Dear friends: who really needs an MM type phono cartridge?, well I will try to share/explain with you what are my experiences about and I hope too that many of you could enrich the topic/subject with your own experiences.
For some years ( in this forum ) and time to time I posted that the MM type cartridge quality sound is better than we know or that we think and like four months ago I start a thread about: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1173550723&openusid&zzRauliruegas&4&5#Rauliruegas where we analyse some MM type cartridges.
Well, in the last 10-12 months I buy something like 30+ different MM type phono cartridges ( you can read in my virtual system which ones. ) and I’m still doing it. The purpose of this fact ( “ buy it “ ) is for one way to confirm or not if really those MM type cartridges are good for us ( music lovers ) and at the same time learn about MM vs MC cartridges, as a fact I learn many things other than MM/MC cartridge subject.
If we take a look to the Agon analog members at least 90% of them use ( only ) MC phono cartridges, if we take a look to the “ professional reviewers “ ( TAS, Stereophile, Positive Feedback, Enjoy the Music, etc, etc, ) 95% ( at least ) of them use only MC cartridges ( well I know that for example: REG and NG of TAS and RJR of Stereophile use only MM type cartridges!!!!!!!! ) , if we take a look to the phono cartridge manufacturers more than 90% of them build/design for MC cartridges and if you speak with audio dealers almost all will tell you that the MC cartridges is the way to go.
So, who are wrong/right, the few ( like me ) that speak that the MM type is a very good alternative or the “ whole “ cartridge industry that think and support the MC cartridge only valid alternative?
IMHO I think that both groups are not totally wrong/right and that the subject is not who is wrong/right but that the subject is : KNOW-HOW or NON KNOW-HOW about.
Many years ago when I was introduced to the “ high end “ the cartridges were almost MM type ones: Shure, Stanton, Pickering, Empire, etc, etc. In those time I remember that one dealer told me that if I really want to be nearest to the music I have to buy the Empire 4000 D ( they say for 4-channel reproduction as well. ) and this was truly my first encounter with a “ high end cartridge “, I buy the 4000D I for 70.00 dls ( I can’t pay 150.00 for the D III. ), btw the specs of these Empire cartridges were impressive even today, look: frequency response: 5-50,000Hz, channel separation: 35db, tracking force range: 0.25grs to 1.25grs!!!!!!!!, just impressive, but there are some cartridges which frequency response goes to 100,000Hz!!!!!!!!!!
I start to learn about and I follow to buying other MM type cartridges ( in those times I never imagine nothing about MC cartridges: I don’t imagine of its existence!!!. ) like AKG, Micro Acoustics, ADC, B&O, Audio Technica, Sonus, etc, etc.
Years latter the same dealer told me about the MC marvelous cartridges and he introduce me to the Denon-103 following with the 103-D and the Fulton High performance, so I start to buy and hear MC cartridges. I start to read audio magazines about either cartridge type: MM and Mc ones.
I have to make changes in my audio system ( because of the low output of the MC cartridges and because I was learning how to improve the performance of my audio system ) and I follow what the reviewers/audio dealers “ speak “ about, I was un-experienced !!!!!!!, I was learning ( well I’m yet. ).
I can tell you many good/bad histories about but I don’t want that the thread was/is boring for you, so please let me tell you what I learn and where I’m standing today about:
over the years I invested thousands of dollars on several top “ high end “ MC cartridges, from the Sumiko Celebration passing for Lyras, Koetsu, Van denHul, to Allaerts ones ( just name it and I can tell that I own or owned. ), what I already invest on MC cartridges represent almost 70-80% price of my audio system.
Suddenly I stop buying MC cartridges and decide to start again with some of the MM type cartridges that I already own and what I heard motivate me to start the search for more of those “ hidden jewels “ that are ( here and now ) the MM phono cartridges and learn why are so good and how to obtain its best quality sound reproduction ( as a fact I learn many things other than MM cartridge about. ).
I don’t start this “ finding “ like a contest between MC and MM type cartridges. The MC cartridges are as good as we already know and this is not the subject here, the subject is about MM type quality performance and how achieve the best with those cartridges.
First than all I try to identify and understand the most important characteristics ( and what they “ means “. ) of the MM type cartridges ( something that in part I already have it because our phonolinepreamp design needs. ) and its differences with the MC ones.
Well, first than all is that are high output cartridges, very high compliance ones ( 50cu is not rare. ), low or very low tracking force ones, likes 47kOhms and up, susceptible to some capacitance changes, user stylus replacement, sometimes we can use a different replacement stylus making an improvement with out the necessity to buy the next top model in the cartridge line , low and very low weight cartridges, almost all of them are build of plastic material with aluminum cantilever and with eliptical or “ old “ line contact stylus ( shibata ) ( here we don’t find: Jade/Coral/Titanium/etc, bodies or sophisticated build material cantilevers and sophisticated stylus shape. ), very very… what I say? Extremely low prices from 40.00 to 300.00 dls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, well one of my cartridges I buy it for 8.99 dls ( one month ago ): WOW!!!!!!, so any one of you can/could have/buy ten to twenty MM cartridges for the price of one of the MC cartridge you own today and the good notice is that is a chance that those 10-20 MM type cartridges even the quality performance of your MC cartridge or beat it.
Other characteristics is that the builders show how proud they were/are on its MM type cartridges design, almost all those cartridges comes with a first rate box, comes with charts/diagrams of its frequency response and cartridge channel separation ( where they tell us which test recording use it, with which VTF, at which temperature, etc, etc. ), comes with a very wide explanation of the why’s and how’s of its design and the usual explanation to mount the cartridge along with a very wide list of specifications ( that were the envy of any of today MC ones where sometimes we really don’t know nothing about. ), comes with a set of screws/nuts, comes with a stylus brush and even with stylus cleaning fluid!!!!!!!!!, my GOD. Well, there are cartridges like the Supex SM 100MK2 that comes with two different stylus!!!! One with spherical and one with elliptical/shibata shape and dear friends all those in the same low low price!!!!!!!!!!!
