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
Regards, Lew: Pleased to hear you're finally able to enjoy your Acutex. Amazing, what this flimsy looking little thing can do when in the groove. Loading? Suggest 47k/200pf for the 320, I know it's electrically inconsistent but the 315 really grabs mids/hf's at 100k (Hi, DU) /300pf. Once your 320 is broken in, you might try VTF at 1.3-1.4gm. You'll know immediately if it's not enough. Don't be surprised if you find your LPM 412STR is another crowd pleaser.

A comparable performer is the Signet TK3ea or 5ea with an AT155lc stylus. The 140lc stylus with the Signet is slightly warmer but it has it's own charms, even on my poor old rig.

By the way Lew, since you mentioned headshell leads, I'm finding reason to appreciate stranded LC or PC/OFC leads, the heavier the gauge the better. Psychoacoustic perhaps but Litz wire configurations are sounding somewhat lacking in depth in comparison to good quality heavier twisted strand leads.

Peace,
Ran a series of interesting tests...

Using a Shure 1000e fitted with a Jico SAS N97xE stylus (generator is 650ohm / 500mH)

I varied the capacitance (by switching measured C cables) through 130pf / 160pf / 450pf, and impedance (by switching impedance plugs) through 47k / 68k / 75k and 100K ohms.

I tested everything using the HFN LP Pink Noise tracks (which apparently cannot be trusted beyond 16k?)

First thing I noticed is that with 47k / 450pf (close to "spec" - I get a relatively flat Frequency Response with a slight hump in the bass region (1db @ 200Hz), slight dip in the high midrange (circa 1db) and then a resonant peak at 14k followed by a sharp drop - with -3b being reached at circa 19k.

Reducing C seemed to increase the Bass Hump (up to 1.5-2db), and also increase the resonant peak (close to 3db)- while moving the peak outwards... (47k/130pf resonant peak was at 15k and -3db @ 21k).
The expected level-ish but drooping FR was not seen - instead I get a rise! - have others experienced this?

Keeping the Cap. low (130pf) and varying the Impedance load.... as the Impedance increases, so does the size of he HF resonant peak - at 100K the peak is around 5db...
At 100K the Bass hump was minimised (1db), strangely at 75K the same bass hump was maximised (just over 2db) - the HF response for 100k and 75k was identical - very extended with -3db not being reached within the 22k limit of measurement.

The 47k FR is more of a gentle slope down from the bass hump to the midrange, followed by a more controlled resonant peak (2.5db) and -3db reached at 21k.

I think I need to go shopping for some more resistors and make a wider range of impedance plugs .... It looks like low C is the secret to extended Frequency response, but the HF peak concerns me.... it looks almost MC'ish in profile but with the resonant peak in the high audible range... (mind you it does provide more "air" to the sound).

The 1000e cartridge seems more closely related to the V15 series than the M97 series (based on impedance/inductance) - I am running it with the damper brush down.

Anyone care to take a guess at the cause of the HF peak? Is this a cantilever resonance? Shure originally put a lot of effort into damping cantilever resonances in the V15IV, and then changed the cantilever design in the V15V to move the resonance up outside the audible range.... am I possibly seeing a byproduct of the Jico cantilever design?

Bye for now

David

P.S. yes anyone is welcome to a copy of the data and graphs.... I just have to work out where to publish them... Also have to verify my measurements of the High Capacitance cable I used...
Never a fan of Litz wire, myself. But wire is a mystery, and to each his own.
Timeltel, right now I do not want to change a thing, and I hope this cartridge does not change one bit with break-in. Since I am using the fixed load resistance of 47K in the Ayre p5Xe, and since the unadulterated capacitance of the phono cable plus stray capacitance at the Ayre input is probably just a tad less than 200pF, it would seem that fortuitously I am at your recommended optima for the 320.
Raul, Although I do also own an M series 312, this is an LPM 320 I am listening to. If I am not mistaken the Saturn V is only for the LPM series; the M body is too fat for the Saturn V. (I have an M312, a 412, and an LPM body with two LPM320 styli and one LPM315 stylus and Saturn V headshell.)
Dlaloum, that hf peak is due to resonance where the inductance of the cartridge and the capacitance of the system acting together create the peak. This is why increasing load R can have a paradoxical effect.
Dear Lewm: Yes that is the LPM series cartridge.

I don't heard yet my LPM315 VDH refreshed stylus replacement against the original but the original is a winner, I ranked it at the same Technics 100CMK4 level. I can't be sure but for what are my experiences the VDH refreshed one could be an improvement an important one not only because the re-tip but because this one has a " new " cartridge suspension and this factor is critical for any cartridge can shows at its best, we will see.

As I posted I need to hear it again especially because from 4-5 months ago I'm putting more care on cartridge loading capacitance that IMHO with several/some cartridges makes a difference and this difference goes from a " ok " quality performance level to a " great " one with the same cartridge where only was made a capacitance change value.

When I made the LPM315 review I don't changed the capacitance values and I have to try this again and not only with the Acutex but with all my cartridges.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Raul,
This is why a MM-only phono stage with front panel switches for capacitance and resistance would be invaluable. I have actually been looking at some vintage gear that had such adjustability for MM inputs. The Accuphase C200, C200X, and a few others from that era are of interest, but I fear their possible "vintage" sound quality, and they are not cheap to buy. The Krell KPA system had a lot of adjustability and so too did the Yamaha phono stages of yore. If anyone here can comment on the sonics of those products, it would be appreciated.
Dear Travbrow and friends: For many years I posted several times that we have to take care not using load impedance in LOMC cartridges as an equalization tool ( as an equalizer. ) but as with that load impedance value " try " that cartridge frequency response will be " flat ".

I'm still think in the same way within the MM/MI alternative and seems to me that with this kind of cartridges the " task " is not so easy.

I know for sure that I'm away from that " flat frequency response " target in all the cartridges I heard it ( at random maybe in one or two I achieved that target, who knows. ) in my system.

Till today I never did any " scientific " tests/measurements and only trusted in my knowledge/skills level. I tryed mainly to achieve near perfect frequency extremes performance that " per sé " put the whole frequency range quality performance in the " right " prespective with a balanced and natural tone.

I know that in each one of my cartridges I heard it I was hearing a frequency response with crests and dips/valleys but at least I can't detect in precise way and neither my audio friends that comes to my place.

I agree that we need to have two phono stage controls that can give us the flexibility to change capacitance and impedance each time we need it and with wide range values.

I can do these in my Phonolinepreamp with a limitation: for I can change impedance values I need to solder resistors that are inside the item and that preclude to make impedance changes often ( it is so time consuming that till today I decided to use only 100K. ), especially because I own so many cartridges. I don't have that trouble with capacitance where I can do it in an easy way.

So, I'm aware that the quality performance level that I can achieve with that " fixed " impedance sometimes was and is not the " ideal " one but I accepted this trade-off, at least till today.

Anyway, I know the critical importance that with MM/MI cartridges have those impedance and capacitance parameters due to its " close " relationship ( with cartridge internal inductance and resistance. ) and critical influence in the cartridge performance level behavior.
I think we have to take care more in " deep " in our electrical cartridge set up.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Raul, At least you are admitting you are altering/ equalising the frequency response of most of your MM's from the manufacturer specs to better suit your system and musical tastes.

All perfectly valid, but certainly not consistent with your " flat frequency" and accuracy statements, while condemming anyone with tubes or not using subwoofers that relieve your full range speakers of playing full range.

almost goes back to the (in general blanket statement) MM with SS or lean tubes and MC's with tubes or musical SS with exceptionsof course.

rather ironic I guess, but a good way to finish off 2010.

Bottom line its clear - MM, MC, SS , tubes, sub or no sub - they are all vaild choices we make to enable each of us to enjoy the music and WAY ahead of CD's.

enjoy
Downunder - regardless of the method and gear used, there are 2 schools of thought in audiophilia.... the "archivist/reproducers" and the "Musicians".... ie: those for whom the gear is intended to as closely as possible approximate the audio data as laid down (and heard!) by the original artist/producer/engineer (archivist/reproducer) - and those for whom the original reproduction is secondary to the musical enjoyment they achieve from it, and therefore all is (relatively) fair to achieve the euphonic end result....

