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

Dear chakster, Your ''story'' about MC 2000 is consistent with my

story about MC construction in general. I also underline the

importance of the moving mass of the involved moving parts.

I also mentioned that by reducing the lenght of the coil wire one

can reduce the moving mass but at the cost of the reduced output.

Without any experience with MC 2000 and Sony XL 44 one can

assume that MC 2000 should be faster because of the output

difference : 0.05 mV versus 0.3 mV for the Sony ( I made an error

with 0.4 mV). I would add fastness next to ''Lew's'' complience in

the context of piano reproduction. Dynamics which is so important

by piano music must be connected with the ''speed'' of reactios

of the moving parts.

Regarding Axel's retip I would say that his ''fine line '' which was

very carefull polished should be an better stylus than original

by MC 2000 while the aluminum ''tubed'' cantilever should be as

light as the Ortofon. But there is this ''pudding'' in which people

believe more than ''stories'' while our dear Lew has the chance

to ''taste'' both. Actually all 3: two MC's 2000 + Sony XL 44 l.

Not bad to have some friends from the former Eastern block.

Not to mention his youth love Dostojevsky.

chakster, hometown?  It may interest you that I was part of the last "Russian tour" by Sam Tellig of Stereophile.  That was in the fall (play on words, as Lew likes to do) of 1991.  We visited three cities, Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Odessa.  Need I say St. Pete was by far my favorite?  The rumor was that it was still Leningrad when we landed in Moscow but had been changed back to St. Petersburg a few days later by the time our overnight train arrived there.

Anyway, lots of stories from that trip.  Some involving Sam, truly a character, and several about the Russian experience.  Tellig promoted the trip as a chance to see famous landmarks, experience great live concert performances, and buy LPs at bargain prices.  The landmarks were all there, but many top musicians had fled the country and the record bins were nearly empty.  As an example, attending a ballet in Odessa turned out to be a disappointment because the music was recorded, apparently too many musicians from their orchestra had departed.

Sorry for the diversion from cartridge construction and debating who should do retips. ;^)
chakster, hometown?  It may interest you that I was part of the last "Russian tour" by Sam Tellig of Stereophile.  That was in the fall (play on words, as Lew likes to do) of 1991.  We visited three cities, Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Odessa.  Need I say St. Pete was by far my favorite?  The rumor was that it was still Leningrad when we landed in Moscow but had been changed back to St. Petersburg a few days later by the time our overnight train arrived there.

Anyway, lots of stories from that trip.  Some involving Sam, truly a character, and several about the Russian experience.  Tellig promoted the trip as a chance to see famous landmarks, experience great live concert performances, and buy LPs at bargain prices.  The landmarks were all there, but many top musicians had fled the country and the record bins were nearly empty.  As an example, attending a ballet in Odessa turned out to be a disappointment because the music was recorded, apparently too many musicians from their orchestra had departed.

Sorry for the diversion from cartridge construction and debating who should do retips. ;^)
@pryso wow, it was indeed a "great fall" in 1991, i was a teenager, my musical source was vinyl and cassettes on my dad’s Soviet hi-fi at that time. I saw the future of my country more optimictic than i see it now. But anyway you’re all welcome @lewm @nandric, before it’s too late.

This is very impressive footage of the city you can watch here
St.Petersburg is unique experience, i love my hometown.
Dear @chakster : """  talking about refurbishg of this cartridge i assume retippers use different cantilever (probably boron?), because the original alluminum cantilever of the MC2000 looks very unique in its conical shape. """

As any one knows cartridge manufacturers almost always gives you a new cartridge sample in exchange for the cartridge damaged. That's why always is more expensive to fix the cartridge through the original manufacturer but with the advantage that the new cartridge sample has its latest up-dates.
Btw, the 20 cu in compliance is what Ortofon stated but through a cartridge review where they took measures the compliance is around 30 cu.

@lewm I think that even Ortofon can't make the " perfect " MC 2000 fix to its original status.  In the other side what they can do could be the refurbished work that they did it and offers on vintage Ortofon cartridges like the Rohman, Jubilee, MC 3000 and other models. You can contact Ortofon to find out if that's posible.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear @chakster : If you own the original Telarc 1812 and listen through the MC 2000 you will know not only its excellent tracking abilities but all the grooves information that pick-up and that you can't detect with some other cartridges.

Btw, the MC 2000 was one of the first cartridges builded with pure silver coils.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Nandric, If I am understanding your post correctly, you are saying that you have not heard the MC2000.  Is that the case?  Or do you mean that you never heard one with its original cantilever/stylus?