Almost all the cartridges I own you can find it through Ebay and Agon and through cartridge dealers and don’t worry if you loose/broke the stylus cartridge or you find the cartridge but with out stylus, you always can/could find the stylus replacement, no problem about there are some stylus and cartridge sources.
When I’m talking about MM type cartridges I’m refer to different types: moving magnet, moving iron, moving flux, electret, variable reluctance, induced magnet, etc, etc. ( here is not the place to explain the differences on all those MM type cartridges. Maybe on other future thread. ).
I made all my very long ( time consuming ) cartridge tests using four different TT’s: Acoustic Signature Analog One MK2, Micro Seiki RX-5000, Luxman PD 310 and Technics SP-10 MK2, I use only removable headshell S and J shape tonearms with 15mm on overhang, I use different material build/ shape design /weight headshells. I test each cartridge in at least three different tonearms and some times in 3-4 different headshells till I find the “ right “ match where the cartridge perform the best, no I’m not saying that I already finish or that I already find the “ perfect “ match: cartridge/headshell/tonearm but I think I’m near that ideal target.
Through my testing experience I learn/ confirm that trying to find the right tonearm/headshell for any cartridge is well worth the effort and more important that be changing the TT. When I switch from a TT to another different one the changes on the quality cartridge performance were/are minimal in comparison to a change in the tonearm/headshell, this fact was consistent with any of those cartridges including MC ones.
So after the Phonolinepreamplifier IMHO the tonearm/headshell match for any cartridge is the more important subject, it is so important and complex that in the same tonearm ( with the same headshell wires ) but with different headshell ( even when the headshell weight were the same ) shape or build material headshell the quality cartridge performance can/could be way different.
All those experiences told me that chances are that the cartridge that you own ( MC or MM ) is not performing at its best because chances are that the tonearm you own is not the best match for that cartridge!!!!!!, so imagine what do you can/could hear when your cartridge is or will be on the right tonearm???!!!!!!!!, IMHO there are ( till today ) no single ( any type at any price ) perfect universal tonearm. IMHO there is no “ the best tonearm “, what exist or could exist is a “ best tonearm match for “ that “ cartridge “, but that’s all. Of course that are “ lucky “ tonearms that are very good match for more than one cartridge but don’t for every single cartridge.
I posted several times that I’m not a tonearm collector, that I own all those tonearms to have alternatives for my cartridges and with removable headshells my 15 tonearms are really like 100+ tonearms : a very wide options/alternatives for almost any cartridge!!!!!!
You can find several of these MM type cartridges new brand or NOS like: Ortofon, Nagaoka, Audio Technica, Astatic, B&O, Rega, Empire, Sonus Reson,Goldring,Clearaudio, Grado, Shelter, Garrot, etc. and all of them second hand in very good operational condition. As a fact I buy two and even three cartridges of the same model in some of the cartridges ( so right now I have some samples that I think I don’t use any more. ) to prevent that one of them arrive in non operational condition but I’m glad to say that all them arrive in very fine conditions. I buy one or two of the cartridges with no stylus or with the stylus out of work but I don’t have any trouble because I could find the stylus replacement on different sources and in some case the original new replacement.
All these buy/find cartridges was very time consuming and we have to have a lot of patience and a little lucky to obtain what we are looking for but I can asure you that is worth of it.
Ok, I think it is time to share my performance cartridge findings:
first we have to have a Phonolinepreamplifier with a very good MM phono stage ( at least at the same level that the MC stage. ). I’m lucky because my Phonolinepreamplifier has two independent phono stages, one for the MM and one for MC: both were designed for the specifics needs of each cartridge type, MM or MC that have different needs.
we need a decent TT and decent tonearm.
we have to load the MM cartridges not at 47K but at 100K ( at least 75K not less. ).
I find that using 47K ( a standard manufacture recommendation ) prevent to obtain the best quality performance, 100K make the difference. I try this with all those MM type cartridges and in all of them I achieve the best performance with 100K load impedance.
I find too that using the manufacturer capacitance advise not always is for the better, till “ the end of the day “ I find that between 100-150pf ( total capacitance including cable capacitance. ) all the cartridges performs at its best.
I start to change the load impedance on MM cartridges like a synonymous that what many of us made with MC cartridges where we try with different load impedance values, latter I read on the Empire 4000 DIII that the precise load impedance must be 100kOhms and in a white paper of some Grace F9 tests the used impedance value was 100kOhms, the same that I read on other operational MM cartridge manual and my ears tell/told me that 100kOhms is “ the value “.
Before I go on I want to remember you that several of those MM type cartridges ( almost all ) were build more than 30+ years ago!!!!!!!! and today performs at the same top quality level than today MC/MM top quality cartridges!!!!!, any brand at any price and in some ways beat it.
I use 4-5 recordings that I know very well and that give me the right answers to know that any cartridge is performing at its best or near it. Many times what I heard through those recordings were fine: everything were on target however the music don’t come “ alive “ don’t “ tell me “ nothing, I was not feeling the emotion that the music can communicate. In those cartridge cases I have to try it in other tonearm and/or with a different headshell till the “ feelings comes “ and only when this was achieved I then was satisfied.
All the tests were made with a volume level ( SPL ) where the recording “ shines “ and comes alive like in a live event. Sometimes changing the volume level by 1-1.5 db fixed everything.
