Raul - if you double the input value on the MM RIAA then you will double the impedance seen by the cartridge. In the case of the AU340 the impedance seen by the cartridge is 3ohm tap 100k/(33x33) = 92ohms ( 33 is the transformer gain for this tap ) 3ohm tap 47k/(33x33) = 43ohms
40ohm tap 100k/(10x10) = 1000ohms 40ohm tap 47k/(10x10) = 470ohms
Personally I think the outcome is unpredictable because the alternate load the transformer sees could increase OR decrease ringing or resonances generated by the transformer itself, depending on it's characteristics. Similarly with the load seen by the cartridge, IME it is unpredictable.
Jonathan Carr has stressed in other posts that modern MC's are unaffected in of themselves by loading changes. His view is that what you hear when loading down MC's is the change in the performance of the following phono stage when dampening high frequency or ultrasonic resonances.
Since reading that I have been playing around with various vintage transformers and ignoring loading. What I have found triallng a variety of MC's ranging in internal impedance from 3ohm to 40ohms with different transformers seems to confirm Jonathan Carrs comments. I have found the "sound characteristics" of each transformer are consistant despite the cartridges having a range of internal impedances. I have found that I get the best results when the gain structure is optimised with the following phono stage and power amp regardless of load. This may be due to using tube phono stages and preamps which may have an optimum volume position. |
Addendum, My first statement may need some illustration or exampel in order to 'enlighten' the difference mentioned. Two perfect English sentences can be contradictory so we have then an logical problem, while perfect sentences imply no problem at all in linguistic sense. |
Dear Dover, Logical and language errors are of different kind. According to me Lew's English is impeccable and even of high literary value. You are consequently wrong with your, uh, English remarcs. In this connection I need to summon an expert in, among many other subjects, the English language, our Herr Professor. He will, with his professional authority, prove that you was wrong. BTW what kind of English dialect is used in New Zealand?
Regards, |
Dover, I feel like a politician. You quoted me out of context and from a post I wrote two days AFTER I retracted the putative assertion that there was a relationship between the two cartridges. (I say "putative" because I never intended to present the connection as something I personally knew to be a fact.) But I see that you can find something to damn in the way I worded that sentence, which you unfairly did not quote in its entirety. Altho it seems counter-intuitive, I want Nicola as my lawyer to represent me in this matter. |
Dear Harold-not-the-barrel: I like both, the 20SS and the ML170. What the ML170/OCC gave in addition is better detail/transparency due to a little better definiton in the high frequency range this characteristic gives a different soundstage presentation where the ML170/OCC has a better layering than the 20SS.
Yes, the original cantilever is gold plated boron. Worth to rettiping?, this depends, if the 170 stylus needs then go a head but if that stylus still has a " long live " then why to retip it other that you want it to hear a different cartridge performance.
IMHO, the 180 and 170 cartridge generators are not exactly the same. Its electrical internal characteristics are a little different ( I thought were similar but I learned are not. ) and the stylus shape dimensions too.
Where the 180/OCC measure 0.08 m/m the 170ML/OCC 0.1m/m. Even the stylus angle is different: 23° for the former and 20° for the 170/OCC. Exist a difference in weight too: 7.5grs against 7.0grs in the 170/OCC.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dover, I am not the right person to judge Lew's English but I always enjoy his English prose. In his 'Dostojevski time' he even hesitated between literature and medicine. But regarding his post about the Magic Diamond he had, according to me, some logical problems as I already mentioned.
Regards, |
Hi Chopin, (any family connection?) Axel is a good friend of my so I will not comment on your implication but need to say that he hardly can manage all the work. Anyway I will write to him and ask about your Shelter.
Regards, |
Hi everyone, I mailed Axel a cartridge (Shelter 501) for repair in September 2012. He said he received the cartridge and said the suspension needed to be repaired. I asked him to repair the cartridge. I haven't heard back from Axel since September. I sent a few more emails but no response. Has anyone else had an experience like this. Thanks. |
I was always suprised, even stunned, to hear so many man stating:'my wife is the most beautiful I have ever seen'. In my native country Serbia some may even claim:'my wife is the richest I know off'. The case is that in Serbia the institution of dowry still exist. The strange thing is that the people there think that this institution is somehow connected with Greek-ortodox religion. The fact however is that those 'Serbian warriors' refused to omit any war whatever on the Balkans. The consequence was a huge shortage of marriageable young man while everybody wanted kids and grandkids. Anyway the reasons mentioned , while contradictory, were in no way obstruction for the kids production. I see some similarities with our carts preferences. Some may refer to the price the other to the beauty of the sound of their respective possession.