Dear Lew, I mentioned comparison with Sony XL 44 which I

described as similar and made you my proposition to lend

you the Sony for your own comparison. Comparison imply that

I tested both. But because you was wondering about possible

 difference between retipped and original MC 2000 I offered you

 also the original because I also own the original . I got

 this one two years ago or so. However my recent obtained

cartridges are Allaerts MC2 , Ikeda 9 TT, Urushi Blue Sky and

Transfiguration Phoenix S which are in a different league. So I

spend not much time with Ortofon. Nor with Sony and wrote

that both are ''collecting dust'' in my cabinet. So I can afford to

lend you both. It is an offer and not an sacrifice.

Nandric, That is very kind of you.  I am also interested to learn that you apparently rank the four named cartridges above the MC2000 and the Sony, especially since you once seemed to be a great fan of the Sony.  I have a longstanding admiration for the top Transfiguration cartridges but have never actually owned one.  I do recall that the Temper was a very neutral cartridge yet also capable of thrilling sound, so I don't doubt that the Phoenix is excellent.  I am about to retire at the end of December.  It would probably be best for me to wait until January to take you up on your offer.  If there is something of mine that you would like to borrow in return, just let me know. But not the L07D.  Shipping that beast is perilous because of its fragile plinth material.

Could it be that, with you and Raul leading the way, this thread could change its focus to MCs?
"What do we need MM cartridges for, when we have MCs...."?
Whan i play records with original Garrott P77 loaded at 100k and mounted on Reed 3p i always ask myself why do i need those low output MC cartridges? It's a part of the hobby, curiosity in other words... The big question with the LOMC is always the right amplification (sut or no sut and which one). I would be happy to buy container of records instead. 

Regret my dear chakster is always afterward. When we have already

spend the money which we could use for, say, a container with

records instead (grin).

The sense of our forum is the shared passion. But it would make

no sense whatever to tell ''normal people'' how many carts you own.

They would not say that because of politeness but will think that you

belong in a lunatic asylium. Only ''common passions'' like love for

your country is considered to be ''nomal'' . Many other kinds are

consdered to be abnormal. Besides our forum is the only place

where you can complain about your errors. That is obvious reason

for your so many ''contributions'' (grin).

Dear @lewm : Just from the begining I attested that the MM is an alternative and not in place LOMC cartridge alternative. It does not substitute the MC's but it's a very good alternative.

Problem with alternatives evaluations and posts about those evaluations were made it by us audiophiles whom almost all are founded on what each gentleman likes  in his room/audio system and not on how the home audio experiences really SHOULD BE .

I already explain the " should be " concept in other threads and I don't want to repeat it here.

In the latest years I learned what that " should be " means  almost all still are sticked to that infamous " I like it " and has no idea on that " should be ". and I'm still learning about. This is self/personal excersice.

So today I speak in a lower manner of  differences in what other people listen and what I'm listening because we are talking of different things.

I'm sure that some audiophiles, sooner or latter, will learn about that " should be " and of course many audiophiles never can arrive there.

lewm, one out of question  condition to arrives to that " should be " is that the digital alternative outperforms the analog experience ( including R2R. ) in each one audio system. If this does not happens then we have to work on fine tunning the system to that digital direction, This has nothing to do even if we don't " like " the digital alternative, it's only part of a test evaluation that our system sounds as SHOULD BE.

Btw, that " should be " always will like us and will outperforms the today experience.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

I have no problem to confess that my musical vocabulary is pretty

restricted so I would need , next to my theacher Lew for my English

some musicologist as theacher . In the context of ''ignorance level''

my musical vocabulary could be quilify as ''poor level of knowledge''.

Because of this ''poor level'' I am not able to grasp the meaning of

the ''concept should be '' in ,uh, musical (e) valuation. I am not sure

if there are musicologist among our members but there must be

some misicians who can explain to us in ''plain English'' what

''should be''  should mean.

I have to agree with Raul . I know when my analog play back is sounding closer to my digital front end I am heading in the right direction .

enginedr, we are heading in the analog direction so you obviously

missed the right direction  which is called digital. This is a separate

discussion forum. But considering the number of your post such

thing can happen to a novice.

Hi Nandric what I am saying is that I use my accurate digital system as a reference for my analog system . Getting a analog system with all its variables to sound right takes some work . I had upgraded my digital front end to a point where it sounded better the my analog rig .After upgrading to a better TT ,tone arm , cartridge & phono pre I am getting closer to the quality of my digital front end . I thank all on this site with good information to help with my choices of components .At this point my analog rig is performing to a higher SQ .

enginedr, Raul introduced his ''concept should be''. I stated that

I am not able to grasp this ''concept''. As far as I know he owns

 more than 100 cartridges of both ''alternatives'' but never mentioned

the ''should be one''. How many more will he need? The other

problem is that ''concepts'' , ''terms'' etc.,  are expressions which

belong to language . We call those ''meanings'' but reality is not

linguistic . That is why we ask for the correspondence between

statements (not words)  and reality. There are unknown many

languages but only one reality . All true statements regardles of

languages  should tell ''the same story''.

