Chak, your biggest mistake is not that limitless arrogance as a novice but you simply cannot take a man´s word. "Your" Pyramidian MFG-71L has the lowest VTF of all the MFG-XXX series, a possible exception is your MFG-61L. And it does have the flattest FR of all others, maybe excepting the 61L, according to the manual/sheet I just right now read. Your manual is different than mine which is quite impossible or maybe a copy taken from somewhere, or perhaps you need to get new glasses.
I have a Micro-Ridge stylus in my ASTATIC MF-100 MR sample.
Another novice reading your post about believes that no such thing exists and gets wrong information about. So you are living in a world of illusions, and your knowledge is limited. You think that something beyond your knowledge doesn´t exist.That´s your second big mistake. Your third is belittling modern sophisticated aluminium cantilever designs with nude diamonds and that a certain cantilever is the best perse. Don´t take my word, people here like Nandric can enlighten you, if you are really interested. You may learn something new here.
You failed to show us the assumed similarity of the GLANZ and ASTATIC series. Actually your are not an expert in these cartridges, you may not even know the essential optimal VTF of your beloved 61L. You think that you know all things in Hi-Fi. Well, we all make mistakes in some point, apparently even you :)
Btw, congrats on your very rare find GLANZ MFG-61L, it may very well be the finest sounding of all mentioned MF cartridges. But we haven´t yet experienced those Micro-Seiki MFs a guy named Raul once mentioned ...Anyway, you´d better enjoy your 61L as long as its fine stylus profile lasts but it will wear out sooner that you can think of. Meanwhile I will my MF2500 ...
And that superiority of 100 kOhm resistance as the universal standard is another illusion. Actually my best MMs such as Audio-Technica AT-ML180 sounded harsh and awful at 100K.
Frankly, I´m disappointed in you writings and your overall attitude that has become quite strange, especially to some people here obviously. Neutrality and polite behauviour you used to have is gone. So that´s for your credibility.
You may have been the fastest leaning novice hear on A´gon but you have become the fastest forgetting novice instead : )
|
Regards, Harold N.T.B.
Sounds like you're doing well, always appreciate the experience reflected in your posts.
Peace,
|
Poem
By Henry Gibson
Audiophile's Lament
I bought the gear they said I wanted,
whether I needed it or not.
PayPal the scourge of our time.
Ended up with a rig,
What it cost should be a crime
Worked 12 hours a day,
Found little time my music to play.
So stayed up nights and weekends
Listening to all that high end gear.
Then there was this cartridge they said I wanted.
No time for Sly and the Family Stone,
Never caught up on my sleep,
Always tired to the bone.
But you must have this cartridge they said.
Before you capture all nuance in Live Grateful Dead
How to buy that cartridge I stressed over all the time,
They said I had to have it, it was better than mine.
So distracted I lost the wife
And the cottage, house and my job.
So now in cars I listen to radios,
Not all bad, sometimes it's a Bose.
|
@harold-not-the-barrel Chak, your biggest mistake is not that limitless arrogance as a novice but you simply cannot take a man´s word. "Your" Pyramidian MFG-71L has the lowest VTF of all the MFG-XXX series, a possible exception is your MFG-61L. The MFG-61 does not have an "L" letter, you have never seen this cartridge and you don’t know why there is no "L" letter. The model is MFG-61 (not "61L", not "610LX", nothing like that, because the stylus is NOT "L" a LINE CONTACT, but a PH type). I have explained many times why one Mitachi model is beter than nearly all other Mitachi models in my system, pointed you to Very Special Cantilever and Very Special Stylus tip that makes one particular model better than any other models from that manufacturer (Mitachi Corporation). I don’t need "your word" here, thanks to another member of this forum who emailed me both manuals for Glanz 61 and Astatic MF-2500 two days ago. And if you can’t post and proove what you’re sayin i will post and proove it to you. Right now you can scroll down to read my quotes directly from he both printed manuals, maybe you will understand what Mitachi engineers explained for people like you? So why are you trying to say that inferior cartridge is better, just because you have it? I have no problem with that. We’re talking about fact here, technical specs, not about "man’s words". I have no idea what system do you have to judge about cartridges. I don’t know what are you trying to proove here, i sold my 71L because this model, like every other models in Glanz and Aststic line, is inferior and does not have the sound i am looking for. I have compared them and the champ is definitely Glanz MFG 61, this cartridge has the best cantilever, the best stylus, the best sound of them all. But i will not call it the "best cartridge" in the universe, i have many great carts. So the flattes frequency response of 71L does not help, sorry. I don’t like the muddy sound of that cartridge, also i don’t like the sound of Astatic MF100, Astatic MF-200 and Glanz 31L. .... compared to the wonderful and extended sound coming from Glanz MFG-61 )a way better cart than all of them). Your manual is different than mine which is quite impossible or maybe a copy taken from somewhere, or perhaps you need to get new glasses. As a "novice" i don’t need a glasses, you want me to post a manual right here if you can’t ? I have a Micro-Ridge stylus in my ASTATIC MF-100 MR sample.
