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
Dear Halcro: The one I tested was the 6SE. About compliance you can check against the XV-1 (with VTF in between: 1.8grs to 2.0 grs. ) and see how the FR cantilever with the same VTF than the XV-1 ( I just do it. ) goes down a little further that the Dyna one. Anyway 10cu that you and me can't be sure is the real value at 10hz ( instead 100hz that normaly is the Japanese reference. ) IMHO belongs in the low side of medium compliance.
Maybe in those very old 63 times even the high FR mass tonearms did not exist: I don't know but this is not the real subject.

+++++ " whilst the EPC100MK3 is just a little more 'neutral'.....possibly a tad more 'flat' or 'accurate' if you like " +++++

IMHO the Technics is all what you said where the 6SE is on the " colored " side in a frequency range ( around 45hz-70hz, I can't be sure exactly. ) where my ears are really sensitive and where harmonics ( and up ) puts its " grain of colored salt ".
I think that that " rich deep bass " you mentioned could means everything about that cartridge colorations.
Btw, I don't want to go in deep what I heard through the FR64 against the Lustre and the other tonearms I used.

In the other side I agree that the G-940 is not the best for the 20SS ( my review was on a different tonearm. ) where you have to find the right headshell match. I don't know why but a not easy cartridge for the Grace tonearm.

+++++ " It's a litle disturbing since we agree on most other things and my experiences with the Signets appear to match quite well with Timeltel's " +++++

the latest up-dates to my system ( including the electrical power supply " direct connection ". ) IMHO lowering so down/much system overall distortions that the self/own system limitations factor ( about quality performance level/resolution. ) goes two-three steps down given it a resolution where we can detect " sounds/colorations/errors ) that I was unaware before the audio system up-dates.

Any audio system has limitations ( many kind. ) and is this limitation system factor the one that permit or preclude to " hear things " or hear things at different quality level.

Your system as my system and other people system has lower or higher limitation factor level and this factor makes differences.

I don't know you or other persons here but if it is true that I take every single opinion very seriously and that I give the right importance to all opinions it is true too that I always analyze the " environment/stage " that surrounded/surround that single person opinion, including my opinions!

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Regards, Dlaloum: "Fixed coil cartridges exibit phase shift because of electical resonances (at frequencies typically in the audible band) due to the 2,000 to 3,500 turns of wire in the coils...usual method to damp down these resonances is to load down output with capacitance...adding to phase shift, just as mech. damping does". One of the clearest descriptions of the value of matching capacitance to cartridge I've read.

Good reference for this thread, not a far reach to extrapolate an explanation for the ability of lower-output MM's to generate a more "refined" signal but with (IMHO) a reduction of texture. If this "texture" is percieved as distortion, let's not overlook that by modulating the frequency of the resonance waveform, the timbre changes. By adding and subtracting harmonics by design, a controlled enhancement or cancellation is possible. Thanks for the link.

Have you tried other styli with your TK6 (not AT's 6006, my bad)?

Peace,
Dear Halcro: I forgot, please test the FR at continuous 95db SPL at seat position with around peaks on the 102db for at least 20-30 minutes and see what " happen ", what is what you experienced?

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Thanks, Nicola. It would appear based on your contribution that some of the other FR tonearms might indeed be more suitable for the FR cartridges that Raul and Halcro own. But now Halcro states that in fact the compliance of the cartridges is indeed rather low and probably suited in a technical sense for use in an FR64S. (I also think we have to include the "S" designation, because the S version of the 64 has higher effective mass than the other versions.) Anyway, here I am speculating about stuff I do not own and probably never will own.

Timeltel, You suggest that low output MM cartridges lack "texture", I think is what you wrote. But I am here to tell you that the 980LZS in the Kenwood L07J tonearm has remarkable ability to convey musical texture. In fact, that is its forte, IMO. I am listening alternately to the Acutex LPM320 in a Dynavector tonearm and the Stanton in the L07J. The former cartridge puts the spotlight front and center on the central performance. The latter one casts perhaps a wider soundstage and brings the collateral supporting artists into a wider, paler light. The feel is like that of lying down on a comfortable divan to enjoy music at leisure. This is all about texture, I think.
Hi Timeltel, yes indeed - also I have read references to a paper Ortofon put out in the late 70's or early 80's about their "Ortophase" methodology, theory etc...
But so far I have not been able to find a copy.

The trouble with using resonance to correct frequency response is that it messes with phase. This clearly applies to both electrical and mechanical resonance (circuit of capacitive cables / inductive cartrive, and Cantilever/suspension respectively).

The graphs in that Article clearly demonstrate it - the phase non linearity is always associated with a resonant peak - it either coincides with it, or begins with the resonant peak and then gets worse with increasing frequency.
In most cases the resonant peaks seem to be a design choice linked to Frequency Linearity at the expense of phase.

I found the TK6 on fleabay - it was delivered to me with an AT102p conical fitted...

Didn't think that this would be indicative of its performance - choices out there came down to either AT150MLx or 440MLa.... given that I didn't know what its "sound" was like, I couldn't justify the cost of the 150.... so the 440 it is!

It arrived a little over a week ago but I havn't had a chance to listen to it enough to characterise it.

