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 Lewm: Yesterday I gave a try to one of my SAEC headshells that comes with a metal O-ring and I made some tests against the same headshell but with rubber O-ring.
These was not an " in deep " tests with different cartridges but even that I prefer the rubber over the metal one, of course that this could change with other cartridges but at this time I don't have the time to go on.

As you said always there are trade-offs and each one of us choose or choosed what is near or what match our targets.

I assume you are not using any O-ring with your headshells, can I ask you if you can try the rubber O-ring and share with us your experiences about?

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Regards, Lew(m): Quite a quandry, isn't it. Apparently your previous post and mine were on the moderators' desk simultaneously. Your points precisely illustrate the source of my curiosity. Please try the comparison, you're an experienced listener and your input would be appreciated. I do entertain the concept that with various materials (or the absence of) interfacing the collet one might "fine tune" the headshell/cart to the tonearm.

Again, agree with Raul, it dosn't take long to decide. I too prefer the gasket in place. Will have the silver solder and wire this wknd, what an interesting investigation.

Grinned at your depiction of Sorbo. Squooshy it definitely is but it does do a good job of raising my isolation "device".

How goes your preamp rebuild?

Peace,
Guys, I have never done any experimentation with headshells. It is only a year or so that I have owned any tonearm with detachable headshell, which i used to consider an anathema and now consider a convenience. So, if the headshell came to me with a rubber gasket, I am using the rubber gasket. If not, not. I am using Dynavector headshells on the DV505, Kenwood L07J headshell on its tonearm. The Denon headshell also has a very thin gasket of some kind, probably not a rigid one.
Dear Raul and Professor,
I tried rubber gaskets on 3 of my arms with 3 different cartridges.
Little difference was found on most 'easy-listening' music but never did the rubber 'add' anything of value to my enjoyment.
However on the most demanding material.....fortissimo orchestral climaxes and well recorded forte bass notes of a concert grand piano, the 'rubber' equipped headshells simply distorted. And it weren't pretty :-(
I'm glad for you both that you find the rubber 'damping' attractive.......but this little camper is happy to find 'theory' and 'practice' coinciding in this instance.
Regards
Henry
Dear Halcro: As I posted mines were frist impressions.

I have in deeep interest about those distortions you talked and I would like that you can tell me ( appreciate that. I will try to duplicate as near is possible your experiences on the subject. ) with which cartridges/headshells and tracks on the LPs you experienced that distortions and if you can which kind of distortions ( I mean what you heard about that consider a distortion. ).

Thank you in advance.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Timeltel: Unfortunately I was busy the last 2-3 weeks with a " new " subject " that IMHO is a very happy discovery for me, I'm preparing a the information to start a new thread.

Due to that I don't test again that Shure one but as fast I can I will do it and report about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Regards, Halcro: O-ring "Nuded" headshells:

1: EPA-250 TA, magnesium headshell, yes.
1: three unidentified arms/headshells, no.
1: A strong first impression but more information needed.
1: In theory---.
1: Alternatives.

Situational or universal improvment, looks like a definite maybe.

Peace,
Dear Timeltel,
I know better than to argue with your ears.....or Raul's?
So I accept your conclusions without question :-)
Cheers
Henry
Does anyone know where one could find a Line Contact / Shibata stylus for an Azden YM-P20/P50 cartridge? (an original P50VL would be lovely...)

thanks
Regards, Henry: Sorry my friend, the cat is more easily let out of the bag than put back in.

Lew made some good observations about reflected resonance, the paper quoted above dealt with the intensification of resonance consequent to two undamped (similar) materials in association. The logic of both situations is obvious, proof of both are readily available with a little research, as is the probability that increased resistance from the fine gauge wire necessary for Litz configured headshell tags results in a noticeable effect on cartridge performance.

"The fraction of the window area occupied by copper in a litz-wire winding will be less than it could be with a solidwire winding. This leads to higher dc resistance than that of a solid wire of the same outside diameter." From IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 14, no. 2.

Litz wire.com-applications: "Simple twisted bunched conductor wire can accomplish this adequately where proximity effect would be the only significant problem with solid wire." And: From a table of application to DC frequencies, from "10 KHZ - 20 KHZ, 33 AWG" is sufficient to avoid skin effect, from "20 KHZ - 50 KHZ, 36 AWG."

Trusty ol' Wikipedia: "At 60 Hz, the skin depth of a copper wire is about 1⁄3 inches (8.5 mm). At 60 kHz, the skin depth of copper is about 0.01 inches (0.25 mm). With Litz bundling, the magnetic fields generated by current flowing in the strands are in directions such that they have a reduced tendency to generate an opposing e.m.f. in the other strands. The ratio of distributed inductance to distributed resistance is increased, relative to a solid conductor, resulting in a higher Q factor at these frequencies." In this example, critical damping (loading) is needed to ensure the fastest response (approach to the final value) possible without overshoot. For your reflection, a bell that rings forever has an infinite Q factor.

The boring details: In the past several years numerous headshells focusing on low mass magnesium designs have been obtained. Various replacment leads tried resulted in a preference for twisted (bunched) silver or thick copper tags. Curiousity led to a bit of research, the clips above reflect the gist.

No desire to become involved in a lengthy debate but this seems a matter deserving consideration. IMHO, antique gear, ears, etc. Emf, eddy currents and proximity effects in tonearm wiring are not being addressed.

Peace,
Timel, In the end, you just have to listen. There's too much conflicting scientific theory to make a decision based on it.
Dear Halcro: If you don't have time to tell us the whole " history " behind those distortions using the O-ring as I asked you I appreciate at last that you can post in which LPs/tracks you heard those distortions, could you?.
Of course that if you could post the whole " history " that's will great!.

Thank you in advance.

Henry, no other subject that make the same tests than you and see what happen.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Regards, Lewm: "In the end, you just have to listen. There's too much conflicting scientific theory to make a decision based on it."

Lew, with selective effort one can find references to "prove" nearly anything desired, but let's keep this under our hats. I'm having too much fun doing it ;-).

Meanwhile, those hearing the difference with either the o-ring present/removed or different headshell leadwire configurations and interested enough to do so are surely justified in seeking information as to why?

One of my favorites, (on terrorism) from former Sec. of St., Donald Rumsfeld:

“There are things we know we know about. There are things we know we don’t know. And there are things that are unknown unknowns. We don’t know that we don’t know.”

He got a lot of grief for that. When read carefully, it's absolutely brilliant.

Peace,
Regards, Timeltel - while I don't share D. Rumsfeld's political points of view, I nevertheless absolutely agree that his summary was indeed brilliant.
IMHO everything - every minor sonic change and effect - in audio can be related to physical circumstances and explained by careful scientific research and measuring.
After all - this is physics.
Fact is, that so far we know a few things which should give certain figures for sure. Problem is, that we still don't know all the tiny distributors to sound in audio reproduction - i.e. we still don't know all what we have to measure and are unsure about how to judge a few measuring results (regarding reception and reflection in the human brain and that strange complex thing we call "hearing").
But - apparently we know that we don't know.
Which is kind of progress .......
Cheers,
D.
Dear Raul,
I don't think you would have the albums which best illustrate the distortions I hear with the rubber gasket.
The most demanding and realistic concert grand piano music I have ever heard recorded is the Liszt Sonata h-Moll in B Minor by Daniel Barenboim on DG 2531 271.
When played at realistic volume levels (90-95 dB) this disc has had my neighbours leaning over their side and back fences applauding at the conclusion.
The lower bass octaves are so powerful, deep and resonant that this disc
will reveal any weaknesses in the analogue chain.
With the rubber in place, I can hear distortion in the lower bass notes which are not there without the rubber gasket.

The most convincing large-scale orchestral recording I have ever heard is
The World of Borodin-Symphony No 2 on Decca SPA.281.
This disc is more realistic and dynamic IMO than even the RCA Royal Ballet with Ansermet.
Again, on the massive lower fortissimo themes, there is distortion audible which is not there without the rubber gasket in place.

With the infamous Respighi Pines of Rome on RCA LSC-2436, the
piercing violin crescendos at the end of side 1, become brittle and screechy with the rubber (much like the performance of most LOMC cartridges) whilst without, they are clean and listenable.