Another novice reading your post about believes that no such thing exists and gets wrong information about. So you are living in a world of illusions, and your knowledge is limited. Google does not have any single mention of the MR stylus for Astatic cartridge, except your posts on audiogon for some reason. So it is not only me, but no one can find anything about such stylus made for Astatic MF series. But everybody knows that a stock stylus on ASTATIC MF-100 is Shibata, just look at the manual. If your stylus is different, it’s interesting, but it’s not the reason to say that my knowledge is limited, the ASTATIC MANUAL is my reference. Maybe your cartridge was retipped with MR? :) I have NEVER seen a Micro Ridge stylus for Astatic MF-100 and you’re talking to a person who would like to see your stylus, because no one seen such stylus yet, it would be very nice if you can just take a picture and upload it for us if you really want to contribute and to share something interesting. Please do that if you want to fill the gap in my knowledge. Also i would like to see the original Astatic manual where i can read the stylus is MicroRidge, please provide some valid information. Any links maybe? Before that i will look at the Astatic box of the stylus replacement to read once again that the stylus type is Shibata. Shibata, LineContact and MicroRdge are all great profiles, but they are all could be much better on Boron cantilevers than on Aluminum when it comes to those Moving Flux cartridges made by Mitachi. You think that something beyond your knowledge doesn´t exist.That´s your second big mistake. Your third is belittling modern sophisticated aluminium cantilever designs with nude diamonds and that a certain cantilever is the best perse. Don´t take my word, people here like Nandric can enlighten you, if you are really interested. You may learn something new here. Look, we’re talking about cartridges made by Mitachi, not just about every cartridge in the world and not about MC cartridges, right? I have a dozen of amazing MC cartridges with aluminum cantilevers, but they are LOMC (completely different design), not Moving Flux or MM or MI with replacement styli. If we’re tallking about Mitachi cartridges (call them Glanz, Jamo, Astatic, Azzurra ... whatever, they are all nearly the same internally). In my experience, after i have tried many of them, the biggest difference (huge difference) has a cartridge made by Mitachi with Boron Cantilever and "PH" stylus tip. This cartridge is Glanz MFG-61. So in case with Mitachi Moving Flux cartridges the cantilever material makes HUGE difference. You failed to show us the assumed similarity of the GLANZ and ASTATIC series. Actually your are not an expert in these cartridges, you may not even know the essential optimal VTF of your beloved 61L. You think that you know all things in Hi-Fi. Well, we all make mistakes in some point, apparently even you :) What’s wrong with you Harrold? The VTF for all of them is nearly the same! In my next post i will add scans of the actual manuals for your adorable Astatic MF-2500 and my Glanz MF61 that i have received from another member. I am not wrong in anything i have said here about similarity of the Glanz and Astatic, they are the same internally (or nearly the same, depends on the model, that you can’t detect any difference by ear) and people who are wrong is YOU and MEXICAN ! Because you’re both don’t yet acquired the best cartridge made by Mitachi Corporation, you just continually repeated what the Maxican said about his MF2500 (which is nothing special). The only difference is that it was him who continually claimed that the best cantilever is Boron (not the aluminum), but he always contradict to himself, so i don’t care. You may have different opinion as i can see, that’s ok if you like the aluminum over boron (just a bit strange). ------------------------------------------------------------- Let’s get back to the facts, so this is what i can see right now in the manuals, a pictures of the actual printed manuals supplied by the manufacturer with the cartridges: 1) From the printed Astatic MF-2500 manual: -Output Voltage: 3 mV -Output Channel Balance: 1.0 or less -Inductance: 120 -Tracking force 1.25 (+/- 0.25) -Stylus tip: Solid Diamond LineContact The cantilever on MF2500 and on EVERY Astatic cartridges is Aluminum, so the MF-100 or MF200 are all comes with Aluminum cantilevers. Just sayin’. ------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From the printed Glanz MF-61 manual: -Output Voltage: 3.5 mV -Output Channel Balance: 1.0 or less -Inductance: 120 -Tracking force 1.5 (+/- 0.25) -Stylus tip: SPECIAL DESIGN "PH" TIP -Cantilever: BORON You will be surprised by the Mitachi engineers prefers BORON for their top of the line model of MF cartridge and below you can read a paragraph from the actual printed manual for Glanz MF-61 cartridge: "MFG-61, as the most prestige model among Glanz MF cartridges, employs BORON cantilever in order to achieve maximum efficiency at the electro-magnetic mechanism, where characterized most advanced feature of MF cartridge, when the energy is converted from mechanical vibration system to electric vibration system. BORON is considered as an ideal material of cantilever in its character that transmits sound so fast as 7 times than Aluminum, due to its large young rate and small specific gravity. With use of Boron cantilever, the signal picked up from disc to specially designed PH stylus tip is faithfully transfered to the conversion system, and hi-fidelity sound reproduced." ------------------------------------------------------------- Btw, congrats on your very rare find GLANZ MFG-61L, it may very well be the finest sounding of all mentioned MF cartridges. Thanks. The model is MFG-61 to be correct, not the MF-61L (this model does not exists). Also the 610LX is not identical to the MFG-61, because the stylus tip of MFG-61 is "Special Designed PH" and not a "LineContact" as on avery other models with "L" or "LX" letters. And that superiority of 100 kOhm resistance as the universal standard is another illusion. Actually my best MMs such as Audio-Technica AT-ML180 sounded harsh and awful at 100K. Nothing sound harsh on my full range crossover-less Zu Audio Druid speakers with First Watt F2J power amp and Pass Labs Aleph L or First Watt B2 preamp with any phono stage i have tried with 100k Ohm. And, i i said, i have 3 different phono stages and i also use 47k Ohm loading (not always 100k Ohm). But the AT-ML170 and AT-ML180 are all great at 100k Ohm in my system which i thingk it’s pretty neutral. Frankly, I´m disappointed in you writings and your overall attitude that has become quite strange, especially to some people here obviously. Neutrality and polite behauviour you used to have is gone. Who cares? Any of that people insulted you previously as they are insulted me and others? You’d better speak about cartridges, simple facts that you can not provide yet, not about personalities, because i have never said anything about your personality yet. So why do you think i have to read your comments about my personality? If anyone will call me "ignorant" or will post disinformation on public forum do not expect my neutrality. Everyone can make a fact checking. |
Hi Raul, yes I did purchase an Audio Technica AT 1100. I’ve read very good opinions on its performance with the higher compliance cartridges. It looks to be very well engineered compared to most of the “standard” type tonearms.
It iwill be interesting comparing it to my homemade tonearm. I will install it on the same turntable as my homemade one. |
Chak, Not for a minute would I challenge your or Harold's knowledge about the Glanz and Astatic cartridges; I have never owned any sample of either brand. But I do have two comments: (1) I have said this before, so sorry for sounding like "a broken record", but you have two independent observations; first, a cartridge has a boron cantilever (or beryllium or you name it) and second, you like that cartridge over another very similar cartridge of the same brand and/or type that has an alu cantilever. You cannot from these two bits of information alone conclude that boron is always better than aluminum. Second, the fact that boron "transmits sound" faster than aluminum (if that is so) would have nothing to do with its possible superiority as a cantilever material; the job of the cantilever is to faithfully transmit the motion of the stylus tip, not "sound" from the grooves. (I know you know this, but think about it.) |
Dear @lewm @harold-not-the-barrel : "" the job of the cantilever is to faithfully transmit the motion of the stylus tip, not "sound" """
agree and the remark from Mitachi that the speed of sound transmission on boron was the reason to use boron is totally non-adequated. But Mitachi is totally wrong when said that boron is 7 times faster than aluminum: WRONG.
So Mitachi is no reference for no one in that regards.Mitachi was spreading " corrupted " information that srves no one but that person to stays in the very very low knowledge levels.
Btw, Diamond material is the best cantilever material and then boron. Diamond speed sound transmission is 12K m/s and boron 11K m/s and depending of the kind of aluminum used can has 9K m/s. Btw, berilyum has a little over 12K m/s and ceratinly is not the best cantilever material against diamond or boron that are the top cartridge manufacturer choice and certainly not because " speed " but for other reasons that already were analyzed in this thread and other threads.
