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.
rauliruegas
Thanks for the link Halcro but i was hoping to read on your findings of your naked turntable?

did something happen to your post??

Lawrence
Fidelity Forward
Dear Dover: I agree and that's exactly what Lewm posted time ago.

In my set up I use the same footers for the TT and tonearm and same plattform even that I know it is not the ideal/perfect way but that's my alternative that till today worked fine for me.

Of course that I would like to have a good looking plinth that can works as good the naked fashion or even that beats it.

I'm not against the plinth per se, it is only that what exist around IMHO does not fulfil the targets I already achieved. No, I did not try all the plinths around and certainly I can't do it. I will wait for a better alternative.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Regards, Lew: 800 Watts total music power & etc---. (No reply anticipated)

The "Amplifier Rule" was compiled in 1974. It's been revised.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/12/amplifierrulefrn.pdf

A few "cherry picked" comments, copy/paste.

"(T)here have been technological and marketplace changes that may warrant modifications to the Rule’s testing and disclosure requirements." Comments were solicited by the FTC (Federal Trade Commission), initial respondents were:

Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association (CEMA)(1); Wass Audio~Digital (Wass)(2); Sonance (Sonance)(3); PHI Acoustics (PHI)(4); and Velodyne Acoustics, Inc. (Velodyne)(5).

An extension was announced, additional comments from: EKSC (EKSC)(1); Audio Research (Audio Research)(2); QSC Audio (QSC)(3); Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc. (Thomson)(4); and Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association (CEMA)(5)

"(T)he Commission concluded tentatively that improvements in (multi-channel) amplifier technology since the Rule’s promulgation in 1974 appeared to have reduced the benefits to consumers of disclosure of THD in media advertising. In the ANPR, the Commission also concluded tentatively that an insufficient number of consumers would understand the meaning and significance of the remaining triggered disclosures concerning power bandwidth and impedance to justify their publication in media advertising--- proceeding to amend the Rule to exempt media advertising, including advertising on the Internet, from disclosure of THD and the associated power bandwidth and impedance ratings when a power output claim is made."

"(T)he Commission stated--- that it had reason to believe that the disclosure of THD, power bandwidth, and impedance in media advertising that contains a triggering power output claim no longer provided sufficient consumer benefit to justify the associated increase in advertising costs."

This is a lot fun to read:
"Further, the Commission concluded that those few amplifiers that do generate appreciable levels of THD tend to be very expensive vacuum tube designs that are sold to a specialized group of consumers that may not consider THD specifications an important consideration in their purchase decisions."

"(T)he Commission has reason to believe that the disclosure of THD, power bandwidth, and impedance in media advertising that contains a triggering power output claim no longer provides sufficient consumer benefit to justify the associated increase in advertising costs---the Commission also preliminarily concluded that the proposed amendment of the Rule to exempt from media advertising disclosure of an amplifier’s total rated harmonic distortion and the associated power bandwidth and impedance ratings when a power output claim for an amplifier is made would reduce the Rule’s paperwork burden. "Thus, the net effect of the amendment is to reduce the Rule’s paperwork burden for businesses by 900 hours."

This is interesting stuff, pre-test stress is reduced from one hour at 1/3 rated output, 20-20k, to 1/8 hr., 1000k. How convenient for those manufacturers who might tend to be selective in design.

Specs. are to be made available, the consumer has the burden of research.

Several of the "commenters" demonstrate expressed commendable interest in maintaining high industry standards, another major industry supplier seems not quite so consumer oriented.

Again, just a FYI, thirty-some pages. Quite entertaining.

Peace,
Raul -
I think everyone does think about what you say, but many do not try suggestions out. If I was a turntable designer I'd call it inertia. If I was a cynic I'd call it laziness.
The main issue I have with the nude TT approach is that I believe there must be absolutely zero movement between the turntable bearing/platter position and the tonearm mount in order to measure the groove accurately. The removal of the motor drive from a common plinth can very often reduce this rigidity. I'm sure there are instances where nude will sound better than a poorly designed plinth, but be aware that the shelf then becomes the common junction and the way you mount the motor drive and armpod to the shelf becomes critical. Any differential movement between the motor drive and tonearm pod will result in loss of resolution and articulation.
Btw, when I propose the TT naked version people " laugh " of that idea/experience and no one took it in count.

Latter on Halcro and a few audiophiles given a try and they like it.

DD naked fashion is only an alternative that for some it works and for others like you does not works.

Anyway a different and " new " experience.

R.
Dear In_shore: +++++ " however no one from the nude thread went as far as trying their table into a panzerholz plinth,....no one. " ++++

me neither but let me to share other plinth experiences with Denons and SP10s:

several years ago ( way before any one talked about naked TT. ) I made some tests on my Denons ( DP80/75. ) that originally came in the Denon wood plinths: I use it both, the solid wood one and the wood/fragments ( I can't remember the name in english. ).

After this I use it a natural marble and onyx stones as a TT plinth seated on AT pneumatic footers. Quality sound performance improves by a wide margin.

After this I seated ( a top the marble and onyx plinths. ) both Denons on three tiptoes like. So the TT was " anchored " by the tip toes to the plint. Here the whole plinth in fact fuctioned like a " gigant " ( 40kgs. ) arm board.

Again, the reward was a significant improvement. Then I gone " naked " sitting the Denons directly to pneumatic footers but still using the stone arm boards.

The reward this time was again an improvement over the plinthed " versions ".

Same happened with the SP10s.

In both cases, Denon/Technics, the quality performance level is extremely sensitive of in which kind footers ( the ones where the TTs are seated directly. ) the TT is directly seated.

I made several tests about with stand alone footers and with blended/combination of more than one kind of footers and in my case with my TTs nothing I test outperformed and outperforms the TT seated directly on those AT pneumatic footers.

Tip toes like are not very good for that job but those were my experiences where other persons could have different experiences.

An example of one experice I had is this:

my two belt drive Acoustic Signature TTs are seated directly on inverted tip toes that are seated directly to AT pneumatic footers. With this TTs that solution works marvelous and because of that I tested with the DD TTs and guess what?: it does not works at all, very deficient. Why? I don't care but does not works.

Of course that in audio does not exist " absolute " and exist the posibilities that a plinthed TT at its best could beats a naked one at its best. By this time and with my DD TT I think that the naked fashion is extremely hard to beat with a today " technology " used on plinths.

The plinth issue per se is not only a complex one but an " enterprise " a serious one for any one that want to go in deep with a " perfect " design.

Certainly I'm not ready to do it not even the knowledge level to do it so in the meantime that appears that " perfect " plinth I have to stay with the DD TT naked version: IMHO makes less harm.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
To Mr Halco...I have asked in your "nude turntable project" thread as there is no (review) can you send me the direct link to the review?

Lawrence
Musical Arts
Dear Lew, To express my gratitude for your compliment
this is a real story about the 'emotive meaning' of words. My older son told to his parents proudly to have learned a 'neat word' at school. 'And the word is?' we both asked.
'Penis' he proudly stated. I then thought: 'poor logicians with their substituvity theory salva veritate'.This theory states that any name with the same reference can be substituted for each other salva veritate. My mom would never agree with such a nonsense I am 100% sure.

Regards,
Our musical vocabulary is not sufficiently rich and consequently the expressions we use pretty arbitrary.Those expressions which have positive connotation are easier to agree on then the 'negative' one. In linquistics there is this notion of the 'emotive meaning' of words. We all understand what this, uh, means but explanation, as is the case with the theory of meaning, is very difficult to provide.
Hello Lew et al, It's been too long since listening to 981LZS to comment authoritatively. LZS will be revisited, though probably not before CES. IIRC Stereophile denotes the de-listing of items from Recommended Components List that have ossified in memory. For me the LZS has slipped into this category. Most recently I've been toggling between M320III STR and Grace/Soundsmith F9 Ruby OCL. Reptilian winter conditions of 55-60F in the listening room require increase of VTF to 2-2.2gm on Axel-modified Acutex. Perhaps an increase in VTF will bring yours up to par with Stanton and Grace? I'm inclined to rate Acutex slightly above Grace-- better layering, rounder images, more relaxed background. It's a close call near the apogee of MM/MI. With LZS I'll try fresh tubes in MP-1 phono.
Lewm, Fleib,

Neutrally rich. Yes, that I would agree with in describing either of the two cartridges.
Neutrally rich, I like that!
Regards,
Don
Lewm, Maybe dull was a poor choice of words, I meant it in the sense of uninvolving. Mine is NOS with few hours on it, so I can't say much more, except most of the time it sounds very good. Neutral would still be my best descriptor.
Regards,

