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 Lewm: +++++ " There is at least that much error built in to any cartridge alignment procedure done by any normal human, probably more. " +++++

agree.

Btw, Masaaki Sasa Dynavector Technical Director told me that vintage Japanese tonearms designers prefer Minimum Inner Groove Distortion and the Stevenson is the " match " but this not preclude that with those tonearms ( including the 505 ) the customer try other geometry set up.

So what you decided using Stevenson geometry was spot on, good.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Lewm: I can give you one of my samples for 10K+Paypal fee and free shipping.

Regards and enjoy the music,
raul.
Dear Siniy123: I see.

Btw, do you know which differences are ( if exist any ) between the 205s with out the L and the ones with? what means that L?

You and Travbrow own Technics L samples and I'm curious about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear friends: Only for the " records ": a NOS stylus replacement on that Empire 4000DIII set you back 250.00, so I think that due to its very high quality performance the cartridge NOS seller rpice is really fair. Don't miss it.

Btw, as always I don't have any relationship with the seller, I insist on the cartridge because IMHO is worth the " investment ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Raul,
On Technics 205C models...
As far as I can tell, the first 205C was introduced just after the SP10 was introduced in the early 1970s. It had a titanium cantilever. The 205C-II was released a few years later. The 205C-IIS, -IIL, and -IIH were released around 1976, along with the first 100C and 101C, around when the SP-10Mk2 was released (the 205CMk3 released a few years later). In the 205-II later series where they started adding letters at the end of the model names, the S is the standard model (3.5mV), the H is High impedance/output (7mV), the L is Low impedance (and low output - 2mV). Out of those three, in my opinion the L is the nicest-sounding one, but that's just me. There is also a 205C-IIX but I have never figured out whether it was a replacement stylus or actually offered for sale as a cartridge. I have had a couple of those in and out of the system and they also sound nice.
Dear T_bone: Very good information indeed.

I always say that every single day must be a learning one if you are not afraid to lear.

Ok, the 205C MK4 ( that I own ) is a totally different design that the 205C..L line models.
The 205C MK4 was designed in 1984 and its performance is very close to the P100C MK4.

Thank you to put some kight about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
It has to read: learn instead lear and light instead kight.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Raul,
I think H, L in Technics 205II series specifies output level of the cartridge. The stylus on 205IIH and 205IIL is the same. If I remember correctly the DC resistance of my Technics 205IIL is around 30 Ohms, but it works fine with most MM stages.

Here are some pages from 1877 German catalog:
http://wegavision.pytalhost.com/technics77/technics77-47.jpg

Cartridge spec page is here:
http://wegavision.pytalhost.com/technics77/technics77-49.jpg

Hope this helps
Raul,
I don't know how different the 205CMk4 is from the 205CMk3, but between the 205CMk3 and the 100C there are several differences (despite use of similar materials in places): cantilever structure is different, and coil structure is completely different - the 205Cmk3 uses relatively bulkier coils, and the 100C has wisps of coils. FWIW, even in 1984, the price of the 205CMk4 was half that of the 100C version of the same period.
Dear Raul and Downunder, Your cruelty re my lack of a Technics 100C is duly noted. I might have expected it from an Australian but not from a fellow Americano. Raul, if you throw in a new 3160 Phonolinepreamp, the price is right. Little do you guys know that I have a secret source that is eventually going to come thru for me. (But it might not be a P-mount version.)
Dear T_bone: I wonder what do you want to tell me with your post.

The facts are: even that the 205CMK4 is half the price of the 100CMK4 ( btw, the price per se can't tell you the cartridge quality performance. ) its quality performance is really close. Do you already made a comparison between both cartridges? as you know I already did because I own both.

These are some specs on the 205CMK4, FR 5hz to 100,000 khz ( close to the 100c. ),
same channel balance: 0.5db, same separation : 25db, same compliance: 12cu, same VTF: 1.25grs.
As you can read these Technics cartridges are more similar than different.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Raul,

I have a used Technics EPC-P205Mk3 coming. This is a P mount. So should be able to compare to my EPC-P100Mk4. But maybe both of them needs VdH upgrade? But I will only compare seriously once I get the 3160.
Raul,

With the Technics' open adaptor and the silver through connector wires on the Moerch, there was no option but to make a direct connection between the cartridge pins and tonearm wires. And yes, this does make a very important difference to optimising the performance of what is a great cartridge. Have you tried yours on your Moerch yet? It'd be interesting to see how that compares in your system.

Maybe, once enough experimentation has been carried out and reported back by others, I'd risk moving mine from what now seems a perfect marriage with the Moerch (even if only for experimentation's sake). For now, I'm just enjoying the bliss near the end of my journey.

I truly hope others have an opportunity to travel this road and reach the same place of arrival in the future
Raul/T_bone,

On the issue of cartridge lines, prices and performance: I'd add that the Glanz cartridges are a case in point. The design of the G5 and G7 appear to be widely different and the price of the latter was/is greater. However, the performance levels do not necessarily accord with these facts. The G5 sounding similar to the Technics P100c and the G7 (with the largest sound stage I have ever heard from a cartridge) something different. I'll know more and be in a better position to comment fully once I've given both of them a run in optimum conditions.
Just one point of clarification,

I am of course using the Moerch DP6 with the Precision head (not the thinner standard). This allow me to do away with the additional link of add-on headshell cables.

I'm not certain how the retirement/lifetime DP6 that Hans Henrik Moerch is currently reputedly working on will compare but this combination (Moerch DP6 Precision red point/Technics P100c Mk4) is phenomenal.
Raul,
In my statement about prices, I mean nothing other than what Technics meant by pricing them the way they did. It is a fact that their prices were different. Price does not always correlate to quality. I have a lot of cheap carts which are better than some more expensive carts. It happens less often within a given line, and the fact that some people somewhere prefer a lower cart in a line does not prove that two carts produced at the top of their respective model lines are even close to the same (which also does not prove that the less expensive one does not sound better). Perhaps Technics did not intend for the 100C to be a better cartridge with better sound when they used a more difficult/finer cantilever, and a different coil system, and a fairly significantly different electrical characteristics, matching it with their top of the line tables, and putting a price tag to match. Perhaps they did intend it, and were not successful. Perhaps they did intend it to be better, and for many people it is better, just not for you.

In my statement about their construction, I only meant exactly what I said. They have the same materials but different construction. You could probably make an HO MC cart with the same materials and almost the same specs and it would not necessarily sound the same.

As to specs being the same, I note that every single Koetsu made (according to a Koetsu retailer's spec sheet I have seen) has the same frequency response and compliance, and same channel separation and channel balance specs. Most of the materials are in the same ballpark. That does not mean that they all sound the same.

I have, at home (and have listened to) a 205C-IIS, 205C-IIL, 205C-IIH, 205C-IIX, 205CMk3, 205CMk4, 100C, 101C, 100CMk2, 100CMk3, and now a 100CMk4 (not to mention a 207C, 270C, 305C, and others). All of them are non P-mount carts. I have listened to all of them on a Technics table with a Technics arm. The 205CMk3/4 are quite good. There is also a 'house sound' to some extent. Personally, I prefer the 100C and even 101C to the 205C series and note the difference, as does my wife in a blind test, strongly preferring the 100C. That is perhaps just us and YMMV.

As an afterthought... among specs, the few that Technics published to my knowledge include one showing that the 205CMk4 has more than double the output of the 100CMk3 (and to my knowledge, 100CMk4 output was even slightly lower than the 100CMk3). The electrical properties which allowed for that would indicate a different level of sensitivity, and probably a different reaction to capacitance. It would also warrant a different loading level. Again, YMMV.
Dear T_bone: I like more the 100C too, I never said other thing.

Btw, where do you read a different opinion of mine or by other person on the 100C against the U205CMK4?

Anyway, good luck with your 100CMK4.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Dgob: I don't have mounted the Mörch tonearm and I have no doubt is good match for the P100C MK4.
Well almost anything is, the cartridge is so good that IMHO is almost impossible that could sound/performs bad in any environment.

World class item.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
I need a 12-inch tonearm, or at least a 10.5-inch one, and I would like it to be compatible with these relatively high compliance cartridges, which means that the tonearm needs to be relatively low effective mass. (Agreed?) Long length and low effective mass are not easy to find in a single tonearm. Candidates are the Reed L, Moerch DP6, SME 312S, Schick, etc. Has anyone had any direct experience with tonearms on my list, using the MM/MI cartridges under discussion? (I read the contretemps between Raul and Dgob, so I am aware that the Moerch has potential.) Perhaps I should not be so obsessed with low effective mass, based on some of Raul's reports.
Lewm,

I have two tonearms mounted to my turntable designed by Steve Dobbins AKA Vetterone. One arm is the Reed 12". I have only had one other 12 inch arm on my table to compare it with and that was the SME 312S. The Reed arm is in everyway superior in my system. I have not mounted any of my moving magnet cartridges to the Reed yet, but Steve has mounted an Azden YM50 to his Reed arm and has reported to me excellent performance. Steve has a stable of all the highly thought of cartridges including Ortofon A90 & Olympos among many others. He is an expert at tonearm/cartridge matching and setup. I would suggest to contact him about the Reed arm he can give you a very informed opinion on where to head.

Regards,
Thanks, Montepilot. I am well aware of Steve Dobbins' expertise and his superb results, via my acquaintance with Mike Lavigne, one of Steve's customers. If memory serves, the Azden has a relatively low compliance compared to some of the others we have been discussing, at least the 50VL version. That may account for his success, in small part. Also, the Reed tonearms can have very different effective masses depending upon the type of wood you choose for the arm wand. I am pretty sure Steve would recommend a Reed tonearm, and if I decide to buy one, I will definitely head his way. At the moment, I would like to hear from end-users. I kind of get the idea that the goodness ranking would go Reed>SME312S=Moerch>etc., with no regard for effective mass.
Dear Lewm: This one is very good:

http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?anlgtnrm&1277732405&/Denon-DA-308

along the Audio Technica AT-1503-III/IV, and both are removable headshell designs. The new Ortofon tonearms could be a good choice too.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Thanks, Raul. I hold your opinion in high regard. The Denons are not my cup of tea, because on a theoretical basis I do not much care for that flexible joint that they insert between the pivot point and the cartridge. I think a tonearm should be totally rigid between cartridge and pivot. I have seen a lot of those 12-inch Ortofon tonearms for sale. Do you refer to the 309, which oddly enough is 12 inches in length?
Sear Lewm: I owned the Denon 307 that comes in that way but if I remember this 308 is a little different. You can ask about to the seller if are interested on the Denon.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
About the Morch, I can speak to the 9” only, it seems to be a great match with my Azden P50VL and Ortofon M20FL. A couple of torture tracks that I use are Motorcycle Mama on Neil Young’s Comes a Time and Hello Stranger on Emmylou Harris’ Luxury Liner. My Zyx/Blue Dot Morch breaks up on Larson’s voice while the Azden and Ortofon on a Green Dot have no trouble at all; but this may speak more to the compliance advantage of MM/MI vs MC than to the virtues of the Morch. Something else to consider is that Morch arm wands tend to be more expensive than removable headshells, but on the plus side you lose a connection at the headshell leads.
Headsnappin, I know you did not address your question to me, but I am going back to the M20FL to test my "feeling" that I might like the M20FL better than the Azden. Not sure yet.

Anyone know where I can find a D98S stylus for my Stanton 980LZS? Thx.
In my system, my impressions are that the Azden and the Ortofon M20FL are both very good, and that they have more similarities than differences; but I would give the edge to the Azden for being a bit more resolving than the M20FL. For example, one of my favorite records is Vince Guaraldi’s A Charlie Brown Christmas. This is one Christmas album that gets play all year round at my house. The harmonics of the piano, the pluck of the upright bass, the shimmer of the brushes, and even that clunk that sounds like his foot slipped off a pedal just does it for me. Both carts present this album wonderfully; and while they both handle the upright bass very well and with full impact, the Azden presents it with slightly less rounding off of the edges, a little more pluck, a bit more of the natural texture, and there is just a bit more presence to the piano. Not that I couldn’t live with the Ortofon and be happy. In fact, on some recordings the Ortofon might be better. The M20FL may bring a little more glue tying the instruments together, presenting things more as an ensemble rather than individual instruments. But I am splitting hairs here. As I said earlier, I think there are more similarities than differences.
Thanks much Wdi, that is quite what I expected. I let go of my M20FL before I got to really hear it so I was curious to see if I should get another. My brief impression was very similar to your description.
Dear Lewm: You can find here:
http://www.pickupnaald.nl/?page=shop/flypage&product_id=3481

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Thanks, Raul. You are da man, but omigod, 299 Euros for a stylus? Sheesh.
Dear friends: If you want now you can read the Empire 4000 DIII official review I just finished.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Raul,

Thank you for a very fine review of the Empire cartridge. I purchased one a while back but have not installed it yet. I want to make sure I have thoroughly given the Andante P-76 an opportunity to reveal its best.

One thing that seems consistant in all of the MM/MI reviews you have done is that these cartridges do not require the extended break in time that MC cartridges do. The MM/MI seem to reveal their full character after 10-20 hours, whereas I have read MC reviews that require near 100 hours of break in to reveal their best. Is this a fair assesment?

When you are able can you provide a little more information on how the Empire 4000 DIII performed on the Monserat Caballe record versus the Acutex?

Regards,
Dear Montepilot: Well I'm sure that when you finish with the fine P-76 that 4000 DIII you own can give you a full music enjoyment. Btw, the 100K impedance load with this Empire is a must to have and the manufacturer advise.

About the cartridges settle down time there are differences cartridge to cartridge due mainly to differences in the cartridge suspension design.
In the case of my vintage MM/MI cartridge samples that settle down time were really short and could be a little different from the same cartridge model due to its vintage/years that affect the cartridge suspension in a little different way cartridge sample to sample.
On the LOMC cartridges I can't remember any of my cartridges that takes more than 40 hours maybe 50 hours and certainly no one 100 hours. I can't see any reason for such so long cartridge settle down time.

Changing of subject: the 4000 DIII have some of that Acutex " live energy " ( I think I point out on the review about. ) that makes that each one cartridge performance level be really near between each to other, not the same but similar.
At this top performance level is really difficult to find " definitive " differences and in that Caballé recording both cartridge performances are really similar if the 4000 DIII with a little ( tiny ) more " open/air " at the high Caballé voice " registers ". Both cartridges shows the Montserrat greatness:" Voice Divina ", no winner here other than your music enjoyment.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Raul,

Did you find the Empire 4000 DIII to require the rear of tonearm to be raised higher than normal or did you set the tonearm parallel with the record surface?

Thanks again,
First impressions of the Stanton 980LZS. I am running it into a 1000R load at the moment, have also tried 100R. (Output Z of the 980 is 3 ohms.) This thing has low output, lower than my Koetsu Urushi. At first it sounded awful, with distortion on transients, which was what led me to inquire about a new stylus. Then I ran it on the Cardas test LP, bands 2a thru c, several times over. This brought it back to life, so there is some life left in the stylus after all. The cartridge tracks well at 1 gm, throws a wide and deep soundstage. It is remarkably good at retrieval of inner detail and individual musical lines. Right now it tends to congeal the sound on massed instruments and has a slight mid-treble peak (that may be on the Columbia LP I listened to last night), but that may go away with use and further tweaks. It is a contender among the group Orto M20FL Super, Azden YP50VL, and Grado TLZ. It may be the best of that bunch, IMO and in my system. But I have to listen for more than one session before going that far. Since the stylus is hardly a virgin, I have to wonder what the cartridge could do with a new stylus. I am running it on the Kenwood L07D.

When I tried experimentally to remove the stylus assembly, it pulls forward about a quarter of an inch to expose the round contact shaft, but then it is stuck in the cartridge body, will not pull out any further. I was afraid of destroying the whole deal, so I pushed the stylus back in and auditioned the cartridge as per above. I saw on an old internet post that some other owner had this problem. (In fact, I wonder whether I now own the very same cartridge.) Has any Stanton owner had such a problem with the 881 or 980/981? If so, what's up? Thanks.
Dear friends: Yes, as I stated in the review it is mounted with positive VTA/SRA, maybe 1cm-1.5cm at the pivot but maybe too this could different with cartridge sample to sample due to that Clip.

Let me explain a little on this: during my cartridge tests and when I was changing the stylus suddenly the cartridge goes dawn/fall ( fortunatelly ) in my hand and the headshell/clip stay in the tonearm.
So I unmount the headshell/clip and take a look why that happened and I fix the Clip doing pressure ( down ) on it and in this way the cartridge was/is more " firm " there but not tight, this is not posible. If the Clip take hold of the cartridge with different pressure seems to me that the stylus angle change a little/tiny.

Lewm, no that never happen with my 981.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Raul, What bothers me is that there is some looseness in the fit of the stylus assembly, up until you pull it out as far as it is willing to go. I fear that the looseness is not good. I read where one user actually epoxied the stylus onto the body, not a good idea for future stylus swaps. I guess one could use blutac or the like. I am thinking of placing a very small elastic band around the cartridge body/stylus assembly, to firm up the association of the two and to dampen any independent vibration of the stylus assembly.
Lewm, For bonding I prefer Goop cement(from Home Depot) to epoxy. Goop sets up quickly, remains slightly elastic, is non-conductive, and if necessary can be cut through with an Exacto knife.

I used it recently to repair an MM cartridge whose coil & cantilever sheath fell out of the cartridge body. Now it sounds fine with no need for VdH services!
Dave, Do you think the NOS XSV3000 replacement styli that I just bought will work on the Stanton 980LZS? There was a note to that effect that I saw somewhere.
Lew, I don't mean to sound picky but your comments are normally quite precise. In describing your 980LZS audition you stated, "This brought it back to life, so there is some life left in the stylus after all." That could imply to a newbie that playing a stylus can restore life. I believe your intent was to suggest that playing the test record perhaps loosened up the cantilever suspension which brought some life back to your cartridge, correct?

As Raul has reminded us many times, one major value in sharing experiences here is to help educate one another. Because of this I think we should all do an "edit read" of our posts to ensure we are saying what we intended before submitting them.

Anyway, glad you found another contender.
Sorry, Tim. The Cardas test LP tracks 2a thru 2c (frequency sweeps on side A) are very good, IME, for breaking in a new cartridge or loosening up the suspension of cartridges that have been in storage for a long time. I think repeated playing of those bands with the 980LZS had a salutatory effect on the suspension. There was a lot of distortion right out of the box. It all or mostly all went away after this quickie break-in process. However, I need to get a magnifier to really know what is going on or what might be going on with the stylus itself. It could still be a limiting factor in the performance of the cartridge, as I have no way of knowing the hours of use. Initially I blamed the problem on the stylus moreso than on the suspension. Turns out it was largely at least a problem with the suspension. Is that more clear? In any case, I no longer feel that I need to throw down more bucks right away for an expensive NOS stylus assembly.

Actually, I am in the habit of goosing up all of my cartridges on the Cardas LP, prior to listening, if the cartridge has been out of use for a long time.
Lew, I have no direct experience on this, but others suggest that the stylus is interchangeable across entire Pickering XSV and Stanton 88X/98X series.

http://www.lencoheaven.net/forum/index.php?topic=158.0

Some report tonal anomalies but there appears to be no harm in trying.
Thanks, D. The question was probably too specific for this thread, so I apologize to others who may have found it trivial. Last night I did try the elastic band trick. To firm up the association of the stylus assembly with the body of the 980LZS (which seemed a bit loose), I placed a small elastic band with a fairly tight fit around both. Naturally, I was terrified that the elastic would slip and take out the entire cantilever, but that did not happen (yet). Whether it is my imagination or not, I think there was an improvement in sonics. Comparing it to the Azden, the Azden is more "in your face" and spotlights the main performer. The 980LZS is a bit more laid back but with a lot of inner and peripheral detail. In fact, I would say the main performer is set back from the edge of the stage a bit with the 980, with more emphasis on the side men. There was still a bit of tizziness on some but not all treble transients, possibly due to mistracking or other. I will raise VTF a bit up from 1 gm to see if that issue is ameliorated. For some reason, last night the Azden sounded fabulous. Maybe I crossed that line of break-in that some of you guys have mentioned.
Lew, Along similar lines I found Pickering XVS-3000(=Stanton 881) needed at least 1.1g to eliminate occasional sibilance. This one has been a great performer that has improved further after a 37g reduction in horizontal mass of my linear tonearm. In a few weeks I will have three new low-mass wands of varying compositions with which to revisit several MMs.