I agree in almost all what HNTB posted and main problem with the russian is that he think that because Mitachi manufactured for Glanz, Astatic, Micro Seiki and many others was Mitachi whom decided all about how each model has to sounds/performs.
In the case of Astatic was their people whom decided everything on the cartridge motor design and cartridge built materials and that’s why exist differences with Glanz on output levels, inductance and many other cartridge parameters.
But not only that was Astatic whom voiced its cartridges and decided the quality level performance they wanted to achieve not Mitachi. Micro Seiki did it this way too and that’s why exist diffedrences.
But there is ( between other things ) a main subject that that person not yet understand even that he read from me and other gentlemans the absolutely main cartridge characteristic that is what makes the main differences in between: CARTRIDGE MOTOR.
The Astatic MF2500 was in the market way before than the MF-100 series and its cartridge motor is different from the MF 100 and it’s showed through his superior quality level performance. Seems to me that the " new " MF 100 series were designeddesigned/voiced but different persons inside Astatic.
Btw, Scan-Tech manufactured LOMC cartridges for Audioquest and Linn ( between others. ) I owned its top of the line models and the Audioquest performs different than the Linn one, both with similar prices.
Of course was niot Scan-Tech whom decided the quality level performance of AQ or LINN but were AQ and Linn whom decided about in the same way Astatic did it.
Other example: Benz Micro and VDH were involved in the Carnegie phono carrtridges for Madrigal company but whom decided exactly the quality level performance through its cartridge voicing was the people of Madrigal not BM/VDH. I own those Cargie’s and are far away from VDH or BM cartridge performance characteristics. Btw, the Cargie 2 is the star down there I sold the One that was really inferior to.
I already learned that cartridge specs in reality can’t tell us the whole picture. Technics EPC P100C MK4 ( tha’s a really fine cartridge design. ) owns perhaps the best frequency response specs of any MM cartridge and is outperformed by the MF-2500, ADC ( extremely humble, not only because its aluminum cantilever or ellipthical stylus shape but because even its pin connectors are not even gold platyed ! ! ? ? ) 26/27 or the AKG P100LE and no one of these cartridges can’t compete with the specs in the Technics.
Main difference for the better?: different CARTRIDGE MOTOR.
That person can’t learn and never will do because has a very high frustration that I already pointed out and his target is to win the discussion no matters what.
A discussion is not for see who wins but for all the reading gentlemans can win. We need winners down here not loosers as him.
I have to say in his merit: that’s a very good phothograper ( maybe is what he needs to dedicate ) and is a very good web navegator, he has here another alternative for he can do it instead to waste his time in audio forums.
I know it’s futile and useles to explain some thing to a person that has incapacity to learn but I post because every day comes at this kind of forums newcomers/rookies and we have to try not spread mis-information or stupid things but the other way around: that the new comers can trust in Agon as a forum where they can find true help. I think that is a responsability to each one that post in this forum and not try to win a discussion with out true facts and to have those true facts we need to learn.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
@lewm Chak, Not for a minute would I challenge your or Harold’s knowledge about the Glanz and Astatic cartridges; I have never owned any sample of either brand. Thanks Lew. You can read more in the dedicated Glanz thread, you will find more information from different posters. Soon i will add the documentations right there, i think we have to separate my posts from this thread in the future. But I do have two comments: (1) I have said this before, so sorry for sounding like "a broken record", but you have two independent observations; first, a cartridge has a boron cantilever (or beryllium or you name it) and second, you like that cartridge over another very similar cartridge of the same brand and/or type that has an alu cantilever. It sounds like i’m crazy about that Glanz 61 by Mitachi, but i have better cartridges at the moment, i only post about Glanz for a reason. Some people just trying to make a "legend" out of an average cartridge (such as Astatic 100, 200 or 2500). Always talking about tiny difference like 0.25g tracking force or slightly lower or higher inductance etc, instead of pointing out that a cantilever and different stylus will make a HUGE DIFFERENCE in sound. As pointed out by the manufacturer (MItachi Corporation): "MFG-61, as the most prestige model among Glanz MF cartridges, employs BORON cantilever in order to achieve maximum efficiency at the electro-magnetic mechanism, where characterized most advanced feature of MF cartridge, when the nergy is converted from mechanical vibration system to electric vibration system. BORON isconsidered as an ideal material of cantilever in its character that transmits sound to fast as 7 times than Aluminum, due to its large young rate and small specific gravity. With use of Boron cantilever, the signal picked up from disc to specially designed PH stylus tip is faithfully transfered to the conversion system, and hi-fidelity sound reproduced." You cannot from these two bits of information alone conclude that boron is always better than aluminum. Second, the fact that boron "transmits sound" faster than aluminum (if that is so) would have nothing to do with its possible superiority as a cantilever material; the job of the cantilever is to faithfully transmit the motion of the stylus tip, not "sound" from the grooves. (I know you know this, but think about it.)
Where did i said "it’s always better than aluminum" ? I said i have a dozen of LOMS (for example) with Aluminum cantilevers and they are amazing (Miyabi MCA by Takeda, FR-7fz by Ikeda just to name a few), but they are MC and it’s completely different design from the legendary cartridge designers. But comparing one Mitachi MF cartridge to another Mitachi MF cartridge the Boron/PH is far more impressive than any of them. I don’t think you will buy Glanz 610LX with Boron cantilever to compare it to any other Glanz Astatic which you will have to buy too. But if you will do that, i think, it will be obvious to you which one is better. I did that, the only difference is than my Glanz is not 610LX (Line Contact diamond on Boron cantilever), but a very rare Glanz 61 with different Boron cantilever and different, special type, "PH" tip (made in 1982). However, i think the closest cartridge to my 61 is newer 610LX (which is too cheap now, just $450 including shipping from Japan on ebay). I think it makes no sense to find/buy any Astatic or any other Glanz when one of the best ones available NOS just for $450 with shipping ? We will wait for Halcro’s verdict, but i must say that 610LX is not 61 (i will add close up picutres in the Glanz thread soon). P.S. I don’t know why, but all my favorite vintage MM/MI cartridges, which i can judge ONLY by the sounds quality, are all have exotic cantilevers such as Boron, Beryllium, Ruby, Sapphire, Ceramic and Titanium too. There are only two cartridges with Aluminum cantilevers that i like, but they are not the best in my collection, those carts are Garrott p77 and Grado Signature XTZ (but they are much better than any Glanz or Astatic for sure, except the Glanz 61). The only problem is that i can’t buy original styli designed by the manufacturer using different type of the cantilevers to compare them. But luckily i’ve been able to compare Aluminum versus Boron on Glanz. I can also compare anytime all types on my Grace F14 and LEVEL II and the aluminum versions can’t win the contest for some reason. |
"""
i’ve been able to compare Aluminum versus Boron on Glanz. ""
so what: same cartridge motor.
