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
Van Der Graaf Generator - "Childlike Faith In Childhood’s End"

Ring. Ring. Hello?... Depression Hotline?
Dear @fleib : """ 

About MM loading - It's preamp and system dependent.

Although people will often agree about a load for a particular cart, others might get different results. I think it has a lot to do with preamp topology, bandwidth and that sort of thing. """


Exactly and that's what I posted several times on diferent audio forums, even here the latest time was a thread where some one was touting a SUT and his preamp on the impedance critical subject talking on LOMC cartridges.

I posted there ( was a very hot discussion. ) exactly what you posted here an additional posted that the LOMC are non sensitive at all the SUT impedance you choosed for it.


@lewm said " it's subjective " when it's not. Yes, as I posted is a very complex relationship down there.


@chakster  did you read the fleib and this post?, because as I always " shout ": for us audiophiles time all days are a learning time, always.


Anyway, good to read that in this regards I agree with you.


Regards and enjoy the music,

R.



Dear @bimasta: """   But the transformation of those simple clicks and pops says a lot, and the improvement must extend to the music."""

That's why we can't diminish almost " nothing " on analog audio as I posted to you. Great that you tried it with extraordinary rewards and not did it as many other audiophiles that " attack " the " audio ideas " before test it. 

The vintage MM cartridge manufacturers, a few of them not all, take care of that only in its top models:

Technics in the  100CMK4, Audio Technica in it's AT 24 ( glorious performer. ), Signet on the TK9 and TK10, ADC in its TRX series, B&O in all its cartridges.
As you noted there is positive rewards.

I don't know why before my post about the Astrion ( many years ago. ) no one really " cares " about till today.

Btw, @lewm the MMC1 and 2 were designed as plug-in cartridge for B&O self TT designs and other plug-in tonearms in the market those years but they don't stop there and designed a very specific B&O specific adapter to use his cartridges with any universal headshell. That dedicated adapter is solid and you can't " feel " any movement/loose on it. I don't see a problem here.

Where exist a problem and was under deep discussion in this thread was what I did it not only with my B&O cartridges but with my 100CMK4 ( that's a plug-in design, better than the headshell integrated model. ) and that is to by-pass the male pin connectors on the cartridge universal adapter connecting directly the headshell or tonearm female wire connectors to de male cartridge ones.
This simple move is outstanding.

Btw, if I remember was @dgarretson  whom found out the female clips for that connection been tigth. We have to remember that that the cartridge male pins are not standard ones but thin/slim.
Before he find it those slim female pins what I did it was crush ( literally. ) the female wires of the headshell that obviously only works in that configuration.

If you still have the MMC1 I urge you to test it again in this way and let us know your valuable experiences.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.


Dear David,

And then some

I can get no sat-is-fax-ion these days,
I'm making major reworking on set-up and suddenly, 
I've found I'm tired to be so selective.
Epic failure to find any courage.
Strange that I'm posting again after 4 years of silence....
Maybe I'm gonna left all this mess as is
and stop trolling around. 

Thank you
Raul,

did you read the fleib and this post?, because as I always " shout ": for us audiophiles time all days are a learning time, always.

Hard to understand what you mean, but i trust @dlaloum's experience with the same JLTi phono stage i just bought recently with additional custom modifications David used for his own (aka 500k internal R). I also trust Joe Rasmussen - the designer of JLTi phono stage and his experience. Along with your advice to use 100k (which i already tried and like) i’m open to go further with lower R.

BTW the Grado XTZ is non sensitive to capacitive load.

Happy New Year!

Hey geoch,

When trapped in the dark, look to the light, lest the darkness become a vortex.

It is nice to see you back. There is some of the best humor on the forums right here, mostly laced with extreme intellect. Just have to look at it that way and chuckle. An example of the light.

Hang in there brother.

Best to you geoch,
Dave
Geoch, a small favor?

I see you have a SAEC tonearm. For years I've heard about their "double knife-edge" design. I've have a couple of SME arms, with (I guess) single knife-edge bearings so I get the basic principle.

Could you explain how the SAEC "double" works?