I'm still working on the phono / loading side of things before I get back to listening....
Dear Raul,
please test the FR at continuous 95db SPL at seat position with around peaks on the 102db for at least 20-30 minutes and see what " happen "
Can't do this Raul and stay healthy. My wife would put her favourite cleaver to good use.
I listen at an average 85-90dB with peaks up to 96dB. Going up to 102dB is only possible when she's out and that isn't happening due to health reasons?
Regards
Received my FR-5 cartridge from Japan yesterday and have been listening to it all day in the Orsonic headshell on the FR-64s tonearm with the Victor TT-81.
Whilst its sound is similar to the FR-6SE, to me it is hardly a 'refinement'?
What the FR-6SE does, the FR-5 does 'more'......but not necessarily in a good way.
The luscious mid-range and bass of the FR-6SE is exaggerated even more so in the FR-5 to the point of being 'unbelievable'?
The treble performance from about 2K Hz upwards also rolls off so that the total presentation is the complete opposite of any MC cartridge and in fact most other cartridges I have ever heard.
Now it is not unpleasant....in fact it's totally intriguing.....but it's also not 'real'?
It is useful to play 'hot' LPs, for instance 'Dusty in Memphis' and 'Heavy Weather' by Weather Report which I find slightly 'brittle' and 'sharp' in the upper registers. These LPs become most enjoyable through the FR-5.
Does that mean it's good as a "tone control"?
You bet......but aren't all our different cartridges an exercise in 'tonality'?
So to these ears the FR-6SE is a superb refinement of the FR-5 and gets the important things right.
Can we really ask much more of a cartridge?
Funny, I seem to be gravitating the other direction at the monment.

Due to me borrowing a ESC rebuild of a Linn Troika, I had to move my main MC phono in order to play my Linn/ARO with the Troika. This was my ultimate table/cartridge combo in 1988. Sounds wonderful, except not much bass at the moment. It's only had a few hours on it, so it may get better in the bass.

I then had to use a Ortofon MC step up transformer to use my XV-1 on the Phantom. Guess what, I really like the sound the transformer is giving. Really great synergy. Yes Raul, sacrilage and anti sematic I know

Bottom line in my system, outside my Technics EPC 100 Mk4, I mostly prefer MC cartridges. Not that there is anything wrong with MM's.

back to you your normal programming and MM cartridge of the month review :-)
Dear Halcro: Usualy I listen at 83db-84db but when I'm testing my system or a " new " item/cartridge I always make two tests: I heard at around 76db on SPL ( continuous at seat position. ) and at around 95db.

The latest one give you very clear the distortion levels of that item/cartridge and at the same time shows you different " errors/unaccuracies " of that same item that at normal SPL you almost can't be aware of it. Btw, almost all could sound " decent " at 84db: but how good is an item or even your system at a SPL continuous/seat position 76db and 95db with recordings that more or less has a good average SPL over the recording ( I mean with out " piannisimos ". ) ?

IMHO the 5 has lower distortions than the 6se and maybe that's what you are hearing.

This morning I returned both cartridges is not useful for me following on listen tests wwith cartridges that IMHO and in my system does not shows something " interesting " or something that can motivate more listening time, enough for me and as Downunder posted I have to keep walking with the cartridges of the month.

Next post: Signet freaks.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Regards, Dlaloum: "In most cases the resonant peaks seem to be a design choice linked to Frequency Linearity at the expense of phase". Exactly.

"If a particular range is dissimilar to others, there is then a lack of continuity. This phenomena can be described as an anomally. It makes no difference how it's achieved, elimination of these anomallies is the imperative. Once effected, the outcome is a correctly balanced configuration. A...(cartridge)... capable of tonal accuracy and realistic harmonic blending is said to be correctly voiced." Tools and technology are in place, how well done is another matter.

Lew: Your 980LZS is legendary. Lucky you, you braggart!

In retrospect, this must have had the appearance of the dreaded blanket statement. Mea maxima culpa. I understand the 980LZS is a privileged experience but does (looking for some wiggle room here) require additional gain from somewhere. Please excuse the oversight.

Regarding texture/color/accuracy, compare a Shure M44e (9.5mv) or one of the high output Empires (108 @ 8mV, the 2000E, 9.3mV), perhaps one of the contemporary Orto. "Club" carts, up to 11mV, to nearly any of less than 3.5mV. I think you get the drift.

Peace,
I searched long and hard for that 980LZS, just out of curiosity and because of its exotic nature. I got this in very used condition off eBay. Sadly, I had a chance to buy an NOS D98S stylus for it, but I procrastinated due to the cost and lost it to someone else. The original stylus did not fit firmly to the cartridge body; it's only held in place by friction. So I took a small elastic band and slipped it over both the body and the stylus assembly, so the two are firmly held together, and I imagine this also dampens some resonances. Works great. Just found an NOS Pickering D7500S stylus for it, which will have to do. But now I feel no compulsion to change immediately to a new stylus. The original is good to go so far. I really like it; Raul is not so fond of LZS, prefers the HZS version, which I would love to try too.
Regards, Lew: "So I took a small elastic band". Suggest an upgrade to audiophile grade duct tape.

Peace,
I searched long and hard for that 980LZS, just out of curiosity and because of its exotic nature. I got this in very used condition off eBay. Sadly, I had a chance to buy an NOS D98S stylus for it, but I procrastinated due to the cost and lost it to someone else. The original stylus did not fit firmly to the cartridge body; it's only held in place by friction. So I took a small elastic band and slipped it over both the body and the stylus assembly, so the two are firmly held together, and I imagine this also dampens some resonances. Works great. Just found an NOS Pickering D7500S stylus for it, which will have to do. But now I feel no compulsion to change immediately to a new stylus. The original is good to go so far. I really like it; Raul is not so fond of LZS, prefers the HZS version, which I would love to try too.
by some weirdness the above post was posted twice. Dunno how I did that.
Elastic band is better because it is easily reversible and because it applies a steady pressure on the junction between cartridge body and stylus, whereas with tape I am not sure I could do it. There would be too much danger of fouling the stylus. But you're joking of course.

That's one thing that bugs me about all MM cartridges. The most important interface, between the stylus assembly and the body, is often a perilous contact point. Maybe I should market those small elastic bands under the Harmonix brand for $100 each.
Lew, what would you say to a silicon adhesive? One that does not harden and form a permanent bond so the stylus could be removed when necessary. It would require careful application to avoid any contact with the shank entering the cartridge body.

I don't have much experience with them so cannot offer a specific suggestion.
I am happy with the elastic band. I don't think twice about it. But I suppose silicon adhesive would work, albeit it would leave a permanent mess that a putative next owner might not like. If someone wants to try it, I would love to hear about it. Only a few cartridges, e.g., the Stantons and the Pickerings, are amenable to this precaution, I was thinking. You can't do it with my Acutex, for example, because there is neither a place to put the elastic band safely so it won't foul the stylus assembly (and tear it off), nor a mating surface where you could apply adhesive with no fear of collateral damage.
Hi Raul,

re: Listening levels

My own observations are that the Level dependency is very speaker related...

Some speakers need to be driven to a certain level before the details (in the recording) start to become apparent. - I used to have a pair of Klipsch Forte's that just wouldn't strut their stuff with a 100w amp, but with a 200W amp, and given a LOT of "stick" they were impressive...

Boston A400's didn't need the high powered amp as much (100W was OK) but they didn't wake up until a certain volume level was reached.

Quad Electrostatics on the other hand were quite the opposite - the challenge was making the environment sufficiently quiet - the micro and macro detail was always there, even at the very lowest volume levels... but sometimes obfuscated by environmental noise (aircon, footsteps, cars passing in the street etc...).
Sure you could turn them up - but the detail was there from the very lowest volume levels.

Hence my next question - what kind of speakers are you using, and how do they respond at various levels?

Another speaker related issue - I found the electrostatics were always capable of providing detailed insight into the music and the recording space regardless of the complexity of the music itself (eg: large symphonic crescendo's)... my current Gallo Ref3.2's are very good but don't quite match the Quads (they had to vacate the premises due to WAF / Lifestyle issues.... but I hope to find a way to have ESL's again in the future).
I believe the difference may in fact be related to phase coherence of the speaker.
And it may in fact be impossible with some speakers to identify phase related cartridge/stylus variations as the speakers themselves become the limiting factor.

I would suggest that Headphones are the ideal phase coherent simple and economical solution.... it is far far cheaper and easier to build a good set of headphones than a good set of speakers.... and the cost / performance ratio of headphones to speakers is more than 10:1. (ie: a pair of Headphones will on average outperform a pair of speakers costing 10 times more.... ) In fact the cost performance ration between HP's and Speakers is probably around 50:1.

So rather than pushing SPL levels up in a search for additional detail - the simpler solution is to get a good set of Headphones.... They are a far more effective tool for critical listening. (Also tends to eliminate microphony issues!)

bye for now

David
David,
Having owned Quads and have active speakers now, I can relate to your comment regarding phase issues. Phase coherence is very important to me. While my speakers are very dynamic and effortless, I have listened often at very low volumes with great enjoyment. The key with that is what you said about low ambient noise.
Dear Timeltel and all: I finished using the AT 1503 tonearm and the MG-10 headshells for all " four " cartridges: 5e, 155LC and TK10ML2. Halcro, as you point out, as with the 20SS these cartridges does not likes the G-940.

I will be briefly on what I experienced through these cartridge tests through not so brief tests:

the 5e is more an " entry level " on the MM/MI world that any other thing to say but " things " change when used with the 155LC stylus that's a totally different " stylus replacement ". What seems to me the 5e take it?, well it take several quality performance characteristics from the AT 155LC cartridge but mainly clarity/openess/HF definition/transient speed and perhaps lower distortion with a solid low end but not with the clarity and definition that shows at the other frequency extreme. All in all very good quality performance that in some ways is more appealing than the AT155LC it self.
What I miss from the AT155 LC is that the Signet freak does not shows the same layering definition level and the lower bass coloration that the 155LC has.

Both cartridges near in its performance and maybe a choice on it dependent on each one priorities and audio system " signature ".

The Signet TK10ML3 IMHO is in other " row/ladder step " atop the freak and the AT155LC. It is not only a more whole refined cartridge but with a more natural performance with a top to bottom tonal balance/color hard to criticize.
Each frequency range as each quality performance " parameter " in the 10ML3 is better than in the freak and 155LC.

Here we have to take in count that all these cartridges have different output level and for a comparison we need to approach even output level for all.

The TK10ML3 is at least in the same league than the Acutex LPM 315 where the freak and the AT can´t approach.

I made comparison against the Acutex because you ( Timeltel ) posted ( correct me if not. ) that the freak was at the same Acutex level performance ( maybe the audio system limitation factor level preclude that the Acutex can't shows its complete grandiosity. ) and IMHO it is not, there are " severe " differences. I think that the TK10ML3 and the Acutex are at least two steps further that the 155LC and the Signet freak on quality performance level but we have to think here that we are talking of the very top quality performance level.

Like with the FRs these tests were very good experience.
Btw, the other cartridge that I had at the moment as a reference was the Sonus Dimension 5 that is mounted on the Grace tonearm with a Technics headshell, I'm hearing this latest Prichard cartridge design for at least three weeks: great great performer!.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Regards, Raul: Very well considered post, perhaps the most significant statement: "I made comparison against the Acutex because you ( Timeltel ) posted ( correct me if not. ) that the freak was at the same Acutex level performance ( maybe the audio system limitation factor level preclude that the Acutex can't shows its complete grandiosity." The following is offered as neither applogy or argument, you hear what you hear and having followed this thread since it's inception, I respect your opinion.