We the ''believers'' have our own churches. You are like an

Protestant who is telling us the Catholics that our believe is

wrong and your and Raul's right.  But you have your own church

called ''digital'' . What do you want in our church?

I've never made much of an effort to maximize my digital experience.  So, I am open-minded as to its ultimate potential, using my own amplifiers and my speakers as transducers. (Let us not forget that in the end, we are listening to speakers in real-world rooms, not cartridges or DACs or whatever.)  I use an Ayre C5Xe-mp for all digital in one of my two systems, and a Sony in the other. Both are one box players; the Ayre is superior to the Sony.  I own a Mac laptop computer that I once planned to make the core of a hi-rez digital source, but I never got around to it, and I don't feel deprived as a result, but I do realize that that's where Nirvana lies for digiphiles. I have heard very expensive state of the art digital reproduction in the home of my neighbor, and it is of interest to me that he listens to LPs when he really wants to concentrate on "music". If this forum was about digital, we could go on from there.  My point is that I am happy for anyone who is happy with his or her system.  I feel no need to be "right".

Anyway, I don't disagree with those that claim digital has lower "distortion", when the word is used in the conventional way, as would be used possibly by "enginedr1960" whose moniker suggests he is an EE.  On the other hand, we love Raul, but we know he is a hopeless case on the issue of distortion.  I know what Raul would say to anyone who prefers LPs to digital; you must love distortions.  Nandric may be familiar with this as a form of legal argument. The joke in our country is around the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?"  Impossible to answer without incriminating onesself.

On another issue, Raul, if one were to scan your posts on this thread, I don't think your contention that you only started the thread to point out that MM is an "alternative" to MC, not necessarily superior to MC in general, would hold up.  But I won't do that.  It's OK either way.  The thread and my own subsequent explorations have now convinced me that MCs that exceed the best of MM or MI cartridges, or which can even play in the same ballpark, are the exception, rather than the rule.
Raul, you sold your Dynavector Karat 13D sometime ago. Could you please explaint why ? I´d guess it had a distortion issue, was it the large wooden body ? I really would appreciate your explanation. 

My proposition is throw Lew out of our church. He is obviously not

a true believer. One can't be everyone's friend . Well of course

pretend to be. There is one American expression for such conduct

but I love the guy and try to avoid insulting expressions.  

A novice I may be . I listen to my system and hear what it is telling me . I purchased a Glanz MFG 610x cartridge on the recommendation of one of your group . Yes this cartridge sounds more accurate and closer to my digital set up . I know this church is about the worship of the poly vinyl disc .I have spent some funds and invested my time and skills to achieve better sound quality from a compromised format .I don’t care what the format is as long as it is satisfying . What I get from Raul’s statement is that good digital is more truthful to the music then vinyl analog and this reference is used for his evaluation of cartridge performance .

One can try to tune his Stradivarius with the help of an electronic

vilolin. In terms of modernism the electric kind is more modern.

But I am interested in the way Raul ''tunes'' his imagined authority

with his so called ''concepts''. Anyway ''concepts'' are not the things

which can be true or fals . Those are sentences, statements or

propositions . Anyway complete sentences and not words or

concepts. Since Frege the inventor of modern logic this become

clear. Well Raul invented  his concept of ''ignorance level'', the

concept of ''learning curve'', the concept of ''distortions '' and now

the concept of ''should be''. The meaning of all those concepts

was/is  to show his own superiority. This is in particular painful

by the concept of ''learning curve'' by a person who after writting

in English for more than 20 years is still not able to produce or

compose one single decent English sentence.

However  in the country  of the blind, the one- eyed man is  king.