Regards, |
Dear friends: I just find out in a closet two step up transformers: Denon AU-340 and Audiocraft TS-26 ( this one in new condition. ).
I thought all my SUT's were sold but was not in that way. Well due that I have on hand I tested the Denon for a couple hours with no firm/precise conclusions yet.
Now, I post this because the specs say that the Denon should be connected to the MM stage and " see " 47kohms but I did not change the load impedance and runned the AU-340 at 100kohms:
question: is there any trouble to run it at 100k? advantages? disadvantages?
Your comments and advise will be appreciated. Thank's in advance.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Lewm I acknowledged that the relationship between the DL103 and the MD was "rumored" Your last post on the subject on the 11th included the words - the fact that the MD was derived from the DL103 This is what I objected to. Now you change tack again on the 13th - Second, I have no proof up or down that there is any relationship between the two cartridges, and I don't give a s**t one way or the other. You should be more careful with your English. |
I wish one could edit one's posts on Audiogon. I forgot to mention the 4th fact point I wanted to make with Mr. Dover: In my post of January 9, I actually withdrew the assertion that there is any relationship between the two cartridges, based on my interpretation of an old thread that was entirely devoted to the subject. |
This is a response to Dover's post, back up the thread a bit, posted on the 12th. First, I was not "assert"-ing anything; after my first post on the subject, I acknowledged that the relationship between the DL103 and the MD was "rumored" and that the rumor caused some to be put off by the cost of the Magic Diamond. THAT in totality, and that alone, is what I have been repeating. THAT is not internet gossip. It is a fact. Second, I have no proof up or down that there is any relationship between the two cartridges, and I don't give a s**t one way or the other. I've repeated that ad nauseam. Third, Raul has lately stated that the relationship is in fact a real one. I don't even know if he's right, but he speaks with authority. Go argue with Raul. We've all agreed that it makes no difference to the excellence, or lack of same, of the MD.
It seems that those who are enamored of the MD, or who have paid a premium for it, cannot stand the idea that it may have been derived from a much less expensive cartridge, albeit a cartridge that is widely held to be a "giant-killer" among MCs. Can't we drop this boring subject now? Can I somehow shed this stain on my character for internet slander? Tune in tomorrow for the next episode of "Lew takes it in the ear". |
Dear Nandric: Months or years ago I posted to Dgarretson something like this:
++++ " hey why you suddenly change what you was supporting " yesterday " and not today " +++++
and he gave me an answer like this:
+++ " Raul, I have the right to improve my self and improved..... " ++++
that explain per se what means our each one " audio learning curve " and where " I'm " today.
Things are that many of us read and hear and even discuss on many different audio subjects through different forums/threads. This exercise in theory gives us the opportunity to grow up the opportunity to learn and the opportunity to apply those audio learning lessons.
Unfortunatelly only a few of the persons really " learn ". " Really learn " means , IMHO , to take action or actions on what we learn to put on practice what we learn and to have an " audio attitude " according with that learning and according to that learning experiences.
Now, maybe 30-40 years ago when started the " fashion " for headshell integrated cartridge designs, the manufacturers/designers thinked that the cartridge/tonearm alignment was not so important like other factors/characteristics on cartridge set up to achieve the best of any cartridge.
My self not 30-40 years ago but 20 years ago I was unaware on the critical importance subject of cartridge/tonearm alignment and in those times I never took in count.
Even when I " arrived " to Audiogon I can't remember any one that talked/posted on the importance of cartridge/tonearm alignment through Baerwald, Löfgren, Stevenson, etc, etc. kind of alignments. Audio dealers and the " analog gurus " in the audio magazines normally never touched that alignment subject.
I was one of the first persons in Agon whom started to analize the importance of that cartridge/alignment set up. Latter on more and more persons been aware on the subject and appeared several threads in Agon where we discuss in deep the whole subject and the conclusions in every single thread was that we need to make the cartridge/tonearm set up according to any of those alignment/geometry alternatives. The subject was and is so important that started to appear several cartridge/tonearm alignment protractors to make it in the " rith/precise " way because any tiny deviation on that set up increment the sounds/music distortions on what we are listening.