I have a theory, but I'd rather hear from an owner first.

Thanks, Bima
Post removed 

Hi Chakster, No cart is immune to capacitance load. That's a common misconception by owners of low inductance models. Even a LOMC is not immune.

Inductance is a property of the output and it combines with the capacitance of the arm wire, cable, and preamp to form a tank circuit which defines electrical resonance.  That's where most EE's get lost.

High frequency mechanical resonance defines response peak and a 180° phase shift.  Mechanical damping will lower the amplitude of the peak and spread the phase shift to a wider band on either side of the peak.

That is one advantage of exotic cantilevers. They generally have a higher resonant frequency.  A 6 mm boron cantilever will resonate around 27 KHz, depending on particulars. Shorten the cantilever and it will resonate at a slightly higher frequency.

Grado MI is almost undamped. That's why the peak does not extend too much downward. If you noticed on Grado site, the more expensive models reduce tip mass. This extends response. Joe Grado sang opera  and the goal was pure reproduction of the human voice. I used a TLZ for awhile and vocals were magical.

We can discuss the implications of capacitance loading vs. extension and "musical" types with less extended response some time, but the hour is late here.

Regards, 


Dear Bima

http://www.fonolab.com/services.html

http://fonolab.com/aktuality.html?aktualita=44

As an owner, I can only express my pleasure. I admire it both in performance & in use. The execution and tiny construction details, the very high quality of parts, the whole project is more than interesting even by today’s standards.
I can’t pretend I’m deep in this design concept. I’ve never sat down to explore the limits. I’ve bought the WE-308SX with encased ruby bearing seats and the ULS-3X head shell. First thing was to compare with the Zonotone Z-SHELL 10 adjusted in Baerwald geometry.
I’ve made 2 armboards on my Thorens TD-124 II for this purpose and countless VE plots, test records and listening.
If I’ve had the 8000ST I would keep it forever.

http://www.fonolab.com/service-saec.html

The end of this pair came after purchasing the Pioneer PL-L1000 in order to modify the hell out of it keeping my interest to this hobby.
To my huge surprise, I realize the complete domination of the stock Pioneer upon the highly modified (over 5000euro) Thorens.
I’m still in the mod. process and every step is painfully difficult.

Interesting feeling when downsizing from $40K to $5K and find the $500 best them all.

Happy New Years Day

Dear Fleib, Your explanation is consistent with Klyne's assumptions

by his 7 PX 3,5 RIAA phono-preamp. His filters to dampen high

frequency resonaces he calls ''h.fr. contour'' while the choice is

for 15,20,30,35 and 40 Khz. BTW there are 4 amplification choices

from 37 , 50, 63 and 67 dB. What is more he made adjustment

recommendations for 26 MC carts with impedance of either 1000

or 47 K ohms. I was used to follow Scheafer (ASR Basis Exclusive)

with the ''rule'' of 10 x the cart impedance. The problem with those

damn adjustments is that one is never sure . So instead to listen

to the music one is continuous thinking about adjustments.

I think that my Greek brother become desprate because of this

uncertainty. In my case my own lazines is my salvation.

Well, I always used to have a current mode active pre-pre with Siemens CCa (3 versions) so, I’ve been lucky with electrical adjustments.
I’ve also had the EAR MC4 step-up which had 4 outputs.
I remember that with more amplitude, the signal was worsening and this was the reason to change the Colibri 0.22mV with the Goldfinger 0.8mV
Touring around with MMs & London Ref I decide to spend no more time with MCs and simplify the path, but I confess, although the directness & liveness is right, I’m used to the HF character of MCs thus I don’t expect to find an MM alternative.
Before the hi-end virus I had a Thorens 320/Grado TLZ and I remember when I bought my first MC (VDH Grasshopper III M) a sum of mixed feelings. It was on a Denon DP80/SME IV and so, impossible to have a clue.
I like the Z1S/SAS but a dearest friend asked it and now I'm searching for a cartridge again.
For the last 6 years I've had the 2M Black, F-9E, EPC-205 in three versions all with SAS, MP-500, Grado Sign, London Ref, 881S II, Virtuoso, Maestro II, 150MLX, 440MLb.
With the capital controls here, I can't even buy out of Greece.
Post removed 
Post removed 
Good to see you back here Geoch 😀
Excellent choices of cartridges over the years.....
I too am a big SAS fan having one in my Garrott P77, Victor Z1 and V15/III.
I'm currently in the process of testing the differences between the original SAS, the Neo-SAS(S) and the Neo-SAS(R) on my P77 👀
One of my early LOMC cartridges was also the VdH Grasshopper (aka Symphonic Line)....and I recall the unbearable high-lighting of the upper frequencies 😱
Strange because one of my favourite LOMC cartridges at the moment is the MIT 1 which has a VdH stylus on a beryllium cantilever 👐

