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
11-17-10: Headsnappin
Has anyone listened to the AT-7V cart?

Heck, Headsnappin, I thought you were going to try it with the AT-7v cart, must have written 7ea instead, the names are so similar.

"The Audio Technica AT-7V uses a proven cartridge design elevated to a new level of significance by the use of advanced proprietary knowledge, very high quality materials and superior quality control."

Tracks 1.75-2.25gm, with the 0.2 x 0.7 OE elliptical, seems unneccessarily brutal to me, definatly not`intended for low mass TA's. 7V weighs 6.2 gm, no tracing issues with the 155lc at 1.05gm VTF. The cart even looks like a Signet TK7ea. Hmmm? Nah, be patient, get a Signet and be hugely pleased.

As to the other topic, won't catch me with MY subs down.

To those who give recognition, rejoice in a good Thanksgiving with your families and of course,

Peace,
Dear Downunder: I bought my true full range speakers several years ago when my knowledge on sub's was almost none, I learn on the sub's subject over the years.

No, I don't run my ADS full range. I cross the ADS over 57 hz. I don't use any electronic crossover ( not an external one or the Velodyne one. ) but I made the croossover inside the Levinson monobloks ( passive way ) through a teflon small value capacitor along a Levinson resistor in its input board. In this way I have a first order ( 6 db by octave. ) high pass filter and the audio signal is really untouched by a electronic crossover device.
You can ask to your amplifier manufacturer how can do that with ( Lewm you can do the same. )

I use the Velodyne's internal crossover for the low pass at 80 hz ( second order. ).

I heard twice your speakers and I like it, not only very well made and with a finish nothing short of first rate but very good sounding. I know for sure that with two sub's you can have a significant improvement.

First step is to contact CJ and ask them how to implement that first order high pass croossover inside your monoblocks. Second step is to find out ( second hand ) two Velodyne HGS-15 and if you found out then the third step ( other that the integration set up to your Sonus Faber and room. ) is to change all the internal wiring ( cable from Velodyne amplifier to woofer and the lectrical internal wire. ) for a better one: any one can help you about, not big deal and worth to do it.

You need patience to find out the HGS's and then for the whole set up at your audio system.

You even could use your REL to smooth and even the bass frequency in your room, three sub's made it ( smooth/even. ) better than two. This step is not always necessary ( I don't need it, my two sub's made that job very well. ) and only when there are very difficult problems with room bass handling.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Dgarretson,
My phono stage only goes up to 60K Ohms so probably explains the 'muted' initial presentation. Thanks for explaining. I guess with so many cartridges to listen to, it also does not allow one to persist with break-in of an initially lesser sounding one?
How do you suggest I compensate for the loading problem?
"No, I don't run my ADS full range. I cross the ADS over 57 hz. I don't use any electronic crossover ( not an external one or the Velodyne one. ) but I made the croossover inside the Levinson monobloks ( passive way ) through a teflon small value capacitor along a Levinson resistor in its input board. In this way I have a first order ( 6 db by octave. ) high pass filter and the audio signal is really untouched by a electronic crossover device.
You can ask to your amplifier manufacturer how can do that with ( Lewm you can do the same.)"

Yes Raul, agreed. This is "the way to go." It relieves the main speaker and your main amp of having to deal with the lowest frequencies. Amazing what it does! Everything gets better and you have the sub doing what it was designed to do w/o the overlap.
Doak/Raul,

I whole-heartedly agree with your assessment on the subwoofer issue.

Truly worth going that extra mile.
I second the Raul approach.
I've done it with a pair of Vandersteen 2 Wq subs.
Before that I had a single REL Stadium II and ran it alongside my speakers running full range because the REL internal Xover was so destructive to the sound of my main speakers I had no choice.
The difference it makes to your main speakers' performance as well as the amps, is remarkable.
Halcro, Unfortunately I have not yet found time to put a switch on my phono stage to vary capacitance. Perhaps increasing capacitance will alternatively address the tracking or resonance problem that Sonus has at lower resistive loads. In another thread Tom Mackris reminded us that loading changes cantilever damping. Perhaps this phenomenon is most audible with the highest compliance cartridges. This is the first one I've found that wants so high a resistive load, and until this was done the cartridge needed excessive VTF to track well. Prior to raising the resistive load so high, I was ready to declare it a bad sample. It is also possible, of course, that an aging NOS suspension presents anomalies.
Raul

time to get out of your comfort zone. I live in Australia and am not going to try and get your obsolete Velodyne subwoofer which is not available.

Be practical and give some real advise on what to buy from current available product.

cheers Shane
Dear Shane: I hope your " humor "/exigency level be better tame it today.

If you take my approach two REL Reference series of subs' can works fine.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Pryso: Yes I understand your point about that 40 hz musical instrument limit but that can't tell you the whole recording/playback inherent lower bass limit that you could understand better when you hear a good audio system set up that has integrated subwoofers.

Anyway, here are some information that other people posted in other forums and that could means " something " we are unaware of its existence:

++++++ " is one of the few subwoofers that can play the deepest bass notes and reproduce the almost subsonic ambience cues of the recording's acoustic space while remaining musical. " +++++

+++++ " I have a theory that the 'air' we sense in a concert hall is the result of subsonic energy present in the space, from HVAC, subway trains, traffic rumble that is present in big city concert halls in some subliminal amounts. When a good subwoofer system is present, this energy is recreated, if present in the recording, and can add a sense of space that was lacking before. " ++++++

+++++ " Ever notice how you can immediately tell when you step into a very large room/hall? Even when there is no "sound" in the room, there is a sonic signature to the space that lets you identify it as being large. This is the fundamental resonant frequency of the space, a type of "rumble" if you will. Then, even with low-level sounds containing higher frequencies, the reverberation time confirms our initial impressions.

Having properly produced bass allows our systems to present the volume of the original recording venue with more accuracy. Although there are really no super-low frequency notes on the recording, Muddy Waters' Folk Singer throws a cavernous soundstage that is enhanced by the presence of true bass reproduction. Other recordings behave in a similar fashion. Try the duet between John Lee Hooker and Bonnie Raitt on The Healer or the Cleveland Orchestra's Teldec recording of Pictures at an Exhibition where the depth of stage is tremendous on Gnomus in particular. To me, it's all happening in that deep bass. " +++++

+++++ " not too many people can hear frequency at 20HZ especially old guy like me, so they thinking of don't need subwoofer in system, but in my experience, put all my better stuff ( cables amp etc,) to the sub section can have better result than put to the full range section,reason I guess , every musical instrument's signal are not single frequency, it combine with a lot of harmony frequencies and sub frequency must included, that frequency has to be in the air to reproduce closer to the real sound even you can't hear that low frequency, one more reason, instrument start to sound is from 0 HZ even violin is not sound start from 5000HZ although from 0 to 5000 in very very short time and same thing happen when they stop , so I believe a good sub can change the level of the whole sound system,
tony ma " +++++

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Downunder, Based on comments from others, I would suggest the REL, if you cannot get a Velodyne HGS (that's if you want a Velodyne HGS). The JL subwoofers and I think the Martin Logan subwoofers (the best ones, not the lower end stuff) are also said to be "musical". (How I love that term.) I was intrigued at one time by the James subwoofers, which employ an internal passive slave woofer to mitigate the problems associated with small cabinets. But I think I would go REL at this point in time.

Raul, Now that I understand that you too understood the perils of electronic crossovers and that you dealt with it in the manner you describe, I am with you. As to the use of more than two subwoofers, Duke LeJeune of Audiokinesis first brought that to my attention. He makes the Swarm subwoofer system which includes five (yes, 5) subwoofers (but they may extend up into the "woofer" zone frequency-wise) to combat room acoustic problems. But who wants to deal with 5 large-ish boxes? I am not that crazy as an audiophile. Anyway, Duke is a very smart guy, one of the nicest in the business, and his idea is a good one in principle.
Timeltel, I now found a friend who loaned me a TK 7V since I posted that question. I will hook it up shortly but have been sidetracked with a Stanton 881S and also got a Grado TLZ in nice rebuilt condition. I did get the TK7ea but have not mounted it yet. I had been listening to my AT20SS and 4000d/III.
Dear Lewm: Many years ago I readed the Harman similar subs approach where in its white papers they said four subwoofers were/are the ideal number to even the low bass response in room. I tested with two M&K subs and two Carver Sunfire's and yes certainly the low bass in room response even and disappear those frequently bass room interaction " deep " problems.
Over the time I change subs passing for Audio-Pro ( a Sweden ones, very good indeed. ), Cerwing Vega, Electro Voice, JBL, etc, etc. but I never really be satisfied with the overall system quality performance and I return to listening with out subs. My speakers on those times were the same that I own today.

A few years ago I was thinking to integrate/add subwoofers ( again ) in my system but I take a different " process " and inside this process I first analize how three-two ways speakers works/designed and I mean with this where were/are its " compromises "/ trade-offs against a " perfect " speaker and a " perfect " quality performance.
I found out that only a few designs are really full-range ones ( flat to 20Hz. ) and that only few of those few full-range speakers were active/self-powered in the low bass frequency range.

So I asked my self: why is that? why no more full-range speakers when the real music in a real space are cry out for it? Well those last bass octaves are truly unfriendly to handle, expensive ( $$$$ ) ones and in a passive full range system only help to " deteriorate " the speakers performance level. So two-three and even four way speakers designs comes with out those last low bass octaves.

From those passive full range octaves the best sounding ones were the designs that choose that its woofers croosover at very low frequency: 100 hz-150 hz, to the midrange drivers: but we can find that this kind of passive full range spekers where the fingers of one of our hands are more that what we need to count them.

The whole idea behind multiple subs's ( 4-5 ) is that adding sub's we can smooth/even the frequency bass response in any room with out the necessity of any kind of equalizer, room treatment or the like.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Raul, Lewm, all; perhaps I should not be commenting here since I've never owned a subwoofer. But several friends do and I expect to add them if I ever move and have a more accommodating room, so I have done a bit of listening and research.

The point I first attempted to make (but failed I'm afraid) was to suggest the importance of having a system with response down to 40 Hz as an initial priority. Certainly for those with the space and budget to add subwoofers to extend below 40 Hz that would be a desirable addition.

The most successful subwoofer systems I've heard are set up as Raul advises. It is beneficial to keep the lowest frequency signals from your main amp(s) and speakers and this is heard in the important upper bass and mids. Lew, this is why I do not understand the recommendation for REL subs. As I understand them, they are designed to add on to main amp(s) and speakers playing full range.

At the same time I appreciate Lew's concerns in finding ANY sub that can blend sonically with his Soundlabs. Of the Martin Logan models I've heard for example, only the CLS (which I owned) presented a cohesive frequency response. All other models had dynamic woofers.

Lastly, Duke states up front he did not develop the multi-sub concept for smoothest in-room bass response. He credits Dr. Geddes for inspiring him. And Duke's Swarm system is four subs, not five. Since they only require an 11"x11" footprint and are intended for scattered placement, they may be more easily accommodated than one or two large sub cabinets.

http://www.audiokinesis.com/product_ak_swarm.html

And now, back to MMs?
Regards, Headsnappin: Apologies, I was not serious in redirecting your question towards the AT-7v, I'd been recently speculating about the suitability of the 7v for accepting a higher compliance stylus. Found this morning, this is a snip of what LpGear has to say:

"It uses the same cartridge body of the 100 series. Yes - the very same one used in many of the great sounding Signet cartridges".

The rest of their comments make it sound like the best thing since shirt pockets.

http://www.lpgear.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=LG&Product_Code=AT7V&Category_Code=A3

Following a provided link to a '09 Audiokarma thread, this comment:

"-the ATN140LC stylus is much more enjoyable when mounted on the AT7V body. Same for the ATN132EP and the ATN155LC. I have been swapping the different styli between the AT7V, plus AT140LC, AT120E/T, and SLT96E bodies. To my ears, and with my setup (SL-1400, NAD 1130, Adcom GFA-545, a/d/s L8e's) the AT7V body provides a smooth and more detailed representation and a quieter background than the others. I think that it is a fine cartridge".

Otherwise, what a nice lineup of cartridges you have for auditioning.

Peace,
My first experience with full range led me to a subwoofer. The one I chose was a 12" Rythmik servo driver.

http://www.rythmikaudio.com/products.html

For the diy person a pair of these can be built fairly cheap. If you prefer a paper cone, look at the GR research driver. I used a Crown XTi to power mine which allowed ease of adjustment from a laptop with there HiQnet software. The right XTi would control a pair.

http://www.crownaudio.com/amp_htm/xti.htm

Although the servo sub I could tell was the way to go in two channel my room size limited proper placement to do any justice. This led me to play with open baffle speakers. My final choice was Martin J. King’s Jordan JX92S OB with a Goldwood GW-1858 Woofer in an H Frame Project

http://www.quarter-wave.com/Project08/Project08.html

I now don’t feel the need for additional low end. The H-frame interacts with the room unlike the problems caused from subwoofers and goes low enough for me. Bass from an open baffle is just something all should experience.

A pair of these could be built independently to intergraded with any speaker, just a thought. They might not go as low as most subs but should fill the void for most speakers.

After saying all of this the cleanest sounding sub I have experienced that just seemed to disappear were the Edgarhorn Seismic with a Krohn-Hite tube variable filter driven with a HK Citation 16a amplifier.

Brad
I stumbled across this thread when I was looking for info on MM cartridges.
I was hopiing to find a viable alternative to my denon dl103r with soundsmirth ruby cantilever and isotek aluminum body (a'la zu) with cinemag sut.
So far I have tried Grace f9, (old, possibly tired cantilever), Shure v15 typr IV (with shure cantilever and Jico sas)
and now the Audio Technica 8008 studio.
The AT is brand new old stock, so it needs 'running in' But so far, it is the most promising. I don't think the other MM's come close to my denon.
Of course , after a year of tweaking/tuning the synergy with my 103r is ideal.
I will see how the AT shapes up, but so far, all of the hunting and procuring of these old MM's has been a bit of a letdown!
I am now looking for one of the Technics, and an Empire 4000 series.
Any other suggestions?
Thanks, Harv.
As far as Subwoofers go, I would have to get divorced first!!
Htx1,

"I would have to get divorced first!" :~)

Funny story but two valued friends with whom I used to listen to music (through hifi and live performances) can no longer join me to listen in the former manneer due to a diminishing WAF and consequent sales of key parts of their former obsession. There but by the grace of god...

Strange times, strange world
Sorry for my factual errors, Pryso et al. Could have sworn Duke uses 5, not 4. Did you really mean to write that Duke did NOT develop the multi-sub concept for smooth response?

I concede also that the REL in typical set-up does not provide a low-pass filter for the amp running the rest of the spectrum. (The latest products, however, can be run via a line level input, so that problem can be avoided.) The top line RELs have been recommended to me repeatedly by folks I trust, just purely for the quality of the response, over a period of many years, so I just passed that on.
Sorry to beat an OT horse, but here is a quote from Duke's website:
"The main obstacles to natural-sounding bass reproduction are the inevitable room interactions - which impose large peaks and dips on the bass response. By using multiple subs spread asymmetrically around the room, each sub will produce a unique peak-and-dip pattern at the listening position. The combined average of these unique peak-and-dip patterns is much smoother than any one of them would be, resulting in more natural-sounding bass with excellent pitch definition."

This would seem to support my original statement, ne c'est pas?
Regards, Lew: Have you listened to your Acutex yet? (Maybe I can distract him from this subtopic).

Peace,
Lew, I'm sure your quote is accurate. But that does not suggest Duke originated the concept. Hopefully, this will clear things up. It is quoted from a Stereo Times interview with Duke:

"DL: The concept behind the Swarm arises from a brief conversation with Earl Geddes, as I was driving him to the airport after CES in 2006. I had been trying for years to come up with a subwoofer system that would match up well with Magneplanars and Quads, trying various enclosure types in a quest for very good “pitch definition” in the bass region, along with good impact (good planars excel at the former but not the latter,). Anyway, Earl mentioned that scattering multiple subs asymmetrically around the room resulted in a net smoothing of the in-room bass, as each sub would interact with the room differently so that the sum would be smoother than any one along. The lightbulb went off in my head, and I asked him for permission to use the idea. He said yes."

And NOW back to MMs?
Dear Lewm: These are the Harman white papers on the multiple sub's subject:

http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Technologyleadership/Documents/Scientific%20Publications/13680.pdf

Regards and enjoy the music,
raul.
Dear Pryso, I understand now that you were not disputing the rationale behind the use of multiple subwoofers but merely the notion that the idea originated with Duke. Gotcha. All credit to Earl Geddes, I guess. Duke is a great guy and would be the first to credit the other guy, which in fact appears to be what he did do. OK, NOWWWWW back to MMs. But this was for me an educational diversion.
Timeltel, I am maybe a week away from getting my system up and running. I solved a mysterious problem with one of my amplifier monoblocks and then decided to revise the entire output stage. It will take another week to burn in the new tubes before I can listen. Perhaps this is why I am easily distracted from the verbal descriptions of how this or that cartridge sounds. I have no sounds. But I wasn't the only one who wrote about subwoofers, and Raul brought it up, so I feel only partially to blame. I do apologize.
Dear Lewm: IMHO any audio topic that could help to improve the quality performance on our audio systems at the same time helps to improve the enjoyment when we are hearing those MM/MI cartridges.

Anyway enough " after " this:

Downunder my Velodyne's are obsolete in the same manner that your Technics 100CMK4 or your AT-25 is.
I think is a better " term ": out of production, don't you think?

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Regards, Raul: You indicated several weeks ago you were revisiting the Grace F9-E/Ruby and indicated it might merit a formal review. Do you still think it so? Also, your Acutex LPM 315-111STR is now a LPM 315 MK.1VdH. Have you tried it yet, can you find time to respond, particularly concerning the VdH retip? I've no experience with the VdH retipping service but as I am familiar with the 315 your comments would be informative.

Lew: I found the remarks concerning subs of interest and cannot find fault with any. You like your ESL's nude (and I appreciate the "why"), others propose one, two or four subs (that would be me), preference seems directed by space availability and personal priorities. I've recently returned to the very rewarding Acutex 320-111 (it beat up pretty badly my three remaining antique and unremarkable MC's/SUT on live recordings of Copland and the jazzy "Blue Note Meets the L. A. Symphony"). I'm curious if, after the effort you made to find this remarkable cartridge, you've found opportunity to listen to it. Your opinion is always appreciated and now that you're able to differentiate between four and five, ;), even more so.

Peace,
Regards, Lew: Our posts have crossed in the ether. Raul is correct about the importance of considering any potential for improvment and as he is the originator of this thread is welcome to take it in any direction he chooses. Under no circumstances should you think it needful to make any explanation, again you demonstrate the quality of personal grace.

Consequently, disregard my previous post. I was under the impression your rig was running on all cylinders again, no intent to rub salt in the wound. I do reaffirm by my appreciation for the Acutex, the 320 is a top notch cart, I think you'll agree, hopefully soon.

Peace,
Dear friends: Technics EPC-100C MK4: WOW!

Another great opportunity to own one of the best ever made cartridges in the world, certainly this could be the best in advance Christmas gift for everyone of you: don't miss it you can't find it very often:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Technics-EPC-P100C-Mk4-MM-Cartridge-/220702098805?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3362dec575#ht_664wt_1139

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Raul, Your posts here about good stuff on eBay have the unintended consequence of both raising the price and causing the item to be gone before I can even find the auction. (I don't know whether anyone else has had this experience.) I know you mean well, but.... Jeez. The Technics is gone gone gone. Of course, there is every possibility that the lucky buyer never saw your post above.

While we're at it, have you or anyone else rated the earlier versions of the 100C? I have found a few Mk2's and Mk3's, but I hesitated to purchase, because I am not sure how they stack up against the Mk4, and the prices are not too different from the Mk4 prices. Opinions appreciated.

Timeltel, I felt no offense, and the 320 is first on my list when at last I have music again. I considered buying a back-up amplifier to avoid future down time, but so far I have not done so.
Dear Lewm: So what do you suggest? that I don't post about here?, if this is what you and other people think then is fine with me. I would like your and other people thought about for I can stop or follow on that subject.

Here you can read what Halcro already posted about the MK3:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&3024&4#3024

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
It seems that you need to be "lucky" to get hold of this Technics P100C MK4 cartridge.They sell so fast,I check ebay a couple times a day and missed this one.Surprised that these used samples are going for this much money.

I think I got a good deal on mine which I purchased here at Audiogon,like new condition mounted on the EPA A505 armwand for less than this last P100C MK4 sold for at ebay.

I only used mine for around 10 hours so far,without any fine tuneing just fitted the armwand and played some records.I can see why Raul and others rate it so highly.It outperforms my Empire 4000DIII Gold easily which has plenty of hours,and I spent time trying to get the best out of it.

I am waiting for an improved bearing for my turntable and in the process of other system improvements before I listen more to the P100C.Mostly(for now)I've been switching between the Empire and Signet TK9 with AT25 stylus.I just "retried" the 10MLIII stylus on my Signet and the balance issue I had is not a problem now,more VTF and tweaking gave me better results.Compared to the Signet/AT25 I think the Signet/10MLIII is more refined,better resolution and a more natural tone quality.They both do soundstaging very well.
Ahhh, back to the land of MM cartridges!

Raul, did you see the selling price of the 100 Mk4? It was $1,324 with shipping!

Now I would not blame you as selling price will be determined by whatever someone is willing to pay. But I would not pay that much for a used cartridge over 20 years old. One of my local audio buddies has a 100 Mk4 that he bought new back when they were a current product. He considered it the best MM he heard then, but got out of analog around 1990, only coming back a few years ago. After he and I talked about the renewed interest in MM and MI cartridges, stimulated by this initial thread, he dug out his 100 Mk4 and installed it for a listen. Unfortunately due to aging, the suspension had collapsed. This is not an uncommon occurrence and I know you've sent many vintage cartridges in to be "refreshed" as you put it.

So my friend sent his 100 Mk4 in to SoundSmith to be rebuilt. His cartridge did not have more than a few hundred hours use so suspension work should have been all that was needed. Peter got back to him saying he tried but could not rebuild the suspension and the only option was to find the proper replacement stylus assembly. Supposedly Peter has been watching for a replacement but this has now been over a year without success.

So why is the Technics suspension so unique that it is difficult or impossible to rebuild? Apparently van den Hul has rebuilt them but anyone in the US must go through the official vdH importer who charges unreasonable prices.

I've owned other older cartridges with suspension problems and I think buying any cartridge more than 15 to 20 years old is taking a chance for suspension failure. BTW, this may apply to MC designs even more as most of them are not built with as heavy (sturdy?) a cantilever and suspension.
I was told Jean Allaert can retip and rebuild the Technics 100C.I was also told that since the Technics 100C has the lowest tip mass of any cartridge and one reason it performs so well that a retip with a heavier diamond could result in lower performance?The same guy said a 100C MKII would outperform a retipped 100CMK4 if the diamond is not "good enough or light enough" don't know if this true though.It would be interesting to hear from someone who has hade one retiped.
The Technics 100cMK4 was on also Audiogon last night but could not bring myself to buy it at that price.

Danny
Hi All,

Who got the Technics Mk4? I still think, given the price of your top MC's that the price was very reasonable.

I hope whoever it was that won the cartridge has great joy with this gem.

Congratulations
I was offered that Technics Mk4 by the Dealer 2 days before it was listed and asked Raul if I should buy it?
You see over the last 3 months I have been buying quite a bit of vintage stuff, TT-81, arms, cartridges, headshells etc and the few Dealers in this exotica see you as their 'Clients' often giving you first choice at rare items.

There are various analogue operatives around the world, selling vintage cartridges, headshells, tonearms and turntables often advertised on Ebay.
The ‘epi-centre’ appears to be Hong Kong with a strong Australian presence as well.
Brands are pretty consistently Micro Seiki (turntables & tonearms), Fidelity Research (tonearms), Audiocraft (tonearms), SAEC (tonearms), Audio Technica (cartridges & headshells), SME (tonearms), Technics (tonearms).
Items in demand such as the Micro Seiki RX-5000 turntables, FR-7 series cartridges and Technics EPC-100 cartridges are rarely even advertised, generally being offered directly to waiting clients in Germany and Japan.

This ‘Demi-Monde’ is amazingly active with extraordinary prices being asked and paid. And if you think it’s just wealthy collectors snapping up these items because of their ‘scarcity’, think again.
Almost no vintage electronics or speakers are part of this market as the ‘buyers’ know that the modern products are better in these cases, than the old.
Equally well known is the belief that the best of the ‘old’ tonearms, turntables and MM cartridges are generally unbeaten by current production samples.

So these ‘collectors’ (and there must be hundreds), are actually analogue lovers and listeners. They are probably not spending their time on audio forums as much as listening, tweaking, evaluating and buying. They have obviously heard about these products from various friends and acquaintances and their ‘word-of-mouth’ network elevates the ‘best of the best’ to the top prices. Thus Fidelity Research FR-66s tonearms are now being advertised for $10,000 whilst EPC-100 Mk3 and Mk4 used cartridges are fetching over $1,000. We are also seeing re-plinthed Technics SP10Mk3 turntables going for $14,000?
Now compare that to a one year old DaVinci Grandezza 12” Ref tonearm fetching $4,000 after retailing for $10,000?
As a stockbroker friend of mine likes to say…….”the Market is always right”.

Because I am now a 'Client', I get offered 'stuff' almost every day. The dealer I bought my FR-66s arm from, offered me a 'boxed' one in mint condition a week later!?
In any case I declined to buy the Technics Mk4 because I'm more than happy with the Mk3 which comes with its own integral headshell and ingenious stylus guard. I didn't think any minor improvements were worth the hassles of the 'P' mount and adapter and I think the AT-155LC and Empire 4000D/III and !000ZE/X are close enough in performance at 1/4 the price.
Dear friends: I really was unaware of what Halcro posted because I always bought my cartridges on direct auctions: no one comes to me to put on sale his items.

Anyway, as Dgob posted I think that even at those prices and even that are cartridges with more than 20 years that are out of production we all know for sure that are worth to have it.
Of course that I know too that we will be more " happy " if things return as two-three years ago regarding prices but the price of an item has an intimate relationship between: offer and demand.

Both P100 ( AKG and Technics. ) cartridges are great ones and now the sellers knows that thank's to this thread but with out the thread IMHO no one of us that own either of these cartridges could even think not only to own the cartridges but to think in the MM/MI alternative.
One way for more and more of us be aware of this MM/MI alternative is through this thread and in the same way through other forums. So sooner or later the prices has to grow up like today status.

What maybe is a problem from us is that we already invest in several cartridges ( each one of us ) at different prices and today that that prices are higher we just can decide not only because the price but becuase the money we already invested in other cartridges.

Three years ago I was buying two-three samples of the same cartridge and if in those times I could found out three samples of the AKG or Technics that's for sure that I bought it ( like with the AKG. ) but this did not happen and today far from there I pass those opportunities to everyone of you with out touch it.
I know now that I don't need any more ( I know now that in the past either. ) two or more samples of the same cartridge.

I'm still buying MM/MI cartridges, you can look to my virtual system and you will read/see several " new " cartridges that I'm not only have time to test it but even to name it here.

Now, the ones that does not " accept " the " new " cartridge prices are the ones ( including me. ) that bought cartridges at lower prices but I think that the new comers to the MM/MI alternative will be satisfied on that regard.
IMHO I think we all should be satisfied because we own very good cartridges at extremely fair prices: we are lucky/fortunate enough for that: don't you think?

No, I'm not on favor of the cartridge sellers but we can't do almost nothing about. The " world " is to big and always will be out there some one willing to buy even at those " high " prices.

Now, not necessary the grow up prices comes precisely from this thread because I bought a NOS cartridge where almost no one here makes a " rave review " on it and I pay for it over 450.00, this one was the Shure ML140HE and this is more that for any one of us paid for the Empire D4000III or the Azden or Acutex or any other but the Technics/AKG. The auction for that Shure was a " fuerce " auction trying to won it. So, in some cartridges exist other kind of " influences " out of this thread.

A good side on all this is that over the time will be more cartridges on offer and not only that but I hope some of them different/unknow cartridges to us and all these I see it as an opportunity. Nothing is perfect and nothig is still for ever: the world and things are in continuos movement and changing .

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear friends: Seems to you that I'm satisfied on twhat I have even at those prices?, certainly I'm more than satisfied because through the time/years on this thread I not only discover full and in deep ( still learning. ) the great MM/MI alternative ,that over those years and today fulfill my music home listening enjoyment as ever, but discovery too to all of you that I consider my friends.

All this: for how much money? frienship has no price and the cartridges I bought for " penauts " against almost 100K dollars ( big dollars ) that I invested ( thank's to the " corrupted " AHEE where we all IMHO are their victims. ) in LOMC cartridges.

Sure I'm more than satisfied!

regards and enjoy the music,
raul.
Not wanting to divert this thread back to subs, but wanted to say thanks for inspiring me to do something I've been meaning to do for a while. My Arcam DV27A doubles as a decent cd player with dedicated stereo/sub outs but also has on-board high pass filtering of the main speakers. Set the high pass x-over to 60 Hz to my SF Cremona mains and similarly the low pass on the SF Gravis sub. Wow, what have I been missing out on.

A veil has been lifted, mids and even highs are better due to unburdening the main amp and the low end is taut and defined as it never has been. Hearing things across the spectrum that weren't there before and there appears a hard to define ease in and completeness to the music where fuller decay in notes can be more clearly heard. Due to WAF there will only ever be 1 sub for me.

Now to achieve the same from my Garrad 401 - can anybody advise on a suitable passive splitter between phono pre and integrated? Not inclined to do internal surgery to my Primare.

Am up to 10hrs on an AT15 with AT20ss stylus and am impressed but waiting for the low end to start to kick in - only 30hrs to go?

Many thanks again to those that take the time to share their knowledge.

Alex L

ps for those interested, the score in the 1st cricket test in Brisbane is Australia 221 runs ahead after the 1st innings and England 0/8 in the second.
Dear Raul, It is not my buseness to defend Lew but he is
a scientist so he is critical 'by nature'. He even criticize his own (former) post and I am sure that he would
criticize the post of his own son if he wrote something that deserves critical remarks. But he is, except for his
humour kind (or kind of humour),always correct and polite.
Bisides he explicitly mentioned 'unintended consequences' of your search for the 'éxotic' MM cart. BTW I myself wrote
to you that you should not 'fish' in 'my waters'; Ie on
ebay.de. However there is no question about that we all are
very dankful for your efforts.
Regards,
Dear Alex17333: Good that you confirm through your experience the importance to lower the IMD on main speakers, yes the difference is outstanding: good for you!.

Yes too, that AT cartridge will " surprise " you with its high quality performance.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Ecir38: Thank you for the links on the subwoofer subject, very interesting.

Well, I never had the opportunity to heard bass from an " open " woofer design but I heard many times with different speakers bass from open baffle like Soundlabs, Apoguee or Maggies.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Regards, all: It seems there is an increased current of both interest and availability in these classic transducers. Through the internet and exchange of information, those with the prerequisite knowledge and inclination are enabled to make informed choices in selecting the very best of what has been developed in the past fifty years, one half of a century!

From marketing devices and persuasive advertisment the contemporary consumer has been convinced "as surely as three follows two, newer is better". Fortunately, there is a cadre of audiophiles capable of making their own determinations independent of marketing persuasion. In the sense that an archivist collates documents, Rauls' thread serves as a platform for the comparison and evaluation of cartridges. Any enthusiast interested in alternatives while still maintaining the quality of their listening experience should be, by reviewing this thread, able to make a selection and be confident that choice was among the ten best ever offered.

The above is an elaboration of the obvious (Preaching to the choir? Again?) but visit the websites of vendors. You'll find many (60%?) of the styli listed when the page was put up are NLA. Those with the descriptors nude, berillium, Shibata, ME, ML, LC even more so. In the past six months the price for these still available high end styli have risen by nearly half. Supply and demand.

Don't forget yourself this holiday season, gift yourself a stylus or two for the cartridges on your wish list.

Peace (and joy),
Dear Raul,
I apologize if I offended you with my remark about your posts citing items for sale in eBay. It was something that I have noticed for a long time, and I knew it might offend you to mention it, so I held back until this last bit about the 100C Mk4. In truth, I felt like some of the others, that I would not have paid that much for a "pig in a poke" (a very homely US metaphor meaning something one knows nothing about that could be below par, due to age in this case). Anyway, I know that you do this out of your own enthusiasm for the hobby, so no real criticism of you was intended. I meant it as light-hearted fun.

So can anyone say how the Mk2 and Mk3 versions of the 100C compare to the Mk4? You implied that the earlier versions also have merit. And where do the various 205Cs fit into the hierarchy in terms of their ultimate performance?

Thank you, Nicola, for the words in my defense. I wish we could all get together and have a beer or whatever anyone likes to drink (in my case, a good French wine). Downunder could have a Foster's, but I think his tastes are more sophisticated than that.
Lew,
DU probably prefers a good bottle of Barossa Shiraz (or some of that lovely single vineyard grenache produced by Mr. Bratasiuk, of which I think I have now a decade-plus supply of :^). The 205CMk3 and the later Mk4 also used boron cantilevers, but a different coil system (both turns and, it would appear, wire). They are quite good but they lack the 'grace' of any of the 100Cs. I am not sure of the right descriptive words, but I find the 205 series more 'meaty' in the treble registers where the 100C is more 'wispy'. The biggest 'problem' with the 205CMk3/4 is that they have bigger brothers which are so good. The 205CMk3/4 are fine carts in their own right.

The 100Cs get better as you go later, and perhaps more importantly, for 'pig-in-a-pokes', the TTDD dampers were implemented from Mk2 and beyond meaning they may last longer. Personally, I like all of them. I find them more alike than different, but they do sound a bit more MC-ey (in terms of presenting detail) as you go to the later models. If I had to choose just one, I'd choose a Mk4, but I have at least one of each and like them all. I also like the 101C (which as far as I know only had one generation) which seems to get no comment on these boards.
Hi T-Bone,

Could you share more info about the EPC-101C? Boron, Cantilevers? Closer to the 100C than the 205C etc?

Thanks
Dear T_bone, On the German ebay.de there is one EPC-101 C
listed for 'ages', as if the Japanese seller 'foxtan' has
subscription on this ebay (389 Euro). Now I know that Raul
is regulary visiting ebay.de 'fishing' for exotic carts
in 'my waters'. Ie a small part of the Nord sea. He is obviously not satisfied with the Bahias of Mexico + the
whole Pacific. However he never mentioned this cart in our
forum in the sence of Lew . So there is, I think, some discrepancy in the valuation of this cart between you and Raul.

Regards,
The EPC-101C was introduced at the same time as the EPC-100CMk2 (1979) at the same price. The 101C has a titanium nitride cantilever. Like the 100C it has a 0.2x0.7mil elliptical stylus but has a slightly larger 'square-block' diamond tip on the stylus than the original 100C (and the Mk2). The Mk3 and Mk4 tips were even smaller. The 101C plays with a fair bit more VTF (2.0g if memory serves). I have never seen a compliance number. I have seen them in black and champagne-color one-piece headshells. I have never seen a P-mount 101C. Personally, I'd probably rather have a 100CMk4 than a 101C but I'd much rather have a 101C than a 205CMk3. The 101C is, if anything, more MM-ish in my mind than the 100C. I assume the 101C was seen as 'losing' to the 100C at the time so was not continued. It could have been marketing (because not long afterward, the label on the new EPA-100Mk2 was 'boron' rather than 'titanium nitride' even though the Mk2 armpipe is a boron-titanium mix) or it could have been that everyone preferred the boron - it IS lighter and probably performs better. Another possibility was a desire to make all the cantilevers for the top carts be the same - Technics must have had a serious 'boron farm' operating at the time.

FWIW, the 101C is not very common, and I have seen almost nothing written about it. Raul may not have ever heard it. Also, 'foxtan' is out of Hong Kong I think.