In all those scientific/math alignments the target is to find out the precise cartridge offset angle and overhang for the set up. We analize how tiny deviations on overhang and offset angle or in both take the distortions to higher levels we can imagine and that we can hear.
One of those protractors was the now famous MintLP that has a lot of owners where each one of them bless and blessed this protractor and its precission because in the very first day that they maade their cartridge/tonearm set up alignment through that protractor everything changed for the better and by a wide margin. I can't remember no one that could tolld the that protractor did not improved his cartridge quality performance level.
Now, in a monolitic headshell integrated cartridge design as the Glanz and the FR ones we can't make a precise alignment and can't change an alignment according to what the carfridge/tonearm needs or according what we want.
Why is that?, plain and simple:
IN THE FR7GLANZ DESIGNS YOU CAN'T MAKE ANY SINGLE CHANGE IN THE OFFSET ANGLE AND OVERHANG ACCORDING TO THE SET UP NEEDS!!!!
in the best " scenario " with those monolitics exist ( at random ) only one kind of set up that could coincide with the cartridge needs.
Everytime that we need to change the VTA/SRA the overhang change and in those monolitics you can't change the overhang so you will have higher distortions and if you need to change the offset angle to align in precise way the cartridge cantilever in the MintLP protractor you can't do it either and this means that you have to stay in the way you are hearing/listening those higher distortions and are these " kind of distortions " what you, Desmond, Halcro and several other persons are enjoying!.
I think that all the Glanz/FR monolitic owners ( including me. ) read it or participated in those cartridge/tonearm alignment threads and learned ( as me ) on the whole subject but through the posts of many of those owners seems to me that almost no one learned about, even Halcro put his money in his monolitic retipping it: for what if those high distortions can't change because a retipping?
It is these kind of actions by several owners what makes no sense to me when I know that many of those persons ( including you ) want to improve the quality performance level on your system.
Let me to tell all of you cartridge monolitic owners: IMHO through those monolitics you can't ever improve nothing but to listen to higher distortions degrading and precluding any tiny single improvement you want to achieve.
This was happened just two days ago in other thread, please read it and LEARN:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1357321298&openflup&26&4#26
IMHO those Glanz/FR monolitics are the deepest aberration/error/mistake in analog, at least Audio Technica/Technics/ ( examples. ) designed its cartridge integrated designs with " systems " that permit changes in overhang and Azymuth but no offset angle.
Any one of you think that azymuth could be important for a cartridge can shows at its best?, yes?, well in the Glanz/FR you can't make any azymuth changes either!!!!!
As Dgarretson I learned on the subject and improved my self.
Nandric, I'm not a cartridge seller or a seller of any one like the ones that came years ago to this forum to gave their " teaching " to us " ignorant " people. Unfortunately some of you were so " ignorants " that today are in love with those monolitics and even with that kind of people. Nothing wrong with me, the real subject is that you monolitic owners be happy and if your monolitics are the cartridges that made the magic to put you happy then: good because this is what it matters and not my simple opinion.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Regards Raul & fans of the Audio-Technica AT-170ML. Please tell your opinions/experiences of it vs. ATSLa/SS. Is the original cantilever really gold plated boron ? Does a different cantilever make progression, is it worth of retipping ? Are the generators of 180ML and 170ML different ?
PROGRESSIVE NEW YEAR to all |
Hi Raul,
My final response will no doubt take a full day before it passes moderation and so maybe you will have hopefully moved on by the time it appears. However, I would donate a saying of one of my teachers: 'don't let ignorance close doors through which you have not walked'.
As always... |
Hi Raul,
You are wrong on this matter (as Nandric, as an actual owner and listener to the Glanz G series, can testify). However, I have no axe to grind in this matter. If you have made your mind up, that is fine.
