I have heard good and bad SS setups and tube setups, it is difficult to make a good set up, but once you start getting a good sound (maybe not perfect) you can tell. A good setup can be either SS or tubes, I have close contact with an exceptional SS system, and I have a pretty good Tube system with horns (IMHO), we have compared in several occasions our systems and even with some obvious differences the final taste of the music is not that different! And the differences between MC and MM are very clear and repetitive, every time we switch to a MC cart the same type of sound comes out, as when we switch to MM. There are always the same differences between MM and MC in any good setup and this differences are not SS related or Tube related or more suitable for either setup. I will try to point out some of this differences I am talking about and try to put my finger on them, please bear with me: As a whole the first impression I get when changing from MC to MM is a unnatural high end on the MC cart. After a while you ears kind of get past that (or you adjust to that), then a very difficult to explain thing happens, music through a MC seems more detailed, the voices seem closer, but ambience retrieval seems lost. You can focus more on certain details but as a whole the music is gone and you are left with a sort of looking glass that amplifies certain details but blurs the whole event. This takes life away from the experience. MM is just more present as a whole more in your face and even more detailed without loosing focus... I hope I could explain it better but one thing is sure for me, the same thing happens on a SS or a tube set up. |
Frogman,
Another commentator who it would be interesting to hear from is Jose Maldanado, the designer of the Essential 3160. I have personnel experience of his exceptional hearing and it would be intriguing to hear his take on those subjects. However, he no longer seems to post on this site and I have been told that the parameters of considering the merits of MM's or MC's preclude any analogous references. Shame. |
Frogman,
I only play the cello at a low level and so would not comment. However, if you read the FM Acoustics website, you will see numerous renowned musicians speaking about their quite different perceptions of that solid state equipment. Yet, my initial use of analogy should not be misunderstood and perceived as the point of my statements. I share your sensitivity to the aporia of judgement particlularly in its wider application to art and politics. On these subjects I could write a book and have friends who have done so.
By extention, this aporia could for example raise questions about neutrality representing fidelity to live performances, particularly where those live performances can be in distinct acoustic spaces that might lend emphasis to anomalous parts of the frequency range. These performances (many of which I am sure we have all attended at some point) are literally "live" but not necessarily 'neutral'. It is in this light that I worry whenever I hear reference to "live performances" that seem to believe that these occur in a vacuum or that perfect neutrality captures the 'live event' rather than the 'recorded event'. And I am not disagreeing with anyone here, just stating my perceptions and position. |
Frogman: That Agoner experience/opinion with the SS Phonolinepreamp is not a close/each day audio friend, that was the one and only time I meet him: he lives in USA and I in México city. What you read it was/is what he shared to other two very close friends of him.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Frogman: IMHO your group generalizations are only that a " generalization " and could means almost nothing in what I posted all over this thread.
Why is that?, the audio electronics I own ( Phonolinepreamp and Amplifiers. ) only has to your " generalizations " the name: SS, and that's almost all.
Its quality performance is almost perfect and the name of that almost perfect quality performance is NEUTRALITY. As a fact neutrality is one of my audio system main targets and characteristic.
Your post oblige me to clarify in a precise way on the subject and that's why I bring here what other Agoner musician ( no, he is not an owner of that unit. ) that attend and is in touch with the live event ( like me. ) write about my audio system SS Phonolinepreamp when he heard it in his own system in place of its tube one ( with out making any single fine tunning or change on tonearm/cartridge set-up to the " new " SS unit. ), this person for whom I have a great respect owns Revel speakers, Raven TT, Triplanar tonearm and in that time a Ruby 2 LOMC cartridge:
+++++ " . The Essential 3160 ( this is my SS Phonolinepreamp ) sounded > more like tubes than did my tubed..... That is not to say that it > sounded tubed in a gimmicky way. It was warmer, but not dark. Rich, but not > unfocused. Full, but not bloated in any way. Raul spoke of many different.....