MM cartridges are inherently inferior to MC types because:                                         1. High- inductance of the amount of coils needed to get output > 2 millivolts. This makes MM types sensitive to capacitive-loading of connecting cables and phono stage inputs. Result is rolling-off of high frequency response - limiting bandwidth and slowing transient response.                                                    ..   2. Because of the "shoelace" type of cantilever suspension found in MM types
To continue:                                                       2. They suffer from a form of FM distortion caused by the stylus being pulled forward in the groove (known as "needle drag" distortion. This sounds inherently worse than simple harmonic distortion and is a "coloration" associated with MM types. Due to their stiffer suspensions MC types are inherently less prone to this distortion.  See Mitchell Cotter's explanation in The Audio Critic (1977).                                       3. MC types have an inherently lower noise floor. Output voltage is low (<1 millivolt) but current is high. So a transformer (a passive device) is the BEST way to boost voltage for use with a typical phonostage - and preserve that superior noise floor (better than any tube or transistor).                                                  4. Because of the inherently low inductance of their coils MC types are immune to capacitive loading and are wide-bandwith devices (>100k).Faster transient response than ANY MM type! Therefore capable of superior information retrieval from the groove of that rotating vinyl disc (the LP).
@roberjerman before copy-paste something that you may not really understand by yourself, please look at the specs of the Technics EPC-100c mk4 MM cartridge, then read what cutting/mastering engineers think about coloration of the most MC cartridges. Try to find out which cartridges used to compare mastertape and vinyl disc master and why. We’re speaking about exceptional MM cartridges in this thread, they are neutrial. Forget about frequency roll off (it’s not true) with top of the line vintage MM cartridges. They all got a flat frequency response from 5Hz to 60kHz or even up to 100kHz! Don’t forget about high compliance of MM cartridges, so they are tracks better with lower tracking force.

And let me ask you a question:
Do you have any good MM cartridge or good MC cartridge?
"Lower noise floor with MC cartridge and SUTs" - you must be kidding???

And finally if you need low output and low inductance then look at the specs of the Stanton 980LZS MM cartridge: Output .06mV / Inductance 1.mH / DC Resistance 3. ohms. Walter Stanton believed to his dying day that NO moving coil cartridge could ever be any good.


I suppose that the best way to answer nandric’s question (’what "should be" should mean’?) would be to quote what I frequently tell my sons: "there are no ’shoulds’ in life". Not every listener wants the same things from recorded sound, and I think that it would be disingenuous for any music listener to claim to be able to entirely suspend his own "likes" when trying to determine and proclaim which technology does a better job, OVERALL, of replicating the sound of music. For me, if there is no agreement that the comparison must be made to live unamplified music then the argument need go no further. Complicating the matter is the tendency to talk about the differences between the two technologies in terms of the "sound" as defined by frequency response related qualities with little consideration for the most important ingredient in music: expression and musicality. "Warmth" and the absence of frequency response related distortions is not musicality. Technology can’t have musicality; humans (musicians) can. The technology can, to varying degrees, convey the expression and musicality of the musicians and this is the area that still separates analog and digital. For me, the idea that analog playback should strive for the sound of digital seems misguided and points to how the focus stays on the "sound" more than the expression in music. Imo, the often cited "warmth" in analog sound as compared to digital has more to do with the more accurate rendition of the human element (expression) than with frequency response related qualities and is the reason so many listeners react so positively to analog in spite of whatever technical "distortions" it may have compared to digital.

Only my opinion based on personal experience, but I can offer the perspective of someone who spends several hours each and every day around the sound of live unamplified acoustic instruments playing alone or in ensembles. Imo, and that of the majority of musicians in my professional circle, the differences between the two technologies still point to the superiority of the analog medium in capturing and reproducing the most important aspects of music making: timing, nuance of expression, instrumental blend and harmonic complexity in the tone. In fairness, it would be silly to suggest that digital destroys these aspects of music making since both technologies have gotten so good; but, analog is consistently heard to capture and reproduce a more accurate rendition of what the musicians intended in those regards. So, is a lesser rendition of these performance values not a "distortion" also? For me, that is a distortion of the worst kind; it may not be for another listener.

Dear frogman,  I kind of ''ordered'' an musicologist or musician as

theacher next to Lew my English theacher. The  reason being the

lack of musical vocabulary. In the context of ''should bé'' concept.

But we have had an interesting dicussion before in the context of

the qustion ''nurture or nature'' in our musical prefrences. My

thesis being that nurture is much more important than nature.

We actualy ''endure'' music in our upbringing and learn to like

music kind avaiable in our cultural enviroment. I am from Balkan

and influenced by Bulgarian, Romanian, Serbian and Italian  

folk music. The Italian ''Napolitan songs'' and Italian opera's

are obviously connected. Depending on what is nurtured in each

contry will show what kind of music the new generation will

prefer. To make my point about nurture I mentioned Chinese

opera which is '' unbearable'' for us but obviously not because

of our nature but nurture. You agreed then with me and told us

how much difficulties you had to ''accomodate'' to Chinese

opera. We in the West or rather Europe have an ubelievable

welth of musical tradition which is in danger by American

artificial amplified trash music which kids in the whole world

use like fast food. Each kid has on his ears those big  earphones

which produce deafening sounds which may sound to them as

music. The question MM or MC carts looks pretty silly in this

context.


Dear @enginedr1960:  """  I had upgraded my digital front end to a point where it sounded better the my analog rig .After upgrading to a better TT ,tone arm , cartridge & phono pre I am getting closer to the quality of my digital front end. """

To understand by listening the superior digital alternative we have to have  a good digital rig and that the systemstay tunned to that digital rig instead to the analog imperfections.