As always... |
Dear Raul, No cart is perfect and no person is perfect. What I like by you is your willingness to share , your devotion to our hobby, your (financial) sacrifice for this searching adventure, your inquisitiveness and most of all your ears. What I don't like are your philosphical outpourings. I want mention your learnig curve and other extraordinary capabilities but those distortions of yours are irrefutable. Whatever whoever states about his own hearing experience you can dismiss with your distortions. I am not sure if you are of Catholic religion but do believe that you know about the pope. Only his dogmas are irrefutable because he says so but as representative of the Almighty . He is the only one who has a phone-connection with HIM and understand exactly what HE wants. There are however other religions and even skeptics and atheist. Like pope in matters of (his own) religion you want to determine what components are the best (aka with the least distortions) and this apply in particular for the carts. Your 'explanation' , for example, why the Glanz 5 or 7 can't sound right is inscrutable. While putting forward 3 or 4 assumptions as reasons 'why' you never consider the logic of the reasoning. Namely that your conclusions can be only true under proviso that your assumptions are also true. On the other side you also stated that those cart- producers are 'artist' with their own capabilities to 'tune' or otherwise 'ennoble' their carts such that we have no idea how this is done. No wonder than that despite your claim to the contrary some persons may also claim that those Glanz 5 or 7 sound better than Astatic MF 100. Probable because they like their peculiar distortions (grin). I am not sure if you ever owned Glanz 5 or 7 but know that you own and highly regard one of the FR-7 versions. Now even a blind person can 'see' this clumsy integrated headshell and certainly can imagine those rusty internal wire ...Well this is the difference between your hearing capabilties versus the philosohical kind. Regards, |
Raul,
There was a MKII available on eBay in need of a stylus just a few weeks back. Knowing there are no stylus's available, I passed. BIG mistake! O'well, be patient, there will be others. Regards, Don |
Dear griffithds: Agree, I was a little dramatic about that " average " reference.
I'm only posted in that way trying to explain that is better design and not for a tiny range/margin.
++++ " I don't feel Signet made any changes to the TK10 generator when they brought out the upgraded stylus MKII. " ++++
I can't be absolutely sure but what made it that I posted about is because I runned the MK2 cartridge with the MK1 stylus and performs better than with the MK1 cartridge motor.
Anyway, both are top performers as the 180 but the MK2 is a little different IMHO.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Indieroehre: Grace builded a lot of F-8 different models that was on sale only to the japanese/Asia market.
These are some of them: F8L, F8M, F8D, F8L'10, F8C,F8V, etc, etc.
as theose ones exist several F14 models including the F14Ruby and several LevelII models. No one of them where sold in America/Europe.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Desmond: I forgot, +++++ " or the other reason ( between others ) could be that the " kind distortions " of your 7 are the ones you like it more against the 100. Tha's all. " +++++
where came/comes those additional " kind distortions " on the G7 that the MF-100 or the G71L have not?
the G7 is a headshell integrated design: today, 30-40 years after the G7 design/build, exist several headshells that for sure match in better way the cartridge to performs at its best and that puts " on shame " the integrated one. Today too there are several headshell wires that are a lot better than the ones inside the Glanz that have 30-40 years old. Today too the headshell wire connectors are a lot better than the ones 30-40 years old in the Glanz G7.
All these per se, IMHO, makes that any single advantage ( that there is not any. ) that could have the G7 disappear as dust inside a hurricane. There is no way that the headshell integrated version can or could compete in any way against its stand alone similar " brother ". That you like it is important only to you.
This " brother " can be matched easily to any tonearm not only to the tonearm effective mass but in the alignment to Baerwald, Löfgren or Stevenson geometry set up.
I respect your opinion but I can't disagree more with. You can think whatever you want and of course you can follow enjoying your Glanz over other top cartridges and stay sticky with but that can't means is a superior performer than the Astati's, MFG71L or almost any other top stand alone MM/MI/LOMC cartridge. As I said: it is only the additional distortions you like it, Good!.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Desmond: I don't want to start in this thread the same polemic with you. I stated very clear that in that series the G71L is the top of the line and a stand alone version.
If you like it more that 7 you own that's fine with me and my advise is that try to find out a new MF-100 because maybe the one you owns is out of specs or the other reason ( between others ) could be that the " kind distortions " of your 7 are the ones you like it more against the 100. Tha's all.
I forgot, the Glanz cartridge denomination in the stand alone and integrated headshell ( as yours ) are: G7, G1 and the like in the integrated versions and in thye stand alone thel call it the MF series: MFG71, 51 and the like. The G7 IMHO is the same as the G71L and the only spec " difference " ( that could be an error???? on its advertasind. )is the output level where in the integrated headshell is 4.2mv against the 3.5mv in the stand alone version but that difference IMHO is not an advantage because could means too higher inductance against the G71L.
