Dear friends: As a founder of this thread I always try to share all my first hand experiences to all of you with the attitude to help and that we can have more information to confirm each one experiences or know how on differents subjects. Here and in in other threads exist a mix-up about Glanz and Astatic cartridges a mix-up that started when some one of us just does not have precise and clear/pristine understand in the overall subject. Well here something I have to share to all of you: both cartridges were manufactured by Mitachi Co. but with different cartridge motors and specs that confirms that both cartridges has different designed motors. Between other gentlemans @vetterone , @harold-not-the-barrel , etc. etc are in agreement that not only have different specs but the " sound " is different too. Does not sounds the same, exist differences in between. There are reasons for those differences, first is that Astatic choosed the patented Moving Flux motor design by Mitachi but Astatic ask to Mitachi to manufactuere the Astatic design/cartridges under Astatic specific characteristics/specifications as we all can confirm in this link: https://www.vinylengine.com/library/astatic/mf-200.shtml you only have to make " click " on download and in the very first statements you can confirm it. Down there we can confirm too tht Astatic don’t use Shibata stylus shape but Parabolic ( Shibata like,not Shibata. ). The Mitachi own stylus tip shape in its top of the like is a special version of that Parabolic ( Shibata like. ) shape. Normally the Glanz came with ellipthical or line contact ( like the Astatic 2500. ) stylus shape but its top of the line special parabolic. Btw, here you can read Glanz specs where all but the G7 has different output level than the Astatic: https://www.vinylengine.com/library/glanz/cartridge-data.shtml We can read in both links another interesant spec about differences in the cartridge motor: when the inductance in the Glanz is 110 mh in the Astatic is lowe: 90mh even that the Astatic has higher output level !. This last fact speaks very well on what Astatic ask to Mitachi in the Astatic design/manufacture. Even and due to Astatic specific needs made that Mitachi obtained a new patent exclusive for Astatic. We can read here the Astatic name promoted by the Mitachi owner ( I think.? ! ? ): https://patents.google.com/patent/USD266504S/en?oq=d266504 Which are better glanz or Astatic?, does not matters and is up to each glanz and /or Astatic owner. Btw, today my favourite MM/MI cartridge type still is the extremely humble DC 26/27: just superb ! ! Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
@dimitry , One more ''Slavic brother?'' This forum threaten to become Slavic (grin). Your question is connected with the other thread about ''manufacturers range for VTF''. I own Allaerts MC 2 with this spec. VTF 1,8 g ( max 0,05 g deviation). We all have seen 1,5- 2,5 g. range. By MC kinds one can speak about ''optimal position of the coils in relation to magnets ''. I have no idea if such connection apply for the MM kinds. J. Carr mentioned that in his new designs this ''parameter'' is more exact which means that recommended VTF should be followed. Those who own ''many cartridges'' need some more practical method to determine VTF for each of their carts. I use to this aim ''tracking-ability test records''. As is known (?) 50 microns ''pure'' (without buzz) is sufficient to ''track'' normal records. I try to get 60 microns ''pure'' as sufficient . Those with ''perfect hearing'' can try to get perfect result by spending the needed time for the purpose.
|
Thank you, is there a manual or other reference you have? I could not find much on this cartridge.
|
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 @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,
|
"" edited " because I forgot something or not explained corectly. That's all.
R. |
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.).pdfPeace, |
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. |
|
|
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. |