Raul, do we really need the opinion of those strange people such as magazine reviewers and nice Dutch gentlemen? We have a luxury of comparing cartridges and deciding in our own living room.
Unfortunately, I'm not Goldman Sacks employee with average salary of $750k/year. So, for me those 1K+ cartridges simply don't exist. I admire enthusiasts that have means to spend few grands or more on such wearable items as cartridges. But I have to leave somewhere, eat, drive, vacation and take care of my family.
What bothers me that during golden age of vinyl rarely cartridges street price was more then $500. There is nothing to guess, volume was so much bigger then. Big companies used their industrial might to make it relatively inexpensive. I hope that with latest vinyl renaissance more consumer entertainment companies such as Denon will step in and we will see real engineering and technological advancement. Till it happens, if at all, NOS cartridges are our best bet. |
Dear Phaser/Downunder: Kristian bring here again that interesting link, please read it.
In the other side: do you know that Dr. Van denHul use the Technics EPC100CMK4 as his personal cartridge reference/standard?
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear friends: Yes the cantilever build material in any cartridge design is one of the critical choices for the designer.
Different cantilever build materials has different " signature " sound and not only because are different materials and different cartridge designs but we have to take in count how the cantilever is build: hollow, tapered, not tapered, etc, etc and not only this but how long is the cantilever where the signal must travel. All these factors IMHO make a specific cantilever ( stand alone ) signature sound, but like Lewm point out it is really complex to separate the cantilever own function/sound from the whole cartridge sound.
What is sure is that the same cartridge ( everything the same ) with different cantilever can sound a little different but the designer can make that both can sound similar too.
Which cantilever material is the best one?, IMHO and inside a cartridge design there is no best cantilever build material because the cartridge sounds depend of he wole cartridge design where the cantilever is one of the cartridge important parts.
I know that using ( I can figure it. ) different build materials in a cartridge design we can have the same cartridge signature sound if the designer " manipulate " all the cartridge parts/voicing to achieve the same performance.
I agree with Axel, Jcarr can put a " lot " of light here if he decide to share info with all of us.
Btw, yes Lew I say that the original B&O cartridge design ( in specific the MMC2 ) is a little better performer han the " new " Soundsmith ones. When I posted that I write that because its different cantilever build material but things happen that saphire and ruby are the same material ( at least this is what some one posted that time ), if this is true then differences between the original B&O and the SS ones are because changes in the design and different voicing to achieve what PL ( the designer ) were his targets.
It is obvious that in a cartridge design any single factor ( parts: stylus shape, cartridge body, cantilever material, coil material, etc, etc ) contribute in the final sound but IMHO the must important factor is in the cartridge voicing where the designer decide which is the quality performance level he wants.
IMHO, a cantilever build material does not define, per se, the cartridge signature sound but the whole cartridge design.
Many of us own several cartridges with different cantilever build materials and does not matters which cantilever build material was used many of those different cartridges are great performers whith performance level differences that we can't say for sure comes because the cantilever differences alone.
I like a lot cartridges that comes with aluminum but I like too the Audio Technica ones that use berylium and the Technics ones that use boron.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Kristian: Yes some other contributor in this thread already posted, thank you for do it your self.
I hope that you can enjoy your M20FL in the same manner many of us are enjoying it.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Guys,
Don't know if I saw references in this thread to this great TAS article by REG from the late 80s--apparently he and other top recording industry professionals were on to this issue of MMs being more true to fidelity than MCs several decades ago. It's a great read--anyone try the Stanton he references? http://regonaudio.com/Stanton881AudioTechnicaATML70.html
Best,
Kristian
Soon to be NOS M20FL owner.... |
Lewm, y.s.: "Have you guys heard the A90?"
Frankly *WHY SHOULD I BOTHER*, true it may sound better then their until then best of breed (Windfeld), and now this A90 with only 400 made --- welcome to that marketing spiel!
If I listen to the M20FL (to stay with this right now), we are so stretching getting not even the same sound experience from this > 10x the money cart... That really begs the question --- big time! (At least for me, and as always YMMV :-)
The MP-50 I ordered has that hybrid construction (as have the SAS replacement styli for the V15) Boron-stick inserted into an Alu-tube-end. Even there I actually find the original VN35MR (all alu) cantilever clearly more close to "natural" sounding. All this maybe of course pure coincident, but having heard Lyras, Axia, Orpheus, etc. yet more coincidents? (And NOT only in my system!) The SA cart maker Angel Blue Mantis also had decided to stay away from boron, hm --- now he may have changed as business may require such to be offered. His alu cantilever carts had A LOT of rave reviews (they are all MCs, aye). Now go figure.
