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
Thanks, Raul. Your candor is always appreciated, even, I hope, by those who do not always agree with you. I know it is from the heart. I did not know those threads were deleted. That is silly; I enjoyed the debate, and it was conducted in a civil fashion. It is sad that even in this venue that has no potential to harm anyone, one must fear censorship.
Lewm

I think at this juncture you need to satisfy your curiosity and simply purchase a FR64s along with a small stock of head shells if you don't already have on hand.

Just a comment on this subject,and I will go away. With this near endless parade of MM MI including MC cartridges and not forgetting a line up of tonearms available and head shells to choose from, for anyone willing to participate your work is cut out for you. Looking at it from another angle, it would not be difficult, speaking for myself, ending up all over the map and possibly missing the target.

For those of you with similar afflictions may I suggest, choose your favorite table preferably one with multi- arm capability, add any highly recommended cartridge or ones to your liking then focus on head shells where applicable and listen.....easy?


Now for some A** kissing, Raul I know your a man of integrity and I appreciate your work over the years.

Mark
I have 2 turntables of different ‘persuasions’, 8 tonearms (counting the Hadcock GH228) and 18 cartridges and have been listening to high-end vinyl for 35 years.
If I understand correctly, Raul is proposing that I can’t detect ‘distortions’ or ‘resonances’ caused by the FR-64s and FR-66s in the playback of these cartridges using the same phono cables, phono stage, preamp, interconnects, amps, cables and speakers?

If we concentrate on MM/MI cartridges (because of this thread), I’ve listened to 16 cartridges on virtually all 8 of my arms.
When I hear the majority of the MMs sounding poorly on the Graham Phantom II and certainly not at their best on the DaVinci 12” Ref Grandezza, I imagine I’m hearing an arm/cartridge mismatch whether it be “resonances”, “distortions” or some other artefacts?
When I hear 10 of my cartridges sounding virtually indistinguishable between the Grace 940G, Micro Seiki MA-505s and FR-64s, am I hearing “resonances” or “distortions” in the FR-64s?
But when I hear 4 or 5 cartridges sounding somewhat better in the FR-64s than any of the other arms I’m suddenly hearing “resonances” and “distortions”……which I’m naïve enough to actually like?
This is peculiar logic to say the least?

As others have said on various occasions……….if one cannot hear the ‘truth’ of the FR-64s/66s tonearms it is a sad loss, but to violently proclaim these arms to have “resonances” and “distortions” which are “pleasing to the ears” is a statement of infinite perplexity?
Hi All

MM phono stages with the ability to change capacitance are far and few between, so most are fixed.

If you could choose one value, what would be as the best compromise for most MM carts out there. 100pf, 200pf or ???

a bit like 100ohm seems to be the standard resistive loading for MC's.
Halrco

Sounds like the FR tonearms must give out pleasant sounding resonances and distortions like tubes that many people prefer to listen to music with, including yours truely :-)

BTW, how do you listen to all your tables/tonearms with only two phono cards in your pre ? or have you bought a new phono ?

cheers
Hi Shane,
4 of the 6 arms have balanced XLR terminations so I don't have to worry about connecting a bunch of grounding wires.
I simply have all the plugs ( with colour-coded electrical tape distinguishing the various arms), lying beside or behind the DM10 preamp.
It takes me literally 30 seconds to unplug one set and plug in another.
The FR-66s which has RCA terminations has it's ground wire permanently connected to the preamp so it can be plugged in and out in 10 seconds.
This gives me the most direct and purist phono connections with no outboard stages and interconnects.
Incidentally there is only one phono input into the DM10. It's either balanced or unbalanced........you can't have both connected as they both lead to the same output stage. You can switch this stage between MM and MC and once again, it's either/or.......not both. You can select between 3 gain stages for either MM and MC and for MM/MI cartridges there is an infinitely adjustable loading up to 60K Ohms and infinitely variable capacitance from 70uF to 430uF.
For MC cartridges the loading is fixed at 220 Ohms as the signal is so small, Bruce Candy did not want to put active devices in the signal path and doesn't believe that loading for MCs is as important as for MMs.
Dear Halcro,
I agree with your philosophy; it is best to run everything direct into one single phono stage or full function preamp (In the old days, the word "preamp" meant a linestage + phono stage; now we have to say it explicitly). However, my MP1 has no MM stage per se, only high gain for MC. I revised its input so I can switch between two different gain levels on phono, but even so the low level is still a bit much for most MMs. That plus the geographical limitations associated with having 3 tts up and running (5 tonearm cables won't all reach the MP1), have caused me also to own a second outboard phono stage, dedicated to MM. I chose the Ayre p5Xe, to maintain balanced circuitry throughout my system, but I am looking always for something better or "different". The Ayre then runs into the linestage section of the MP1. I have the distinct impression that the MP1 phono is inherently a bit superior to the Ayre, which makes me feel good, because I have made extensive mods to the MP1 circuit. To answer DU's question, I would like to see selectable capacitances of zero, 100pF, and 250pF, at a minimum. I would like to see selectable resistive loading for MMs of 28K or 33K, 47K, 68K, 100K. This is just based on reports here that the gaps between these Rs make a difference in some cases. One "problem" with the Ayre is that it was really built with MC cartridges in mind and has no easily accessible way to change load R and no way at all to change C, unless I start drilling holes and adding switches, which I am wont to do.
Dear Downunder: On the capacitance loading MM/MI subject IMHO there is no " best compromise ".

Certainly exist a relationship between cartridge internal inductance and loading capacitance but almost always exist along system own performance and this make that in many ways capacitance loading could be system dependent.

In the last few months where I take care seriously on cartridge capacitance loading I set up capacitance values from 50pf tp 450pf ( added to the own capacitance value in the phono IC . ) with no precise single value prevalent. So we need wide flexibility on capacitance values. The difference when the capacitance value is " right " makes a difference for the better and not in tiny way: it makes a difference!.

At least that's what I experienced on the subject in my system. I will continue with " newest " tests with all those top cartridges where in the past were tested with no added capacitance. I will try too that when I already tested all those " importants " cartridges to report on the subject.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Hi Raul,

with the various capacitances and cartridges, what was the difference?

Was there a quantifiable aspect to it?

I have just finished testing my Shure 1000e/SAS across 5 Capacitances and 5 Impedances (25 tests in all for 150pf, 250pf, 350pf, 500pf, 700pf, 22k, 47k, 62k, 82k, 100k), I posted the graphs on the VE loading thread...

There are clear differences in Frequency Response linearity, and the resonant peaks (both of them, electrical and mechanical) are present - although they are too close to each other for most of the measures to seperate out until the C drops to 150 when the mechanical resonance just starts to peak out independently. - All 25 possibilities show a different compromise between frequency extension, and linearity - some have a mid suckout, others a high peak, high C's show a suckout with a F/R dropoff within the audible range....

So what I am asking is whether in your loading test there was some aspect that could be identified on a technical measure to assist in zeroing in on the best setup.... (or perhaps zeroing in on your preferred setup...)

bye for now

David
Dear Dlaloum, Can you provide a URL for your post on VE? Thanks, and thanks for sharing your work effort.
Dear Dlaloum: Yes, there are some important aspects with some cartridges that benefits from added capacitance. I did not ( yet ) any measures to know if what I'm hearing is " right " about linearity.

The best way I can explain it is to describe my simple process that I follow to discern about the capacitance cartridge value set up:

I made the whole cartridge set up and quality performance playback with 100K loading impedance and with no added capacitance other than the one in the IC phono cable it self ( 150-200 pfs. ).

Here I describe the LPs and tracks on those LPs that I use to cartridge set up:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1246451558&openflup&93&4#93

well, if after the innitial cartridge set up ( overhang, VTA/SRA/VTF/AZ/etc. ) with no added capacitance I can't heard that left percussion sound on the left speaker on that Eagles track then I change from cero pfs to 450pfs. and see what happen.

Till today all the cartridges I tryed and that does not reproduce that percussion left speaker sound now with the added capacitance the percussion sounds comes alive.

From here I listen the same track again but with 100pf lowered ( that's it: 350pf. ) looking for changes in quality or SPL on that percussion sound and if there is no changes then I go further and now I try again with 200pf lower and go on till I heard any single change.

When I heard that change then I evaluate if that change goes against overall quality performance and if goes against then I return to the latest capacitance set up and I left in that way to confirm in a second step and through other LPs the overall quality performance improvement because that added capacitance.

For this I use at least the P.Barber track on that link and the 45rpm version Side one track one on Rickie Lee Jones: " it's like this " recording. At this stage I confirm if everything is for the better and not " exaggerated ".

I'm not only trying to heard those Eagles track percussions ( something like: sshhsh... ) but a clear definition and overall transparency improvement that I can confirm through the other LPs.

It is to tempting to left the capacitance value at its highest number and here is where our each one knowledge audio/music level plays a definitive role to decide the " right " capacitance loading number.

In all cases when I achieve the " right " capacitance value I heard too a very positive and tiny/small bass improvement.

I did not tested many cartridges about and only when I finish with the more important ones I will report on the subject to be absolutely sure.

What I already experienced about could be change with other cartridges so I'm not saying there is a rule down there. Too many factors to " write " rules on the subject. Even I have to re-check all the cartridges tested in that way because I want to be absolutely sure that what I'm hearing is " right " to my system.

Btw, this is not the best time in México city to make/made these cartridge tests because the room temperature inside our homes is lower than the " ideal " one for the cartridges due that here in México city we don't have " heating " items like in USA because here the temperature does not goes so low like there but goes lower that what cartridges likes.
Yes, I think that with 23° celcius degrees things could change.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear all - is anyone offended if I start a thread titled "Who needs MC when we have MM?" :-) :-)
Dear Thuchan: From my part there is no problem about. A welcome thread.

Audio experiences always are interesting and " learning " ones.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Thichan, It's those doubled-up smiley faces that follow your post that has me worried. Do you plan this for the "Tongue in Cheek" Forum?
Thuchan,

Impressive system. Outside of friends who are dealers, I have never seen a wider array of noted equipment.

Well done
Thanks Dgob. Some people say I am crazy. I like to be crazy regarding music and musical systems. Music is one of my best friends (:-).

Lewm, I am sometimes ironical as you are too. I also told it Raul who started this impressive thread there will be not such thread by me. Being more on the side of MCs I have some wonderful impressions with MM carts too. Nevertheless we should stay critical in both directions :-) :-) :-) - one of the three smileys this time is dedicated to you - but in a good meaning
Dear Thuchan,
If you could start a thread about MCs it would be most interesting.
I think we need a critical examination of the in-field experiences of owners just as we have in this thread on MMs?

At the moment I'm listening happily to the ZYX Universe in the FR-66s on the Raven AC-3 and it's sounding as well as some of the top MMs in my collection.
It still loses it's composure on very complex high energy and loud passages in a way that the MMs do not.
To me there is 'break-up' of distortion which tends to remind me of the limits of LOMCs?
Perhaps a new thread will shed some light on other LOMCs which minimise this weakness?
Cheers
Henry
Thanks, Thuchan. I think this hobby and the obsession with its crazy minutiae should be fun above all. The opinions can be intensely felt, however. The best part for me is the pleasure of getting to be in contact with interesting people (such as yourself and the others here) with widely varying backgrounds and preferences, from all over the world. Some day, when I am again in Munich...

LIke Dgob, I find your collection of phono gear to be jaw-dropping. I myself am overwhelmed with "only" 3 turntables and about 4 tonearms in play (so far). (Three more turntables and several tonearms await me.) This is thanks to Raul and this thread, and to my recently acquired fascination with vintage turntables and tonearms. I can only imagine what you go through just to figure out what to play with on any given day. It's a nice problem to have.
Thucan,

I fully appreciate your position: crazy as it might seem to most! What's your favourite MC and have you ever heard the Technics EPC 100c Mk4 MM?

Cheers
lewm - link to VE where I posted the graphs http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6674&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=240

Raul - as usual thank you for your ongoing insight...

I have digressed a little the last few days in refurbishing my JVC TT, putting 2.5kg of plasticine inside it, and I am in the process of finalising a new platform for my 2 main tables, using Ikea Lack tables + sorbothane, spikes, and/or ball bearing stands... the end combination is yet to be decided on as not all the gear has been delivered yet for testing and implementing.
I also resoldered the captive leads on the JVC - finally getting its capacitance down to around 100pf. (Using BlueJeans LC1 Cable)

Also ongoing testing and experiments with my Digital Phono stage configuration.... but I will return to the cartridge tuning side of things shortly!

Halcro - I've noticed the same type of phenomenon ("loses it's composure on very complex high energy and loud passages") both with my HOMC's (Benz/Empire MC1 & Sony XL-MC104) - I've also used "big" symphonic music frequently as a system test.... lots of speakers can't reproduce it effectively, and start getting "muddled" - also can happen when an amp starts pushing its limits....

But previously my HOMC's were sitting on an ultra low mass 4g tonearm - the results may be very different in the JVC's tonearm. (which is one of the reasons I got it)

I really wonder whether the issue is not in fact related to low compliance and tracking capability... (ie the weaknesses of low compliance ?) - Of course when talking tracking capability we are talking cantilever construction, effective mass etc....

I started doing some measurements of a "basic" eliptical stylus in my Shure 1000e vs a SAS stylus.
Forgetting a moment about the Exotic line contact stylus - I think the biggest difference may not be the stylus at all, it may be the far more sophisticated and light weight cantilever. ( at some stage I will get back to that comparison and report...)

It leads me to wonder whether rather than spending big bucks on some of the name brand styli (TOTL LC's from AT etc..) for some of my cartridges, I might be better off sending a stylus to Soundsmith (US) or Expert (UK) for a cantilever + stylus upgrade.

I think one of the biggest gains that the exotic MC's get is to do with their exotic cantilevers - you can get Shibata, LC or MicroRidge/Fineline for a range of MM's and MI's - and all at around $100 - but usually on fairly coarse cantilevers... therefore heavy, and due to excess mass, slow moving ... not nimble enough.
Has anyone on here taken a good MM and had it re-cantilevered with a soundsmith Ruby cantilever?

bye for now

David
Halcro, I heard a ZYX UNIverse for the first time in my life the other day, in a system where I knew the speakers and amplifiers but not the tonearm and record player. However, both of the latter were present day state of the art quality. (I estimate over $20,000 total cost.) We played familiar LPs that I brought over to the audition. Needless to say I could not discern among the relative contributions of the three elements of the analogue system (cartridge, tonearm, turntable), but assuming tonearm and turntable should be neutral, my impression of the ZYX was that it is a bit "edgy" for my tastes. Prolonged listening became almost irritating, yet the detail in the low treble was incredible at times. Also, the bass response was sorely lacking, which could have been due to many other factors not under my control. But I agree with your basic premise: There are many interesting vintage MCs out there that would be fun to discuss. You could start another thread....