Several analog lovers have not a first rate digital rig in their room system.

As I said, I explein it in deep several times through this forum in the last 2-3 years.
Even I posted that any one that really wants to experice by it self the superiority of the digital over analog technology whwat has to do is:

to own a first rate digital rig and day by day only listen to it with out LP sessions and do this by 3 moths in a row and then comeback to analog and compare it and please forgeret all what we learned on analog and all our biased opinions about because our brain is already conditioned to what we listen through LPs.

Digital is the only alternative that puts us nearer to the recording and is obvious the reasons why.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.


Dear @lewm and friends: """  I've never made much of an effort to maximize my digital experience. So, I am open-minded as to its ultimate potential,... """

That is the main and critical subject with analog lovers.  No real efforts in their own systems with the best digital.

With out true and real digital experiences by our self we have no facts to analize today digital vs analog.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Digital is the only alternative that puts us nearer to the recording and is obvious the reasons why.

Raul, most of my favorite music was recorded in the studio on multitrack master tape at first, then mixed by mastering engineer and cut on lathe. There is NO digital in the chain, some records are direct cut. No need to digitize analog source! Each album or single has its own story, some of them are not easy to find and this is another story about each particular find. When we pay for each record we are "selectors",  we're filling our collection with a new records, new finds over the years. I was born in the 70s and digital never played an important role in my life when it comes to the music, i spend more time with cassette tapes and vinyl records. The CD was an awful format of digital and now digital music is free. We use enough digital in our life (computers and stuff), i wish my music to be on original records. Because digital file can’t replace the feelings, the background, the history behind each vinyl record we have. This is the way i’ve been listening music most of my life. I use low quality digital to discover more music online, but if i like some track i want it on vinyl on my recordshelfs. Despite the fat that most of my music is from the 70s era, i understand that not everything new available on vinyl, but it’s trendy to release vinyl nowadays, it’s funny, but some people release albums on limited edition compact cassetes and even on reel to reel. This is amazing how cool is the analog media even for young generation today. Digital can not replace these feelings, so i don’t care about digital even if it’s good quality. Also i don’t want a digital screen, tv, dvd or anything like that close to my analog system. Your theory just proove the fact that audiophiles are not always record collectors even if they are listening vinyl. Different strokes for different folks.
nandric, you have a very good memory and I share your frustration with the state of contemporary music and the young.

**** We in the West or rather Europe have an ubelievable

welth of musical tradition which is in danger by American

artificial amplified trash music which kids in the whole world

use like fast food. **** 

Pretty decent English sentence, if you ask me; in more ways than one.  Don't be so hard on yourself 🍷
Hi nandric,

I assure you that there are MANY in the USA that feel just as you do.

Dave

Dear Frogman, Me hard on myself? I should mention my carts

'of the month' before. I own 11 baby's which I, as a good dad,

equally love. While I am not a Muslim I want one more but need

to search further. The Ikeda 9 REX is difficult to find.  Changing

carts is a joy which probably only harem owners will recognize(grin).

The name of each baby is: 1. Allaerts MC2 , 2. Magic Diamond,

3. Benz LP mr, 4. Ikeda 9 TT, 5.  Urushi Sky Blue, 6. FR-7fz, 7.

Ikeda 9 C, 8. Transfigurtion Poenix S, 9. ZYX Airy 3, 10. Miyaby

standard, 11. Kiseki Gold Spot.

There is no other place where I can ''show off'' with my riches

then in this forum with the same kind of addicts (grin).

The rest of the human kind thinks that one cart is sufficient.

For many years I used the Ikeda-san designed Fidelity Research FR1mk3F mc along with the Mitchell Cotter Verion P transformer. Silver coils and line-contact stylus. Superb sound and no desire to change! I have never heard a MM equal this level of sound quality. I stand by my previous assertion that a MC cartridge and transformer offers the best quality of LP playback!
jerman, you hear what you hear but honestly you are the first one in this decade old thread, contributed by so many intelligent and experienced audiophiles with very interesting reviews, with nothing truly constructive not to mention uplifting to say. You sound nothing but copy-paste. Your comments are load of BS

Roberjerman, If you have seen my collection of MC carts you can

see many Fidelity Research carts among them. Assuming that you

also own FR-64/66 or the new Ikeda tonearms you should try one

of the FR-7 kinds. The right SUT you already  own. You may believe

that your FR-1mk 3 is the best but such statement can't be made

without comparison with some other MC carts.


Dear @enginedr1960: """  I know when my analog play back is sounding closer to my digital front end I am heading in the right direction . """

Yes, you are rigth because you really understand the why's about and other audiophiles just can't.