I too admire the SAEC tonearms having owned the 308N, the 407/23, and finally the 8000/ST....
Which arm do you use for your London Ref?

Regards
Henry,
I’ve already sold all my previous arms & TTs and left only with a Denon DP-57M and Pioneer PL-L1000 with their premounted tonearms.

Best in use (Pluto 9A Prestige, Saec WE-308SX, Reed 3P) was the linear tracker that comes with the Pioneer PL-L1000.
I’m using all pure graphite (mat, clamp, headshell, feet)
Damping is fixed and provided by silicone oil at the back rod of tonearm.
The wiring is Belden 1800F straight to phono amp.
On my Denon DP-57M the London Ref. is a pill very hard to swallow, both with the straight or the S arm tube, no matter what the headshell is.
Overall is very alluring but never silent when needed to be.
I’m not sure if I prefer the London Ref, over every cartridge ever made.
The Z1S/SAS was close, but not enough to keep it. Maybe the Sapphire or Ruby cantilever is best for me.
I'm looking forward for your review.
The EPC-205/SAS doesn't give the mid bass right.
The Grace with the stock stylus was unlistenable. The local SS distributor does not supply the OCL alternative.
All others I've mentioned were very good but not close to what I'm looking for.
They have the liveness, but not the spark.
Although I’m not going to return to MCs and I feel neither to the London Ref, you must understand, I’m used to the MC artificial HF (think about Goldfinger, Titanium, think the opposite of SPU) so much that I can’t wholeheartedly turn to MMs.
I’m gonna try with super tweeters & 100K z-foils and general rewiring the next months and give another try.
I’m keep searching for, though I’m not so optimistic.




geoch, interesting about the Pioneer PL-L1000.  I owned one back when they were current.  Phase Linear offered the same table under their brand with a silver/gray plinth.  So I don't believe the Pioneer version was sold in the US.  I got mine from a Navy buddy on a West-Pac cruise.

I had no complaints but I don't remember particularly outstanding performance either.  But that was so long ago and I've gone through so many tables that I can't even remember what my system was at that time.  Anyway, nice to hear yours is working well.

When I'm done with it, I'll post the whole mod procedure.
It's really good but extremely difficult to put your hand on it's innards.
I hope not dying in my hands.
@bimasta

I’ve have a couple of SME arms

Maybe you can help me with some information about this rare SME headshell. It looks different from anything i have seen before.

more pictures here
chakster

The headshell on your link looks to be a bakelite style used at the time with SPU,s like Ortofon.
The fact it has the Shure logo in addition to the SME indicates 
it was sold into the USA market as Shure was the early SME distributor
in that region.

You do own a some what rare series 1 SME 3012 if I recall. I think  
500 were built and differ from the later 3012's.

I think the question of loading options might need some clarification. In general, a HO cart will afford the ability to "tune" the cart.  A LO cart does not give you that flexibility. FR remains the same regardless of load.

If you hear mid/high glare with a LO cart, it might be an RF type noise intermodulation, not the FR of the cart. The only option to correct this condition is to load down (electrically), or have a low pass filter limiting bandwidth.

As Atmasphere posted on another thread,  capacitance matters here too. Even though electrical resonance might be some astronomical number it will cause ultra high frequency noise of high amplitude.

Some might remember J carr explaining this, around page 216 (?) of this thread.