I remember back in the 70's listening to the Supex 900 when it first arrived on the scene, thru a Mark Levinson/John Curl pre-preamplifier. I was not amazed or overwhelmed and it took a decade or more after that before I adopted an MC cartridge into my system.
David,
Very interesting point about the cantilever material affecting the composure of the stylus?
I wonder whether Professor Timeltel has any thoughts on this?
The compliance of the cartridge I don't think has, as when I move the FR-6SE (same compliance as XV1s) onto the FR-66s arm, I think it keeps it's composure as all my other MMs seem to do?
Lewm,
Also, the bass response was sorely lacking
That Universe was not set up correctly or there were other anomalies in the system because I can assure you that a properly performing Universe has all the bass you will ever need?
Dear Halcro,
starting a thread means supporting and taking care in a way Raul did and does with this thread in its very best way. I am not able to do so. Of course we should not open a MC thread on Raul`s platform. It is not fair and also not the place to do. I will therefore not answer regarding MC-questions. I just wanted to keep us all sensitive in a critical way.
Dear Halcro,
The ZYX was set up by a consummate professional, but I am prepared to believe what you say, because the low midrange response on down to low bass was that sorely lacking. However, I am able to rule out the amplifiers and speakers as culprits, and I strongly doubt that a turntable can have that big an effect on tonal balance. Plus it was a very very fine turntable with an enormous heavy platter. Two possibilities: (1) The room is very small; we could have been sitting in a null point; and (2) Perhaps a little more negative VTA would have helped.

Thuchan, Your point is well taken; I/we should not be talking about an MC cartridge here, let alone a current (not vintage) one. How about this: I then went on home to my house where I was once again thrilled by the Acutex LPM320STRIII on a mere Lenco; the cartridge seems to be breaking in and getting even better.
Lew, I'd have to agree with others saying that something was not right. A properly set-up UNIverse will have absolutely no issues with bass. In general, I find the UNIverse's treble extension to be quite good as well.

Now back to your regularly-scheduled thread.
Regards, Halcro: Did someone call my name? IIRC, beryllium, boron and titanium (in that order) offer the greatest strength-to-mass ratio of materials frequently used in cantilever construction. Boron, beryllium and then titanium for damping qualities. For a pipe of similar dimensions, titanium, beryllium and then boron are of increasing mass. Because of the difficulties encountered in production, beryllium and boron are typically fabricated as rods rather than tubes, it was the vapor deposited beryllium tubes that presented the notorius health risks. Aluminum and it's alloys, even with a tube that appears bulky can be deceptively light and rigid.

The concern with cantilever resonance is the resonance of the moving mass and it's tortional modulus (spring). Boing!. Beryllium's rigidity compares with phosphor bronze but it has a much higher Rockwell hardness, this metal is tough without being brittle. Since resonances tend to extend beyond the duration of the signal, a reasonable means of dealing with this is to reduce mass with nude diamonds (boundary resonances can occur with bonded diamonds, differences in mass may be insignificant) and lighter and more rigid materials in the cantilever. This will move cantilever resonance to a higher frequency and make it easier to deal with. Compliance, inductance and impedance in cartridges with response above 40k must be carefully considered, I can't recall off-hand one with output above 3mV. Real or imagined, none of this deals with resonant feedback or harmonic influence from a cantilever tie wire. ADC's Peter Prichard thought it a factor.

Resonance frequency is not one for compliance, one for cantilever and one for arm unless considered separately. Resonance frequency is the product of tonearm effective mass, cartridge compliance and, for the purposes of this discussion, cantilever design. This seems to confirm Rauls' advice: "What you see is what you get". Maybe it was Flip Wilson who said that?

Peace,
Resonance frequency is the product of tonearm effective mass, cartridge compliance and, for the purposes of this discussion, cantilever design.
Aaha dear Professor.....so David is onto something here?
Dear Dlaloum/Halcro: +++++ " Forgetting a moment about the Exotic line contact stylus - I think the biggest difference may not be the stylus at all, it may be the far more sophisticated and light weight cantilever. " ++++

++++ " I think one of the biggest gains that the exotic MC's get is to do with their exotic cantilevers - you can get Shibata, LC or MicroRidge/Fineline for a range of MM's and MI's - and all at around $100 - but usually on fairly coarse cantilevers... therefore heavy, and due to excess mass, slow moving .." ++++++

yes, there is a " point " here or maybe more than one.

Now that I'm on the cartridge design project I'm reading and mading several tests on that subject and I find that things are more complex that only " ligther cantilevers ".

Yes, a low cantilever effective mass could help to improve cartridge tracking but the cantilever is only a sub-system ( along stylus and cantilever suspension. ) inside the cartridge. What I mean is that the cantilever per se can't tell us almost nothing about tracking but how good was the cartridge design and cartridge execution design.

By coincidence I just posted on this thread something about:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1295265205&openflup&8&4#8

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1295265205&openflup&12&4#12

I own this original LP and yes there are other MM/MI cartridges that can track it like Empire that has bulky and not " exotic " cantilevers and high compliance.

I can't remember if any today LOMC cartridge other that the Denon could track those shot 1812 Telarc cannons.
I tested the XV-1 and can't do it, no Koetsu ( I own. ) can, the Colibri neither I never try on this track the A-90 that's a very good LOMC tracker.
In general that track is reserved for very good MM/MI that are coupled in the right tonearm.

Other that my experiences on the subject with the MC2000, the 1984 reviewer of this Ortofon cartridge reported that the cartridge tracked with out trouble, the cartridge was mounted on an EPA-250 using the EPA-500 base and all in a SP-10MK2.

Yes, cantilever is extremely important and at least at the same importance level than the stylus shape if not higher.

The cantilever is a " demon/diable " that we have to deal very carefully with. An old solution is to design a non-cantilevered cartridge but this has its own trade-offs that I'm not satisfied with due what I heard and experienced on this kind of cartridge designs.

Btw, Dlaloum I re-cantilevered some of my MM/MI cartridges through VandenHUL services and I understand Dgob too with good results.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Regards, Halcro, Dlaloum: "so David is onto something here?". Great posts Dlaloum.

An experienced "I fixed it until it broke" fumbler's firm impression of the subject:

Absolutely, maybe, in an apple-oranges way. Isolated parts performance and integrated parts performance are not always the same. It's the old parts/sum-chicken/egg thing.

An abreviated parable, the scorpion and the fox: Ol' Scorp asked Fox "carry me across the stream on your back". "But you'll sting me", sez Fox. "Promise, I won't", said Scorpy. Fox agreed, but halfway across it's: "You've stung me, now I'll die and you'll drown, why?". Scorpy: "Because it's my nature".

A cantilever is the vehicle carrying the stylus. The nature of both must be considered in getting to where you want to be.

---------------------------------------"Distorterata"-----------------------------------
If you compare cantilevers with others, you may become vain or bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser performers than yours. Enjoy your stylus as well as your cantilever. Believe in your own ears, however the tinitus; it is a real possession in the changing favorites of the audio rags. Apologies, Max Ehrmann.

Subjective existentialism bs aside, take every factor into account and above all, don't get stung.

Peace,
Someone nudge me when this gets fun again?
So far, I have tried: Grace f9, and F-9e, Shure V15 MkIII w/jico sas, AT 8008 studio reference, Azden yp50c, I even got an MC, a Dynavector Karat 23 r!
And I am back to my baby denon 103r with SS ruby cantilever and isoteknic aluminum body. None of the other carts really do what this one does, dynamics, and transparency... immediacy... realism.
I bought a selection of caps, and loaded my phonostage accordingly, (Bottlehead Eros) While some of the MM's were definitely enjoyable (The Shure with the jico came closest) None of them could really compare to my Denon.
I think the synergy between the Denon, Cinemags, and Eros is just so correct that it is going to take something special to give me that WOW factor.
I see Empires and Technics are $1000 now.... So, I don't think I will be trying either of those, Maybe a Stanton? Signet?
The Azden, remoinded me of my stock DL103, and definitely gave nothing up to it.... it's a keeper. Everything else has been sold on, and I have a grace f9 awaiting retip/repair by either myself (yikes)! or soundsmith.
I was imagining I would have been happily selling of my 103r and cinemags by now, one less link in the chain so to speak, but not yet.
Dear Hxt1: Good that now you are enjoying better than ever your system through that Denon cartridge, this is all about and what many of os are looking for every single day.

Anyway, I think you had " good times "/fun with the MM/MI alternative while last.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Not to say that the cantilever material is not important, but isn't it unlikely to be important in terms of moving mass, since no matter what it is made of, it will constitute a very tiny fraction of the moving mass of any cartridge of any type? For example, or to illustrate my point, my Acutex has a titanium cantilever, deemed by Timeltel to be mediocre in terms of low mass, but the Acutex has very low moving mass by virtue of its other design parameters and the materials chosen and by the mere fact that MI cartridges have inherently lower moving mass than do MC ones, despite all the hype that would have us think otherwise. (I cite for my source Peter Lederman and others.) Plus, Acutex 320 has compliance = 40!!! That titanium cantilever is not hurting much in that regard. I am not saying that the choice of material for the cantilever does not affect "sound" but that it is a minor player in determining total moving mass. I guess Timeltel agrees(?)

On another topic, did you see where Robert E Green reviewed the new Townsend turntable in TAS using an AKG P8ES vdH II cartridge, which he loved and laments is NLA? Of course, he is a longstanding proponent of MM cartridges whom I used to think of as "quaint", not to say "antique". Now of course, he has become brilliant in my eyes, except he also liked the Amadeus and I am not much of a fan of Well Tempered tts. Lucky for me, I own one of those AKGs thanks to Raul. Thanks, R.
Regards, Lew(m): Please re-read, titanium has the lowest weight by mass as compared to either berillium or boron. It's rigidity exceeds that of alu. and it effectively damps resonances. I do hear, as you note, a discernable difference in the way the various materials influence the sound of the cartridge. A rough estimation might be that the stylus determines the character and the cantilever the quality. Other opinions are, as always, welcome.

It's apparent the Acutex LPM 320 continues to please, I'm still waiting for any comments when you compare the 315 stylus. When you do, suggest you advance VTF one or two tenths gm and increase cap. & res., compliance is slightly lower than for the 320 stylus. BTW, how goes it with the Parasound?