I compared Clavis DC with ceramic blend cantilever material against boron cantilever and boron wins why? because with the same carrtridge motor boron cantilever permorfms better than the original ceralloy build material..ADC 26 against ADC 27, both same motors and same aluminum cantilever but the 27 stylus is nude ellipthical against the 26 non-nude ellipthical.
Both sounds similar but the 27 win for a " hair ".
"""
you will find more information from different posters. """, that confirms that Astatic cartridge motor is different than the Glanz cartridge motor.
You can't win but maybe in the long future can assimilate that fact.
and you for fourrth time in this thread posted the Mitachi statements where this is absolutely WRONG:
"""
BORON isconsidered as an ideal material of cantilever in its character that transmits sound to fast as 7 times than Aluminum, """
totally ignorant about. Which letter in the word WRONG you did and do not understand that made it you again posted that Mitachi ignorant statement in that specific regards.
R |
Propagation velocity or another metric based on stiffness and density are reasonable simple ways to compare materials.
A more meaningful and precise way would be to define error between tip motion and coil/magnet/iron movement. An ideal cantilever material will have the two related by geometric proportionality constant, which would independent of the groove modulation (forced displacement, in engineering language).
Here things will get slighly complicated, as we would need to calculate the curvature of the cantilever beam under load. If one looks up the standard beam equations (Roarke, for example), there is a quantity present called cross-sectional moment of inertia. For a circle, it is pi*r^4/4. The higher this quantity, the lower the cantilever bending - this is direct mechanical distortion.
So, here the ductile alloys may offer a practical improvement over ceramics and elemental metals - they can be manufactured as a very thin wall tube, while other materials would not be. They can also be shaped as a conical pipe, which is was never done with vapor deposited Boron.
A practical cantilever "figure of merit" would be (E*I)/(A*d), where E is Young’s modulus, I is the area moment of inertia, A is area and d is density. If one looks up typical dimensions of aluminum vs. boron pipe cantilevers, aluminum would loose but by a lesser amount than with a simpler metric.
And surveing the classic designs, you would see attempts by manufacturers who stayed with aluminum to leverage its manufacturing benefits by making the cantilever short and rather fat, yet with a very thin wall - Stanton is a good example. |
“lurking” has negative connotations 😊; so... I suspect Frogman....there are many, many 'true' lurkers....not just here....but on all Forums. No negatives that I can see....it's a great way to learn and absorb new ideas and information 🤓 Thank you for your evaluation of the three recording techniques. You're right about the iPhone's built-in microphone being the 'weak-link' in an otherwise impressive device. I'm a little nonplussed however, at your preference for the Zoom 2Qn recording because to my ears.....the external mike into the iPhone is the closest facsimile (of the three) to the sound I perceive from my listening position...🧐 Listening on both my iPad and iMac...the Zoom 2Qn just doesn't seem to project the 'room' reflections as well as the external mic into the iPhone... Perhaps this is a function of hearing through headphones do you think...? Regards |
Dear @travbrow : Good for you. Please share your experiences when all is done.
Yes, is made it for high compliance cartridges but works fine with medium cu and some low cu as the 103.
That tonearm is one of the designs where exist and anti skate mechanism that according to the stylus shape ( sperical, ellipthical and LC. ) we make the AS set up.
The tonearm has very good design engeneering efforts on it and high build quality.
Its removable straigth arm wand ( like the Micro Seiki MAX 282. ) makes easy that the toneam works with different carrtridges. If we have the removable arm wands it fuction as a removable headshell tonearm designs.
Exist too and S shaped arm wand with removable headshell. At, made very good job down there.
AT main priority tonearm 1100 design was to fulfill the cartridge needs. Not a " perfect " arm but has that approach.
R. |
Hot news off the presses..... As you may or may not know......Jico have not been supplying SAS styli for a year or more. I just received an Email from them:- We restart to take SAS/Sapphire, SAS/Ruby and SAS/Boron orders on JICO Web Shop. So as well as the Neo-SAS with the ruby and sapphire cantilevers.....one can now order again, the original SAS with boron 😍 This of course is of interest, only to MM cartridge users.....🤗 |
Interesting. Could very well be a function of using headphones, I don’t know. Obviously, I can’t know what it sounds like in your room and my comments are a comparison of the three recorded sounds and which sounds more realistic to me. I do know that the sound that I hear from the zoom recorder version sounds, overall, less electronic and closer to what I would expect to hear live. The main difference is tonal. There is an obvious quality to the sound with the iPhone that is, to my ears, pinched and which gives the sound of the bass an almost metallic quality; a little nasal. That quality, in spite of the overall improvement from going to an external mic, carries over to that version; to a lesser degree, but it is there. The iPhone’s mic may be its main limiting factor, but certainly not the only one. The zoom recorder version has, for me, better instrumental textures and tonality; I don’t hear that pinched metallic quality. So, I hope that is what it sounds like tonally in your room 😉. I will say that the zoomrecorder version does sound as if the instruments are slightly closer to the recording mic(s). Perhaps that is a factor, but I still hear at least as much room sound with the zoom recorder. Regards.
|
Dear firneds: If you are an Empire 4000D3 owner and you have some time not listen to it I urge to start to do and maybe you will be surprised as I'm for its very high quality level performance.
Last time I listened was in 2010 and in all this almost 9 years my room/audio system was and still is up-grading and this Empire very old cartridge is just great one.
If some of you do not own yet then try to find out a sample in good operation condition.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
Raul, last night I was Internet surfing in order to acquire some technical information about my Acutex cartridges. In the course of that search, I came upon posts from you to this thread written in 2010. In those posts, you evaluated the Acutex LPM 315 STR3 cartridge. For that period of time you ranked it superior to your favorite Technics cartridge, and to nearly every other cartridge you had been recently fond of, including the Empire 4000 D3. This makes me feel very good, because I have been maintaining the excellence of the top of the line LPM 320 STR 3, consistently for the past few years. Your choice of language in praise of the 315 was almost indistinguishable from what you are saying now about the 4000 D3 and a few other cartridges, even close to your praise of the ADC 26. There’s nothing wrong with that in my opinion. Everyone is entitled to change his mind. Especially over the course of 9 years. |
The Empire 4000DIII was always one of my favorites. The lesser performance Gold model was my first experience. The oldest originals are better, if you can find a good one. Original styli are almost impossible to find, so that’s a bummer. |
Dear @travbrow : Is really top performer and as I said tested in a " new " overall room/audio system.