J.Carr (Lyra) may be able to shine some light into this “can of worms”, but he is conspicuously absent from this MM/MI thread, hm. Greetings, |
Siniy123 and Axel, You guys have opened another whole can of worms - the effect of cantilever construction on sonics. Downunder (or Phaser?) and several others here and elsewhere seem quite taken with the new Ortofon MC A90. Even Raul mentioned that he likes it, if I am not mistaken. Yet the A90 has a boron cantilever. Have you guys heard the A90? Maybe mounting and damping of the cantilever have as much effect on sonics as does the choice of material.
It would seem to me that to make a judgement on the "sound" of the cantilever, one would need to audition a bunch of cartridges that are constructed identically in every way save for the material used to make the cantilever. This is a luxury available only to a manufacturer (like Ortofon, for example). Alternatively, it might be possible to listen to several different cartridges in groups based on the cantilever construction and draw some generalizations from that. Siniy123, is that what you have done? It was interesting to me that Raul ascribed differences between the original B&O cartridges and the current SoundSmith equivalents to the fact that the former had sapphire cantilevers, the latter ruby. Raul favors the originals. On the other hand, Raul likes the Grace Ruby cartridge (ruby cantilever) very much. |
Siniy123, Beryllium has the best "inner damping" (very low density i.e. very light and stiff) of known metals or metalloids (like boron) in use for e.g. dome tweeter caps as mentioned.
So, yes it is superior even to diamond in these applications. But why bother?! It is not being used anymore for cantilever applications due to it's highly poisonous dust. In fact the next best damped material is Alu in form of single tubes or even double tubes as e.g. used in the P-77.
My point again, a boron-stick has a less "real" sound and it is more of late (20-25 years?) that all went for this "glare-y" presentations and then we call it “resolution”! Sooner or later this will be overcome I'm quite sure. In fact it is not only piano that sounds more real with the M20FL, also percussions, drum skins of tympani etc., and all string instruments are noticeably sounding more natural. These plain boron-sticks (and MC construction?) just sounds like some over-exposed copy by comparison. This would be the case *with any* resolving reasonably un-coloured back-end, as Raul tried to explain. Tubes will just wash over all the added odd harmonics by their own even order harmonics preference, thus creating some more balance I guess. Greetings, |
Really great thread, guys--I've been up until about 3 AM the last few nights reading it, and I'm inspired! |
Lew, the signature if alloy cantilever om M20FL is very small degree of hotness at certain frequencies that I can hear. I can add that every cantilever material has its own coloration. So far, beryllium coloration sounds most human to me. There is nothing like a rule, it just my gut feeling based on experience with my modest cartridge stable. |
Siniy123, you mix up Boron with Beryllium! The former does not allow for "pipes" the latter does. Beryllium is a very poisonous material in powder form and needs a VERY specialised process to still use it as e.g. in tweeter domes such as still manufactured by Focal.
Beryllium tube cantilevers are rather different to Boron sticks and superior to alu no doubt, yet are no more made due to the cost of handling the poisons material. (Once baked / sintered it is not poisons at all, but as soon as it produces dust e.g. when trimmed or cut it is very problematic) Axel |
Dear Phaser: Not exactly, maybe I don't explain in the right way. I will try it again:
Downunder states for the second time that SS goes better with MM/MI cartridges and LOMC ones with tubes but not with SS because are more " revealing " and the SS are not up to the task ( at least this is what I understand from what he posted. ). IMHO this kind of statement is a misunderstood and perhaps the right answer is at the inverse way.
+++++ " Everyone who doesn't hear what you hear or disagrees with you has a low resolution, highly colored system, doesn't know how to set up MM's or presumably anything else and so has to make do with highly distorted signals from ridiculously expensive MC's to trick themselves into thinking they are hearing something approximating real music. " +++++
not really again. What I'm saying is that for a carrtridge comparison was/is fair both cartridges under comparison must be under the same/similar circumstances, this means mated with the right matching tonearm and with the right overall set up according with each own cartridge specific needs. Don't you agree that this is a fair comparison? and this is what I'm trying to share.
Unfortunately only a few of us have the " tools " in the audio system to meet the overall characteristics need it for a fair comparison between LOMC and MM/MI cartridges.
Phaser, what do you do if you want to compare in your system two LOMC cartridges? do you make a near perfect overall set up on one of these cartridges and a " lightly " set up on the other one?, knowing you I assume that you will make the best overall set up for each cartridge because you want to know its real differences and only with the right set up on each one you can find it, right?. Well this is what I'm saying, I'm not saying or trying to imply that if any one disagree with what I'm hearing he is wrong. I always try to find or to explain me where are the differences in our each opinion and why of those differences: I need to learn inside those opinions and one of the best ways to do it is through specific facts.