Of course that the people that in a regular manner attend to hear/heard live music it will be more easy to know when something is right or wrong.
Well, Raul go on!!: one characteristic on the MM cartridges set-up was that almost all them likes to ride with a positive ( little/small ) VTA only the Grace Ruby and F9E and Sonus Gold Blue likes a negative VTA , on the other hand with the Nagaoka MP 50 Super and the Ortofon’s I use a flat VTA.
Regarding the VTF I use the manufacturer advise and sometimes 0.1+grs. Of course that I made fine tuning through moderate changes in the Azymuth and for anti-skate I use between half/third VTF value.
I use different material build headshells: aluminum, composite aluminum, magnesium, composite magnesium, ceramic, wood and non magnetic stainless steel, these cartridges comes from Audio Technica, Denon, SAEC, Technics, Fidelity Research, Belldream, Grace, Nagaoka, Koetsu, Dynavector and Audiocraft. All of them but the wood made ( the wood does not likes to any cartridge. ) very good job . It is here where a cartridge could seems good or very good depending of the headshell where is mounted and the tonearm. Example, I have hard time with some of those cartridge like the Audio Technica AT 20SS where its performance was on the bright sound that sometimes was harsh till I find that the ceramic headshell was/is the right match now this cartridge perform beautiful, something similar happen with the Nagaoka ( Jeweltone in Japan ), Shelter , Grace, Garrot , AKG and B&O but when were mounted in the right headshell/tonearm all them performs great.
Other things that you have to know: I use two different cooper headshell wires, both very neutral and with similar “ sound “ and I use three different phono cables, all three very neutral too with some differences on the sound performance but nothing that “ makes the difference “ on the quality sound of any of my cartridges, either MM or MC, btw I know extremely well those phono cables: Analysis Plus, Harmonic Technologies and Kimber Kable ( all three the silver models. ), finally and don’t less important is that those phono cables were wired in balanced way to take advantage of my Phonolinepreamp fully balanced design.
What do you note the first time you put your MM cartridge on the record?, well a total absence of noise/hum or the like that you have through your MC cartridges ( and that is not a cartridge problem but a Phonolinepreamp problem due to the low output of the MC cartridges. ), a dead silent black ( beautiful ) soundstage where appear the MUSIC performance, this experience alone is worth it.
The second and maybe the most important MM cartridge characteristic is that you hear/heard the MUSIC flow/run extremely “ easy “ with no distracting sound distortions/artifacts ( I can’t explain exactly this very important subject but it is wonderful ) even you can hear/heard “ sounds/notes “ that you never before heard it and you even don’t know exist on the recording: what a experience!!!!!!!!!!!
IMHO I think that the MUSIC run so easily through a MM cartridge due ( between other facts ) to its very high compliance characteristic on almost any MM cartridge.
This very high compliance permit ( between other things like be less sensitive to out-center hole records. ) to these cartridges stay always in contact with the groove and never loose that groove contact not even on the grooves that were recorded at very high velocity, something that a low/medium cartridge compliance can’t achieve, due to this low/medium compliance characteristic the MC cartridges loose ( time to time and depending of the recorded velocity ) groove contact ( minute extremely minute loose contact, but exist. ) and the quality sound performance suffer about and we can hear it, the same pass with the MC cartridges when are playing the inner grooves on a record instead the very high compliance MM cartridges because has better tracking drive perform better than the MC ones at inner record grooves and here too we can hear it.
Btw, some Agoners ask very worried ( on more than one Agon thread ) that its cartridge can’t track ( clean ) the cannons on the 1812 Telarc recording and usually the answers that different people posted were something like this: “””” don’t worry about other than that Telarc recording no other commercial recording comes recorded at that so high velocity, if you don’t have trouble with other of your LP’s then stay calm. “””””
Well, this standard answer have some “ sense “ but the people ( like me ) that already has/have the experience to hear/heard a MM or MC ( like the Ortofon MC 2000 or the Denon DS1, high compliance Mc cartridges. ) cartridge that pass easily the 1812 Telarc test can tell us that those cartridges make a huge difference in the quality sound reproduction of any “ normal “ recording, so it is more important that what we think to have a better cartridge tracking groove drive!!!!
There are many facts around the MM cartridge subject but till we try it in the right set-up it will be ( for some people ) difficult to understand “ those beauties “. Something that I admire on the MM cartridges is how ( almost all of them ) they handle the frequency extremes: the low bass with the right pitch/heft/tight/vivid with no colorations of the kind “ organic !!” that many non know-how people speak about, the highs neutral/open/transparent/airy believable like the live music, these frequency extremes handle make that the MUSIC flow in our minds to wake up our feelings/emotions that at “ the end of the day “ is all what a music lover is looking for. These not means that these cartridges don’t shine on the midrange because they do too and they have very good soundstage but here is more system/room dependent.
Well we have a very good alternative on the ( very low price ) MM type cartridges to achieve that music target and I’m not saying that you change your MC cartridge for a MM one: NO, what I’m trying to tell you is that it is worth to have ( as many you can buy/find ) the MM type cartridges along your MC ones
I want to tell you that I can live happy with any of those MM cartridges and I’m not saying with this that all of them perform at the same quality level NO!! what I’m saying is that all of them are very good performers, all of them approach you nearest to the music.
If you ask me which one is the best I can tell you that this will be a very hard “ call “ an almost impossible to decide, I think that I can make a difference between the very good ones and the stellar ones where IMHO the next cartridges belongs to this group:
Audio Technica ATML 170 and 180 OCC, Grado The Amber Tribute, Grace Ruby, Garrot P77, Nagaoka MP-50 Super, B&O MMC2 and MMC20CL, AKG P8ES SuperNova, Reson Reca ,Astatic MF-100 and Stanton LZS 981.