You can go on and on in the same topic but has nothing in hand that can tell us the G7 ( integrated headshell ) was the top of the line against the G71L ( stand alone version. ) other than your opinion where you never heard the MFG71L.
Sometimes I think that your " life " goes with the Glanz topic if your G/ , for whatever reason, was or is beated!!!!! You can be sure that no one will die for that fact.
Btw, bass management in your system is different from mine and IMHO you can't took it as foundation on your opinion.
Anyway, nice to confirm your enjoyment on the Glanz. I like mine too.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Moderator, Is there a reason why my posts take so long to actually get posted?
Regards, Don |
Raul, I have remounted my AT180 and my TK10MK(?), to decide weather my initial impressions could be confirmed. I think the person who sold you the TK10MK calling it a MKII is because the stylus was upgraded to a MKII. Looking at the screws, there is markings on the screws that prove they have been back out and then retightened. Just like what would happen if the stylus had been replace. I have always liked my TK10 over my AT180. The differences are small and not definable by me so lets just say personnel preference. Your statement about the MKII betters the AT180 is just how I feel about my TK10. I don't feel Signet made any changes to the TK10 generator when they brought out the upgraded stylus MKII. No mounted stylus guard to ID so they ID'D the body. Are you aware of any way to determine a MKI stylus or a MKII or would it take looking at them under a microscope? Regards, Don |
Dear Raul, this Benz LP S and the Magic Diamond are the most expensive carts I ever bought. But I am very reluctant to test either. The reason? What if they sound mediocre? Should I then kill myself? No such dilemmas whatever by the MM carts. One can't get wrong with those so to speak. I even made some profit by selling some in order to buy some other. This way I got a decent collection of MM carts: Glanz 5, Glanz 31l, AT 180, Stanton 981 , Signet TK 9cl, TK 9E, AKG P 8ES Super nova, AKG 25 mk II, Goldring 800 with Axel's nude line ,etc. Those MM carts give somehow much more joy then the MC kind. I still think that my Miyabi, Sony XL 88, Ruby 3S, etc.sounds better but despite of this I keep looking for the new MM kinds. Thanks to you there will be no shortage of those.
Regards, |
Raul,
Thank you for the update on my "TK10ML" It was an honest mistake. Expensive one, but honest mistake non the less. If I ever decide to sell it, It will go as a "MK" only. But I do disagree with your assesment of calling it only "average" performer. It may not be as good as the "MKII" but "average", absolutely not. Regards, Don |
Dear Nandric: ++++ " this true MK2 TK10ML version is IMHO the best ever AT/Signet cartridge even over the famous AT 180.... " +++
well maybe not because I never heard the AT-50 anniversary and exist that great Precept PC-440!
Btw, the stylus in the TK10ML MK2 is an improvement too over the MK1 version.
So, my mistake on that statement.
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Storyboy: I think I never posted that the MF-200 sounds like the MF-100 but both are more alike than different.
As Nandric said the stylus in the MF/Glanz line can be used in between the different cartridge models.
Good that you own the Astatic's that are very good performers. Could you share your experiences with and other MM/MI cartridges you own?, appreciated.
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Hi there is just a Grace F -8 Ruby at hifido. Never heard about a F-8 Ruby . Nice pics. Costs nearly 400$. Regards. Knut from Germany. |
Dear Storyboy&Raul, Both topline Astatic and Glanz have exactly the same body. The model name is inprinted on the stylus holder not on the body. This means that the styli are exchangable and carts easy to compare. I alas don't own the MF 100 but those who do can put the MF 100 stylus in the other cart(s) and hear for them self. My quess was that the cantilever only can explain the difference between MF 100 versus MF 200 versus Glanz 71 , 51 ,etc. Storyboy actually confirmed my quess.
Regards, |
Hi Raul,
"The MF-100 is in this cartridge series the top of the line and the MFG 71L the top of Glanz series line."
This is not accurate. As you know, I owned both the MF-100 and the Glanz G5 and (their actual, documented top-of-the-line) G7. You really need to hear these two in comparison to the Astatics. It might be a pleasant surprise and cannot cost you anything other than time and experience. They're rare and so you should not have a problem selling them on if you do not like their performance. As for the management of bass, this is completely out of keeping with my own very extensive experience with these cartridges.
Worth keeping the door open.
As always... |
Sorry, must say: " this week appeared ... ". I was tempted to bid but at the end decided to let it gone.
R. |
Dear Nandric: I have nothing more to add to the Glanz experiences. As I posted I prefer the Astatic.
I think now is a better idea to focus in the vinatge " new generation ".
Btw, the Signet TK10 MLMK2 could be in that NG niche. On this cartridge I have to clarify a mistake from my part on what I was thinking was the Signet TK10 MK2 when in reality was only the TK10ML ( MK1. Sorry Griffithds I was unaware about. ): things are that I bought two samples of that Signet where the sellers stated the cartridge was the MK2 version but like three months ago I seen and bought on ebay the real Signet MK2 version that's an improved performer over the TK10ML and not for a short margin. The Signet MK2 we can recognize because we can read at its top gold plate the model that states MK2 and at the side of the black cartridge body , in white color, we can read Microline. Well, this true MK2 TK10ML version is IMHO the best ever AT/Signet cartridge even over the famous AT 180. Against this MK2 the other AT/Signet top model versions seems to me as " average " performers.
Nandric, if you see it then take my advise and buy it. This week appears one on ebay with out stylus but I think that the MK2 motor is the " key " on its top " different " performance level.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
The MF-100's you all have been studying do not sound like the 2 I own, or you are not examining carefully. The 100 has a completely different cantilever to any other Astatic. It is tapered a great deal and has part of it cut away on the backside where a sliver of elastomer supports it (in a most unconventional way) to the rest of the stylus body (for the vertical dimension).
The 2-300 has a conventional arrangement. |
Dear Raul, My experience is much more limited but according to my info all those Glanz and Astatic carts are made by Mitachi Corporation. Even the boxes are identical. The only difference are the styli: Shibata by MF 100 and 200 and line contact by Glanz 71-31. The corpusses or corpora (thanks Lew again) look to me also identical. So the only conclusion can be that the cantilevers are different. That is to say in order to explain your findings. I compared MF 200 and Glanz 31L and was not able to hear any difference. Vetterone made the same conclusion (Glanz thread). The Glanz 31l is much better than Glanz 31 E (E=elliptical). However I am not sure if Glanz 5 which is my best MM cart is made by Mitachi. I have no other info about this cart than what Dgob provided in the Glanz thread. BTW thanks to Dgob I got interested in this brand. What is still strange to me is the fact that I have never seen one on the German ebay; Glanz was a German brand.
Regards, |
LEWM -
There is NO PROOF that the MD is a 103 or based on it.
You keep presenting the assertion "that the MD is based on a 103" as a fact, again and again, but it is unproven. Speculative discussion on a forum does not constitute proof. Do you have proof outside of forum gossip ? Why do you repeatedly misrepresent this product ? |
Dear all, I got the Magic Diamond. Mystery solved? Only partialy. All those who guessed about the 'platform', more in particular the Denon have obviously never seen the cart. The cart is namely sealed like some parts in Klyne's preamps. Only a small part of the 'generator' with coils, damper, cantilever and stylus can be seen. It is a kind of sticky substance with which the whole cart is filled. I looked at the stylus and the cantilever with my hand microscope (50x) but was not able to determine the stylus shape. The cantilever may be aluminum alloy or beryllium. I have no idea which. I intend to start my tests tomorrow.
Regards, |
Aaarghhh! My dear Nikola, I am quite fond of you but you refuse to get the point. You are taking, once again, my statement of a simple fact, which is identical to what Raul says, as an opinion. For the last time, I fully agree with Raul; the fact that the MD was derived from the DL103 makes absolutely no difference to its merits or demerits. Moreover, I am not in the least bit offended by this fact in any way. I think I will have to buy a Magic Diamond in order to prove my point to you. (Well, maybe I won't go that far.) OTHERS, not me, in the audio community were at one time offended by this connection, because of the vast price differential between the two. I only reported this fact. Can we guess that the offended individuals are most likely to have been those who shelled out $5000 for the MD? Yes, we can guess that. I am not one of those persons. |
Dear Astatic/Glanz's friends: Well, I think I finished with the Astatic/Glanz " tiny shoot out ".
Btw, Griffithds that Glanz MFG 71L that you saw on ebay is the one I bought and according with my experiences with IMHO you was right when decided not bid in that auction.
The Glanz is similar to the Astatic one ( it is obvious: Glanz the former and then Astatic bought the patents to build its cartridges. ). The MF-100 is in this cartridge series the top of the line and the MFG 71L the top of Glanz series line.
If we see it both phisically are identical in cartridge body shape and its stylus are compatible each to the other even with the Astatic MF-200.
My take with these cartridges is that if exist any design/build differences that came as an improvement in the Astatic that was the latter cartridge design. I don't want to go inside that because could be only speculations.
The Glanz performs almost the same as the MF-100 but you can heard ( at the begin when you are listening for the first time the Glanz. ) more " transparency " on its performance but along my test method I took in count that is not only no more transparent but that transparent characteristic is only due that the bass management is non adequate against the MF-100. In the Glanz the bass is " slim " with no weight and precision as in the MF-100/200. Both cartridges are more alike than different but I can't found out no single sign where the Glanz beats the Astatic ones: 100/200.
I use it the MF-100 stylus on the Glanz ( as a fact I did all the interchanges of stylus in between those cartridges. ) and things does not improve but with the MF-100/Glanz stylus things improved. So my take here is that the Astatic's were designed with a " better " motor than the Glanz.
What I paid for the Glanz is not justified against the other cartridges I own. I bought it more for curiosity and my curiosity had a price.
Of course that if some of you don't own the MF-100 or the MF-200 then the Glanz is an option in that direction but these Astatic/Glanz cartridge are not easy to find out, especialy the Glanz in stand alone version.
Well enough on the Glanz because I want to return to my Precept PC440 and my VandenHul MM3 that for me are a new vintage cartridge generation that I did not encounter before due to its incredible quality top performance that is different from other " yesterday " top performers.
In some way what I call " new generation " for whatever reasons is really a cartridge vintage " new generation ".I think there are 2-3 additional cartridges ( Goldring800, one of them. ) I own that belongs to this " new generation ".
As time permit I will return with the Precept and the MM3.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: No, I was not and certainly I'm not up set because any of you comments.
You already know me and sometimes through what I post persons could think I was upset/angry but really not.
Now, I don't know how that MD sounds today but with our today systems improved I think that the MD performance could be improved of what I heard the first time.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lew, As I understand Raul he wanted to say: whatever platform is not important. What Raul think that is important (for any designer)is to have a clear vision about what he wants to achieave and the consequential execution. If one looks at the pictures of any Denon and then to the pictures of the EMT SDS 15 one will see much more similarity with the later. The generator of the MD looks not like any of the Denon's. Then the MD weights 16g twice as much as the Denon. The corpus (aluminum) only can't explain this weight difference. You are in my opinion to much focused at the price difference between the Denon and the MD while there is no proof at all that MD is made from Denon parts. BTW the most cart producers buy the parts from part-supplier. The most Van den Huls, for example, are made from the Benz parts and even the whole Van den Hul carts are made by Benz. Van den Hul made long term contracts with Gyger and Mr. Benz the former owner of the Benz company. Lukaschek who bought the company from Benz is still obliged to the contract mentioned.
Regards,
|
Dear Raul, You wrote, "IMHO,103 platform or not is not important." That is what I was trying to say, even when I was also saying that the DL103 is father to the MD. But that seemed to upset you, and certainly it upset Nikola. So it follows that there was some hostility toward the MD, back when the connection became commonly known, because of the vast difference in cost between the two. That's all I ever meant to convey. I think even Lloyd may have backed off the MD because of the resulting bad vibes, but I am not sure. |
Dear Lharasim: If you are willing to put on sale to me then I accept your offer, just email me: rauliruegas@hotmail.com
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dover: Yes, L.Walker supported that MD cartridge. The time I heard it was at a meeting of an audio association in Philadelphia when I was invited ( Spencer Banks was the persons that I contacted, a very good Agon friend as JG and many others. ) to show our self design Essential 3160 phonolinepreamp.
In that meeting attended around 25 persons including L.Walker and the meeting was at J.Galbraith. During the listening hours we were listening to the MD cartridge and no one had any single compliant about its quality sound performance level.
The MD was mounted in the Walker/tonearm rig, Essential 3160 and Kharma loudspeakers. L.Walker used that MD in his system and my friend J.Galbraith bought it because the Lloyd advise.
After that thread I linked ( is the same that Lewm linked latter on. ) there were posts on other threads where in fact the MD platform came from the 103. As I already told: what's wrong with? who cares?, the cartridge performance is very good. The merit of the MD is that Andreoli had very precise and specific targets on his design and I yhink he achieved with the MD.
IMHO,103 platform or not is not important.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Raul, my friend if you wish I can send you the MF2500 but be warned once you listen to this cart nothing else matters...
Lawrence Fidelity Forward |
Dear Dover, all those people are masters in adjectives. My dear friend Dertonarm is unsurpassed in this capability. BTW the lawyers are not to be underrated in this sense. We may wonder: 'who would believe such nonsense or exaggeration ?' but the fact seems to be that this somehow works otherwise nobody would do it. Or so I think. Many of your and Lew's post are 'to technical' for me but I also enjoy good prose and admire critical minds. So my expectations are the probable cause that I was, say, dissappointed with his last post. BTW he himself is also critical about his own previous post and as scientist used to critical remarks. My own psychology may also be involved because I just bought the 'damn thing'. My description 'not very expensive' may be a(weak?) way out. But if Andreoli is an 'artist' or a person with some new ideas I would say he deserves our support because we all hope for some improvement 'in' the objects of our 'desire'. However I am not qualify to judge about Andreoli the 'artist' or the 'technician' and can only hope to like his cart. We will soon see about that.
Regards, |
Nandric - I'm a bit like Lewm. I dont believe Walker would be pushing the Magic Diamond if he didn't think that it gave justice to his turntable. Same with Raul, he's hard to please, and yet he regards it as a very good cartridge. Some comments from the designer himself on the new Altair with reference to some other cartridges and their design - http://www.analog-forum.de/wbboard/index.php?page=Thread&postID=960000 Swiss vendor of Bluelectric products, which include cartridges, amps, speakers - check out Luilui/Micromagic Bluelectric/MC systemebluelectric http://www.dietiker-humbel.ch/index.php?id=26&tx_commerce_pi1%5BcatUid%5D=54&cHash=fe5cc110a9I think you will find this gentleman is an artisan who builds complete bespoke systems of quite diverse construct. I suspect producing the same product twice is too boring for him. He clearly has an in depth knowledge of the record cutting process and is attempting to reverse engineer the cutting head with his cartridge design - in other words can I get out of my cartridge what went into the cutting head. In order to do that I need to account for the construct of the cutting head and its various distortions. |
Dear Dover&Lew, I have no idea how MD sounds or what the thing is worth. But one was listed 'as new' on the German 'audio-markt' for 3 months while the seller reduced his asking price 3 times. Then I made him an offer and, to my suprice, he accepted. I must confess to be intriqued by Andreoli as person and have read his controversial article of more than 30 pages in German. There is this phrase about the small bondary between a genius and a lunatic. But what is without question is the fact that this man is obsessive with our hobby actually. The opinions are devided as is usualy the case and there is no way for an amateur like me to decide whom to believe. Now this 'believe thing' is anylised by logicians and others . Russel was the first to name the issue as 'propositional attitudes'. For the sake of analysis all kinds of attitudes are put in this form: 'x believes that p is true' Whatever individual can be put in the place of the variable 'x' (say Lew, Nikola, Henry,etc) while 'p' stands for whatever proposition. Many attempts are made to logicaly make something of this contruction but without any result. All the attemps lead to contradictory outcome. Alas because we all use this way of speaking and because of this use the issue is important for all kinds of language researchers. But there are also other important issues which are also not solvable. Dover, I have also seen this Magic listed by Walker and the same reason as you mentioned 'puts me off'. If Andreoli thought that the ruby cantilever with some other stylus is to prefer he would do this himself. What I would like to know is what kind of stylus he actually uses. I don't believe (sic!) that his stylus is, uh, 'conical'.
Regards, |
Nandric - I picked up the "Magic Diamond" moving coil preamp from Germany when I was trying to optimise my very low output Ikeda. For a solid state device it is very good, saw off the Klyne 7, but I prefer tubes for phono. My gut feel is that the Magic Diamond cartridge will be very very good. If I was retipping it I would keep within the original design intent. The Garrott Bros were adamant that fine profile tips such as the microscanner were unsuited to the Denon 103 design - they recommended the weinz parabolic. Same with cantilever. I might have made Walker an offer on their one for sale, but the ruby cantilever puts me off. |