Lewm said is openmind to the digital potential but makes no single effort that confirm his " openmind ".

@chakster speaks on many things in his last post that only reflect he just does not understand the main subject. Where is the MUSIC.

Almost everyone is ready to post opinions against digital but with out a real and deep experiences in the continuous time with this format.

This analog forum is the rigth forum to speak about digital because it's, other than live music, the reference to fine tunning any audio system.
When digital is rigth in the listening system experiences then everrything is fine and obviously analog will shines better than ever.

Of course that exist " audiophiles " that never will learn about, just their brain can't understand.
This kind of scenario is the same when people just can't understand why tubes are not for audio or unipivots for analog. It's incredible that even today  and even that some subjects already were analized really in deep exist ignorants ( for say the least ). that still speaks of load impedance with LOMC cartridges when this kind of cartriodge is no sensitive to load impedance ! !. Such is life, stupidity is all over the world in the day by day.


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
@roberjerman For many years I used the Ikeda-san designed Fidelity Research FR1mk3F mc along with the Mitchell Cotter Verion P transformer. Silver coils and line-contact stylus. Superb sound and no desire to change! I have never heard a MM equal this level of sound quality. I stand by my previous assertion that a MC cartridge and transformer offers the best quality of LP playback!

I also have Fidelity-Research PMC-3 (recommended by Jonathan Carr of Lyra) and one of the best headamp made by Nakatsuka San (ZYX), my Luxman 8030 silver SUT on its way to try later with FR-7f purchased this year. Not to mention my experience very expensive modern LOMC cartridges in the past. I got massive collection of vintage MM cartridges and i can say that MC are not better, espesially for those of us who are not willing to pay many thousands dollars for MC + SUT to find out later that $300-700 MM cartridge from the late 70s or early 80s still outperfom it. I’m still trying to find the MC cartridge that can compete with my TOTL moving coils, i won’t give up, we will see when i will try Ortofon MC2000.

Just a quick report on the Astatic MF 200 that I had been intermittently using since the 8th of August. I had reported earlier that the bass was rather reticent and Raul had advised me to rack up at least 30 to 40 hours. It took me longer than it should because I ended up playing with another cartridge (which is another story).


Few days ago, the bass which was hidden away suddenly came in full force, as if the cartridge had crossed some invisible rubicon. It wasn't a ride down a gentle cascade either, more like a drop down a steep waterfall in the sense that it was sudden. I say this because a visiting friend and I listened to a number of records the previous night and the change in character the next day was fairly drastic.


Anyway, this is not a complaint:) 

So with the missing bass in place, the MF 200 has become a much better cartridge. Plays very cleanly on good records but also doesn't shy away from calling a spade a spade when fed a poor record.

Certainly one of the best I've ever heard.
Raul, again about your sold Dynavector Karat Nova 13D... was it really the large wooden body or was it a "weaker" sample. Additionally, how would you compare it against the Dynavector Karat 17D(s) ?
The Karat carts are very special designs, I´m interested in purchasing...
Thanks in advance.
Dear @harold-not-the-barrel : Sorry, I " missed " your post.

The 13 D is not a weaker sample in its body wood presentation and is a very good performer if mounted in a different headshell that the one dedicated that comes with the cartridge.

Other important subject you have to check before buy it is that the cartridge connector wires to the headshell be original. This is that these four wires came from inside the cartridge, something as the Linn cartridges. The 13D cartridge output comes through those wires and not through cartridge output pin connectors.
It's not an easy cartridge to performs at its best, you have to try different headshells and different tonearms. For me it's not an user friendly cartridge and took several hours to performs at its best. 

I never tested against the 17D.

Regrads and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear @frogman : """ "there are no ’shoulds’ in life". Not every listener wants the same things from recorded sound... """

well not only in audio but in other different day by day " scenarios " many times we use " something " not in the rigth way the manufacturer recomend: this is the " should be ", but we used as we " understand " how to use it or as we like when this is possible but the " should be " always exist.

Each audiophile can have their own system targets . My target is to stay truer to the recording truer as the recording microphones pick up the MUSIC information and each time that I talk on that " should be " my opinion is based/founded on this target/premise.

You said: """ the expression and musicality of the musicians and this is the area that still separates analog and digital """. and coninue telling:

"" the often cited "warmth" in analog sound as compared to digital has more to do with the more accurate rendition of the human element (expression) than with frequency response related qualities and is the reason so many listeners react so positively to analog in spite of whatever technical "distortions" it may have compared to digital. """

The microphones takes that expression and musicallity that players gave it along its rythm.

Now, that " warmth " is something that almost does not exit in the real life and almost never by microphones that can’t pick up what does not exist.