Piano was simply the best I have heard come out of my speakers. > All the things you associate with "live" piano sound were present. The > initial attack was full in a way I don't think I have heard in any system. > It had bite without any of the expected tinnyness ever present in electronic > reproduction. Fullness, richness, and bloom were really "there." Decay of > notes was stunning. Orchestral instruments were rendered equally > realistically but with much more focus and greater soundstage depth. Cymbals > had shimmer and were combined with real weight and body as in life. Weight > and attack on drums was terrific as well. " +++++
As you can see part of the " tools " that I were and am using through the whole long process that bring " alone " the conclusions in the subject are good enough to make those cartridge comaprisons, my Phonolinepreamp has a second MM phono stage with the same top quality performance than the MC one. Remember?: oranges against oranges, nothing less.
You own the P-76 and AT 170 ML, I don't know if you already listening to it at the right load impedance/capacitance but you can read what Dgarretson posted about:
+++++ " My impression of 100K loading is similar to Timeltel above. With 100K the good character of P-76 is enhanced with improved inner detail & refinement in HF. These improvements are reminiscient of a good MC cartridge-- further diminishing any advantage that MC might have in the areas of resolution & spatiality. The difference is great enough to conclude that you need to try 100K to hear what MM can do. " +++++
I invite you to see and read about the Dgarretson audio system here: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?vaslt&1140494870
Anyway, IMHO the tube-SS subject is IMHO out of the thread " equation " for the conclusions. The whoile subject is more " serious ", deepest and learning than that.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul.
|
Where would the Audio Technica AT20SLa rank among the best MM cartridges ever made? Also pitted against the Shure V15VMR-LE?? Both from same era of the 1980's...Thanks, Ray |
While I am not prepared to declare MC's superior to MM's in every respect, or vise versa, I do think Downunder is correct; to a degree. I made the very same point in one of my previous posts. I do think that, as a group, and generally speaking, solid state equipment does not have the "juicyness", and dimensionality, nor the sense of aliveness of good tube equipment. All, traits of real instruments playing in a real space. SS amplification tends to sound more tonally dry than real life, and with less of that, hard to describe, sense of aliveness. Like a coiled spring ready to explode at any moment. Conversely, tube equipment tube equipment often lacks the precisely delineated leading edge, and ability to sound convincingly nasty when it is appropriate. Live music can be very nasty sounding. In my experience, MM's while having the edge in the "juicyness", and dimensionality area, simply don't have the sense of aliveness, or speed of MC's; when compared to the real thing. It then becomes ovious that a correlation is inevitable. To those that profess to not making those connections or correlations, I say it's impossible; unless the equipment used to make the comparisons can be deemed perfect, and absolutely neutral. I think most of us would agree that no piece of equipment is perfect, and absolutely neutral. Anyone who does think that is simply not familiar enough with the sound of real instruments. As with most things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
I realize many will disagree, but that is the way I hear it. The intent is not to start a SS vs, tube controversy, but to point out an obvious correlation. I do believe there is as Downunder points out, a connection. BTW, tubes do not "focus" on third order harmonics, and SS on the second. It is exactly the opposite.
I spend several hours every day around the sound of live instruments playing in a real space (I am a professional musician), either in my practice studio, or on stage playing in symphony orchestras. All I can say is that what I described above is the way I hear it. |
Downunder,
Just to clarify. Despite Raul's undoubtedly sincere efforts, his comments come down to an observation of fidelity. Plain and simple.
Lewm,
Apologies but I was trying to give an example and not criticise. My point was more about perception and hifi: not about universal truths. You can see my position earlier in this thread concerning "absolutes".
I hope I stand a little clearer in the comments that I made and still support.
Cheers |
Dear Downunder: The whole MM/MI subject and my conclusions ( where other people agree ) on it is not related to tube/hybrid or SS electronics or a synergy with. The subject is an objetive and more deepest than that.
The conclusions comes/flow in a " free " way after more than two years ( this thread start in January 2008 and I start it after many months testing the MM/MI experience. ) of a in deep very large process with the MM/MI and MC cartridges where I use the best audio " tools " for it including my audio music experiences.
Those " tools " include ( between other things ): almost any tonearm at hand ( vintage and some today ones ), almost any MC top rated cartridge ( vintage and today ), almost any MM/MI cartridge, different TTs ( BD and DD ), tests with my system and other people systems ( these ones mainly with tubes and with limitations for loading the MM/MI cartridges. ), with opinions on other people in their systems and in my system, in audio systems ranging from 20K to 500K ( dedicated to MC ones with different type of electronics/speakers/analog rig/room treatment....), etc, etc.
