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.
rauliruegas
Regards, Griffiths: It's said "There's no fuel like an old fuel" (did I get that right?), so here's some "old fuel" to throw on the fire.

From "OldADC", Prichard's successor (1978) as cartridge designer:
"Those other (cantilever designs) required a tie wire to assemble the stylus assemblies. A small wire was soldered in the back of the stylus tube and pulled toward the rear of the cartridge to a specific load and then soldered off to hold the assembly together. The load plane and the tension defined that center point of rotation for the assembly. All well and good until you consider a couple of factors.
1) That assembly is now by definition imbalanced in motional impedance fore and aft of the pressure defined pivot point. Constrained, held hostage, on a freaking leash!
2) That tie wire has a resonance of its very own. Almost all of them, based on length and diameter of the wire ended up somewhere around 17kHz. Many designs went to great lenght to dampen and tame that resonance but....and here is the big deal....even if you tame the amplitude resonance so flat you can't see it in a swept sine wave plot....you haven't done a dang thing for the 180 phase shift that must occur when that wire passes through its resonance, damped or not. I swear I could always hear a tie wire in the desperate confusion of attack on top hat symbols.

The Omnipivot design was very carefully calculated so that the balance of masses fore and aft of the designed point of rotation meant that the point of rotation as defined by the assembly is the same point as the point of percussion (ie that point of rotation were the assembly to be in free space). Thus the assembly wanted to rotate about the same point that we were asking it to. And when you got them wrong in assembly, you could tell. The Astrion was hand built and tweaked for this very reason. Every stylus assembly was truly balanced point of rotation to point of percussion and had not tie wire therefore no phase shift through resonance."

Other interesting observations concerning assemblies without tie wires identified a "pistoning" of the canitlever. This specific circumstance illustrates the need to match TA/cart compliances, the consequences of which were sometimes so severe as to result in the plucking of the cantilever assembly from the grip. ADC's low compliance suspensions when mounted to a "bulldozer" tonearm sometimes had this outcome, this phenomena was observed with the (MK 1) XLM. Prichard denied it's occurance.

Vibrations in a beam are influenced when constrained, a concern in industries ranging from architectural engineering "Galloping Gertie, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge) to fiber optics. In analog audio, the addition of a tie wire (see OldADC's comments above) illustrates this phenomena.

Just some fun info.

Peace,
There are a few things I should add. 1) My previous post should have read 'loading is', not loading isn't. (a typo)
2) Nandric's cantilever is a Beryllium with a Shibata tip.
Mine also has the Shibata tip but it being a Jico provided item, I am not sure of the material used for the cantilever. But I am sure it is not the coveted Beryllium.
What convinced me to buy this Jico replacement was the fact that it has the 'tension wire' like the original stylus design. This lack of a 'tension wire' is the reason why there are no decent aftermarket stylus replacements for the Stantons and Pickerings. Morita-san, the designer of the SAS for Jico has developed the SAS stylus with this 'tension wire' design and must have decided to incorporate it into some of Jico's other stylus's.
The JVC that Nikolas (Nantric), has was found and purchased on the Japanese auction site. I had the pleasure of having it pass through my home while on its travels to his home in The Netherlands.
It is 100% NOS. In the short listen I had with his, I can honestly say that I could not tell any difference between his, and the JVC with the Jico MK II stylus. I state this only in praise of the Jico JVC X1 MKII stylus and I must clarify that there was no direct A/B testing done. But the amazing dynamics and clarity that I heard on the original (Nandric's), is also present on the Jico version.
J/Carr has commented earlier on this forum about the importance of this 'tension wire'. It is why Nikolas and I started our search for cartridges that incorporate this design concept. It appears the Morita-san of Jico, who also had a hand in the design of the highly sought after Sony XL line of cartridges (the XL 45, 55. and the 88's), also feels that this 'tension wire' design must have much merit. I know that David (Dialoum), has been looking for an original X1 stylus for a long time. If I were David, I would not waste another minute before I placed an order of this Jico replacement.
Its # is the DT-X1MK2
Regards,
Hello Fleib.

One of the phono stages that I have in use is a heavily modded Jasmine. One of the mods converted it to 100K. I wondered if the reason it (the JVC X1) sounded so good was because of it being a 100K load! But Nandric was running his at 47K and feels the same about the JVC as I do so I do not feel the loading isn't an issue.
Now perhaps mine does sound 'better' loaded at 100K than my Comrades loaded at 47K. (grin) I've not heard it at 47K to say for sure! I have the amp in the other system (the 47K phono stage system), out for repair. When it returns, I will check the JVC in it to confirm.
Regards,
A fitting end to the MM/MI thread?
Nandric and Griffithds declare a winner with a "sweet little cart" rescued from obscurity. Who's to offer another opinion with only a few examples in the known world? Known to us, that is.

Raul has this cart, yet never declared it the best? Just got a mention? Maybe it isn't so great at 100K, but it looks like a 4-ch cart.

What do we make of this, a conspiracy of two who prefer MCs (at least Nandric), to have their way with the defenseless MM damsels? Is this sweet little cart a pawn in a power struggle for MC superiority?

Since Raul isn't here I want to tell you, it's plagued with distortions. These are insidious anomalies designed to mask reality and lull you into sweet stupor. This is a warning. Don't listen to the JVC Sirens. Cover your ears like brave Ulysses or you'll be lulled to your demise. You'll be doing crazy things and sabotaging your set-up. Nandric wisely bent the beryllium cantilever and broke out of his stupor, but the call of the Siren was too much to resist.

Regards,
I have a little confession. I had been needing a longer phono cable for weeks, and have not decided on what to buy, but in the meantime I was listening to digital through a Yamamota Dac and a PS Audio Transport. I thought I had finally found a digital source that could replace my turntable. Today, I just decided to set the turntable up, on the floor, next to the preamp.

Analogue still kills digital at my house.
Agree with everyone on the Victor x-1. A sweet little cart. Thanks as always, for the heads up on the replacement styli.
Fleib,

Forgot to mention. DC resistance: X1 470
Z1 510
And both Shibata's

Regards,
Hi Fleib,

I remember that SAS MM1. It sold out rather quickly. I have that very same stylus mounted in a Garrott Bros. P77 cartridge. No, not a transplant but a perfect fit!
If what you speculate to as the JVC Z also being the SAS MM1 then I am going to be quite a happy camper. Perhaps I should try to fit the SAS stylus I have for that P77 into the JVC Z. Housings do look different though!
BTW: The JVC ad copy states the Z1 goes out to 50K. The X1 goes out to 60K. Compliance between the two is a little different. 12X** for the X1 and 10X** for the Z1. This might account for the slightly less extension with the Z1. Just my guess at this point.
Regards,
Hi Griff,
Going by this limited info, they're not likely the same. BTW, do the owner manuals in VE library have more specs?
The X1 has response to 60K. Maybe it was developed for 4-ch. The shibata stylus might be an indicator and it should have relatively low inductance for high frequency extension.
The Z has 4mV out, as opposed to 2.7mV and extension is to around 30K at best. Two of the Z (Z-2?) are listed as 2.4K ohm impedance and 4mV - looks like a 150MLX. You could measure DC resistance with a digital (only) meter and see if they are close. I'd guess that the X is around 4-500 ohms and the Z is closer to 800. This is a wild guess based on very little information. Still, the SQ might be closer than you'd expect.

If you're not in the habit of measuring DC on carts, just hold the probes to the pins (not connected to anything else)of the cart just long enough to get a stable reading. Digital meter only.

Jico sold a complete MM cart w/SAS about 5 years ago. It was called the SAS MM1 and people raved about it. Anybody get one of these? At the time there was conjecture it was a Philips cart. The specs look like a JVC Z:
http://stylus.export-japan.com/sascartridge.php
You never know.

Regards,


Hi Fleib,

I have a ad page from JVC which describes the X-1 and the Z-1, both on the same ad page. Therefore they are quite similar. The Z-1 is the later model and has a slightly higher output. I hope this is due to the magnets, and not additional winding's on the coils. I have one of each. The SAS for the Z-1 is on order from Jico. The stylus holders are not the same but as you have stated, perhaps a bit of trimming will cure that. But we are assuming that the Z-1 is the lesser of the two and that has not been established. JICO only supplies the SAS for the Z-1. Now why is that? Perhaps because it is the better of the two? Perhaps because it was a much larger seller so their would be a larger market for replacements? Unanswered question as far as I know! But I am going to find out! The X-1 with the JICO DT-X1 MKII stylus or even the surprising Tonar's replacement for this X-1 makes this cartridge the best M/M I have ever heard. Better than the Grace Fe, better than the Technics 205C MK IV, better than the AT 150 Anv., and as good as my London Decca Jubilee. I own many of Raul's cartridge of the week. None, and I "mean" none of them can compare to this X-1. I'm hoping that the Z-1 is as good. I say this because there are many of them that pop up on the auction sites. As my comrade Nikola (Nandric), has stated, you can spend years looking for an X-1. I would have liked to have waited and found a backup for the one that I have before I alerted anyone but Nikola has 'spilled the beans' sort of to speak! I will keep all informed when the SAS from JICO arrives for the Z-1 as to how it will perform and if it will be a contender. I do have high hopes! If you run across a JVC X-1, buy it if it has exceptable coils. Either the Elliptical Tonar or the Shibata Jico are availabe for stylus's. Both are absolutely stunning performers.
Regards
It looks like Jico has a SAS for the Z1 - four or five listings, might be a cross reference. I don't know about these JVC styli. They are the same basic style and if the joint pipe and cantilever are the same, you might be able to trim some plastic on the stylus holder and get a fit.

Maybe someone at Audio Karma knows, or you could buy a cheap Z1 replacement to see if this might work.
Regards,
Hi Fleib, Raul mentioned this JVC X-1 some time ago but I was not able to find a single one for two years and give up. But in the last three months I got three samples. One of which in NOS condition. Your specs apply to this one: beryllium cantilever and Shibata stylus. The other two (bodies) needed a new stylus. One got Tonar replica with
elliptical stylus the other got the Nivico DT-X1 ,Mk 2 with also elliptical stylus. My comrad Don got the first mentioned as present and ordered the new Jico DT-X1,Mk2
with Shibata stylus. Both my Nivico and his Jico are provided with tension wire. Don is very impressed even with the Tonar stylus. I hope he will post about his Jico stylus. But as far as I know this Jico is not an SAS.
My NOS X-1 is the only MM cart which I can't distinguish from my best MC carts.
Hi Nandric, I'm not familiar with JVC pulse train transducer analysis, but there's a lot I'm not familiar with. AFAIK a pulse train is irregularly shaped square waves and a pulse train is used for such varied things as radio frequency signal analysis, radar and optical guidance systems etc. I believe it's related to pulse code modulation which is the basis of analog to digital conversion.

The Ortofon article is based on analog data from a study they did sometime around 1980- 82. I think they were originally studying things like tip mass analysis. They mounted an accelerometer on the headshell. The article shows the relationship between amplitude and phase in phono carts and dispels some commonly held myths, namely the affects of electrical and mechanical parameters on phase linearity.

You were lucky to find an SAS stylus for that cart. Jico does not have a wide selection of SAS. The database has it listed as beryllium/shibata, 2.7mV, VTF 1.55 - 1.75g, 12cu (100Hz?), and response to 60K. Is this right? What else?
Nice specs, similar to some 4-ch models with that output and low inductance? How did the stylus change the sound, more exact and slightly less sweet?

Regards,

I've generally been sceptical about the advantages of a dedicated mono cartridge over the 'mono' switch on a phono stage or preamp...👀❓
But when Thuchan informed me that "I wouldn't believe the difference".....I took the hint..😀
Although he wanted me to buy the Ortofon Cadenza Mono...I opted for the cheaper AT33Mono at less than $400....😜
With only 6 hours playing time so far on the cartridge......Thuchan was right👍🎶
I thought that I didn't own many mono recordings (unlike Thuchan who has hundreds of mono jazz issues)....yet I discovered a full box-set of early Ray Charles as well as Fats Waller and Fats Domino...😎
Then I found my mono Brubeck 'Take Five' (alongside its stereo brother) and mono Henry Mancini 'Music from Peter Gunn' (also alongside its stereo sibling)...😘
A disc of The Everly Bros Greatest Hits was re-discoverd as well as a double album set of remastered 45 singles compilation including Elvis, Buddy Holly, Eddie Cochran, Carl Perkins, The Big Bopper, Gene Vincent, Shirelles, Chiffons,Gene Pitney and many more....is highlight of my collection...😍
But the revelation was the remastered set of Elvis' singles on 'Elvis 30 #1 Hits' and 'Elvis 2nd to None'...😘🎶
It's hard to describe the transformation that occurs with the sound of the true mono cartridge playing these familiar grooves as the normal audiophile descriptive terms simply don't apply...😷
One thinks that terms like 'soundstage', 'depth', 'accuracy', 'positioning', 'transparency' etc would not apply to mono....but they do indeed..😘

The recent Beatles Mono set delivers the least 'bang' over the simple mono-switch...perhaps because they used stereo cutting heads...❓😥
But for any audiophile with even a modicum of good mono records (and multiple arms or detachable headshells)....a $400-$1000 investment in a true mono cartridge will enrich your listening pleasure....😘🎶
Take it from Thuchan....👏
Hi Fleib, JVC proudly mentioned their 'pulse train' method
to anylize 'tranducers' among which our beloved carts.
'Your phase problem' is also mentioned as objective. To my
taste the X-1 is the best MM cart I have ever heard so far.
This is not my 'field' but it may be the case that this
result is the, uh, result of this method?
Hi Dover,
Nice little primer on harmonics. Energy storage in speaker cables? Seems to be more about amplitude than phase, but I guess it could be both if they talk about arrival time. I didn't watch the whole thing. As Lebowski might have put it, Dude doesn't abide passive electronics in speaker cable. A zobel for ultrasonics might be the only exception and that could be considered a speaker crossover addition.

There's a better solution IMO. Put your amp between your speakers and use short speaker wire. A long interconnect is easier to optimize. It doesn't carry the current that speaker wire does. Interconnect still has capacitance and inductance, but with the exception of phono cables, I think it would tend to be less easily compromised in long runs.

Regards,
Fleib,
Thanks for posting the link to the article on phase response in MC's/MM's.
It does go a long way to explaining differences of opinion, listing preferences and system attributes will play a significant role.
Here is an interesting video that highlights similar issues around phase preservation, and its impact on sound reproduction - although the video is 20 minutes it is well worth a look.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgK87tmRVeY
I was thinking, there might not be much interest in phase as it relates to a phono cartridge. People seem to want cart recommendations and have little interest in technical matters so I'll just say this:
I base my conclusions on Ortofon measurements of phase in phono carts as appeared in an Audio mag article in 1983. These are actual measurements, not theory, and that's why most EEs get it wrong. Phase shift is determined by mechanical properties, high frequency resonance and mechanical damping. Electrical resonance only modifies this in MMs and has no affect in MCs.
http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?t=33679

The thing is, if you consider this in "ultimate" terms, our older records were mastered using tape and phono carts to check SQ. Perhaps that helps explain playback preferences?

Regards,
Thanks Tom,
780DC is pretty close to those other Signets.
I think virtually all AT V magnets are paratoroidal. It's the TK9, 10, and AT22 - 25 that are supposed to be true toroidal.
The difference is in the way they are wound. Toroidal are donut shaped and the wire is wound from inside to outside, instead of around the outside of a circle. I don't know the difference in windings between these toroidal and paratoroidal.

There's an interesting interview here by Roy Gregory:
http://www.symmetry-systems.co.uk/Images/pdfs/Michel-Reverchon.pdf

Michel Reverchon talks about phase. Specifically, the need for phase integrity and extended bandwidth. There are implications for all kinds of music reproduction including phono, but that's for another day.

Regards,
Regards, Fleib: Off to a dinner engagement last night so a hurried post. Apologies.

The Signet 5.0 stats were from a stored download, a search turns this up, post #4:

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=577672

A few to add to AT's paratoridal coil carts: 5v, 7v & ANV150.

Peace,
Hi Timeltel,
I guess the database threw me another curve. 550mH and impedance 750Kohm?? Is that a typo?

The 5Ea, 7Ea, 7LCa are all 5mV, 550mH, 800DC,
900 impedance. That's from a Signet spec sheet. Apparently nice relationship between DC and impedance. Impedance is resistance with reactance figured in. Reactance includes the affects of inductance or capacitance.

The 440 OCC is 5mV, 490mH, 790DC, 3200 impedance. The MLa is 4mV, everything else the same. 150MLX - 4mV, 2.3K impedance.
Looking at the relationship between DC and impedance is confusing. One would think the TK7 with more inductance would have greater impedance than the 440 or 150. Impedance is specific to 1KHz though, which could make a difference?
They might have changed the way they calculate impedance?
Clearaudio only lists DC and they call it impedance.

The 440 has a cantilever resonance around 16KHz which reinforces a rising high end and tends to give an unfortunate brightness loaded at 47K or more. I got acceptable response loaded at 32K, 150pF. I tried a 140LC stylus and no discernible difference. It sat on a shelf until I tried a 152MLP (beryllium/ML) stylus which transformed it with very nice performance at 47K.

My sample of the MR5.0 is nearly 830DC in one channel. Is that spec 750DC?

Regards,
Hi, Halcro: I'd tried the 5.0 with an AM20 (3 x 7 nude elliptical), not sure why the 155Lc never made it to the 5.0?

Fleib: The Signet 5.0 carts (from Signet spec sheet) are 550 mH & 750k Ohm, 5mV output for all. "Para" denotes alteration or modification. Current AT carts with "Para"toroidal coils are the 150MLx, 440MLa, 120e and 100e.

That 440MLa--- picked one up when they were introduced. Like your TK10ML, perhaps five hours on it. 4mV & 3200 Ohm output inductance with a noticeably bright midrange. (Available.)

Peace,
Regards Timeltel, Halcro,
I bought the TK10ML II new in the '80s before I knew anything about loading. My MM phono input was 47K and I could select from three capacitance settings which seemed to do nothing with this cartridge. I played with VTA, checked alignment etc. I think I sold it before it was even broken in, a decision I now regret. How could this cart have response on test reports that looked like a ruler line, and sound like this?

The AT22 - 25 and Signet 9 and 10 series all had 85mH inductance! Dlaloum tells me they had toroidal type coils and were sort of experimental TOTL types.
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=88878.800

"The AT22-25 and TK9/10 were a generation earlier, they were more expensive to make due to having true torroidal construction... all the rest of the VM series have always used para-torroidal design - so the earlier generation were magnetically superior - but the difference may have been very minor.

The shorter cantilever on the ATML series made a bigger difference I think, than the torroidal structure on the earlier series...

Seems to me the ATML180 is up there as one of the all time greats.

My own measurements of the TK9 show a noticeable midrange trough (not a bad one, but not the best I have seen either) - which is caused (I think) by a combination of magnetic losses and cantilever flex losses - the low inductance is reflected in the high end rise to a resonance beyond the audio range (cannot recall right now the frequency - would have to look up my measurements).

The higher inductance of the ATML allows it to achieve a flatter frequency response at the high end - would love to get my hands on one to measure - and see what the midrange trough looks like... I have a feeling it will/would do better than the earlier series or the AT150 - mostly due to the shorter cantilever."

Low inductance carts are generally harder to load, but have great potential. All thing being equal, a shorter cantilever will have a higher resonant frequency. The Grace F9F has about the same HFR as a 6mm boron cantilever.
Higher inductance MMs are voiced so that electrical resonance (LCR) moves HFR to a frequency that compliments response. If a MM has extremely low inductance, playing with capacitance loading is fruitless, but potential for transparency and resolution is high.

I recently purchased a Signer MR 5.0ML. This series has the same stylus fitment as the current 100/120 series, but the plastic stylus holder is a little taller and must be trimmed slightly to use on a 440/150.
I tried the cart at 50K and 47K and it was decidedly uninvolving, underwhelming. I didn't expect much because DC was out of spec and it was inexpensive. Luckily, the stylus still has some life and sounds great on my 440. The stylus is beryllium/ML. I bought it for the stylus and got lucky.
The MR 5.0 entire series has the same generator as the 440. For years this was the go-to motor for many ATs. Carts like the 160 have the same motor, and numerous others.

Regards,
Regards Professor (Timeltel),

Ahhh....the trusty ATN155Lc...😜
Probably my favourite stylus assembly of all time...😎👍
It should work a treat especially if you mount the cartridge in either the wood Yamamoto or Ortofon LH8000 which I know you love....😀

I've found that arm parallel (or ever so slightly down) works a treat🎶
The 'highs' with this cartridge are the most delicate, transparent and ethereal I have ever heard....so I can readily understand how it may sound "hot" with anything but the BEST set-up....😖
Perseverance will be well repaid I hope.....good luck...😎👍

Regards
Regards, Fleib: I've both the TK-9LC & AT-22. Both are able to capture nuance and detail and well suited to orchestral and chamber music. ML styli sometimes seem overly analytical, much prefer Shibata, HE, or preferably, LC on beryllium. Highly regarded by some, I've not sought the TK10ML.

Halcro--- also have Signet 5.0 Basic and 5.0E carts, they seem a little on the "hot" side, especially the Basic. After your 5.0Lc comments, wondering now why I've not been tried either with an ATN155Lc stylus? Thanks, Henry.

Peace,
Hi Nandric,
You must have been angry when you wrote your last post because it's semi coherent. Once again you have me saying things I didn't say. Yes, I was somewhat embarrassed by that last set of exchanges between you and I on a public forum. Now you want to start again? Why is this nonsense worthy of everyone's time?

In the past you called me a clerk and now I'm arrogant, an arrogant ex clerk I suppose. Well, I know what I know and I know I never worked as a clerk. So what does that make you, mistaken? I worked in two different high end stores and was the "turntable guy" and the record buyer in probably the busiest high end store in the US. Besides working all day with record players I did such things as calling Scotland and buying out the Lyrita inventory. Now you know part of it, but who cares? This ended 25 years ago, why is this an issue? I was also cofounder and vice president of American Hybrid Technology. You can still buy the same phono stage, only now it's called Walker.

I also took a couple of logic courses in college. I might not be a logician but I know some faulty logic when I read it. I'm asking you to cease further name calling and personal attacks. When I said you are a lawyer and skilled at persuasion, or something to that effect, you took it as an insult. It was a compliment. Some of our most revered people like Abraham Lincoln were lawyers.
Storyboy was right. This BS is inappropriate. If you have further problems with me not concerning cartridges, send me an email.

Regards,
Hi Dover,
The Koetsu Black is within 2dB, 20 - 20K ?
That's the Goldline? The older Black seemed to have more bass than + 2dB, made it sound "mellow/lush". Their redesign really made a difference.

The Ruby was loaded at 100K and that's less rise than most MCs. I never owned one, but it seemed a little forward at first listen. In that respect one has an advantage with loading a MM.

Regards,
Hi Lew,
It seems to me that VTA/SRA has more to do with harmonics and loading is more about bright/dull. Of course they're interrelated. Wondering what conclusions await.

Regards,
Dover, Good point. The warning may simply relate to the possibility that the VTF will change if the vertical and horizontal parts of the arm are not plane parallel. That's no big deal to fix. In any case, I did ignore the warning and have tried changing VTA, which obviously requires one to violate the "rule" they put forth.
Hi Fleib,

I'm not sure about the Professor....but I've "messed" with the Signet TK10ML....and your description of "ear-bleeding" is apt....😱 👀
It was one happy day when I packed and posted this impostor to another unsuspecting victim....😜

Of happier experiences.....I recall you recently bought a Signet MR5.0Lc...❓😎
I've just revisited mine on a Yamamoto HS-1AS wood headshell....loaded at 40K Ohms and 100pF capacitance...and I find it delicious...😘

Regards
The issue with the OCL-modified Ruby is not so simple as to label it only "bright", a character that can indeed be tamed by adjusting VTA, in most cases. I would say there is more to it than that; but now it has been so long since I listened to it that I have to start over in my assessment. But most assuredly you are right that it is reasonable to play with all possible parameters of load and SRA.
Regards Timeltel, Thanks for the specs, most interesting.
It seems that the neighborhood of 240mH is the practical limit for AT inductance lowering. Beyond that it gets too bright for the mandatory 47K load recommendation, but that doesn't entirely explain Signet.
Did you ever have a TK9Ea or 9LCa ? 550 ohms imp. 85mH tapered beryllium.
The 10ML also has 85mH. When new the 10ML II could make your ears bleed. Just wondering if you've ever messed with one of these?

Regards,
Lew, Interesting arm. The sub arm is like the Souther linear tracker. I see no reason other than tracking warps, why you can't stray from maintaining perfectly horizontal arm tube. As mentioned previously, the SRA orientation of the OCL tip might not be in agreement with original F9, and the tip itself might have a more forward orientation. I can't confirm the later, but people have reported such.

I can't give you a mathematical reason for loading down, other than it's your only option for brightness with respect to LCR. Inductance is probably around 300 - 325mH, but adding capacitance will not help. A cart with lower high frequency resonance would normally get brighter as that resonance is lowered into the treble region, but that's not the goal anyway. LCR manipulation is specific to mechanical response and everything except playing with resistance is contraindicated. Mechanical response could be different with a different cantilever and tip.

There is a quasi-mathematical reason to try loading and stylus swapping. Albert Einstein said, insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results. If I remember correctly this is a NOS body or something like that? It could be a dud. You have a couple of good exemplars, so..... you could see what it takes to get results with a known entity.

Regards,
Regards, Fleib. Had the manual downloaded, lost when the magic smoke escaped from my previous laptop. Found these specs elsewhere, seem to be from reliable sources.

ML140-170 OCC: Coil impedance 2.5 kOhm @ 1kHz.
Inductance: 380 mH @ 1kHz.

ML180 OCC: Coil impedance: 1.4 kOhm @ 1 kHz
Inductance: 240 mH @ 1kHz.

Cantilever for 170/180, gold spluttered boron pipe, beryllium rod for the 140/150.

Raul wrote of the ML180 in this thread, he thought highly of it.

Peace,
Fleib, You wrote, "Have you ever tried it with the sub arm not horizontal?" Yes, of course, that's what happens if you raise or lower the tower at the rear, which is easily done with the DV505 and one reason why I like the tonearm. I've tried it both ways, rear end up and rear end down. As mentioned, this did not do much to ameliorate the problem. The DV505 does have VTA "on the fly" (though I would never adjust it during play). The question is how to interpret the manual as regards the possibility that optimal VTA setting might result in a nonparallel relationship between the horizontal and vertical parts of the tonearm. Since the vertically pivoting part is so short from stylus to pivot, a very tiny change in arm height at the rear adjuster has a major effect on VTA. No, I have not swapped Ruby bodies and Ruby styli. Interesting idea. Do you have a math-based reason to believe that the OCL will sound better with some load resistance other than 100K, when the standard elliptical Ruby stylus does sound excellent at that R?
Hi Lew, I just read the 505 manual or part of it. I see what you mean. Have you ever tried it with the sub arm not horizontal? If it doesn't function properly like that, your only recourse for SRA is to use an angled shim in the headshell. Not exactly convenient for working things out.

I think it would be more productive to consider this a different cart than your other Rubies, and it might well be. Is it difficult changing resistance in whatever you're using for this? It wouldn't hurt to try and it might be the solution. I'd also experiment with a different arm. I'm bothered if I don't have VTA on-the-fly. The 505 would drive me to distraction. BTW, have you tried the stylus on one of your other bodies?

Regards,
Regards Timeltel,
The database has the 150 w/berrylium and the 170-180 w/boron. Maybe it's a mistake. I was hoping you knew inductance. I'm guessing it's 370mH, but that's just a guess based on the 150MLX - 2.3Kohm, 350mH. But they might have stronger magnets.

I think I have those specs somewhere. I'll have to look.

Thanks,
Fleib - It is interesting to note that the high frequency 2db rise at 20k with the Grace F9 is greater than any of my moving coil cartridges ( Dynavector Karat Nova 13D, Koetsu Black ). Certainly the F9E I owned with original stylus was a little thin and anaemic sounding, a bit wiry in the top end.
Lewm, The Dynavector 505 manual I have simply says the sub arm should be parallel, the word geometry is not used. It may simply be that they believe all Dynavector cartridges should be parallel to record for optimum VTA. One possibility is that the damping imparted by the dynamic tracking force spring may be suboptimal when the arm is not level. The Dynavector 501 manual I have does not make any comment, nor does the 507.
Fleib, As noted, I was running my re-tipped Ruby into a 100K load (not 47K) with no added capacitance (meaning capacitance due to cable and Miller effect is probably in the 100 to 150pF range). Also as noted previously, I did try both raising and lower the tonearm. Actually, to my surprise, these maneuvers had only subtle effects on the problem I perceived. The OEM Grace Ruby that I also own sounds wonderful under these same conditions. I need to consult with Peter Ledermann; perhaps he will want to have the OCL-tipped Ruby go back to him for a check-up, or perhaps he will be able to tell me that I need to use a different load R and C. Another parameter to consider is headshell mass; maybe I need a lighter mass headshell.

The caveat about changing VTA is that the cartridge is mounted in a DV505 tonearm. Thus, when one raises or lowers the arm with respect to "level", the vertical portion of the tonearm creates an angle with the horizontally pivoting part. In their instruction manual DV intimates that this is not a good idea as far as tonearm geometry; I am not really sure why, and I wonder why they warn against essentially doing what it takes to maximize VTA. The English translation of the original is not helpful on this issue. However, I can imagine that Euclid might know why not to do it.
Regards, Fleib: Gold plated beryllium cantilevers for 150-180, not sure about the 140 which IIRC is an elliptical.

AT ML150 OCC:

MicroLine stylus
Output voltage 4mV / 1kHz 5cm / sec
0.95 ~ 1.55g needle pressure (optimal 1.25g)
Playback frequency 10-30,000Hz
Channel separation 30dB / 1kHz
Channel balance 1.0dB / 1kHz
Compliance 10 — 10 -6 cm / dyne
Load resistance 47kΩ
Internal impedance 2.5k
7.0g weight

Purchased with snapped cantilever. S.Smith reported a challenging repair, there was very little left to work with. The Optimized LC diamond gives definition to the need for good setup practices, perhaps as demanding as those Acutex LPM 4xx STR carts Henry recently rediscovered :).

Prace,
Panasonic EPC-450C II is a strain gauge cartridge that hit the market back when 4 Channel Quad was still on the market. I believe it was based on Sao Win's work. Being a strain gauge type and not at all compatible with a conventional phono stage, it required a special box and aye, there's the rub.

My first experience with this was using a Panasonic 4 channel adaptor box that had provisions for the strain gauge (there were also a few receivers so equipped). This was indeed a compromise as the quality of the box was not good, but your only alternatives were a)Jeff Rowland made an adaptor box as one of his first products (I have never seen nor heard one of these) b) There was a tube-type box you could "homebrew" shown in the old "Tube-be or not Tube-be" book (a treasure trove of tune amp/preamp info that I wish I still had a copy of) and John Iverson's (of Electron Kinetics and Electro Research) EK-1 strain gauge preamp which I have had experience and will be the subject of my next post.
Timeltel,
I forgot to ask the specs of the ML150? I thought I had it written down somewhere, but it eludes me. The database has it listed as 2500 ohms, 4mV. It looks to have the same generator as the 170, 180 with only the cantilever being different?

Speaking of cantilevers, in a general way I think more rigidity gives more detail/exactness often at the expense of that relaxed, natural Denon type presentation. Just as you can't emphasize one extreme of the frequency spectrum without relatively affecting the other extreme, more detail can result in clinical rather than natural.

Beryllium seems to give the best results with ATs IMO. It's more flexible than boron so it's a little more like aluminum in that respect, but it's also the lightest. Was the original ML150 stylus broken?

Harold NTB,
There's a thread on Asylum about rise time. Luckydog discusses the problem with quantifying it. I thought you might be interested.

Regards,
Hi Raul If you reading this please come back. I enjoyed your input i bought a AT150ANV and some other cartridges based on your recommendation. I love that cartridge.

I used to follow this thread everyday when you were posting, it appeared you got painted as the "evil genius", for your strong views, but that was what also made the thread a great read. Without your input its never been the same.
Greetings Timeltel,
I have one manual for six F9 models including the F, E, and L. Ruby is not included. All have impedance of 2.4K and same output except L is +2mV. I naturally assumed it has stronger magnets. Thanks for confirmation.
I also assumed this is the earlier manual. The F (line trace) is the top with response to 50K, but it seems the stylus is the only difference. There's a response graph for F taken with 100K load. Response is up about 2dB @ 20K, and 3dB @ 30K. It looks like high frequency resonance is around 30K. There is a slight treble droop centered around 8K, but it's very slight. One curious thing is capacitance load was 80pF. There is no recommendation in the specs.

If Ruby impedance is 1.7K with no drop in output, it would imply stronger magnets and less inductance. Still, it might be a good idea to keep capacitance low as possible. AT's seem best at 150pF total. This might be a little high for a Grace, don't know exactly why. Resonance seems high enough that it wouldn't matter unless excessive.

Lew,
Assuming you have azimuth correct, I think SRA and resistance load is the solution. I'd drop the rear of a 9.5" arm about 4 or 5mm, more if you have clearance and take it up from there. You might want to check alignment.
If you're running 47K you might not have to load it down, but that would be your only option for excessive brightness.
Regards
Hi Fleib, The statement made is: 'I put forth that this
now pathetic thread be put to rest, and let you 2 take to
personal email'. You call this 'comment' and even
'contribution' without being 'contribution'. I call
this qualification without a single argument. Besides his
advice make (also) no sense . I our private emails we are
polite and kind for eacht other. A dispute make only sense
when public. To teach our 'lion' lessons is pretty arogant
from your side. But that is obviously your nature. As far
as I know your background was employee by some HIFI shop.
Regards, Lewm: Offered for sale by a college classmate, a 1958 Giulietta Spider Normale, $400. I declined because a broken motor mount had been replaced with a piece of 2x4" lumber and tied down with a coat hanger. Wish I had it now!

Your F9-E rebuild--- Picked up an AT ML150 OCC & had the S. Smith optimized LC/ruby rebuild. Somewhat clinical, exceedingly accurate transient response. Diminished/moved upwards cantilever resonance is a likely suspect. Recalled from a Peter L. comment a number of years ago, (paraphrase) "Some may prefer the elliptical stylus on aluminum cantilever".

Early reviews of the F9-E referred to a forwardness in the hfs. This may account for the two figures given for output impedance, 1.7k & (later?) 2.4k.

Maybe Fleib has an opinion?

Peace,
Fleib, Please re-read my philosophical post. I say precisely what you say, Storyboy has a perfect right to hang out here as does anyone else. My point was that if he or anyone else finds the thread to be "pathetic", that person has the option of not hanging out here. After all, he was including your posts in his generalization. I am not sure that Storyboy equates off-topic posts with pathos, but I guess I am guilty of more off-topic posts than anyone else. So I will be the one to stay away until I have something of interest to contribute regarding MM cartridges. Meantime, I would love to find an Ortofon MC2000; if anyone….

By the way, Timel, my very first sports car was a 1967 Alfa Romeo Duetto Spider that I bought used while in med school. I drove it for 6 years in New York City, parking it only on the street in all weather and never in a garage. It was completely and utterly reliable every one of those days until I sold it.
Regards, Fleib: To answer a question you didn't ask in this thread: I've both the Grace F9-E and gold bodied F9-L. Output (relative to volume) travels with the stylus assembly. The manual that accompanied the 9-L gives 3.5mV output for all F9's except the L at 5.5. Output impedance for all is 1.7k Ohms.

There are two manuals available for download at VE. Curiously one states 1.7K Ohms, the other 2.4k. Specs "may change without notice" printed at the bottom. In the cartridge Database the Ruby which was introduced at a later date is shown at 2.4k.

Lew (OT): I've a car enthusiast friend who says one needs two Alphas- one to drive while the other's in the garage. Good luck with your resto.

Peace,