Yeah, I don't hear anything dull about it, or bright, for that matter. Back when Dave mentioned the adjective "dark", I countered with "rich". I do think it has a rich coloration, but I also think that's because it really is excellent at "hearing" all the instrumental and vocal voices on the track; it does not highlight anything in particular. (This is sounding like promotional literature; I don't mean it that way. It's just a very nice cartridge that I am happily living with these days.)
Lewm,
How could I have thought that you think I am "wrong" in my opinion when I know I'm right. (grin)
How exactly would you describe your LZ? Not bright, well then perhaps dull?, Leaning towards neutral? Leaning from where? Bright? Dull? There is no perfect cartridge so how would you describe your LZ. To call a LZ or HZ dull someone must have a rolled of top end phono sage or perhaps tubes that are far from their prime!
Fleib's neutral best somes it up in my opinion, for both of them.
Regards,
Don
Typical MC inductance = ~50 microHenries.
Don, I hope you don't think I was saying you were "wrong" in your opinion of the LZS. Your opinion is as valid as mine or anyone else's. However, I would never call my 980 version even slightly, even occasionally, "bright".
Fleib, Are you backing off your description of the LZS as very neutral? "Dull" is not neutral in my view. "Dull" sounds more like what Dave and Raul said.

It may be that my 980LZS is a complementary match with the incredibly lively and driving presentation of my SP10 Mk3. Thus, I hear no "dull"-ness whatever.
Bear in mind that my 980 is a well-used cartridge I purchased off eBay. I have removed the brush assembly, and I use a small elastic band to bind the stylus assembly hard against the cartridge body. This mitigates the shortcomings of the Stanton mounting system to at least some degree. Perhaps this "dull"ness is more a property of the NOS 981LZSs that some of us acquired recently, a sign that break-in is important.
Dear Fleib: +++++ " Although I don't own an HZ, it didn't seem to have the same level of neutrality. I realize this answer isn't definitive,.... " +++++

if you resd my post I asked for a today first hand experiences with both 981 versions for we can compare each other experiences and try to think what I'm missing or what you are missing if we missed something at all.

The subject is not which one is right or has reason but try to be nearest a common answers that can help to other members.

So, I can't argue about in that regards comparison.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Nandric, **My statement about the problems with the USA customs does not necesseraly imply a symmetrical relationship with Holland.**

Its return is what concerns me. Is that "retired lawyer"? Sorry if I misspoke.

Lewm, At times the cart seemed to be dull, uninvolving. I wouldn't call it dark. This could be due to lack of coloration? I'm not sure. I'll have to explore this further. I don't have much time on the cart. I also don't like the plastic stylus holder. The Pickering style is better IMO. I believe inductance spec is < 1mH. Could be quite a bit more than the typical MC.

Regards,
Dear Nickiquy, This Richard Steinfeld is probable wrongly
quoted by you. BTW my ount Natalija also wrote a book. To
me the qualification 'art' for the measured performance of
the individual 981 carts make no sense at all.I would say that
this is a typical technical work with all kinds of instruments
and is consquently called as such. Besides from
what you or he have to say about the differences between 980
versus 981 I am not able to discovere a single one. The strange thing
is that we have only 3 members who mentioned data
about their own carts: Acman, Raul and I.
Those mentioned by Raul and me about our 981 samples are
very similar (nearly identical). Those mentioned by Acman
are probable from some general info about the 980 because
those are not individualy measured.Instead of speculating
about 'possible differences' it would be more
interesting if other members provide their data about their
own 981 HZS carts. The other question about
the preference between the low output versus the high output
981 is a totally different one. There whatever one
likes better is relevant to him in a subjective way.
We don't need nor can reach any consensus about this question.

Regards,
Lewm,

We are splitting hairs in our description of the two 981's. My comment did not state it sounds bright. I said "ever so slightly bright", and this was only after listening to a steady diet of M/M's for days at a time. It is not a bright sounding cartridge. I agree with both Fleib, Raul and with you. This isn't a matter of I like it, you don't. We all like them both. None of our hearing responces are the same. Perhaps there is something happening above the hearing responce I have in my ears that I'm not hearing or am hearing differently. BTW, I happen to be senior. Those of you that are younger, will hear a completely different frequency responce than I do. It actually susprises me that these two completely different designs can sound so similar!
Regards,
Don
Interesting to note that Dave Garretson once remarked here that he found the LZS to be "dark" sounding. (I think that was the descriptor he used, but in any case that was the sentiment.) And I believe that Raul agreed with him. Now here we have Don saying that it can sound "bright" to him, and also Fleib saying that it is the most "neutral" cartridge he owns. I tend to agree with Fleib, but obviously the disparate comments show how system-dependent some of these opinions can be. Note that Dave and I use the exact same phonolinepreamp (in Raul's parlance), Atma-sphere MP1 that has been modified to use a single transistor at the phono input (otherwise it's all tubes).