Btw, do you already read the Stereophile MF reviews on two LOMC and one MM by Ortofon?, please tell me if that was fair, if the 2M Black had any chance to compare with anything when he mated with that 70.00 AT phono stage when the other LOMC were mated with 5K-7K dedicated phono stages?, even he states that the 2M Black compete with the SSMCC1 and the Sumiko Blackbird when these two cartridges were not mated with that AT phono stage: how he can conclude that?
All these mis-information is what put in my mouth the word " corruption ", maybe is a big word but I don't know, in my restricted English vocabolary, other more adequate word.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Raul states "No, the MC are not more " revealing " but has a higher distortions ( due too many factors like tracking distortion where the MM/MI are a lot better or its high frequency ringing, additional gain stages, etc, etc. ) and in audio systems that are more accurate those high distortions comes out. In a less accurate audio systems those distortions are hide through the less resolving and more " colored " system".
So basically, everyone who hears what you hear has a resolving system, knows exactly how to set up MM's to perfection and so can clearly hear their innate superiority over those silly expensive MC's which, just to ensure all is right within their world they also know how to set up to perfection so that they are able to hear the obvious imperfections of those same MC's. No measurements needed to support this view, it's just obvious.
Everyone who doesn't hear what you hear or disagrees with you has a low resolution, highly colored system, doesn't know how to set up MM's or presumably anything else and so has to make do with highly distorted signals from ridiculously expensive MC's to trick themselves into thinking they are hearing something approximating real music. They never actually do this, however because they are not using fully optimized MM's and so can never hear the ultimate truth from those LP's of theirs even if their system didn't suck. Which it does because otherwise they would be using a MM. Circularity of argument is intended just is case there are any philosophers out there.
Has that just about got it? |
Dear Downunder: ++++ " I would say that the total SS amplification chain you, Raul and others use may make the MM's sound better in your systems vc MC's which may be a bit too revealing. " +++++
this is at least the second time that you post in similar way and IMHO I think that some way or other you have a misunderstood or not a precise information on the subject, let me put my thoughts about:
first I don't want to create a controversy on SS against tubes or other electronic alternative designs, so I will speak in a " general " way:
IMHO as more accurate and neutral ( lower distortion/colorations/noise. ) is an audio design as more resolution and revealing performance on the source quality.
No, the MC are not more " revealing " but has a higher distortions ( due too many factors like tracking distortion where the MM/MI are a lot better or its high frequency ringing, additional gain stages, etc, etc. ) and in audio systems that are more accurate those high distortions comes out. In a less accurate audio systems those distortions are hide through the less resolving and more " colored " system.
So, IMHO what Axelwhal, me and others are hearing is precisely that: are " nake " it the real LOMC quality performance where I agree the top MM/MI has one step a head.
Donwunder, for many many years the King ( LOMC cartridges ) was alone with no one and nothing that can/could challenge it. Ours audio systems and ears were totally equalized to LOMC ones, the audio system set up in all our home systems were made for an overall set up right on target for and only for: LOMC cartridges, even the phono stages almost all were designed to cope not the MM/MI needs but the specific ones for LOMC cartridges.
It is a huge merit that with all these big disadvantages the humble MM/MI cartridges performs so well.
Your system goes around LOMC cartridges, you don't made the system set up for MM/MI's. What if your set up was made specific for MM/MI's? do you think that your MP-50 could performs better that what you are hearing? do you think that if your phono stage was designed to cope the specific eeds of your MM/MI cartridges what you are hearing can/could improve?
+++++ " Bottom line, there is clearly many ways to musical satisfaction and there is no best, only best for you. " ++++
I have to disagree with your statement. IMHO certainly is the best ( everything the same ) and in the case of MC and MM/MI these ones are a head ( the best. )
The fact that you are not hearing at its best the MM/MI cartridges you own does not means that these cartridges are not better of what you are hearing, it is only that these cartridges are showing ( through its performance level ) the limitations of your system due that your system overall set up don't match its specific needs: that's all.
Anyway, even in those not favorable conditions ( one way or the other ) you are enjoying the quality performance of these MM/MI cartridges
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Siniy123, What is the "signature" of the alloy cantilever? Can you put it into words for me? I don't even know what metal or metals are used in the cantilver; a search for the information on Google turns up nothing. Apparently Ortofon stopped making the FL stylus assembly some many years ago. The replacement assembly they now recommend is the one for the E version. Just wondering. |
Dear Toufu: Glad to hear that your re-tipped Ruby in on its " way " again.
Btw, for what you remember which are the differences ( is any ) between the original Ruby and this " new " re-tip that was not a true original re-tip?