Similarly on Harvest by Neil Young, the tracks Alabama and Words on
side 2 become muddied and annoying on the upper treble overloaded
overdubs with the rubber whereas without, they are bearable and
understandable.
And bear in mind that all these results are with high-compliance MM cartridges which do not put nearly as much energy into the headshells as
low-compliance LOMCs?

Hope this is of some help?
Cheers
Henry
Henry,

I know what you mean about the Barenboim. Have you tried the Gould (1981) recording of the Goldberg Variations? Also sublime and part of a response (along with reference to Milstein's (1975) recording of the Partita's) that I'm considering making on your 'nude' thread when I get a chance.
“There are things we know we know about. There are things we know we don’t know. And there are things that are unknown unknowns. We don’t know that we don’t know.”

More of Sgt. Schultz than brilliance in DM's remark, unfortunately for US history.

Whereas Sinatra is truly brillant:

To be is to do- Socrates
To do is to be- Sartre
Do be do be do- Sinatra

Bad mood due to my MM phono stage being down for repairs.
Dear halcro: Thank you. I have the Barenboim and the Respighi and I think I could find the Young and Borodin one ( I hope. )

Anyway, I will test what I have on hand as soon I can.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Regards, Dgarretson: Shirley you're not serious? Good luck with your phono stage.

Peace,
Thanks, Timeltel. Rummy is just an obfuscator, IMO. Why for a time the Inn across the street from his alma mater even removed his portrait from next to the Yankee Doodle mural.
Regards, Dgarretson: Begging the pardon of Raul/others for persisting in OT, a follow up. When you get to the mention of "Rummy", you'll ignore?

Dunning and Kruger report, "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments".[Cornell Univ., 1999.]

The source for the Rumsfeld quote, Dr. Dunning said: "perhaps the idea
would resonate with other people if they knew that it originally came
from the world of design and engineering rather than Rumsfeld. "I kept
wondering if (the) real problem was with the unknown unknowns; or was
it instead --- thinking that you know something that you don’t know. A
problem of hubris, not epistemology".

Canadian philosopher Bernard Lonergan mentions "unknown unknowns" as
early as 1959. Socrates did say: "And as for me, all I know is that I
know nothing". The sage, Rumsfeld(?), Lonergan, Dunning and Kruger;
Shultzie is in pretty good company.

Would it improve your humor if it was mentioned the D & K paper recieved Harvards' sometimes coveted "Ig Nobel Prize" for works that "make you laugh or make you think"?

Do be do be do,
Dear Halcro: I made some tests with the AT 20SS ( that's performing absolutely great!. ) mounted in a AT LS12 headshell in the 1503 tonearm, I don't have the time now to make more tests on other combinations.

Piano works were the Barenboim and the RR Nojima on the same score.

For Pines of Rome that RCA and the MF-UHQR with Maazel and the Cleveland Orchestra.

For " The most convincing large-scale orchestral recording I have ever heard is " I used the Telarc 1812.

Well, in my system all those recordings are listenable with and with out the rubber gasket even at 95db SPL ( not 90db. The range you posted in this regard is to wide and I don't think is precise, because the SPL differences at seat position is " enormous " between 90db and 95db and not only for your ears but for the system demands with those recordings. Could you confirm? ) continuos at seat position with peaks around 102db.

The main differences is that with out the O-ring the sound at both extremes has no " smear " in any way, the clarity is a lot better as is the precision and the speed on the transients, the bass has better pitch/precision with lower overhang that gives more " clarity " not only to the bass performance but the whole frequency range even the focus is thigther than with the gasket in and in general the quality performance acquire a better transparency/real level.

I made a mistake in my " first impressions " on the subject. You know that in all my audio tests I always made a test at high SPLs like the one I stated here and this time I did not and between other things that's why I posted " first impressions ".

Anyway, good to confirm that with out gasket is better, at least in your and my audio systems.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Raul,
It's good to read that we both hear the same things again :-)

The sound level I meant was a general 90dB with peaks of 95dB. Soft passages were down at 85dB.

Dgob, have not heard the albums you mention but will keep my eyes open.....thanks.

Cheers
Henry
Raul and all, first up I would like to thank you for your time and effort on this topic.
My only vintage tone arm so far with detachable head shell is the Micro Seiki 505s tonearm with MS 500 gram nut. Its still sitting in the box waiting to be installed on my Micro Seiki table.

As for vintage cartridges I have three, two Audio Technicas, one 155lc and a 20ss and one Empire, the 4000 D3 gold, all sitting just waiting to be installed.

Next is the purchase of some h
ead shells to try, though the Micro head shell maybe? fine. This is where I would appreciate some directions with this arm and the cartridges that I have.

Thank you so much.

Mark
Timeltel, Do you mean to say Rumsfeld read the book you mention, and did not realize how apt the title was with respect to his own work as our Secretary of Defense? Actually, there is no need to respond. Any humility you may see there is false.
Regards, Lewm: Great title, eh? Not a great fan of Rumsfeld either, please don't kill the messenger. "Rummy" seemed to be the "yes man" for two administrations (Ford & Bush), "Needless to say, the President is correct. Whatever it was he said." Current policy seems to be testing selective isolationism, experience with removing the headshell o-ring seems to be in the direction of cartridge/headshell integration with the tonearm with synergisim within a complex system the objective, over/under damping and resonance the usual suspects.

Is this relevent? "The low-level chaos of energy stored over whole bands of frequencies, not attached to discrete resonances, is heard as fuzz or lack of clarity---"for clean, pure, uncolored sustained tone, a (transducer) needs to have truly clean transient behavior in a much stronger sense. Listen to a boy soprano, and the resonances will stick out like sore thumbs." [REG, TAS issue 111 September/October 1997].

My Grace F9-L on a (2mm thick)7.5gm ADC mag. headshell is greatly influenced with the washer removed, clarity and definition at the extremes (as Raul notes) is improved, seperation and soundstage also. A TK7LCa on a vintage Nagoaka 8.5gm headshell (2.5mm, alu.) drifts towards the analytic. A TK9LCa (9.5 gm Lustre, mag.) is on the EPA-250 now. At the extreme reco. for total mass, haven't found any significant difference. The Lustre is 4mm thick above the cartridge and 5.75mm at the fitting, the TA's counterweight is at the extreme of adjustability.

It seems (IMHO) that with different headshells there would be varying amplitude of resonance in the sum and difference frequencies (re. REG's stored energy), this is a usable description of IMD and am still thinking it's situational. Lew, any meaningful input would be appreciated. Rumsfeld excluded.

D. R.: "The way to do well is to do well". Do be do be do. Well.

Peace,
Dear In_shore: Congratulations for those MM/MI cartridges that IMHO are all great ones.

The advantage with a removable headshell tonearm design like your MS is that you can use different build material/shape/weight headshells looking for the one that matchs better with the cartridge. In this sense you need to have 3-4 different headshells that could help you to achieve more easy that matched target.

Here are some from the same seller ( second hand. I own these AT ones and are good choice. As a fact I'm using rigth now the LS-12 with my beloved 20SS. ):

http://cgi.ebay.com/Audio-Technica-AT-LS10-Universal-Headshell-10-grams-/220754077179?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3365f7e5fb#ht_500wt_1156

http://cgi.ebay.com/Audio-Technica-AT-LS12-Universal-Headshell-12-4-grams-/220754075128?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3365f7ddf8#ht_500wt_1156

http://cgi.ebay.com/Audio-Technica-AT-MG10-Universal-Headshell-10grams-/320670854810?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4aa978ee9a#ht_500wt_1156

or new ones:

http://www.2juki.com/index.php?categoryid=2&p164_sec=9

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Raul, Do all 3 of the headshells you cited above follow the AT trick of providing three pairs of threaded holes on the bottom side (not shown in any of the photos), to allow for some adjustment of overhang? I bought one of the MG series, and while it is nicely built, I am wondering whether I will ever be able to use it except by luck, if there is one pair of threaded holes that just happens to give me correct overhang. I can't understand what they were thinking in this design. If they are used on an SME with the base that is adjustable for overhang, then OK. Otherwise, problems.
Dear Lewm: Actually AT does not leaves things at " random " ( like you say ), the MG10 has four pair of threaded holes that permit with any cartridge to make the right overhang set up, till today I did/do not found out any cartridge I can make the set up and yes a headshell with slots is more flexible.

The other two in those links comes with only two pairs threaded holes but with a mechanism that permit easily changes in overhang/azymuth for any cartridge.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Hey gents

Just picked up a vintage SS phono stage. Luxman E-06 from Japan 1987. 3 inputs 1x MM & 2xMC and build quality is sensational. see link to page and picture.

With all these vintage cartridges sound pretty good, I wondered if electronics really have improved that much in the last 25 years.

This is my first piece of SS for a while, but I think I have now got a handle of the differences between this and my tube units.

How does it sound, really good, more enjoyable than my previous SS units I have had in the rig, so I wonder if we have improved much in the last 25 years. Even thou my tube phono's are quiet, you can tell the difference when going to SS - queiter again.

This now gives me a valid sound alternative when listening to different cartridges and different music - might even put a few MM's back on the table other than the Technics EPC100 Mk4.

Anyone else tried any vintage amplification?


http://hifigallery.info/luxman/e-06/



http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5140/5515980025_8957488668_b.jpg>http://hifigallery.info/luxman/e-06/

[url]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5140/5515980025_8957488668_b.jpg


[url]http://lh5.ggpht.com/_KAWKLbJbd80/TRUbGsIFo3I/AAAAAAAAAK4/7dR0MwuxkSA/s720/IMG_2559.JPG

[url]http://lh5.ggpht.com/_KAWKLbJbd80/TRUbQtLhVeI/AAAAAAAAALI/h8FYRxWkfyQ/s720/IMG_2562.JPG>http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5140/5515980025_8957488668_b.jpg

[url]http://lh5.ggpht.com/_KAWKLbJbd80/TRUbGsIFo3I/AAAAAAAAAK4/7dR0MwuxkSA/s720/IMG_2559.JPG>http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5140/5515980025_8957488668_b.jpg>http://hifigallery.info/luxman/e-06/

[url]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5140/5515980025_8957488668_b.jpg

[url]http://lh5.ggpht.com/_KAWKLbJbd80/TRUbGsIFo3I/AAAAAAAAAK4/7dR0MwuxkSA/s720/IMG_2559.JPG

[url]http://lh5.ggpht.com/_KAWKLbJbd80/TRUbQtLhVeI/AAAAAAAAALI/h8FYRxWkfyQ/s720/IMG_2562.JPG

[url]http://lh3.ggpht.com/_KAWKLbJbd80/TRUbREkZCpI/AAAAAAAAANs/9_CJb1hxUuw/s720/IMG_2563.JPG>http://lh5.ggpht.com/_KAWKLbJbd80/TRUbGsIFo3I/AAAAAAAAAK4/7dR0MwuxkSA/s720/IMG_2559.JPG>http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5140/5515980025_8957488668_b.jpg>http://hifigallery.info/luxman/e-06/

[url]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5140/5515980025_8957488668_b.jpg

[url]http://lh5.ggpht.com/_KAWKLbJbd80/TRUbGsIFo3I/AAAAAAAAAK4/7dR0MwuxkSA/s720/IMG_2559.JPG

[url]http://lh5.ggpht.com/_KAWKLbJbd80/TRUbQtLhVeI/AAAAAAAAALI/h8FYRxWkfyQ/s720/IMG_2562.JPG>http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5140/5515980025_8957488668_b.jpg

[url]http://lh5.ggpht.com/_KAWKLbJbd80/TRUbGsIFo3I/AAAAAAAAAK4/7dR0MwuxkSA/s720/IMG_2559.JPG>http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5140/5515980025_8957488668_b.jpg>http://hifigallery.info/luxman/e-06/

[url]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5140/5515980025_8957488668_b.jpg

[url]http://lh5.ggpht.com/_KAWKLbJbd80/TRUbGsIFo3I/AAAAAAAAAK4/7dR0MwuxkSA/s720/IMG_2559.JPG

[url]http://lh5.ggpht.com/_KAWKLbJbd80/TRUbQtLhVeI/AAAAAAAAALI/h8FYRxWkfyQ/s720/IMG_2562.JPG

[url]http://lh3.ggpht.com/_KAWKLbJbd80/TRUbREkZCpI/AAAAAAAAANs/9_CJb1hxUuw/s720/IMG_2563.JPG
Raul, The other potentially maddening thing is that you secure the cartridge in the headshell only to find during alignment that you have chosen the wrong pair of mounting holes, not to mention that it is possible that none of the mounting positions will work for a given cartridge in a given tonearm. I will try it, however.

Timeltel, Sinatra also said with regard to his religious beliefs that he was for "anything that gets (you) through the night", including a bottle of Jack Daniels. I sang one of his tunes last Tuesday, when I performed for the first time in more than a year (Too Marvelous for Words, by the way). It went over well, I think.

You have correctly guessed at my feelings about Rumsfeld.
DU, That's a beautiful piece. Hope you like it. I too have toyed with the idea of buying a 70s or 80s Japanese phono stage (usually in those days you got a full function preamp along with it). The main attraction for me is the built-in loading options for C and R and sometimes the choice of equalization curves. But there can be problems with the very old electrolytic capacitors in those beasts. Be prepared to replace them, if needed. Plus all the switches and potentiometers are old and may be noisy. Plus indeed there have been advances in transistor technology since those days. But please do not let me discourage you. The proof is in the pudding. And Luxman is one of the best of the best. (I was considering an Accuphase C200 or C200X. Those have lots of controls.) I still enjoy my Luxman T110 tuner that I bought new in the early 80s or late 70s.
There was a thread recently that asked "What is your favourite cartridge?"
Amongst the 'usual suspects' of Ortofon A90, ZYX UNIverse, Koetsus etc Audiofeil proclaimed the Signet TK-7Su his favourite.
This interested me as my favourite has recently become the Signet TK-7e so I jumped in as is my want :-)
Soon thereafter, the Professor himself (Timeltel) chimed in with the Signet TK-7Ca!
Three votes for a 35 year old MM cartridge despite all the supposed advances in cartridge design and MC technology?
A more interesting detail was that this common cartridge was specified
with a different stylus assembly/design by the three of us?
Could the differences in styli change the essential character of the same basic cartridge I thought to myself?
Egged on by the Professor (as he likes to do), I purchased the No.3
stylus assembly from WilliamThacker and have been comparing the two
for the last couple of weeks.
At first the NOS No.3 stylus had an atrophied cantilever assembly making bass overly prominent and recessing the midrange. With the Professor's help I was able to loosen the cantilever and was able to hear the rare beauty of the TK-7Su.
To say the differences to the TK-7e are subtle is a 'given'. I won't pretend that I could pick the two apart in a blind test yet on familiar material the 7Su exhibited a more 'bulging' midrange and a slightly narrower soundstage........it just couldn't quite extend beyond the width of the speakers.
That said, I can see how the attributes of the 7Su could be entirely system dependent and may be just what the doctor ordered for certain combinations?
What does the 7Ca bring to the table I wonder? The quest is on for this stylus assembly although the AT-20ss stylus will do the trick says Timeltel?
What a smorgasbord of choices these wonderful MM cartridges bring with them? Why let the manufacturer choose the stylus profile which he thinks is best as in........Moving Coils!!!?
Perhaps all the choices are just too much?..........but when you hear these sounds........all is forgotten :-))))
Raul,

I've had problems with attaining the correct overhang when trying the AT headshell on my AC3300 LB (same on my Grace G-660P and Ikeda IT-407). None of the four holes seem to bring me closer than 2mm from the ideal overhang. Can you advise?

Thanks
Downunder,

I'm using a modified Mark Levinson 32.5 to great effect. When it comes to what I believe is called 'bang for the buck', it is unbelievable. Quietness, in comparison with various models of tube amplification that I h ave previously owned, is definitely one of its advantages.

Good luck
Dear Dgob: IMHO the problem is not with the headshell. Right now I have ( phisically ) on hand three cartridges mounted in three MG-10s that I use either in the Grace G-940 and in the AT-1503 ( both tonearms have different effective length. ).
I have the Signet TK10MLII ( mounted at the most forward holes. ), the Micro Acoustics MA-630 ( mounted in the next to the most forward holes. ) that's a tremendous performer and the Audio Technica AT-ML160-LC/OCC ( mounted as the MA-630. ).

I think that your " problem " is because you are following the manufacturer set up specs. Several Japanese vintage tonearms comes with not so " reliable " information so I don't use it, an example of this is that your Grace, mine and the AT one have different effective mass but in all the manufacturer spec for overhang is 15mm.

I take one of my commercial protractors to that cartridge tonearm set up and I did and do not have any trouble. If I remember I used with those cartridges/tonearms a $ 20.00 plastic protractor name it: Audio Calibrator and NO I don't have any trouble with that " inner groove distortions " or exaggerated " shshshshsss " on the recorded voices, these three cartridges performs just great!

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Hi Raul,

Thanks for that. I'm now wondering if this could probably also have implications for setting the overhang on my Glanz cartridges, which would seem to be in a similar predicament to those set in the discussed AT headshells!? I will definitely try your suggestion with a suitably adjusted effective length when/if I can get hold of the noted protractor.
Regards, Halcro: OK "Devil" Henry, you threw out the ball, I'll take a swing at it. The Shibata stylus is a very particular beast, alignment and VTA are demanding. A cousin of the line contact profile, there is an extended contact with the groove walls, more so than the typical ellipticals. Fine ellipticals .2 x .7 or .2 x .6 (shank dimensions), and from their lesser engagement (mid range is 40um for the E, 75um for Shibata) tend to track deeper into the groove resulting in the distal point of the stylus *proportionately* more in contact with the groove modulations than a stylus with a longer contact patch, relating to the perception that the sharper the tip the more apparent the hf's (think conical). The better LC styli are .15 x .7 (70um/2.5um minor), resulting in a fast response while maintaining a larger major radius to tip mass ratio. There is no reduction in hf response, the longer contact patch is simply "reading" more of the groove. This evolution continues through Stereohedron (70um), VdH (70um), Gyger (80um), and the Ortofon Replicant (100um). Surprisingly, ML's maintain good contact, the major radius for ML and SAS is equivilent to Shibata at 75um, the ridge secondary cut allows for a well configured minor radius (2.5um), fast without endangering your vinyl.

Henry, as a result of your thought provoking post on "nude" headshells all mounted cartridges are going through a re-evaluation. A TK7e is on the TA now, an ATN14S on it (differs from the SU only in compliance), it's a wonderful pickup for jazz and easy listening, very similar to the later (rare, from it's eighth/last year of production, my example is stamped #209) TK7LCa. The 7SU performs in an almost imperceptably more relaxed manner, as though the maestro held the baton in velvet gloves.

The point you wish I'd finally make is: From a technical description, reliable accounts and observation, with the TK7SU, add a dash of output impedance (500 ohm, IIRC), extra Shibata freq. resp. (5-45k) and an healthy portion of compliance (30 x 10-6 dyn.) add a dollop of output at 2.7mV, it's a recipe for a cartridge for those with a taste for refinement. One should expect rich but not overly seasoned bass, warm mids and crisp hf's without leaving a sharp taste, mid-range texture ameliorated by the micro mass tapered alu. pipe and low impedance. The 7e stylus with it's lesser vertical contact with the groove walls, hf's are theoretically more forward and the mids less resonant resulting in a brighter quality with slightly more "punch". I would not care to argue your proposition of implementing various styli as a means of seasoning a cartridge to meet table or taste preferences. As to soundstage, double check azimuth or buy wider speakers ;-). Have I mentioned my accumulating pile of orphaned o-rings?

Now a plug for the AT155LC, AT170ML or Signet TK7LCa:

From our sometime (always welcome) visitor, Jcarr:
"I prefer line-contact styli that combine a vertically long contact patch with the LP groove with a horizontally short contact patch. A vertically long contact patch gives greater groove contact for better tracking and better immunity to localized groove damage, and a horizontally short contact patch give better high-frequency performance and less time-smear. This leads to line-contact styli with a fairly large major radius and a small minor radius, but in practice neither radius can be too extreme. Too large of a major radius makes azimuth adjustment more critical than most users (and many tonearms) want to deal with, and too small of a minor radius tends to create edges on the stylus that are sharp enough to chew up the groove. Based on my own experiences and observations, I like the maximum major radius to be in the 70~80um range, and the minor radius to be in the 2.5~3um range." Audiogon, 11-21-09, search "New Lyra Delos Cartridge".

Peace,
Dear Dgob: You can use other protractors out there and I think could works.

Regards and enjoy the music,
raul.
Hello Halcro,I also due to the "favorite cartridge " thread picked up a Signet Tk7su cartridge. I have enjoyed it very much so far. Also got a Thakker stylus but have not played it yet. I will need to do that soon since you had a problem with yours.

Did you like the Tk7e better than the Tk7su? What differences did you note?

Timeltel, Did you ever get the MR5.0 to settle in or did you give up?

Danny
Hi Raul Thank you for your suggested head shells but unfortunately for me at this moment someone here wants all three head shells badly.

Halcro do I understand you correctly that you are going to use the AT20ss stylus in a Signet body?

Mark
Dear Professor,
A swing at the ball??........I'd say you damn well hit it outta da ballpark? And we don't even follow baseball down here. In cricket jargon.....I'd say you hit for six!
But you say add a touch more impedence for the 7SU?.......no can do. I'm at my max of 60K Ohms.......but your thoughts have inspired me to experiment with capacitance perhaps?

I will 'second' your AT155LC plug. To my ears this cartridge appears to be the grandaddy of all the Signet TK3, TK5, TK7 series models?

Acman3, at this stage I slightly prefer the more natural balance of the midrange in the TK7e although I have yet to Timeltel's recommendations.
As I say, the differences are subtle and many of my friends are startled and impressed by the TK7SU more so than the humble 7e.

Mark, if I still had my AT20ss and hadn't destroyed the NOS stylus assembly (don't ask?), Timeltel says that this stylus will more or less transform the TK7 into a TK7LCa....did I get this right Professor?
Raul,

While you're re-valuating your favourite cartridges, do you think you'll have a chance to review the Astatic MF100 soon?

I'd like to see your retrospective here and any tips for getting the best out of it.

Cheers
Dear Dgob: Yes, I will do it. Actually is in front of the line ( along the MF-200 and 300. ) but I have to many things to do and hear that that have to wait a little.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Regards, Halcro/Ackman3: Henry, the TK7e is 2.7mV output, the later 7LCa at 5.0mV. Output impedance is similar, the TK7LCa at 580 Ohm, requiring exceedingly clean windings to get 5mV at that impedance, PCOCC, 8n's pure. With the ATN20SS, you should find a different quality in detail common to going from alu. to berillium cantilever. Regarding loading, the Shibata stylus likes 100k, to bring the mids a little more forward, cap. at 200pF. Eavesdropping on your post to Ackman3, there's nothing humble about a nude square shank .2 x .7 elliptical on a tapered micro mass alu. alloy cantilever. It's a description of one of the best.

If asked (I think you are) about the difference between the 7e/SU and the 7LCa, it's one of involvment or musicality, the distinction is to the nth degree. Personal opinion is that if one can find either, jump on it like a duck on a Junebug.

Danny: The Signet MR 5.0me is adequately defending it's "Maximum Resolution (MR)" title, very confident and detailed. About four hours into it now, not yet enough time on the nude sq. shank .2 x .7 minature elliptical "me" stylus/thin wall alu. cantilever for break in. (Did you get that, humble Henry?). I like what I hear though, to paraphrase Will Rogers: I never met a Signet I didn't like. Thanks for sending the upgrade "me" version. IIRC, you have the AT140LC and 155LC styli, have you tested these in the 5.0 cart yet?

Peace,
Raul,

No problem and I look forward to reading your review of the MF100. Any findings regarding set up and optimising will be particularly welcomed. I've not tried mine in a long, long time and that might just be the spur I need to give it another whirl.

Just on the earlier point about the AT headshells. Would you suggest that we comply with the effective length but chose another overhang for the cartridges? If so, would you always be governed by the effective length in choosing that overhang?

If the answer to both questions above is "yes", then I suppose the Feikert protractor would be an obvious candidate for set up.
Dgob

You clearly cannot use the Fiekert - It is part of the "false prophet" scamming hard earned $$ from you. :-)