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 @sdrsdrsdr : "
Trial and error is still the way, wouldn’t you agree? " certainly is an important part in the test/evaluation process and critical when we have not on hand all the information need to make the " rigth " set up that even if we could do it sometimes we don't like what we listen about.
"""
I’m new to mm cartridges so I’m undecided. I can appreciate that both have there strengths but am not ready to declare one is obviously more superior than the other. """
good statement with good foundation. I remember when started this thread/adventure where for several months maybe years? I declared the MM/MI superiority and even I had in the thread a dialogue with Lyra very well regarded J.Carr designer where I told him that the MM/MI alternative was superior one and with lower distortion levels and he posted that LOMC designs in reality are way lower in the distortion level issue and better alternative.
In those times I used the 95% of my listening time trhough MM/MI cartridges and sometimes I listened to MC ones, I was really exited about my " discovery " with the MM/MI alternative and buying/testing " hundreds " of cartridges ( I still am but in different way. ).
After time things came a little down and I gave more opportunity to the LOMC alternative because I owned several top cartridges and then started to understand and identify with my both ( MM/MI and LOMC. ) in deep experiences foundation the differences in between listening to the best cartridge performers in both alternatives that through the time gave me some " certainty " in what I posted here: LOMC cartridge is a superior alternative but to recognize that goes not in detriment of the very good MM/MI alternative because it's a very good alternative.
"""
My mc cartridges are in the modest price range of $2k - $4k range. """
I don't know the cartridge designs you own today but the Transfiguration Temper W you owned or still own is way better design that the price could means. I owned the Temper V, the Phoenix and listen in my system the Proteus and I can tell you that Transfiguration LOMC cartridge designs was at very top performance quality levels. Problem was that Transfiguration was a very low profile manufacturer that unfortunatelly today is out of production/market.
Btw, differences between both alternatives belongs at the frequency extremes and perhaps more in the bass range side where the LOMC performs nearer to the nearfield live MUSIC. That is my appretiation on that frequency range through several live MUSIC nearfield sessions.
I want to
thank you for sharing your experience. You saved my pleasure playing vinyl.
Long ago I
was, as a student the proud owner of a Dual 601 with a Dual (=VMS) 20 E
element.
After the
element was worn out I was advised to change to a Denon DL160. Short time after
the CD player was introduced, I sold my Dual and gave away my records.
Collected many CD’s.
Some 20
years later i bought a Denon 5000, and asked the importer of both Dual and
Denon to mount a Denon DL160 again.
Unsatisfied
I changed to an Avid player and bought a VDHul retipped collibri, the results
when playing piano music were dramatic.
In a last
bid I bought a Scheu turntable with a SEAC308 arm from a friend, my budget was
spent so I decided for a simple Shure 97 mxe.
I was quite happy, could play records with piano music even Satie.
My vdHul
was broken for the third time and I could change it for a NOS Denon 301. For me
strange then , I clearly preferred the Shure.
Then I did
read your story, and I remembered from 35 years ago that the change to the
Denon DL160 was not so successful. I started listening to various tests on the
internet /youtube.
I collected
for reasonable prices a vintage Stanton 981, a ACD XML Mrk III and a JVC JVC
20MD4X.
And I
managed to buy original needles (stereodron shibata) for all of them.
I again
enjoy playing records now.
I want to
add my 2 cents to the discussion, is am aware hearing is personal:
1 I
suspect that most of the light and mediocre (as I regard my SAEC) arms are not
good enough for many MC elements. I would like to hear experienced and skilled
opinions on this. (eg see measurements from Korfaudio.com)
2 Most
installed MC’s sound like the old CD players, sharp, lack of dynamics and fundament
3 A
vintage MM element easily engages the music, is less critical for the arm and
preamplifier (some new MM MI elements too)
4 An
MM element is cheaper, gives Less stress when installing, maybe you spoil 200 $
but not the 500 or more. (Many/most MC’s are not worn out but broken)
5 Sadly,
the developers of many modern MM elements try create a flat frequency curve at
the cost of lacking fundament,dynamics and sharp upper regions. The
measurements do not cope with the personal listening
6 An MM element, might be somewhat coloured (so is almost every room) but
everybody can play/stream uncoloured flat frequency files without problems at
low cost, what is the use of trying to compete with a too expensive MC against
a Streamer/ Player /DAC .
I spent too much
money learning, probably de Dual 5000 and the AVID with a MM element would have
been good enough.
I am not sure if Grado cartridges have been discussed on this epic forum.
I recently was able to purchase NOS XTZ(5). As this cart warms up I am becoming very impressed.
My only exposure to the brand recently has been Gold and Sonata. XTZ sounds quite different and not Grado-like. Much like the best Technics or Glanz from the golden era.
Dear @jaak : Great experiences and agree with you in your 3, 4 and 6 opinion about, in the other experieces it's not a disagreement with you but only to explain ( some other time. ) why you had those experiences that I know why.
The 981, ADC JVC are very good examples of the " power " of this MM/MI alternative.
Dear @dimitry : Yes, Grado was discussed here more than one time.
Your XTZ is a great Grado vintage cartridge that even the today top Grado can't outperformed and not easy to find out in NOS condition. Congratulations for that, the XTZ is the top of the Grado Z series. In those times set you back 750.00.
This Grado can't be beated not only by other Grado today models but not even for the best MM/MI vintage ones ! !
Dear @indieroehre and friends : With any doubt a high lost for we analogphiles, he re-tipped several of my cartridges MM/MI/LOMC samples. Rest in peace.
Dear friends : Over the time on this thread and along the MM/MI vintage ( mainly. ) cartridges " discovery " came too the cartridge cantilevers/stylus shapes subjects that if we analize both cartridge parts we can " follow " its important role/history in the cartridge industry developed through the years.
I would like to start talking about cantilevers and first than all is important to be aware that cartridge cantilever does not makes MUSIC but is an important part in the cartridge design because at the end it's whom hold the stylus tip and this is its main target but things are that the cartridge stylus LP grooves tracking modulations develops the movements of those groove modulations along other " movements " to the cantilever and the best cantilever is the one that does not develops any kind of additional resonances/vibrations by it self ( this is the ideal cantilever but just does not exist. ) .
We all know that in reality all cantilevers ( it does not matters its build material/shape/lenght used. ) develops additional resonances/vibrations/movements that the transducer convert in " sound " and this " sound " unfortunatelly degrades what is recordedd on those LP grooves so in the cartridge manufacturers " hands " is the cantilever build material of choice for its different cartridge models and ceratinly to the market price point they want it.
In our beloved vintage MM/MI cartridges the " rule " ( for whatever reasons. ) was aluminum material/aluminum alloy where its Young Modulus it's to lower as it's its value in the Mohs scale making aluminum more resonant that what could be desired for and obviously putting colorations in the final MUSIC reproduction by the transducer.
Aluminum alloys normally could comes with choice of alternatives as: cooper, silicon, magnesium, manganeso, etc, etc and those kind of alloys helps for the self cantilever resonances can goes a little lower. Example: Sumiko Talisman uses magnesium in its cantilever alloy.
The manufacturers due to the very high competence for the cartridge market really figth in between trying to get the higher part of that market t and we can see that some manufacturers used aluminum diamond coated cantilevers or aluminum gold plating cantilevers as Empire or as Empire whom used " aluminum with boron vapored internally inertial damped, tapered alloy cantilever ". In theory for the cantilever self resonances could goes lower.
Then appeared beryllium cantilever material in the top cartridge models that been better than aluminum for that task but stilll was not the " ideal " one. Almost all of us like it a lot the beryllium colorations even that degrades the cartridge signal.
Btw, Audio Technica used too ( as Empire ) the cantilever gold plating.
In the task to lower the cantilever music/sound degradation came other technical better materials than beryllium like ruby ( Grace ), sapphire ( B&O, ADC ), titanium (ADC) and then technically the best cantilever material ( by a wide margin. ) boron ( Technics,AT,etc. ) that's in second place down diamond for that kind of cartridge task.
There is no MM/MI with diamond cantilever and Boron had and has a wide success used in cantilevers by any kind of vintage and today cartridges: MM/MI/MC.
In the other side the stylus shape " history " is way interesting and all of us are witness of that developed history.
As aluminum was the rule for cantilevers spherical/conical was the " rule " for stylus shape till Grado patented the elliptical shape.
Even in those times manufacturers had on sale cartridge ( Supex ) models that came with 2 different stylus shape ( this is that when a customer bougth the cartridge when the box was opened inside came two different stylus: conical and ellipthical.
Other manufacturers gave the choice of stylus shape to their customers taking advantage of the cartridge replacement stylus.
Elliptical stylus shape were manufactured with different dimensions , example>: 0.3x0.8, 0.2x0.7, etc, etc. Yes, normally cartridges with elliptical stylus shape performs not only with better quality performance but more important is that pick up LP grooves recorded information that conical shape can't do it. So, it puts us nearer to the recording.
But what for me was an still is not only a " departure " in the cartridge industry that puts it at a way higher spot that maybe no one could imagined was the invent made by Noiro Shibata ( JVC. ) with the " outstanding " new Shibata stylus shape that with out that gentleman invent maybe the Replicant 100 does not existed today.
For me the Shibata created a revolution in the cartridge industry followed for an evolutions that still continue..
What happened and followed the Shibata starting in the cartridge market and industry? well all manufacturers wanted that their models could been marketed with the Shibata stylus ( especially for the CD4 recordings. ) but using the true Shibata stylus means all those cartridge manufacturers must have to pay a Shibata fee to JVC and I think that other than Audio Technica no other manufacturer was willing to do it and then started to appers a lot of different " new stylus shapes " that all of them ( with little modification. ) try to mimic the original Shibata but no one had success about and original Shibata stylus stays as " the one ".
Manufacturers wanted that Shibata shape in their stylus cartridges..So, customers started to buy cartridges thinking that they bougth a cartridge with a " better " stylus shape that even the Shibata one and that performs better when that was not true.
As me you can remember some of those modified Shibata stylus shapes : AKG analog 6, Empire LAC and paralinear, Stanton stereohedron, Empire " 4 dimensional " ( series 4000. ), Azden Vital lineal ( Azden had the model with: conical, elliptical and Shibata like stylus shapes. ), Acutex STR, Astatic parabolic, Grace luminal trace and other with names as: fine line, hiperelliptical, micro point line contact, etc, etc.
But no one of those modified stylus shapes had true success, Shibata was the only one that did not disappeared as all the other stylus shape and still today is used by very well regarded manufacturers as Ortofon in its top of the series model Cadenza Black and used too in the Jubilee.
My " hat off " to Noiro Shibata great contribution to the cartridge industry where we all are part of it.
A.J. van den Hul was and is important part of that stylus shape evolution that in those old times and other than the VDH own MM designs his stylus shape was present in the AKG Supernova VDH model and in the Goldring Electro.
Ogura was and is too an important contributor to the evolution with his Line Contact.
Next link is a wide research about the stylus shape history made it by a gentleman through VE forum and that maybe some of you already knew of its existence. From this forum I want to say to that gentleman: thank's for it really appreciated, it's the " bible " about and I hope be of interest for all of you as was and is for me:
Btw and from the net: " Until 1977, diamond stylus tips used to be made from actual, natural, diamonds. After that, the industrial diamond made its entrance. Made in a lab and chemically identical in structure, artificial diamond is nevertheless said to be slightly less durable than real diamond. ""
That could means that the Denon 103 or ADC 25/26 and maybe other before 1977 design cartridges used natural diamond ? I can't know.
This is a photo of the FG S used in Allaerts cartridge. The photo came from an ex-Agoner that I find out in the net and the interesting issue is that Allaerts play time spec for this cartridge is: 10K hours ! ! : ( maybe Allaerts use natural diamond in its stylus tip? )
Dear @dover@halcro @edgewear and friends: Like 2 weeks ago we participated in the halcro diamond thread and had a discussion about the diamond cantilever as build material and we mentioned in reference to the cartridge cantilever diamond as : synthetic/industrial diamond not NATURAL diamond.
All of us own or owned cartridges with cantilever diamond designs.
The posted information regarding that specific regards said that after 1977 started the use of cartridge industrial/synthetic diamond but I found out the next link that says that in the 80's the Audio Technica AT1000 uses NATURAL diamond material in its cantilever:
then choose 82-83 catalogue and you can read in the page 9 that the AT1000 diamond cantilever was made with NATURAL diamond not synthetic.
I don't have the AT1000 manual that gone when I sold this magnificent cartridge performer but I have a dedicated 4 pages AT1000MC " new products " brochure that AT gave me directly and in this brochure I confirm the information of that link, this is what it says:
"" with a natural diamond measuring only......the AT1000 stylus is considerably smaller.............. The cantilever it self is made of natural diamond since diamond transmit....., both sides have been tapered-cut......"
edgewear own the AT1000 and several other cantilever diamond vintage and today cartridges and probably he has all the cartridge manuals and maybe one or some can re-confirm about. Dover owns at least the Dynavector Karat Nova 13D and has good friends inside Dyna that maybe can re-confirm too and obviously Halcro too.
In the other side here in Agon post 1-2 cartridge re-tippers that unfortunatelly I can't remember their agon moniker for they can chime about.
A main direct source that can confirm about is @jcarr . I re-visited the Ortofon, Lyra and other web-sites with out luck on that regards.
I think that for all of us could be interesting to know for sure what is happening down there not only in the old times but today.
Your help/advise it's really appreciated. Thank's in advance.
Raul, unfortunately the cartridges with diamond cantilever all came to me without the documentation, which often seems more rare than the cartridges themselves. If these are included you pay a hefty premium. So when given a choice....
Dear @edgewear : Thanks and I understand that because it happened to me too.
I will follow making a research about to cover up that hole in my cartridge knowledge levels and in the mean time with the evidence we have my take is that all those vintage/80´s top of the line MC cartridges with diamond cantilever design came with natural diamond cantilever build material not synthetic one.
In the mean time perhaps some one could tell us what is happening about with today cartridges design.
Dear @dimitry : Could be but for cartridges boron rod it's a little better because its less resonant against pipe/hollow. Yes this one is lower in weigth but more resonant too and this " resonant " means that the transducer is adding non recorded signal information that degrades it.
If you take a piece of pipe/hollow and hit it with other metal you can hear a " clunk " sound and maybe eco and if you do the same with rod the sound is totally dulled and no eco.
@rauliruegas, as it is unusual for any two systems to sound exactly the same, what is colored? I believe the subject changes from one system to another and then depends on the taste of the individual. If the definition of colored is "not having a perfectly flat frequency response curve," then all of our systems are colored to one degree or another. My system is dynamically colored because it automatically changes frequency response with volume. Does this color my evaluation of associated equipment? From a purely sonic perspective, sure. My system, my taste. The tonal balance of a system, it's frequency response is, within limits a matter of taste. Other parameters are not a matter of taste such as a cartridges tracking ability or a turntables rumble level. How things work. There are aspects of sound that are also not a matter of taste such as a system's imaging capability.
I am glad you are not a "crazy changer on load impedance." It would drive us all crazy:-)
Dear @mijostyn : ""
If the definition of colored is "not having a perfectly flat frequency response curve," then all of our systems are colored to one degree or another. "
Well that's only at random definition and not precise one because other that FR what contributes more to " colored " are the every kind of distortions developed by each audio system that we can put at " minimum " in the best case but that we can´t avoid.
Live MUSIC has its own or natural " color " that's what shines every time we attend to live events, a way different " color " than reproduction of recordings in a system.
There are wrong/bad colorations and not so bad or even " good " colorations.
The best audio systems are those where the owner choosed the best trade-offs for the " color " during playback stay as near as " uncolored " and near to the real MUSIC COLOR..
Unfortunatelly almost all of us are heavy biased to what we like and full of subjectivity and our bias probably is what makes the greater system to system differences.
I consider my self inside that " almost " audiophiles that are not totally biased by subjectivity but more in equilibrium along be objective, not easy but I'm still learning about.
@mijostyn : ""
My system is dynamically colored because it automatically changes frequency response with volume..""
if I remember you posted in other thread that your speakers at 95db SPL is how it shines the most. Is it could means that at that SPL you have flat frequency?
Dear friends: I'm testing seriously my LOMC Azden GM-P5L that's high compliance design ( around 24-25 cu. ) and that runs at only 1.25 grs on VTF with an output level of 0.2mv.
I brought Azden to this forum for the first time ever ( as Acutex cartridges too. ) and I bougth it through ebay NOS several years ago when I was hunting every single day for MM/MI cartridges and
My sample is not broken yet, has only 6 hours of play but very promised what I listened.
I knew Azden almost at the same time that Acutex and both very good quality performers.
Were in those times when I was aware ( I did not know it before. ) that Azden was the manufacturer of Acutex, some Empire models and other cartridges by other sellers.
Here where I stated that through the Acutex review:
Dear friends : The Azden it is " opening " faster that though. I tested inside the VTF range. First at 1.5grs. to help its opening after a few hours I gone down to 1.25grs. ( manufacturer advise. ) and finally at the lower range of 1.0 grs.
What was a good " surprise is that even at 1.0grs. the GM P5L traked with no trouble the Telarc 1812. Good.
Looking to its manual you can read: " while for the stylus tip, a 0.1mm cube nude diamond that was polished to provide a line contact....". Inside the manual I found out a frequency response chart where stated that my sample has an output level of 0.19mv measured in both channels and measurements were made in 12.3 82 and appears the signature/seal of whom did it. Frequency is flat down to 3db at 20hz.
Today a friend of mine will comes to my place with his Etna SL and after our session he will goes with the Azden to test it in his system and tomorrow sunday he will come back to return the Azden that I need it this sunday because at the afternoon other friend will comes with his Koetsu diamond stone ( I think Blue Lace, not totally sure. ) for we can have a fully test session.
Actually, @rauliruegas , the damping is a property of the material, not shape.
A stiff metal like boron will have about 2.5% native damping. Presence of an elastomer may increase system damping to 10-15%, but may not affect the primary flexural mode.
Pipe cantilever will have its’ primary flexural resonance well above the rod (resonant frequency is a property independent of damping), which is why Technics and Sony invested many millions into their boron pipe production lines.
What you are describing (incorrectly) is likely a difference in frequency response, not a difference in damping.
And above analyses were done with Boron material properties, one cantilever end fixed in 6 degrees of freedom and the end with the stylus mass free to move in any direction.
I extracted the first three modes. The first two were flexure in lateral and vertical directions at identical frequency. The third was an axial extension/compression mode at ~65KHz.
Dear @dimitry : Finally we all have facts on the pipe vs rod boron cantilevers damping. Thanks’s for that, really appreciated.
Yes, small one benefit but this could speaks by it self why boron was and is the choosed cantilever build material for almost all cartridge manufacturers.
Btw, by my surprise the vintage Azden GM P5L LOMC cartridge that I’m listening came too with boron pipe cantilever and is stated in its manual.
Dear friends : Some of us owned or still own this vintage no magnets cartridge design that to my first hand experiences with well it's an " experience " for some of you that never listened.
I'm talking of the Micro-Acoustics 630 . You can read about in this link page 69:
Dear friends: This cartridge is not M or MI design but moving flux motor. I know some of you own it, I owned the 300/200/100 models and still have one of those samples.
As me the owners of these cartridges, manufactured by Astatic, already know its very good performance.
Dear friends : I was and will follow sharing/posting those kind of Audio magazine cartridge reviews of top models that some or many of you owned or still own and the information could be interesting too for the newcomers.
In the other side the links not only gives us the cartridge review but shows all the pages of the magazine where we can read the way of thinking in those old times by reviewers, manufacturers, audiophiles and the kind of audio items advertasing.
In fact what we can read on each number of the Audio magazine is an important part of the audio industry history. I think is important for any true audiophile to have some kind of knowledge level about.
Btw, in those times the USA magazine that were " important " were: Stereo Review that when started its name was: HiFi Stereo Review, High Fidelity and Audio that when started its name was Audio Engeenering.
Of these ones Audio was considered by many audiophiles as the " high end " of the magazines. Those magazines were the non-underground and with excellent reviewers that really tooks seriously all what they did it and not only audio items reviews but many audio articles where many of them have even today not only usable information but information that was the today " foundation " of several audio subjects on analog, amplifiers, phono stages, music and the like.
Names that I remember like: B.King, Pisha, L.Feldman, A.Cordesman, B.Wyhte, et, etc.
Pisha as Baerwald,Stevenson and others developed too an alignment for tonearm/cartridge that coincide with Löfgren solution. Other example is B.King where Lamm industries today all products measurements,showed in its site, are made by B.King laboratories. Cordesman goes from Audio to one of the " underground " ST/TAS magazine.
I started to learn audio through those USA magazines. I think that the underground magazines people learned several issues from those USA and UK vintage magazines.
Through all those vintage magazines the audio industry history was writed.
Audio magazine started in the late 40’s and the other two in the 50’s.
For the ones interested there are " gold " down there. Keep in touch.
Without a doubt, “Audio” magazine was a gem among all hobbyist publications. I only wish I had saved all the issues. Every time I re-read an article, I am reminded of important points. The Gordon Holt era issues of S’phile are also worthy, although not quite up to the level of Audio.
Unfortunately, as time went on those mags became more commercialized leaving a void into which Harry Pearson could crawl. Now that magazine has become even more commercialized passing Stereophile in that regard. Now I read only Stereophile on a regular basis.
Dear @lewm : Good that we are in agreement and as you everytime that re-read any of the Audio magazines I still own almost always reminded audio issues that through the years always helps me.
The very high grade/levels of commitment of the Audio magazine and each one of its contributors showed number after number was unique.
The reviews an articles showed that all of them were not " highly " compromised with the advertasers and audio items reviewed as is evident in today ( from some years now. ) STH or TAS magazines.
Here an excellent whole review that confirm what we are talking about even in the review made it an ABX blind test and look what the reviewers stated that confirm their non-compromise with audio manufacturers. Try to read it all.
Btw, these Mark Levinson monobloks still are a " gem ". Page 64:
Anyway, you can compare the amplifier review 80 number and this one in the last year the magazyne appeared and seems to me very similar in its commitment and the normal advertasing. Page 59:
I still own and use (on a bedroom system) The ADC XLM...mk III I think. Wonderful cartridge. One of the few that came close...or maybe even surpassed it was the Sonus Blue Gold. Another Pritchard drsign.
While we are praising vintage MI cartridges, let me put in a word for the B&O MMC1. I was lucky to find an NOS sample several years ago and then I was lucky that Raul convinced me to listen to it, rather than selling it. Along with the Acutex 320s (both versions), these are my favorites. The MMC1 is good enough that Peter Ledermann based his business on repairing them initially and then on recreating the design.
Dear @secretguy : You are rigth, the Pritchard designs were excellent ones and yes when he losted ADC he started Sonus and your Blue Gold is better that what people could think.
His latest cartridge design was the Sonus Dimension 5 I own it but even that is really good and a keeper model can't even the quality level performance of his way early ADC 26 design that for me it's the best Pritchard cartridge legacy.
Btw, in those times the ADC top of the line was the Astrion that was designed when Pritchard left ADC and in reality that cartridge was half design by him and the finished design was made for the new ADC owners.
Dear @lewm : B&O even in this thread was not " lucky " enough for its cartridges amkes audiophiles turn out their sigth and several of them really missed the opportunity.
Years ago and before I started this thread I owned and own my first B&O MI cartridge that was the MMC20CL that was its top of the B&O line ( very good performer. ) and predecesor of the MMC1 that has a little better quality performance levels and agree with you that the MMC1 is a keeper too
"
The MMC1 is good enough that Peter Ledermann based his business on repairing them initially and then on recreating the design. "
I think that through the years PL learned and improved his knowledge levels thank's to the B&O engineering but that " recreating " you named was away from the very high quality sound that we can listen through the original MMC1.
Maybe he did not try to mimic the B&O and certainly his SMMC1 specs are truly inferior to the original B&O. Things are that I sold my sample because I own too the MMC2 that gave us the 98% of MMC1 and when the PL SMMC1 appeared in the market I bougth ( at blind. ) it and sold it again due that I was really dissapointed with: the was MMC2 superior.
I think that due that B&O designed its cartridges mainly to mate B&O cartridge plug-in tonearms they probably never had the opportunity to know the cartridges real quality performance. Who knows, only thinking about.
As every one can note all are MI cartridges too. and looking about we can say that the best vintage cartridges were not MM designs by Audio Technica, Grace, Stanton/Pickering, Technics ( save for the 100CMK4/205 MK4 ) and others but were MI/IM designs even the best vintage by Ortofon models were MI too.
There are more reviews to share here.
Btw, I already linked the Astatic MF-100 cartridge and I discovery that in reality the top of the line Astatic was not the 100 but the 100MR that came with micro ridge stylus shape. I have to say that I never seen on ebay or other seller sites.
It is interesting what you say about the soundSmith moving iron cartridges. Because of my happiness with the MMC1, I have considered stepping up to purchase a soundSmith cartridge, probably The Voice or a higher price version. If you, or anyone else, have heard any of those latter and have any thing to say about how they compare to the MMC1, that would be of interest.I have actually wondered how and in what way the high priced SoundSmith cartridges could be superior to the MMC1. I know PL particularly likes the Sussuro.
I just finished reading what is published on Soundsmith's website related to Peter and I could find no mention of either him designing for B&O nor that any of the MIs they made were anything to do with Peter.
Tomic, I don't think Mijostyn has ever heard the MMC1, so his testimony regarding the Voice would not address the comparison between the two. More likely, Raul has heard examples of both.
theo, I think the premier B&O cartridges predate the existence of SoundSmith as a business entity, even though I have no doubt that PL himself was familiar with the early MMCs, when they were current production. But I don't think he was designing or building cartridges back then.
Dear @theophile : No PL did not works in the design or manufacture any of the B&O cartridges.
I posted that he made and still has for sale the SMMC1 that if he wanted to mimic the MMC1 he failed because the original MMC1 and even the MMC2 are superior cartridges quality level performance than the SMMC1. Maybe he only wanted to build something " similar ".
The Voice is very good but with different " color than the MMC1. You need to listen the MMC1 to figure out what I'm talking about.
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.