All the work/test/voicing were made following the rules on set-up, matching tonearm, mainly with the same test recordings ( music LPs ), taking in count different listening SPL system levels, etc, etc.
Trying to speculate about tube/SS subject IMHO is a total misunderstood on that long process that bring in very precise way my conclusions on the subject.
Downunder I try not leaveing nothing to the random and try to be fair between the MC and MM/MI trying to put in even/similar full/whole listening conditions.
I don't test/listen " oranges " against " bananas " but oranges vs oranges. Every single set-up cartridge parameter were optimized for each cartridge: tonearm matching, loading impedance/capacitance, headshell matching, SPL listening, overall cleaning, temperature, VTA/SRA, VTF, AZ, etc, etc.. I try always to have only one variable: the cartridge it self.
I hope all these help to avoid speculations on the whole subject and that when any one make comparisons in its own audio system he makes putting the MC and MM/MI in the same/similar conditions: optimize each one quality performance reproduction.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dgob et al, Please, please let us not let this thread degenerate into a tubes vs solid state argument. Your statement to the effect that tubes "focus" on third order harmonic distortion is, to be polite, inaccurate on all levels. But I defend and respect your preference for solid state devices. Here I think we are looking for magical combinations of cartridge/tonearm/turntable/phono stage, with cartridge as the variable under discussion. FWIW, as I noted above, I bought a solid state phono stage to audition my MM cartridges; it will be driving an all tube linestage and amplifiers downstream. |
Erratum,
It should have read: "Anaylsis 'Plus' silver range". |
Downunder,
I suspect the universal response that you will receive to your questions is: "NO".
I suspect that (like myself) most people are talking about colourations and not just brightness with MC's. The form of emphasis that spotlights aspects of performances. I know that there is a view (which I largely share) that tubes and MC's focus on third order harmonics and can fool one into believing that this is closer to a live performance. However, they are not.
A similar example (both performance and cost wise) might be with cables. Here the Siltech cables (at least up to their G5 range) would stand in the tubes, MC's camp and something like the Audio Physics silver range would be more in the SS/MM camp. The argument resolves around 'fidelity' and how 'high' or not the tools' performance stands regarding live performance and/or recorded performances (itself an obviously important - though rarely noted - distinction).
However, in the last analysis it comes down to one's taste and that is difficult to dismiss, I think.
Just my £0.1's worth. |
Gents,
Is there any correlation with your perference of MM's with their purity and lack of brightness with all the SS gear you have?
IMO tubes can a lot of the MM ease and more that you are talking about. |
Dear Lewm: +++++ " to come out and write what you have written on this subject. However, we each have to reach a decision for ourselves between our fave LOMCs and MMs,...." +++++
the every person " believes " and what every person " speaks " is related with each one compromises/priorities ( in this case on the music sound reproduction in a home system subject. ), each one compromise with " my self " and each one decency.
I like to " see " the people at their " eyes " always and not have to " get down " my look when I say to any one: Hello!
I always say that the name of my " obligation/pledge " is the MUSIC and nothing less even that some people here in this forum accuse me of a " commercial audio agenda ": totally wrong, my audio agenda is the MUSIC and how to be near the real MUSIC through our home audio systems.
I don't support any kind of audio technology or any kind of audio item ( like two-three persons in this forum. ) for and only commercial interest.
I don't say that one or other product is great ( when I know it is not ) only because I need ( for doing business ) that the people believe " my LIE ", this kind of attitude that unfortunatelly often exist here has a name: dishonest and corrupted one.
Yes, here and now IMHO the LOMC cartridge sound is wrong and the best way to enjoy the REAL music is through the MM/MI cartridge alternative. From now I support the LOMC cartridge alternative only like a second option for analog LP reproduction source.
Like you say ( and I agree with ): each one have to reach a decision by " ourselves " on the MM/MI cartridge subject.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Axel: Yes, when we have how to compare between MM/MI and LOMC then we can " fall " in count that there is almost no contest by the LOMC cartridges.
+++++ " Also, I think the wrong direction has already been taken by some new MM design " +++++
this is very unfortunate ( for say the least ) and I like you agree that is a wrong " road/direction ".
