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
Dear friends: Right now I'm testing the Elac and Nagatron cartridge performance.

These are my findings on the Elac:

as you know Elac is a very old German company that betwwen other things designed and design cartridges. I understand they start with cartridge design on the early 60's so around 50 years ago!!!, certainly they know something about.

My Elac cartridge is the 896ESG H24Sp that was the top of the line along the 796 HSp Jubilaüm.

Both cartridges use boron cantilever with VdH 1 stylus. There are other three Elac models that use VdH 2 stylus that was a step down on VdH stylus level, all other Elac ( 795,794,792, etc etc. )cartridges use elliptical stylus shape and that's why in the cartridge denomination always appear an E.

The main differences on those top of the line Elac cartridges are: compliance where in mine is 24cu and the 796 30cu and in output where mine is 4.5mv against 5.6mv on the Jubilaüm.

The 896 cartridge specs are not " spectacular " like other MM/MI cartridges, frequency response: 10 to 30khz, channel balance 28/20 at 1k/10K.

I mounted in the Grace G-949 with a Lustre magnesium ( 10grs. ) headshell, no antiskating, no stylus guard, 1,5grs on VTF, 100K load impedance with no added capacitance and with a " high " positive VTA/SRA.
My cartridge sample is a second hand unit.

The overall quality performance is really friendly: you like it very fast, the music flow easy with good tone where the bass when asking for is not only deep but with very good pitch, resolution, and very low overhang. At the other frequency extreme the HF are all there are extended with out overbright or excess on shine, it is not soft or reticent but maybe a little low on HF energy. The mid-bass/midrange is very good too with great " feeling " on the cartridge performance. I like it.

I like it so much that this will pass to the VdH " touch " cartridge waiting list.
This Elac cartridge is worth to have it and as " ugly " it is ( IMHO ) as good performer it is.
Not easy to find but you and me know that sooner or latter some Elac samples could appear over the net on sale.

IMHO belongs to the level 8 on the cartridge quality performance ladder.

I need more days for the Nagatron 350 report not only because it shows me something especial but because in the next 48 hours I will put my hands on the Technics 100C integrated headshell cartridge that I will have only for a few hours for test it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear friends: Looking to VE site I found that the Grace tonearm pictures on the G-945 are similar to my Grace tonearm that I was thinking was the G-940.

I don't know for sure which are the differences ( other than different counterweight shape. ) between the G-940 and the G-945 that's the real one I own.

This post only to clarify about.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
In my own experience, while the Ortofon M20FL is still a keeper, I did detect a slight upper mid-range grain which I do not hear with the Azden YM-P50VL. Perhaps I did not spend enough time with the Ortofon, and maybe I just happened to nail the setup on the Azden from the start; but it is definitely more resolving, as musically pleasing, and I do not detect any of that slight grain I heard with the M20FL. I still prefer the Ortofon to my Zyx Fuji, but the Azden appears to be another step up.
Raul, does your grace arm have a din with the pins on the armcable, not in the tonearm? I have a grace 707 and the pins are on the armcable and wondered if anyone had a suggestion for an armcable of that type or where I can get a plug to make one?
I think you can get a male DIN plug made by Cardas from Michael Percy Audio in Nevada City, California, USA. I am sure there are many other sources for such a product, as well.
Lewm,

For your L0-7D, do you use RFI and EMI sheets between the platter and the mat as suggest on the L-07D website?
Ddriveman, Yes. I use "TI Shield", sold in sheets by Michael Percy. I bought a 12x12" piece and cut it in the shape of an LP, then inserted it between the platter and the platter sheet. I have listened to the table with and without the shield in place. IMO, there is a discernible difference; the sound is a bit "cleaner", and the soundstage is bigger, with the shield in place. I raised the question of whether this shield should be grounded, on Tweaker's Asylum, and got a plethora of conflicting responses. So I made no special attempt to ground it. The TI shield is coated with a clear glaze, so I assume it is electrically fairly isolated from the platter and platter sheet.
Hmmm

I wonder if a RF/EMI/TI shield will make a positive difference with my Exclusive P3 & P10?

I hear absolutely no RFI or anything at the moment 0- in fact the P3 is significantly quieter than my TW Raven AC-3

How thick are the sheets Lew?
Dear Downunder, Best to go to M Percy website or to Texas Instrument website and search on "TI Shield". (The TI stands for Texas Instruments.) It's about as thick as the lid of a tin can, easy to work with. It is said to be superior to ERS cloth for soaking up RFI. it's a valid question whether such a shield is worthwhile for any and every DD turntable. The L07D has a platter mat (aka "platter sheet") that weighs over 5 lbs and is made of stainless steel, and it sits on an alu platter. You would think that this mat and platter would suffice to shield the cartridge, but there does seem to be a subtle improvement with the extra shield added. I haven't tried this with any of my other DD turntables.
I wonder if a RF/EMI/TI shield will make a positive difference with my Exclusive P3 & P10?

I hear absolutely no RFI or anything at the moment 0- in fact the P3 is significantly quieter than my TW Raven AC-3

Dude,

Can you keep it down please...you are destroying my chance of landing a P3.;)

BTW i've been playing my Azden on my slated SP10 Mk2 with a Micro MA505Mk3 arm over the last week and after more than 10 hours, i think it's really started to shine.
I compared it to an old Technics EPC205MK3 with non standard stylus( Jico Sas ) on the same arm and found the Azden to have more tonal weight and natural sounding high, the later sounding a bit bright in comparison.
Dear Headsnappin: A little late.
Yes my Grace G-945 comes in that way but I'm using an external tonearm wire directly to the preamp. Lewm advise could help you.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear friends: Yesterday I had the opportunity to heard in my system the Technics EPC-100C MK4.
This is the same model ( same cartridge design characteristics ) than my P-4 mount one but comes integrated with own Technics headshell.

Like the P-4 model this one exude Technics quality on its build. It is on the heavyweight with 18grs+.

This sample was re-tiped by VdH last January and is fully broken.

Own it the Technics EPC-P100C MK4 I was not waiting for any " surprise " with its " twin ".

I mounted on the Grace G-945, almost level but positive VTA/SRA, 1.25grs and ususal impedance/capacitance.

I follow my recording tracks testing process followed by almost the same recordings I used on the Technics EPC-P100CMK4 review.

It is more easy and less boring speak on the main differences between the " twins " than in its similar quality performance characteristics.

It is a great cartridge that shows a little less transparency on the highs, with little less definition on the bass and with little less energy on the low mid-bass and seems to me that the 4P-mount is a little better tracker.
All this performance differences are against the top 10+ Technics twin.

Please don't take these " differences " like a sensible " drawback ", the cartridge has first rate performance and I know for sure that any one ( but the happy owners ) of you will be pleased with. A top 10 ranking level.

Btw, this Technics integrated model is more " easy " to find than the 4P-mount model.

Almost nothing more to add other that was is on the Technics original review.

regards and enjoy the music,
raul.
Raul,

I am truly pleased to see that you are appreciating the merits of an integrated cartridge. I am comtemplating having VdH touch up my Glanz G5 and G7 cartridges but need more time to be fully ingrained in what they do in their current and original state. It would then be interesting to compare them to my VdH treated Technics: not necessarily listening for 'a better/best' so much as 'to the differences'.

Thanks for the information and

Happy listening
Dear Dgob: What I'm appreciating is the very good Technics cartridge design and build quality that IMHO is second to none. Even this Technics facts the stand alone model is superior.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
So has any one of us yet tried one of the NOS Technics cartridges sold by Thakker? Will either of those accept a stylus assembly from a 100C? Interesting idea, eh what.
Dear Lewm: I never try those cartridges you are asking.

Now, I almost can say that NO you can't use those cartridge bodies with a 100C stylus assembly.

I have in hand a NOS EPS-P205ED3 stylus replacement for a top ( one step down the 100C. ) 4P-mount 205MK3 or MK4 Technics cartridges ( Btw, I will put on sale through ebay in next 48 hours. ), well you can't mount this stylus in the 100CMK4 because the stylus male assembly is wider than the female ( hole ) in the 100C.

Lewm, the 100C is unique and I think Technics want to make sure the cartridge maintain in that unique status.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
I finally obtained a phonostage that eliminated my RFI plague. It's Ray Samuels F-117 Nighthawk SS phonoamp. It allows for adjustable impedance, so I had him change the 1000ohm setting for 100k. I can now alternate between 47k & 100k ohms. I also had it set for 100pf. It is devoted completely for MM/MI operation. It performs excellently.

The Ortofon 20FL Super had been playing for nearly two weeks. I was very impressed with its performance and was reluctant to try another of the cartridges sitting in my stable. An audio friend suggested I give the Andante P-76 a try. Before installing it I removed the the pins from the headshell so I could have a direct connection with the tonearm leads. Not a good idea unless you plan to solder the tonearm leads to the cartridge pins. Even crimping the clips of the tonearm wires as tight as could be done it was still not able to grab on to the Andante cartridge pins. I had to remove the cartridge and reinstall the headshell pins, fortunatly they were not damaged when I pulled them out. It was a bear reinserting them in the small holes and pulling them all the way through.

The Andante was mounted on my Triplanar VII tonearm. Slightly high VTA and 1.5g tracking. The first record I played was Ricki Lee Jones Pop Pop album ORG reissue. I was stunned by what I heard. The music leaped from my speakers with extended bass, incisive percussion and a vocal realism I have not attained in my own system up until now. This was a wow factor moment for me. I spent all yesterday evening into the night listening to my favorite jazz records.

Today (Saturday) I decided to give the Andante my classical power music test. This is where its limitations manifested themselves. The Andante like many cartridges I have tried including the Ortofon M20 FL Super simply become congested when a massive string orchestra with percussion or horns are playing full tilt. I do not have even a full 8 hours on the cartridge so it is far from broken in and perhaps this area will surprise me later.

One final note. I substitued the M20E Super briefly in place of the M20 Super Fl and did not like it. I know many her prefer the M20E Super to the M20Fl but I found it not as resolving and transparent.

I have an Azden YM-50VL, YM-20E, Empire 4000D/III Gold & Acutex 312 LPM not the 315 which put water on Raul's eyes, all waiting their turn. I have acquired the Monsterat Caballe lp he referenced and am waiting to see which one of these cartridges sends shivers up my spine.

Which of these champs to do you expect to displace the Andante?

Thanks to all who have contributed to this forum.

Regards,
I own the Andante and the Azden.I think the Azden is the better sounding cartridge,in my system anyway.I have two other models,Technics 205CIIL and Signet TK10MLIII that I think are excellent performers and worth it to buy if you find one.
I think you may find that with careful tweaking both or either one of the Ortofon and the Andante may do better on resolving massed orchestral strings. I found this to be true of the Azden after I dialed in the geometry and VTA, but not before. (For one thing, most folks found that a bit of positive VTA [pivot point up] helps with the Ortofon M20FL. Sounds like you've got the pivot down a bit with respect to the headshell.]The "problem" with these auditions is the never-ending need to worry about the variables that are affecting your listening experience, but it's also great fun and a hobby unto itself. Glad you like the FL version; I do too.
Raul,

Interesting views as always. I wonder if different and superior are always so easily distinguished! That's what I'll seek to find out with my Glanz cartridges using my Technics 100Mk4 as the standard.

Incidentally, regarding your stock records used for testing, Jan Garbareks' 'Legend of the Seven Dreams' (ECM 1381) is a great test for the Technics and any related comparisons. Give it a whirl when you get a chance

Enjoy
Dear Montepilot: I'm only want to tell you that the 20E needs 1.0grs on VTF and its needs are a little different than the 20FL not only on VTF but VTA/SRA.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear friends: This opportunity comes to me by Michael a good Agon friend and I share it if some one is interested on this Technics 100C MK3:

http://page10.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/m77540861

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Lewm: Before you dialed in tonearm today geometry ( Stevenson ) which one was you using? are you saying that the manufacturer that comes in the tonearm mounting template does not works?

Regards and enjoy the music,
raul.
Dear Dgob: +++++ " I wonder if different and superior are always so easily distinguished! " +++++

that " process " is not easy as a fact IMHO is almost always a hard task in especial when two items has near the same characteristics/performance.

What can/could help to make more " easy " that process is if we have a precise/confident method and training to discern about.

Btw, thank you for that ECM recording recoemndation I will take in count.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear friends: After my test on the Elac 896 where I found that this cartridge performs really good I think that this opportunity on an Elac cartridge ( second step down the top of the line. ) could be good:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ELAC-D795E30-Germany-phono-cartridge-van-den-hul-needle-/130389883108?cmd=ViewItem&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1e5bd7b8e4#ht_500wt_1154

you don't see often Elac cartridges on sale, at least not this kind of Elac model.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Btw, this is what Downunder posted 10 days ago about this Elac cartridge he own:

+++++ " has a flow and musicality that is infecious " +++++

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Raul,
Prior to this craziness with turntable, cartridges, and tonearms, I only owned one tonearm, the Triplanar. I also only owned one protractor, the Turntable Basics (TTB). Well, in fact I also have owned a metal Dennesen protractor for about 20 years, but I don't tend to use it because I can barely see the tiny little dimple in the aluminum, for citing the stylus tip. The TTB protractor is designed for Baerwald geometry (I think) and so is the Triplanar. When I used the TTB to align the DV505, it works, but the cartridge ends up twisted inwards to the long axis of the DV505 headshell, in order to make the cartridge body align with the grid on the TTB surface. In other words, one has to make a choice between headshell and grid; you can't have it both ways. I never considered this a problem, once done, and when Seb published his article in Vinyl Engine showing that tracing distortion is best minimized by adhering to the protractor, even if it does mean twisting the cartridge in the headshell, I felt that I had done the right thing. But then I started thinking about the problem with respect to the DV505, which has the short distance from stylus tip to vertical pivot. It seems to me that twisting the cartridge in such an arm could generate vertical forces that are not symmetrical on the cantilever and could therefore cause distortions of some other kind (other than tracing distortion). Plus I had observed that the R channel was very prominent in the DV505 tonearm; even high amounts of anti-skate were not helping the situation. So, I downloaded the free Stevenson protractor from VE and re-set the DV505 using that geometry. This allows the cartridge to align with the long axis of the headshell and reduces overhang by a few mm. It also completely cured the R channel prominence, and I now get a much better stereo image from the DV505. Also, the overall presentation is more relaxed, less "grainy", for want of a better term, perhaps less distortion. Sorry for the long post, but you asked.
Dear Lewm: I ask because I always use the Dynavector values that comes in the 505 mounting template and operation manual ( http://www.vinylengine.com/library/dynavector/dv-505.shtml ) with always good results and with out problems.

The Stevenson geometry is near the Dyna manufacturer specs but certainly is different.

I don't like to much the Stevenson geometry because if it is true that has the lower inner groove distortion it is true too that all over the the middle and out grooves the distortion is higher so I can't see any real advantage on Stevenson and less with MM/MI that are so good inner grooves trackers.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear R, I never knew there was a specific template for the DV505. I will definitely give it a try. Thanks for the information. I used Stevenson not because I had any reason to think it was "the best", but because from what I have read the DV505 headshell offset angle was closest to the Stevenson norm, which would allow for proper alignment of the cartridge in the headshell.
Whoops!
Dear Raul, You are referring to the mounting template on Vinyl Engine? I used that precisely to mount my tonearm. But that only tells you that the sylus overhang needs to be 15mm. Dynavector originally supplied a tool to establish that exact offset. Unfortunately, I don't own one and cannot find one via the internet. Without their tool it is very difficult to establish the overhang distance with any precision (e.g., to +/-1.0mm), because the spindle gets in the way of the cartridge body. So I am back to needing a protractor. Which is why I used the Stevenson protractor on VE.
Hi All,

Just to reiterate that the Technics EPC-P100c Mk4 is indeed a phenomenal cartridge. I've been playing mine on a Moerch DP6 red point tonearm at 1.25g VTF since the VdH touch-up. VTA is indeed also really important. I'm now playing mine at about 1mm positive elevation at the pivot and a move of 1mm on VTA can make a big difference. This will of course be dependent upon the tonearm and system that you are using. However, when it is set up correctly, (OMG!!) it's that good and on this point I cannot disagree with Raul.

If you ever have the chance, it's a must buy and Van den Hul's refresher should be considered compulsary on this true gem of a cartridge.

Very highly recommended
Dear Lewm: According with my Stevenson Calculator and taking the Dynavector 241mm tonearm effective length the overhang is 15.173mm instead Dynavector spec: 15.00mm.

That overhang value means that the pivot to spindle distance must be: 225.827mm. Your tonearm is it mounted at this distance value/measure?

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
is the rumor that Technics "Temperature Defensive" Dumper that went to series 100, series 205mk3 and later is not aging well?
Siniy123,

I really don't know. With little to no technical interest myself, I simply sent mine off to VdH and they refreshed it to the (very good!) state it's in now. It might be true though as they also addressed a noted brittleness in my boron.
Regards, Raul: Interesting posts over the last several days, it seems "listening" is the theme.

Listening for alignment: I've concluded that alignment graphs are simply an aid to "roughing in" a cartridge, there are too many variances in spindle-to-pivot settings and in the actual relation of the stylus to the cantilever or cartridge body for guaranteed perfection. The first priority seems to be overhang. Using the inside point of a simple printed Baerwald two point protractor to start, the stylus initially set 0.5mm short of the manufactor's spec. At this point the cartridge is visibly canted to the outside. It's wrong and I know it is. IGD is usually slight but very evident in the outside tracks. With the mounting screws snug but not tight the cartridge is pivoted in stages towards the spindle until OGD is no longer objectionable. The inside screw serves as a fulcrum, this arcs the stylus away from the pivot and very near to specified OH. At this time both screws are tightened and listening for error begins. Further adjustments are usually minute, equalization of dynamics between L&R channels and a centering of soundstage indicate alignment is close. VTA next, then a long term check for distortion. This proceedure is usually effective and efficient but may take several weeks to conclude. Having said this, I'll go hide for several days, until the purists stop throwing things anyway.

Raul: As to a listener's ability to discern "different/superior". From a commercial (no affiliation) site but still interesting reading:

http://www.mother-of-tone.com/listen.

The promotional contents in other topics found there are to be taken with the reader's discretion.

Listening for the "best cartridge": I've finally pulled together a Shure ML 140HE. A NOS N140HE last year, the cartridge body found last week. It sounds "different" from the cartridges discussed in this thread, those I have familiarity with: Rich, woody but not wooly mids, crisp and articulate highs. The bass has wonderfull presence and impact but it lacks the sophistication of the Acutex or Grace F9- carts. More punch than an Empire 1000 ZE/X or Azden YP-50VL and less subtle than the Orto. M20FL. Greater presence and impact than a AKG P8E/P8ES but not as analytical as the Shure V15-111. "Superior" in specific areas to any of the above, inferior in others. It is none-the-less a very good pickup, perhaps Shure's best. I suggest if you have the opportunity to own one you will not be dissapointed.

Pardon the post's length. My opinion, my antique gear, usual disclaimers & etc.
Dear friends: I'm testing the Empire 4000D/III, is so good that I have to leave the Nagatron test away.

I don't have time now to explain nothing about other that I will prepare a cartridge official review.

I'm not finish the Empire test but I think outperform the 1000ZE/X ( a priori ).

IMHO a must to have. here you can find it NOS, seems to me that the seller has more than one sample:

http://cgi.ebay.com/EMPIRE-4000D-lll-GOLD-ORIGINAL-TURNTABLE-NEEDLE-/250632080597?cmd=ViewItem&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3a5ad60cd5#ht_500wt_1154

hurry!

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
I never read about the "Temperature Defensive" Dumper but a friend has an EPC-100 Mk 4 that he bought new, oh so many years ago. He always claimed it was the most musically accurate cartridge he ever owned (he has quite a bit of experience making live recordings). But the suspension failed and it lay idle in his parts box for years. Finally after we talked about it last fall he sent it in to Soundsmith to be rebuilt. Eventually Peter got back to him saying he was not able to rebuild it properly.

I thought this sounded a little strange but perhaps this Dumper than Siniy123 mentions is the reason. My friend's experience may be an example of "not aging well".
Raul, I mounted my tonearm exactly according to that template from the owners manual, using the recommended pivot to stylus distance per Dynavector. If memory serves me, that would be 226mm, spindle to pivot distance. Yes, there will be some tiny error in cartridge alignment using Stevenson, due to the discrepancy you note, but the important thing is that the cartridge sits very nearly square in the headshell, instead of at a significant angle, as with Baerwald alignment. I take your point that if I used the DV template (which is NOT a protractor, just a template for mounting the tonearm), then I ought to aim for 15mm overhang. If I had a really good protractor built for the DV geometry, I would try to correct for that 0.173mm error, but without it, it would be ludicrous to try. There is at least that much error built in to any cartridge alignment procedure done by any normal human, probably more.
I'm using Shure ML140HE right now on Audio Technica AT1010 tonearm (second arm on my L-07D) and enjoying it very much. Musically, it is there with very best :)
It has great synergy with this arm. In my experience this particular Shure required a little deal of tonearm matching to get to the "top" level, it was less of an issue with other cartridges. For the record, my Signet TK10ML wasn't good on that AT1010 - it generated too much of not dumped energy that it was affecting the tracking. TK10ML tracked like devil on all other tonearms I had. Go figure...
Technics TTDD auto-translation from Japanese:
Techniques developed TTDD (Technics Temperature Defence Damper) is adopted.This system compared to butyl rubber has been used in general, the temperature dependence of about 1 / 3 has been improved, with better-viscoelastic, material and have a great damper on the performance of the cantilever support Masu.Thus, almost no performance degradation due to quality changes and changes in trace room temperature.
Link dosn't seem to work. Google "Mother of Tone". Index on left, second or third down, click on "Listening, Levels & Truth". For those interested, it's a short read echoing thoughts certian others have expressed in this thread.

Raul, looking forward to your review of the Empire 4000d/111, if the Technics EPC and Acutex are 10+ (10.1), will this one make it to a 10.2?

Siniyl123: The ML140HE: Musical it is. New to me and not yet settled in, I've not formed a strong sense of it's performance but I like what I hear. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'm enjoying it at 100k Ohm, 300pF total cap. and 1.05gm VTF. Somewhat positive VTA for now as the bass response is still moving around.
Dgob, Congrats on the Technics EPC-P100c Mk4. Almost seems that us owners are rubbing salt into wounds when we gush about the excellent SQ given almost impossible to buy.
What did VDH do to your Technics EPC-P100c Mk4?

My cantilever is slightly off centre, so thinking of sending it to VDH for a 28 year refresh. It seems that VDH is familar with the cartridge.

Dgob, Raul - how do you email/contact VDH directly?. feel free to pm me off line.
Technics EPC-P100c Mk4 sucks.
However, as a magnanimous gesture, I am willing to unburden one lucky owner of his sample.
Lew, the Technics EPC-P100c Mk4 may well suk. But you will never know :-) ah ha ha ha!
Dear Siniy123: Where do you heard that rumor?. My 205 and 100 have no trouble about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear pryso: Now you can tell your friend that send his 100CMK4 to VdH that with this cartridge IMHO is the right " source " to fix it.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Raul,
I read about this on some Japanese blogs.
I don't own late model Technics cartridges, but my 205IIL is not "complaining" about dumper.
Dear Dgob: I hope you connect your 100C in direct connection fashion. The cartridge deserve it and in that way you improve its already great quality performance. Give a try about.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Timeltel: Siniy123 makes that I was aware on that Shure cartridge but I don't try to find it hard yet.

Stay tunned for the Empire 4000DIII.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.