I once remarked that special care may be appropriate if matching the LZS with a SUT, since it does have considerably more inductance than a typical MC cartridge, altho way less than a typical MM. I am not sure I was correct in that idea, but it makes sense at least to me.
Dear Fleib, I already mentioned some danger involved by
theasing & joking and can add the free interpretation of
what is actually stated .Regarding Raul's influence
I thought that my exaggeration (30!) was obvious but if one
chose to interprete my statement literar one can
also state that I obvioulsy adore the Mexican. However as an
'ex lawyer' (your invention?) I need to correct your way
out regarding the postage problems. My statement about the
problems with the USA customs does not necesseraly imply
a symmetrical relationship with Holland. This namely
says nothing about the postage to Holland. First there is our
flying Dutchman the KLM and than our ages old and professional
custom as well as the irreproachable Dutch Post. You
can sleep well when posting your low output 981 to me.

Regards,
Hi Timeltel, Interesting correlation between inductance and suspension damping. Thanks for posting that. Perhaps the ATN140LC would be better on a 440 or 120 body with 490mH?
I have one of those styli unused, maybe I'll try it. So far best results on a 440 was with an ATN152MLP. It was spectacular on a low mass arm.

Hi Raul, The 980 LZ might be the most neutral and least colored cartridge I've tried. I have yet to explore the possibilities with this cart, and now, after he mentioned the problems with shipping, I'm relieved that Nandric didn't take me up on my offer. As you might remember, my main phono stage has only one gain stage and I vary the amount of gain to suit the cart. Eliminating the need to employ a separate device or even an additional gain stage might give me an advantage in judging this aspect of performance. Although I don't own an HZ, it didn't seem to have the same level of neutrality. I realize this answer isn't definitive, but an ex lawyer was trying to entrap me and the situation called for relative performance conclusions.
My history on this thread is brief, and I don't know about past Stanton fever. Unlike Nandric, the only cart I bought on your recommendation was the M20FL Super. Although not bad, I didn't make a profit.

Regards,
Stltrains,

"Has any of you tried the new Garrott P77i micro scanner."

I would also like to hear from someone with knowledge about this stylus. I do have on my P77 a Jico SAS1 stylus and concider it something special, I have heard it said that it betters the 77i micro scanner! Just words until someone I trust does a comparision. Shockingly more open and refined I must say is the SAS1 over the original P77.
Regards,
Don
Regards, Griffithds: Thanks Don. Glad to hear Andy is taking a proactive interest.

Peace,
Regarding the difference(s) between a Stanton 980 and a 981: I exchanged PM's with Richard Steinfeld at the Lenco forum (lencoheaven.net) earlier today. If I understood him correctly, the difference is that the one is calibrated and the other is not, nothing more. He did go on to suggest that "calibration" is a term of art, and that it is helpful to know what it means and doesn't mean. There are additional versions of this cartridge, too. Finally, Richard is an active member of the Lenco community, and often addresses Stanton and PIckering issues both at Lenco Heaven, and at times, on the French board (http://lenco.reference.xooit.fr/index.php). He has written a book about Stanton and Pickering cartridges and needles, which explains the products from the original company before their recent disco focus.
Dear Raul, That is very interesting, what you say about Guillermo's motivation when he purchased the Sound Labs. I still stand ready to give him some tips on important upgrades that will dramatically improve them. The first, easiest, and cost-free thing he should do is to disconnect/bypass/discard that "Brilliance" control. It is a cheap L-pad that adds a gray coloration to the sound, and since the treble transformer operates at frequencies from about 250Hz (where it is 6db down) to 20kHz and beyond, removing it is like going to the dentist to extract a nagging tooth that is aching; after you've done it, you wonder why you ever put up with it. Better to control the tonal balance by room treatment.
Dear Frogman, Our Professor and in some sense Raul give
already the answer for the 'mediocrity' question. I thought only in the context of the available knowledge and was wondering about 'mediocrity' in this connection. Our Professor deed not mention the labour productivity question explicit but well the time prescribed in the manufacturing process for each individual part which means
the same. Raul's 'hand selected' parts obviously also involve time spend in
production. In contradistinction to this manufacturing process there are individuals like Takeda, Allearts and some others who spend much time and effort to each detail
by production of an cart. No wonder that such carts are much more expensive. Looking from this aspect of the production process we may wonder about the fact that there
are also very good carts produced despite the time restrictions which labour productivity determine.
Regarding my debts to you are you interested in some tonearms? I plundered my own bank account lately so I can only pay in natura at the moment (smile).

Regards,
Raul,
As you are aware, I also have both the LZ and HZ 981's. I have spent hours swapping them back and forth trying to determine why "if at all", one could be preferred over the other. The comment you made, "tiny, tiny, hair", can not be stated more in the comparisons between these two cartridges. I have observed that after spending days listening to M/M,M/I style cartridges only, placing the LZ version in the session, I find it ever so slightly bright. Before anyone jumps to some type of conclusion, I must state I also tried it the other way. Days of listening to only M/C's, then adding to the session, the HZ version, I found it ever so slightly bass heavy. This hasn't come down to which is better, just what are the perceived differences. I too, could live with either, and I plan on doing just that. As far as one requiring a SUT and perhaps that's where the difference comes into play, well I hear no difference between weather SUT was in or out. When in, volume was set at 11:00. When out, the volume had to be set at 5:00. Perhaps there is distortion differences at various knob positions. I don't know. It's just to close to state one is better than the other. Preferring one over the other, well the door is wide open as to why, right down to signal levels pertaining to wire resistance in interconnect cables.
Regards,
Don
Regards,
Happy New Year All

Catching up on the thread with the Stanton 981 input makes me wonder as i have my 881 mk2 Findley setup on a nats butt. In the interim i picked up a Black Widow to mate to all of those high compliance MMs i have acquired. I did not have the original protractor and had Ken Willis make me up one of his fine protractors for the Widow. This was the final piece of the puzzle for getting 881s dialed in. Had to make some adjustments to the head shell on the Widow to hit Infinitys orginal null points. Then Squaring up 881 and adjust azimuth. Thinking that all is well and good just by getting pivot to spindle right and squaring the cartridge with the headshell on a arm like the Widow without overhang adjustment is all thats needed for setup won't get it. Music was brittle and low bass very weak after proper setup with the right tool theres musical magic. Does 881 match up to my 155/160 favorite probably not but its growing on me. 881 is truly a superior MM pickup.

Has any of you tried the new Garrott P77i micro scanner.

Well time for the cabbage and black eyed peas luck and money for the new year.
Mike
Dear Fleib: +++++ " In the unlikely event that you rise above preconceptions and recognise the superiority of the LZ, a..." +++++

in this thread and years before came the justified Stanton/Pickering today " fever " I posted ( and if I remember years even before in other thread. ) not only my preference for the 981 H against the L version but why. Today an after I bought ( again ) both versions that opinion is confirmed ( by a tiny tiny hair. I can live happy with either. ) but I would like that you can share with us your first hand today experiences with both cartridges and the differences you appreciated that makes your preference on the L version, I'm really interested about because maybe I'm missing something about.

Thank you in advance.

Btw, believe it or not when I gave/give/express an opinion always was and is determined by performance only. Expectations are almost always part of the pre-test/before test evaluation and is part of the " fun " but in my case never determine my final opinion. You can be sure about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Hi Professor,

Andy will take good care of the "TK7LCa". I intend dropping in on him this spring for a visit. Early M/C trip (Motorcycle not Moving Coil)! We're only a couple of hundred miles apart so for me (as well as it should be for you), a much safer shipment feeling than sending across the right pond to Axel. I've got a bid in on a Goldring G800 original stylus that Andy is waiting on. He wants to do a boron/LC replacement tip to see how well it compares to the Beryllium/Shibata stylus I had done with Axel. I am still quite impressed with the suspension rebuild he did on my Blue Oasis M/C. Sure is nice having someone so close with this type of expertise!
I'm still in wonderment as to how Stanton/Pickering can get such amazing sound from their short fat (Home Depot looking), pipe of a cantiliver. Sprinkled with "pixie dust" as you say.
Regards, and happy holidays to you,
Don
Dear Fleib, You provided the answer to this Serbian enigma
regarding the teasing custom. It can be very good combined
with humour as you kindly demonstrated. Regarding
Raul's influence I need to point out that I purchased at least
3 carts on my own. But all other, which are about 30,
I bought as fast as I could after his recommendation.
That is why I am now able to even make some profit
on those carts. All my cart listings begin
with the phrase: 'According to Raul...the authority in all
carts matters....' and then adding by implicition : only
a moron will waste such an opportunity. However it is
also some kind of custom by warriors to keep what
they have got as loot and at the same time claim
patriotic behaviour. Ie in no way I intend to post my
981 to the USA custom. I lost nearly all my profit
because of the phone cost with the Dutch Post
asking about those tracktrace nr. connected with
my American packets...

Regards,
Happy New Year to all, y un "Feliz Ano Nuevo" para nuestro jefe!