There are other ones that are really near this group: ADC Astrion, Supex MF-100 MK2, Micro Acoustics MA630/830, Empire 750 LTD and 600LAC, Sonus Dimension 5, Astatic MF-200 and 300 and the Acutex 320III.
The other ones are very good too but less refined ones. I try too ( owned or borrowed for a friend ) the Shure IV and VMR, Music maker 2-3 and Clearaudio Virtuoso/Maestro, from these I could recommended only the Clearaudios the Shure’s and Music Maker are almost mediocre ones performers. I forgot I try to the B&O Soundsmith versions, well this cartridges are good but are different from the original B&O ( that I prefer. ) due that the Sounsmith ones use ruby cantilevers instead the original B&O sapphire ones that for what I tested sounds more natural and less hi-fi like the ruby ones.
What I learn other that the importance on the quality sound reproduction through MM type cartridges?, well that unfortunately the advance in the design looking for a better quality cartridge performers advance almost nothing either on MM and MC cartridges.
Yes, today we have different/advanced body cartridge materials, different cantilever build materials, different stylus shape/profile, different, different,,,,different, but the quality sound reproduction is almost the same with cartridges build 30+ years ago and this is a fact. The same occur with TT’s and tonearms. Is sad to speak in this way but it is what we have today. Please, I’m not saying that some cartridges designs don’t grow up because they did it, example: Koetsu they today Koetsu’s are better performers that the old ones but against other cartridges the Koetsu ones don’t advance and many old and today cartridges MM/MC beat them easily.
Where I think the audio industry grow-up for the better are in electronic audio items ( like the Phonolinepreamps ), speakers and room treatment, but this is only my HO.
I know that there are many things that I forgot and many other things that we have to think about but what you can read here is IMHO a good point to start.
Dear @timeltel : I own both D3 stylus replacements but really don't know which, if the shorter or larger cantilever, appeared first.
Maybe @travbrow that I understand have both could put some " ligth " about.
Btw, I'm just waiting when the D3 " permit " me to listen to the Azden top of the line that I remember was a very good performer and due that Azden manufactured the Acutex that are great cartridges then the Azden is " mandatory " to listen it again. We will see.
There was something bothering me about my post RE: The Akai's equivalence to the AT15Sa.
I needed to rummage through a box of carts laid aside for too long. Pulled out the Akai 180 stylus. It had an AT14s firmly in its grasp.
Wheels now set in motion, seemed like a good time for some experimentation. With one exception, there is a physical cross-compatibility with the 13(ea)/14/15/20 AT carts but the 15/20 stylus grips need a little trimming to the back of the plastic to accommodate a small haunch on the 13ea cartridge body.
So, the AT14s was also marketed as the Akai PC180. Mea culpa, I had the Akai stylus on the 20SS at one time, a source of my error.
Listening to the Akai Shibata on the 13ea/Akai180 stylus, not a match, J. J. Cale's "Troubadour" is grainy, exaggerated upper-mids.
The stylus pulled from the 13 has a transplanted 155LCa cantilever with LC diamond, the 20SS is of course, Shibata on beryllium. Moved it to the 14s.
The transplanted 155LCa stylus on the 14s motor is quite good. Maybe more on this at a later date?
Your turn. You wrote: 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."
And yes, my Akai PC180 information was "non-precise".
Listening to the AT14s/ATN155Lca leaves me pleased with the effort of correcting that error. This Frankencart is very good. "Sweet Baby James", J. T. is here, strumming away. Abraxas next.
Dear @timeltel : I hope you have good common sense and I say this because your insistence on that " aluminum cantilever " for the 20SLa and 15 Sa that you have nothing to assure your point of view ( because it's onlya point of view. ).
The stylus replacement price for the 20SS and 20Sla was exactly the same: 95.00 and the stylus replacement for the 15SS and 15Sa was exactly the same price: 70.00.
Do you think that a stylus replacement with cantilever build material as aluminum against beryllium set you back the same price? ! ! ! ???????
Regards. Raul it amazes me to observe you persist in your wrong-headedness. From AT printed documents, please note the 15Sa is Shibata mounted on thin wall tapered tube. The 15SS "upgrade", beryllium:
http://www.gammaelectronics.xyz/audio_04-1979_audio-technica_ad.html "Extremely low distortion results from a new ultra-rigid Beryllium cantilever which transmits stylus movement without flexing. And flatter response plus better tracking is achieved by a new method of mounting our tiny Dual Magnets to further minimize moving mass.
Four tiny differences, yes. But listen to the new AT15SS or the hand-selected AT20SS for ultra-critical listening. You'll find out that less IS more. At your Audio-Technica dealer now.
Note: If you own a current AT15Sa or AT20SLa, you can simply replace your present stylus assembly with a new "SS" stylus assembly to bring your phono system up to date."
For the education of us all, please document the 15Sa or 20SLa were ever provided with a "thin-wall tapered tube" cantilever fabricated of beryllium. Until then I regard the matter resolved.
Raul, I’m very impressed with the AT-1100 tonearm, glad you recommended it. Precision quality and impressive engineering. I purchased a spare straight arm pipe and also an S shaped arm pipe with the W-3 heavy counterweight. It’s in the same league as higher cost Technics etc. in my opinion.
Though I only listened a few hours with Empire 2000Z and NOS stylus, I think it’s up there with the other TOTL Empire models. I will have time to use it more over the weekend.
Dear @travbrow : Good that you are satisfied with.
As I told you I owned that AT 1100 tonearm and it's a true engeneering achievement with an excellent build quality and first rate quality performance.
I owned too the AT 1010 that is a superb tonearm design too and I agree that the AT tonearm " plays " in the same Technics league but AT was and is more regarded by its cartridge designs and even like you several audiophiles not even know the AT tonearms reality that I can attest: second to none.
In the other side, yes with more playing time you could have a final opinion in your 2000Z. When time comes please share here about. Thank you.
Dear friends: Here the AT 1010 and if any one of you see it then buy it, you will be very nicely surprised of its quality performance level ( just like the AT 1100. ):
@dimitry , One more ''Slavic brother?'' This forum threaten to become Slavic (grin). Your question is connected with the other thread about ''manufacturers range for VTF''. I own Allaerts MC 2 with this spec. VTF 1,8 g ( max 0,05 g deviation). We all have seen 1,5- 2,5 g. range. By MC kinds one can speak about ''optimal position of the coils in relation to magnets ''. I have no idea if such connection apply for the MM kinds. J. Carr mentioned that in his new designs this ''parameter'' is more exact which means that recommended VTF should be followed. Those who own ''many cartridges'' need some more practical method to determine VTF for each of their carts. I use to this aim ''tracking-ability test records''. As is known (?) 50 microns ''pure'' (without buzz) is sufficient to ''track'' normal records. I try to get 60 microns ''pure'' as sufficient . Those with ''perfect hearing'' can try to get perfect result by spending the needed time for the purpose.
Dear friends: As a founder of this thread I always try to share all my first hand experiences to all of you with the attitude to help and that we can have more information to confirm each one experiences or know how on differents subjects.
Here and in in other threads exist a mix-up about Glanz and Astatic cartridges a mix-up that started when some one of us just does not have precise and clear/pristine understand in the overall subject. Well here something I have to share to all of you:
both cartridges were manufactured by Mitachi Co. but with different cartridge motors and specs that confirms that both cartridges has different designed motors.
Between other gentlemans @vetterone , @harold-not-the-barrel , etc. etc are in agreement that not only have different specs but the " sound " is different too. Does not sounds the same, exist differences in between.
There are reasons for those differences, first is that Astatic choosed the patented Moving Flux motor design by Mitachi but Astatic ask to Mitachi to manufactuere the Astatic design/cartridges under Astatic specific characteristics/specifications as we all can confirm in this link:
you only have to make " click " on download and in the very first statements you can confirm it. Down there we can confirm too tht Astatic don’t use Shibata stylus shape but Parabolic ( Shibata like,not Shibata. ). The Mitachi own stylus tip shape in its top of the like is a special version of that Parabolic ( Shibata like. ) shape.
Normally the Glanz came with ellipthical or line contact ( like the Astatic 2500. ) stylus shape but its top of the line special parabolic.
Btw, here you can read Glanz specs where all but the G7 has different output level than the Astatic:
We can read in both links another interesant spec about differences in the cartridge motor:
when the inductance in the Glanz is 110 mh in the Astatic is lowe: 90mh even that the Astatic has higher output level !. This last fact speaks very well on what Astatic ask to Mitachi in the Astatic design/manufacture.
Even and due to Astatic specific needs made that Mitachi obtained a new patent exclusive for Astatic. We can read here the Astatic name promoted by the Mitachi owner ( I think.? ! ? ):
Glanz 610 is great out of the box. Transient and tonal detail, great imaging and focus. A bit lean right now bur should fill in as Stylast works its magic. Clearly a great all around cartridge. Very happy to have snagged it.
Now I have 4 identical tables running Glanz 610, ADC psx40, Stanton 881 II, and Soundsmith Boheme. This gives me an opportunity to explore the records from several sonic angles.
Dear @dimitry : Very good because as you said you have the opportunity to change the overall LP recording presentation according the quality performance levels of each cartridge.
Btw, are you loading those cartridges at 100kohms? and the ADC T4P type is mounted through and adaptor or direct plug-in in one of your tonearms?
My phono preamp does not allow for changing MM impedance. ADC is on P-mount adapter - Sony PS-FL1 has a SONY headshell that takes 1/2 inch mount cartridges only.
Actually, I consider all of these cartridges to offer high performance level. Any one of them can front a very satisfying audio system, if matched into a sympathetic front end and amplication chain and speakers that compliment its presentation.
Listening to the same recording - two LP editions are particularly useful - allows me to appreciate the nuances of the music, not the "quality levels" of the cartridges.
Hi Raul, I only have a few hours listening time with the 2000z. So I can’t say a whole lot about it other than it’s a fine performer but at this point couldn’t say if it’s as good as the 4000DIII. Also, I bought an Empire edr .9 copy from turntable needles. It’s a Jico made shibata stylus with an original EDR .9 body. Believe it or not, I think I like this one the best out of the Empire models I own.
I’ll try to make a better detailed comparison when I have more time.
Dear @travbrow : Well, the EDR .9 was the latest top of the line Empire cartridge that I owned two samples, yes really good performer. Empire is synonimus of very good quality performance.
A person who claimed for years and years on this forum that his "venerable" Astatic MF2500 (with LineContact stylus) is the best ever cartridge and the best in Astatic line, now claiming that "top of the line" models are different, so funny.
He’s claiming that inferior cartridges MF-100/MF200 are the best just because of the tiny difference in the specs (such as slightly higher or lower inductance and very tiny difference in output level). Really?
BUT This difference is irrelevant for the cartridge performance. All those models made under Astatic and Glanz have tiny difference is output and inductanse between them, Glanz specs are here and there, but it doesn’t matter at all, the generator is the same and it is all comes from Mitachi who own Glanz brand.