I like to listen an audio system in a near field position because that’s the way things happen in real life and where the recording microphones were set up at the venue.

Microphones are not " seated " at 30-40 m. from the overall MUSIC source as the people that attends to a concert hall.

Live MUSIC has no " warmth ", not even an essemble. You can take the instrument you like and at 2m. just does not exist that characteristic. Even a violin at that distance sounds agressive and we can " feel " the friction of the bow with the violin chords but if we take a trumpet even a 3 m. it’s just extremely agressive and " overbrigth " for say the least. A piano is no exception.

I know several players and two orchestra Directors that accept they has an anormal lost of auditive sensitivity because to many hours and years listening to those so high SPL. some are almost " deaf ".

I have several first hand experiences learning/listening near field live music, including full symphonic orchestra. No warmth.

People like warmth in the analog experience because they are accustom to by all its audio life but that does not means are rigth because the true all are wrong including your player friends that prefers analog.

From where comes that analog warmth you like that does not exist at the same level in digital and that does not exist when the microphones tooks the information? 

You said that the digital " distortion " is the worst but with out explanation about as no explanation of your non-existent " warmth ". Well as a fact you said that the warmth comes from a more accurate ...... Let me tell you something: between digital and analog and everything the same the more non-accurate and for a wide margin is analog.

We all belongs to the AHEE and trained by its corrupted leaders and since we strated in audio we were and still are FOLLOWERS that’s the " easy " road.


A few years ago when I began to think " out of the box/out of the AHEE " was really when I discovery first that several MUSIC/AUDIO subjects I learned were totally wrong and second was when I really understand where MUSIC belongs in my room/audio system and since then working to stay truer to the recording. I’m not today a follower, enough is enough on that AHEE.

As you I’m a MUSIC lover and own thousands of LPs but I recognize the digital superior system source.


Regrads and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

@chakster I understand your " romanticism " but I’m not talking of that but the MUSIC experience and what this really means .




@nandric 

 1. Allaerts MC2 , 2. Magic Diamond,

3. Benz LP mr, 4. Ikeda 9 TT, 5.  Urushi Sky Blue, 6. FR-7fz, 7.

Ikeda 9 C, 8. Transfigurtion Poenix S, 9. ZYX Airy 3, 10. Miyaby

standard, 11. Kiseki Gold Spot.

There is no other place where I can ''show off'' with my riches

then in this forum with the same kind of addicts (grin).

The rest of the human kind thinks that one cart is sufficient.


One from this list will be enough for me, the Miyabi Standard

Dear Raul,

**** Each audiophile can have their own system targets ****

Exactly what I said: "Not every listener wants the same things from recorded sound".

**** My target is to stay truer to the recording truer as the recording microphones pick up the MUSIC information and each time that I talk on that " should be " my opinion is based/founded on this target/premise. ****

One cannot have both the live music experience (as you claim to have) and recorded music as the ultimate reference. You assume that a recording is an accurate representation of the original event. Some get pretty close; most, not so much. Moreover, this "should be" does not apply to every listener otherwise your statement would contradict your above previous statement. In your comments you seem to be suggesting that it should apply to all listeners and you invalidate (ridicule) others’ system goals. Some may not even have a well defined "system goal", but will simply seek a sound that they find to be "better" and more enjoyable. There is no "ignorance" and certainly no "stupidity" in that. Unless, of course, their preferred sound is claimed, as you do re the digital/analog question, that it is the sound that is closest to live music.

re "warmth":

With respect, you do not understand at all what I think I made clear (perhaps not so clear). My point (again) was that, for me and most musicians, digital’s most egregious distortions occur in the areas of music’s and musicians’ expressive qualities (timing, expressive nuance and instrumental tone harmonic complexity which is manipulated by players for expressive effect). The term "warmth" as usually used by audiophiles and by you here has nothing to do with expression but with sound. Warmth in music is an expressive quality as in: "Raul has a warm personality" (maybe?) and has nothing to do with bright/dark or full/thin. Analog is consistently heard by most musicians to do a better job of capturing and replicating the expressive qualities (warmth) of music than digital. This is the reason for the often cited superior "musical involvement" many listeners experience with analog; more of the human element. Btw, I don’t know what musicians or directors you hang out with, but I assure you that the level of nuance of expression and, yes, even "sound" that accomplished musicians and directors concern themselves with are infinitely finer and more elusive than what is experienced in audiophilia since there is so much more information in live music than in recorded/reproduced music. This is one reason that some musicians are sometimes perceived as not caring about hi-fi. The other reason being that most focus almost entirely on the expressive qualities of the performance. For them expressive quality dwarfs bright, dark, soundstaging etc.