In reviewing the given fr for the Acutex LPM 315-111STR, there is a 2-3 dbl drop between 20-30hz and again from 3 to 10k. This, the tri-magnet design, the particular stylus and titanium cantilever would largely account for the marvelous sense of presence found in the 315. With the 320 stylus, response is nearly ruler flat, other than a corresponding (2db.) drop between 3 & 10k. Perhaps it is a phenomena related to system performance but I hear a very slight muddiness in the bass with the 315, very well compensated for by the previously mentioned presence. I think these are the qualities you found objectionable in your audition of the FR carts, the same ones another found enjoyable.

This is where this sort of comparison becomes difficult, and the reason for my hesitance to recommend ANY audio related component. Specifications for my antique gear, a thing frequently refered to:

At 270 watts RMS, THD no more than 0.03%, at 135 watts, -0.02%.
IMD at 135 watts RMS, -0.01%, at one watt, -0.006%.
Freq. Resp 5-100k, +0, -1db. Noise (short-circuited), -120db.
Turntable is another "oldie", as is the tonearm, a Techniques SP-15 with a EPA-250 TA. Speakers are four Paradigm Signature S4's, beryllium tweeters, fr (+- 2 dbl) from 35-45k, each on Atacama stands filled with a mix of lead shot and kitty litter.
A correctly voiced (and integrated at 60hz) DSP active sub at the foot of each.
Altogether, a fairly accurate and distortion-free outfit, just at the edge of clinical. With fourty-five years of involvment in audio, I'm fairly certain deviation from the signal is slight.

OK, in visiting your "virtual system" and through following the comments made in this and other threads, it is evident much care has been taken with performance and you are certainly entitled to a great degree of pride in this. I am, however, somewhat reminded of a friends' rig, $150,000 in Mac monoblocks, ClearAudio TT, Wilson/Puppy speakers, etc. If tubed IC's were available, he'd have them too. The outcome is bloated bass, garbled mids and hf's lacking definition. This is of course, my opinion, he thinks it's all good. None-the-less, he is welcome to his opinion "just listen to the power of that bass!" In this sense, your comment "the Acutex can't shows its complete grandiosity" possibly does reflect system differences but under no circumstances would I trade system performance (with my friend).

Please be mindful the above "over the top" rig is another's, but serves as a reminder that what appeals to one, another may find questionable. Just as with the Signet cartridges. If ten individuals find a thing pleasing and agree as to reason why, but another finds objection then does it stand to reason that the ten are trodgdolytes, we can't all be true sommeliers of sonics.

By the way, I do find the TK5/155lc superior to the Acutex 315 in accuracy, soundstaging, hf extension, retrieval of low level detail and particularlly in the ability to bring distinction to bass transients and decay. The Acutex 320 shares these characteristics with the TK5/155cl as compared to the 315 stylus. My comment was that the TK5/155lc and Acutex 320 were comparable, different voices but each has it's own merits. The Acutex 315-111STR continues to stand above all in terms of presence, "grandiosity". I personally prefer the 320.

I'm enjoying a TK7lca currently, there is an ambient air about it neither the TK5/155lc or the Acutex 315 exibit. IMHO it is the equal of and possibly (depending on all the above) the superior of the Acutex LPM 320-111STR.

All appropriate honor, Raul, as the originator and guardian of this thread, now into it's third year. Happy anniversary, 01-15-08. Your labor and skills are great, please accept that the exchange of opinion, experience and knowledge are some of the most valuable assets to this thread and it's understandable that from time to time, these may differ. Overall, I agree. It's a system thing.

Peace,
Hi Timeltel, Raul,

could you guys please post... 1) The load capacitance of your phono stage and cables (total capacitance), 2) The Impedance/Resistance load used in the configuration, 3) The Inductance (and if possible resistance) spec of the cartridges tested...

LuckyDog on VE has posted a useful modeling spreadsheet which allows one to display the theoretical electrical response of a phono system given the above variables. (we are still working through ironing out the bugs in the model)

I strongly believe that (as per Timeltel's comments) perceived differences and subjective responses to cartridges/needles are primarily driven by F/R non linearities.

It would be interesting to graph the theoretical electrical response of the cartridges discussed - and then compare that response to the subjective listening responses.

Also the electrical response is independent of the stylus used - the stylus then adds into the mix a mechanical response.... the biggest drivers being 1) Stylus minor radius (Frequency Response and Distortion) and 2) Cantilever/Suspension design (phase response and frequency linearity driven by mechanical resonance)

This is also particularly interesting when you start hybridising the cartridges by mixing styli - the E-Response is identical, but the M-Response varies.... gaining an understanding of this interaction may be achievable with this type of testing.

Finally you cannot compare Cartridge / Stylus performance without the full loading parameters for that configuration, as the loading makes a HUGE difference to the F/R and hence to the tonality of the setup. (Regardless of the rest of the system... including tonearm/table)

Referring to High Fidelity Magasine's review of the "recently released" (1978) ADC ZLM cartridge...:
The ZLM appears to be a little fussy about its loading - as are many other fine cartridges. Feeding a high quality feedback-equalized phono stage with no provision for custom capacitive loading (and an unknown input capacitance), the unit sounds like a first-rate phono cartridge; loaded correctly and isolated from undersirable interaction by a buffer stage, the ZLM is simply superb.
(Article then proceeds to wax lyrical about the ADC ZLM ...)

Like I have said before - this setup sensitivity probably is what killed high end MM/MI...

Understanding how to best set these beasties up for optimal performance is therefore the key to unlocking their "Joys of Vinyl".... you might call it the Kama Sutra of Analogue....
The "Vinyl Sutra".

I would happily post some of the performance graphs from my own tests - but I don't see that there is a place for it on this forum....

bye for now

David
Raul,
Following on from the Professor's restrained repost to your Signet analyses, I find that you prefer the Signet TK10ML to the TK5/155LC?
Here is my reaction to the TK10ML
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.
It seems that system compatability and taste are rendering any recommendations on this thread a little meaningless?
You love the AT20ss and the TK10ML.....and I will soon be placing these on EBay hoping that others are listening to you?
Regards, Dlaloum: You left a message? Too much going on with the numerous r/m influences for an exact accounting. In broad strokes, output impedance 500-700 ohm, 100-200pF cap. 700-1200 ohm, 200-300pF. 1200-3xxx ohm, 300-400pF(+). In the good ol' days, the in-betweens were achieved with various IC's, except they were called patch cords back when. Next you dialed in some resistance & bumped the hf's, yes you did. Now there's that pesky "watershed" effect slopeing from the center of the increased frequency peak, oopsie!

And then, bonded styli, cantilever damping, boundary resonances, effects of mechanical ringing up and (suspect but cannot substantiate) down the harmonics, the unwanted sum and difference frequencies of the original frequencies spawned by those rascally intermodulations, got to find a fix for that too. Yada---.

Lotsa' luck. Be sure to post a link when conclusions are reached.

Peace,
Dear Timeltel/Halcro: IMHO a main difference between the Signet freak, the 155LC and the TK10ML3 is on the " I'm here "/cartridge presence factor level:

IMHO the freak has the higher level where the 155LC is in between and the ML3 is the one where there is almost nothing between you and the music.

Yes differences in audio systems makes always a difference: a difference that I think is not like night and day ( I mean all of us are experienced music lovers with full understanding of what that means. ) but more related on that limitation performance factor level that at the " end of the day " means: different resolution level, different distortions ( any kind ) level and different accuracy level, even different system set up level.

About the 20SS you posted that the Grace and MS tonearms are a bad couple for the AT cartridge but this means only that: that those tonearms are not well suited for the 20SS and that's all.
Right from the first moment ( years ago ) I posted in the main thread explanation the 20SS troubles I had with and on the official review you can read under which environment and tonearm I reviewed and yes I like it.

About the ML3 seems to me that you did not found out what to made/make for that great cartridge can shows you its real very high quality performance. I have to say that this one too is not an easy cartridge either but when you finally are " there " you just enjoy music with out nothing in between.

Good that you will put on sale both cartridges because maybe some other persons could enjoy them in a better way that you did not.

Maybe other factor that we have to take in count is that we are talking about quality performance level on vintage cartridges that were builded 30-40 years ago and that the majority of them we bought it second/third hand so differences on cartridge performance could be/happen only because of that.
I have 4-5 samples of the Ortofon 20 FL/E Super and even that all have the Ortofon signature no one performs exactly the same in the same set up. This is only one example where I have other ones.

Dlaloum, I will give you my answer about your questions on the system SPL listening as soon is possible.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Halcro: Btw, other than in this thread and because is more easy to find out you can read in the 20SS review what Dgarretson posted.

In VE there are more 20SS owners that really enjoy the cartridge high quality performance.
I'm not promoting nothing with this AT cartridge only an opinion.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Regards, Raul: Your comments concerning the AT20ss- just out of curiosity, I checked the VE cart. database, output is 2.7mv. As is the AT15. Also recently mentioned was the TK10ML-111, 2.2mv.

Now I'm curious.

The Empire 4000D-111, 3.0mv.
Grace F9-E, 3.5mv.
Acutex 315-111STR, 3.5mv.
Grado Amber Tribute, 1.5mv.
AKG P100LE, 2.75mv.
Tech. 100c M4, 1.2mv.
205c-111, 2.0mv.

Hmmm.

FR 5E, 5.0mv.
FR6E, 7.0mv.
Elac varies, but all are from 5.0-8.0mv.
AT150, 4.0mv.
Signet TK5e, 4.7mv.
Grace F9-L, 5.5mv.

The first group of cartridges, you find pleasing, the other you relegate to cartridge perdition.

Is there is a pattern emerging and has it to do with cartridge output?

Just wondering if you had given this thought. Is there something awry with your phono pre?

Hmmm.

Peace,
Hi Raul, Thanks for the reminder. I have a new wand made of ultra-lite balsa wood carbon fiber composite with several adjustable brass weights at each end to vary effective vertical mass. I'm going to remount AT20SS to this wand and see what results.
Timeltel, Now that's interesting. Could you suggest what's necessary for a phono stage to accommodate those higher output MM? Mine is 48db gain with 300-1500mV headroom, which should not be untypical.
Dear Timeltel/Raul,
The first group of cartridges, you find pleasing, the other you relegate to cartridge perdition.
Very interesting indeed.........?
Timeltel....

an observation - usually lower voltage cartridges also have lower inductance. (more coils = more inductance and more voltage)

Lower inductance leads to more extended frequency response especially with low Capacitance.

AND if the electrical resonance is moved further out (preferably outside the audio zone ... ie above 20kHz) then you also get massively improved phase linearity.

I have been hunting out there for a stylusless AT150ea - why the older "ea" model? Because it has lower inductance than the later model (and along with that, chances are that the voltage is lower too...)

So it might also be worth having a comparative audition of an AT150ea vs an AT150MLX - they can "share needles" - and I believe Raul is likely to prefer the ea to the MLX.

There are other similarly interesting variances...
AT10/11/12 all have higher inductance and voltage, but the AT12Sa has lower voltage and inductance.... that's the TOTL model in that range...
Dlaloum touches on an interesting point that I had never fully appreciated but is obvious. In an MM cartridge, the coils reside in the cartridge body and stay with that body no matter what stylus "upgrade" one might employ. Therefore, would it not be true that when one puts, for example, an AT20SS stylus on an AT14Sa body (just using a random example of a lesser AT cartridge), one might not be getting the full benefits of "AT20SS sound", because the coils in an AT14Sa (assuming it is higher in output; I don't know) would impart a higher inductance than what one might get when mating AT20SS body and an AT20SS stylus? I would be interested to know what Dlaloum and Timeltel think about this. Many of us seem to be randomly mating cartridge bodies and styli, as long as they will fit together; this might not have a predictable outcome.
***02-11-11: Dlaloum
Timeltel....

an observation - usually lower voltage cartridges also have lower inductance. (more coils = more inductance and more voltage)

Lower inductance leads to more extended frequency response especially with low Capacitance.

AND if the electrical resonance is moved further out (preferably outside the audio zone ... ie above 20kHz) then you also get massively improved phase linearity.***

Correct me if I am wrong, but is this not a description (partial) of MC cartridges, and their claimed advantages?
Regards, All: First things first, there is no doubt in my mind that our thread father's phono pre is absolutely TOTL, there are times when a "sense of humor" do not transcribe well on the 'net, none the less, there is a real consideration with cartridge output matching the sensitivity of "phono in".

From a post, 1-20-11:

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.

Under these conditions, it is likely that one who enjoys the weight and body of a higher output cartridge would not find one with lesser output as satisfactory, or reflecting the most recent examples, the Signet TK10/2.2mv as compared to the TK5ea. As such, different listeners, dependent on the gear, might compare the TK7LCa to the TK7e (4.7mv vs. 2.7mv) and have entirely different opinions, one finding the lower output TK7"e" superb and the 7"ea" congested. Or, the next, again dependent on the gear, the lower output "e" lacking depth whereas the "ea" exibits greater vitality. Fill in all the "Audiophile" terms as you wish.

Raul, you constantly refer to the condition of "system dependent", in this you are totally correct and is a frequently underappreciated factor when making these comparisons.

Again, appreciation expressed for your energy and determination in puruit of excellence but I'm reminded of the admonition "The nice thing about standards is there are so many of them".

Peace,
Regards, and a correction, dyslexia and I are old friends. The refered to post should have read 1-02-11, not 1-20-11.

Dlaloum, Lew(m), either of you care to speculate if compliance, or the range of "stroke" of the magnets relative to the coil's poles with alternate styli, effects output?

Frogman, Dlaloum posted a link to an Orto. publication from ?1983? last week, in it you will find more information related to this subject than I can relate in a reasonable usage of band width.

Dgarretson: Good question. In this instance, the reference is to phono section input sensitivity in mv. relating to cartridge output.

Ya'll have fun with this.

Peace,

PS, wireless connection is acting up, if double posted, please excuse.
Dear Timeltel: +++++ " Any audio system has limitations ( many kind. ) and is this limitation system factor the one that permit or preclude to " hear things " or hear things at different quality level.

Your system as my system and other people system has lower or higher limitation factor level and this factor makes differences.

I don't know you or other persons here but if it is true that I take every single opinion very seriously and that I give the right importance to all opinions it is true too that I always analyze the " environment/stage " that surrounded/surround that single person opinion, including my opinions! " ++++++

that's what I posted and when I'm refering to " system dependent " is right to this SYSTEM LIMITATION FACTOR LEVEL ( SLFL ).

What you, other or me like it is not under discussion. IMHO almost all the persons that posted/post in this thread and several that read it but not post/posted are experienced music lovers with differences not on what they like it on the intrinsic meaning of MUSIC but more on score performances kind of level, I mean ( an example on classic music. ) you could like more a same score performance made under Solti direction than under Barenboim or you can like it more the woodwinds section performance level on the Berliner Philharmonihc than in the Viena one but these differences are not really a intrinsic MUSIC perception differences that can/could change our each one overall MUSIC meaning, I try to say that that does not change our perception of how a violin or double bass sounds ( intrinsic sound. ) and its instrument color performance ( as Frogman point out. ).

So for me and due that almost all of us are experienced music lovers what we heard in our system set up and the differences against what other person heard/hear through his system is mainly because that SLFL.

+++++ " Yes differences in audio systems makes always a difference: a difference that I think is not like night and day ( I mean all of us are experienced music lovers with full understanding of what that means. ) but more related on that limitation performance factor level that at the " end of the day " means: different resolution level, different distortions ( any kind ) level and different accuracy level, even different system set up level. " +++++

that too is what I posted somewhere and that maybe we need to re-read.

I can hear/heard in my system what the SLFL permit to hear/heard.
If for example my system frequency range performance goes between 50hz and 10khz it is obvious that I can't hear almost nothing out of that frequency range or at least I can't hear it in a precise way, so my opinions will be under my very specific SLFL environment.

What happen when I read other person opinion that is way different from mine? my first question is not if I'm right or he is wrong but: why he is hearing what he posted? which is the SLFL against mine? ( it is a little more complex than this but it is only an example .)

I'm not worried because you like it so much those Signets freaks against what I like/perceive in my system about the other cartridges I compared against the freaks.

The answer is way simple: your system and my system have way different SLFLand that's all.

I don't think that you think your system is perfect. I know mine it is not and I know too its limitations.

How conscious we are of those systems limitations help to understand in better way other people opinions. I always like to put " things " in the " right "(?) context before give an opinion.

I don't like to speak on other person SLFL but I will do as an example of what I'm saying ( please take it in good shape, I know that anyone that " touch " in any way our beloved audio system could " hurt " us: this is not the purpose in this post. ):

maybe you could think that I'm unaware on your SLFL but lucky I'm: I'm not, things are that in that old times I was in love with Pionner.

I owned a full Pionner system with these items: integrated SA-9800, PL-630 TT and HPM-900 loudspeakers. A good entry level system for those no-high end times.

I was really proud on that system with my friends. Those speakers were good ones and when I seen in the Dady's Disco in Copenhagen ( four of them at the cealing on the dance floor/place. ) my proud goes to " heaven ": I can't belived!!"! ( you know what I mean?. ).

The PL-630 is still working in my brother's system and the speakers/SA-900 in a friend's home system.

I heard your SX that has the same phono stage than the SA. My dream in those years was to own the SPECS separate but I never had that kind of money ( but I heard it several times at dealer room. ) even I can't afford the very good Sansui items.

For today standards IMHO the SLFL in the SX/SA Pionner items is really high.

In those times existed a strong " war " between Japanese audio electronics manufacturers: Pionner, Sansui, Kenwood and the like where IMHO the main targets were on specs and item facilities ( how many " things " the item can do and how many " things/items " you can connect to that item. ) even led colors and how many " lights " the item has.

IMHO the take care on design was left as a second side, all of these audio items were full of ICs ( including your SX and my SA. ), poor layouts, passive and active parts that shows low level quality performance and where the most important target was on the item final price target to compete.

These kind of items were not the Japanese high end designs but only the commercial ones to make the more money they can.

I know your Paradigm too, so in some way I know more or less why you posted and post what you did and do.
In the other side unfortunately ( you are welcome any time to do it. ) you don't know what I'm hearing.

As a whole I think that any of our systems ( any one. ) can/could give us at least a 70% to 80% of the 100% quality performance that could be achieved in a " perfect " system: a system with CERO SLFL.

The remaining/remained 20% is all about high end quality performance level.
This 20% is what really makes the systems differences and the main factor on our each one opinions.

This IMHO is not what I like it but what I hear/heard it because we like what we have ( yes all of us want to improve what we have. ) even if it is not what we really want it as a final achievement.

Timeltel, I'm not trying to dimish your system and what you hear through it I only want to put things in context. As always this is only an opinion and of course exist always ( too ) the possibility that I can be wrong.

Btw, nice history on your friend tube 100K audio system.

By separate I will give the other answers/thoughts about input/output cartridge level and how the phonolinepreamp handle it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Raul - thank you .... sometimes a bit of a reality check is required! I still recall with fondness my first "stereo" of Rotel Integrated, Radio Shack speakers and pioneer PL-320... I must say though that my first experience of high end, was with a pair of Headphones (Radio Shack - AKG OEM)... it was many years later that I purchased my first Electrostatics and managed to achieve a similar level of performance without headphones.

Timeltel - excellent point! - I had not considered the impact of compliance on stroke length, which in turn might affect the magnetics and result in increased output V.

I'll have a browse through some cartridge specs for any empirical info on compliance vs voltage taking into account inductance. (ie for a fixed inductance does V increase with compliance?) Empirical research is also of course limited by the fact that most cartridges were not sold with multiple styli - and comparing differing styli is difficult as the cantilever/pivot point length differs, and therefore stroke length would differ (regardless of compliance).

But I may ask someone who is more of a physicist - as there should be some means of calculating this - and it would be worthwhile understanding the "orders of magnitude" involved.

I do note that the same cartridges we have been discussing are either Quad or descendants of Quad cartridges, and that the Quad era, also coincided with the Ultra-Low-Mass / High Compliance Era.... Is this a coincidence? Or a link?

I think one of the difficulties in running many of these cartridges today is arm matching - the ongoing popularity of med/high mass arms means that many people have a setup that just doesn't suit these cartridges.

I recently picked up an ADC cartridge which I suspect to be a SuperXLM (based on its very low inductance - it is unlabelled) - I also have a virgin SuperXLM shibata stylus.... but with a compliance of 40 (!!) it really is a mismatch for my JVC QL-Y5F arm. (even with the servo damping... I am concerned about a resonant frequency of around 5Hz!!!)

Suits my Revox ULM arm very well mind you ... just fitting a cartridge is a PITA. (whereas fitting and aligning a headshell on the JVC is a quick and easy job - relatively)

In any case it is a perfect example of the genre - high compliance and low inductance, Shibata tip.... SuperXLM specs are 2mV and 3mV (Standard/Improved) - also consistent with the observations about low output.

bye for now

David
Raul, Apropos of your remarks about system differences, I know full well that I have all my audio life been aiming for the accurate reproduction of Jazz, to include especially vocalists, small combos, and big bands. I never think twice about opera or classical orchestral music (altho big band jazz makes near similar demands as compared to orchestra). Plus, long ago I fell in love with planar speakers, especially ESLs, and OTL amplifiers to drive them. (OTL tube amps are actually a bad choice to drive Maggies or any full-range ribbon, actually.) I am quite happy trying to maximize with my biases and preferences always in mind.
Lewm,

"I am quite happy trying to maximize with my biases and preferences always in mind." I think that is absolutely understandable.

Raul,

I think your points about SLFL are intriguing and well put. Maybe your levels of obsession are beyond most of us but - regardless of one's personal opinions - your commitment and experience-gained knowledge seem beyond repute.
I think anyone posting here is well up in the obsession stakes.... otherwise we would happily be listening to the 50,000 tracks we have on our iPhone through little Apple earplugs....
Audiophiles are by definition perfectionists..... just a happy bunch of obsessive compulsive music fans...

bye for now

David
Regards, Raul: Perhaps not all roads lead Rome but many do. Others may prefer alternative routes, the Appian Way is not the only approach to the great city nor is it a one-way street. "Opinion has caused more trouble on this little earth than plagues or earthquakes." Voltaire.

Dlaloum: "Stroke/compliance/output" was offered, the better phrase might have been "influence on cartridge response consequent to duration of stroke". Inductance and impedance are invariables. Duration and amplitude?

"The ear is the avenue to the heart".
Again, that rapscallion, Voltaire.

Peace,
Dear Lewm: Yes our MUSIC preferences is how we are biased and yes a Jazz full orchestra IMHO put similar system demands than big classical scores.

I never be a " fan " of ESLs till I heard Soundlabs ones and you know why: because IMHO it does not sounds as an ESL but as MUSIC.

The ones that own Guillermo ( close friend and tonearm co-designer ) like me a lot. I think it is the latest version first step down the top of today Soundlabs line. Curious, the Soundlab designer recommended him to mate it with the JC-1s.
Guillermo owned Halcro amps that works good with that ESLs but the " magic " belongs to the JC-1s match: no contest by Halcro ones.
OTLs?, I reserve my opinion about.

A short history:

one day I received a phone call from Guillermo who ask me to meet him at his home with out any precise additional information.
I go there and for my surprise ( other that its " monumental " size. )I saw his Soundlabs already " mounted " in his audio room. A surprise to me because 10 days before he had not these speakers.
Things are that he take a flight to Utha for listen these and other speakers ( Wilson. ) and been there by the Soundlabs designer's hand he bought it and take it under his " arms " and return with.

I asked why he decided for Soundlabs instead Wilson and other great speakers out there, he told me: " these speakers has the nearest sound to what I heard/hear in your system " and yes he is right and that's why I like it so much.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Timeltel: +++++ " The first group of cartridges, you find pleasing, the other you relegate to cartridge perdition.

Is there is a pattern emerging and has it to do with cartridge output?

Just wondering if you had given this thought. Is there something awry with your phono pre? " +++++

well I don't think that I " relegate to perdition " any cartridge yet.

IMHO the cartridge output level is almost irrelevant when you auditioned it to be aware of its quality performance level if you always work at the same system SPL that in my case is 84db at seat position.
I know that some phonolinepreamps shows different inaccuracies in frequency linearity response at different control volume position but this is not true in my electronics.

In theory as Dlaloum point out a lower output level in a cartridge means lower inductance and less wire from where the audio signal must pass through.
If in theory is important " on the road " things are not exactly the same.
Many LOMC advocates said that lower MC output cartridges sounds better than higher output ones and this is not totally true because if it is true that the XV-1s ( low output ) has an excellent quality performance level it is true too that cartridges with higher output like Clearaudio are great performers too.

IMHO the cartridge design, quality design execution and cartridge set up are the key for determine quality performance level in any cartridge.

In the other side, I raved on all these " high output " ( 4mv and up ):
Shure ML140HE, Sonus Dimension 5, AT ML180-OCC, Empire 600LAC, ADC 25, Astatic MF-200, Azden YM-P50VL.

Btw, no I'm sure there is nothing awry in my phonolinepreamp as you could think.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Hubris is a really good word. Going walleye fishing/hiking for several days, water still too cold to chance kayaking. All appropriate disclaimers, IMHO and gear dependent, but cold it definitely is. And wet. Just to a walleye's taste, and they, roasted over an open flame, to mine.

"Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence." Max Ehrmann.

Keep it in the groove,
David,

I only referred to "levels of obsession" and would not wish to deny anyone the label of obsessive.
Dear Timeltel: I forgot, the phono stage MM overload level in my electronics is 500mv that like in the Dgarretson gear it is not only an overkill value but a healthy/cool peace of mind in the subject.

I forgot too that I rave on my Elac cartridge as in the Empire 750 LTD both very good performers and both " high output " ones.

Btw, do you already heard or own a Micro Acoustics cartridge?, well after a long time I'm just listening to one of my Micro Acoustics cartridges, this time the 630MP and " a priori " it is a revelation for say the least, I will give it more playback time and will report about.

Next in line the Shure M140HE, I want to listen again.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Raul and Timeltel, just for the sake of mentioning it, at 5.0 mv output per channel the Empire 1000ZE/X is another a stout one that has been highly regarded in here ;) Regards, Jim.
Raul, I have never heard your speakers, of course, but they are so different in every way from a Sound Lab ESL that I am very surprised to learn there is a similarity in sound. Re solid state amplifiers: I have been involved in an extensive revision of my OTLs for the past several months. Finally, I could not stand to be without music, so after much research I bought a Parasound A21 stereo amp. The A21 is baby brother of the JC1s, the differences being stereo on one chassis vs monoblocks, separate power supplies for driver stage and input stage in the JC1 vs A21. Otherwise, the actual ss devices used in the two amps are identical with fewer output transistors in the A21. I can only say that the A21 does a fantastic job driving my Sound Lab spkrs, and if I were going to continue to use a solid state amp, I would go for the JC1s in a heartbeat. Meantime, the A21 must be the bargain of the century for what it does as compared to its modest cost. Still, I am very anxious to get back to my OTLs.
Dear Dean_man: Yes you are right. That along the Garrot P77 were raved here for several persons including me.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Lewm: Well some weekend where you have time take a flight to México city and I'm sure we can have a good and fun time.

Yes, the JC-1s are better than its price could " say ". Another friend has it matched with big Dynaudio Evidences and performs great.

Those Parasound were designed by John Curl.

Btw, one question that emerge here is: how is that can we get and buy this kind of high quality performance through amplifiers at that " low " price when other amplifier manufacturer designs charge you 10+ times that price for almost similar quality performance?.

Rgerads and enjoy the music,
Raul.