Hxt1: You mentioned Signet cartridges. Although parts for these were supplied by Audio Technica, the TK1ea/3ea/5ea coils are wound differently, are of a lower output impedance and consequently don't have the AT "house sound" of forward midrange and hf's. You might try one with either an LC or Shibata stylus (and on a good cantilever, of course) before you give up on MM cartridges. I also wonder, as you had a good report for the Shure V15 which does well at 400-500pF capacitance, are you able to adjust capacitance or loading? Also, the Azden YMP-50c has a conical stylus and is said to be not quite the performer the well regarded YMP-50VL (vital line contact) is. Same body, different stylus.

Peace,
Hi All,

Just a quick aside but I've been playing around with my Technics SP10 Mk2 and its isolation. I placed a 20mm solid ash armboard on the right side and sat the deck on the Audio Technica Precision footers. Nothing else, apart from removing the Symposium Ultra platform and letting the footers rest on the shelf itself with the deck on top. Why bring it up on this thread?

Well, Raul suggested that the Technics on top of the height adjustable pneumatic suspension/footers surpasses any plinthed option and that you need to hear this to appreciate the importance of isolation to your TT and analogue setup. He is correct!

Some of the most obvious changes that it brings IMO are perfect pitch, a huge (stable and accurate) sound stage, added composure to even the most complex passages, and increases in detail and timbre.

The impact of this is that I am relistening to my cartridges and finding more to commend and appreciate. I can whole heartedly recommend this for those with the opportunity.
"Hxt1: You mentioned Signet cartridges. Although parts for these were supplied by Audio Technica, the TK1ea/3ea/5ea coils are wound differently, are of a lower output impedance and consequently don't have the AT "house sound" of forward midrange and hf's. You might try one with either an LC or Shibata stylus (and on a good cantilever, of course) before you give up on MM cartridges. I also wonder, as you had a good report for the Shure V15 which does well at 400-500pF capacitance, are you able to adjust capacitance or loading? Also, the Azden YMP-50c has a conical stylus and is said to be not quite the performer the well regarded YMP-50VL (vital line contact) is. Same body, different stylus.

Thanks, Timeltel, A little bird told me, that the Shure liked around 300-350pf, and that is what I loaded it at. I personally built my phono preamp, a Bottlehead Eros, so yes, indeed the capacitance, and loading can be altered with a little bit of soldering.
The 'c' designation on the Azden cart. does indeed inticate that it sports a conical stylus, I was arare of that going in...... And you can see in my last post, that In my opinion, it compares favourably to the denon Dl103 is sound and performance. I still have a Grace f9-e here, awaiting a rebuild, so I definitely haven't given up on MM's.... I am simply trying to find an MM that can give me everything I get(and more)! from my 103r..... without havinf to spend $1000! I really do think that there is something good going on here with these MM's, considering a $50 Azden performs at the same level as a Denon dl103 with stepup transformer!
I think If I could find a good Technics, Empire, etc. MM, at a reasonable price, I could get rid of the 103r and cinemags altogether! After all, my Phonopreamp was designed as a MM preamp, so it would only make sense to ultimately run an MM cart. through it!
The main problem I'm experiencing , i think, is a lack of 'drive' from the MM's.... the cinemag seems to goose the output to such a degree that I rareley ever ned to turn the volume past halfway. When I am running MM's, I need to get the volume up to 3/4 to get the same volume, introducing more noise to the overall picture.
I hope this makes sense? Cheers, Harv.
Dgob, and others who have used the systems,
How much of the difference comes from the plinthlessness and how much from the use of the Audio Technica footers? Did you try the footers underneath the plinthed SP-10Mk2 as well against the unplinthed SP-10Mk2?

Any thoughts as to why unplinthing it would make you feel as if pitch would become 'more perfect'? IME, I think that all of those things - composure, detail, timbre, etc all arise from the added detail of reduced resonance 'noise.'

I personally believe that some kind of pneumatic isolation system is one of the easiest ways to make almost any turntable sound better.
Hxt1.

You should try your MMs again with a lower capacitance or no added capacitance at all. Most MMs do not need 300-350 pf and sound better w/ lower capacitance. Too high a capacitance can cause roll-off in the high frequencies, which can lead to the effects you are complaining of.

Also, don't forget that your tonearm cable is adding another 80-150 pf (usually) to whatever cap you soldered across the phono input resistor. For example, my Incognito wired Rega measures about 80 pf, whereas a Grace 707 cable measured about 100 pf and an old ADC tonearm about 185 pf. The input stage can also add capacitance due to Miller effect, although the Eros uses a pentode input stage which is supposed to have much less Miller capacitance than a triode stage with the same gain. Triode phono stages typically have 50-150 pf of Miller effect capacitance.
T-bone,

I tried the Technics with and without a plinth and with various makes of armboard. I also tried the footers on my Acoustic Signature Mambo (here I used another, smaller set of AT pneumatic footers). However, I did not try the footers on the plinthed deck as it had a complex system of isolation.

On all instances the footers made a 'dramatic' difference to the performance of the TT's. I'm certain it is due to resonance reduction. I'd just say that the sound seems freed when the bare Technics is sat on the footers and the 3D quality of the musicians and the sense of air between performers is very obviously improved. Given the high charges that currently affect the acquistion of a decent plinth for the Technics, I think this is a great option to achieve amazing results with very little outlay - maybe in keeping with one of the earlier themes of this thread.

Are you using this or a similar approach?
T_bone,

On the perceptions of pitch, it is too hard to say. I know that A,J,M, Houtsma's 'Pitch and Timbre: Definition, Meaning and Use' paper sets out the grounds for the following conclusions:

"The main conclusions from the material presented in this paper are:

"1. Because of their subjective nature, the parameters pitch and timbre should never be presented as independent variables in perception studies. Doing so would amount to describing one unknown in terms of other unknowns.

"2. The roles of the attributes pitch and timbre in the perception of speech, music and environment sounds are very similar.

"3. In music, any study of pros and cons of certain temperaments or tone scales should include a consideration of the spectral composition of the sounds used to realize the music.

"Linking timbre perception too exclusively with auditory object recognition would be asking for repeating the history of categorical perception in speech."

However, the frequency consistencies that occur due to better isolation should obviously impact on both pitch and timbre and maybe that is why, as you suggest, I perceive a noted improvement.
Dear Timeltel,
I guess my goals are different from yours and some others. Once I find something good, I tend to want to keep it in my system. I am not really in this for the adventure. So I will eventually try the 315, but with some reluctance. Also, my present MM phono stage does not have the capability to vary load R or load C, except with a soldering iron. I have been looking for weeks for such a flexible MM stage at an affordable price, and have yet to find it. I may build it, as mentioned elsewhere. I am not sure I meant to say that I KNOW that the cantilever has its own effect on sound; I did mean to say that it MUST have an effect, but far be it from me to ferret that out. In your previous treatise on cantilevers, I thought you ranked titanium somewhere in the middle among desirable cantilever materials, in terms of known physical properties. For me, there's too much else going on ever to do a controlled experiment on the sound of a cantilever.

The Parasound amp gives a quite different quality from the Atma-sphere. You would not think so, but actually the Atma-sphere gives a better more detailed bass response, because it is quite happy driving the very high impedance of the low end of an ESL. OTOH, transistor amps probably do not like driving the bass into a 50-60 ohm load at very low audio frequencies. From the low midrange up, the Parasound is excellent. It's a wonderful amplifier for its cost.
Dear Timeltel, I tried to add this question in editing my post above, but somehow could not add the needed sentences: Have you (or has anyone) tried a Saturn V headshell with your Acutex's? Raul said he thought the cartridge sounded better in the standard headshell adapter vs in the Saturn V. I have been very pleased with 320 in its adapter, but I am very tempted to try out the Saturn V, in order to form my own opinion. The Acutex literature touts this as the optimal way to go. I am a little afraid of trying it, because my first LPM body came in a Saturn V. When I tried to separate the two, the LPM body fell apart, leaving half of itself inside the Saturn V and thus destroying the usefulness of both. Probably the two had been mated for decades such that they were bonded together by electrolysis. I had to buy another LPM off eBay and then found another Saturn V as well. This time I will use a little Walker Audio contact enhancer, the greasy-ness of which should allow easy separation of the LPM from the Saturn V, should I decide I do not like the latter.

The 320 is breaking in and getting even better than it was at first listen, as you correctly predicted.
Dgob,
A few of my TTs have the isolation built in (Denon DP100, Exclusive P3). The Technics SP-10Mk3 stock came with similar footers. I have a number of magnetic flotation footers from Yamamoto and Sony and have used those under many tables. Currently, one set is under an L-07D. I have also put lab-use air tables underneath TTs and think the world of them in terms of performance to cost ratio (I buy them used off auction from people who resell lab equipment). All in all, other than room treatment (the ugly kind), I think good pneumatic isolation is the best bang for buck upgrade anyone can make for an already decent analog sound reproduction system. The lower the resonant frequency the better (you can get very low through the structural attributes of the isolation system you use, or you can achieve something a bit similar by going to the heavy end of the loading range of your footers (i.e. if your footer does 3-6kg apiece, go for 5-6kg effective load).

That said, I have not yet seen anyone come up with a test of a good plinthed table vs the same table unplinthed. Most of the commentary so far has been "unplinthed is great" (which I see no reason to deny). Philosophically, I am very sympathetic to the Micro/Kenwood/Exclusive/Sony(PS-X9) method of keeping the bearing-armmount relationship as rigid as possible, though as long as an outboard armpod were as immovable as possible, and mounted on the same base/plinth as the part supporting the bearing, and both were very heavy (armpod and the thing supporting the bearing), you'd be accomplishing pretty much the same thing.
Dear Jlin, You wrote, "Triode phono stages typically have 50-150 pf of Miller effect capacitance." That seems VERY high for Miller value for any small signal tube I know about. To check myself, I just looked up Miller capacitance of a 12AX7, a commonly used phono input tube. The sum of all input capacitances for 12AX7 is less than 10pF. Also, Miller is not an issue with pentodes, as you suggest, or with a cascode built from two triodes (which is one reason why many like the cascode as a phono input topology). Also, I would mildly take issue with your statement that "too high a capacitance can cause roll-off in the high frequencies". This is not always the case, because the load C interacts with the inductance of the cartridge itself and with load R. Due to resonance between that L and C, sometimes one can extend hf response by adding C and fiddling with R. It's counter-intuitive, I know, and something I just recently learned from one of the other guys lurking in this thread.
Regards, Lew(m): I recall from perhaps fourty years ago the narration by an audiophile who kept his "best stylus" carefully stored and used it only on special occasion. Your 320STR may be one of these exceptional styli. No experience with the Acutex integrated headshell, I do remember your agony when your first example came apart while being removed from the shell for cleaning. Coil wire seperated at the pin? Perhap an obliging jeweler can take a look at it, he'll have both the tools and technique. Exploded view of the cartridge at TTNeedles.com for reference.

You've not said much about your EPA-500 TA. I'd wager you've considered it for a "Copernican" (TM) application, the "Heresy" model available in kit form soon. As a discerning audiophile, I'm sure you're waiting for the release of the lexan "Whirlitzer" with the classic stroboscopic red, yellow and blue LED's? For the DIY'rs, there are plans for the "CMU" (concrete music unit), soup can & masonry bits not included.

Excuse me Lew (Henry, you didn't think I was alluding to you?), back to fairly serious. I'm curious enough to try nudeing a back-up SP-25 with an EPA-500 arm. Considering an "L" shaped wooden pod, drilled & weighted with lead shot. Encompass a corner of the deck, iso/vibrapods to register to & isolate from. Have the OEM jig for Pvt-Spndl distance and the correct hole saw, several handsfull of spikes. I understand the rationale & imagine this quick/simple affair will be insightful. If it weren't seven degrees F. out there, a three dog night for sure.

Lew, I've been so pleased with the FrankenSignets I've not listened to the Acutex for several months. Due to your praise of the Acutex I'll do an overdue exchange this evening, a pleasurable prospect.

For those intrigued by your well justified enthusiasm for the cartridge, the Acutex LPM body is offered on "that auction site" about every six weeks. The rock 'n roll 310E and more detailed 312STR styli are still available. AFAIK, the 315-320 styli (NOS), like Elvis, have left the building.

Peace,
Dear Timeltel,
Henry, you didn't think I was alluding to you?
I was laughing too hard to consider it?
You weren't?.......surely?

But your own 'Nude Turntable Project' sounds good to me........especially with lots of dogs around? :-)

Cheers
Henry
Lewm,

For a triode the input capacitance is the capacitance of the grid to plate, which is typically a few pf, MULTIPLIED by the gain of the triode stage (actually gain +1) - this is the Miller effect. For a 12AX7 tube the grid to plate capacitance is specified as 1.7 pf, and for the RCA manual the input tube gain is around 60x, which means the input capacitance the cartridge would see if it was directly connected to the tube would be at least 104 pf. For a 6DJ8 the gain is typically around 30x, the grid-plate capacitance is specified as 1.4 pf so the input capacitance is around 44 pf. In my DIY phono stage which has a 6L7 input tube the input capacitance calculates out to around 130-140 pf, and that is what it measures using an impedance bridge measuring a live circuit. You cannot measure it using a capacitance meter with the preamp turned off.

To understand the Miller capacitance effect, consider this: the grid and plate form a miniature capacitance because they actually are little metal plates in a vacuum (I know the grid is perforated but you get the idea). Suppose with the tube turned off its capacitance is = c. Now suppose if you put a charge = c on this tiny capacitor the voltage between the grid and plate measures v with the tube off. Now turn the tube on. Suppose it has an amplification factor A. Then every time you change the grid voltage by a voltage v, the grid to plate voltage changes by v*(A+1). The +1 is because as the grid moves one volt negative the plate becomes A volts more positive. But since the grid and plate form a little capacitor, this means that in order to have this voltage change, the charge on this grid-plate capacitor has to change by c*(A+1). So now, to the grid, the grid-plate capacitor looks like it is (A+1) times bigger than when the tube was off. THAT is the Miller effect. And you're right, cascode and pentode stages are much less affected by the Miller effect, but many tube stages are simple triodes.

In terms of frequency response of a phono cartridge, disregarding mechanical resonances, the cartridge can be modeled as a resistor and coil in series driving a resistor and capacitor (the phono input) in parallel. Increasing the phono input resistor increases the peak of the LC resonance and that can extend the frequency response below the resonance, however the frequency at which the peak occurs is basically determined by L and C, and increasing C moves the peak farther downwards. You can see the basic behavior in the 6/07 review of the Shure M97xe cartridge on the TNT website when loaded by differing capacitances :

http://www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/shure_m97xe_e.html

You can see that as the capacitance increases, the point where the high frequencies roll off (above the LC peak) progressively decreases with increasing capacitance from 250 to 620 pf, even while it results in some flattening of the response below the response peak. Since the Shure has a relatively high inductance it is more visible than might be the case with other MMs that have a lower inductance. However, this will eventually happen with any MM cartridge if the capacitance is high enough, it is just a question of how much is too much. The Grado cartridges, for example, are relatively low inductance and less susceptible to this effect than most other MM/MI brands.