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Having played ADC TRX-1 for more then 1 week I have to attest that it very fine cartridge: excellent tracker and loaded with drama. As with good drink, you will definitely remember remember last night listening session. Highly recommended. |
Raul, Thank you for the recommendations, I will check them out.
This is putting FUN back into this hobby for me! |
Dear Stilskin: That TT/tonearm combo by Technics is very good. The EPA-100 can match very well with the Nagaoka MP-50 but it will do fine with the Ortofon M20FL Super named here. In this case with a lower weight headshell than with the Nagaoka.
These MM/MI cartridges are really " surprising " because I try several ones with out " figure "/concern on the best tonearm for it and almost always performs great.
Other very good MM/MI example is the B&O MMC2 one.
The good news is that you can buy all them ( NOS ) right now for less than: 1.5K!
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
back in 70s and 80s I don't remember boron rods weren't used much. Mostly it was boron pipe or tapered boron pipe. |
Siniy123, y.s.: "I can hear a signature of its simple alloy cantilever"
Guess what? The signature of those boron cantilevers are on my list since some time, as to why ALL my higher priced MCs do sound so uninvolving. (The A90 has EXACTLY the same motor than has the Windfeld acc. to Ortofon only a very different, stripped down body. Yes, that body also makes some of that music too.)
Boron gives you the "idea" of some more detail... it sure gives you also some messed-up harmonics - I'm pretty sure about this by now.
It's a whole subject on its own and some small cart makers have turned their backs to those boron sticks. Go figure. Greetings, |
Fun thread Raul, yes multiple arms, tables and cartridges however no worries anyone here catching up with you.
I just brought home a modded Technics SP 10 MK II which included a great Technics EPA-100 arm.
Before I get around to mounting a bronze arm board and Phantom on to SP 10, I would love to play around with this nice arm. Funny how VTA on the fly seamed new to many people this decade...
Any recommendations for a MM cartridge that will go well with this Technics arm? |
I'm amazed how you guys compare Ortofon M20FL Super to cartridges 10x its price. In M20FL I can hear a signature of its simple alloy cantilever, which takes nothing from its great and memorable performance. I only wish Ortofon made MI with beryllium tapered pipe back then. |
Gee guys, looks like I will have to open up my Ortofon M20FL and have a listen. sounds like it has a musical presentation vs accurate which is always nice. Will be interesting how it sounds compared to the Nagaoka MP50 as it to my ears is the best sounding MM I have yet heard, and it is readily available.
for me at this time the MC A90 is the best cart I have heard, even thou playing around with inexpensive MM's is fun.
I guess that is the advantage with mutiple tables/arms etc.
enjoy |
Lewm, it may be of interest that *ALL* M20FL super characteristics you mentioned are exactly as I find them: - bigger image - more "real" or more pleasing piano tone - makes known good LPs sound fantastic - more vivid
Note: >>> cannot fault the calmer and very accurate presentation of the MC7500, <<<
I personally fault the Windfeld for being colder and less involving. So much so, that some records sound just plain boring, though very resolved. Playing the same LP with the M20FL brings the apparently "dead" record to life, so they can go back into my "handy", close by, collection and not one floor up in a shelve. Greetings, |
Axel and Downunder, I have been doing an analogous comparison to Axel's, listening to the Ortofon MC7500 and the Ortofon M20FL Super. The MC7500 was in effect replaced by the Per Windfield but is different in construction. The comparison is confounded by the fact that they are on two different tts (Technics SP10 Mk2 vs Lenco/slate, respectively) and in two different tonearms (Dynavector DV505 vs RS-A1, respectively). I am using an Ayre P5Xe for an MM phono stage, and straight into my full-function MP1 for MC. Yet I think I can listen through to the differences between the two cartridges. The M20FL throws a bigger image, which I love, but I think this has a lot to do with the DV505 and the Lenco. Image size (big) is a particular forte of the Lenco. The M20FL gives a more "real" or more pleasing piano tone. I think that is actually due to the cartridge itself, probably it is tracking better in the Dyna than is the MC7500 in the RS-A1. The M20FL makes known good LPs sound fantastic, more vivid than I have ever heard them sound. Yet I cannot fault the calmer and very accurate presentation of the MC7500. Obviously, I need to find a way to eliminate the variables in order to draw truly valid conclusions... |
Downunder, yes all you say has merit, and all I forgot to put was the always required mantra: YMMV :-) Axel |
Hi Axel
I am sure you are hearing what you are hearing, however system setup and tonal qualities will play a major part in any ultimate musical output.
I would say that the total SS amplification chain you, Raul and others use may make the MM's sound better in your systems vc MC's which may be a bit too revealing. the tonal character of your table IMO may also make you lean towards MM sound.
Bottom line, there is clearly many ways to musical satisfaction and there is no best, only best for you.
BTW, you owe it to yourself to hear the new ortofon MC A90 - now that is a really great sounding MC and I find it very hard to believe that any MM would sound as pure and transparent to the source as this.
|
Hi All, I just did another 1 week cross-check between my Ortofon Windfeld and Ortofon M20FL Super. There where some questions raised whether some LOMC vs MM~MI x-checking had occurred --- well yes.
The M20FL has clearly better harmonics, better stage, same speed, and more flow, just to keep it simple. The Windfeld has *no chance* --- unless one has no ear for what makes some of the music, and confuses it with mere ~resolution~. The M20FL has that too by the way. As far as I'm concerned it's a -no contest-. Greetings, |
Hi Raul, I got my Grace Ruby back from Soundsmith (it took about 6 months!). Anyways, I have been listening to it and I like it better than the P-76 already. It's more lush and bigger sounding. Although a little bit more noisier. I consider myself very lucky to have 2 of the best MM cartridges. And thanks for your thread, I didn't have to spend a lot of money either. |
Dear friends: Worth to own it:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Bang-Olufsen-MMC-1-PHONO-CARTRIDGE-RARE-MMC1_W0QQitemZ290373706990QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item439b9f24ee#ht_1632wt_1165
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Sanlanman, I was frustrated for years because I couldn't find a cartridge/arm/table combo that made the majority of my large LP collection sound engaging enough to me so I could enjoy the performance/artistry instead of listening to things I didn't like about the setup I had at the time.
Then after going the $$$$ route of a new high end table/arm I found out that all that money for a table/arm didn't automatically make for listening enjoyment so I bought more vintage turntables that turned out to be a very good investment if anything.
Now that I'm forvever settled on electronics and speakers I was looking for that finishing touch of the right vinyl front end or maybe 2 or 3 setups that floated my boat in different ways.
After reading pretty much this entire thread and having used MC's for some years I decided to seriously audition some of the many old MM's I already have because MC's I tried weren't vinyl heaven but one comes close. (Miyabi) In playing with my Empire 4000 D/111 and ADC XLM MK11 I heard things I liked but no full monte.
Reasoning that these two cartridges would be happier in a lower mass arm than my SME 3009 S2 Improved, I pulled out my Thorens TD147 that served me so well back in the 90's. Much to my amazement the Empire 4000 D/111 in that table seems to be the full monte for me but time will tell. The ADC in that table sounds good too and adding 1/2 gram weight to the headshell, then rebalancing, made it sound even better. (smoother)
The Empire is far more dynamic if not bold in it's midrange presentation yet well balanced enough to sound smooth enough and so far it's doing everything I want, even letting me hear things I've never heard before on some LP's.
The setup has tons of PRAT so, so much for the idler drive fad as them being the only thing responsible for PRAT because the lowly belt drive TD147 is sounding pretty darn good to me like it did years ago so why did I "upgrade"? If I hadn't have heard the Empire in that table I'd probably be happy with the ADC XLM MK11 Improved.
There's little doubt in my mind that there are some old MM/MI cartridges that are clearly worth while but we all don't like the same kind of sound and we all don't have the same equipment so it's trial and error just like with MC's BUT the old MM route is generally less expensive because most people still put a higher value on MC's, new and used.
IMHO, total system synergy to your personal sonic taste needs to take place so there are many things besides a cartridge to deal with although they are a "voicing tool." Back before cables, caps, tubes and 40 pound plinths for idler drives became a $$$$$ business, the simple and cheap way to change the sound was to buy a new cartridge so it's not an incorrect approach, maybe just not a complete one unless the associated equipment is right for you too.
Back in the day when the Grace F9E was all the rage I got one and hated it so it went back for an Ortofon 540 that pleased me at the time with the equipment/speakers I at that time.
If your speakers or RIAA comp has a dip or peak at 3KHZ then a peak or dip at 3KHZ is a plus in a cartridge so it's all a crap shoot to some degree but the better MM's do seem to stand out more.
I see your in SC too. If your ever in the Aiken area your welcome to come by to hear what I like but time will tell if the TD147/Empire is what will continue to make me happy.
I did change the phono 2 input on my preamp from 47K to 100K for the Empire because it was designed to work into a 100K decoder (quad) and that opened the sound up for sure.
This is just my experience so maybe there's some food for thought for you here? |
CART SUGGESTIONS REQUESTED. Well, my situation is somewhat like Rnadel. I have read through this long thread and hope to benefit from it. I was recently laid off here in SC, and only have a stash of a few hundred dollars that I can devote to a new cartridge(s). I recently completed my own home made record cleaning machine and am hearing really clean records again. I got back into vinyl about 16 months ago after a long absence, but still have my collection and have been picking up thrift store & flea market finds, most in very good condition after cleaning.
Here is my equipment: Salk Sound V3 speakers, Cary Cinema 5 amp, Yamaha HTR reciever, with phono input, used as a pre pro, (and its at the top of my list to be replaced as soon as am working and have positive cash flow) I still have my Series 20 PLC-590 direct drive TT with a PA-1000 carbon fiber arm, that currently has an AT150MLa mounted in it. I have been told that the PA-1000 is a high compliance tone arm. Some PA-1000 specs listed are: effective length 237 mm, overhang 15mm, offset angle 20 degrees 40 minutes, usable cartridge weight, (With original series 20 headshell) is 4g to 15g. Just before getting laid off I bought a Phonomena II phono preamp with adjustable cartridge loading, but have not hooked it up yet. For headshells, I have a standard Rekokut aluminum headshell that the ML150 cart is in plus the original Series 20 (carbon fiber?) headshell which weighs 10.2 grams and an ADC magnesium headshell that weighs 7.9 grams and a JVC headshell that weighs 9.1 grams. Of the outstanding MM cartridges mentioned here, which ones that are still obtainable in the US from a source or regularly for bid would you start with? The Nag. MP-50, Andante P-76, B&O MMC1 or MMC2, the Ortofon M20FLSuper, one of the AT carts mentions such as the AT20SLa, or other? And, which headshell would you use. Any help from any of you guys with good systems and experince will be appreciated.
PS: on a used headshell I bought recently, came an Ortofon cartridge body, but no stylus. The housing a retangular silverish metal and the front face slopes toward the back at the bottom and the bottom slopes up toward the back. The combination mounting plate and pin plate is black (plastic?) and the pins are gold plated. There are two recesses in the top. One recess says ORTOFON DENMARK, and the other says SEVERAL PATENTS. Is there any way to identify this model and would it be worth finding a stylus for it? Thanks in Advance |
Dear Rnadell: +++++ " I'm frustrated. " +++++
well I can tell for sure that any one of us were frustrated many times in different audio subjects over our audio life and all those frustrations were part important in our each one audio learning curve. We have to learn how to take/learn advantage on our frustrations and instead to be frustrated we have to think that we learn something.
I agree with what Siniy123 posted about: we are on our own, the whole high end audio industry does not care about because they normaly care about busine$$ ( like the MC cartridges. ) and the MM/MI alternative is no busine$$ for any one of them.
+++++ " I also notice that these mm are not compared directly to lomc's, have I missed something? " +++++
I think yes, you have to read over the thread: there are several LOMC cartridge comparison by different thread contributors.
About the headshells you buy the AT ones that I know comes with adjustment top the cartridge, example: the MG-10 for overhang ( no azymuth. ), the LS/T-12 overhang and azymuth, MS-8 the same as 12, etc, etc, I don't know wich model you get. The Grace one has no finger pick up?, no big deal I use every single headshell with out it because it is an additional distortion source.
Don't worry too much about effective mass and the like with these MM/MI alternative, I can tell you that till today and after more than 40+ test with these kind of cartridges all perform very good and probably many of the tonearm/cartridge combinations that I used were out of ideal resonance frequency range I can't say for sure because I never care about: I care for what I hear. Certainly many of those cartridges could perform a little better if I been/be more precise but till today I'm lucky about. I know this attitude is not an orthodox one but the life is to short and I have to use my time in my audio system hearing and enjoying music.
Go a head, we all are in learning MM/MI cartridge process where we have success and sometime bad experiences that makes we feel: frustrated.
Anyway, yes IMHO is worth to do it and this is the way it is!
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Rnadell, we can post a question about latest Dynavector or Ortofon cartridge and get tons of responses from fake users such as dealers, reps and PR people. Higher cartridge prices gives you more responses on this forum. Should it be other way around? With these excellent MM/MI cartridge we are on our own. It is up to us to open our minds and invest those money and try them. More then often it will be less then $300 for NOS TOTL cartridge from 70s or 80s. Have you tried Ortofon M20FL Super, which is readily available for $180? It is joy of a cartridge. Same for me is ADC TRX-1...No, you will not find them in you local "high-end" store. But today, armed with internet and great forums, out world if "bigger" then audio publications and industry trying to imply. |
Hi, I have been reading this thread for it seems like forever now and at the same time looking for cartridges. It seems as though the supply and demand theory is pushing these mm to a point where I am not willing to take a chance on purchasing one. There are exceptions I know but the time just to find one, wonder if it will work with a headshell that doesn't seem to be readily available, and the effective mass of an arm with a removable headshell that is not available and only a couple of people willing to post a response to the question of what it is makes me wonder if it is all worth the effort. With that said I know I can keep looking for the components and try different combos until I find the one that sounds great. Is this how it all works? I also notice that these mm are not compared directly to lomc's, have I missed something? I know my experience of listening leaves me with an opinion of which is better a or b however my memory is not adequate to remember as though I were performing an a b listening test in present time. What prompted these thoughts is the fact I started a SP 10 MKll project a while ago with the idea that I would be able to see if my Michell is really as bad as I have heard. The best way is to do a comparison myself and putting all the parts together is turned out to be a pain in the a--. Please tell me where I am mistaken about my thoughts. One parting thought, I have been looking for a headshell for my grace 940 and was offer a couple of them for a fair price. I purchase them, one being a audio technica and the other a grace,who knows the model. The AT has no adjustment for the cartridge, and the grace turned out not to have the finger pick up all of which was not disclosed when offered to me. I am frustrated. |
Dear Phaser: +++++ " When you listened to the Bill Evans album did you do so with both MC and MM or just different MM's " +++++
good point and yes I heard it with both kind of cartridges but I don't do it with the Garrot.
+++++ " stress that I have spent as much time with each cartridge trying to optimize its performance and I cannot see that I would set up the MM better than the MC or vice versa " +++++
this is critical ( set-up ) to make a comparison especially with top audio systems like the one you own.
I'm sure that you like me made the right MC cartridge loading set-up and in your case the MM/MI loading set up was not ( IMHO ) the best for the cartridge shows its best.
This loading set up does not makes a night and day difference but give that detail and " recovery " information that you are talking about with the MC. I can remember that Dgarretson point out in precise manner this critical subject and I have to say that as better is the audio system as critical is this set up factor to make comparisons and to be more fair in that comparisons.
Now, that Garrot in my today opinion is a good performer but miss the ultimate quality to be at the top with other MM/MI cartridges.
I would like that Lewm could share his latest experiences with the Ortofon M20FL Super that IMHO is a little better than the P-77.
+++++ " What I can conclude from my own experience is that I concur with almost every Audio journalist in the world who contends that MC's offer more detail and higher resolution than MM's " +++++++
IMHO the trouble with them is almost the same that with other people ( like you ): they don't try it yet any of the top MM/MI performers with the precise cartridge set up. Not only that but almost all of them maybe already listening 2-3 MM/MI cartridges ( with wrong set up ), they need to try 10-15 ones with the right set up.
But, you can read too that there are a few reviewers ( I name it in the thread ) that use the MM/MI alternative and their opinion on the subject is a little different over the reviewers that prefer the MC ones because in reality these reviewers have no precise MM/MI experiences for make a statement on the subject.
I can't find it but somewhere in this tread a person posted a link where we can read that not only some ( few ) reviewers likes the MM/MI alternative but recording producers made the monitoring of their recordings through MM/MI cartridges.
Phaser, IMHO I think that the most interesting subject in this thread is that the MM/MI alternative is still alive and is a good alternative.
My conclusions are a little different from yours ( mainly ) because I already test 40+ MM/MI cartridges with what in my audio system ( today ) is a good cartridge set up ( that could change in the future: who knows!. ). I have to add: with a dedicated phono stage for each cartridge design: MC and MM/MI that copes with its each one cartridge design specific needs.
You experiences about while are very good I think are/were a little limited till today.
For me the important subject is that you take the time to make a " research " on the MM/MI alternative and that, one way or the other, you like it too.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Raul, I appreciate you looking into the issue I mentioned but I did not say that the performance with the MM was not good just that it is not as good as with a MC. I compared these recordings and another more modern choice "Particia Barber Live A Fortnight in France". Same result, the MC clearly revealed more information and hence made the presentation seem more realistic. To be fair I used two different arm/table combinations. A Vector 4 on a Basis Debut Vacuum with Synchro Wave PS had the P77 and a GPA Monaco/Tri Planar had a Transfiguration Phoenix. I swapped the carts between the arms and the results, while showing some differences between the two table/arm combinations still revealed the MC to be the more revealing of the two by no small margin. Was the MM nice to listen to? Yes for both table/arm combinations. I stress that I have spent as much time with each cartridge trying to optimize its performance and I cannot see that I would set up the MM better than the MC or vice versa. I used the same phono stage, the Audia Flight for both cartridges.
I think T-Bone described the P77 as sweet and I would concur. It is sweet and not ruthlessly revealing. Very powerful bass and for my tastes a little forward in the midrange but overall a very pleasant experience.
I must ask. When you listened to the Bill Evans album did you do so with both MC and MM or just different MM's? It seems as if you listened to several MMs and each of these delivered performances you found appealing. That is great but only by listening to an equally well set up MC can you conclude that one is superior to the other in your system.
Other MM's may as you contend offer truly outstanding resolution. I haven't heard them so I can't say they don't. What I can conclude from my own experience is that I concur with almost every Audio journalist in the world who contends that MC's offer more detail and higher resolution than MM's. I don't believe they are part of a pro MC conspiracy or that they are self deluded. I think this is what they hear. It is what I hear. |
Dear Phaser: Not been at your place I can't say where is the problem in what you are hearing, I only can speculate about.
I'm with Dgarretson. I already heard the Bill Evans recording with tree-four cartridges ) including the 1080. ) and what I experienced are nothing but first rate quality performances.
The cartridge set-up ( starting with using a matched toneam and no less important the cartridge impedance/capacitance loading. ) always makes a difference as a difference always makes the phono stage.
I don't think that your ears differ too many from Dgarretson or mines or other thread contributors and that's why I speculate on what I posted.
The other side, due that these MM/MI cartridges are very old, is that your samples were not overall in good shape and this could be.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Siniy123: Sorry, I don't have any info other that the one you have that I think is by different model, I can't be sure due that Audio technica made its commercial work in different countries with similar cartridges but with little changes in the name of the models ( maybe with little changes in the design too. ).
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Sonofjim: Yes, the dynamic compliance on the E is 25cu. The latest time that I tested was in the EPA 100 and works really good. I don't thimg you can have trouble with your 500, yes maybe there are some other tonearms that could match in better way but remember that the tonearm/cartridge resonance frequency can't tell you its whole overall quality performance, that spec/value only tell you that the resonance frequency is inside/outside and ideal frequency range. Of course that this is important but through many years I had and I have still experiences where the frequency resonance is out of that range and the performance is very good: could it be better when the frequency response is right on target?, could be, yes.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Raul, do you have more info on AT-ML160? I only see AT160ML info and specs. |
I have one of the NOS M20FL Supers coming from the German seller on eBay that Raul has pointed out. I think it will work well with the EPA 500 A501H wand. The NOS M20E Super is tempting as well but the cartridge db lists dynamic compliance for the E at 40 and static compliance at 25. Shouldn't this be the other way around? I thought dynamic compliance was usually about 1/2 static compliance. What tonearms are light enough to work well with a cartridge this highly compliant? Even the A501E at 6 gms would seem to be a bit heavy. |
Dear Birdliver: I don't hear the 50Super for some time but what I already experienced with IMHO it is somewhere between both performance levels.
I have to test it again.
Regards and enjoy the music, raul. |
Phaser, thanks for mentioning that Bill Evans. I have it in mono on ABC/Riverside and stereo on Japanese Victor/Riverside. This morning they both sounded quite vivid on lowly Empire 888E. BTW I just substituted a brass pedestal for delrin on my linear air arm. What a difference this made! These inexpensive MM cartridges are good enough to report well after subtle tweaks to arm & TT. |
Dear Phaser: Thank you. I have the Bill Evans one. I will try it and share my thoughts about.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Hi Raul, Of the two categories you mentioned above, the "very top" and then the ones that are "good" but do not quite make the "very top" which category do you think the Nagaoka MP-50 "Super" goes in? Thanks, -bird |
Raul I use two records as my "live" references. Firstly there is the the LA4 "Scores" and the second is the 33 1/3 version of The Bill Evans Trio "Sunday at The Village Vanguard". With both these recordings I cannot get as close to the performances with either of the MM's I have tried. With my Orpheus in particular there is a very believable presentation and with the MM's it's more like I am listening to the recording. Yes I do like both MM's and actually prefer them to MC's on some material. It is just that I do not prefer them on all. FYI, my Orpheus is damaged and I am looking for a replacement at the moment including the Ortofon MCA90 Downunder is so enthusiastic about. I currently am running a Transfiguration Phoenix along with the P77. I run two table/arm/cartridge combinations. |
Dear Phaser: I would like to understand what you mean. Could you tell me which recordings and tracks are you refering?
In the other side the 100K/100pf cartridge loading could help about.
Anyway, I can see that you don't dislike at all the MM/MI experience.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Excel I think you will really like the MP-50. It is the only MM cart I have heard so far that combines a nice 3d image combined with transparancy and life of a LOMC.
That said, compared to the recently released Ortofon MC A90 it is just another good sounding cartridge. The A90 is truely a fantastically natural and pure sounding cartridge, and is priced well below the top models of the competition.
If you like the way your system sounds, you will luv the A90.
enjoy |