Fortunatelly I own 3 original stylus replacement that like in the ADC 26/27 gives me the oportunity to make a top cantilever/stylus retip.
Rigth now in stock condition the 4000D3 is a heavy challenge for any cartridge in this MM/MI thread. Very nice indeed.
R. |
Dear @lewm """
the 4000 DIII has a relaxed sound but because this cartridge ( like the Acutex or the Technics ) give you the impresion to be " there " where the music is " happening " with all the natural agresiveness that has the live music. """
"""
The cartridge has high resolution and is very precise ( alittle better than Acutex on accuracy subject. ) with out the " perfect " accuracy of the Technics P100CMK4..."""
"""
Here too the cartridge shows its very fast response to bass transients that give to the sound the rightness of live music in this frequency range. I like it even more than the Acutex here."""
"""
The Acutex shows too that " rounded " bass response even a little pronounced over the Empire, both cartridges are exceptional in this frequency range. """
Those are high-ligths from the 4000/D3 review and I can't read that one of those great cartridges outperforms overall the others.
Acutex as the PC 100CMK4 ( P-mount version. ) still have its own top merits as any top rated vintage cartridges. Perhaps an advantage and more than an advantage but fortunatelly I had and have first hands experiences with almost any vintage cartridge out there.
So, I have on hand true experines with to can compare it in my own system and even in other room/systems because I did it and time to time I do.
Lewm your Acutex is really good but you need to find out the 4000D3 and obviously the great of the greatness ADC 26/27.
R. |
How does the 4000D3 differ from the 4000D3 Gold physically? I own the Gold and while it is good I am not particularly impressed by it. I find it to be a little too texturally soft and polite. Thanks.
|
The Gold version uses a black solid metal mount vs the clip style mount. The original 4000D models use a thinner plain tapered aluminum cantilever and I believe the earliest versions were true nude diamonds. The model number is marked on the bottom vs the side of the Gold version. Different specifications. Though I’m not sure the latest diamond type Empire used was a significant difference in performance from the nude ones.
Did you experiment with VTA? It seems the small section of the body right behind the stylus assembly should be at least close to parallel to the record.
|
|
|
Thanks for your responses, travbrow and raul. I did experiment with VTA, tracking force, azimuth, etc. Improvement was definitely possible, but still same basic character. Interesting that the specs and data for Gold and non-Gold are the same. |
Dear @frogman : ""
The original 4000D models use a thinner plain tapered aluminum cantilever and I believe the earliest versions were true nude diamonds. The model number is marked on the bottom vs the side of the Gold version. Different specifications. """
That's what @travbrow posted because I understand he owns both. I can't say because my Gold was sold many many years ago, but for what I remember more than specs the main difference could be in the cartridge motor design. The only spec I remember of the GOld ( but you can better know than me. ) is that does not runs at 0.25grs. as the original VTF low range.
As I posted during my review of the D# that mount metal-clip type is way non-orthodox and in those times before I listened to the cartridge I was seriously worried about and with not to much good expectations till I tested ! !
It's not even ease to center perfect in the headshell holes as with other " normal " cartridges but when we already doing " rigth " is very good performer.
R. |
Raul, my 2000Z with original packaging came with a plastic piece to slide over the clip for exact centering. I’ve seen 4000d models with the extra part also. I might try it when I mount the 2000z to the AT 1100.
Frogman, Your system and personal preference come into play. But too soft and polite isn’t how it sounds to me.
|
@frogman, The 4000D/III Gold is certainly a cartridge I would describe as 'warm', 'organic', 'textural' and it complements a system which may be slightly bright and/or detailed. I can imagine that in an all-tube system, it's 'warmth' may be just too much of a 'good thing'...🤔 Have you tried loading it at 100K Ohms to ameliorate some of the "politeness"...? HERE it is in my all SS system....and I even load it at 60K 🤗 |
Dear @travbrow : That " plastic piece " was really a news for me because it's not easy to perfect centered that " clip half opened holes ".
I will look in my both original Empire boxes and maybe is there if I have that lucky, but I doubt. We will see.
R. |
Dear friends: The first hand experiences by @frogman @travbrow @halcro confirm that same specs in same manufacturer cartridges not makes or explain the differences in two same manufacturer models.
The Empire D3 and Gold one is that first hand experiences that just what makes the real and true quality difference in between cartridges is the CARTRIDGE MOTOR that’s what I started to " shout " more than 1.5 years ago and some people can’t understand even today.
Same CARTRIDGE MOTOR with better cantilever/stylus shape could be better quality performers.
Stanton 980/981 is other example of that where the 981 is a hand calibrated model: accuracy and thigthness characteristics on that 981 same CARTRIDGE MOTOR than the 980 is superior because its same CARTRIDGE MOTOR is " hand calibrated "..
Empire and Stanton examples are FACTS on that cartridge motor audio subject.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
Regards, Raul: For the sake of clarity it should be realized that "calibration" refers to testing to ensure a substance or product meets specific standards. In the case of Stanton "hand calibrated cartridges", these are pickups that have been tested and found to meet those specified standards. Not all Stanton carts were tested and not all met requirements for identification as "hand calibrated units. Those that were tested and met requirements were marketed with a data sheet describing the measured performance of that specific cartridge, a label was applied to the cartridge body identifying it as having met those standards. Those that failed or not tested lacked the "Hand Calibrated" identification. An example might be a 681 released for mass market sale. Although it might meet Stanton's specifications, because it was not tested (calibrated) it would lack that description. It should be observed that should the original stylus be replaced it is possible the cartridge would no longer meet Stanton's specifications. Unless the cartridge retained the stylus supplied with the cartridge, without the calibration procedures to ensure its performance the cart could not be guaranteed to meet those standards. A similar procedure is observed with the AT20 cartridge. Those that did not meet specified measurement were labeled the "15" series. Stanton specifications are to be found here: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/mbrs/recording_preservation/manuals/Stanton%20(Misc.).pdfPeace, |
Along similar logic, a lot of the large differences heard between otherwise closely related vintage cartridges can be simply differences arising from level of use, storage degradation variations and sample variance. |
Dear @timeltel : Almost all top models inside each cartridge manufacturer meets " calibration standard " that are the manufacturer cartridge targets designs and normally they showed through the charts for both cjhannels that comes with each cartridge where specify the test recording number used, used VTF, output levels, temperature and the like.
That’s a " universal " calibration used in those top cartridge models.
But the " hand calibration " is way different because not only meets with the " calibration standard " but are hand calibrated for the inductance, output level, channel separation, cartridge impedance etc. . This is made it individually and the information applies only to that specific motor/cantilever-stylus. The accuracy on these hand calibrated top models is absolutely more accurated that the " calibration standard " cartridge that’s not a " hand calibrated individually ". These ones comes with a certification signed by responsable of that hand calibration and with its own cartridge serial number.
