Who needs a MM cartridge type when we have MC?


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.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
Ag insider logo xs@2xrauliruegas
Regards, Raul: Your posts concerning alignment are well put, applicable comments by others in that thread are also informative.

Let me go out on a limb: Different set-up geometries also slightly alter the heard characteristics of a cartridge. Baerwald seems minimally warmer, with Stevenson and then Lofgren B gaining progressively in analytical qualities. My old friend the Infinity Black Widow/SP25 deck with it's fixed headshell/SME base is specific to Baerwald, 15mm o.h. Technics specifies 15mm for my EPA 250/500 TA systems. This seems a contradiction to the usual advise that Japanese tonearms are engineered for Stevenson or Lofgren B profiles, frequently resulting in overhang in the 16-17mm range. Is overhang the first priority and alignment a contingency or is it the other way around?

To me this demonstrates the need to compare the qualities of different alignment systems in determining the most suitable outcome. What I cannot resolve is this: is "suitable outcome" a purists' mathematically precise, analytical and technically invariable placement, or, if you accept that different emphasises {distortions} result from different geometries, then a matter of an enthusiasts' personal preference. I tend to favor the "enthusiasts'" option but may not know better.

If I have made any misstatements, correction is, as always, appreciated.
Raul -- I have read in many different fora that the Jico SAS styli are even better than the original Shure. It is my intention to buy one while they are available. Even if it is not an improvement, it is the only available option short of sending the stylus out to soundsmith or the like for replacement.

Teimeltel -- I think you are absolutely correct that geometry affects the sound in very obvious ways. So does the electrical parameters (capacitance aned resistance), all of which can be used to tailor the cartridge's sound to taste. Except in the rare instance of someone who is willing to adjust for every record (allowing for different thicknesses of vinyl, different cutting heads for the original mothers, and many other variables beyond our control), I think that you are also correct that the enthusiast has to pick the "sound" he likes best, as a compromise, and then set it and (try to) forget it.

Enjoy!
Dear Timeltel, I have to disagree with you slightly, I think it is first of all important to choose a geometry that is best suited to the design of your tonearm. The offset angle of the headshell is a major determinant of what geometry would work best. Once you have made a good match between headshell offset, overhang, and geometry you are then able to align the cartridge with the long axis of the headshell while also setting overhang correctly. In contrast, if the cartridge is at an angle to the axis of the headshell, as does occur when the alignment geometry and the tonearm geometry are very different, then this puts forces on the cantilever that are not accounted for in the concept of a typical pivoted tonearm. (Think about it.) It is these aberrant forces that can cause the colorations of which you speak, IMO. In sum, I don't doubt that you hear the colorations you say you hear, but it is not due to the choice of Baerwald, Lofgren, or Stevenson per se. I hope I have made myself clear.
Dear Downunder: Normally I follow the manufacturer advise and if not then Löfgren B that gives lower distortion between null points ( during more play time ) and a little higher outside those null points.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Raul, thanks but a bit more info.

do you use the Wally/Mint mirrored method of aligning by the cantilever or just get the overhang etc correct and align by the cartridge body.
Do you follow the same procedure if the cantilever is for example slightly off centre to the left viewing from the front.

cheers
Greetings, Lewm: Your struggle with the Dyna. TA was somewhat on my mind as I laborously composed. You are absolutely correct in your response, alignment should meet the requirements of the tonearm. The problem is that there are four generally accepted systems, all meet those requirements but none agree.

Lew, I'm currently fiddling with a very long nosed Acutex cartridge. At the specified 15mm overhang for the EPA 250, the cartridge looks like it's headed to the stable but sounds glorious with Baerwald alignment. The stylus is very true to the axis of the cartridge, effective length of the tonearm requirements are met. Lofgren B and Stevenson (I failed to mention Pisha of Dennison protractor fame, or Seagrave and Kessler the mathmaticians) move the eff. length past manufacturer's specifications, Lofgren A not so much and yes, I do hear different presentations with the different alignments. This is why some prefer one alignment profile to another.