It is so wrong direction ( maybe those cartridges designers/manufacturers can't " see " yet te real subject about. ) that we can find/get today for 5K? a LOMI! that like the LOMC cartridges must pass for those additional " terrible " gain stages that degrade the cartridge signal. This is only one example of that ( IMHO ) wrong " road ", of course that for them and for other people that is the right " road ".
The real subject here is that from my point of view all those today very good cartridge designers can/could make great MM/MI cartridges if they forgot for a " moment " the LOMC ones and take care about music sound reproduction, I mean REAL music. Maybe they need to return to their each one " origin/root " of why they start making cartridge design other than $$$$$. They ( IMHO ) need to re-start to hear in their own audio systems some of those vintage MM/MI cartridges and make their own conclusions about.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Lewm,
No, Audio T has gone the way of the Dodo. I suspect now that your equipment has moved on and your tastes have matured, you might find a pleasant surprise from the ADC XLM-1. If the tonearm and electronics allow for verisimilitude, the ADC will deliver on several fronts. Maybe not so much the 'big romantic sound' but greater accuracy. Taste will dictate but still worthy of a revisit me thinks.
Cheers |
Lewm, I say, your search for audio truth starts to sound like Karl Popper :-) So a 40 year old integrated plastic head-shell MM had more 'thruthlikeness' then the current goodies, including 10k - 13k MCs... it is something to behold. The cart industry will have to take note Now where is our cart man C.J. these days? Greetings, Axel |
Dear friends: These are very good opportunities for top MM/MI cartridges:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Audio-Technica-AT-15SS-Cartridge-w-Stylus_W0QQitemZ280403153987QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item4149549443&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14#ht_1415wt_1165
http://cgi.ebay.com/ORTOFON-M29FL-SUPER-CARTRIDGE-WITH-STYLUS_W0QQitemZ170389438130QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item27ac007eb2&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14#ht_500wt_956
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
This must have been in the early 70s, so whatever was available at that time (version I, II, or III) would have been the one I "exported" to London. (The business was Audio T; does it still exist?) Owner was a nice guy and very pleased to get the product for re-sale. I remember that I personally was not a big fan of that cartridge; it's likely I was into Decca's in that phase of my audio career. The ADC did not have the big romantic sound or the verisimilitude that I have always admired and sought. |
Lewm,
As an entrepreneur in the throws of the credit crunch over here, I can assure you that you made the correct decision.
So you had a part to play in bringing these things to an unsuspecting public. Honestly, they might not be the ultimate but they are worthy indeed. Do you recall your impressions of them (the ADC's) back in the day? I find the XLM-1 integra (not the Integra ST XLM-1) simply beguiling.
Cheers |
Hello everyone. I'm looking for advice on Jelco arms. Specifically, the SA-750D interests me, but I have now seen the Jelco SP 10.5S that is offered by the Pure Music Group. I have seen some info on the SA-750D and have read PMG's write-up on the SP10.5, but am wondering if contributors to this excellent thread might offer some additional observations on these and/or other Jelcos/similar arms. Thanks (Raul and all) and thanks for all I'm learning from the discussions here, the info is priceless. -bird |
Axel, In order to audition my "collection" of MMs, I actually bought a used Ayre p5Xe, which as you know is a good solid state unit with adjustable gain down to 50db in balanced mode. My main phono stage is a tube-based, balanced Atma-sphere MP1 phonolinepreamp (I love that word; thanks, Raul), which I had just finished engineering for MORE gain and lower noise than standard, so it is not a convenient item for auditioning MMs. (It could be done in ways that would compromise performance.) Soon I will be able to audition MMs with SS phono and compare to my LOMCs playing thru a tubed unit. All that remains is for me to make a balanced IC to go between the Ayre and the Atma, this weekend. (I never buy ICs; I make them myself.) I guess I will be comparing apples and oranges, in a way, but it's a start.
Dgob, I remember when I was a kid audiophile back in the 70s. I had to go to England to attend a scientific meeting, and I arranged with an English audio dealer to bring him a bunch of ADC XLM cartridges, which were not readily available in Europe. (I can't recall how we communicated; there was no e-mail of course.) Before departure, I went to a local discount house and bought 8 or 10 of them for about $60 each. Then I sold them to the dealer in London for about $90 each. He re-sold them for about $120 each. I felt like a real entrepreneur. Sadly, I remained a medical scientist. |
Hi All,
I have read many things about some lowly MM cartridges that are placed low down the traditional pecking order and none more so than the ADC XLM-1 (the integra version, which I recently acquired as well as the full range of their cartridges [XLM I, II and III]). Well, having spent the last week comparing this to other notable cartridges, it surprised me to find just how good this cartridge is in many aspects. Well, how good?