Again, not meaning any disrespect, but I must point out a couple of additional comments that you made that may explain our disagreement and our fundamentally different approaches to these questions. You continually refer to how some audiophiles do not "understand" this or that. I can’t help but ask the question: what does "understanding" have to do with any of this. Is it not about what we hear and what we feel when we listen to recorded music? I know very well what I hear and feel when I hear analog vs digital. As an audiophile also I like to understand why this may be so, but understanding is secondary to what I hear and feel. Analog GENERALLY (not always, obviously) sounds closer to what I hear and feel from live music; most musicians that perform unamplified acoustic music concur. No claim to any superiority or exclusivity from this, but simply a statement of fact. I also read many comments by you critical of others in which you assert that it should be about "the MUSIC experience", but I don’t see any comments about music. I would respectfully suggest that your "several" live music experiences should become "many" and more frequent and that you focus more on the feeling in music and less in its sound. Gracias por los commentarios dirijidos a mi, y paz.







Dear chakster, in the Koetsu thread I asked (retorical) question:

''why should anyone want more or better than Urushi Blue Sky?''

But this looks like the question Marie Antoinette asked when she

was told that people protest because they have no bread to eat.

''Why then'', she asked , ''they don't eat cakes instead?''

Well in order to have (more) choices by ''edibles'' more, uh, edibles

are needed. While I was on my own by my MC search I also got

some help from the ''German group''. Dertonarm advised Ikeda's

and Syntax (''your'') Miyabi. To love all my baby's equaly I learnd

from my brother /comrade Don. I see that you also prefer to be

on your own in your search for Eldorado. Neither of your ''stuff''

is ever recommended in this forum as far as I know. Complaining

then about the fact that nobody else owns ''your stuff'' is, well,

 very curious  (grin). 

" I have several first hand experiences learning/listening near field live music, including full symphonic orchestra. No warmth. "

Wow Raul you have actually heard a symphonic orchestra several times that is hardly enough to understand what live music actually sounds like and yet you are here preaching to us to enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS and yet you obviously do not have enough experience to even know what the music sounds like! Perhaps you might be lucky and your grammar school will hold some more field trips so that you can get to the symphony a few more times and learn about the instruments of the orchestra and what they sound like and then you will be able to understand a bit more about high fidelity or even better would be to ask your mommy to take you although orchestra tickets can be expensive so it might be better to wait for a class trip. Ask your teacher maybe the school PTA will be able to contribute to the cost of the symphony for you that would be a worthy expenditure for them!
@nandric 

I see that you also prefer to be

on your own in your search for Eldorado. Neither of your ''stuff''

is ever recommended in this forum as far as I know. Complaining

then about the fact that nobody else owns ''your stuff'' is, well,

 very curious (grin).


Yes and No
First i have no idea why do you think I'm complaining about anything?      
I have tried so many cartridges recommended in this forum to make my own conclusion what is good or bad. I strongly disagree with many "contributors" about "some cartridges of the month" posted here long time ago, but at least i owned them. I'm not sure how many people are still hunting for vintage cartridges, but most contributors left this forum 5 year ago or so, including people you're always talking about. Maybe they are all retired and listening to digital like Raul now.

Have you discovered any "new" cartridge recently? I got many new discoveries like unknown "Grace F-14 Exellent" for example. Nobody owns it? Why should i bother? People don't know it even exists. 
Raul,  With reference only to the few times in your recent posts when you referred to me and my last post, I did mention several times therein that I have several hours listening to the system of my neighbor, who is less than a quarter of a mile from my front door.  He owns a very elaborate expensive system for both digital and vinyl reproduction.  His equipment is also high on any audiophile list of "approved" components, meaning it's stuff we would all agree is "good".  He's got nearly $30,000 invested in two tonearms, alone, not including his turntable and cartridges.  With that, his digital equipment is also very expensive and hi-rez.  He does not source digital from discrete CDs and SACDs, as I do.  It's all stored on hard drives at high bit rates and wide bandwidth. He upgrades the latter so often that I cannot tell you precisely what he is listening to at this moment, but I am sure you would say that the problem is he does not own what you like, because there IS a problem.  He and I agree that vinyl on his system is far more involving and enjoyable, "real", emotion-conveying, lively, engrossing, etc, etc, than is digital reproduction on his system. He listens to digital when he has other work to do or when he wants to read a book.  This is pretty much exactly how I regard digital in my much less ambitious system.  To those who prefer digital, no problemo.  Enjoy.  I will stick with what I like. I'll even come over to your house and listen.

I fully realize I am wasting my breath or needlessly wearing out my keyboard, in this case.
By the way, Raul.  I am more or less familiar with your analog equipment.  Can you describe your digital reproduction system?  Thanks.