And of course there is the spectrum between the two extremes. DJ scratching is an extreme example of the euphonic end of the spectrum....where vinyl is literally used as an instrument.

Many audiophiles prefer to set up their systems in ways that allow them to connect best with the musical performance being reproduced.... hence " I like cartridge x best for musical genre Y - and switch cartridges accordingly..."
If the system were set up as an optimal reproducer - there would be no point in changing anything .... genre is irrelevant. But if you are configuring for best results with specific frequencies, rhythms, tones.... then you are playing in the "musical" end of the spectrum.
Note: this ignores some of the compromises we have to make - and sometimes there are multiple compromises which get closest to reproducing different genres.... ie the flaws in each compromise affect some things less than others...and this also allows some "reproducers" to play in "musician" land without sacrificing their "reproducer" membership card. ;-)

I like to think of myself as a "reproducer" - and therefore start with metrics and measures in trying to optimise my system, rather than playing "by ear".
Playing "by ear" requires a huge level of experience with varied equipment, music types, rooms and acoustics.... and for someone who has limited access to loads of gear... measurement rules! (at least as a card carrying "reproducer")

Which just goes to show how long winded I can be in reiterating what you said "Bottom line its clear - MM, MC, SS , tubes, sub or no sub - they are all vaild choices we make to enable each of us to enjoy the music" - except that I would include CD's ... (and 8 track, edison cylinders, cave paintings ....)

Lewm - I checked the capacitance/inductance resonant frequency using the Hagerman tech online calculators ... the calculated result was at a substantially higher frequency than what I have been measuring... for a 13k to 14k resonance with a 500mH cartridge would require a capacitance of between 260pf and 300pf.
My measure of capacitance from Turntable to Pre-Connection (cartridge removed) is 130pf to 160pf...

So either (1) I don't know how to measure capacitance (open to suggestions!) or (2) something else is going on (such as possibly cantilever resonance...).

I will also admit that I have no specifications or means of measuring the inherent capacitance of the MicPre I am using. (RIAA is achieved Digitally with software) - but I cannot imagine that it would be more than 10-20pf.... which would still be too low to account for the peak based on inductance/capacitance.

Bye for now & Happy New Year
Regards, Dlaloum: Your post of 12-27 is well thought through, the comparison of reproducer/musician is an adequate tool for categorization, should one wish to do so. Many here are graduates of the "school of the educated ear" and yep, tuition can be costly. Technically derived analysis can be useful, however the list of items that spec well but sound like, well, not so good are legion. In a universe defined by measurement but experienced through an organic interface, some will consequently continue to maintain an existential relationship with their enviornment through more personal (subjective) methods. I hope I've not misstated the intent of your post?

Your question of influence of C/R is one that will increase awareness of the effect but it appears there is another factor involved in this situation, a fly in the pie. Cantilever, tie wire or boundary induced harmonics are good candidates as well as the influence of headshell characteristics or (gasp!) cartridge isolation as they all might contribute to this particular situation. Chasing "perfect sound" through analytical means is equivilent to a mathmatical model describing a desirable but as yet unobtainable objective. Contrived perfection does not exist in any corner of this world and even if achieved, individual preference and room acoustics would prevent standardization but the nice thing about standards, there are so many of them. As you acknowledge, many are content to find the best available balance between effect and defect. Altogether a good post, well documented, thought provoking, and graciously phrased, typical Aussie style ;).

Anyway, in the course of seeking information about MM/ect. cartridges worthy of consideration, what is your impression of the Shure?

Peace,
Dear Downunder: All these vintage cartridges were designed and voiced with vintage electronics ( audio systems. ) where our each one audio system today is far from be a " vintage " one.
This fact makes a difference in the way we made a vintage cartridge electrical setting, not only that I can asure you that in those old times the VTA/SRA cartridge setting was different from what we make today.

In the terms of Dlaloum all you know ( as you stated. ) I'm a " reproducer ": faithful to the recording. Yes this means at least two factors: accuracy and lower distortions.

Admit that I'm not sure if in one each of my ( 80+ )vintage cartridges I have " flat response " it is only that: that I'm not sure but this does not change in anyway my main audio target: faithful to the recording.

That means that I'm not absolutely sure because I did not any measure on my cartridges specs against its playback performance. This is something that certainly I will make someday, sooner or latter.

Always that I can I try to make measures in audio or at least to be sure about accuracy and distortions figures level on audio items. Things are that with so many vintage cartridges to test I don't have time yet to make those measurements and compare against what my " ears " are telling me.

+++++ " while condemming anyone with tubes or not using subwoofers that relieve your full range speakers of playing full range. " +++++

I'm not condemming nothing about tubes ( and remember that I was an user of tubes for years. ), are the facts ( scientific and some not so scientifics. ) the ones that condemm that technology.
I learned on the tube whole subject and due to my main target in audio: faithful to the recording, tubes are out of that " equation ".
I think that we need to have and to know more in deep about tube technology limitations. My advise is that with out any kind of " bias " you study or try to understand the Ohm's Law about electrical impedance matching between audio items and its critical importance.

I'm sure that when you understand why any today or vintage tube amplifier can't match any today or vintage speakers in detriment of music/sound quality performance you could understand what I'm saying about and what you are really hearing right now in your system ( I'm not talking if you like what you are hearing or not, I'm talking on: faithful to the recording target. ).
As I posted before I don't want to open a " tube window " here not only because is a very " sensible " subject but because before we could " talk " about we need not experience on tube audio system playback ( like you have. ) but how tube technology works, where is good for audio and where goes against audio.

About subwoofers I already posted enough on that subject in that subwoofer dedicated thread where you not only can read my opinion but other people opinions.
Yes I'm still supporting that we need ( at least ) two self powered subwoofers connected in true stereo fashion for a two channel audio system ( passive speakers. ) dedicated to hear/heard music.
Till today I can't understand how any one can/could achieve stellar quality performance level in a passive speakers audio system with the integration of one subwoofer ( as a bass reinforcement.where the main passive speakers are running full.
IMHO there is no way that we can achieve top quality performance with that one subwoofer in the system against what I proposed and still propose on the whole subwoofer subject.

Now and returning to the MM/MI electrical setting, Dlaloum pointed out and pointed well:

+++++ " Playing "by ear" requires a huge level of experience with varied equipment, music types, rooms and acoustics.... " +++++

Someway or the other we all " run " mainly our system by " ear ", many of us runed by measurements and some of us runned by measurements and ear.

I'm in this last area and today I can tell that I made it with success.

That " huge level of experiences.... " is something where I'm dedicated and where I have a follow a dicipline process for many many years to achieve that level Dlaloum is talking about. Some people ( out of México. ) in USA that knows me because I was at their places can give a testimony of what I'm point out here on the subject.

I posted several time over the forum how I acquired that experience level that permit me to be aware on many things that other people can't, not because I'm better or have better " ears " but because I'm trained in adifferent way than other people: I had and have an in porpose training.

I said I'm not sure in absolute way about flat frequency response with my vintage cartridges setting but I'm sure that I'm close it that you can imagine.

I want to repeat ( I hope by last time. ) one of my experiences that was shared by other audiophiles in San Diego in one of my visits to USA.

we was comparing the Dartzeel Phonolinepreamp ( in two different audio systems, in two different rooms. ) against other Phonolinepreamp.
This was way before appeared the Stereophile Dartzeel review. In that time I told my audio friends that even that the Dartzeel " sounds " good ( everybody like it, including me. ) it was faulty ( maybe on porpose. ) at both frequency extremes and I told them why I thinked in that way.
Months latter comes the STR review where we can read the Dartzeel measurements that confirmed what I told my friends.

This was and is not an easy task and you can only have this " true " discern level if you are trained in specific.

Yes, I trust in my ears but in a different way/level that other people did/do it. Could I be wrong?, it could but who knows.

