Montepilot, My phonostage only goes up to 60K loading so that's where the Garrott P77 is loaded to. I achieve best sound with the M20FL at well below 47K Ohms so I believe you should hear very fine sound at 47K. As Raul says....it's all system-dependent anyway but I wouldn't fret about it if you can't change?
Trust your ears. |
Dear Downunder: Yes I try Ikeda and Orsonic but I prefer the Belldream and as you point out: nice price too.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Montepilot: As you know the MM/MI " experience " is almost " new " to almost all of us and this means that we are still learning about, especially on the cartridge load ( impedance/capacitance ) and VTA/SRA set up.
Time to time we are discovering ( and the people share with us in the thread ) " new moves/play " that permit a better cartridge quality performance.
So IMHO I think that we don't have ( yet ) especific and absolute rules.
For some time I don/did't have the time to try a different figure to 100K along no phono stage adding capacitance ( only the one on the IC cable. ) to load my cartridges.
When I start this thread I find that almost all the cartridges I tested performed a little better over 70K than 47K but its performances at 47K was very good too ( in those times I was using around 200pf on capacitance. ).
Certainly the Phonolinepreamp and due to its each one design performs different with different load settings, it seems to me that the load impedance is part of the cartridge " fine tunning " process.
There are several persons that are enjoying their MM/MI cartridges at 47K and even at a lower value like Halcro..
Now, as important is the cartridge load ( impedance/capacitance ) set up as important are all the other " normal " cartridge set up parameters. Obviously that the quality/execution design on each one of our phono stages makes a difference.
The MM/MI alternative is no different than the MC one where if we want to achieve the best cartridge performance we have to take in count every single " factor " on the overall set up: matched tonearm, cartridge overhang alingn, Azymuth, VTA/SRA, VTF, Anti-skate, right load impedance/capacitance, etc, etc. So and in the case of cartridge loading is desired that you can " play " with different impedance/capacitance setting values to that " fine tunning " but if you can't go over 47K this does not means that you can't hear a good performance with a MM/MI cartridge because at 47K you will hear a very good performance.
Btw, I will try ( I can't say when. ) to test some of my cartridges again at 47K ( and maybe at 30K. ). Dgarretson already build an add-on " system " in his phono stage to make infinite cartridge loading settings, I'm sure that he could share his findings with us on the subject.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear friends: The " new tool " on VTA/SRA ( unusual/higher than " normal ". ) set up makes that I start a revision on some cartridge performance and I want to make a " stop " with my findings on the Astatic MF-100 where this new set up changed the overall/whole cartridge quality performance that I knew for the MF-100.
Before the VTA/SRA change the MF-100 was a very good performer if a little " reserved " with no to much excitment or something very especial. The VTA/SRA change " transform " totally the cartridge music presentation for the better way better.
Btw and before go on I want to say what this new VTA/SRA cartridge set up bring to my cartridge evaluations: in the " past " my experiences put the AKG P-100LE at the very top cartridge quality performance where " no one can touch it ", this quality range on the cartridges put the AKG at least two steps further/higher/a-top than any other cartridge I know/tested, well this distance ( 2 steps beyond. ) not only already reduced but in the case of the MF-100 and the B&O MMC2 ( that I'm testing and comparing. ) already even that top quality performance, with the 20FL Super almost there.
No, I don't try yet the AKG P100-LE with the new set up due that one of my cartridge AKG samples is on the " road " ( along my Technics P100CMK4 and others. ) to Van denHul for a " refresh " and I don't want to touch the sample I have here till the other come back to me.
In the other side: yes IMHO the Astatic MF-100 and the B&O MMC2 ( Lewm I would like to hear from you on the MMC1 that you own or any other MMC2/1 owner, thank you. ) are better performer than the Ortofon M20FL Super!!!
It is not easy to think a better or an improve over the 20FL Super quality performance but I find out and in very clear an precise way.
As always I use the same test track recordings where I find that the low bass in the M20FL Super is a little more " colored " and not as detailed, tight and deep like the Astatic and the B&O, these ones have more control on the bass notes and more precision in this frequency range. At the other side of the frequency and more specific at 3khz to 6k/7Khz it happen the same: where the Astatic and B/O are not only precise but with an aptitude/ability to differentiate between notes not only on different " near " sounding " instruments but for example: at the beguining of the Hotel California track the player scratch/rasp ( in spanish " rascar ". ) all the guitar chords at the same time and we heard a pleaseant/crystaline with beautiful harmonics and texture through the 20FL but through the Astatic and B&O we can hear not only that but the single touch/note on each guitar chord in a way that the 20FL can't match, it is not only the sound of that single chord but what it generates on texture/harmonics and overall presentation. Same happen in the mid range and mid bass: the MF-100 and the MMC2 give us more precise/detail/transparency and palpability of the whole venue than the 20FL, even the Astatic and B&O I can say are more refined and with better " sonority " , I don't know if this word exist in English but what I want to say is: the way a musical instrument and the music sounds. How a musical instrument resound. This kind of " sonority " was lost in any other MM/MI/MC cartridge I heard but appear for the very first time with the AKG P-100LE and the Astatic MF-100 along the B&O MMC2. The M20FL has it but in more " modest/reserved/shy " way.
The Astatic MF-100 and B&O MMC2 ability to differentiate " things " on a recording is part of its superiority over the 20FL. I'm not talking here on subtle details or inner detail sound but on the main " melody ", with the " front " main music/recording presentation and ovbiously this kind of differentiate ability makes that the different layers in the soundstage were/are not only more precise but with greater sound instrument definition.
Please don't understood that all these: precision, transparency, definition, etc, etc, that I'm talking about could mean: a lean, cool, analitic music presentation NO I'm talking on full and natural/organic and emotional music performance where more than ever we can distinguish the whole venue where the performance was in place.
All these three cartridges ( MM/MIs ) are great performers but I like it more the Astatic and B&O performance than the 20FL.
It is not easy to make comparisons with audio items with so high quality performance like these MM/MI's cartridges. It take me a little time and track recording test repetition one after one to understand and be clear on what is happening.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Greetings, Raul. Re the M20FL, if I can borrow this; "Now, as important is the cartridge load ( impedance/capacitance ) set up as important are all the other " normal " cartridge set up parameters". This is one finicky cartridge, perhaps the most demanding setup I've experienced in 35+ years. After several Sunday hours of tweaking (Tech. EPA-250 TA), mine opened up with Baerwald alignment, 1.4gm VTF, total cap. 200pF. Loaded at 100k ohms, the bass met mid and high frequencies at 3mm positive VTA. I heard similar response when loading at 50k and 6-7mm (+)VTA, but (IMHO) with some small loss of layering. Lesser attention results in commonplace performance, time well spent. It was as if someone flipped a switch. As of now, this is the best I've heard on my rig, but there is a hint this particular M20FL is restrained by either the OEM Technics headshell or the supplied leads. I would be grateful if you (or anyone) expressed thoughts concerning silver headshell leads? |
For anyone who wants to take on a project, here is a post I made today regarding continuously variable cartridge loading using optocouplers. I posted it to AA as photos are more easily added there. I would be glad to share a parts list if desired. The parts costs is around $150. The number of control pots can likely be reduced from six to four.
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/vinyl/messages/88/881855.html
|
Hi Darren
very nice, but a bit to technical for me :-)
What do you do about adjusting capacitance(pf)? |
Halcro & Raul,
Thanks for your comments.
Regards, |
Dear Montepilot, Just wing it at 47K. Don't worry yet about other load resistances. And remember to use a bit to a lot of positive VTA. Add salt to taste. Cook to a golden brown. |
Dear Timeltel: Yes, it is a good idea to have those silver headshell leads, it makes a difference.
These are the ones that I used to:
http://www.2juki.com/index.php?categoryid=2&p164_item=59&p164_action=item
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Raul @ 01-17-17,
YES, I wholly agree with your Orotofon/Astatic/B&O comparison. If you ever get the chance, please, please, please try the Glanz G5, G7 or MFG-71E. I am sure that your findings will put these among the VERY best performers and replicate the features you are hearing with the elevated set-up of the MF100 and MMC2. I wonder if that set up would have an equally positive impact on the P-76 or, indeed,my Glanz!?
I also use and fully concur with your view of the silver leads (S-50). My Morch DP6 Green Dot is also silver wired straight through to the cartridge leads and this works phenomenally well with the M20 FL Super when set up as advised on this site.
Nice to find some commonalities |
Correction:
"Raul @ 01-17-10" |
Dear Raul, I have been so taken with the M20FL that I have yet to audition my NOS B&O MMC1. I also have an MM20CL, but not an MMC2. My purchase choices were somewhat based on your advice many months ago. For that matter, the Grado TLZ deserves a re-match. If you recall, I found after auditioning it that the stylus assembly was askew in the cartridge body. I then cleaned the contacts and re-installed the stylus, but I have not listened to it again. Further, I now recall that the TLZ sounded best in the good old days with positive VTA, and the tonearm was level this last time. Then there is the AKG p8E and the little praised these days but not forgotten Andante P76. Not to mention the AT20SS. I have miles to go before I sleep. |
Dear Dgob: As I posted these three cartridges are really good but even at this top performance level there are diffrences for the better in the MF-100 and MMC2.
Now, the Astatic MF-100 and the B&O MMC2 has so similar performance that is very hard to say its differences. IMHO both are at the same performance level, both are so neutral and with the same tone balance that with " close eyes " maybe we can't say which one is which one, its music presentation is way similar. Each one cartridge signature?, I can't find it ( in the way we detect the Koetsu signature. ), both has almost no detectable colorations, maybe I need more playing time with both to be more " precise " about.
I can't say how the P-76 react to that VTA/SRA set up, we have to try it: some cartridges will have a benefit but others maybe not, the VTA/SRA is a critical factor and with a so unsual one is hard to generalize about: we have to try, hear and decide.
+++++ " Nice to find some commonalities. " +++++
yes, a confirmation on this kind can/could tell us that we are in a " good road " on the subject.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Lewm: Yes, I know what you mean but in my case my " know-how spirit " tell me to go on, Lewm I have to test more than 80 cartridges!!
Btw, the MMC1 and the MMC2 are same/similar cartridges the difference is that the MMC1 was a B&O " hand selected " cartridge. I could think that the MMC1 quality performance must be at least with the MMC2. I know that you want follow hearing the 20FL but IMHO you have on hand teh B&O that could be worth to test it and find out that is a little better than the 20FL. Anyway, when you can/decide to do it please come back to us and share those experiences.
Btw, as I posted before my Grado " suffer " an improve with that VTA/SRA set up, maybe yours too.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Regards, Raul, Dgob. Thanks for your confirmation. I am hearing a relaxed, almost effortless presentation with the M20FL. However, bass seems slightly muddled with hesitant transitions in the 4-6hz range. Hf's are crisp with excellent definition. My impression is there is a constriction due to capacitance which I do not hear with esp. an AKG-P8E/X8S stylus or a Shure V15-111/Jico SAS stylus. The Shure offers low level detail and timbral accuracy but its neutrality can be punishing with poorly mastered lp's. I am anticipating the change to silver leads will bring additional speed and detail to the rich tonality of the Orto. A cast magnesium headshell is another option, this is a difficult cartridge to dial in. Also, a NOS Grace F9-L on the way to ease the duties of my F9-E, a gold body instead of silver. Anyone know, is there a difference in design or is this simply cosmetic? |
I admire all of you guys spending time to tune, swap and try all those cartridge. It is great service to us, who don't have that amount of time. |
Dear Timeltel: The headshell that I recomended to Downunder is very good option at a fair price.
About the Grace F9 this is what an Agon friend find out:
+++++ " Update; I measured my GRACE F-9 carts, and the "gold" carts (Serial # 346xx & 362xx) have a typical coil-resistance of 470 ohm, & ~420mH, My "silver" (Serial # 985xx) measure 650 ohm & ~400+mH. They do sound different, and I think the "gold" likes slightly higher load..? I normally prefer the "silver". regards Arne Karlsen NORWAY
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My Grace's are silver body.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Regarding Raul's report of VTA and the Astatic MF-100, I can confirm similar results in using an unusually forward VTA with it's 'little brother' the MF-200. For me the more forward VTA with the MF-200 resulted in hearing a cartridge that warrants continued use and sourcing NOS styli for it. Less so with less-forward VTA, to my ears anyway.
Earlier experiments in the thread regarding unusually forward VTA revolved around the Empire 1000ZE/X. I can report that I also prefer a more forward VTA with the Empire's 'younger' brother the 600LAC (in terms of age, the 1000ZE/X was introduced in 1969, the 600LAC around 1983). But, a bit less forward than with the 1000ZE/X.
Having similar results to unusually forward VTA within certain cartridge families makes me wonder about what the designers might have been thinking...or if these cartridges share SRA parameters in common that would in turn affect the user's need to increase VTA.
Also, wondering if these current results have anything to do with compensating for the 15 degree tracking angle (as opposed to the current practice of 20 degrees) that was built in to so many cartridges of those days?
Jim |
M20FL vs Garrott P77
I have just completed a comparison between these 2 MM cartridges....the Ortofon mounted on the Graham Phantom II whilst the P77 was on the Continuum Copperhead.
On all music types there was more body and depth to vocals and double bass with the P77. There was also more width to the soundstage, more 'breathiness' to the vocals, better 'slam' to the bass drum and more delicacy to the cymbals and percussion. All in all....more 'involvement' with the P77.
Now the differences were nowhere near as great as those between the P77 in the Phantom against the P77 in the Copperhead so the real test will be when I move the Ortofon into the Copperhead to see if the tonearm is responsible for the superior performance.
And now a reality check! After this session I switched in my spare Phantom II tonearm with the Dynavector DV1s already loaded and played the same music. The double bass gained a lower octave and a definition and control lacking with both MMs. The cymbals. triangles, bells and percussion gained a shimmer and clarity of overtones and realism missing with both MMs. The midrange, particularly on vocals, did not seem as 'forward' or as deep, airy and 'rounded' as with the MMs but that may simply be a perceived contrast because of the extra extension at both frequency extremes. Solo piano showed a marked improvement towards realism with the caressing of the keyboard and the contact of the felt hammers on the strings. The sustain and vibration of the strings and the continuing overtones resonating on the soundboard simply surpassed the abilities of the MM cartridges.
So as Raul has repeated on many occasions, we needn't pick one type of cartridge over another. LOMCs and MM/MIs have their virtues and limitations and we can enjoy both types depending on our moods and music type. |
Halcro, Are you withdrawing your previous praise of the Orto M20FL Super? Sounds like you are.
I had inquired with Ayre regarding the input capacitance of their p5Xe phono stage. I received a courteous e-mail from Charlie Hansen in which he guesstimated the capacitance as "100 to 200 pF". He then went on to advise me that I should stop worrying about capacitance and get myself a good MC cartridge. Oh well.... (I did respond by telling him that I do own a Colibri, an Urushi, and an Ortofon MC7500. I dislike condescension.) |
Dear Halcro: What are you missing when load the 20FL over 30K?, I want at least imagine what is happening because other that your set up no other person report something similar with that cartridge.
Thank you in advance.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Lewm: It is no surprise tome that Ayre/Hansen attitude about cartridges and I understand it.
Almost no phono stage designer is " aware " of the importance that can have the MM/MI alternative and that's why almost all of them make their designs with focus on MC cartridges, the MM option in their designs are only that: an option but not a " true " option where the design is at the same quality level than the MC stage.
It is " normal " that this happen because the market and the whole marketing strategy with phono stages is centered in MC cartridges.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Not at all Lewm. I stand by my praise of the Orto M20FL as I do for the Garrott P77 in a review almost a year ago. All I was stressing is that it is easy to become 'carried away' with a certain component or a 'change' in sound or even different emphases in tonal comparisons. That's why I wrote......"Reality Check" with my comparison to the LOMC Dyna DV1s. Now just to put THAT into perspective, I've found the DV1s and the ZYX Universe to be the best MC cartridges (out of Koetsu Urishi, VdH Grasshopper aka Symphonic Line, Lyra Helikon, Lyra Titan, Clearaudio Concerto, Clearaudio Insider Gold) I have ever heard in my system.
I also suspect that whilst our ears (and brain) have good memories for many aspects of the sounds we have heard, they also have poor memories for other more clinical aspects of the sounds we have heard. Whilst I listen to the M20FL I am in awe at its cohesiveness, naturalness and overall convincing musical presentation. I hear the highs and and the lows and whilst I recall that they are not quite as extended as ZYX or big Dyna, I don't remember the exact extent of the differences?
Our memory for some aspects of sound reproduction are so short that sometimes even the time lapse of moving the same cartridge from 1 arm to another (and going through the set-up procedure) is enough to 'even out' the differences. For instance if I didn't have 2 identical Universe cartridges installed on my DaVinci and Phantom II arms which enabled me to instantly compare arms, the differences were so subtle that I'm sure I would have been unable to hear that the DaVinci/Universe combination was slightly superior in all aspects over the Phantom?
The point I think I am making is that there are indeed many great attributes to the old and cheap MM/MI cartridges which were largely forgotten over the last 20 years. But there are also certain endemic qualities to the very best LOMC cartridges that MM/MI cartridges may not be able to match?
So why do we need to proclaim one technology "The Best"? It's a question that's becoming more and more relevant to most of the differing methodologies throughout the reproduction chain IMHO.
Regards Henry |
Well said Henry. There is no best, only best for you.
Lew, have you compared your MM's to your Koetsu Urushi recently ? |
Dear Halcro: When I mounted the B&O MMC2 I don't aware that the VTA/SRA was higher than the unusual one but I don't aware because was sounding very good but when I start making comparisons against the 20FL and the MF-100 I fall in count that something was wrong and then I lower the VTA/SRA and Voilá everything change for the better ( especially the frequency extremes. ).
I wonder what could happen in your set up if you " play " a little with the VTA/SRA 20FL set up, maybe is worth to do it because what you are hearing are not my experiences with that cartridge. To play a little with that VTA/SRA set up is only a thought about.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Halcro: +++++" But there are also certain endemic qualities to the very best LOMC cartridges that MM/MI cartridges may not be able to match? " +++++
this can be true as the other way around too, unfortunatelly you don't have the opportunity yet to hear the " very best MM/MI's " only the very best LOMC's.
+++++ " So why do we need to proclaim one technology "The Best" +++++
I don't think is need it and at the end maybe a useless proclaim, both technologies have its own trade-offs.
Btw Downunder: in a purist point of view there is an exist " the best " and certainly not that " only the best for you ": NO, I mean " the best " ( if not: why do you buy the A-90 and in the near future the " next " one. ). This is not the place to open this window but think about.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Halcro and Downunder, I agree with all that Halcro wrote about the fleeting and self-deceptive nature of our sense memories. That's one reason why, to the consternation of many of my "normal" friends who enter our living room, which is also my listening room, I now have three turntables set up across one wall. The MMs ride in the slate Lenco with Dynavector DV505 tonearm. So far, I have used only the stock headshells.
The Koetsu is in a drawer resting right now; I can mentally compare it to the Colibri which resides in the same tonearm/turntable where the Koetsu previously ran. The Colibri is faster, drier, can ferret out tiny details.
Anyway, I can play an LP with the M20FL and then pop it on to either of the other turntables for comparing cartridges, albeit as Raul would be quick to note the tonearms and turntables are not identical. (My wife, as you may imagine, is a saint She hasn't said a word about this craziness. I am wondering whether she has hired a hit man.) I like to think that I "know" what the different tables and arms contribute to the sound and can make some ballpark estimate as regards the cartridges, therefore. Right now, I have been comparing the two Ortofons, M20FL vs MC7500. There are some remarkable similarities between the two despite the very different technologies. The M20FL gives a bigger, juicier sound; I especially like the way it does the overtones of a piano or of the human voice. The MC7500 is a bit more clinical but not excessively so. It reveals more of the micro and maybe a little less of the macro. (This is what all of us have been saying all along this thread about the best of the MM/MI cartridges compared to good MCs. It must be true.) I need to mount a DV505 on the SP10 (one of the other two tables) so at least the tonearms will be the same on two of three tables.
Is anyone listening to the new Garrott p77i or its more expensive sibling (forgot the model name)? |
From Ortofon Denmark; they had to do a bit of sleuthing to find out what the cartidge was; first they denied ever hearing of it:
From the picture we've concluded it is a VMS20 MKII, but with a different front stylus assembly. A model was made with a larger front assembly than the normal VMS types, named M15 and M20 (first varian M15 arrived in 1960). They came in two variants M20E and M20FL, where the difference is the diamond, FL for Fine Line, E for Elliptical.
Specifications: Sensitivity: 4 mV Channel separation: 25 dB Channel balance: 1,5 dB Tracking ability: 80um Compliance: 25 um/mN Frequency range: 20 – 25 kHz Traking force: 1,5 gram. Diamond: Nude Fine - line Weight: 5 gram
Best,
Kristian |
Dear Lewm: +++++ " The M20FL gives a bigger, juicier sound; I especially like the way it does the overtones of a piano or of the human voice. The MC7500 is a bit more clinical but not excessively so. It reveals more of the micro and maybe a little less of the macro. (This is what all of us have been saying all along this thread about the best of the MM/MI cartridges compared to good MCs. It must be true.) " +++++
that is an endemic MM/MIs characteristic and I love it because this is the way that IMHO we hear/heard real music in that frequency range and where the music " reside " and if the MM/MIs perform in that way can/could be that is the way the music is in the recording.
Through the years the type of reviews made that all of us put more interest/attention on tiny details of the music audio system performance than in the " main " music quality performance. We can enjoy the music with and with out those tiny details that even in a live event we are not aware/discern where they are or comes from.
IMHO what give us emotional enjoy listening music is how the music mains " melody " wake up our feelings and this " music main melody " reside mainly to the whole midrange frequency range ( I'm not saying that the other frequency ranges are not important, everything is important. ) where the MM/MIs shows better that endemic characteristic.
I have to say that as we go up on the quality performance that shows different cartridges what we heard is more " detail "/resolution/deep bass/transparency at frequency extremes but that endemic MM/MIs characteristic is mantained and enriched with that frequency extremes improvements.
IMHO the 20FL are 3-4 steps from the top, your B&O MMC1 or MMC2 are IMHO two setps up to the 20FL.
Now, that the 20FL could be compared with top LOMC ones is IMHO a good compliment but the quality performance on the MM/MI alternative certainly not end with the 20FL but goes beyond it! and this fact IMHO is what makes so exiting this MM/MI alternative. IMHO we are discovering only a part of the " iceberg ".
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
OK. I will listen to the MMC1 to see if I can agree. "3-4 steps down from the top" for the poor M20FL Super. That is really cruel, Raul. In a month or two, no one here will even recall that we discussed it as a possible best of show. I presume your re-evaluation is based on using lots of "positive VTA" and a 100K load resistance. |
Re: loading resistance
For Montepilot and others interested in trying loading higher than the standard 47K, this may help. You should not need to buy a new adjustable phono stage or build a more complicated variable device like Dgarreston described. But be advised I'm not an expert concerning electronics so if I misstate anything, hopefully wiser words will overlay mine.
The conventional 47K load in most phono stages (stand alone or incorporated into full function preamps) is achieved by a 47K resistor soldered across the hot and ground leads for each channel. With resistance, you can load down (from 47K to 20K, 10K, 1K, 400, etc.) but not up to a higher resistance. Therefore, to experiment with 70K, 100k, or any other higher value, the standard 47K resistor (each channel) should be replaced with the highest value you are likely to try. If you install a 100K value you can still try lower loads (for example 47K to make direct comparisons). This may be done with external loading. Unless your phono stage has two inputs (most don't) you can do this by constructing a "loading" plug with adaptor for your single pair of phono inputs.
Buy a pair of "Y" RCA plugs of good quality with two female inputs and one male output connector, plus a pair of standard (such as found at the ends of any interconnect cable) RCA plugs. Solder an appropriate value resistor across the hot and ground inside each standard RCA plug. Then insert a new Y plug into each phono input. Plug your tonearm cable into one of the females on the Y and your newly configured "loading" plug into the other female of the Y. Choose the value for the loading plug to bring the newly installed 100K down to the desired total value.
OK I'll admit I have not made this change to my stand-alone phono stage as yet but I will soon. Good luck and have fun. |
Dear Pryso, Thanks very much for your suggestion. Steve Dobbins who designed my turntable alluded to a suggestion like this that he thought was much easier than the internal modifications I was considering. Your confirmation of this method is enough to have me pursue this as a solution. Much appreciation. The only other problem I have yet to surmount is the strong RFI I get when using the MM input of my phono stage. The designer sent me some resistors to solder to the rca connections, but it did not help. Strangely the MC inputs are dead silent. Regards, |
Montepilot, As Pryso wrote, you do still have to make an internal modification to your preamp. You have to de-solder the stock 47K load resistor and replace it with a resistor of the highest value you can imagine wanting to try. For most of us 100K would suffice. THEN you can have any load resistance less than 100k by using the external jack with a suitable value resistor soldered from hot to ground. For example, to attain a 50K load (close enough to 47K that the diff does not matter) you would use another 100K in parallel with 100K. If you knew that already, forgive me for being repetitious.
Only one thing about this otherwise good idea: some say that paralleling dissimilar value resistors may cause some audible distortion because different amounts of current are shunted across the respective different value Rs. I doubt this matters at all for phono currents. Second thing is the possible "sound" of the RCA jack and the possibility that you could pick up RFI. |
Lewm, Thanks for the clarification. |
Montepilot, What tonearm are you using when you get the RFI? The reason I ask is because I found this on my Copperhead with MM/MI cartridges also (because of the far stronger signal produced compared to LOMCs) and the reason was that the tonearm wiring through the Copperhead is unshielded and the Copperhead, being constructed entirely of plastic, does not provide the shielding metal arms do. It required a lengthy one-off wiring and shielding re-fit to my Copperhead to cure this problem. |
Dear Raul and Lewm, Whilst I commented on the perceived differences (at the frequency extremes) I hear on switching back to a fine LOMC, I did not say that I 'preferred' the overall sound of the MC cartridge.
After a day of re-listening to my favourites through the big Dyna, I grew rather bored with the sound (and believe me, on the Phantom II arm it is a technicolor extravaganza on the right recordings) and hankered for the qualities of the MMs.
Switching BACK to the Garrott P77 was just as revelatory as the previous switch FORWARD. The immense bloom and naturalness of the MM replaced the somewhat flat analytical presentation of the MC. The increase in soundstage depth and width was equally noticeable and welcome but the most amazing surprise was the fact that I didn't consciously miss the added detail provided by the MC at the frequency extremes? It sounded complete from top to bottom yet far more relaxing, musical and 'real' than the Dyna....and again....the 'air' just amazes.
I strongly recommend Raul and Lewm, that you attempt this experiment in BOTH directions several times. It really places the respective properties in brilliant context So yes Raul and Lewm, I do believe there are some things that LOMCs can do a bit better than MM/MIs but I also now believe (as Raul proclaims), that the presentation of the MM/MIs are more natural, satisfying and somehow truer to the sound of the original master tapes. |
Dear Lewm: Yes, part of that is for a re-evaluation with the " new " VTA and the other part is that exist cartridges that are better performers, in no order here are some of them:
Astatic MF-100, B&O MMC2, AKG P100-LE, Technics EPC 205CMK4, Sonus Dimension 5 ( that I'm hearing now. ), Grace F9-Ruby, Audio technica ATML 180-OCC, Audio Technica AT-24, Signet TK10ML-II, Audio Technica ATML 170-OCC, Audio technica ATML 160 LC/OCC, Technics EPC P100CMK4, Grado The Tribute.
Other candidates to re-evaluate are: ADC Astrion, Empire 1000 Z/xe ( again ), Empire 750LTD ( again ), Nagatron 350E, Grado RS-II ( that I assume is a great one but that I don't test it yet. ), Micro Acoustics MA630, Mission Solitaire, Garrot P-77, Andante P76, even the Ortofon M20E Super that was the one that impress me when i knew about these Ortofon ones .
As you can see there are several other cartridges that not only compete but that are over the 20FL.
That's why I posted that this MM/MI alternative is so exciting and that with the 20FL we are " seeing " only a small part of the " iceberg ".
Certainly that the 20FL is very good performer, I don't have doubts about but not the " end ".
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul.
|
Dear Halcro: Now we are in the same ship. It is clear that with this " new " experiences and kind of sound we have to make test one after one to have very clear what is happening. My findings on the LOMC cartridges sound is similar.
+++I strongly recommend that you attempt this experiment in BOTH directions several times. It really places the respective properties in brilliant context. ++++++++
I made it and make every week or ten days and till to today my opinion is the one you posted on the LOMC subject. I still heard/hear LOMC because of that: I don't want to lose " floor " on the MM/MI/MC whole subject.
Right now I'm testing the Sonus Dimension 5 and its quality perfromance is beyond any single reproach and no no single LOMC that I know/heard is near it.
Sometimes when we have this so high quality performance level is almost impossible to come back and enjoy a LOMC because the LOMC sound is so with out life and sterile that we can go on and have to switch to the MM/MI alternative. Btw, IMHO as better is your audio system quality performance as truer are my words.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
|
Anyone know the compliance of the ClearAudio Maestro Wood? Is it 15cu?
thanks DC |
Halco, My TT is mounted with two arms. A 12" Reed 2a & Triplanar MKVII v2. Both arms are plagued with RFI when used through the MM inputs of my Allnic H-1500 tubed phono amp. It has 2 MM inputs and 2 MC inputs. Strangely I have no problem whatsoever with the MC inputs. When you decided to have your Cobra rewired was this specifically for RFI interferance? Were you assured it would solve the problem or did you take a chance that it would? Both of my arms are wired from cartridge pins so I cannot experiment with alternate phono cable. I have been told that the Discovery cable on the Triplanar should have decent shielding, but I cannot confirm this. I had a recommendation to wrap the phono cable of the Triplanar in aluminum foil to act as a shield and also to determine if the phono cable was the culprit. I tried this also to no avail. I would consider sending my Triplanar for a rewiring if I had some kind of assurance it would solve the problem. Thanks again for sharing your experience. |
Dear Halcro, I completely agree with everything you say about switching back and forth between fine MC cartridges and one of the "better" MM/MI cartridges, in the form of the M20FL Super, in my case. I have had all the same feelings you describe.
I must comment on one other thing you wrote: the danger of RFI pick-up will be proportional to the amount of gain in your phono section, so one is more likely to pick up RFI when using an MC phono stage than when using an MM one, AFAIK. The voltage output of the cartridge itself does not engender RFI pick-up. If you are having true RFI with your MM cartridge, there is something odd going on such that the cartridge itself or the mounting is acting as an antenna. This is based on my understanding of the phenomenon, which is not perfect.
Raul, you have put a whole freakin' raft of cartridges up ahead of the M20FL Super, which suggests that you have done an impossible amount of auditioning in only the last week or two. How can you be so certain so quickly that all the cartridges in your first paragraph/list are superior to the Ortofon? Or have I misunderstood your post? I have not even had time to revert to the Grado TLZ, due to a full schedule over last weekend and two nights in a row out on the town. Going out yet again tonight. I am a social butterfly. |
I just read Montepilot's post. What is it that you guys are calling "RF"? Can you describe what you hear? Is it in both channels or only one? Thanks. |
Dear Doctorcilantro: Here you have that information: http://www.musicalsurroundings.com/clearaudio/mm.html
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Lewm: Not exactly. As I posted before I already test ( in new condition ) the Astatic, B&O, Sonus and Grado. The other ones in that first list I already auditioned and I know are superior to the 20FL even if I don't make a re-evaluation ( exceot the AT-24, but I know almost for sure that with the new conditions its performance will be at the top. ) that I will do it but before this I will test the 20E Super.
I know that you can think how is that posible and the only answer I have is that my experiences and know how give me the guide to give that opinion, I know many things on those cartridges that you don't know because I already heard all of them and know each one potential. Anyway, like I told you I will try it and let me to tell you that I know that I will confirm on the subject: at least is my hope.
I know too what you and maybe other persons could think: how any one can test and have value opinion in so many items in so short time?, well I already posted in other threads: I'm trained to do that and not only with single audio items but with full audio systems. I can hear your system for the first time by 30 minutes and give an almost precise overall opinion, not if I like it or not but very precise on its characteristic/problems/virtues: can you do it? maybe not but not because you are not good in audio but because you are not trained to. Ok, enough on this that is not part of the thread.
Regards and enjoy the msuic, Raul.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Lewm,
I think we see eye to eye (and hear ear to ear) on many things in audio. And yes you are correct in that the problem with the wiring was that the cartridge itself or the mounting was acting as an antenna.
I arranged for DaVinci to send their terminated arm cable to Continuum (as I had no problems with MMs on their arm) who re-wired the Copperhead with it but it still acted like an antenna.
Mark Doehmann form Continuum then internally shielded the DaVinci cable adding a properly connected ground wire, and kept it shielded except for a tiny length where it exits the arm.
Because I have no problems with MM/MIs on the Phantom or the DaVinci or my previous Hadcock, I assumed that the metal involved it those arms did the shielding? |
Dear Henry, Who knows? RFI is a strange phenomenon. As long as you are rid of it, that is the important thing. I have a feeling that the Copperhead tonearm is really the best product out of Continuum, or at least it's the only one I have any hope of ever owning.
Dear Raul, I was just "pulling your leg". I know you would not post an opinion if you did not feel you had done the work that backs it up. I do think you changed your tune radically as regards the M20FL, OR you were just being polite in the first instance, to go along with the accolades that I and others gave it. But your opinion is your opinion. I will have to find out for myself in my system what I like best. In fact, it would be great if the B&O MMC1 or the Andante P76 (two on your list that I own) were to be superior to the M20FL Super, since I like the latter cartridge so much already. |
Dear Lewm: +++++ " I do think you changed your tune radically as regards the M20FL....."+++++
no, I'm still think that the 20FL is a great performer but as I posted is not the " end " and things happen that I find with other cartridges a little better overall quality performance. The 20FL has a place on the perfirmance ladder but exist different level of performance and there are other cartridges that are steps over the 20FL on that performance ladder. I don't want that my posts were understand as if the 20FL was not what it is: a very good cartridge.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul |
The important thing is not to fall off the performance ladder. You could hurt yourself.
Can you help me by describing the set-up you used to make your comparisons? Is there any consistent element, or did you use different headshells, tonearms, tables, phono load resistances, VTA? (Obviously, if these elements were all different for each cartridge, that would make for a too long response; you could just give a general answer.) I am using the Orto and the TLZ in the DV505 headshell, which weighs ~11.2gm by itself (without cartridge or hardware), positive VTA, 47K load (until I finally change those load resistors). I ordered one of the headshells you recommended; it too seems to weigh about 11 gm. Both headshells would give a "medium effective mass". |