About stylus deflection, this for you to answer: The cantilever is in line with the cartridge and as perfectly positioned as I can place it on the protractor at two points. In action there is a slight deflection when the stylus lands on the record. When the tonearm's inertia is overcome the cantilever resumes it's unloaded horizontal position. Antiskating is 1/4 the value of VTF, channel balance is good. Seems near perfect to me. Where is the stress you surmise? Should one square the cartridge to the headshell, maintain 15mm overhang and have the cartridge distort, exibit sibilance and assume a diet of vinyl curly fries instead? Because it's prettier that way? Mr. Baerwald I trust. If Lofgren B sounded better, Mr. Lofgren B I'd trust. Even if the cartridge assumed (as it would) a different rake. Relating to music, my ears I trust above my sight. Square to the shell or not, tonal accuracy, controled sibilance and absence of distortion are the signatures of accurate alignment. As always, I welcome knowlegable suggestion or correction.

Strat1117: JICO makes a fine stylus. Several years ago I did plastic surgery on a N97he/SAS for a V15VxMR and thought it was an improvement over the good MR stylus I had for the cart. The same stylus did wonders for a M97xE. Shures are responsive to loading, you made that point. Thanks for your comments, experience and technology are not, as some would have it, mutually exclusive.
Thanks Timeltel. Just one thing -- you mentioned the Wally Tractor. I use one that was made specifically for my tonearm (SME IV), but it provides both Baewrwald and Lofgren curves, so you still have to choose which you like the bet overall. Wally recopmmends Lofgren for modern records which have the grooves no closer than a certain distance from the stylus (I don't have the manual in front of me at teh moment). In practice, my experience mirrors yours -- the Lofgren is a littel more open but thinner, the Baerwald a little fuller with more "traction." Which is best depends upon your equipment, room, record collection and personal taste. I suspect one would work better for some records and the other better in other records. Unless one is prepared to adjust for every record in his collection (I'm not), reasonableness requires that you just have to pick one, do the best you can setting up according to those parameters, and then leave it.

Enjoy!
Dear Lewm: +++++ " I don't doubt that you hear the colorations you say you hear, but it is not due to the choice of Baerwald, Lofgren, or Stevenson per se. " +++++

well with IEC standards there is no differences in the offset angle between löfgren and Baerwald, there is difference in the overhang ( around 0.5mm. ) and null points.
Where exist an offset angle difference is with Stevenson calculations and where the kind of distortions we heard are way different. In Baerwald vs Löfgren are tiny differences if you can hear it and your system has that kind of resolution.

I can't say because I don't know which is the behavior of the cartridge cantilever against trackin error/distortions added for different set up geometry but here is more complex that only the forces against the cantilever because we have to take in count: compliance, antiskating , VTF and even VTA/SRA, 33rpm or 45rpm, LP recorded velocity, inside/middle/out side the LP, etc, etc., too complex to be sure on what you are saying about.

In the other side the tonearm manufacturers tell almost nothing on the subject. They give us the tonearm effective length and overhang. I can remember if they give the tonearm offset angle but I think normally did not.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Tt and Raul, Thanks for taking me seriously. I realized that my experience in these matters is very shallow. I heretofore only had to worry about my Triplanar, and it works fine with the Turntable Basics protractor, which is now very declasse' among the cognoscenti. I should have been a bit more emphatic in saying that my ideas are really "my opinion" based on a little experience. Surely the switch to Stevenson geometry from Baerwald did wonders to improve the sound from my Dynavector DV505 tonearm, regardless of the cartridge.
Dear Downunder: I try to be extremely precise when I mount the tonearm: center of the TT spindle to center of toneram pivot distance.

Then I set the overhang and centered perfectly the cartridge body on the headshell and then I put on a two or one point protractor just to see if everything is ok. What I align is the cartridge body when the cantilever is centerd or with a small side deviation. If the cantilever has a wide deviation then I align with the cantilever and normally I send the cartridge back to the seller for a change or in second hand cartridges I send to re-tip.

I don't have cartridges with serious cantilever deviations, almost all the cartridges are right on target.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Lewm: I intuit an apology may be appropriate. The above post was done late last night and after a full weekend of hosting overnight company. I may have been a little, um, testy?

First, the refered to cartridge with the stylus protector raised extends 9mm beyond the stylus, a small divergence of perhaps 1/2 degree outwards is very apparent because of the extension past the headshell. The next nearest alignment is Lofgren A, an arc protractor specific to the tonearm yeilds overhang of 15.478, Lofgren B and Stevenson are well past the Technics' designated 15mm. With them there is detectable grain in both the extreme inner and outer grooves but the cartridge does sit nicely in the headshell. Baerwald gives the best overall results with the EPA 250 and does most nearly preserve the 15mm overhang. Consequently, there is an audible difference between these alignment types, wether it is distortion or simplistically a matter of "tuning" makes little difference to the outcome.

It seems the visual discrepancy relates to the fact the headshells are of standardized dimension, the EPA 250 design comes later and does not utilize a headshell unique to it. Furthermore, all headshells are not created equal. In such a circumstance an adjustment must be made, choosing either appearance or function. Adherence to a 15mm overhang gives the best response. Using Baerwald, breakup and sibilance are essentially nonexistent. This is a priority for initial alignment, subtle nuance comes from "tweaking". It would not be logical to suggest that because the cartridge is not square to the headshell that alignment is then incorrect, just as it would be to state the cartridge must be canted for proper alignment. This now aside, we are in agreement on all else.

This brings me back to my first post on the matter. Overhang still seems the first priority, the most appropriate alignment system is the one that best preserves the elements of design. Accurate response is more desirable than appearance concerns and it may be necessary to do some exploring to find what works best. Makers seem reluctant to reveal this information, I speculate to protect themselves from criticism from fumblers, a clan I somewhat identify with. My few audio perfectionist traits remain in the aural arena, not the visual. Invoking Plato, function does indeed preceed form. Peace.
Dear Timeltel: +++++ " Overhang still seems the first priority, the most appropriate alignment system is the one that best preserves the elements of design. " +++++

well, a tonearm designer normally fix the effective lenght tonearm: this is the distance from the pivot tonearm center to the stylus tip and preserving always the tonearm design distance between TT spindle center and tonearm pivot center, in this way overhang will be always in " site "/place.

Any tonearm manufacturer always give all these three parameters. Why should we change them?
A tonearm is designed with an specific geometry and with that geometry was made the tonearm voicing.
The problem is that we don't know what were the tonearm designer targets under " motion ".

So, we begin to made changes about. I normally respect the manufacturer advise with great results.

I can't imagine why so many people have so many trouble on the cartridge/tonearm set up.
It is so " incredible " that today we " have " to buy a 100.00 to 600.00 protractor to be " there ": my God, where we don't understand the set up that we have to take " extreme " actions to made something so easy!!!!

Many times IMHO we are trying ( with out knowing or not on purpose. ) to correct some system distortions adding other distortions to compensate.
IMHO if we made with care the tonearm TT mount and the cartridge set up following the tonearm manufacturer advise and don't like what we heard then is possible that we have " problems " elsewhere our audio system.

It seems to me that now almost everybody are using the tonearm/cartridge set up like an " equalizer ", that's fine with me but...???????

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
My insights, such as they are, into this question of tonearm geometry vs chosen alignment geometry, began with a thread on Vinyl Engine about twisting the cartridge in the headshell to align the cartridge body with a grid on any protractor. The person who started the thread, "Seb", is quite knowledgable about this subject, and he showed graphically that tracing distortion is reduced if one does twist the cartridge to conform with the protractor vs if one merely sets overhang correctly but then aligns the cartridge body with the headshell. At first reading, this thread made me feel OK about the fact that I had done exactly what Seb recommends with my DV505 when using the TTB protractor in Baerwald; all my cartridges ended up quite twisted toward the inner grooves. But then I started to think about how the vector directions of the forces on the cantilever that are in play when the cartridge encounters a warp or just heavy modulation are going to be at an angle to either the horizontal or the vertical pivot points, in this situation, and how that might NOT be a good thing and could introduce nasty distortions other than "tracing distortion". This led me to seek out a Stevenson protractor for the DV505, and the results of realignment are consistent with my hypothesis that such aberrant forces might not be desirable. Seb agreed and admitted he did not follow his own rule when he owned a Dynavector tonearm. I think this would apply to any pivoted tonearm but would be most noticeable with the DV tonearms because of the stubby vertically pivoted arm.
Hello, Strat1117: Agree with all the above, one exception. VTA/SRA. On the fly VTA with the EPA tonearm systems make adjustment so simple, obsession overrides pragmatism and cartridge changes demand it. Mysteriously, the antique and difficult to adjust Infinity Black Widow hardly ever needs resetting. They just don't make them like that anymore.
Dear Lewm: Could you post the VE link?

Thank you.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Regards, Raul: RE. Effective length, pivot to spindle, cartridge alignment.
Well said. Presuming the pivot to spindle dimension is correct and the effective length is accurate, I cannot see why alignment assumes such mythical proportions of difficulty. Either you have distortion or not. If so find the cause and fix it. It's all front, back, left or right with some up and down in between. I don't see how it could be easier.
Dear Raul,
Here it is:

http://www.vinylengine.com/twisting-your-cartridge-headshell.shtml

I think instead of using the term "tracing distortion" as Seb does, the better term is "tracing error", because we don't know that these angles translate into distortion in any linear way.
Well I wanted to try some of these MM/Mi carts. on a Jelco SA-250 S shaped standard arm, but I see that the arm is heavy mass arm at 20g. If you believe the resonance tables, the MM/MI carts I wanted to use won't work. Actually it seems to leave out quite a few. I wanted to try for instance VMS-20 E MkII which I have and nOS stlus are available, and also try a M 20FL. So I never really checked into all this until reading around this thread. I am surprised this jelco arm is such a high mass. Even the straight model is 18 g.
Dear friends: Well, the Timeltel " pressure " asking to try one of my Acutex cartridges give me the opportunity to heard the humble LPM 315III STR model.

What a fantastic and so unique cartridge. This MM/MI analog source alternative is IMHO an endless experience of great " gem " discoveries.

I never imagine that in my " stock " of cartridges I could have a cartridge that can/could surpass the greatness of the Technics EPC-P100C MK4 and this Acutex did/do it.

This is my new " The Best " and with a solid 10++ level in the cartridge quality performance ladder, just amazing!!!

You can read and see it the Acutex in the cartridge review here:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ranlg&1272832599

As always your comments are welcome.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
I was lucky enough (IMO) to win a Stanton 980LZS cartridge on eBay last night. The seller says the cantilever is "straight" and that the stylus looks to be in good shape, but I am prepared for the worst. Does anyone (Raul?) know anything about the following replacement stylus, which is for sale on LP Tunes?

http://www.lptunes.com/Replacement-for-Stanton-D-98S-D-98S-D98S-stylus-p/stad0098s.htm

If I need it, should I consider buying this non-original but expensive replacement stylus, or should I send the original stylus assembly off to van den Hul or some other shop for rebuild?

Funnily enough, this is NOT a cartridge you can feed into your MM phono stage; it has low output even for an MC. But I have a wonderful sounding MC phono stage, and I have been wanting to audition one of these "LOMM" cartridges ever since Raul started this thread and I became aware (again) of the virtues of MM/MI designs. This is my LAST cartridge purchase; I promised myself.
Dear Lewm: Till you find the humble Acutex 315III STR.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Raul, Do you have an opinion on the LP Tunes stylus assembly vs van den Hul rebuild? I guess you would favor vdH, because I know you do use them a lot, but if you know anything about the LP Tunes stylus, that would be of interest too.

The Acutex, like the best Glanz and the Astatic MF100, is a brand or type I have never seen for sale. Anyway it will take me a year or more to form opinions of what I already own.
Dear Lewm: From an after market stylus replacement yes I prefer VdH.

Btw, before you pull the triger on stylus replacement IMHO take it your time with that almost MC cartridge and then decide if its worth on the subject. I own the 981 low output and IMHO can't compare with the best other cartridges in the MM/MI alternative but like always maybe you like it more: who knows? till you test it.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Lewm: Please read the Acutex review and find what Dgarretson found.

The Technics is more hard to find than Acutex. If you really want the " last " analog source the bets one IMHO is this Acutex, so if you make your work I think you can find it.
Forget about the Astatic, Glanz or whatever: here and now IMHO Acutex is The One.

I never give up but you seems to me that already give up before begin the Acutex quest ?????

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dave and I communicate frequently. He is liking the Pickering XSV3000 quite a bit. I did not see his review of the Acutex.
Lewm, I did not review Acutex but only added an anecdote from a prospector who found one.

Perhaps JB0194(who has a good collection of Pickering/Stanton) will comment further, but yes I am enjoying Pickering XSV3000 retipped with NOS D3000SP stereohedron/quad stylus. XSV displaced Empire 999X/EX on Terminator linear arm. The stylus is still settling in with 75K loading, 1.2g(with brush removed), and slightly negative VTA. This is an energetic & resolving cartridge with excellect imaging and spatial characteristics-- possibly owing to a slight bump in mid-treble as noted by magazine reviews back in the day. It has better LF control than Empire, and is among the several great MM/MI cartridges that split the difference between MM sense of involvement and MC detail. HF is revealing, but I am hoping the treble relaxes a bit and develops refinement. In overall character this one may be closest to P-76, but with better separation & detail.

The quiddity is that my example has output well below spec and more like .5mV-1mV. This is not so bad, as it enables use both with MM and MC phono stages. I don't know if the lower output is related to the cartridge body or the D3000SP stylus.
Timeltel -- Certainly, I agree with you. If my tonearm allowed for on the fly VTA adjustment I would probably do it for some if not all of my listening. Unfortunately, it does not, so I set VTA using a 180 gram LP, and I live with the compromise on records that are slightly thicker or thinner.

Enjoy!
Regards, Raul: I can understand why you enjoy the Acutex LPM 315. Listening to the LPM 310E-111/M312STR hybrid, comparison to the elliptical reveals the superior quality of the STR stylus, enough so I that have found several of the M315STR-111 for replacements. A gentleman at Vinyl Engine has a small supply and was very helpful. Although he assures me the styli are interchangable in the "long nose" line, v.111, I know for certain the 41x version will not exchange. There is evidence that the 21x line is also dimensionally different, the stylus insert may have a Shure-like quill. The 412STR seems slightly more articulate than the 312 but consequently not quite as timbrally rich.

He has only a few. Cartridge bodies are more common and show up at that auction site from time to time. From the specs I think it probable that the stylus is responsible for the upgrades between models, as in the Orto. OM series. For those interested, if you search Acutex at VE, you should be able to deduce the source. Raul, you are so sharp I suspect you know all this already.

To refresh an earlier post here, the entire catalog can be viewed at:

http://www.turntableneedles.com/search.asp?keyword=acutex&search=GO

Find the M210-11E at the bottom right, click and scroll down to Catalog.

These stylii are rare, the 312 and 315 models will not last and the gentleman was in the process of rebuilding his web site and adjusting prices but agreed to send them at his original "hobbyist" price. I doubled my request. The M315STR-111 is nearly unobtanium now, when these few are gone, well, they're gone. In our communications, he also recommended the M320STR stylus but is not willing to release any of the few he has but is considering it.

Raul, as I understand you have the previous square bodied 320STR, should you find the TOTL "improved" version superior to the "long nose" 315, you may soon be crowning a new king.
Dear Timeltel: +++++ " I suspect you know all this already. " +++++

yes I know it. Next week I will receive a NOS LPM 315IIISTR.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear friends: Very good and fair price opportunity:
http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?anlgcart&1278177734&/ADC-ZLM-Improved

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Raul,

How would you compare the AKG P100ES, one of your previous favourites to the Technics EPC-P100CmkIV, the Acutex LPM315III-STR and the Azden YMP50VL?
Dear Driveman: I unfortunately don't have in hand now and I need to try it again. I will report on it.

I know is very good and will be along that cartridge top group.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Timeltel: By the moment I want to enjoy the LPM315 and after that follow testing other cartridges I want like: Signet TK10, AT 24, AT 160, AKG P100, Empire D4000, Nagatron 350, Elac 896, Grace F9 Ruby, Micro Acoustic 630. So it's a long road.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Waynefia: IMHO you can try those Ortofon MM/MI cartridges with your Jelco 250, it works fine.
Please do it and then comeback to us and share your experiences on those cartridges.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
I see a connection between ADC TRX series, Azden, Acutex and Piezo cartridges - the manufacturer is Japan Piezo company.
Dear Siniy: I understand ( please correct me if I'm wrong. ) that Azden was/is part of Piezo and build the Acutex and some Empire cartridges as other cartridges like the ADC. Azden works for many time like a cartridge OEM.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear friends: I was thinking these last days ( again and again ) on the quality level performance in the Technics EPC-P100CMK4 and the Acutex 315III STR and what I was thinking is mainly where are similar and where different and the importance of those " where " and how ner/far are those differences and I'm asking me: hey could be the other way around? that people could like more the Technics trade-offs against the Acutex?

Both cartridges have so high quality performance level and are more similar than differents that here maybe was/is a little unnfair to put one cartridge over the other on quality performance level.
It is true that the Technics has not that " live energy " that the Acutex shows ( no cartridge I know has it. ) but it is true too that the Technics has other characteristics that the Acutex can't shows at same level.

Unfortunatelly I can't edit the Acutex review but through this post I want to make a correction ( My mistake, the Technics deserve that correction. ) in the quality performance level of the Acutex in the cartridge ladder level performance.

The Acutex 315III STR belongs at 10+ ( not 10++ like I posted. ) level sharing this position along the Technics EPC-P100CMK4: Honor to whom deserve Honor!!!!

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Raul,
Piezo Japan patented so called "tri-pole" system that goes into ADC TRX series, Azden "flat nose", Piezo YM series.

This is one heck of great company. I strongly suspect that my marvelous Empire MC-5 cartridge (it is MC) has Japanese origins and not Swiss (Benz).
Dear Siniy123: Maybe you are right about your Empire because in an old Audio magazine ad it comes that MC along the Empire MM Azden YM50 clone.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear friends: Along the Acutex/Technics I'm testing an Elac cartridge and someday next week a friend of a friend that comes to México city will bring with him a Technics non-P-mount but headshell integrated sample and I will have the opportunity to test and enjoy for a few hours.

In the mid-time I'm still enjoying the Acutex but I need to go on.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Hi headsnappin

the empire 1080Lt is a good sounding cartridge and for the price it is excellent. Compared to say the Ortofon M20FL Super I find the 1080LT to have a better tonal evenness top to bottom and good transparency. the M20FL I have found always has a slight edge in that 2-4k region which i find a bit irritating to listen to.
Whereas my ELAC ESG 795 E 40 is clearly brighter than both, but has a flow and musicality that is infecious. the brightness is up high in the treble region, so it does not really irritate that sensitive area of your hearing.

IMO, well worth the price. does sound better Arse up as well.
Dear DU, Never heard that edginess you ascribe to the Orto M20FL Super. Mine is "like butta" in that frequency domain. Just goes to show how set-up and ancillary equipment can affect the outcome.
Lew, you well might be right re the Orto M20FL Super. I gave up with its sound on the P3 before spending a LOT of time adjusting the damping or trying another headshell. It probably would sound like butta if I put it onto my Raven, which is a little softer,forgiving.

too manjy carts, not enuf time :-)
I plan to try it on my Kenwood L07D, which as a system ((turntable/platter/tonearm/plinth) is the best thing I've heard yet in my home.
Hi Lewm,

You like it better than your tricked out Lenco?
That Kenwood is a direct drive right? Interesting.
In what ways is the Kenwood better than the Lenco, very curious to know. I have 3 SL1200mk2 and 3 heavy platter Lencos, when compared to the Lencos (all stock) the Technics just seem speed unstable. So your opinion on the Kenwoon has piqued my interest :)
Thank you.
The L07D is just the quiet-est turntable I have ever owned. This is not to say that there is any audible noise, rumble or other, to be heard with the Lenco or the SP10 Mk2. But when you listen to the L07D, you can sense the lowered noise floor in the form of a better sense of 3D, very slightly more articulate bass response, and airy high frequencies. The Lenco might give a very slightly bigger soundstage, but the L07D beats my other dd tables in that regard. I could easily live with the Lenco if I had to economize.

No insult intended, but the L07D is way out of the league of the SL1200, IMO of course. This is as it should be given the cost differential and the design goals. Kenwood was looking to build their ultimate product, whereas the SL1200 is a wonderful Chevrolet. It would be more fair to compare the L07D to the SP10 Mk3. The tonearm wiring from cartridge to preamp with the L07D is pretty much old school, with many mechanical junctions in the signal path. I look forward to even better results after I "fix" that.

Just to write something here that is actually on-topic, I have decided that the Azden is indeed a great cartridge. It definitely digs "more" out of an LP than does my Koetsu Urushi (but the KU has a certain je ne c'est quoi that the Azden misses), and I am going to guess the Azden will prove to be superior to the Ortofon M20FL Super, based on the testimony of most of you who have heard both. But I do need to re-visit the M20FL. Then I need to move on; I have amassed quite a collection of vintage cartridges, by my standards at least. (Can't compete with Raul in finding these things or buying them.)