In the other side you have to remember that there is nothing perfect in audio and that we ( one way or the other and because the enviroment we are surrounded or because " needs ". ) must accept trade-offs like it or not. These trade offs choose are the ones IMHO that define in absolute terms our each one audio system uality performance level.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Hi Timeltel... nope you did not misstate my post.... my ear was once more educated (I used to work in a "hifi" shop in the 80's)... but it is something you have to practice....

Years of living with Quad gear (although the speakers have now been replaced with Gallo's due to WAF) - means I can instantly tell some things by ear.... But other things require constant practice of the critical faculty..... sort of "intellectual listening"... which I have not done in many years.

I am hesitant to characterise the Shure - mostly due to a lack of baseline to compare to.

I have been enjoying it, it is drawing a lot of detail from the records, in terms of overall tonal balance it is warmer, more mid/bass rich than the Sony XL-MC104 I also have. (which is of course a HO MC)

This is NOT an MC vs MM property, as the Empire/Benz MC1 (also HO) I have has a similar tonal balance to the Shure.

A few weeks back I carefully recorded a series of tracks using several different cartridges (Shure 1000e, Ortofon TM20, 320u, Sony XL-MC104, Benz/Empire MC1HO)... then to ensure I avoided any psychoacoustic effect I measured the digital recording and adjusted them digitally for the average RMS volume level to be within 0.01db.

Then I listened to the results.... at the starting point I was hearing differences - once adjusted for level they initially seemed to have disappeared. (yep volume does trick one!)
On further listening, I found that many of my original comments about the differences between the cartridges still applied - but had been reduced by an order of magnitude.

In terms of tonal balance my cartridges clearly fell into two camps "warm" and "sweet" - the latter is a camp of one with only the Sony XL-MC104, which has a lovely clarity / sweetness in the highs... very appealing on some recordings. It sounds nothing like the Benz/Empire MC1 - which has a similar low/mid warmth as do the MM's.

Here are some of my notes from listening tests a few weeks back on those cartridges.... shortly after starting these tests my ADC blew.... my current testing and calibration is part of my process of setting up the new ADC / Phono Stage before I can listen again... the listening tests also compared a Toshiba SR-Q630 to my Revox Linatrak

Shure 1000e (with Jico Replacement N99e eliptical)
T1: very very similar to SAS, marginally more mid-highs perhaps - seems less ""pure"" than SAS, loses just a touch of the detail . Lows seemed a bit less detailed too.
T2: loses some of the Timbre of the instruments over the SAS, More timbre and woodiness than MC1, or Sony
T3: More detailed than MC1?
T5: keeps orchestra instruments more distinct than most in loud passages

Shure 1000e with N97xE SAS stylus (Damper up) (listening tests incomplete)
Track 1: equal or greater bass/mids to the MC1, but with more detailed, fwd high end - seems like there is more there.
Track 2: slightly sweeter than the 320U - more air?

Ortofon 320u
Track 1:Pleasant, Neutral, detailed - very similar to Shure and TM20, not quite as airy as shure, definitely more there than the MC1, a touch sweeter too (maybe?)
Track 2: mid highs slightly more prominent, lacks the richness of the 1000E-SAS in the low-mids. Very nice not tiring at all, detailed, sweet, Hs more of the timbre than the ShureN99, TM20, MC1, Sony - revox 1.55g shows signs of mistracking on peaks... - INVESTIGATE, VTF error?
Track 3: proper balance is present lows mids are there - timbre is not reproduced as well as 1000E-SAS - Highs are more bell like, tinkly than 1000E-SAS... but less real? Slightly ear tiring.
Ortofon TM20
Track 1: Pleasant, Neutral, detailed
Track 2: - no flaws, but nothing WOW either - more woody bloom to the strings (body timbre) compared to MC1 or Sony. Drawing out slightly more detail than MC1
Track 3: as per 2 - tendency to tiring?
T4:
T5: Some break up on complex - big passages

Empire MC1HO
Track 1:More midrange, lacks the sweetness of the Sony - feel like its missing out on some of the high sweet harmonics, Midrange more fwd, highs more recessed - Still a sweet recording - less ""obvious"", Midrange-lows and lows seem better than XL-MC104
Track 2: feels very neutral - actually a nice sound - middle of the road, neutral. (missing harmonics & tombre compared to SAS)
Track 3: Neutral - bottom end feels too lightweight - slightly tiring to the ear? - slightly less tiring to the ear - perhaps due to lack of detail..
Track 4: Sound more woodwind than with the Sony - a hint of Nasal tone?
T5: Keeps instruments distinct in complex large orchestra movements - especially the lows - good performance - more sensitive to scratches etc - cause it to skip where SAS does not

Shure 1000e with N97xE SAS Stylus (with damper brush down)
Track 1: More midrange/body than sony - very clear, detailed yet natural - smooth, richer than sony, mellow
Track 2: smoother than TM20 low mids are full rich, mellow (Nice) - slightly sweeter than 320U, more air? Overtones, Timbre (harmonics?) clearer- more real than MC1 - More body in mid bass strings (body sound more evident/clearer)
Track 3: Mids/lows are present and full - timbre is excellent - sounds very real - almost too much some of the percussion is possibly tiring (mistracking?)
Track 4: Wood timbre is clear
T5: 1.5g VTF version seperates instruments better than 2g....

Sony Xl-MC104
Track 1: Clear, bell like tones on 1st track sweet tones, very relaxed - natural sound- I like it - seems to have more air to the highs, loses some of the weight of the lower registers - piano is lighter than it should be.
Track 2: possibly a smidge more air around the flute - loses some of the weight and timbre of the instruments in the bass/low mids - Tiring to the ear longer term? - possible mistracking distortion causing tiring? - On revox not tiring. very good, still missing some of the wood body from the SAS
Track 3: Piano sounding glassy missing midrange and bass weight... tinkly - Piano is light weight... Tiring to the ear (Mistracking?-Tosh)
Track 4: Good sound can hear wood timbre - souding better on Revox
T5: keeps the instruments clearly distinct even in complex loud passages - very nice!

Keep in mind that I am returning to Vinyl after a 14 year hiatus... so I am learning and re-learning stuff as I go.
My Notes above were made before I level matched all the recordings (everything was recorded at 24/96, then pulled into a multi track session and perfectly time matched, so I can A/B between them, and switch to any of the cartridges at any time.... mostly I listen to a whole track at a time, but when a detail attracts my attention, I can switch to the same track & time on a different cartridge with a couple of mouse clicks)

Once level matched I initially thought they all sounded the same (!) - More careful listening over the next few days showed that all my comments were still applicable, but far far less obvious.

Once I get the Software RIAA in place and working properly, along with the right Loading for each cartridge (which will take a while as I won't have the Low C cables for at least another week or 2) I plan to redo the above exercise this time with an without individual cartridge EQ using Pink Noise....

Given the vagaries/imperfections of mechanical reproduction, I strongly believe that the differences I can hear will once more drop another order of magnitude once the cartridges are EQ'd for frequency response - and individually loaded for best F/R and minimal EQ (ie first adjust loading, to best optimise F/R - which will minimise the amount of EQ required, and the inherent distortions added by a layer of processing). But I won't know until I get there.

We are today at a stage in technological progress, where any cartridge should be able to be used with (adjusted to) a flat frequency response.... This combined with RoomEQ should (theoretically) put us a lot closer to the original Master Tape.... (I hesitate to say the original performance, as many recordings are not a performance in a live venue but a studio session or/and a fully artificial construct...)

In terms of value, I think that the vintage top end MM's are Huge value, and with an appropriate new top end stylus (preferably Shibata or other LC) on a good cantilever - such as SAS can provide performance competing with top end MC's at prices that are one or more orders of magnitude lower.

A Shure M97 with SAS can be set up for well under $200... or an Empire 2000/4000 with Shibata, AT11/12/similar with Shibata... etc...

The Ortofon 320u is p-mount (with 1/2" adapter if needed) and has a LC tip, not the most sophisticated cantilever - but I picked it up new for $40 !!!