I own Stanton " individually hand calibrated " and Stanton top model non-hand calibrated but that meets the universal " calibration standard ".
Do you own the Stanton 981 HZ hand calibrated and other non-hand calibrated?
If you don’t then you are talking of something that through your link just does not comes any specific explanations.
If you don’t own it then you are posting only what your " imagination " at its best tells you and sorry but it’s wrong.
@timeltel normally I only post first hand experiences and normally I have all the " hairs in my hand " and never post something I " imagine " or suppose about or logic tells me.
In the case of the 20SS against the 15 I know the total " historty " behind the same subject because in this same thread I posted several years ago something like this:
""" I own all top of the line AT MM/LOMC cartridges that never were sold in my country and even I owned way before were marketed in USA or Europe.
The reason for that is that the Director and President of Audio Technica in Mexico is a close friend of mind: Lic. Guajardo whom at the same time is owner of a big custom broker company at the border for import/export merchandise.
He signed ( in those " vintage times ". ) a join venture with AT Japan to build in the México factory microphones/headphones for all world market ( 7 specific models. ). So he was partner of AT.
He brougth exclusively to me: AT 20SS, AT 25/24, At ML170 and 180, AT32, AT MC 1000, AT 37 and several other top MM/LOMC cartridges but he sold me too: Step UP transformers like the AT 1000 and the 660, the vaccum Disc Stabilizer AT 666, the pneumatic great footers AT616, the AT electrostatic headphones, all cleanse LP/stylus accesories as the AT637 ( that still own a works marvelous. ), the headshell/cartridge holder AT 6003, all its top iC cables and headshell wires PCOCC, all the AT magnesium headshells models and the latest AT LH/OCC headshell series, the very bad and heavy Technicard ceramic TT platter, tonearms as the AT1100 and 1010 or 1503, etc, etc.
But not only that, things are that in those times AT was the exclusive world distributor of famous Telarc LP’s and Lic. Guajardo brougth for me the almost enterely Telarc catalog including its test LP tha’s just fenomenal one.
I owned or own AT items that only were marketed for domestic customers ( no one out side Japan except Lic. Guajardo and me. ). Latter on he made me the favor for I can get Signet items.
Btw, the Micro and headphones manual and advertasing printed papers were made in Japan even that were manufactured in México we can read in the papers: Printed in Japan. """
Yes, the 20SS is hand selected.
@timeltel , in the past you and me had very hot dialogues in this thread but I learned that you posted always with good intentions and never trying to hit me or put me in " ridiculous/laughing " and I respect that for you in the past and today. My intentions with gentlemans as you always be and will be with good intentions and positive attitude no matters how hot is the discussion.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
Regards, Raul:
It appears you are positing each of the Stanton "Hand Calibrated" cartridges were individually tweaked by hand, I'd be interested in any information you have as to the processes involved.
I do recall a reference to assemblers selecting stylus assemblies to obtain best outcome but this can be dismissed as rumor. Again, if you can add information relating to the processes involved, please do so. Documentation would be especially useful.
Ultimately, adjustment is not calibration. When a thing is adjusted its behavior is changed. When a thing is calibrated it is to measure its behavior so that it can then be adjusted.
If you care to follow the link offered above there are copies of pages showing the calibrated characteristics for a number of sample cartridges, each signed by the technician responsible for obtaining those figures.
And yes, I'm familiar with the qualities of both Stanton "Hand Calibrated" cartridges as well as those selected by AT for AT20 designation.
If you please, none of the above is a construct of my imagination.
Peace, |
Keep in mind, whatever was calibrated 30+ years ago (and in the consumer world, it should often be in quotes) is most certainly OUT of calibration now. |
I think Dimitry hit the nail on the head. We are splitting hairs based on structural elements, testing, etc, and drawing profound conclusions from our own listening tests, but we can never know how cartridge A really compared to cartridge B when both were new and of recent manufacture.
That said, what ARE the differences between a 4000D3 Gold and a 4000D3? I remember back when the 4000D3 was a cartridge of the month, and I bought an NOS 4000D3 Gold, only to be advised via these pages that it was inferior to the plain Jane 4000D3. (Who knew? I thought Gold surely had to be as good or better than not-Gold.) Ergo, it still sits in its box. Can anyone put a finger on why the Gold version is lacking and what it is lacking?
As regards the Acutex LPM315 that Raul tested and loved for a while, I have been a champion of the LPM320 for several years here. Note that the 320 was said by Acutex to be superior to the 315 in many ways, including trackability, frequency response, channel separation, etc. (These are "induced magnet" designs with titanium cantilever and exotic stylus, making them a bit sexy.) I also own an NOS M320, the box-shaped predecessor to the LPM320. Raul once said the M is superior to the LPM, but I cannot recall a review or details. |
Dear @timeltel : In the case of Stanton what is hand calibrated is the cartridge motor/electrical parameters ( mainly. ) as I posted..
The calibration standard is just the chart of cartridge frequency response and separation levels chart, this is what many if not all cartridge manufacturers did it.
I have the charts from: ADC, AKG, AT, Microacustics, Micro Seiki, Signet, Elac, Goldring, Ortofon and the like.
With hand calibrated cartridges you can ( example ) be sure that both channel output levels is the same and many other things that does not happens with out that HC work.
The At is something as the same but they don’t add the hand calibrated certify.
In the AT 20SS series exist the AT 15SS and the AT 20SLa. Some one told that the SLa was the top of the line but it’s not, the one there is the 20SS and all these 3 models has diference in its specs and price:
Example: 20SS : separation: 35db and the SLa 30db when the 15SS has 33db.
In other parameter as FR: 20SS is 5hz-50khz when the 15SS is 5hz-45khz.
Even the stylus replacement for the 20SS is: ATN20SS when in the SLa is ATN20 and both at the same price. In the 15SS is ATN15SS and with lower price.
Other than Stanton and AT the other manufacturer that did it the same was AKG in its P100LE that I still own .
Btw, and I already posted that in the Stanton line the best quality performer is the 981 with Pickering stylus replacement ( Sthereohedron II. ), it performs better than with the 981 original stylus due that the Stanton original cantilever/stylus holder vibrates and produce resonances that degrades the cartridge signal. The Pickering cantilever/stylus holder is way more thicker and assembled in better way that the original and you can listen the differences for the better using the Pickering one.
Other terrible problem with all Stanton and shared by the Pickering is that long hair brush designed " mechanism " to work, again makes more harm than good. It does not works " firmely " as the Shure cartridge mechanism.
Can we trust absolutely in the brochures/information/advertasing of those vintage cartridge manufacturers?, not exactly in those old times the competition for the cartridge overall market was really hard and fierce for say the least because the competition was in retail price levels and all those challengers came out at the market with several models that in between one a top the next the differences in price was minimum as was the quality performance differences levels.
The challengers were: AT, Empire, Shure, Stanton, ADC, Pickering, AKG, Ortofon.
Very hard competition for the Asia, Europe and North and South America continents.
R.
Btw, """
if you can add information relating to the processes involved, """. I can't understand why you ask me for that when the true one to ask is the manufactuerr it self. I can tell you that rigth now on AT they can't tell you for sure what they did it with the 20SS. If what you are trying to say is that I'm liying that's another subject and please don't follow that " road ". Don't be to " orthodox " with vinatge way vintage cartridges.
Btw, I know that you and other gentleman in this thread bougth from the same seller the AT20SS with generic ( not original ) cantilever/stylus.
|
Dear @lewm : Please speak for your self because in those times I had several first hand experiences with " thousands " of different carrtridges and I can tell you you are wrong. Even when I started this thread I did it testing " today " MM/MI cartridges against some vintage ones that I still had.
In those times I not owned any single LOMC cartridge and you can be sure that some Agon readers had similar experiences. Obviously you have not those great experiences.
I compared the AT25 vs the AT24 or the 155 against other top cartridge.
As I already posted what I’m saying is not a by-product of my " imagination ".
It’s weird that you ask about the M320 that you own in NOS shape when you can in your own system a in between the LPM320 and the M320 to have your own first hand experiences as a conclusion.
R. |
Stanton stylus deficiency is easy to fix. A small amount of Mortite or similar damped viscoplastic material placed iside the hollow part of the plastic stylus holder, after the brush has been removed. It gets squeezed between the holder and the cartridge body as the stylus is inserted - you will have to use greater force than usual - carefully. The stylus assembly is for all intents and purposes becomes one with the body of the cartridge.
As for "calibration", which in the cartridge world simply means measurements and selection, is entirely irrelevant after 30-40 years of use and/or storage in largely uncontrolled environments. Cartridge makers, if they were still around, would certainly disavow any applicability of this to sirviving cartridges decades after manufacturing. |
Raul, As regards your post of 04/06 at 1:02 PM, what am I wrong about? It is my opinion that the LPM320 is a great cartridge based on many hours of listening and comparing it to 4-5 other highly regarded MM/MI cartridges and several other very expensive LOMC cartridges; I certainly cannot be "wrong" for having an opinion. Is that what you’re talking about? If not, please enlighten me about my grievous error.
You did once write that you thought the M320 or perhaps the M315 was better sounding than the respective LPM version. Why is it so terrible for me to bring it up? Why do you take a friendly interchange as a challenge to your integrity and judgement, nearly always?
And where did I suggest, let alone actually say, that any opinion you render here or anywhere else is a product of your imagination? In that regard, you must have me mixed up with someone else. I think you owe me an apology. |
Regards, Raul:
A generic stylus for my AT 20SS?
Purchased from TTNeedles seven or eight years past, one of the last offered in their catalog. Beryllium cantilever and longish Shibata stylus of gem quality.
I confess I do prefer the Signet TK-7LCa. Listener fatigue with the Signet has never been a factor. Perhaps it's my antique SS rig, I cannot say the same of the 20SS.
Peace,
.
|
Dear @timeltel : This is what you posted in 2012:
"""
Relating to the AT20SS, Henry and I were in communication at the time, he and had both found the 20SS carts. Both of our carts were supplied with generic styli. """
Your words not mines: generic styli ".
R. |
Dear @lewm : A total confusion between you and me. Latter on I will try to explain it. I'm in a hurry rigth now.
R. |
Regards, Raul: I remember those spirited discussions as well as the generous sharing of information common to the MM thread at the time. In your most recent post addressed to me you wrote: Dear @timeltel : This is what you posted in 2012: """ Relating to the AT20SS, Henry and I were in communication at the time, he and had both found the 20SS carts. Both of our carts were supplied with generic styli. """ Your words not mines: generic styli ". R. Yes, I remember that post, it was from dgobs "Glanz" thread. It continues: "Both of our carts were supplied with generic styli. There was little commendable about the performance. Based on the evidence on hand, Henry elected to sell his. I'm sure Raul is unaware of this." You responded that "Henry" in a separate correspondence indicated his 20SS stylus was OEM. Regarding "Henry" (who I hold in high regard), apparently I was in error and should not have made such a comment without his acknowledgement. That same month I posted to the Who Needs a MM Cartridge thread: "09-07-2012 6:50pmRegards, Raul: Lucky you! I'm going through nearly the same situation with an EPC-U25. Same family as the Technics P23 or EPC-205 and with a solid 1/2" mount. One stylus from Nagaoaka, another "generic" (TTN ViVid Line), not impressed. Have ordered a JICO SAS for the U25. With laminated cores, single point cantilever suspension and relatively low inductance, the cart should perform better than it does now. Jico shipping notification last Fri.
A red generic for the AT-20SS? Want it?"
You didn't reply, apparently you didn't want it either. Raul, I've received a number of carts equipped with generic styli. There is no mandate they remain so. The SAS stylus for the EPC U25 did arrive. Contrary to every effort the U25 refused a rewarding presentation, somewhat abrasive in character when listened to for any length of time, I do have one might consider a generic, a Jico replacement for the AKG P8E. The suspension had hardened on my low mileage original, inner grove response was grainy. Initial impressions are good but I've not run the Jico replacement enough to feel comfortable with either a recommendation or otherwise. I did notice several of your recent posts have been edited, evidence that "one is never too old to learn"? Peace, |
"" edited " because I forgot something or not explained corectly. That's all.
R. |
04-07-2019 8:04pm"" edited " because I forgot something or not explained corectly. That's all.
R.
Of course "That's all".
Peace,
|
Dear @lewm : """
We are splitting hairs based on structural elements, testing, etc, and drawing profound conclusions from our own listening tests, but we can never know how cartridge A really compared to cartridge B when both were new and of recent manufacture. """
I said a " confusion " because I had the experiences you re-marks we don't have. Now, if you refers to have those experiences " today " then I agree with you.
Many people, maybe more that what you could think, had same experiences like me when those today vintage cartridges just seen the market ligth.
Yes, with different room/system than today but as I told you I started this thread because those vintage experiences that " today " confirms the " pedigree " of those MM/MI cartridges.