But you are readind all that from a person in Mexico who has NEVER EVER heard Glanz MFG61 or MF610LX that both have not only MUCH BETTER cantilevers and DIAMONDS, but superb sound compared to those old Astatic cartridges.
It is also funny to read "how special is Astatic" and about "their special order to make something different" compared to Glanz, but they did not even changed the color of their cartridge: Astatic MF100 compared to Glanz MFG31L. I will repead again that even the manual print is identical, because Astatic did nothing, really. It is all produced in Japan.
And while he keep posting something about "Parabolic" vs. "Shibata" vs. LineContact, i must say that the best profile utilized for the one and only Mitachi’s best cartridge is "SPECIAL PH TYPE" (not Paroc, not LineContact and not Shibata). And Mitachi clearly explained this is "the most prestige model among all Glanz MF" and clearly explained why they prefer BORON cantilever.
The reason why some companies can’t say the stylus is "shibata" is the copyrights, they can say Parabolic "Shibata Type" on the box instead. It is also depends on the region of sales, Astatic made for USA and CANADA, not for Japan. The Glanz was made for Japan and Europe.
But our member always knows better than Mitachi engineers, who designed every MF for that Astatic too, because Astatic cound not do anything by themself in USA/Canada, they had to deal with Japanese manufacturer (Mitachi Group).
The difference between stylus tip mass and the size of cantilever is HUGE between a High-End Glanz MFG-61 and all those cartridges made by Mitachi for themself or for Astatic. Because there are only 2 TYPES of cantilevers utilized for ALL of them: Conventional Aluminum and Very Big Tapered Aluminum. And all you can do is to find these two cheap cantilevers on every Glanz and Astatic ...
Until the Mitachi has released their pinnacle MF cartridge in the 80’s with BORON cantilever. And this BORON cantilever is way different compared to anything they have ever made before (in the 70’s), look here.
And here is again when you see our Mexican member contradict to himself, who always promoted BORON cantilevers for years here and even advised everyone to refurbish their cartridges with Boron instead of aluminum.
He fight for some numbers in the manual to proove he is right, but he is wrong, becase the cantilever material and stylus tip mass is far more important for MF cartridges as Mitachi explained in the manual. And of cource Mitachi did the best cartridge under their own company Glanz, not under some outsiders name in USA/Canada.
My advice: Don’t waste your time, just buy Glanz MFG-610LX with much better cantilever and nice stylus profile, every owner on here is happy about it. Some owners already compared this cartridge to many others from Astatic or Glanz. And all of them prefered the 610LX, it’s obvious. It’s never too late to learn, don’t waste your time with very old inferior models from Astatic or lower model Glanz, just buy the best before it’s too late!
Unfortunately the MFG-61 is not available, but 610LX is the closest (not identical)
Dear chakster, It looks as if you are hired by Mitachy to make P&R for their ''boron kinds'' cart versions. Then you are programmed with Hegel's ''opposites''. I have no idea why but people are more influenced by words than reality. Our mental orientation seems to be composed of opposite words: beautiful- ugly, good-bad, right-wrong, superior-inferior , etc., etc. But how many gradations are in reality between ''good-bad'', ''superior versus inferior''? I have seen many women in endless variations of beauty. For a charming man like me there are no ugly women (grin). I participated in the Glanz thread from its start by Dgob. BTW ''Glanz'' is an German expression meaning ''shine''. I think it was German importer of Mitachi's MF carts who ordered by Mitachi line contact as well elliptical styli for their ''top models'' (31,51 and 71). Dgob actually ''discovered'' this cart while Raul discovered Astatic 200 and 100. Astatic as you suggest was American/Canadian importer of ''the same brand'' but by their own slightly different specs. The stylus being Shibata versus Glanz being line contact. etc. Even Vetterone participated in this thread. He was then the only one who owned your ''celebrated'' MF 61. I thought that he was teasing us . I owned all top Glanz kinds even Glanz 5 . He praised the 61 as the best but deed not dismissed the 31,51 and 71 as ''inferior''. ''Little bit lesser'' does not mean ''inferior''. All mentioned in my post are still very good MF carts. You should not exaggerate by your comparisons. One can even state that ''there are only marginal differences between carts'' (grin).
Addition. There are tragic consequences related to human's confusion regarding logical question about truth and falsity and meanings of words. There are only two truth values: either true or false. But this apply to (indicative) statements not words. Words or terms are not linguistic entities which can be true or false. So ''either man or women'' is not about reality but about words or language. Consider all those devastating persons who feel their gender different in an society which persist on ''either man or women'' there is no third possibility. The same apply for those ''oppositions'' between words mentioned in my previous post. Those are pretty simple orientation markers.
"
both cartridges were manufactured by Mitachi Co. but with different cartridge motors and specs that confirms that both cartridges has different designed motors. "
" vetterone, @harold-not-the-barrel , etc. etc are in agreement that not only have different specs but the " sound " is different too.""
""
first is that Astatic choosed the patented Moving Flux motor design by Mitachi but Astatic ask to Mitachi to manufactuere the Astatic design/cartridges under Astatic specific characteristics/specifications as we all can confirm in this link:
"""
due to Astatic specific needs made that Mitachi obtained a new patent exclusive for Astatic. We can read here the Astatic name promoted by the Mitachi owner :
""
All of the MF series from both Astatic and Glanz were made in Japan by the Mitachi Corporation. I can also say for sure that the Astatic/Glanz MF generators are not all the same. Well on the outside they are but the MF200/300 put out 4.2mv """
against 3.5mv in Glanz.
Other " extreme " difference is that even that the Astatic has higher output level its inductance value is smaller/lower ! ! ! than in the Glanz.
One would think that Astatic would want their cartridges to be visually differentiated, if they did all this work to develop a really different motor.
Mitachi cant take out a patent for Astatic. Patents are assigned to the inventor, in this case Astatic.
The patent is not for anything technical, it is for an "ornamental design for a phono cartridge." I would surmise, that Astatic, being the importer of Mitachi made cartridges, decided to file a patent so nobody else in the States could import an identical looking cartridge.
After 20 years of trying to write English this is the latest result: "How goes ''things'' with your Empire 2000Z? Worth to listen it? Thank's for share it'' (05-04-2019) And this guy is calling others stupid.
Well ''stupid'' are those who don't know that Astatic and Glanz have different output as well as inductance. We would say ''not well informed '' which is something totally different from ''stupid''. BTW does ''motor'' means the same as ''generator''? Neither of my carts needs gas. So, it seems, magnets and coils are sufficient.
The fact that there are variations in specifications between Glanz and Astatic Mitachi variants is very little reason to assert major generator differences.
Consider, for example. the Stanton catalog that is available online from the Library of Congress. Many cartridges there, even from the same generator family exhibit specification variations. There are also some errors there as well. Yet we know that Stanton generator lines were quite similar. Same goes for Shure, AT, and other cartridge lines.
Dear @dimitry@travbrow and friends: What is a phono cartridge, I mean its main function?: it's a transducer.
All the cartridge motors ( generators as vetterone and you named. ) are transducers.
Which its differences in those cartridge motors. Main difference is the principle that the designer/manufacturer choosed for its cartridge motors: MC, MM, MI, IM, MF, VF, electrostatic, Starin Gauge and the like.
"""
Glanz and Astatic Mitachi variants is very little reason to assert major generator differences """
first no one is talking of " major " differences , that word came from you D. Now Where exist the main differences with top of the line LOMC cartridges? because almost all comes with boron cantilevers and the best stylus shape builded quality and inside a more or lees similar cartridge body but if you listen to VDH against Dynavector or Lyra or Koetsu or Ortofon or Benz Micro or My Sonic Labs Or any you can choose you will find out that all sounds " different " even that shares the same cartridge motor.
The differences came/comes by tiny or not so tinned changes in the cartridge motors even with cartridges with the same output level specs.
That means not only the main importance of the cartridge motor design in any cartridge and more important than cantilever build material or stylus shape ( I'm not saying that cantilever/stylus are not so important because are not only important but critical. ) but that those " tiny " cartridge motor makes always a difference.
Around two years now no body cares or at least no one speaks about " cartridge motors " and its crucial importance in the overall quality cartridges level performance. So the concept seems to me a little " new " at least for me and maybe some of us have to think more in deep about.
At the end we listen MUSIC through our speakers that comes from the transducer/cartridge motor with any cartridge motor princeple choosed.
Everything in the manufacture of a cartridge design is important because a cartridge is the sum of its parts.
In the case of Glanz/Astatic even that works with the same cartridge motor principle exist differences in those motors with what Astatic ask for to Mitachi.
Btw, Micro Seiki was in the market with something similar principle Moving Flux but I don't think was manufactured by Mitachi because MS named: Variable Flux and in its manual the description is same as MF principle.
Normally we are accustomed to give " extreme " importance to cantilever/stylus when talking of cartridge quality performance and that attitude comes because we almost never think on that main/principal role that has the transducer/motor it self.
Anyway, is only my opinion that through the last years already made it changes in my mind from what I was accustom to.
The ADC 26/27 can be a good example of what I posted, this comes from the ADC thread:
"""
What lessons left to me?:
well, we have here not only a very old cartridge design but a cartridge with a fenomenal " motor " design with a humble plastic body ( no Titanium or the like as today top cartridge designs. ), with no boron or diamond cantilever but just a short aluminum cantilever, with not the Replicant 100 or VDH or Geyger double polished stylus shape but a humble elliptical one, with specs that are for " laughin "/ridicule vs today designs or even vintage ones, with a very very high compliance that can be a problem today, a cartridge that comes not with a " fresh " cartridge suspension but builded in the 60’s, with " ridicule " non-gold plated output pins, with no internal silver/gold wires. ! ! ! ! !
Then how could be possible that the ADC 26/27 can performs at those very high quality level perfomance to compete with today best of the best? Outstanding cartridge motor/transducer. ""
even its elliptical stylus shape is not the 0.2 x 0.7 but 0.3 x 0.7 , go figure !
Lyra can be a good example of the crucial importance of the tiny differences in its cartridge motors:
with his Titan Kleos, Etna and Atlas they have two versions, differences in between is only in its output levels, everything is the same but tiny changes in the cartridge motor and people can listen the differences in between.
,@dimitry More obvious are the other problems. The first is that value-judgments are not ''truth functional'' . I.e. they do not satisfy truth criteria. The second is the most general logical rule: if the premise is not true the deduced statements are also not true. The premise is that ADC 26/27 are ''the best there are''. According to one single person.
Dear @dimitry : The obvious can be for some one a " wise " opinion but for other that obvious could be just ignorance or even worse: a stupid opinion ( an stupid is an ignorant that just can't learn no matters what and that likes to shows-up always his stupidity. ).
In this thread we have totally confirmed two stupid persons. I'm not alluding you.
Look, over the time I listened/tested hundreds of cartridges in the same room/audio system and when I started this thread almost all the cartridges I listened and posted here my experiences with were for many gentlemans the very first time they " hear " something on those cartridges and from my posts about they bougth it many of those cartridges and by coincidence almost all were and are truly satisfied with. So I own hundreds of cartridges with system synergy and you could think that the ADC is the more synergistic but it's not that way. My room/system goes beyond that " synergistic " you mentioned.
In the ADC review thread you will find out that no one ADC 26/27 owner posted is " ordinary or worse " and do you know why you can't find out all over the internet that kind of post?: easy, because is truly outstanding:
Btw, it makes no sense to post something as what you posted with out listen ( in the last six months. ) the astonishing ADC 26/27.
But the ADC cartridge is not the " big deal " in reference to the cartridge motor that's the main subject in this discussion, the Lyra is other example and exist many more that confirms the critical importance of the cartridge motor quality design levels. This is the subject.
Why not try to enhance the cartridge motor dialogue instead of that kind of post that helps no one.
So, if you postulate that small difference in generators are very important and we should focus on them (and if you are correct), then there must be something truly special and unique in the standard ADC’s generator that makes it "the best of the best."
What I can tell you is this: Pritchard ( that pass away. ) patented his Induced Magnet cartridge invention principle in 1960 and from that year all the ADC cartridge models came with the IM principle .
Pritchar sold ADC to BSR and founded Sonus Co. where his top of the line and latest cartridge design was the very good performer ( I owned two samples. ) Sonus Dimension 5.
Well, no single ADC/BSR or Sonus model comes near the very high quality performance levels of the ADC 26/25. Not even Pritchard him self took success to outperformed the 26/27.
Why? is something I have not a precise explanation and I think no other person could have either.
What was happened down " there " against the other Pritchard cartridge models gone with pritchard for ever.
There are lots of induced magnet systems out there - Stanton, Grado, Bang and Olufsen, Glanz and many others. ADC is certainly not unique in devising a magnetic circuit different from the standard moving magnet designs. I enjoy my ADC and other brands and they all perform at a high level.
I would not claim that one is better than the other. Like speakers, cartridges are highly system dependent. It is enough for me to appreciate their unique qualities without engaging in "cartridge olympics."
Just to clear up some information posted earlier about he AT15Sa and the AT15ss/20ss stylus/cantilever questions:
I am the original owner of an AT15Sa I purchased back in 1976 from a rather unscrupulous dealer. I was told that I was getting an AT15ss and in fact I was supplied with the factory frequency curve graph which stated AT15ss. But the body of the cartridge is labeled AT15Sa, yet I was told that the stylus was an AT15ss. The visor guard is not printed with anything on it in terms of identity of the stylus.
I later purchased a NOS AT15ss replacement stylus, which is printed on the visor AT15ss. But when I studied it carefully, I noticed that the Beryllium cantilever is rather straight, it's not very obviously tapered as the "original" stylus was. I also noticed that the Beryllium has a nice high polish/goldish color to it and the Original stylus is a dull aluminum finish. After a lot of reading and study, I determined that the original stylus was in fact a standard AT15Sa, tapered aluminum stylus, not the 15ss I was sold with a bait and switch graph of response included.
The new AT15ss stylus I installed sounded worlds above the AT15Sa tapered aluminum. I have since picked up several NOS AT20ss stylus' which I currently run and the cartridge is pretty much beyond belief in performance. I have no thoughts of replacing this with any modern cartridge....
@dimitry , I see my youngest Slavic brother is very attentive: ''I see someone is removing perfectly reasonable posts… Who might that be''? Well I was as surprised as you but my reason was that this was my post and the ''someone'' are the moderators who do this on Raul's request. The old members know this for some time now. However his insulting posts are still present which means that nobody complained about . This also may mean that nobody cares about his opinions about other members. BTW ''Informer'' is the name for those who are not well in English.
Well even those who have never followed any lessons in logic know what ''inclusion relation'' means. So if one state that ADC 26 is ''the best there is'' this also apply for, say, Etna, Skala and Atlas. Those are among others designed by J. Carr. The only authority in our forum whom Raul admire and recognise as even bigger authority than himself. But even his indestructible ''super ego'' realised that this can't be true. So my advise to J. Carr to simple 'copy' the ''motor'' of the ADC 26 in order to'' improve'' his carts was too much to swallow. This was the reason to ask moderators to remove my (innocent?) post. He is obviously not as stupid as I always thought.
If Nandric' assumption is correct this forum is definitely taking a wrong turn.
By way of a counter measure I would suggest the moderator to introduce an algorithm with the coded instruction that every post using the combination of the words 'rauliruegas' and 'stupid' and/or 'ignorant' will be automatically removed. That should 'clean up' things quite a bit.
But I guess this post will be removed before anyone gets the change to read it.....
Against stupidity even the gods themselves contend in vain. Indeed.
"The Gods Themselves" written by Isaac Asimov. A story about worlds apart and so quite literally. Anyone read the book lately ? I think it´s his finest. What would you say about ?
Ignorant is a person that in a specific subject has no know-how.
Are you and expert in every MUSIC/audio subjects?, I think you are not and exactly like me you and me are ignorants in several MUSIC/audio subjects. Of course that there are different igbnorance levels depending of that know-how levels in a specific issue.
Why is a big deal for you the ignorant word when no one in the world is " expert " in all subjects?
Here what means that word that I certainly not " invented ":
If something has the white color then we have to say has the white color why any one could try to put/say a different color when is white. Makes no sense.
you can read / between other things. ) : " lack of understanding ".
If some one read 4-6 times ( what ever. ) the same " explanation " on one or more specific subjects and 4-6 times that person just does not change its way of thinking because he just does not understand the premises then belongs to that link definition.
Please help me and share here how you call to a stupid person. Which is the word you use to?
I normally use the words I have in my vocabulary, I have no others !
Ignorant and stupidity/stupid is not an insult, is something that to some one is " happening "/living it.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