Load down a LOMC and you change not only this noise suppression, but control of the cantilever movements (damping).  My Genesis 1000 has response well above 100K @ 4 ohm internal. Through my unshielded AHT it sounds too big - larger than life loaded @ 47K.  100 ohms seems perfect, balancing focus vs. size.  Once again, loading is preamp and system dependent.

There are 2 kinds of damping - electrical and mechanical. MM types are generally more highly damped mechanically. My rule of thumb for loading MM - use as little capacitance as possible while finding optimal resistance load.

fleib


Dear Henry,
only 8 available (neoSAS/R)

http://www.jico-stylus.com/advanced_search_result.php?search_in_description=1&keywords=neoSAS%2F...

the rest 50: (neoSAS/S)

http://www.jico-stylus.com/advanced_search_result.php?search_in_description=1&keywords=neoSAS%2F...

Your V15/III comes on both versions, but the Z1S only with sapphire.

I’ve had the Z1S/SAS (and it was so amazingly balanced)
....but never have the chance to repair my F-9E.
If anyone has any experience on both Z1S & F-9E :
What can I expect by changing from boron to sapphire?
Since I’ve already have a (cantilever less) F-9E ,could it be wise to prefer the OCL?
 Is there any chance to possibly exceeds the Z1S ?

Thank you



Chazro, you must have purchased a "Sonata" with a Mexican jumping bean in it. I just traded my Sonata in for a Grado Master 2; that's how satisfied I was with the Sonata.

I honestly believe that many audiophiles have so adjusted to the artificiality of MC cartridges that they can not stand the smooth natural sound of Grado.

Zanden Audio Systems Model 1000., costs $15,000, and only accepts MM. That causes me to wander about MC, but since I like MM, I have never owned a high quality MC; however, why would someone who could afford anything, only prefer MM


    http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/mbrs/recording_preservation/manuals/Zanden%20Model%201000%20Stereo%20eq...


Enjoy the music.
If anyone has any experience on both Z1S & F-9E :
What can I expect by changing from boron to sapphire?
Since I’ve already have a (cantilever less) F-9E ,could it be wise to prefer the OCL?
Is there any chance to possibly exceeds the Z1S ?

Dear geoch,
I have both the Z1S and F-9E and whilst the Grace is very, very good.....I can't say it's up to the Victor Z1/SAS.
Be happy with the boron SAS.....
You won't better it with the sapphire or ruby...😎

Regards
Chakster, I've never seen that headshell. If I ever do, I'll buy it (price permitting), though it has no overhang adjustments. I'm pretty sure it's metal, not bakelite: its edges appear to be thin: not possible with bakelite, it would break too easily.

The familiar old SME shell, perforated with a million holes, was designed to be ultra-low-mass for ultra-high-compliance carts. It was made of ultra-thin aluminum, with an ultra-thin fingerlift. It worked well: high-compli stylus assemblies do not transmit much vibration to the cartridge bodies.

When low-compliance MCs began to dominate (late '70s-early '80s), they didn't work so well in the old SME arms. Critics blamed the knife-edge bearings, saying the stylus vibrations traveled along the armtube and were so forceful they made the knife-edge "rattle".

I never bought that theory. I'll give an analogy...

If I'm a detective and I find a corpse with a bullet hole in its heart, and standing right over it is a person the corpse was married to with a smoking gun in hand, I'm going to make the prima facie deduction that person is the killer. I'm not going to look for a killer much farther away with a much more distant relationship to the deceased.

The old SME shell with all its holes and ultra-thin metal parts resonates like crazy. And low compliance MCs do transmit vibrations to their bodies, which are transferred to the headshell, and then sent back into the cartridge body. This creates a rat's nest of vibrations back and forth and filled with phase anomalies. And it's all audible.

And the headshell is 'married' to the cartridge by two tight bolts: there's no gap between them, not even .0001mm.

The knife-edge is 290mm away from the scene of the crime. The headshell is the culprit, not the bearing.

I've proven this, at least to my satisfaction...

a)  I use a thicker, heavier, less-resonant headshell
b)  This requires more mass at the other end for balance, so I add to the counterweight — I have some thick stainless steel washers which weigh 25g each; they're highly polished and the exact same diameter as the c'weight and they look really good, not an awkward kludge, but like it was designed that way
c)  Combined, they increase the total mass of the arm, and seriously load the knife-edge with more weight, to prevent any potential 'rattling'.

Otherwise, my old 3009 is totally standard. I've used it with several low-compliance MCs and they all sound fine.

These mods are simple. And reversible.

Thanks for sending that picture, Chakster. I always learn something new on this forum.






@totem395

The fact it has the Shure logo in addition to the SME indicates
it was sold into the USA market as Shure was the early SME distributor
in that region.

You do own a some what rare series 1 SME 3012 if I recall. I think
500 were built and differ from the later 3012’s.


thanks for the info about this rare SME / SHURE S.3 headshell, now i can find just a few more pictures with similar shell mounted on SME 3012. It is definitely metal headshell, not bakelite. Since the mass of this solid shell is higher than regular sme shell with holes, it must be dedicated headshell for sertain Shure (low compliance?) cartridge. Which one?

@bimasta

Thanks for sending that picture, Chakster. I always learn something new on this forum.

Me too. So only 500 made.  



chakster
Maybe you can help me with some information
Thats what I get for not looking at the foto's closer.
The angled front is the first clue, as bimasta mentioned better
than the swiss cheese model.

I'm not sure, Chakster, when you say that just because Shure put its name on the headshell alongside SME, that it was necessarily intended for a specific Shure cartridge. They knew SME arms were used worldwide with many different cartridges, and they were glad to have the U.S. distributorship for the world's best-selling tonearm. I think they were just branding it as a Shure product.

But if you're right, and there's an old model Shure with low compliance, a clear departure from their standard design principle, then I'd certainly like to learn more about it!

After all, Stanton produced a low-output MM, along with a great head-amp, and that was a radical change from their usual practice. Maybe Shure started thinking along the same lines.

If the new Stanton did inspire Shure to experiment, I'd like to know the year Stanton introduced that low-output model, because maybe a little later Shure released its new model. A Shure catalogue from that period might shed some light.

Another mystery in the annals of analogue! More detective work.... or maybe somebody here knows.
Raul, With my NOS B&O MMC1, in the same original box, there is an NOS B&O adapter which makes it possible to use the cartridge on non P-mount tonearms, like almost every tonearm except the ones made by B&O.  The pins are very thin, which is good for good sound but not good for a solid interface between the cartridge and the adapter.  So, if you think the signal, traveling via pins to the adapter then via the adapter to the arm wand then via a DIN connector or the like to the plugs at the phono input, and with 2 flexible joints in the path, is relatively unsullied nevertheless, I can only hope you are correct.  It just doesn't appeal to me.

I own the 20 CL and 6000. The 6000 is the only B&O with berylium

cantilever and ''unbelievable'' technical performance. Next to this

adapter B&O produced an headshell with the same in-klik provision

as by the adapter. However there are no other adjustment

possibilites while the headshell is too short . The intriguing question

 is how is it possible that the same company which produced such

delicate carts can produce  such worthless ''connectors''.

@bimasta
But if you’re right, and there’s an old model Shure with low compliance, a clear departure from their standard design principle, then I’d certainly like to learn more about it!

Yes, it is probably a BIG low compliance (9cu) classic broadcast SHURE M3D with Alnico magnets and tracking force range from 3 to 5g like SPU. Some people love it and use it on heavy tonearms like Schick, so the SME 3012 disctributed in USA by SHURE in the 60s/70s might be a good shoice with this special heavier Shure/SME headshell.

Dear @lewm : I think that my post about was unclear.

Because I think exactly like you and in those " old " times what I did it not only with the B&O and other plug-in cartridges type ( like the Technics 100C MK4, Azden and the like. ) is to by-pass the female connectors of the universal adapter, this is take out totally from the adapter and changed the normal headshell female wires connectors for a thinnest ones that if I remember @dgarretson found out somewhere.

With that you have direct tigth connection between the cartridge thin pins and the tonearm: no more adapter female connectors.

I tested all my plug-in cartridges with out those adapter connectors.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
@lewm : Yes I have to " destroy the adapter drilling inside. I owned 3 adapters, two of them I bougth in ebay stand alone. Of course that if you don't have a second adapter and you want to put on sale in the future then there is a problem for that.

R.
@lewm : Something that I did not do it but that you can is: due that the B&O use a dedicated ( not universal type. ) adapter some one at your place can machine with aluminum an open adapter that only can hold the tiny MMC1 cartridge body and in this way you don't have to destroy the B&O adapter.

It's worth to try it, the B&O MMC1 and 2 are better quality performers than many of the latest posts where those gentlemans touted other cartridges .

R.
Has anybody had experience with a SME III tonearm? I am thinking of trying one with my M20E and TK7LCa.
Thanks for the tip, Raul.  As you guessed, I have been so far reluctant to alter the B&O hardware, in case I want to sell.  However, SS will make an adapter for ~$50.  Maybe I'll buy one and mutilate that to get rid of connectors.  I admit I am very curious about the MMC1, based on your testimony and that of many others as to its excellence.

Raul or Dave, Can you send me a photo of your adapted B&O, via email?  I am not sure I know exactly what you did.

Hello Lew,

I never made an adaptor for the B&O.  I did find a nice Bulgin gold-plated copper tag that perfectly mates with the thin pins on a P-mount cartridge. If you need that part number I can retrieve it from my files. 

Smctigue1,

You might have trouble finding a SME III in great condition. Do you know how to take a quick check of the vertical bearings?  It was a popular low mass arm back in the day, but has a bad reputation among the audiofool crowd using low cu carts.  It's a bit tricky to set up with spring loaded VTF, but if you divide the force between spring and gravity you can get some nice results.

Low mass arms went out of favor in the '80s with the MC.  I like the Unitrac arm. It's 7g eff mass.  Is a Moerch  within budget? 

Regards,

Thanks f. I went ahead and purchased the arm I was considering. It has never been mounted so I am optimistic that it's ok. I had considered the Unitrac but was scared off by some talk of a burr that was causing wire fraying. Others reported no issues what so ever so who knows. I'm hoping this arm pairs up well with my M20E (40 cu)' we'll see.

40 cu ?  It's about half that amount. Regarding reliability problems with vintage Unitrac and my Sonus Formula 4 - batches of defective returns were found and sold as NOS to unsuspecting consumers.  I had to replace the bakelite (?) cueing platform on the Sonus. With a custom headshell it's an excellent low mass arm. Unitrac arms which have been in continuous service have no such problem. Matter of fact, the arm was recommended to me by Win Timmon (mosin), maker of Saskia turntable. This is probably the world's greatest idler.

If you can find a functional Unitrac, the only modification to improve performance (besides a tricky rewire) would be to eliminate the wire connector at the back of the headshell and solder clips onto the wires. The arm also has VTA on the fly - a necessity for me.

I don't know of a low mass Brit arm that is quite as good.  You can get nice results with the SME, but I suspect even better results with a newer model. I think it's a 309 with a removable headshell and comes in 2 or 3 different lengths.

If any of this is confusing, I'll be glad to explain.

Regards,

fleib, thanks for this. All of the old Ortofon spec sheets and marketing materials that I've seen list the 20FL and 20E as 20 cu and 40 cu respectively.

I’m seeking opinions on the AKG P8ES cartridge, an MI design, not MM. It’s not the "Super Nova" version with the VDH II stylus, which is a favorite here — it’s elliptical, and its minor-radius is the same as the VDH II, so it’s highly resolving of fine detail, though I can’t compare them. The cartridge body is also completely different visually from the Nova, which uses a quite different P25MD body. I can’t post pictures, but an image search will show both cartridges, and their obvious differences.

I don’t know if this cartridge been discussed here before; this great thread is as long as the Mahabharata and I lose track.

The cantilever of my P8ES has a "knife edge bearing" — namely, a tiny hole is drilled horizontally through the cantilever, a tiny rod is inserted through the hole and firmly secured at both ends. Thus the stylus can rotate vertically around this fixed pivot to cope with warps, but (theoretically) cannot swing side to side.