Maybe not as good as the Glanz G5 (with which I am still familiarising myself) nor totally neutral. However, it retrieves detail with the same aplomb as the Audio Technica AT20 SLa and makes clear real colourations in the midrange performance of the AT20. What's more, it clearly outperforms the later 'ADC XLM III Improved' version on a variety of levels: namely its attack, nuance retrieval and top end resolution. I know that many ADC officianados have already suggested that the remodelling of the XLM range lost something when they went to the later and lower compliance models and I can confirm their view.
These are early days and I have a quite large list of newly acquired mm cartridges that I have not tried yet but will be testing over the coming weeks/months. Nevertheless, I would strongly recommend the original ADC XLM-1 in its integrated manifestation, as long as you get it with its own mounting template. They go for next to nothing NOS and I defy anyone not to find pleasure in the music that bursts from its tip. Oh the joys |
Well Lewm, since I find the exact same words for it all as Raul did, (of course I do not manufacture any Hi-end equipment as such) you may add a pair of Burmester 961 to your enquiry, if we’d stick with speakers. Following add the X350.5 Pass and ML326S preamp.
I think I'm repeating myself, but what you are getting at is what I mentioned a few time before: -the apparently favourable match between SS gear and MM-. EVERYTHING that Raul experiences is my listening experience too, to the dot and pretty uncanny that is.
MCs are great (the good ones!) but MM do just more for the music, that simple and that controversial? It may have something to do with what some call: "completeness of the harmonic train".
Greetings, Axel |
Raul, I commend you for the guts it takes to say that when you are a manufacturer of a high end product that has as one of its principle selling points a sterling MC phono section. I know the Phonolinepreamp also has a superb and totally independent MM section, but still it takes cojones to come out and write what you have written on this subject. However, we each have to reach a decision for ourselves between our fave LOMCs and MMs, because of the wide diversity of downstream equipment (preamp, amp, speakers) among those of us who are following this thread. I don't know if anyone else is using Tannoy speakers, for one example. |
Dear Raul, I will back you up with EVERY word you said as it reflects my own experience --- and you will know we have come some way in this matter.
Also, I think the wrong direction has already been taken by some new MM designs --- thankfully not my present problem. But yes, I wish some designers will take note of what is happening here, and it will be for the better, it will be for the MUSIC.
Greetings, Axel |
Dear friends: I don't know if this was my last intent trying to find out if it is still worth to hear LOMC cartridges. IN the last two weeks I borrowed ( again ) the Coral and Supreme along different LOMC that I own and listen to it with a near " perfect " set up on each one cartridge and using my usual test recordings.
I compare it trying to find two of them that were nearer to the recording performance and then compare against two-three MM/MI ones.
The LOMC were the Goldbug MsBrier and Coral/XV-1 and the MM/MI were the Astatic MF-300, Ortofon M20FL Super, Andante P-76 and B&O MMC2.
The Goldbug, Coral and the Dyna were IMHO the ones that are near to the recording with a more natural ( natural to the music, live music. ) quality performance. As a fact each of the LOMC that I test on these two weeks performs very good and if you don't have an additional analog source to compare we can think that the LOMC are the ones and only " road " to go but when we made/make comparisons against MM/MI cartridges then " things " comes out.
The first characteristic in this cartridge comparison is that the LOMC cartridges sounds " mechanic/sterile " against its MM/MI " cousins ", the LOMC signature sound is lifeless ( like the CD against analog ) against the MM/MI ones.
One of the " trouble " here is that the high frequency performance on the LOMC sounds artificial like an " electronic item " ( you know you are hearing a electronic item ), it puts to much " attention " on that frequency range affecting the whole LOMC performance. In the other side the MM/MI performance in the same frequency range is seamless/flowing with an almost perfect harmonics reproduction that in the LOMCs does not exist in this way.
At the other frequency extreme the low bass and low mid bass are handled very good for both cartridge designs but the " palpability " ( from word palpable. ) that this frequency range has on live music it simple does not exist on the LOMC performance and where in the MM/MI is present and alive given to the music the right foundation that in the LOMC you hear but can't " see/feel " .