I also wonder whether once properly adjusted and EQ'd - the lighter VTF / Higher Compliance and Higher trackability of the 80's cartridges will allow them to outperform some of the TOTL MC's in the megabuck range? (especially on the ULM Revox Arm....4g - but also on the servo damped JVC QL-Y5F... once I get it up and working)- I don't own or have access to TOTL MC gear in any case, so the question will remain academic for the foreseeable future. (the MC1HO I own was at the low end of the Benz/Empire MC range in the early 90's.... the Sony XL-MC104 was TOTL in the early 80's.... both are fine elipticals, and good cartridges, but I don't believe them to be competitive with the current SOTA)
Regards, Dlaloum: Thanks for the time I know it took for your report, the comparison with other cartridges gives perspective to each.

I concur with much of what you've written. I'm struggling however with the thought of introducing digital correction to an analogue source. This action seems somehow iconoclastic but then many of my percepts were formed at just about the time people stopped throwing pointy sticks at mastodons. Also, I'm prone to changing cartridges as the mood or music indicates. Doing so offers a simple pleasure in the opportunity to enjoy an alternate rendition of the recording. This suits certain self confessed anachronistic attitudes and provides the gratification to be found in appreciating the unique qualities of various pickups.

When you've finalized your equipment and comparative recordings, would you consider providing a follow up post?

Peace,
Any thoughts on the Astatic MF100 on the Gon? I have the MF200 or it would already be gone. Any replacement stylus.

The Astatic MF200 is excellent if my memory is correct.

Danny
Dlaloum. I would like to thank you for the time spent is sharing your findings with us. My comments are not meant as a criticism at all; you did a very fine, and detailed job of describing what you heard. I would like to use your comments as an opportunity to describe what I think, and have pointed out previously, is an overlooked aspect of the sound of cartridges, and all audio components. It is the most difficult aspect of sound to describe meaningfully, but the most important, IMO. I am talking about the subtle, and not so subtle, differences in the dynamic capabilities of audio components. We all tend to focus on the tonal differences of audio components, and overlook the qualities that let (or not) the music move as it should. There is no doubt that tonality affects perceived dynamic detail. But, barring really gross tonal problems, there are things about sound that happen in the dynamics domain that are, if not entirely, mainly independent of tonality. I have heard components that are dark and dullish sounding that let the music move well; and some that are bright and tonaly aggressive sounding ones that sound too relaxed.

When the string section of a symphony orchestra makes a crescendo from "piano" to "forte", there are many (infinite) gradations in between those dynamic targets. It's not a component's ability to play softly or loudly that makes music exciting, it's the ability to get from one point to the other with everything (well, most of it) in between. That's what allows the groove that the cow-bell player in a salsa band sets up to sound funky, and not like the ticking of a metronome.

That is still my main issue with MM's in general. Until I heard the Empire 4000D III, every MM that I had tried, including the ATML170OCC, has sounded too relaxed to me. Not bad by any means, but compared to a good MC, without that essential quality of excitement in the rhythm of the music; like a coiled spring ready to unwind at any moment. I am still getting to know the Empire, and I am still not ready to say that in the dynamics (micro/macro) department it is the equal of my VDH MC's.

It's all mainly about rhythm. There is a truism among musicians that says: "no-one ever got fired for having a bad sound". What is meant by that is that too dark or too bright a sound, or a sound with too much edge, are usually not deal-breakers. But, if a player's sense of rhythm is not absolutely accurate, with really great "feel", all bets are off.
Frogman, Your comments are quite interesting, because to me, on my system, the one thing about MM/MI cartridges consistently is that they are very dynamic and very rhythmic, the latter because I think I perceive the leading and trailing edges of percussive tones better with these older cartridges. If I am correct, it would not be unlike the difference in musicality of a horn or other very efficient loudspeaker compared to a very inefficient multi-driver big-box array (that usually costs a fortune and requires gobs of amplifier power). Piano tones are just more real with a good MM and have begun to sound positively truncated when I listen now to any of my MC cartridges. I hesitate to generalize based on listening to a limited number of different samples of each type, but this is just my loose impression.

By the way, I earlier reported that my Stanton 981LZS sounded good but "broken", thought it needed a new stylus. Now that I have "fixed" some equipment problems, the 981LZS sounds superb, especially on the Kenwood L07D tonearm. I hesitate to judge between the 981LZS and the Acutex LPM320STR, because tt, tonearm, and phono stages are different, but they are competing at the same level, at least. So far, those two are "keepers".
Lewm, the essential consideration which I did not allude to in my previous post, is the need for correct gain structure in one's system. I am not familiar with your amplification components, so I am not commenting on that. However, I have found several times over the years, that if my phono preamp did not have sufficient gain for truly adequate amplification of a MC's low gain (compared to most MM's), and then enough input sensitivity at the power amp, the resulting sound can indeed sound anemic, even when the result is "enough" volume. A MM with much higher output can then sound more rhythmic in comparison. I experience this when I use my extremely inefficient Stax F-81's, as opposed to my very efficient Paragon Regents. My Regents are so efficient, compared to my Stax electrostats, that I can actually use a passive preamp (Audio Synthesis) with excellent results. I am convinced, however, that as a group MC's exibit more of the energy, and rhythmic agility that sounds realistic to me (with my chosen components, of course).
You are definitely correct; when the phono or system gain is marginal, any MC is likely to suffer by comparison to any HO cartridge, This is definitely not the case in my system, so something else must account for it. And I say this with true uncertainty. I am just reporting what I do hear, for whatever reason. One thing is this: the MCs I have on hand do not appear to track percussive instrumental lines as well as the MM cartridges do. This difference seems to subtract from the ability of the MC types to convey the rhythm that is an inherent quality of the relevant instruments, especially piano. Or maybe because the two good MMs I described sound more "real" to me, my mind is freed up from thinking about the quality of the reproduction and can instead concentrate more on musical lines. I really must try to hear my low compliance MC cartridges in a tonearm of higher effective mass than the Triplanar (or maybe add a gob of bluetac to the headshell). Perhaps then they would track better. But the Triplanar is certainly no slouch and would be regarded in most ways as superior to the DV505 and L07D tonearms.
Oh yes - dynamics... I have a friend who is a very good percussionist.... listening to radio in the car the other day - I caught the end of a track which had great rhythms.... lo and behold - it's my friends band.

I havn't mentioned some of my other measurements - I was recording a specific set of tracks with various cartridges, and then adjusting the average (RMS) volume level to match perfectly (including channel balance)... this process removed many of the differences... but not all - fundamental differences remained.

When looking at the statistics which CoolEdit pulls up on these tracks, the peak values can differ quite markedly... so we have setups which initially sound identical but at a closer listen (and investigation of the data) I find that ... as an example...

Cartridge Av RMS Max RMS Peak
Sony XL-MC104 -23.96db -7.4db -0.62db
Benz MC1 " -7.9db -1.12db
Shure 1000e/SAS " -7.85db -0.98db
AT12Sa " -7.58db -1.4db

None of these are low end cartridges... 2 fine elipticals, 1 Shibata and 1 SAS/MicroRidge/Line Contact

When I made these recordings I did not have the wherewithal to adjust loading properly for each cartridge.... when tuned properly I expect the peak variation will increase between best and worst..... I also don't think that the measured difference will be very large... we are talking the fine details here. We tend to be aware of these fine differences although they are hard to pin down.. and therefore I think we identify some of these by their symptoms ... ie better rhythm, timing, dynamics.

Another thing (which I cannot comment experientially on... only by hearsay) is that the table / arm are likely to have a greater impact on rhythm than the cartridge... especially the table.... And the immeasurably small microdetail - which the ear can pick up but instrumentation may not - are very sensitive to arm, table damping, platform etc...

The other thing I feel (ie gut feel, and the conclusion of reading many articles going back 30 years)... is that there is a lot to be gained from the High Compliance / Low Mass school of turntable design.... and much of that gain is precisely in rhythm, dynamics and microdetail. (obviously along with HC/ULM you need very light effective tip mass, and cantilevers that have resonances outside the audible range.... etc...)

I find it telling that the ADC cartridges that had the highest compliance ended up getting a reputation for "collapsing suspension"... frequently (usually!?) caused by being mounted in a mid to high mass arm.... These are the same cartridges that were also supposed to be legendarily good (ZLM / Super XLM II) - and they were also those designed to work with CD4/Quad ....
Anything that can go to 50KHz should be able to make a meal of 20KHz and hit the beat without breaking a sweat....

But then as now, you have to spend the time setting these up right (Reviews of the ADC's did make the point that they were setup sensitive...) - so electrical loading and mechanical loading both have to be right to make them sing.

I think ultimately the factors that led to the success of MC's were (in no particular order) - reduced sensitivity to capacitance, increased robustness/ability to handle higher VTF and heavier mass tonearms (fat fingered punters putting them on inappropriate arms are less likely to end up with a destroyed cartridge... ), and (of course) fashion...(but platform shoes have already made several comebacks .... so there is hope for MM's - although I think MC's are more the "platforms" of cartridges and MM's the brogues... but there is no acounting for fashion)

MM/MI is far more awkward to set up - getting capacitance down low enough to be able to best take advantage of them requires some effort, and low C cables are not readily available (at a reasonable price).

You can make a MM sound like an MC - but you have to get the C down to 100pf ... or lower.... and then raise the impedance.... and .... but that's why this thread is here isn't it!

Note that the cartridge showing the greatest dynamic differences in the list above is an MC (Sony) - but this same cartridge fails to track a +16db 300Hz tone.... is some of that peak tracking distortion? (the track I used has some very dynamic percussion on it....)

The close second place Shure 1000e (MM) with SAS stylus tracks just about anything with ease....

Both were setup wrong ... the Shure in that setup was showing HF rolloff from around 13k, and the Sony - well I never got around to measuring its F/R... They were both running at circa 650pf and 47k at the time. Which is wrong for both of them - although it is a common situation .... standard 47k/220pf phono stage with normal (audiophile brand) interconnect (1.5m - measured it the other day at around 400pf) ouch.

Today's High output "standard" is 47k / 400pf (roughly), and in the early 80's the "standard" was either 47k/400pf or 47k/100pf (like the sony's specs) for the quad cartridges... the reality is of course that cartridges have hugely varying requirements. (eg: Shure M97's purportedly do best at 62k/100pf....)

Bye for now

David
I've spent the last 2 days working on the phono stage... I hope to be able to get back to listening and the front end in the New Year...
Dear Dlaloum and friends: In VE we can find out this impedance/capacitance/inductance MM/MI cartridge set up in two-three separate threads. I participated in one of them, the " results " were coming from that hagerman calculator and a VE other calculator.

My take there and here is that we can have some " signs " through those calculators but not a real and true fact on that critical cartridge electrical set up.

There are many factors that affect those measurements: accurate tonearm set up, accurate cartridge set up, which tonearm and/or headshell we choosed I mean characteristics, which tonearm internal wire we are using,tonearm phono IC, which geometry approach tonearm/cartridge set up we choosed ( Löfgren, Stevencon, etc, etc . ), which signal test LPs we choosed, which phono stage and its quality performance and accuracy level, which, which..., and which....

I take it all the charts/diagrams that shows frequency response in some of my cartridges and I found out these information:

- all the top of the line cartridges shows through the FR charts a deviation from 20hz to 20khz at +,- 1db.

- - measurements were taked with an ambiente temperature around: 20° to 23°.

- the test signal recordings they used were JVC TRS 1007 and 1005 along CBS 151 and 130 and with the Technics the SFC TR100 test LP that I assume comes from Technics ( btw, I own all those test recordings but the Technics ). Something weird/curios is that Ortofon and Shure that had/has its own signal test recordings don't use it but the JV or CBS ones.

- no one but Technics and Denon ( DL103D ) pointed out the load impedance and capacitance that were used on that FR measurements.

- normally on those vintage cartridges even if I had the cartridge manual I can't find/read the true and real cartridge inductance value even not the internal DC resistance or impedance.
There are cartridges like the Micro Seiki that not only does not have information on these electrical parameters but even you can't read in the manual specs nothing about load impedance and capacitance set up manufacturer advise.

Now, in all thise FR charts we can see an almost flat line response with lower deviation that that +,- 1 db. My question is: how these guys achieve those results? I mean which analog rig they used and if all of them used the Stevenson tonearm/cartridge approach that was the " normal " one in those times by Japanese " people ".

IMHO to achieve that " nice " FR charts everything must be near perfect!!! and we don't know ( at least me. ) all the factors that surrounded that " near perfect " set up.

This open for me another question: is it in reality that that +,- 1 db FR cartridge deviation comes 100% from the cartridge performance it self? or in reality the cartridge FR has no measurable deviation ( by it self ) and that deviation comes from ( adding. ) each analog audio link used to made that FR cartridge response measurements.

Who or whom has the precise and true answers?.

All these factors and many more makes things complicate and a hard task and time consuming to achieve the right information and the right answers on the whole subject.

Yes, I think that today we have to trust in our skills to have accuracy ( top level: 100%. ) on cartridge/tonearm set up, to trust in the accurate system electronics specs and performance level, to trust in our whole experience in music and audio and to trust in our skills to discern what is right or wrong and what is " wrong but I like it ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
All right. Without more of a rocket science could you please tell me the differences in sound that I can expect if I mount Goldring 1042 MM and Shelter 301 or 501 MC on my Spacedeck/Spacearm? I don't want to buy both at the same time. The phono stage is Simaudio Moon LP3. It has two gain settings, 40dB and 60 dB, capacitance can be 0 or 100, and resistive loading 100ohm and 47kohm.
I would guess that Goldring would be more balanced, dynamic, punchy and coherent; and Shelter more transparent, faster and sophisticated. Am I correct? Actually I am inclined to try Goldring; this thread influenced my plans.
Regards, Inna. Thought I'd throw this one out, just so others don't think you killed the thread:

It's downright comical, my mid-fifty's friend, doing the air guitar thing while listening to the most lifeless, screeching, undynamic and tuneless mid 80's Brit New Wave lp's imaginable. He owns hundreds. An I.T. geek with a near-by university, he's ditched his TT and gone 100% digital so occasionally he'll ask for a copy to CD, rendered on my fairly decent Sony CDR. In the audio console, just below the Sony is a Pioneer CT-F1000, a one production-year casette recorder. Designed for the Pio. Spec series, it'll do a good job with the media, metal tapes are practically indistinguishable from the source, accurate to 18k Hz.

Anyway, at the bottom of the stack of audio gear is a Pio. SG-9500 EQ, another of the Spec related components, the sliders modestly arranged in the classic smiley-face configuration, +4 dbl. at the extremes. It's switched into the audio chain perhaps once a month, for rare low volume background music and when recording the scraping noises my friend mistakes for music.

CD's seem uninvolving, an allusion to the actual performance but I understand there's hope for digital playback. CD's still don't connect with the primeval urge to merge with the music, the juxtaposition of the MM's warmth on one side, digital winter's cold on the other, a barricade to the rhythms and harmonic inflections penetrating the soul. MC's are needlessly complicated and any superiority is debatable. Period. This leaves MM cartridges and tape, which misses with the hisses. Output impedance is a fair candidate in considering a MM/(not so much)MI's (etc.) character. The higher the impedance, the more apparent it's analytical qualities or brightness. Those above 1200 and approaching 3200-3600 ohms are progressively more so, add a nude ME/ML stylus on a micro-mass cantilever and those who value low-level detail will rejoice. Others may observe edgyness, a glassy presentation or brittleness. Impedance values between 500 and 1200 ohms produce a more resonant midrange and bass, or warmth. It then becomes the responsibility of stylus and cantilever to navigate the groove modulations to render hf response, this assembly must possess the agility to adequately relay speed and accuracy in transition and detail. Consider the figures for cartridges generally described as "refined". Almost always 550 ohms or less, 3.0mv output or less and typically equipped with a stylus profile containing the description "micro" or "minature". Several in this category require additional gain for adequate input at the power amp, hello Lewm, Frogman. For sheer excitment, a Shure M44E: 9.7mv, 630 ohm impedance, .4 x .7 elliptical on a pencil thick alu. cantilever, 1.75-4.0gm VTF, cap. 400-500pF. This is a bass monster, enjoyed by those for whom subtle detail is not a concern. A happy medium is 550ohm impedance, 3.5-5.0mv output, .15mm LC or long Shibata stylus, nude mounted on a berillium cantilever at 47k and (nom.) 150pF. Select other values to suit your taste or system. EQ'ing is a "band-aid", choosing a cartridge for it's unique qualities and in reflecting one's preferences and system needs obviates these concerns and makes connectivity with the music inevitable.

As to C. & R., wether or not this is a form of EQ'ing is a matter for another discussion. Exchange a different stylus profile in the same cartridge, conical for ML as an extreme example, FR is impacted and I believe an experienced listener capable of deliberated adjustment will think it justifiable.

In the new and following years, may you all "live long and prosper".

Peace,
Nice informative posting Timeltel.
As for choice of MM cartridges over LOMC being a form of "tone control"?..... Aren't all our individual choices in audio a form of "tone control" or at least a striving for a combination producing a synergy which suits our ears and preferences?
From tubes to SS in amplification, from stats, planars, horns, dynamics in speakers, from analogue to digital, from belt-drive to DD drive to Idlers in turntables?
Do we call these one and all......."Tone Controls" ?
Hi Inna,

I had the Shelter 501 it had a nice midrange but lacking in highs(treble) and lows(bass),also It never tracked inner grooves that well in my set up,with some of my records I couldn't even listen to the last track.This was before I got a MinTLP protractor so maybe I never had it aligned right.

For cheaper you could try one of the many mentioned vintage MM models.Unless you only want a current made model,here's a couple that might be better and cheaper than the Shelter and Ortofon.

Empire 4000DIII Gold,I think the ebay seller may have some left but stopped listing them.

There is a Astatic MF100 and Shure V15 IV with SAS listed here at Audiogon right now you could try,plus many more models that are mentioned on this thread,you just need to hunt them down.

Regards, Halcro: Henry, you failed to mention VTF, headshells, leads, IC's, isolation devices, clever little clocks and teleportation tweaks. I understand some go so far as to render their TT's "nude" and then proceed to garnish it with arms enough to attract an amourous octopus. ;-).

Peace,

In reality, we have very little common ground even among our analog-happy selves. There is Halcro with high-end transistors and a 3-way electromagnetic speaker, me with all OTL tubes and an ESL, Raul, with his multi-amped system of selected different drivers, etc, etc. It is quite likely that sonic happiness is something different for each of us. So, it is difficult to know how to evaluate each others' opinions of MM/MI cartridges. One can only do the experiments in one's own space.

Timeltel, I am not sure I "get" the thesis of your long post above. Are you trying to say that by looking at a spec sheet we can to a degree pre-determine how a given cartridge will sound? Probably there is some truth to that, especially when it comes to the lesser quality types, but I would not let such an analysis get in the way of actually listening to any worthy candidate that comes highly recommended by members of this august thread. ("August" because now 3 years old.) Having said that, I read about Acutex 320, AFTER listening to it. It's actually a moving-iron or induced magnet type (I am sure you knew that, T), with very thin titanium cantilever and stereohedron/shibata type stylus. It also uses a 3rd rail to cancel cross-talk between L and R channels. The designation "LPM" stands for Lowest Possible Mass. This is very sophisticated stuff, so no wonder it sounds so good. I am unaware of any other cartridge that uses a titanium cantilever. Apparently also their styli were made by Ogaru (sp?) in Tokyo, who make/made styli for many other brands.

I am having great fun now switching back and forth between Acutex on Lenco and Stanton 981LZS on L07D. Two very different sounds, both very good. Obviously, I like "distortion", Raul. Actually the major difference is in how each treats the soundstage. The Acutex emphasizes the main performer; the Stanton gives a lot of peripheral detail and kind of melts the featured performer into the soundstage.
Hi Lewm,

The Acutex 320 is not the only cartridge that has a titanium cantilever. In fact, the ADC MC 1.5 cartridge, produced in 1982, also had a tapered titanium cantilever but a carbon fiber body as well.
Lew,
I agree that there is so much difference that getting to where we like is bound to involve different tools.

FWIW, titanium cantilevers were, as far as I have read, made first by Technics in the very early 70s. The first generation 205C had a titanium cantilever, as did the later 101C (introduced somewhere between 100CMk2 and Mk3). I think the 205CII-X also did, which may be why some people actually prefer the IIX to the Mk3. I think Audio Technica had at least one or two carts with titanium cantilevers, and AudioNote (or whoever made theirs) had/has a few with titanium cantilevers, as did Pioneer in the 70s and I believe ADC as well.
Regards, Lew: That wasn't a long post, just a preview of the first chapter of my new book. (-;
Acutex got it right with the LPM 320. Have you tried the 315 stylus yet? A source of a different color, don't be quick to judge. I remember Raul commenting on taking two weeks of listening before coming to a conclusion, the 315 has qualities not ordinarially encountered. 100k res. if you can.

Peace,
Timeltel, I want to listen to the 320 on a consistent basis in order to hear how or whether it changes character during break-in. My 315 is a used stylus assembly, so I don't know whether it will be 100% up to standard, anyway, so no rush with that. Acutex touted the Saturn V as the ultimate headshell for use with their cartridges, so I am also having more thoughts re inserting the LPM320 body and stylus into the Saturn V. Also, the 320 has very high compliance, 40X10E6 dyne.cm. I wonder whether a super-light tonearm, like the Black Widow et al, is in order. Right now, it's in the DV505 in a 6-gm Denon magnesium headshell. This would give very low mass in the vertical plane but the same old high mass in the horizontal plane, which is part of the design principle of the Dynavectors.

I read elsewhere that Halcro is using the Empire 4000D/III (presumably also high compliance) in a Fidelity Research FR66S, possibly the highest mass tonearm in the modern era. What's up with that, Halcro? And it sounds great.... Color me confused.
Dear Lew,
The colour 'confused' becomes you. It is also the colour that suits me when it comes to cartridge/tonearm matching.
As you rightly point out, the Empire D4000/III has very high compliance (30x10-6 dyne) yet sounds superb in the FR-66s......but then again, I have yet to find a cartridge that doesn't sound it's best in this arm?
The Empire 1000ZE/X which has lower compliance (20x10-6 dyne) sounds wonderful in the FR-64s which theoretically it shouldn't?
The FR-6SE which has the same compliance as the XV1s (10x10-6 dyne) also sounds sublime in the FR-66s so that's quite a range of compliances (complianci?) for an arm to handle without losing composure?
At the moment I have the ZYX Universe in the FR-66s and if I imagined that the DaVinci 12" Ref Grandezza was a wonderful match for this cartridge, I need to revise my thoughts on LOMCs in the light of this cartridge in the FR-66s.
The sound is almost as good as most of the top echelon MMs such as the AT155LC and Technics EPC100Mk3 (albeit at 5-10times the price)?
But that's why I posit that the arm is more important than the turntable in the ultimate hierarchy?

Regards Herr Professor Timeltel. Grilled octopus drizzled with balsamic is a particular favourite of mine.
I am more puzzled by the Signet cartridges as I have recently inserted a TK5ea and TK10ML into my system with mixed results.
The TK5ea displays most of the typical Signet traits I hear with the TK3/155LC with a confident overall balance, believable midrange and robust bass output but the TK10ML sounds to have had a lower-end castratostomy? Add this to a somewhat 'missing-in-action' midrange and I have a cartridge which I am happy to assign to the FR5 leather-bound cartridge holder.
I understand that the micro line stylus requires careful VTF, VTA and azimuth and I have done my darndest in these respects. I have also tried most of my arms(FR-64s, Grace 940G, MA-505s, FR-66s) but continue to hear the same traits with each and every one of them?
It puzzles me as there appears to be a lot of hype surrounding this particular cartridge?
Your comments would of course be very appreciated?
Regards and Happy New Year
Henry
Dear Halcro, Laws of physics are supposed to govern the interaction of tonearms and cartridges, Dertonearm notwithstanding. And, apart from reputedly superb bearings, the 66S has no mechanism for ameliorating resonant peaks, etc, that are supposed to arise at all the wrong places in the audio spectrum, when compliance and effective mass are not in tune. But who can take issue with your happiness at these seeming mismatches? Not I, certainly. This all reminds me of a Cole Porter lyric, but I cannot quite put my finger on which song is lurking in the back of my brain this evening.

(Maybe its Rodgers and Hart, from "I wish I were in love again". Something about the fine mismating of a him and her, only in this case it's a tonearm and cartridge.)

I wondered, what is the effective mass of a Granezza 12-inch? One thing is clear to me now; the Triplanar is actually too light (mass = 11 gm) for really low compliance MCs, but that is not in violation of expectations. This I think is the reason my Koetsu sounds surprisingly better in the L07D tonearm than in the Triplanar, despite the fakachta wiring in the L07D. But I don't know what to make of your direct experience in the other direction.

Sorry, don't own any Signets and have not yet played with AT20SS. Perhaps Raul or Timel?
Regards, Halcro: Wash the octopus, drain well... and use the water in the garden.

The TK5ea is slightly more resolving than the 3ea, four coil, 6n's OFC copper winding instead of the production wound 3ea's 5n. Hand wound coils for the 5ea, individually tested and inspected before leaving the craftsman's bench. Nice catch.

Working from memory, the Signet TK7SU, 7ea and 7LCa are 2.7mv output, the TK9 & 10 are 2.2mv out, 550 ohms impedance. These excel in subtlety and rendition of low level detail. There is (IMHO) a consistent trade-off when exchanging between the three roughly described categories in a previous "long" (hi, Lew) post, refinement for involvment or articulation. Travbrow suggested a higher tracking downforce, following his recommendation of 1.3gm (or more) VTF may help. Also, either it's the ear or cartridge, seems to take a while to warm up.

On thin ice here, when reading between the lines of an earlier exchange between Lew and Frogman regarding cartridge output/phono in, you may find some insight. Hopefully, Raul will chime in.

Peace,
Dear Halcro,
As I lay in bed last night, I realized that I need to know what headshell(s) you are using with these various cartridges. It's possible that a very light headshell (i.e., <8gm weight) would permit use of a high compliance cartridge on the 66S. The stock FR headshell is quite heavy, as you must know. Are you using different headshells with each of these very different cartridges? And the answer is......?
Dear Lewm: +++++ " It is quite likely that sonic happiness is something different for each of us. So, it is difficult to know how to evaluate each others' opinions of MM/MI cartridges. " +++++

IMHO not quite. It is obvious that we all have differences in the quality system performance due to many factors: room treatment/no-room treatment, tubes/SS/hybrid electronics, speakers, music sound knowledge and discern level and of course each one priorities.

Even all those factors I think that what each one of us have and are hearing at home is ( according all those factors and factors?s limitations. ) a music/sound that sounds like music and that appeal not only us but to other people that comes and hear each one audio system. I think that we have more even " sound " than bigger differences and that's why everyone that own the 4000DIII or the P100CMK4 agree ( even with those differences in audio systems. ) on its high quality cartridge performance.
If those system differences were " bigger " then some of us maybe already reported a lower cartridge quality performance.

So, each one of our audio systems has limitations but IMHO inside/between those system limitations its quality performance is the " best " we can achieve, I hope.

Facts through this thread tell us that a good quality performance cartridge ( that the ones I named or other ones out there. ) will has that quality performance level regarding the audio system and always that the cartridge/tonearm was with the right set-up.

Yes, we have differences " level's differences " but what is good everyone can tell it and what is wrong everyone can tell it too.

I trust in all and each one of your opinions in the MM/MI quality performance level and always take it seriously.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Hi Halcro and friends,

What is the difference between the FR64 and FR66 besides eff. length,mass and price?If they both have the same bearing type etc. shouldn't the FR64 be better for high compliance MM.

Do you have woofer "pumping" when playing warped records?I thought this is an issue caused by a arm/cart "mismatch".
Dear Lewm, Timeltel, Halcro and friends: For many years trough the forum I posted several times that we have to understand what that tonearm/cartridge res0nace frequency " figure " means but not be so " anal " to take it as a must to have if we want good cartridge quality peformance level, even when people ask I told them please try it and forget for a moment on that resonance frequency subject. I'm not saying it is not important because it is: more on this latter.

You can read through my official forum reviews that for example the Technics P100CMK4 that is a high compliance one I mated with my AT 1503 tonearm along an aluminum 15grs headshell that made for a total of 35grs ( with out cartriudge weight. ) of tonearm effective mass, not the best match on that resonance frequency figure. Even that performs just great.

Both, Acutex LPM 315 and Empire 4000DIII, were reviewed on the Grace G945 that is a medium mass tonearm but with the Acutex I used a 12grs headshell. Both performs great too.

After the Empire official review I mounted in the AT 1503 and Lustre GST-801 both more in the high mass side than medium one where I used with an aluminum 18grs headshell and you know what: performs just lovely and maybe better, in either tonearm, than in the Grace. So does not surprise me what Halcro report on that cartridge through a high mass tonearm. Anyone that followed this thread knows that I tested several high compliance MM/MI cartridge in the high mass AT tonearm with very good results.

I posted several times too all the factors/parameters that has influence in a tonearm/cartridge quality performance level other than that resonance frequency figure, are so many that this is the main reason why we can't take only the resonance frequency tonearm/cartridge figure like the parameter to match a cartridge with a tonearm.

Now, every thing the same a cartridge will perform better if that resonance frequency is nearest 10hz. I already tested using the same build material/shape headshell but with different weights, this I did it using AT aluminum Technicard 13grs, 15grs and 18grs headshell models.

There are many things that " escape " to our today knowle3dge on the subject and where " theory " seems not works in precise way and with absolute certainty.

On the Signet TK10ML2/3 my experiences in other tonearm than our own design told me that the cartridge is not only sensitive to VTA/SRA as any ML stylus shape but sensitive to the headshell build/weight material. I tested in different tonearms using the AT MG10 headshell ( magnesium/10grs. ) and in no tonearm like it, then I change it to an aluminum and heavier cartridge and the " light " really shine. This same experience was repeated with the AT ATML170/180 OCC cartridges.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

I have a take on this cartridge performance subject: when we are talking on top of the line cartridges and we don't have top or nearest top quality performance then we have to try with other tonearm, other headshells, other internal tonearm wire, other tonearm IC cable, re-set cartridge/tonearm set up ( impedance/capacitance too. ) or even try with an un-orthodox VTA/SRA/VTF and if nothing works then maybe there is a cartridge failure that preclude to hear what that cartridge could shows if was in good condition.
Dear Trav, Yes, the differences are only in effective length (9 vs 12), effective mass, and cost. And yes, I suppose that because the FR64S is shorter than the FR66S, and because of the resulting lower effective mass of the former, the FR64S would have a mathematical advantage vs the FR66S with high compliance cartridges. But there was another thread here comparing FR tonearms to Ikeda tonearms, in which the FR66S was touted uber alles. And FR tonearms in general were said by some to be superior to the Ikeda's. (Mr. Ikeda also designed the FR tonearms before he went on to form his own company.)

The "S" designation is said to be crucial; it means that the tonearm is made of stainless steel. The plain FR64 and FR66 are made of steel. There is a later and lighter, lower mass version made of alu, called FR64fx. Even the FR64fx has effective mass = 20gm, if used with FR headshell. So it is also in the category of a high mass tonearm.

Woofer pumping can be the result of tonearm/cartridge mismatch if the resulting resonance point is too low, below the desired 8 to 12 Hz range.
Raul, Thanks for that post. I take what you say very seriously, and I did take Halcro's critique very seriously also. So, what are we left with as a consequence of your, Halcro's, Dertonearm's, Syntax's, and several others who must be regarded with general respect, collective observation that the matching of tonearm and cartridge is apparently quite unpredictable. Maybe it is safe to say that "good" tonearms are a starting point to mate with "good" cartridges. But is there also a trend in favor of high mass tonearms vs any others? I am about to stick a nickel on the Triplanar headshell to get the mass up a bit.
Dear Lewm: IMHO that could be a " simple " anwser but I think things are not so easy.

The tonearm/cartridge behavior/relationship is not an easy " system " but a complex one because so many factors involve or that have influence in the overall quality performance level.

The " system " is more than the sum of its parts because almost each part has its own sub-system, example: the cartridge stylus it is not only a " cartridge stylus " but part of a sub-system cartridge that is configure by: stylus and stylus shape, cantilever and cantilever build material and cartridge suspension ( compliance ) and this sub-system is part of other sub-system configure by coils, yoke, pole piece, etc and then the cartridge body.

On each single cartridge there are differences on the behavior on each cartridge sub-system that makes per se umpredictable/uncertainty quality performance when you mated with the other cartridge sub-systems and " worst " when you try to mate the cartridge with an external sub-system name it tonearm.
That's why is so important the cartridge voicing for through that voicing " tame /flavor " its quality performance level desired.

The tonearm is too a set of sub-systems: bearings/pivot/damping type, arm wand/headshell/build material/damping/effective mass, counterweight and tonearm mount where all these sus-system have its own behavior independent on the cartridge.

To all these we have to add all the " forces /parameters " that exist when the stylus hit the first groove on LP playback where everything happens in a " dynamic " whole system and where there are other factors that have a critical influence in the tonearm/cartridge overall performance: accurate tonearm/cartridge set up, impedance/capacitance loading, VTA/SRA/VTF/Azymuth, stylus shape, antiskating, room temperature, TT own distortions and TT tonearm arm board,etc, etc.

All these parameter/factors has its own influence in the whole cartridge/topnearm performance quality level.

As you can see not an easy task and no easy answers other than " test and error ".

High mass tonearms performs better?, could be with some cartridges but with other cartridges medium mass tonearms could be better or even low mass tonearms.

Today IMHO there are not precise answers that can give us certainty.

Now, your statement that a " good point to start is to have a good tonearm design " is IMHO a good point to start but whom define which is a good tonearm design? where are those tonearm standards that define a good design? it is better a tangential tonearm or a unipivot one against a gimbal one?

I have no precise answers to that. The best we can do for now is: " test and error " and then test again.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Regards, Raul, Halcro: Ran the TK9. The unmarked stylus I think all concluded was an ATN22. Initially mounted on an ADC LMG 6.5gm headshell, the performance was overly polite, absolutely uninspiring. Tepid. Boring. Travbrow suggested 1.3gm VTF, an improvment. The cartridge bloomed when mounted on a Lustre 12gm mag. shell. Silver leads exchanged for thick Ohno PC-OFC copper, the total ran 5gm past Techniques' reco, EPA-250 arm required the aux. weight to achieve correct downforce. Further improvment but still an imbalance and hesitant bluring in initial attack. Examined, the cantilever block was off to one side. The cantilever was catawampus, did not hold to the center of the body/coils. Gently wedged the cantilever block into alignment, snugged the screw, little things matter. 200pF shunt, (OEM IC's are 47pF) and 100k res, VTF at 1.4gm. Takes a while to warm up, then it's sublime.

Henry, you may be ruined by the TK3/155LC. Neither the Sig. TK9 or sibling AT22 have the hf crispness, midrange clarity and bass drive of the TK3 or 5"LC". The TK9 and AT22 integrate the performance, a Bently Arnage, not the Murcielago you've been enjoying. Please experiment with the TK10, give it five hours at 1.5?gm with your prized Barry Manilow collection to wake it up. What this cartridge series lacks in excitement it makes up for in composure. Very importantly, calibrate your catawampasity.

BTW, a TK7e/Akai rebranded 180SS stylus is working nicely. Sharing many of the qualities of the TK9e or AT22, VTF and headshell needed to be fine tuned before coming to conclusions. Thanks for reinforcing this, Raul.

Peace,
I agree. I don't think there is a single tonearm that combines all the qualities we might think of as desirable. So, ohmygod, this means we all have to own several different types of tonearms. So, when your wife or significant other says why do you have so many tonearms (Lew), you can say "I need them all" to get the best out of all those cartridges. Of course, that can lead to questions regarding why one might own 10 or 20 cartridges, so perhaps one should not go down that road with one's wife or significant other. But among ourselves, we know we are normal humans. We are the only ones who know it, however.
Dear Lewm: +++++ " "I need them all" to get the best out of all those cartridges. " ++++++

yes till appear one " universal " tonearm where each cartridge could/can performs at its best.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear friends: Last 2-3 weeks I was and I'm enjoying two of my latest cartridge " members " that I bought in the last 2 months. These are the Micro Seiki LF-7 and the Excel ES-70EX4 and for the moment suffice is to say that both already made that I don't " miss " or have to remember cartridges quality performance like the Acutex, Empire D3 and even the 100CMK4, yes both are that good. I think a in deep review is on order.

In other side last week arrived a second sample of the ADC25 an yesterday I mounted and tested all day long where the cartridge showed that the design was a good one but not " good enough ".

I was not fully satisfied with its performance till today that I decided to mount it on a different headshell ( same G-945 tonearm. ).

Yesterday was mounted on a first rate SAEC headshell and today I changed to what for me was ( that's what I thinked. ) a " poor and shame " of AT headshell: thin aluminum with several tiny holes in the top plate/side, nothing to remember other that " you don't want to use it ".

Well what a nice surprise, this cartridge/headshell combination really match and works " on heaven ". Suddenly cartridge life comes and I not only heard it but feel it.

This is an additional experience on the importance to match any cartridge with the right headshell/tonearm more than with the " right TT ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Is there any cartridge, save for a truly broken one, that cannot be made to sound decent or even good, if one has a large enough supply of tonearms and headshells and the patience to try them all? This is not a rhetorical question.

Raul, Given the favorable experiences of Halcro and some others here with the FR64S tonearm, have you reconsidered your opinion of it? Thanks.
How about a list of arm and headshell/cartridge combinations that perform at the 10++? level,that way folks that have a certain tonearm model could look for specific cartridges or vis versa,or does this depend on the rest of the system?



That's a great idea, Trav, but the poster should qualify his statement by listing all the tonearms that were compared in order to arrive at the mystical Nirvana for a given phono cartridge.

Raul, I apologize if I put you on the spot regarding the FR64S. Feel free to ignore my open question, if you would rather not comment. One reason I myself discounted the FR64S was due to its rather imposing effective mass of 35gm, which would in theory be a hindrance with high compliance (but not according to Halcro), but I recently discovered that the FR headshell alone accounts for at least 20gm of that amount. So in fact the 64S can be made into even a medium mass tonearm by use of a very lightweight headshell.
Dear Lewm: Certainly I did/do not tested all the cartridges out there ( MM/MI or MC. ), even not all the ones I own, but till today I can say that every cartridge I tested sounded from " decent " to excellent level.

Could be cartridges that can perform bad but I have to find it yet. I think that some way or the other all cartridge designs are good and if we find a bad one maybe could be due to a poor excution/build quality design.

In the opther side and talking on the Fr tonearms I appreciate that this time could be the last time to touch the subject in this thread and not for any other thing that because at least three other threads where that subject was discussed on " hot way " were deleted and I don't want that that could happen here and this thread disappear because of that.

Yes, I was one of the persons that puts " fire " on those deleted threads but I can't see or stay " dead silence " when some one try to take advantage on good faith's people in that subject or any other one.

I owned five times those tonearms, I still own a 64 one and enough is to say that I own it mainly to be certain that our tonearm design should not performs in that way.

Lewm, its resonances especially at hf extreme makes " alive " and nice sounding performance that IMHO is away from reality. This is what it likes people along other resonances on the other frequency extreme.
I don't like this level of quality that has nothing to do with music: it is to colored. Some audio systems are not good enough for you can aware of this or just you like those distortions: me no.

Lewm, please don't make I talk in deep on the subject. I respect Halcro and other FR owners but that is not my level of excellence.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Raul, Why would you want to stop talking about FR tonearms if you have been asked. You have not been censored in the past and you clearly have an opinion based on using them.
I am more than happy for you to discuss more about how full of resonances that FR tonearms are and how this effects the music IYO.

I think we are more than capable of determining the validity of your synopsis.