Dear Nandric, you asked the question:

"Why are then so many cartridges mediocre"

I think that you answered your own question earlier in the same paragraph:

****A good (professor) MANUFACTURER needs especialy patience
because the most (students) CUSTOMERS are not very bright. Besides by
(teaching) SELLING TO only the bright one he would not earn sufficient money to survive. It is in his own and , more in particular, in public interest to 'make something' from the majority of (students) CUSTOMERS****

BTW, I am glad that it worked out with sale of your Acutex 420. I hope that you did not mind that I suggested that he contact you. The commission continues to grow :-)

Regards.
Regards, Halcro: Henry, My TK7LCa has been neglected, gathering dust. The Pioneer PC-330, which I'm fairly persuaded is a PC-550 & fitted with the 4 channel capable 770EX stylus has been convincingly run in. This is a stealthy "what did I just hear?" kind of performer. Agile in the hfs, excellent clarity in the mids and a supportive bass with little apparent bloom, requiring specific attention to the lower registers in order to appreciate bass transients and separation.

Then there's the AT ML150 OCC. In Soundsmith's care for 12 weeks and returned in early Dec. with the ruby/optimized LC stylus. Patience is well rewarded. The cart ran in quickly, alignment is crucial. The slightest nudge has a noticeable influence, this combination is as sensitive as an Acutex 3/420 STR in how it meets the groove. Bass is an iron fist/velvet glove scenario. The cart cruises along, then there's an "Oh, my!" moment. Cymbols shimmer & hiss, rivets chatter. Tambourine zilds announce themselves with individual contributions. Musicians take their place and stay there. Details previously submerged are now apparent. Soundstage is deep but not excessively wide, this is a good thing IMHO. Still slightly bright, anticipating additional time in the groove will increase emotional involvement. This is a really fine cart.

Decided last week it was time to give the TK7 some attention. It was immediately obvious the stylus was worn. Est. 6-700 hrs. Detail & extension diminished, confirmed by replacing the assembly with one of the two previously unused examples.

The English ancestors enjoy a certainly rationalized level of quality, they discretely murmur it's time to replace. Lurking in the chromosomes, those penurious Scots remind me a beryllium cantilever is worth retaining.

"Andy" at:

http://www.phonocartridgeretipping.com/index.html

writes he will replace the worn stylus with either Shibata or LC for $180. Rebuild the suspension (if called for), $70. He also expects the cartridge to accompany the stylus assembly & I'm reluctant to relinquish the much loved Signet to the perils of shipping to the left coast & back. Hopefully Il Postino will be on vacation. The TK7LCa remains the cart I can listen to indefinitely without fatigue. Cart will none-the-less be in the mail before weeks-end, I'll have a report when it's returned.

That EPC-U25? Thinking about pushing pins into a photo of it, perhaps solicit a "specialist" to perform some really arcane rituals--- won't send it to you, you might be tempted to listen to it & I'll not do that to a friend :)

Peace,
Hi Nandric, My offer of the cartridge wasn't a peace offering, rather an opportunity for you to hear the superior version of the cart. I think it unlikely that you will prefer it to the HO one, as Raul already influenced your thinking. It's been my observation that an individuals evaluation is determined more by expectations than performance. In the unlikely event that you rise above preconceptions and recognise the superiority of the LZ, an exchange of "gifts" can probably be arranged.

Regards,
Regards, Nandric: Mediocre? The time anticipated by the Signet Corp. for their technicians to hand wind coils for their carts was 20 minutes. PCOFC & sometimes PCOCC, precise lengths without interruption. Diamonds are rumored to be fairly expensive, specific alloys, ceramics, beryllium, exotic materials elsewhere, assembled under close tolerances. Then there's development and production, packaging, logistics, retailers, and of course the fees due those clever marketing agents. It's amazing that Excel could offer to broadcasters carts in bulk for $11, the Shibata version for less than $20. A Shibata on beryllium for less than $50, reputed to be a winner. The Excels were of course not "Boutique" quality carts. With the few exceptions of special delight for the cartridge dilettante, you get what you pay for?

Nikola, my trickle of awareness concerning cartridge design is neither wide nor deep. Respect for the depth of knowledge and skill of those who do have that ability is immense. As always, corrections or additional information is appreciated.

About correction--- a confession: Out with good friends yesterday evening, enthusiasm for the subject may have been fueled by certain beverages. Re-reading it this A.M., I find an error, there may be others. Frequency may contribute to coil saturation, amplitude would be more a concern.

Those who would be critical please keep in mind, that was last year.

Best to all & Peace,
Dear Fleib, I grow up in a culture in which it was not done
to hug or, thank God, kiss your frieds. No idea why but
we invented teasing as a way to express our love
and solidarity with each other. Probable something to
do with the warriors mentality. But as is the case
with warriors they are not very sensitive for the
nuances of the 'border lines' such that teasing
may result in a fight. In the process of learning
I discovered that 'pretending to be insulted' always
give good results. Sometimes even presents as peace
offering. While this was in no way may intention I am glad
to see that this strategy still works: you offered to me your
low output 981. But what if I, like Lew, but contrary
to Raul prefer the low output version? May I then keep the 'present'?

Regards,
Dear Professor, A good professor needs especialy patience
because the most students are not very bright. Besides by
teaching only the bright one he would not earn sufficient
money to survive. It is in his own and , more in particular,
in public interest to 'make something' from
the majority of students. I myself am of course thankful
for your patience with me. But despite of my ignorance reg.
the carts construction and working I am wondering about the
following. Your kind lecture contains , I assume, specific
knowledge about this subject matter with which in particular
the cart producers should be familiar.
Why are then so many carts mediocre?

Kind regards,
Regards Professor (Timeltel),
It's been some time since my size 9 hob-nailed boots were required for cartridge duty?
I am still in awe at the ability to bear the pain of recalcitrant rogue cartridges in that English (?) stalwart tradition of yours?

On another subject......the erstwhile Thuchan has been happily listening to the Signet TK-7LCa cartridge albeit with the the standard No. 2 Ea stylus assembly??!!
Enlightening him with your 'golden' advice of the AT-155Lc stylus transplant......he is now about to hear the REAL sound of a TK-7LCa.
Stay tuned..........
Regards
Henry
Regards, Nikola: I think I finally understand your question, excuse me for being so dense. Not an EE, but I think I can take a good shot at answering.

Take a look:

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_15/3.html

You may deduce a correlation between inductance, resistance and output.

Here we go (EE's, please be gentle). Flux is a magnetic charge that can exert influence without direct contact. Force is carried through a conductor and can be viewed as voltage. Voltage is generated across a length of wire if that wire is exposed to a magnetic field flux of changing intensity. The amount of voltage induced depends on the rate of change of the flux and the number of turns of wire in a coil exposed to the change in flux. Output is then linear but not invariable.

Although not entirely accurate, let's go back to the bell-shaped curve (it's actually an "S"). As the rate of charge (cycles per second, or for our purposes, frequency in Hz) rises, output increases until the coil becomes saturated, it cannot accommodate any additional charge. At this point additional increase in rate of charge becomes less efficient in production of output, now the retentivity of a coil interferes with its re-magnetization in the opposite direction, a condition known as hysteresis. Transients slur, rise time lags & complicated passages become congested.

Basically, a coil's electrical charge increases with rate of change up to a certain point and then, well, let's say electrons start running into each other and output diminishes RELATIVE to increased cycling. This leads to peaks. Or slumps. The bell-shaped curve. Actually, an "S".

Groove modulation drives (in a MM cart) a magnet, peaks in output are heard as increased volume at relevant frequencies. Cantilevers resonate, the frequency at which resonance occurs may be chosen to either enhance a range in which output is lower or damped to diminish a spike.

Back to inductance, resistance & output---Generally, a hot cartridge with sturdy output will require increased cantilever damping, a lower output cartridge, less damping. Or maybe a little resonance control with the cart's generator can or mounting. Due to the complexities of the above, there may be several spikes. Or slumps. I suppose this means output isn't linear after all?

An example & right or wrong, I'm done. The AT 140LC is a "hot" cartridge with a well damped cantilever. Transfering the ATN140LC cantilever to a cartridge with lower inductance results in a reduction of midrange apparency. With a less well damped cantilever, the AT-140 exhibits disproportionate mids. At customary loading, an ear-biter for sure.

And, that's why I'm so annoyed with the low-inductance, low impedance, four pole coil with laminated permaloy core, 10-40K response, 2.5mv output Technics EPC-U25 cart with the JICO SAS with it's dang UNDERDAMPED boron cantilever. Henry would know what to do with it---

Peace,
Hi In_shore,
In the 'Nude Turntable Project'.........we could find no-one who had exhaustively tried a 'nude' DD deck against the same one in various plinths and could describe the differences experienced?
If you have done so.....it would indeed be valuable if you could contribute your comments to that thread?
Regards
Nandric, I was surprised to read that you thought there was anger or hostility in my post which was poking a little fun, more at communism than you. Maybe cultural or language differences lead to misunderstanding. Sometimes I read Raul's posts and get it wrong.
I'm glad to read that you're enjoying the Stanton. If you'd like to compare it a low output one, you can try mine. I'm not using it now. Let me know.

As end users there is little we can do about a cartridges' internal construction, but cantilevers and tips are a means to possible improvement, or degradation as the case may be.
SRA is the angle of the stylus in the groove with respect to the record surface, as viewed from the side. A SRA of 92o would be 2o forward of vertical. VTA is the angle of the cantilever with respect to the record. These are different aspects of the same thing.

Hope you, and everyone has a happy and productive new year.

Regards,
Dear nandric: If it is true that lower inductance values as resistance could help IMHO it is true that the differences on the values we are talking here are not so big for some of us could hear differences on performance ( of course some of us could hear it. ) because our ears or because not enough system resolution.
Anyway, you already know: those inductance/resistance values have nothing to " see " with the cartridge stylus. When we are talking about: " hand selected " this means not only the best stylus finished but the best motor too.

Regarding SRA this set up is system dependent: cartridge/tonearm/TT/phono stage/etc/etc.

Now, it is extremely more easy to change SRA through the tonearm self mechanism that at the headshell becuase here tiny changes could make to big SRA changes.

My AKG P100 has SRA set up mechanism in the cartridge it self and you know what?: I prefer to use it at the tonearm, is more " user friendly " but is up to you.

Nandric, enjoy your 981, you are already prepared to achieve the best from that cartridge.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Lewm...hey bud how are you? as far as I know... the London label pre 70's with the FFRR in the corner (non digital) are very good sonically and consistent from record to record...they do have a certain sound of there own but its musical in nature

I am not a London label historian but if you would like a list of what i think is very good email me or give me a call

Lawrence
Musical Arts
usedhifi@mail2lawrence.com
Dear Fleib, I have the same problem with you as Lew with Dover. Not sure if I should feel insulted or that your sarcasm is a kind of obstruction for your humor to come
through. I know that you are obsessed with cantilevers and styli but I don't see how whatever stylus can explain the differences in D.C. resistance and Inductance which
I mentioned twice. I know what passion means but speaking about 'overdue' you should temper ,uh, your temper. We both called the 'higher powers' for help but that is how the so called 'authority' is created. We already have Raul so why should we put such a burden on our kind Herr Professor? He may btw put again some 'big numers' forward while I alrady have difficulties with the small one.
My TH 981 sounds fantastic but all the fine adjustments need still to be made while I also intend, if I am allowed to say this, to use Dertonarms Arche headshell for the purpose. I have still no idea what the difference is between VTA and SRA but on this headshell there is a SRA provision and I of course want to know what the optimal SRA is about. All this efforts in service to your beloved styli. At your service so to speak.

Regards,
Dear Lewm: ++++++ " that we have radically different preferences, anyway. (Yet, surprisingly, we do agree on some things, as well.) " +++++

not really, we have more in common preferences than differences.

IMHO the speakers in an audio system always makes a difference: main differences on overall audio system quality performance level/system " colorations ".
Well, my friend Guillermo bought his big Sound Lab speakers because were the speakers that sounded " similar " to my system sound presentation. So, I know you and me are less diferent that what you think.

Regrads and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear nandric: I think that whom can give you/us a " definitive " answers about the Stanton subject should be Richard the author of the Stanton's bible.

We all appreciated if you could contact him on the subject through the lencoheaven forum/site.

My " take " on what you own and what I own ( 981 calibrated ones. ) is that are the same or performs the same but can't be sure till we can compare it.

Btw, I agree with you about that " hand selected " as AT/Signet ones.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Lawrence, Do you refer to the English pressings? London ffrr LPs that were sold here in the US were not so loved back in the 80s by me and my close audiophile friend. They sounded flat and stale compared to a bona fide English Decca LP. I will have to resurrect some of mine to re-evaluate. (I am not saying you are wrong, just that I have not held them [the US pressings] in such high esteem.)

Nicola, It does not "bother" me that Raul prefers the HZS to the LZS. I wrote this before; I've never heard an HZS, so I have no basis for arguing Raul's position. However, I like my LZS enough not to worry about it. A look at Raul's vs my systems would tell anyone that we have radically different preferences, anyway. (Yet, surprisingly, we do agree on some things, as well.) I own both the 980LZS and the 981LZS. I was not aware there was any difference at all between them except that the 981 was "selected", as you say. But after 30 years, who is to say that the parameters that governed the selection process would still hold up, i.e., a given 980 may now be superior to a given sample of a 981. If there was an "actual" difference between the two, I would be interested to know.