Latter on from my experiences with the LPM315 I bougth a LPM320 and no contest against its little brother. Due that I bougth at least 2 315 NOS stylus replacement I tested with a NOS315 vs the LPM320 with similar results and decided to sold the LPM320.
No contest, I'm not saying that the LPM320 is not good because it's but I think that in my system that handled in very good condition the bass range is here precisely where the main difference is for the better in the 315.
As you I own the M320 ( and the M315 too. ) and beats my LPM315 and you already have in NOS. Maybe time to test it.
Btw, Acutex where made by Nippon Azden. Azden made cartridges for different very well regarded market companies as Empire ( I don't know which models. ) and under its own name. Maybe you remember in this thread about its top of the line:
YM-P50VL that's a very good quality performer and only a few of us had the opportunity to bougth it in NOS condition. Excellent cartridge. Azden builded MC cartridges too, I own samples.
Other important issue with the Acutex cartridges is that the stylus were made for no less than Ogura Jewel Industry Japan. Many top LOMC cartridge came with Ogura propietary stylus shape. In the case of Acutex Ogura made it under Acutex specs.
About: imagination, I'm not refering to any of your comments/posts but other gentlemans.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
Dear @timeltel : It's weird, for say the least, that to a comment fom me your first answer was:
"""
A generic stylus for my AT 20SS? """
as if you were surprised of my remark about and suddenly you not only " remember " but even posted what you posted in that time and not only that but you even present something as an apolgize to your " I hold in high regard " friend after six years !!
Both of you have a common " characteristic/behavior ": forgotten in this thread to disclose ( other readers. ) that the comments were under the premise that the 20SS stylus was not original but a generic replacement. Comments really unfair for AT and that AT cartridge model for say the least.
Yes, " that's all ".
R. |
Regards, Raul:
About generic styli: I had also obtained an AT13ea, a 14s and a 15sa. All came with after market styli. I still recall TTN's description for the ATN20SS: "For those who are committed to the exquisite sound of the AT20SS---".
AT provided Akai with the 15sa, rebranded as the PC180. The RS 180 stylus, nude Shibata on tapered al. alloy cantilever was available and so the generic was replaced. The Akai 180 is identical to the 15sa. Research it if you must. The generic is around here somewhere, if you want it just let me know.
For the 14s, a NOS ATN14 (Shibata) replaced that one. The generic, same offer. Just let me know.
The 13ea is a different case. The stylus holder was original but the cantilever broken. A cantilever from an ATN155LCa was transplanted with good effect so that one is not available for your adoption.
Also a Shure M75 & M95ED and V15 type 3 came with generics. All now have OEM styli, the V15 is particularly nice with the OEM HE stylus, At one time I had two of the HE styli but sent one to a good friend. I prefer it to the Jico SAS.
Every once in a while the M75ED gets a workout, With its non-laminated coils it brings forward that classic Shure warmth that was so remarked on when it was introduced. Not sure where the generics supplied with these are at this time but I can make an effort to find them if you're interested.
And that 20ss generic, still have it. Offer stands.
The M95 is a horse of different coloration. Good bass without bloom, the Hf's defined and crisp. Not that the mids are lacking but it's the warmth of LC styli on beryllium that draws this midrange gourmand to upper echelon Signet carts. Joni Mitchel's "Don Juan's Reckless Daughter" is captivating when heard courtesy of the TK-7ea.
For those delectable mids, the V15-3/HE isn't far behind. Loaded as intended, the V15 presents easy bass and subtle, possibly superior Hf's, the agility and ease of presentation with LC on beryllium still has me strap on the Signet in preference.
Really Raul, you are intentionally taking out of context a comment made seven years past. Although you navigate admirably between at least two languages there is little reason to promote dispute because your misuse of a term in a foreign language was brought to your attention. There was no ill will intended.
The thought occurs, do you just not comprehend the connotations of "if you want it, just let me know"? As I'm not "calibrated" for interminable argument for no good purpose I'll address the matter no further, that dog don't hunt.
Peace,
|
Dear @timeltel : """ you are intentionally taking out of context a comment made seven years past. Although you navigate admirably between at leas...""" not out of context because in the last 10 days in this thread other gentleman posted something like: "" argg " against the 20SS and you don’t disclosed that what that gentleman owned was a 20SS with generic stylus. In the past in this same thread he and you between others gave the TK7Lca the " win " cartridge " title " over the 20SS and other AT models when at least both of you listen it with generic stylus. By coincidence both discussions were really hot. No, I’m not a good navigator but I have memory but just did not remember in what thread I read about that generic stylus, with out " memory " no one is so stupid to try to find out ! ! ! ? ? 10 days latter is not out of context and your surprise ( ? ) when I posted makes it’s in clear context. In the other side you are wron about one of your AT comments: """ nude Shibata on tapered al. alloy cantilever was available and so the generic was replaced. The Akai 180 is identical to the 15sa. """ with the 15Sa happens exactly the same as with the 20SLa vs AT20SS ( you can read what I posted about. ) but in its case with the 15SS where both are the same cartridge design with and shares same cantilever build material same stylus shape and same everything in its design. The only difference is in the channel separation spec that’s better in the 15SS. So it’s non-true that the 15Sa came with alluminum alloy cantilever as the Akai or the source of that information is non-precise. The 15Sa comes with beryllium cantilever as the 20SLa, 20SS and 15SS models. Here the AT source information about. Btw, the 15SS and 15Sa had the same retail price and same stylus replacement price: https://www.vinylengine.com/library/audio-technica/at15.shtml please read page 10 of the AT manual. Thank’s for your offers but a years ago I stopped to buy any MM/MI cartridges. I own or owned and listened and have to listen ( some cartridges I never listened as the ADC 26/27. ) all what I’m interestd with. Btw, do it a favor and if you own the Empire D3 then listen to it. Lovely performer: MUSIC at all. R. |
Regards, Raul
Had the 4000-111 up last week, seems to be some debate wether the long tapered cantilever is the first released or is it the shorter one?
This week, the 1000X/RD, also a rather long tapered cantilever. Both are rewarding.
Eventually the Signet TK-7LCa will demand a hearing. It's currently in competition with a Signet AM40, also beryllium & sporting a nude LC stylus.
Looked at the reference you cited, the 15Sa shows "tapered" cantilever. I'll leave the determination as to wether be. or al. to you.
Error in my last post--- involved in the College Bball championship, distracted & typed "non-laminated coils", obviously it should have read "core" instead.
The M75ed with OEM ED stylus is an interesting listen. Warm, almost woodish but once demand for detail is dismissed a very musical transducer. Just relax & forget about critique. The 75 was brought out with the Sure V15T11. The type 111, along with the M95-97, were equipped with laminated core (not coil).
Peace, |