I can see this clearly in action on a pivoted tonearm: there is no side-to-side cantilever "shimmy" even on off-center LPs, which other cartridges visibly do.

I’ve never seen this "knife edge" in any other cartridge, but I’m no expert.

AKG claims: "This knife edge effect virtually eliminates all axial shifting of the pivot point, enabling the stylus tip to relay to the moving iron armature, with maximum accuracy, all information received from the record groove modulation, evenly and independent of directional movement. Thus, any frequency-dependent distortion of directional information is eliminated."

This seems to me, and again I’m no expert, a very intriguing design, and gives to the cantilever the same kind of rigidity we expect of our tonearms. We don’t tolerate loose, "sloppy" bearings in our arms, nor the distortions and inaccuracies they cause — but our cantilevers are indeed rather loose and sloppy in comparison.

If AKG’s claims are true, then the only information transmitted to our amps and speakers will be the vibrations in the stylus directly caused by the groove modulations, and no other extraneous movements or causes.

One more time: I’m no expert — but many of you are. I would love to know your views on this, and your experience.

AKG closed its cart production and destroyed their whole stock

of carts and parts in order to avoid liabilty . The suspension material

was not resistant to environmemental influences so there are hardly

any samples without defective suspension. However Axel Schurholz,

the well known retipper , offered repair for some of the AKG versions.

While I still own 3 samples of those AKG's I never try Axel's

offerings. Van den Hul styli which were used for the ''top AKG's''

are only available by Van den Hul who does not offer repair for

AKG 's. However Gyger styli are identical with Van den Huls

because those are(were) made by Gyger. Axel's price for the

Gyger 2 is around 500 euro. This explains my reluctance to mess

with AKG.  


Thanks Nandric for the additional history. I didn't bother to mention the problem with the elastomer part of the suspension because I'm far more intrigued by the knife-edge concept.

I bought one of these AKGs NOS a few years ago, and you're right, the rubber grommet, or O-Ring (or whatever it's made of) part of the suspension had hardened to stone. It went from high-compliance to no-compliance. Unplayable, it would not track a groove.

But I mostly fixed that problem, by finding a way to restore flexibility. It now plays, and even sounds fairly good, with fine detail retrieval. Because it's at least basically functional now, I'm able to see that the cantilever is never dragged from side to side, which I see happen with other high compliance cartridges.

It's not 100%, it lacks dynamics compared to my better MI/MM carts, as if it's still constrained. Here's a bad analogy, but it's like a man whose legs were paralyzed, but after lots of rehab he can now walk a bit, but not run or dance.

I'll continue the rehab and see if it gets better. But it's not a priority, merely curiosity — I like to fix things.

But the "knife-edge" is an unrelated question. It really intrigues me. If it works as intended, it strikes me a truly novel approach, possibly a breakthrough — assuming other parts of the cartridge worked properly.

That's the reason I posted about it. I'm talking about it in principle, not about its inclusion in a cartridge that had other, unrelated problems.

The idea of eliminating extraneous random movements from the cantilever (a principle we strive for in our tonearms) should produce greater accuracy. The fact that AKG's implementation was flawed by its poor choice of a peripheral material does not invalidate the theory.

The Space Shuttle Columbia exploded because one little O-ring turned hard and failed — that didn't prove space flight is impossible.

The Super Nova version, so highly praised in these pages, must not have the O-ring problem (which my original P8ES did) or it wouldn't even play, much less sound so good. Does anyone know if it also uses the knife edge design? In all other respects its appears totally different from the original P8ES, using a P25MD body and stylus carrier.

I'm just curious, and hoping someone has more knowledge...

Hi bimasta, You should ask Raul about specifics regarding AKG

carts. He knows the most about them. He also owns the best

ever AKG which is produced in very limited numbers. I am not aware

that those have any suspension problem.  Alas those are impossible

to get second hand.

Thanks Nandric, Raul is indeed a master, his knowledge encyclopedic, he started this marvelous voyage of discovery and keeps it going with his frequent contributions — but I don't think Raul likes me...