I try very hard with different recordings ( kind of music ) trying to find if there are/is advantages on the LOMC quality performance against the MM/MIs ( even against the very humble MF-300 ), I can't find any or detect any.
Here I only speak about sound reproduction performance but if we go on the whole subject there are many things where the MM/MIs are better too and some of these characteristics where the MM/MIs are better are some of the reasons why are better: extremely better tracker, lower tracking distortion, black black stage from where music " comes ", no single noise from the speakers ( in rest system status. ) even with the volume at high level range, no inner groove distortion, very wide frequency response specs, less cartridge signal " manipulation " due to less gain stages for the MM/MIs, more " user friendly " I mean more " tonearm friendly " than the LOMC, wider " sweet spot ", etc, etc.
I'm figthing on what words to use to make a conclusion and is difficult to say it. I think that with simple words can be the best way.
IMHO the LOMC ( almost any. ) sound reproduction quality performance is just WRONG. It is a good intent to music reproduction but very far from the recording and from reality. In the other side the MM/MI alternative is not only a good intent to music reproduction but here and today the best way to enjoy LP recordings: nearest to the music, nearest to the recording.
It is a perfect medium/tool?, no it is not but IMHO is the best right now. The LOMC alternative has a very long long road to travel to approach or even the MM/MI real sound reproduction quality performance in any audio system.
I can say that there is no comparison between both alternatives, the difference for the better on the MM/MI alternative is to high in this moment.
I hope that in a near future we can have real better LOMC performers, performers that put all of us near the reality and far away from that " mechanic " mid-fi quality that has in this moment.
I hope too that the MM/MI cartridge designers does not make the mistake to design their cartridges with the LOMC " sound signature " thinking is the way to go because IMHO it is not, making MM/MI cartridges with that kind of approach is the Wrong way to go.
I say this because some today MM/MI designs are doing precisely that and IMHO instead to grow-up they are making back steps on the subject: please make the MM/MI new designs leaving the natural MM/MI design INTACT, please don't try to be similar to the " wrong " LOMC ones. The NATURAL ( I can't know other word ) MM/MI design is the way to go with out try to " manipulate " its sound signature.
Well, I don't want that you boring with this post.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear friends: This one is better opportunity that what you could think. The Reson Reca is recomended:
http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?anlgcart&1259429245&/Reson-Reca-MM
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Timeltel: Thank's to put very precise " light " on the subject.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Timeltel,
thanks, very useful. |
Regards, Raul. All this interest in the 1000ZE/X has brought me to dig out my spare (in the box) stylus. The brochure included contains this information: Cart., 1000ZE/X, stylus S1000ZE/X-ERD. Freq. response, 4-40,000, output @ 5.0mv. Tracking 1/4 - 1 1/4g., hand polished micro elliptical .2 x .7 mil. The tracking angle is 15 deg. Purple, white, blue and green stylii are intended for the 999VE/X, TE/X and E/X carts. and have progressively diminished but still impressive specs. The Troubador 598/2 TT was shipped with the 1000ZE/X included. I hope someone finds this information from the manufactor useful. |
I mean I never buyed anything from these sources, so I don't have first hand experience about.
Raul. |
Dear Dgarretson: Normaly Adelcom sale original parts. I have on hand the stylus of my 1000 Ze and looks like the Adelcom replacement but the one by Garage Records looks similar too and I think is original, this guys have generic replacements at discount ( additional ) price and the one for the 1000Ze is not generic.
This is only an opinion and I don't buy anything from these stylus replacement sources. You can email to them asking about, I remember that I ask to Adelcom on the subject and they assure me that the stylus replacement was original.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
I recently picked up Empire 888E and 999XE/X-- both candidates for stylus replacement. Can anyone confirm that the 0.2 mil. x 0.7 mil. Nude Bi-Radial Ellipticals at Bluz Bros(Adelcom) are good choices? There is some confusion as to the provenance of so-called Empire Scientific (elsewhere called Audio Empire) replacement stylii. For example, are the cheaper ones at garage-a-records the same as Bluz Bros?
http://www.adelcom.net/EmpireStylus1.htm
http://www.garage-a-records.com/products.php?cat=18
BTW, has anybody compared 888 to 999 models? |
Dear Dgob: The one with the purple stylus is the one to go.
Regards and enjoy the music, raul. |
Dear Axelwahl: +++++ " incidentally includes one extra stylus. " +++++
it is " fascinating " to read and see how these " vintage " MM/MI cartridge manufacturers take care on their customers.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Hi Dgob, you may well be right. However, that's what it says on my cart box "S1000ZE/X-ERD". It incidentally includes one extra stylus. Just now checking into the manual it does not have the "S" in front, neither the "-ERD".
Go figure :-) Axel |
Raul,
I have a few Empire 999 models. Unfortunately,some of them have no markings or stylus. I do have the VE/x versions with markings though but have not had a chance to play them yet!
No help really, I suppose! |
Axelwahl,
I believe that your references to "the S1000ZE/X" is a reference to the replacement stylus for the Empire 1000 ZE/X cartridge. I think this is why you and Raul are using difference terms in referring to the cartridge.
Silly point but hopefully helpful |
Dear Carter: I never seen/have on hand a type II so I don't now how it looks to see if one of these good Shure replacements could work with:
http://www.lpgear.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=LG&Product_Code=SHN075HET2LP
http://www.lpgear.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=LG&Category_Code=JICO
but even if one of these stylus looks similar I can't say that can match with the cartridge electrical characteristics.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Lewm: Good, my first big laugh of the day, thank's!.
Btw, maybe some of the Empire experts could tell us more about.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Hi Everyone, I have a question for you. Today I opened a Shure box that I have had for many years and the box says V15 III on it and to my surprise, the cartridge in it says V 15 II not three. I have not looked in this box for at least 15 years or so, consequently I have no idea what happened to the type III. This cartridge has never been mounted and looks new. Does SAS make a stylus for the Shure type II and if so is this particular model worth putting a SAS stylus on it? I do not remember hearing much about the II but the III has always garnered praise. Needless to say I am pretty much disappointed at the discovery at this time. Any advice or comments would be appreciated. Carter |
The 999 series would seem to be 0.1% less good than the 1000 series. Just kidding. |
Dear friends: This one is very close to the Empire 1000ze, I can't be sure but I think that even accept the 1000 ( black ) stylus replacement. Anyway seems in good condition and a good opportunity:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Empire-999-XE-X-Moving-Magnet-Cartridge-EX-Condition_W0QQitemZ270461035594QQcmdZViewItemQQptZTurntable_Parts_Accessories?hash=item3ef8bbe44a&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14#ht_2646wt_1165
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Siniy123,
No, the fisture seems really integrated. Of course, you can change the stylus but the body seems rooted in the shell. As for their similarity, I suspect the differences might be as telling but I guess I wont know until I do a comparison. However, as I mentioned to Raul, my main concern right now is getting familiar with and the best out of my Glanz.
Thanks for your continued help |
Raul,
I think you're right. Numerous cartridges display similar designs but perform very distinctly. I'll look into the MF 100/200/300 series at some point but I have my hands full just trying to play the cartridges that I have and those I am currently already chasing.
I would still appreciate feedback from users who might have knowledge of set-up and performance. My Glanz came without instructions and I cannot find a retailer with any knowledge about them!
All the best |
Dear Dgob: I think that even that the Glanz and Astatic MF series have similar designs it is almost imposible to say if both have similar performance due that were made in different time(s) and maybe with a little different build material like the cartridge body case ( and maybe some other design parts ). These build material differences makes a quality performance differences too.
You need to have the MF-100/200/300 to make a Glanz comparison other way is time lose.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dgob, Lets say that I generalized too much about Glanz G7, but I strongly believe that Glanz MFG-71L is the same as Astatic MF-100. Does it look like stylus assembly can be changed in your G5? |
Dear Dgarretson: It is similar ( but Gold color. ) not to the SP-12 but a much older SP6/7, you can see it here:
http://www.beoworld.org/prod_details.asp?pid=711
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Dgarretson: I'm not a B&O real expert ( I know other guys are and will help. ) but that cartridge seems to me one of the very old and something similar to SP-12's and maybe not up to that price against its quality performance or against the quality performance of other B&O cartridges like the MMC1 or 2.
Anyway, will wait for a better/real explanation on the subject, perhaps is the B&O " gold mine ".
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |