tested the Astatic MF-2500 and compare it against the MF-200 both JVC X-1s, the ANV, the Precept 440LC and Pioneer PC550 and the MF-2500 outperforms all them in almost any single cartridge performnace characteristics.
IMHO the MF-2500 puts a new standards level. No one of those cartridges can even the MF-2500 frequency extremes performance. The kind of bass management handle by the 2500 is the nearest one I heard on any cartridge to the latest digital experince and at the other frequency extreme the word " definition " took a new dimension. Please name any cartridge characteristic you like and the 2500 has on spare and to spread it. For the first time I really enjoy and give a real value to the cartridge characteristic name it: soundstage and this happened thank's to those both great frequency extreme kind of performance where definition, transparency , endless presentation, reality, dynamics, natural agresiveness and balanced tone along " light speed " on transients gave the cartridge performance a " rythmum to die for " like no other MM/MI transducer.** Regarding the MF100, 200 vs. the M31L. It would be nice to have multiple samples to test or mfg specs. I have no experience with any of these, but a difference of inductance of > 20% seems to indicate a different model. However, with these low inductance numbers they look similar, but different. Normally, the one with greater resistance/inductance will have greater output, but magnet strength plays a part as well. There are examples of identical carts from different manufacturers, largely due to the prevalent use of a Japanese OEM. In the case of Stanton/Pickering there are identical carts from these sister companies. The 981LZ is identical to Pickering 7500, and the 881 is the same as the Pickering XSV3000. I believe the CS100 is a later model introduced after QC went downhill? Regards,
|
Below you can read information from ex Pickering dealer in USA about STANTON W.O.S. 100 MM cartridge (with sapphire coated al. cantilever and stereohedron II stylus, i've seen at least 3 for sale this year). Hope it will help:
"Series 100" cartridge also known as the "WOS 100" ("WOS" standing for "Walter O. Stanton"), the cartridge has its beginnings in the legendary Pickering XSV-3000, introduced all the way back in 1976. At that time, most people were startled to hear just how good the 3000 was, and even asked, "Who really makes this cartridge?" believing Pickering incapable of making anything so good. One such "non-believer" was Saul Marantz, to whom I gave a 3000 to use at a consumer audio show while I was PIckering’s National Sales Manager.. He was reluctant to use it at first, but after installing it into the turntable he and Jon Dahlquist were using, Saul came over to the Pickering booth and proclaimed the cartridge the best sounding moving magnet cartridge he’d ever heard.
As design improvements were incorporated into the 3000, the Stanton 881-S was born. While the 881-S was slightly better than the original 3000, those changes silently went into production 3000’s at the time, so that the two cartridges were in fact, identical (this was typical at the time with Pickering and Stanton, and actually a rather clever marketing ploy.)
Over the years the design (using samarium cobalt as the magnetic material) and a stylus that had more than 12 patents on its internal design and construction, eventually evolved into the WOS 100. In addition to the company’s proprietary "Stereohedron" stylus shape (a variation of the Shibata-type), a super-thin, sapphire-coated beryllium cantilever was fitted with a "nude" variant of that Stereohedron stylus. The WOS-100, aside from the customary "Calibration" that all Stantons came with, also came with individually-run frequency response charts. Of course, it also had to be packaged well, and the solid walnut box it came in was something to behold too.
Glamour and glitz aside, the WOS 100 sounds just plain wonderful. It hasn’t been manufactured now for about 10 years, and, despite glowing reviews and huge sales success in Europe, suffered from a genuinely vile and needlessly insulting review in "The Absolute Sound" from a young a**wipe who, by his own admission, never liked Stanton cartridges in the first place. (I believe I’ve written a thread about this entire ordeal before - it’s too long to go into here, but if anyone’s interested, send me a PM and I’ll give you all the "gory details" about the truly fraudulent and misleading efforts of TAS in this matter.) Sales were quite modest prior to that review, and all but collapsed afterwards.
I also own a Shure V/15 Type V MXR, which is a highly-touted MM cartridge. Just a few days ago, I decided to fool around with my turntable setup, and to check the cartridge aligntment. To my horror, I discovered it was way off, and corrected it. I also did the same with the Shure, which I had mounted in an additional headshell. Then I did a comparison.
I used my wife again (who usually thinks I"m nuts whenever I ask her to see if she can hear a difference between anything) as my "audience." I played a favorite track on a Sheffield direct to disc recording of Dave Gruisin, and listened to all of it. It sounded clear, distinct and pleasant.
Then I switched cartridges, without telling my wife which was which. As soon as the first note of the track was heard, there was an immediate difference, and as the music continued, there was no question that the second cartridge was far and away the better of the two: much, much more distinct, brilliant and "alive" sounding, without a deliberate peak in the high end, and a good deal more "bite" to the initial attacks of many instruments. ALL frequencies seemed to be reproduced better, with more "sparkle" to the highs, "presence" to the mids, and "guts" and "impact" to the bottom. These are all my adjectives: my wife simply said, "that one’s much better."
And, of course, "that" cartridge was the Collector’s Series 100.
I guess I went through this exercise to convince myself that I’m using a cartridge that’s still as good as many others of today, other than taking that giant leap into the multi-thousand dollar area for top end moving coil models and their associated step up transformers. While Walter Stanton believed to his dying day that NO moving coil cartridge could ever be any good, none of us in the sales department ever agreed with him, and for the sake of our careers, wouldn’t dare admit that either. Still, some of the company’s products (both Pickering and Stanton) were really first-rate performers, with the WOS-100 firmly planted at the top of the heap.
Stanton today is primiarily a DJ-oriented company, having been sold to a new owner in 1999, and with a new CEO heading up what’s now called "The Stanton Group." Going gun-ho into the DJ marketplace made sense for the company, and I fully support its efforts. Still, if not only for the sake of nostalgia, it’s a crying shame that a product like the Collector’s Series 100 can no longer be had from them."
|
Raul, Thank you for your response. Chakster, I gather you at least prefer the CS100 to the Shure V15 Type whatever. That still leaves some wiggle room for the CS100 to be bested by many others, such as the Glanz/Astatics. I never thought much of the V15, even when it was au courant back in the 60s. Nevertheless it may behoove me to take the CS100 out of its luxurious case and listen to it. I've also got an NOS Stanton 881S Mk II, which I figure would not be quite as good as the 981LZS.
|
Lew, it was not my own opinion, just a quote. This is what an old pickering dealer originally posted online few years ago. You will not find anything else about this cartridge. So his opinion is at least something.
I have never owned Stanton WOS cartridge or Shure V15 myself (i’m not a fan of shure).
I’ve been looking for limited edition Stanton WOS CS100, but never seen anything for reasonable price this year, they were all overpriced even compared to top of the line Stanton and Pickering (approved my many users as the best from the company).
I’m looking forward for your opinion! |
I must be a mid-fi lover at heart, even though I have 30K+ invested in my system. It was designed primarily for multichannel SACD and DVD-A playback; I added the turntable somewhat later.
Generally I have agreed with Raul's cartridge assessments, e.g., the Acutex 420 pretty much sucks. However, the Victor Z1s/SAS hybrid is in my opinion an outstanding catridge and certainly among the better MM choices available. Maybe not truly "stellar" but I have not been fortunate enough to hear a JVC X-1 mkII or the Astatic MF 2500 yet. |
Few days ago i have received my Garrott P77 (original vintage one), i've been looking for Garrott stuff for a long time and finally it's here on my Reed 3P / Tech SP10mk2.
What a wonderful cartridge ! Pretty much "warm" presentation, especially on vintage 45s from the 50s/60s/70s. I really enjoyed it. My sample is used but most likely very low hrs.
|
Dear friends: This is for those owners of JVC X-1MK2 and Victor/SAS that decided not participate in my open dialogue.
People say here in México: """ Whom stay quiet/silence consent """"
So, I understand no one but me owns the JVC X-1MK2 and my different point of view against all of you could be because of that and about the Victor because my two Victor/SAS samples are in bad conditions and yours are first rate.
Good!
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear jbethree: Maybe I need a third Victor sample or maybe today I prefer a different kind of distortions. I can tell you that every one of us " day by day " are learning.
I respect your opinion and hope you can find out the original JVC X-1MK2 that IMHO is a totally different cartridge that the Victor you own.
Btw, it's a pity that the DVD-A almost disappears. Fortunatelly digital always is wroging up on quality level and today 32/384 technology is almost unbeatable even by our be loved analog hobby..
I take advantage of this post to send to every one of you and your dearest family my very best wishes in these holidays!!
Regards and enjoy the music, R.
|
Raul,
I own 2 of the X-1 MKII's. One is NOS. I also own an original Z-1 with a NOS beryllium cantilever/shabita tip. Also own the Z-1 SAS. I question anyone's sanity looking for a X-1 MKII (which they might never find in uasble condition), when they can have 99.9% of its performance with a Z-1 SAS and have it today. Yes, I understand that to some, that last 0.1 % is worth all the effort but life is just to short for me and most others to sweat the small stuff! They are btw all mounted on magnesium head shells and I have no intentions of un-mounting them only to see whether they are labeled JVC or Victor. Regards,
|
Apropos of nothing, I spent today listening to the Ortofon MC2000 on my Kenwood L07D directly driving my modified Atma-sphere MP1, which has plenty of gain for it with no need for a SUT. Wow, what a great cartridge! Of all the tips I ever took from Raul, this is surely numero uno. Detail and musicality all rolled into one lovely device. Muchas gracias, mi amigo. I would never have guessed it was so noteworthy without Raul's mentioning it here.
|
Lew, It was J Carr who mentioned the Ortofon MC3000 as being an outstanding air coil design. Is the 3000 better than the 2000? They are similar. BTW, is your 2000 MKI or 2? They're different. More so than the Victor X1 MKI and 2. The 3000 also has a MK2 version. Nuances of difference? Regards, |
Hi Raul,
The Victor Z1s I purchased on Jauce looked and sounded virtually new, Even with the original conical stylus it was very dynamic and musical but without the finesse or nuances of the SAS stylus. I still use it occasionally to play records in less than great condition.
Best,
John |
Dear Fleib: I own and owned all those Ortofon cartridges and IMHO the MC 2000 is unsurpassed not only by the 2000 MK2 but even both 3000 are no better.
The 2000 MK2 was the Ortofon answer to the buyers in two issues: where the 2000 was a " problem " for its very very low output and very high compliance the MK 2 is a higher output cartridge with lower compliance, same for the 3000. The other change was the body cartridge material instead of aluminum the other use ceramic and in the 3000 stylus is different and I think ( I'm not sure right now ) cantilever material too.
As you said, different cartridges but very good ones.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear griffithds: Thank's to answer. Keep enjoying what you like.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |