Frogmen, what arm are you using for the 4000D/III? And what turntable? Unlike Mab33, I don't believe the Empire needs much of a positive VTA? I run it almost parallel with beautiful balance throughout the range. I track it at 1 gm although it can probably go a little lower but sound wise I found no real improvement in lower VTF. Forget about break-in. It's good to go after 2 LP sides. A great cartridge that I could live happily with forever. Happy listening. |
I also am running my Empire 4000 DIII/Gold at 1 g, any more than that sounded too thick. VTA is very slightly positive, though the arm lift on my Morch is in the way of trying an extremely positive VTA like Raul recommended with the Ortofon M20FL. |
Dertonearm, Thanks for the reference to the Klyne review. The pertinent information is all on page 5. In a nutshell, Klyne favors loading LOMCs with no less than 1000 ohms and up to 47K ohms. He compensates for the possible resulting resonant peak by some sort of attenuation network that is built into his phono stage but which is defeatable by the end-user. The idea is that typical loads of much less than 1000R get in the way of accuracy and ease, I guess. That is a school of thought among other theoreticians, not just Klyne, but this is the first I have heard about using an inbuilt network to compensate for undamped resonant peaks. This (review) contains way more information about the circuit than one can get from the Klyne website. |
Thanks guys. I have the Empire in a Eminent Technology 2 air bearing tonearm with the high-pressure manifold and pump; on a VPI TNT6 with "the works". So far, initial impressions are: Terrific clarity, with good inner detail. Tonally, a good middle ground between the white/bleached sound of the Andante, and the more romantic/golden flavor flavor of the Azden. Open soundstage with good placement. Sound is definitely weighted towards the midrange, and so far seems a little bloated. That is why I ask about break-in, and damping; a hunch tells me that things will even-out (tighten) a bit after a few more hours. But, in general, so far I like it better than the vaunted ATML170, which in my set-up seems a little slow/slightly boring in comparison. I am going to try fluid damping over the next couple of days and report back. |
Hi guys,
It seems that everybody has been talking about top MM and MC cartridges but no one has even mentioned about strain gauge (semi-conductor) cartridges, which I think are excellent sounding as well. |
Dear Lewm, it was Syntax who pointed my attention to this article - so the credits go to him. Cheers, D. |
MM cartridges have better bass definition and are quieter. Take it from there. |
OH Good Grief Charlie Brown. AUGGGUH! Did I ever misstate that last comment!
MC track better, have better definition (full range), and are quieter. Please don't mistake me for an idiot!
I had a Denon DP6000 that could accomodate 2 tonearms, and one was a transcriptors (specifically for the MM) and a Thorens SME (for all others).
I used an SP-3A-1 which had 2 phono inputs and switched between them during playback. AMPS were ARC. Speakers were Tympani 3a's, X-over was EC-4A. Yes, I have also A-B'd a series of cartridges. MC won hands down.
(I used both Denon AU-320 transformer for MC and also Mark Levinson JC-1.)
Who needs a MM when we have MC? |
Nothing has changed in 30+ years? |
Hi Listener614,
Interesting,which MM and MC models did you compare? |
Listener614, You have (or had?) a nice vintage audio system from front to back, so it is rather surprising that you reject the notion that vintage MM and MI cartridges have merit. I personally take no absolutist position as regards the different technologies of phono cartridges; I am just happy to have been made aware of the capabilities of the vintage products we have been talking about for two years or more. While your system is very nice, you should be aware that several of the regular contributors to this thread also own modern megabuck state of the art components and yet are able to see some unique virtues in these old cartridges. Your cited experiments (without any specifics) prove nothing, of course. That's the beauty of it. God, the JC-1! I remember that from about 1975; it put Mark Levinson on the map. |
I personally am not surprised to hear that MC carts sounded better through vintage equipment, just as many of us are finding vintage carts to sound better through modern equipment. |
Interesting point. I myself have been wondering whether there was a correlation between solid state electronics and favorable impressions of MM/MI cartridges vs MC ones, and vice-versa for tubes. |
Interesting point. I myself have been wondering whether there was a correlation between solid state electronics and favorable impressions of MM/MI cartridges vs MC ones, and vice-versa for tubes Lew, Its taken this long for you to realise there is a correlation :-) I've been saying this for some time, but I normally get shot down by the Pied Piper in his normal aggressive take no prisoners way.Just like my wife, I am getting good at switching off and using selective hearing. I have no doubt gents with SS systems or cool tubes might prefer MM's and visa versa as you say. System balance has a lot to do with it. |
Regards, Listener614: Interesting first contribution to this thread, please continue to do so. When you started rebuilding your system last year:
02-17-09: Listener614 "---returing to Audio after a long hiatus. I'm building a system starting with the 3.6's--".
If I may ask, what turntable/tonearm did you select?
Peace, |
Lew, Its taken this long for you to realise there is a correlation :-) I've been saying this for some time, but I normally get shot down by the Pied Piper in his normal aggressive take no prisoners way.Just like my wife, I am getting good at switching off and using selective hearing.
I have no doubt gents with SS systems or cool tubes might prefer MM's and visa versa as you say. System balance has a lot to do with it. Pied Piper.. Hahah! I have the same impression too having played with a few of the MMs mentioned here. On the change of speakers ( drastic change ) or other components, some of the previous favourite MMs or MC might suddenly lose the synergistic match. |
Use the LOMC the way it was designed by the engineers - and its inventors. A LOMC is a moving coil. A coil has a source impedance (that it common knowledge) and an inductance. The source impedance likes to "see" a matching impedance at the phono input. Likewise the LOMC's inductance would like to see a corresponding inductance at the phono input. Once you do so the "bad" synergy with "certain" phono input stages vanishes. Use a step-up transformer whose coil shows the RIGHT FIGURES for the LOMC you prefer. The moving coil was designed with a matching step-up being the 2nd part of the whole. It was used that way only the first 20 years of its existence. |
MM's are the best!The heck with expensive step-ups,extra wires,messing with loading only to sit there and keep thinking "it don't sound right" my $80.00 MM cartridge beats my $1500.00 MC,"hands down" :)
|
Dertonearm, I think it was you who programmed Axel. You both may be correct, but a LOMC has a vanishingly low inductance, orders of magnitude lower than any MM cartridge. Can one actually find SUTs with such low inductance that still give enough gain? And by saying that the "source impedance likes to see a matching impedance at the phono input", how do you define "matching impedance"? Do you mean an identical impedance or an impedance that can easily be driven by the output Z of the cartridge? If the former, then you would favor placing the load R in front of the SUT, on the primary side rather than on the secondary side, as was also Axel's preference. That way you can use a very low value resistor that is nearly the same in value as the internal resistance of the LOMC.
Downunder, I knew that someone on this thread had made the remark about synergy between solid state and MMs way before I did. I could not remember who it was. |
Travbrow, Forget cost. What two cartridges are you talking about and what electronics do you use downstream? (By the way, it seems that "messing with loading" is not the sole province of the MC user.) |
The point of Raul's treatise was to take another look at the best MM/MI and see how they stood up to MC, not to determine if they were better or worse. To get back to the natural flow of the music instead of dissection of it. Some MC are highly thought of in this regard but are quite expensive when compared with there MM equals.
Most people who initially enjoyed the change from MM to MC are probably like the people who enjoyed the change from LP to CD. MC and CD cut through the warm sound of electronics of the time as Lewm,Wdi,and Downunder have brought up.
Then bring in personal preference of what sounds we are trying to recreate(live at venue,live in living room,live hurts my ears,live in recording studio,I like dissected music ect....)and its no wonder we need both.
Sorry for the coffee induced rant.
|
Lewm, the corresponding SUT to a given LOMC will have an inductance based on its primary's coil. That inductance will be in a ratio comparable to the matching impedance ratio vs the source impedance of the LOMC. Regarding the correct matching impedance, there are charts and technical explanations in all length and detail everywhere on the web and in technical audio books since the mid 1950ies. |
HI Lewm,
My last post was a failed attempt at a little humor.When I first got back into vinyl,I "learned" from websites like this one that MC cartridges are the best type,,MM cartridges are nothing special.Before this thread I never even considered a MM cartridge or even knew of so many great cartridges made in the past.The best sounding MM I owned(years ago)was an ADC XLM MKII,I think that was the model.Anyway,I didn't have a high-end system and eventually went to listening to CDs only after around 1986.
It was only 15 years ago or so when I started buying high-end equipment and only 8 years ago when I got back into vinyl.My first new or "modern" record player was a Music Hall mmf7 with the Goldring MC cartidge,I liked it and this put me on the path to try better cartridges and eventually better turntables.
That other big thread here "Building High End Turntables Cheap at Home Depot" put me on the DIY path which I enjoy very much.
Right now I use a slate plinthed Lenco that I built with Technics EPA 500 tonearm and a World Designs phono stage that I built with premium parts.My line level preamp is a Symphonic Line,power amps are the Odyssey Audio Sratos with the latest board upgrade and the Loriel speakers.Most of my cables are from VH Audio some I made myself from the information at his website.
As you can see my experience is limited,I only ever owned three MC cartridges other than the Goldring,a ZYX 100H,Dynavector DV20 and Shelter 901.These where used on a Origin Live Encounter tonearm.
You ask what was the $80.00 MM that "hands down" beat my $1500.00 MC(Shelter 901),it was a EMPIRE EDR.9.The empire is not as refined as the Shelter but I liked it better anyway...which is really better?I don't know or care,all I know is I enjoy the sound of my MM cartridges and I don't need to take out a loan to try another high-end MM model.I sold off a few of my MM cartridges and actually made profit on some of them,another plus for me.
|
Dear halcro: +++++ " Wdi, I started off with my Empire 4000D/III mounted in the low-mass unipivot Grace 940G which I imagine is quite close to your Morch DP-6? Surprisingly I found the 4000D/III a better match to the high-mass Fidelity Research FR-64s as was also the case with my Empire 1000ZE/X (go figure?) This was further demonstrated when I mounted the 4000D/III in the FR-66s tonearm where it produced it's best qualities. Simply wonderful cartridges those two Empires. " +++++
yes both Empire's are really good. My experiences with those Empires are very similar regarding tonearms, in the G-940 performs good but not at the same level than in the AT 1503-III. It is not only that the AT or the FR are high mass against the G-940 this one too has different bearing as is an unipivot design.
I have better Empires experiences on the G-940 using high weight headshells ( 15 grs. ), you could try and see what happen in your gear.
Wdi, I don't know all the tonearms you own, there are no rules here so we have to try what we have on hand and listening and decide if the quality performance is a good one or not.
Now, the Empire 4000DIII was designed to " see " 100K on load impedance and this makes a difference as the capacitance value makes too a difference. So we have to take care in these two cartridge electrical set up parameters as in VTA/SRA right set up.
My best advice is try different capacitance values hear it and decide. An additional advise with MM/MI cartridges is to set up first the VTA/SRA and in a second time/step " tame " the sound with loadded capacitance, of course you can do the other way around but what was my advise is what works for me and I hope works for any one too.
regards and enjoy the music, raul. |
Dear Downunder: +++++ " I think the success of these seeming anomalies of tonearm/cartridge matching simply show us that the data (for compliance and tonearm effective mass) we are given to plug into the equation are crap. Garbage in; garbage out.
Or we just like that particular sound and how it gels in our system, rightly or wrongly. " +++++
yes I agree but this subject can't alone ( I posted several times. ) tell us almost nothing on the cartridge/tonearm quality performance ( it does not matters MC or MM/MI. ), there are several different factors that along the cartridge/tonearm resonance frequency define the quality performance level: one of these factors is accurate set up.
I think that this accuracy on cartridge/tonearm set up is a main factor over the other ones to achieve top quality performance level. Of course that could be some cartridge/tonearm combination where the resonance frequency factor could be the main one but it is not often to find this case.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Dertonarm: You are the next in line. I always give a comment/answer on any post in this thread.
This time I will leave " empty " my comment here on what you posted on the FR tonearm due that I'm doing it on that Downunder FR thread.
regards and enjoy the music, raul. |
Dear Halcro: No I never heard that FR-6E. For what you posted about its bass performance seems to me a " colored " cartridge but obviously you are the best judge because you own it and are listening and me either way.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear dertonarm: Even in the FR or Ikeda tonearm the 702 Fr-7f and the Ikeda9 ( I prefer the Micro Seiki MAX for these cartridges. ) can't match what Halcro pointed out on the MM/MI cartridges.
In my experiences the nearest ( to Halcro subject. ) LOMC are: Olympos, Allaerts Formula one and Goldbug Ms. Brier ( not Mr. brier. ). Other people experiences could name different cartridges and are valid only if they heard bis a bis in the same system ( same time ) the MM/MI alternative. I did it as Halcro.
Regards and enjoy the music, raul. |
dear Jcarr: Thank's to join us this time.
It is " curious " ( and not rare. ) that a person like Jcarr likes more a cartridge in a manufacturer line that is not the top of the line as is the Fr-6E against the " lower " model as the Fr-5E.
So after the Jcarr post then the 5E could be worth to hear it. Maybe Halcro that has the contact seller could buy it and report in consequence.
regards and enjoy the music, raul. |
Dear Raul yes, you already mentioned your preference of the MAX for the FR and Ikeda cartridges back in 2008 in a different thread. But I neither asked for it nor is it in any conjunction with anything posted here in this thread by me or anybody else. Maybe you mixed something up here ? Cheers, |
Dear Frogman: I can understand that you are not fully yet " convince " on the MM/MI alternative superiority against the MC alternative.
Once I was convinced on the superiority of the MC alternative ( mainly because the AHE give no other choice. ) and I spend around 100K big dollars in that alternative not only that I designed ( along Jose. ) a phonolinepreamp mainly dedicated to the MC alternative ( but with MM stage too. ) till I find out the MM/MI alternative and till not only understand the MM/MI needs but its very high quality performance level when you match those MM/MI needs, just in the same manner you have to meet the LOMC cartridge needs. This take me years to learn ( I'm still learning. ) testing, researching, listening and again and again the full circle till I saw the " light ".
You posted that the ML170 is almost " boring " and I respect your opinion but I can tell you that if you give all the ML170 needs then you will see the real and true everything but boring quality performance high quality performance that the ML170 can show you, the same for the Empire.
Your ET2 is a good tonearm but preclude you can use different headshells with different build materials, different weight and even different shapes, you need too the opportunity to choose impedance up to 100K and of course flexibility on capacitance values.
All these factors and other ones are important for a MM/MI cartridge can show you its best, obviously that the phono stage quality performance is way important too but first fulfill the cartridge needs and of course an accurate cartridge set up.
I can asure you that the rewards about are just amazing/outstanding and worth the whole effort.
regards and enjoy the music, raul. |
Dear Dertonearm, My questions were not meant as a form of interrogation or to indicate disagreement. I was just trying to understand your original post. What you have written above in response (your earliest post of 12-18-10) is gibberish, frankly. I know what determines the inductance of the SUT. What I wanted to know is whether in fact the typical SUT should (in your mind) have an inductance similar to that of an MC cartridge coil, which is quite low, usually microHenries. Or, if that is not what you meant when you said that the inductance of the SUT should "match" that of the MC, a further clarification would be in order. If you are going to refer me to previously published works, a specific reference would be greatly appreciated. Of course, this is all fun and games, so you are not obligated even to respond. Similarly, with regard to my other question about your definition of a "match" of the load R and the internal R of the MC... Why not just a straight answer to the question? I respect your depth of knowledge and just want to take advantage of the opportunity to learn something. |
Travbrow, I've got virtually the same Lenco tt (in slate plinth with PTP), and I just bought an EPA500 to go with it. I hope to have some good fun with that. Great minds think alike. |
Hi Raul, you posted "the Empire 4000DIII was designed to " see " 100K on load impedance". Where does this come from?
I just received an Empire 4000D III and the instruction sheet calls for 47K loading. I'm not disagreeing with a 100K recommendation, I know you have found that to be best for the majority of MM you've reported on. Rather, I would like to know your source for stating it "was designed" for something other than what Empire printed?
And hopefully by the time I get to try the Empire in January I will also be able to modify my phono unit to the 100K basic loading.
Best of the holidays to all. |
Hi Lewm,
I hope it works out for you.I bought this Technics tonearm because it is so easy to use(VTA and antiskate on the fly,ease of VTF adjustment)compared to the Origin Live tonearm I had and thought it would be better for MM type cartridges,not sure of that though.I think the Technics tonearm sound is detailed and precise,but other tonearms could be more "musical" with a slate Lenco.
The downsides of the EPA 500(unless you have the 250 armwand)no azimuth adjustment,but the headshells can be adjusted by looseing the two allen screws under the headshell,but repeated adjustments are not something I would want to do,it is pain and fine adjustment is nearly impossible.My headshells look level and I don't worry about the azimuth adjustment.And like Raul and others like to try different headshells to match with the cartridge,You would need the A250 armwand with detachable headshell and this would also give you azimuth adjustment.
Another thing that I was told by a knowledgable audiophile is the EPA 500 armwands counter weight section is resonant compared to the EPA 100,maybe why some prefer the sound of the EPA 100.He showed me a way to "fix" this problem and is sending some damping material to try.
You should consider a bearing upgrade for your Lenco from Jeremy at the lenco heaven website.The only thing is he is very busy and not taking any new orders right now,just something to look into if you want.
|
Hi Folks I have been reading through the thread for many hours.... about 1/3rd of the way in I decided to skip to the end, it is HUGE. One thing I noted - Raul you claimed a few times that in addition to the 100k/100pf loading, the most important thing was the Headshell/Cartridge matching.
Have you at any stage posted some of your "matches" - which headshell with which cartridge?
Also do you have any guidelines as to which headshell types might match best with cartridge types?
Vibrations tend to be transmitted to similar materials and reflected to differing materials - so cartridges with plastic tops might work best with plastic headshells? Similarly cartridges with metal mountings to metal headshells?
The other thing I noted through the thread is a few negative remarks about spacers.... yet I have also seen spacer style devices used as a form of tuning (eg: cartridge man's isolator) - and some turntables require spacers for proper setup... no option!
Also I heard on another forum that some empire cartridges were originally released with a "suspended" mounting - which may not have been rigid (I think it might have been the first series of 4000)... Which led to the following thought: Given that a cartridge is a compliant device, is there the option within the system to provide compliant assistance outside of the tonearm? (a supple/soft cartridge mounting?) Has anyone tried something like this?
I made a decision some months back re-commission my turntable.... and have started a voyage that now has me trying out a series of different MM/MI cartridges, along with mounting methods etc.... Thank you all for the years of input here! |
So what are the best options for spacers?
Given that most of these cartridges are mid to high compliance - weight is an issue.... so acrylic, thermoplastic are clear options, but what about lightweight woods? Balsa? Boxwood? What about Carbon Fibre? Resins? How do these affect the sound? If the "Isolator" idea makes sense - then various forms of damping could assist - different materials damp different frequencies in differing amounts... and that's without resorting to "soft" materials like sorbothane...
It seems like "soft" mounting may be an option for high compliance MM/MI's - where it would probably interfere with low compliance MC's....(combined with low VTF, high trackability and ULM arms?or perhaps as an alternative to ULM arms?) |
Perhaps Jcarr can enlighten us, or those with period catalogs (from 1969 for the FR-5/FR-5E and the mid-1970s for the FR-6SE) might be able to add to this. I am not sure the FR-6 was meant to be an 'upgrade' vs the FR-5. From the drawings I remember, it is basically the same as the FR-5. It appears to have been meant to rectify an issue with the FR-5. IIRC, the prices of the two were not significantly different, despite the passage of time. From what I remember reading an interview with Ikeda-san from probably 18 months ago, he said the FR-6 was built because the F-5 toroidal core was too small. He explained that the replacement stylus assembly sleeve was super-narrow and dampers were sized to fit perfectly (no extra space) and to remedy that, he had made the FR-6; it had a larger coil, and larger magnet, and larger hole for the replacement stylus. A Stereo Sound reviewer noted that the FR-6SE "sounds like an MM made by a guy who makes MC carts"; another noted "if listening blind, lots of people would say it is an MC cart." |
if listening blind, lots of people would say it is an MC cart." Dear T_bone..........not in my books. |
Dear Raul, thank you for your thoughts. I find the Empire to be anything but boring. It is, in fact, very alive sounding. That quality (or it's absence) is the most important performance consideration for me. If the component does not allow the music to move as it should, it doesn't matter how great it's frequency extension, soundstaging, or tonal refinement is. That is what I meant by "boring" in reference to the ATML170. It is clearly an excellent cartridge in most respects, but in comparison to the Empire (and my MC's), it sounds just a little bit slow; rhythmically laid back. The Empire, in the exact same system sounds very alive, and lets the music move as it should. The AT has superior detailing of the soundstage, with more stable placement, but also sounds a little closed-in in the highs; not enough natural color. I know "color" is considered a great sin by many audiophiles, but music has a tremendous amount of color, and some components seem to "bleach" the color out of instruments' timbre. Everything then sounds very much the same, with a gray(ish) color; mistakenly referred to as "neutral". I am sure you are correct, and that 100K loading would improve that. |
Hi Frogman,
Just to say that I find the ATML170 OCC simply accurate. It might be the loading issue that you note but I'd definitely say it's worth your playing around with until you find its optimum setting. All the colours of the rainbow and emotional impact are definitely within its compass: in my system and to my hearing.
Good luck |
Hi Frogman,
Interesting,that is why I like my two Empire models, 4000DIII Gold and EDR.9,very dynamic and fun to listen to and color the sound some,but all cartridges do and I think a more nuetral cartridge could be a little boreing in comparison.I guess this is why certain cartridge models work better for some than others,the "color" works better for their ears and audio system and probably the type of music they prefer matters to.
I bought a sorta cheap($57.00)after market stylus at Ebay just for fun to try in my Empire 4000DIII Gold.It is a Ultra Magnetics(Recoton)with a nude hand polished Parabolic/Shibata diamond.I thought it would sound bad but it sounds pretty good to me,different than the original but I like it.At first it sounded boxed in and bright but after only three hours it started to open up.I think it is more "colored" and not as refined but I only listened to it for five hours so far.Maybe worth it to try for someone in need of a replacement stylus.
Questions for Technics 100CMK4 owners,how many hours till the cartridge is fully broke in and settled?What tracking force works best for you etc.?I only have 15 hours on mine so far,just started playing it again this weekend.I think the sound is more nuetral and transparent than any of my other cartridges,the highs are outstanding "beautiful"the bass sounds very tight but maybe lack some "weight" compared to my Empire 4000DIII could this cartridge be showing off my system weakness?
Another thing,I know some think the the Hi-FI News test record is useless,but I like to check my cartridges tracking "ability" by playing the last four bias tracks on side one.The Empire 4000DIII(even with the after market stylus)tracks the first three bands cleanly with no buzzing,same with my Signet/AT25.Now the Technics P100CMK4 wont even track the second band without buzzing,the buzzing is louder on the right channel and if I turn the antiskate very high it evens out the buzzing.Confused because I thought this cartride would be the best tracker of all my cartridges.Anyway,I can't here any mistracking or distortion from the Technics playing music.
|
Hi Travbrow, In my collection of cartridges I have a Sony XL-MC104 - one of the last gasps of high end Sony Vinyl.
It only manages the first two tracks of the HFN tracking test.... but it still is a superbly sweet cartridge that never fails to surprise me with it's clarity, and sweet bell like tones.... So I guess that as long as you can track up to track 7 you should be ok.... (one would hope that as the suspension loosens up the tracking will improve..) My Shure 1000e with SAS won't do track 9 cleanly either - and that is supposedly a tracking champion.... (I had hoped the Sony would manage track 8 better....) So far I have not had a cartridge (any cartridge) do track 9 cleanly.... The ones that have done track 8 cleanly include: Shure 1000e-SAS, Ortofon 320u, Signet/AT TK6Ep, Ortofon TM20.
The Shure 1000E with the N99E stylus (eliptical correct item for that specific cartridge) - also did not manage track 8... but it blitzed it with the SAS.
I also ran the tests at various VTF's - and that made a difference to the tracking ability of some of these - but not others...(the TK6EP is currently on a conical - pending arrival of its shibata - and at the p-mount setting of 1.2g it really struggles - but at a conical friendly 2g it gets through track 7) |
Frogman and Travbrow, you are describing my perception of my Empire cartridges as well.
I don't have the 4000DIIII but my 1000ZE/X, 600LAC, 750LTD, 900GT, 999XE/X, and even the 888TE all exhibit the trait of bringing the music back alive. Flesh and blood, energy, musical nuance and spirit, it's all there. However I consider the timbral characteristics of these not as colored per se, but as being within the normal/neutral range that one encounters through hearing acoustic music in a variety of recital and concert halls. Within that normal range I find them a tad warmish but completely acceptable in terms of timbre, very much like a recital hall I know pretty well. And in contrast, to my taste greatly preferable to a cold sounding hall (or cartridge).
Jim |
Dear friends: The Empire 4000DIII set up as in any other cartridges is system dependent on tonearm, phono stage and impedance/capacitance values.
The " thing " is that what you have work for your music sound priorities.
Btw, Frogman what you posted on high frequencies ATML170 OCC performance seems to me that other than VTA/SRA/azymuth " confirmation " you can " open " that frequency range through different capacitance value. You could try and see what happen because as Dgob point out this AT cartridge is really good.
Regards and enjoy the musuic, Raul. |
Dear Kcc123: Yes, the straing gauge alternative is that another alternative.
I heard many years ago the Sao Win and the Panasonic but due to those many years I heard I really don't have a precise opinion on these two cartridges.
In the other side I have a good memory of the SoundSmith cartridge and my opinion about it is already in a very " hot " thread elsewhere in this forum but my take in this SS is that I don't like it because has a " wrong " design.
The strain gauge alternative if is good designed and excuted is very promising an a good alternative.
Frequently you can find on ebay the Panasonic one but not always with its " converter "/electronics need it.
Probably some other people here could share their " fresh " experiences on the subject.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Listener614: I almost can add nothing of what other posted/answer to your post:
+++++ " MC track better, have better definition (full range), and are quieter.... " +++++
I own over 70 MM/MI cartridges and several very good LOMC cartridges in non but the Denon S1 and Ortofon MC2000 any MC cartridge can not say " beat " the tracking " skills " of the MM/MI cartridges I own. The Denon and Ortofon I name it are very good trackers for a MC cartridge but even that only can even the MM/MI alternatiove in this regard and several MM/MI ones beats the Denon/Ortofon models I name it. Of course that it is not only important the cartridge own " skills " on the tracking subject the matching tonearm and cartridge set up is very important too.
The other subject that worried me is that you said the LOMC are quieter than MM/MI, could be with some cartridge but in general my experiences were the other way around.
I know that you are reporting what you heard in your system and I can say that I lived that kind of experiences in those " old times " with my system integrated for " old times " audio items. Yes, I remember that when I heard my firsts LOMC cartridges I just left the MM/MI cartridges in the closet.
Today our MM/MI alternative experiences are way different.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Downunder/Lewm: Yes, I read several times your posts in reference that MM goes better with SS and MC with tubes.
When I read it I was tempted to give you my opninion about but I did not because there are some " sensible " facts about my opinion but due nto your " insistence " here it is:
IMHO there are at least three-four main factors to take in count to build an audio system with an excellence quality poerformance target:
accuracy, the lowest distortions, electrical matching and precise overall set up, well the five factor: our ears and knowledge on music.
A today good designed and executed SS Phonolinepreamp and amplifier are inherent: accurate, with the lowest overall distortions we can achieve and with almost no single problem to match electricaly ( impedances. ) with other system components like speakers.
If you have the other two factors: precise overall system set up and good ears and music knowledge then IMHO you can't beat that system.
In that kind of system LOMC cartridges or MM/MI cartridges or CDs or whatever you use as a source the system will " tell " you what is happening what is the real quality performance of any source. So SS give us and function like a true " tool " to discern in true about any source alternative. It is not the source what tell us what we like but the whole system where the SS technology is responsible.
For years I heard through tubes, hybrid and SS alternatives and for many many years I heard/own and owned the best out there LOMC cartridge ( I spended more than 100k dollars only in the MC alternative. ) and I like it " even " that I was and am using SS electronics ( just like Halcro. ).
Yes, IMHO my system target is on the precise " road " to achieve ( sometime and this is my hopping. ) EXCELENCE level and this is what permit me discern about the real quality performance in the MM/MI alternative and not because SS electronics.
I don't want to open a useless window but all what I posted here you and anyone I know can achieve and be truer and real using tubes technology. Anyone of you can or could argue about but fortunatelly facts are facts and tube technology is full of distortions, unaccurate and can't match electrical impedance with other audio system items: especially speakers.
I'm not talking what you like but what IMHO HAPPEN.
Any good audio system must have the " skills " to show the true quality performance level of any source. Of course this is an ideal target that IMHO we have to look for.
Good hunting!
Regards and enjoy the music, raul. |
Well, yesterday I finally started again to listen to LPs with everything repaired in my system. (There were quite a few unrelated problems, most of which were my own fault. Such are the perils of DIY.) Anyway, my first revelation is regarding the Azden. I had come to the conclusion that my Azden was faulty or all of you who like it were wrong or that there was something inherently poor about the match between my DV505 tonearm and the Azden. Not so. The same old Azden in the same set-up now sounds great. (DV505 on Lenco slate tt.) I compared the Azden to the Colibri in my Triplanar on the Denon DP80. On balance, I think I still prefer the Colibri, but at least now it's a matter of taste, not gross malfunction. The Azden does do a few things slightly better; for example, it gives a bit more vivid presentation compared to Colibri. I have dialed in a bit of positive VTA; with that, the Azden is a bit edgy sounding compared to Colibri. Perhaps that quality would be ameliorated if I reduce VTA. Anyway, now I have a reliable platform on which to start auditioning all those other potentially wonderful MM/MI cartridges. |
Dear Lewm: Good to know you comeback! and can enjoy music listening in your audio system again.
Yes, we all can't be wrong about the Azden: very good indeed and a Colibri favorable comparison say a lot of the Azden performance.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |