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 @dimitry  : The VTF for your 610LX is 1.5grs. Good luck.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
I purchased Glanz MFG-610LX from my Japanese dealer. What should the tracking force be? Perhaps our Russian friend can help. Pomogi!
Dear friends: Here the AT 1010 and if any one of you see it then buy it, you will be very nicely surprised of its quality performance level ( just like the AT 1100. ):

    https://www.vinylengine.com/library/audio-technica/at-1010.shtml  


R.
Dear @travbrow  : Good that you are satisfied with. 

As I told you I owned that AT 1100 tonearm and it's a true engeneering achievement with an excellent build quality and first rate quality performance.

I owned too the AT 1010 that is a superb tonearm design too and I agree that the AT tonearm " plays " in the same Technics league but AT was and is more regarded by its cartridge designs and even like you several audiophiles not even know the AT tonearms reality that I can attest: second to none.

In the other side, yes with more playing time you could have a final opinion in your 2000Z. When time comes please share here about. Thank you.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Raul, I’m very impressed with the AT-1100 tonearm, glad you recommended it. Precision quality and impressive engineering. I purchased a spare straight arm pipe and also an S shaped arm pipe with the W-3 heavy counterweight. It’s in the same league as higher cost Technics etc. in my opinion.

Though I only listened a few hours with Empire 2000Z and NOS stylus, I think it’s up there with the other TOTL Empire models. I will have time to use it more over the weekend.
and if you can share your point of view about your " new " AT1100.

Could you?, thank's.

R.
Dear @travbrow  : How goes " things " with your new 2000 by Empire? do you already experienced it?

Appreciated your comments about.

R.
Btw, the cartridge prices for the 20’s and 15’s was the same in between models: 195.00 and 150.00

Even in those old times existed the 20S and 15S models.

Why AT had/manufactured so many " similar " models ?, just out of my mind.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIOC NOT DISTORTIONS,

R.
Regards. Raul
it amazes me to observe you persist in your wrong-headedness.
From AT printed documents, please note the 15Sa is Shibata mounted on thin wall tapered tube. The 15SS "upgrade", beryllium:

http://www.gammaelectronics.xyz/audio_02-1977_AT15Sa.html
"And the AT15Sa Shibata stylus is mounted on a thin-wall tapered tube".

http://www.gammaelectronics.xyz/audio_04-1979_audio-technica_ad.html
"Extremely low distortion results from a new ultra-rigid Beryllium cantilever which transmits stylus movement without flexing. And flatter response plus better tracking is achieved by a new method of mounting our tiny Dual Magnets to further minimize moving mass.

Four tiny differences, yes. But listen to the new AT15SS or the hand-selected AT20SS for ultra-critical listening. You'll find out that less IS more. At your Audio-Technica dealer now.

Note: If you own a current AT15Sa or AT20SLa, you can simply replace your present stylus assembly with a new "SS" stylus assembly to bring your phono system up to date."


For the education of us all, please document the 15Sa or 20SLa were ever provided with a "thin-wall tapered tube" cantilever fabricated of beryllium. Until then I regard the matter resolved.


Peace,



Dear @timeltel  : I hope you have good common sense and I say this because your insistence on that " aluminum cantilever " for the 20SLa and 15 Sa that you have nothing to assure your point of view ( because it's onlya point of view. ).

The stylus replacement price for the 20SS and 20Sla was exactly the same: 95.00 and the stylus replacement for the 15SS and 15Sa was exactly the same price: 70.00.

Do you think that a stylus replacement with cantilever build material as aluminum against beryllium set you back the same price? ! ! ! ???????


R.


Regards, Raul:

There was something bothering me about my post RE: The Akai's equivalence to the AT15Sa.

I needed to rummage through a box of carts laid aside for too long. Pulled out the Akai 180 stylus. It had an AT14s firmly in its grasp.

Wheels now set in motion, seemed like a good time for some experimentation. With one exception, there is a physical cross-compatibility with the 13(ea)/14/15/20 AT carts but the 15/20 stylus grips need a little trimming to the back of the plastic to accommodate a small haunch on the 13ea cartridge body. 

So, the AT14s was also marketed as the Akai PC180. Mea culpa, I had the Akai stylus on the 20SS at one time, a source of my error.

Listening to the Akai Shibata on the 13ea/Akai180 stylus, not a match,  J. J. Cale's "Troubadour" is grainy, exaggerated upper-mids.  

The stylus pulled from the 13 has a transplanted 155LCa cantilever with LC diamond, the 20SS is of course, Shibata on beryllium. Moved it to the 14s. 

The transplanted 155LCa stylus on the 14s motor is quite good. Maybe more on this at a later date?


Your turn.
You wrote:  So it’s non-true that the 15Sa came with alluminum alloy cantilever as the Akai or the source of that information is non-precise. The 15Sa comes with beryllium cantilever as the 20SLa, 20SS and 15SS models."

Looked around, found this:
https://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?attachments/at-specifications-jpg.545459/
For the AT15SA/20SLa it's the tapered aluminum cantilever that separates these from the beryllium equipped "SS" designation.

And yes, my Akai PC180 information was "non-precise".

Listening to the AT14s/ATN155Lca leaves me pleased with the effort of correcting that error. This Frankencart is very good. "Sweet Baby James", J. T. is here, strumming away. Abraxas next.

Peace,
Dear @timeltel  : I own both D3 stylus replacements but really don't know which, if the shorter or larger cantilever,  appeared first.

Maybe @travbrow  that I understand have both could put some " ligth " about.

Btw, I'm just waiting when the D3 " permit " me to listen to the Azden top of the line that I remember was a very good performer and due that Azden manufactured the  Acutex that are great cartridges then the Azden is " mandatory " to listen it again. We will see.


R.
Regards, Raul
Had the 4000-111 up last week, seems to be some debate wether the long tapered cantilever is the first released or is it the shorter one?  

This week, the 1000X/RD, also a rather long tapered cantilever. Both are rewarding.

Eventually the Signet TK-7LCa will demand a hearing. It's currently in competition with a Signet AM40, also beryllium & sporting a nude LC stylus.

Looked at the reference you cited, the 15Sa shows "tapered" cantilever. I'll leave the determination as to wether be. or al. to you.

Error in my last post--- involved in the College Bball championship, distracted & typed "non-laminated coils", obviously it should have read "core" instead.

The M75ed with OEM ED stylus is an interesting listen. Warm, almost woodish but once demand for detail is dismissed a very musical transducer. Just relax & forget about critique. The 75 was brought out with the Sure V15T11. The type 111, along with the M95-97, were equipped with laminated core (not coil).

Peace,
Dear @timeltel : """ you are intentionally taking out of context a comment made seven years past. Although you navigate admirably between at leas..."""

not out of context because in the last 10 days in this thread other gentleman posted something like: "" argg " against the 20SS and you don’t disclosed that what that gentleman owned was a 20SS with generic stylus.

In the past in this same thread he and you between others gave the TK7Lca the " win " cartridge " title " over the 20SS and other AT models when at least both of you listen it with generic stylus. By coincidence both discussions were really hot.

No, I’m not a good navigator but I have memory but just did not remember in what thread I read about that generic stylus, with out " memory " no one is so stupid to try to find out ! ! ! ? ?

10 days latter is not out of context and your surprise ( ? ) when I posted makes it’s in clear context.

In the other side you are wron about one of your AT comments:


""" nude Shibata on tapered al. alloy cantilever was available and so the generic was replaced. The Akai 180 is identical to the 15sa. """

with the 15Sa happens exactly the same as with the 20SLa vs AT20SS ( you can read what I posted about. ) but in its case with the 15SS where both are the same cartridge design with and shares same cantilever build material same stylus shape and same everything in its design. The only difference is in the channel separation spec that’s better in the 15SS.

So it’s non-true that the 15Sa came with alluminum alloy cantilever as the Akai or the source of that information is non-precise. The 15Sa comes with beryllium cantilever as the 20SLa, 20SS and 15SS models.

Here the AT source information about. Btw, the 15SS and 15Sa had the same retail price and same stylus replacement price:

https://www.vinylengine.com/library/audio-technica/at15.shtml

please read page 10 of the AT manual.

Thank’s for your offers but a years ago I stopped to buy any MM/MI cartridges. I own or owned and listened and have to listen ( some cartridges I never listened as the ADC 26/27. ) all what I’m interestd with.


Btw, do it a favor and if you own the Empire D3 then listen to it. Lovely performer: MUSIC at all.
R.

Regards, Raul:

About generic styli: I had also obtained an AT13ea, a 14s and a 15sa. All came with after market styli. I still recall TTN's description for the ATN20SS: "For those who are committed to the exquisite sound of the AT20SS---". 

AT provided Akai with the 15sa, rebranded as the PC180. The RS 180 stylus, nude Shibata on tapered al. alloy cantilever was available and so the generic was replaced. The Akai 180 is identical to the 15sa. Research it if you must. The generic is around here somewhere, if you want it just let me know.

For the 14s, a NOS ATN14 (Shibata) replaced that one. The generic, same offer. Just let me know.

The 13ea is a different case. The stylus holder was original but the cantilever broken. A cantilever from an ATN155LCa was transplanted with good effect so that one is not available for your  adoption.

Also a Shure M75 & M95ED and V15 type 3 came with generics. All now have OEM styli, the V15 is particularly nice with the OEM HE stylus, At one time I had two of the HE styli but sent one to a good friend. I prefer it to the Jico SAS.

Every once in a while the M75ED gets a workout, With its non-laminated coils it brings forward that classic Shure warmth that was so remarked on when it was introduced. Not sure where the generics supplied with these are at this time but I can make an effort to find them if you're interested.

And that 20ss generic, still have it. Offer stands.

The M95 is a horse of different coloration. Good bass without bloom, the Hf's defined and crisp. Not that the mids are lacking but it's the  warmth of LC styli on beryllium that draws this midrange gourmand to upper echelon Signet carts. Joni Mitchel's "Don Juan's Reckless Daughter" is captivating when heard courtesy of the TK-7ea.

For those delectable mids, the V15-3/HE isn't far behind. Loaded as intended, the V15 presents easy bass and subtle, possibly superior Hf's, the agility and ease of presentation with LC on beryllium still has me strap on the Signet in preference. 

Really Raul, you are intentionally taking out of context a comment made seven years past. Although you navigate admirably between at least two languages there is little reason to promote dispute because your misuse of a term in a foreign language was brought to your attention. There was no ill will intended.

The thought occurs, do you just not comprehend the connotations of "if you want it, just let me know"? As I'm not "calibrated" for interminable argument for no good purpose I'll address the matter no further, that dog don't hunt. 


Peace,     
Dear @timeltel  : It's weird, for say the least, that to a comment fom me your first answer was:

"""  A generic stylus for my AT 20SS?  """

as if you were surprised of my remark about and suddenly you not only " remember " but even posted what you posted in that time and not only that but you even present something as an apolgize to your " I hold in high regard " friend after six years !!

Both of you have a common " characteristic/behavior ": forgotten in this thread to disclose ( other readers. ) that the comments were under the premise that the 20SS stylus was not original but a generic replacement. Comments really unfair for AT and that AT cartridge model for say the least.

Yes, " that's all ".

R.
Dear @lewm  : """  We are splitting hairs based on structural elements, testing, etc, and drawing profound conclusions from our own listening tests, but we can never know how cartridge A really compared to cartridge B when both were new and of recent manufacture.  """

I said a " confusion " because I had the experiences you re-marks we don't have. Now, if you refers to have those experiences " today " then I agree with you.

Many people, maybe more that what you could think, had same experiences like me when those today vintage cartridges just seen the market ligth. 
Yes, with different room/system than today but as I told you I started this thread because those vintage experiences that " today " confirms the " pedigree " of those MM/MI cartridges.

Latter on from my experiences with the LPM315 I bougth a LPM320 and no contest against its little brother. Due that I bougth at least 2 315 NOS stylus replacement I tested with a NOS315 vs the LPM320 with similar results and decided to sold the LPM320. 
No contest, I'm not saying that the LPM320 is not good because it's but I think that in my system that handled in very good condition the bass range is here precisely where the main difference is for the better in the 315.

As you I own the M320 ( and the M315 too. ) and  beats my LPM315 and you already have in NOS. Maybe time to test it.

Btw, Acutex where made by Nippon Azden. Azden made cartridges for different very well regarded market companies as Empire ( I don't know which models. ) and under its own name. Maybe you remember in this thread about its top of the line:  YM-P50VL that's a very good quality performer and only a few of us had the opportunity to bougth it in NOS condition. Excellent cartridge. Azden builded MC cartridges too, I own samples.

Other important issue with the Acutex cartridges is that the stylus were made for no less than Ogura Jewel Industry Japan. Many top LOMC cartridge came with Ogura propietary stylus shape. In the case of Acutex Ogura made it under Acutex specs.

About: imagination, I'm not refering to any of your comments/posts but other gentlemans.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
04-07-2019 8:04pm"" edited " because I forgot something or not explained corectly. That's all.

R.

Of course "That's all".

Peace,






Regards, Raul:
I remember those spirited discussions as well as the generous sharing of information common to the MM thread at the time. 
In your most recent post addressed to me you wrote:

Dear @timeltel  : This is what you posted in 2012:

"""  Relating to the AT20SS, Henry and I were in communication at the time, he and had both found the 20SS carts. Both of our carts were supplied with generic styli. """

Your words not mines: generic styli ".

R.

Yes, I remember that post, it was from dgobs "Glanz" thread. It continues:
"Both of our carts were supplied with generic styli. There was little commendable about the performance. Based on the evidence on hand, Henry elected to sell his. I'm sure Raul is unaware of this."

You responded that "Henry" in a separate correspondence indicated his 20SS stylus was OEM.

Regarding "Henry" (who I hold in high regard), apparently I was in error and should not have made such a comment without his acknowledgement.

That same month I posted to the  Who Needs a MM Cartridge thread:

"09-07-2012 6:50pmRegards, Raul: Lucky you! I'm going through nearly the same situation with an EPC-U25. Same family as the Technics P23 or EPC-205 and with a solid 1/2" mount. One stylus from Nagaoaka, another "generic" (TTN ViVid Line), not impressed. Have ordered a JICO SAS for the U25. With laminated cores, single point cantilever suspension and relatively low inductance, the cart should perform better than it does now. Jico shipping notification last Fri.

A red generic for the AT-20SS? Want it?"


You didn't reply, apparently you didn't want it either. Raul, I've received a number of carts equipped with generic styli. There is no mandate they remain so.

The SAS stylus for the EPC U25 did arrive. Contrary to every effort the U25 refused a rewarding presentation, somewhat abrasive in character when listened to for any length of time, 

I do have one might consider a generic, a Jico replacement for the AKG P8E. The suspension had hardened on my low mileage original, inner grove response was grainy.

Initial impressions are good but I've not run the Jico replacement enough to feel comfortable with either a recommendation or otherwise.

I did notice several of your recent posts have been edited, evidence that "one is never too old to learn"?

Peace,  

    
Dear @lewm  : A total confusion between you and me. Latter on I will try to explain it. I'm in a hurry rigth now.

R.
Dear @timeltel  : This is what you posted in 2012:

"""   Relating to the AT20SS, Henry and I were in communication at the time, he and had both found the 20SS carts. Both of our carts were supplied with generic styli. """

Your words not mines: generic styli ".

R.
Regards, Raul:

A generic stylus for my AT 20SS? 

Purchased from TTNeedles seven or eight years past, one of the last offered in their catalog. Beryllium cantilever and longish Shibata stylus of gem quality. 

I confess I do prefer the Signet TK-7LCa. Listener fatigue with the Signet has never been a factor. Perhaps it's my antique SS rig, I cannot say the same of the 20SS.

Peace,  

.


   
Raul, As regards your post of 04/06 at 1:02 PM, what am I wrong about? It is my opinion that the LPM320 is a great cartridge based on many hours of listening and comparing it to 4-5 other highly regarded MM/MI cartridges and several other very expensive LOMC cartridges; I certainly cannot be "wrong" for having an opinion. Is that what you’re talking about? If not, please enlighten me about my grievous error.

You did once write that you thought the M320 or perhaps the M315 was better sounding than the respective LPM version. Why is it so terrible for me to bring it up? Why do you take a friendly interchange as a challenge to your integrity and judgement, nearly always?

And where did I suggest, let alone actually say, that any opinion you render here or anywhere else is a product of your imagination? In that regard, you must have me mixed up with someone else. I think you owe me an apology.
Stanton stylus deficiency is easy to fix. A small amount of Mortite or similar damped viscoplastic material placed iside the hollow part of the plastic stylus holder, after the brush has been removed. It gets squeezed between the holder and the cartridge body as the stylus is inserted - you will have to use greater force than usual - carefully. The stylus assembly is for all intents and purposes becomes one with the body of the cartridge.

As for "calibration", which in the cartridge world simply means measurements and selection, is entirely irrelevant after 30-40 years of use and/or storage in largely uncontrolled environments. Cartridge makers, if they were still around, would certainly disavow any applicability of this to sirviving cartridges decades after manufacturing.
Dear @lewm : Please speak for your self because in those times I had several first hand experiences with " thousands " of different carrtridges and I can tell you you are wrong. Even when I started this thread I did it testing " today " MM/MI cartridges against some vintage ones that I still had.

In those times I not owned any single LOMC cartridge and you can be sure that some Agon readers had similar experiences. Obviously you have not those great experiences.

I compared the AT25 vs the AT24 or the 155 against other top cartridge.

As I already posted what I’m saying is not a by-product of my " imagination ".

It’s weird that you ask about the M320 that you own in NOS shape when you can in your own system a in between the LPM320 and the M320 to have your own first hand experiences as a conclusion.

R.
Dear @timeltel : In the case of Stanton what is hand calibrated is the cartridge motor/electrical parameters ( mainly. ) as I posted..

The calibration standard is just the chart of cartridge frequency response and separation levels chart, this is what many if not all cartridge manufacturers did it.

I have the charts from: ADC, AKG, AT, Microacustics, Micro Seiki, Signet, Elac, Goldring, Ortofon and the like.

With hand calibrated cartridges you can ( example ) be sure that both channel output levels is the same and many other things that does not happens with out that HC work.

The At is something as the same but they don’t add the hand calibrated certify.

In the AT 20SS series exist the AT 15SS and the AT 20SLa. Some one told that the SLa was the top of the line but it’s not, the one there is the 20SS and all these 3 models has diference in its specs and price:

Example: 20SS : separation: 35db and the SLa 30db when the 15SS has 33db.
In other parameter as FR: 20SS is 5hz-50khz when the 15SS is 5hz-45khz.

Even the stylus replacement for the 20SS is: ATN20SS when in the SLa is ATN20 and both at the same price. In the 15SS is ATN15SS and with lower price.

Other than Stanton and AT the other manufacturer that did it the same was AKG in its P100LE that I still own .

Btw, and I already posted that in the Stanton line the best quality performer is the 981 with Pickering stylus replacement ( Sthereohedron II. ), it performs better than with the 981 original stylus due that the Stanton original cantilever/stylus holder vibrates and produce resonances that degrades the cartridge signal. The Pickering cantilever/stylus holder is way more thicker and assembled in better way that the original and you can listen the differences for the better using the Pickering one.
Other terrible problem with all Stanton and shared by the Pickering is that long hair brush designed " mechanism " to work, again makes more harm than good. It does not works " firmely " as the Shure cartridge mechanism.

Can we trust absolutely in the brochures/information/advertasing of those vintage cartridge manufacturers?, not exactly in those old times the competition for the cartridge overall market was really hard and fierce for say the least because the competition was in retail price levels and all those challengers came out at the market with several models that in between one a top the next the differences in price was minimum as was the quality performance differences levels.


The challengers were: AT, Empire, Shure, Stanton, ADC, Pickering, AKG, Ortofon.

Very hard competition for the Asia, Europe and North and South America continents.


R.


Btw, """   if you can add information relating to the processes involved,  """. I can't understand why you ask me for that when the true one to ask is the manufactuerr it self. I can tell you that rigth now on AT they can't tell you for sure what they did it with the 20SS. If what you are trying to say is that I'm liying that's another subject and please don't follow that " road ". Don't be to " orthodox " with vinatge way vintage cartridges.

Btw, I know that you and other gentleman in this thread bougth from the same seller the AT20SS with generic ( not original ) cantilever/stylus.


I think Dimitry hit the nail on the head.  We are splitting hairs based on structural elements, testing, etc, and drawing profound conclusions from our own listening tests, but we can never know how cartridge A really compared to cartridge B when both were new and of recent manufacture. 

That said, what ARE the differences between a 4000D3 Gold and a 4000D3?  I remember back when the 4000D3 was a cartridge of the month, and I bought an NOS 4000D3 Gold, only to be advised via these pages that it was inferior to the plain Jane 4000D3.  (Who knew?  I thought Gold surely had to be as good or better than not-Gold.) Ergo, it still sits in its box. Can anyone put a finger on why the Gold version is lacking and what it is lacking?

As regards the Acutex LPM315 that Raul tested and loved for a while, I have been a champion of the LPM320 for several years here.  Note that the 320 was said by Acutex to be superior to the 315 in many ways, including trackability, frequency response, channel separation, etc.  (These are "induced magnet" designs with titanium cantilever and exotic stylus, making them a bit sexy.) I also own an NOS M320, the box-shaped predecessor to the LPM320.  Raul once said the M is superior to the LPM, but I cannot recall a review or details.
Keep in mind, whatever was calibrated 30+ years ago (and in the consumer world, it should often be in quotes) is most certainly OUT of calibration now.
Regards, Raul:

It appears you are positing each of the Stanton "Hand Calibrated" cartridges were individually tweaked by hand, I'd be interested in any information you have as to the processes involved.

I do recall a reference to assemblers selecting stylus assemblies to obtain best outcome but this can be dismissed as rumor. Again, if you can add information relating to the processes involved, please do so. Documentation would be especially useful.

Ultimately, adjustment is not calibration. When a thing is adjusted its behavior is changed. When a thing is calibrated it is to measure its behavior so that it can then be adjusted.

If you care to follow the link offered above there are copies of pages showing the calibrated characteristics for a number of sample cartridges, each signed by the technician responsible for obtaining those figures.

And yes, I'm familiar with the qualities of both Stanton "Hand Calibrated" cartridges as well as those selected by AT for AT20 designation.

If you please, none of the above is a construct of my imagination.


Peace,
Dear @timeltel : Almost all top models inside each cartridge manufacturer meets " calibration standard " that are the manufacturer cartridge targets designs and normally they showed through the charts for both cjhannels that comes with each cartridge where specify the test recording number used, used VTF, output levels, temperature and the like.

That’s a " universal " calibration used in those top cartridge models.

But the " hand calibration " is way different because not only meets with the " calibration standard " but are hand calibrated for the inductance, output level, channel separation, cartridge impedance etc. . This is made it individually and the information applies only to that specific motor/cantilever-stylus. The accuracy on these hand calibrated top models is absolutely more accurated that the " calibration standard " cartridge that’s not a " hand calibrated individually ". These ones comes with a certification signed by responsable of that hand calibration and with its own cartridge serial number.

I own Stanton " individually hand calibrated " and Stanton top model non-hand calibrated but that meets the universal " calibration standard ".

Do you own the Stanton 981 HZ hand calibrated and other non-hand calibrated?

If you don’t then you are talking of something that through your link just does not comes any specific explanations.

If you don’t own it then you are posting only what your " imagination " at its best tells you and sorry but it’s wrong.

@timeltel normally I only post first hand experiences and normally I have all the " hairs in my hand " and never post something I " imagine " or suppose about or logic tells me.

In the case of the 20SS against the 15 I know the total " historty " behind the same subject because in this same thread I posted several years ago something like this:

""" I own all top of the line AT MM/LOMC cartridges that never were sold in my country and even I owned way before were marketed in USA or Europe.
The reason for that is that the Director and President of Audio Technica in Mexico is a close friend of mind: Lic. Guajardo whom at the same time is owner of a big custom broker company at the border for import/export merchandise.

He signed ( in those " vintage times ". ) a join venture with AT Japan to build in the México factory microphones/headphones for all world market ( 7 specific models. ). So he was partner of AT.

He brougth exclusively to me: AT 20SS, AT 25/24, At ML170 and 180, AT32, AT MC 1000, AT 37 and several other top MM/LOMC cartridges but he sold me too: Step UP transformers like the AT 1000 and the 660, the vaccum Disc Stabilizer AT 666, the pneumatic great footers AT616, the AT electrostatic headphones, all cleanse LP/stylus accesories as the AT637 ( that still own a works marvelous. ), the headshell/cartridge holder AT 6003, all its top iC cables and headshell wires PCOCC, all the AT magnesium headshells models and the latest AT LH/OCC headshell series, the very bad and heavy Technicard ceramic TT platter, tonearms as the AT1100 and 1010 or 1503, etc, etc.

But not only that, things are that in those times AT was the exclusive world distributor of famous Telarc LP’s and Lic. Guajardo brougth for me the almost enterely Telarc catalog including its test LP tha’s just fenomenal one.

I owned or own AT items that only were marketed for domestic customers ( no one out side Japan except Lic. Guajardo and me. ). Latter on he made me the favor for I can get Signet items.

Btw, the Micro and headphones manual and advertasing printed papers were made in Japan even that were manufactured in México we can read in the papers: Printed in Japan. """

Yes, the 20SS is hand selected.

@timeltel , in the past you and me had very hot dialogues in this thread but I learned that you posted always with good intentions and never trying to hit me or put me in " ridiculous/laughing " and I respect that for you in the past and today. My intentions with gentlemans as you always be and will be with good intentions and positive attitude no matters how hot is the discussion.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Along similar logic, a lot of the large differences heard between otherwise closely related vintage cartridges can be simply differences arising from level of use, storage degradation variations and sample variance.
Regards, Raul:

For the sake of clarity it should be realized that "calibration" refers to testing to ensure a substance or product meets specific standards.  In the case of Stanton "hand calibrated cartridges", these are pickups that have been tested and found to meet those specified standards.

Not all Stanton carts were tested and not all met requirements for identification as "hand calibrated units. Those that were tested and met requirements were marketed with a data sheet describing the measured performance of that specific cartridge, a label was applied to the cartridge body identifying it as having met those standards. Those that failed or not tested lacked the "Hand Calibrated" identification. An example might be a 681 released for mass market sale. Although it might meet Stanton's specifications, because it was not tested (calibrated) it would lack that description.

It should be observed that should the original stylus be replaced it is possible the cartridge would no longer meet Stanton's specifications. Unless the cartridge retained the stylus supplied with the cartridge, without the calibration  procedures to ensure its performance the cart could not be guaranteed to meet those standards.

A similar procedure is observed with the AT20 cartridge. Those that did not meet specified measurement were labeled the "15" series.

Stanton specifications are to be found here:

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/mbrs/recording_preservation/manuals/Stanton%20(Misc.).pdf


Peace,
 
Dear friends: The first hand experiences by @frogman @travbrow @halcro confirm that  same specs in same manufacturer cartridges not makes or explain the differences in two same manufacturer models.

The Empire D3 and Gold one is that first hand experiences that just what makes the real and true quality difference in between cartridges is the CARTRIDGE MOTOR that’s what I started to " shout " more than 1.5 years ago and some people can’t understand even today.

Same CARTRIDGE MOTOR with better cantilever/stylus shape could be better quality performers.

Stanton 980/981 is other example of that where the 981 is a hand calibrated model: accuracy and thigthness characteristics on that 981 same CARTRIDGE MOTOR than the 980 is superior because its same CARTRIDGE MOTOR is " hand calibrated "..

Empire and Stanton examples are FACTS on that cartridge motor audio subject.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Dear @travbrow  : That " plastic piece " was really a news for me because it's not easy to perfect centered that " clip half opened holes ".

I will look in my both original Empire boxes and maybe is there if I have that lucky, but I doubt. We will see.

R.
@frogman,
The 4000D/III Gold is certainly a cartridge I would describe as 'warm', 'organic', 'textural' and it complements a system which may be slightly bright and/or detailed.
I can imagine that in an all-tube system, it's 'warmth' may be just too much of a 'good thing'...🤔
Have you tried loading it at 100K Ohms to ameliorate some of the "politeness"...?
HERE it is in my all SS system....and I even load it at 60K 🤗
Raul, my 2000Z with original packaging came with a plastic piece to slide over the clip for exact centering. I’ve seen 4000d models with the extra part also. I might try it when I mount the 2000z to the AT 1100. 

Frogman, Your system and personal preference come into play. But too soft and polite isn’t how it sounds to me. 
Dear @frogman  : ""   The original 4000D models use a thinner plain tapered aluminum cantilever and I believe the earliest versions were true nude diamonds. The model number is marked on the bottom vs the side of the Gold version. Different specifications.  """

That's what @travbrow  posted because I understand he owns both. I can't say because my Gold was sold many many years ago, but for what I remember more than specs the main difference could be in the cartridge motor design. The only spec I remember of the GOld ( but you can better know than me. ) is that does not runs at 0.25grs. as the original VTF low  range.

As I posted during my review of the D# that mount metal-clip type is way non-orthodox and in those times before I listened to the cartridge I was seriously worried about and with not to much good expectations till I tested ! ! 

It's not even ease to center perfect in the headshell holes as with other " normal " cartridges but when we already doing " rigth " is very good performer.

R.
Thanks for your responses, travbrow and raul.  I did experiment with VTA, tracking force, azimuth, etc.  Improvement was definitely possible, but still same basic character.  Interesting that the specs and data for Gold and non-Gold are the same.
Dear @frogman : This is the Gold you own:

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/empire-4000-iii-gold-cartridge-nib-148833896

and this the DIII @travbrow and me own:

https://www.google.com/search?q=empire+4000DIII+Gold+phono+cartridge&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj92IuBl7fhAhUJ7awKHVbsB10QsAR6BAgJEAE&biw=1366&bih=695

the cartridge is the first one picture and that stylus is not the original but an after market and the specs are not the original neither.

I owned the Gold and against the not-Gold is way inferior but I can’t remember each one of the Gold specs. cartridge motor must be different because the differences in between two models were significant.

Anyway the DIII is the very well regarded model in this thread several years ago by some proudly owners.


R.
The Gold version uses a black solid metal mount vs the clip style mount. The original 4000D models use a thinner plain tapered aluminum cantilever and I believe the earliest versions were true nude diamonds. The model number is marked on the bottom vs the side of the Gold version. Different specifications. Though I’m not sure the latest diamond type Empire used was a significant difference in performance from the nude ones. 

Did you experiment with VTA? It seems the small section of the body right behind the stylus assembly should be at least close to parallel to the record.

How does the 4000D3 differ from the 4000D3 Gold physically? I own the Gold and while it is good I am not particularly impressed by it. I find it to be a little too texturally soft and polite. Thanks.
Dear @lewm  """  the 4000 DIII has a relaxed sound but because this cartridge ( like the Acutex or the Technics ) give you the impresion to be " there " where the music is " happening " with all the natural agresiveness that has the live music.  """

"""  The cartridge has high resolution and is very precise ( alittle better than Acutex on accuracy subject. ) with out the " perfect " accuracy of the Technics P100CMK4..."""


"""  Here too the cartridge shows its very fast response to bass transients that give to the sound the rightness of live music in this frequency range. I like it even more than the Acutex here."""


"""  The Acutex shows too that " rounded " bass response even a little pronounced over the Empire, both cartridges are exceptional in this frequency range.  """


Those are high-ligths from the 4000/D3 review and I can't read that one of those great cartridges outperforms overall the others.

Acutex as the PC 100CMK4 ( P-mount version. ) still have its own top merits as any top rated vintage cartridges. Perhaps an advantage and more than an advantage but fortunatelly I had and have first hands experiences with almost any vintage cartridge out there.

So, I have on hand true experines with to can compare it in my own system and even in other room/systems because I did it and time to time I do.

Lewm your Acutex is really good but you need to find out the 4000D3 and obviously the great of the greatness ADC 26/27.

R.
Dear @travbrow  : Is really top performer and as I said tested in a " new " overall room/audio system.

Fortunatelly I own 3 original stylus replacement that like in the ADC 26/27 gives me the oportunity to make a top cantilever/stylus retip.

Rigth now in stock condition the 4000D3 is a heavy challenge for any cartridge in this MM/MI thread. Very nice indeed.

R.
The Empire 4000DIII was always one of my favorites. The lesser performance Gold model was my first experience. The oldest originals are better, if you can find a good one. Original styli are almost impossible to find, so that’s a bummer. 
 Raul, last night I was Internet surfing in order to acquire some technical information about my Acutex cartridges. In the course of that search, I came upon posts from you to this thread written in 2010. In those posts, you evaluated the Acutex LPM 315 STR3 cartridge. For that period of time you ranked it superior  to your favorite  Technics cartridge, and to nearly every other cartridge you had been recently fond of, including the Empire 4000 D3. This makes me feel very good, because I have been maintaining the excellence of the top of the line LPM 320 STR 3, consistently for the past few years.  Your choice of language in praise of the 315 was almost indistinguishable from what you are saying now about the 4000 D3 and a few other cartridges, even close to your praise of the ADC 26. There’s nothing wrong with that in my opinion. Everyone is entitled to change his mind. Especially over the course of 9 years.
Dear firneds: If you are an Empire 4000D3 owner and you have some time not listen to it I urge to start to do and maybe you will be surprised as I'm for its very high quality level performance.

Last time I listened was in 2010 and in all this almost 9 years my room/audio system was and still is up-grading and this Empire very old cartridge is just great one.

If some of you do not own yet then try to find out a sample in good operation condition.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Interesting. Could very well be a function of using headphones, I don’t know. Obviously, I can’t know what it sounds like in your room and my comments are a comparison of the three recorded sounds and which sounds more realistic to me. I do know that the sound that I hear from the zoom recorder version sounds, overall, less electronic and closer to what I would expect to hear live. The main difference is tonal. There is an obvious quality to the sound with the iPhone that is, to my ears, pinched and which gives the sound of the bass an almost metallic quality; a little nasal. That quality, in spite of the overall improvement from going to an external mic, carries over to that version; to a lesser degree, but it is there. The iPhone’s mic may be its main limiting factor, but certainly not the only one. The zoom recorder version has, for me, better instrumental textures and tonality; I don’t hear that pinched metallic quality.  So, I hope that is what it sounds like tonally in your room 😉. I will say that the zoomrecorder version does sound as if the instruments are slightly closer to the recording mic(s). Perhaps that is a factor, but I still hear at least as much room sound with the zoom recorder. Regards.
Hot news off the presses.....
As you may or may not know......Jico have not been supplying SAS styli for a year or more.
I just received an Email from them:-
We restart to take SAS/Sapphire, SAS/Ruby and SAS/Boron orders on JICO Web Shop.
So as well as the Neo-SAS with the ruby and sapphire cantilevers.....one can now order again, the original SAS with boron 😍
This of course is of interest, only to MM cartridge users.....🤗