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
I will directly compare the Stanton 980 verses the Stanton 881s, as Nandric's accusations may be true, since I was going by memory on the 980 being better than the 881s. As I said I am a big fan of the 881 and perhaps did not remember it being this good.

I do share my listening room with my family, so I have a TV between the speakers. I have just changed to a flat panel and the sound and image have changed for the better. I will let you know .

Happy new year to all!
Regards comrade Nandric, The collective has decided that your assimilation is overdue. Once integrated, you will have the complete resources of the Borg at your disposal. However, frivolous pursuits are not tolerated and you will not have the will to resist.

I think the model number designation 980 vs 981 does indicate matched stylus/calibration, but I don't know this as fact, as I stated. Perhaps some of these deviations are because of wide tolerances or poor quality control in a mass market product. Your exemplar has a different prefix which could explain that deviation. I doubt that Stanton/Pickering had the precision manufacturing of the Japanese. After all, you could spend thousands on a MC, open it and be greeted by a skewed cantilever or angled diamond. Perhaps Timeltel could shed some light on this matter, but in the mean time, how does it sound?

Satirically yours,
Hi Halcro , No doubt about it and I totally agree with Raul. Being retired the plinth projects were a pass time fun project to do and no where did I ever make claim to any definitive answer to resonant control in a table. All I know is that I'm much happier with my system then I have been.

I followed your nude thread with interest and put sometime and expense into it ,however no one from the nude thread went as far as trying their table into a panzerholz plinth,....no one.
The end result I found that I preferred the table in a good solid panzerholz plinth thats all, what it does for a table and why I could'nt explain.
All the best for a healthly and safe new year.
Addendum, a good friend of my wrote to me and asked:'what
has your 6 years old son and his Serbo-Croatian to do with aluminum?'
Well my son wanted to learn Serbo-Croatian in two days time while his (much older) dad wanted to learn everything about aluminum alloy in two days time. It is obvious from whom the kid inherited such a optimistic nature. But it is not my fault that Herr Professor was not able to provide.
Dear comrade Don & (grand)signor Raul, I assume that Raul's 981s is a typo caused by 881s . From his earlier post follows that he means his 981 HZS which he, to
Lew's displeasure, prefers above the low ouput version.
Rauls specimen and my are much closer to each other than Acman's 980 which he of course try to egual with our superior version. I compared data from my 881S with the
981 HZS (aka 'TH') and , speaking about equality, his 980 is much more equal with the 881S :

D.C. resistance: 901 Ohms versus 626 (superior one)
Inductance : 527 mH versus 308 (idem)

The rest is nearly, uh, 'identical'.

No wonder that 881 S is such a good cart , considering the price difference.
I like Fleib very much but don't believe his assumption that only the stylus make the difference between 981 -980. My assumption is that 981 are sellected like Signet carts.
This can explain much better the measured 'deviations' between them. What I do not understand but our Professor will surely explain this, is the obvious difficulty to
get those values equal even by 981 samples.
My own psychology or my 'super ego' is already making further disturbing assumptions: what about my most expensive and just purchased Benz LP S cart? Whatever possible 'deviations' between those are not easy to swallow. Considering the price that is.

Regards,
Halcro - thanks and best wishes. Agree with Raul, but there have been seminal TT designs putting forward their goals clearly in terms of the record/cartridge interface. The Final's design was based on
"Kitamura's believes that energy cannot be ignored. As the stylus is driven by the groove, it develops a very substantial amount of energy, only a little of which is required to drive the coils. Unless the balance of energy is cleanly drained away and absorbed, it rebounds and resonates in the turntable, arm and cartridge, interfering with the playback quality".
This requirement precipitated the design, the use of record clamping and defined energy paths record/copper/aluminum/bronze/SPZ to ground for both cartridge/arm and record/platter, along with maintaining a closed rigid loop & OTT power supply.
There have been a number of other turntable manufacturers with clear goals on the requirements in addition to speed stability, which is a given, but with different solutions.
Kenwood - championed their closed loop/energy drain/record interface with the L07D
Goldmund brought focus on single point energy grounding and record mat interface.
Roksan were always quite adamant - we are measuring the groove.
If we look at the superdecks from the late 70's, particularly from Japan, their design goals were articulated quite clearly. There's not a lot that is new really, but we have the technology to better execute some of the solutions..
Dover,
Thank you so much.
I closed down all the local abattoirs over the holidays.....and I have never heard such purity, openness and transparency as a result :-)
Who knew that vegetarianism was the path to audio Nirvana?
Regards
I'm inclined to agree with Raul on our lack of 'scientific' knowledge regarding turntables in general and plinths in particular?
I don't doubt that plinths make a difference to the perceived sound of various turntables.......but how do we assess whether those differences are bringing us closer to the 'source' or merely adding attractive colourations?
I listen to my Victor TT-81 and TT-101 without a plinth.......and they sound pure, uncoloured and transparent to me.
If I placed either one in a plinth........it will conceivably alter the sound.
Does this sound like anything other an 'addition' to the sound I am now hearing?
Much is made of the necessity for a heavy plinth for idlers like the Lencos and Garrards......yet the EMT 927 and 930 are simply mounted in an open welded steel frame and reputably sound the best of any idler (or any turntable at all...according to some?).
And nobody seriously speaks of changing the plinth material for the big Micro Seiki SX/RX5000 and SX/RX8000 belt drive decks to improve their sound?

I am certain that many turntable manufacturers have scientific and field data built up over many years in some cases.......but they obviously would not share this proprietry information?
The most recent 'scientific' analyses of turntables and tonearms to my knowledge.....has been those of Continuum Audio who had a collective band of highly qualified scientists and audiophiles working within universities utilising the most advanced computer program's and methodologies.
The Caliburn, Criterion,Cobra and Copperhead were the results of this research.

Those who can....do.
Those who can't.....fill Audio Forums with homespun theory and speculation :-)
Happy New Year to all.....and enjoy the music.
Raul my friend...My postings are not about devaluation of your findings on the fuses....my Postings are for everyone to see and do testing in this manner and that is whatever you would test not just the fuses...

I did read your first reply to me...as I will say again you cannot tell anything from a studio recording! there is no studio recordings that are like live music period!!! everything can and will be souped up manipulated stepped on etc..

IMMHO there is one label that stands out above all the rest for consistency and quality of recording.....this London label ffrr the old red and or black labels are very very good consistent recording quality and "performance" ...there are a crap load of great recording from this company many are very well known so i wont go into that here..

Lawrence
Musical Arts
Dear Lharasim: Do it a favor and make that your post be worth up. Right now you have nothing on hand " against " my SR20 fuse experienced statements I posted, so IMHO what you posted has no sense to me.

Make your work/job and test the SR20s in your system and then with your first hand experiences come back and post your experiences, I'm sure that you could be extremely happy to post here something like this:

++++ " Raul your SR20 statements are plain wrong and the worst fuses Itested, those SR fuses are a " piece of cheat " ++++++

and of course telling why the SR20s are that kind of " animal ".

Till you have a self SR20 experiences you have nothing on hand.

Anyway, your opinions are always welcomed.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Acman/Nandric: This is what I posted to Don in the page ( I think ) 178/177 about the 981s:

+++++++ " The 981 specs on the operation manual say that all the 981 came with this values: DC resistance 850 ohms and Inductance 450 mH. Well, my 981 calibrated cartridge comes with this values that are in the cartridge calibration chart signed by the man that made the cartridge calibration: DC resistance 616 ohms and Inductance 248 mH. Obviously that that cartridge calibration gives real advantages against no cartridge calibration. " ++++++ output: 0.92mv

in the other side my samples ( 981 and XVS5000 stylus replacement ), both are MK2 generation. Better than the MK1?, who knows.

Nandric, just enjoy it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lharasim: First than all: have a good audio/music time in 2013.!

Now, it is obvious that you and me are wide different, especially our each one specific home system audio item evaluation method and something extremely important: the years of training in that SEM.

Till today and trough the years that SEM suffer only small changes, mainly on the LP tracks/grooves added or deleted. It does not matters what I'm evaluating always the evaluation pass through the SEM that's is almost unalterable.

I don't care about the kind of music ( obviously I care, but???? ) what I care is how those 10 seconds of sound/music sounded.

I know for sure exactly what to look for on each single trcak/groove, I know exactly how every single tick/pop and the like sounds in each single of the tracks that are on the SEM and I could by the differences on the sound on those clicks how that item could performs: believe or not.

Not only I know what to look for during the playback evaluation but against my references/targets.

Maybe your SEM is a lot better than mine but I can tell you something: my training an aware SEM level of what hapen down there is almost " perfect " and in this regards at least at the same level than your if not over you.

My SEM is an infalible one? certainly not but in the last 10 years it never fails, not a single time.
Could be and exist a better SEM ( maybe the one from you )?, certainly yes but the one I use is the one that I trust and that I know with my " ears/eyes " close.

All the time and over time my " first impressions " are confirmed through the months coming and through tests against what was changed ( fuses or whatever. ).

I have a so high command on my SEM ( thak's to my in deep training on it. ) that I can tell you if the " error/problem " we are hearing ( in an evaluation. ) comes from a 0.2mm of erron on overhang against .5mm on VTA. Maybe you could be more accurate but for me its ok with what I have.

I can tell you that through the time my SEM is a great and the best tool I found out to evaluate audio systems items, not only in my system but in any system.
Some of the persons that I meet at their places in USA are witness of what I'm telling here. I can name it if you want and I can give you their phone for you can talk about.

P.Barber?, whom cares: this is not the reason why those grooves are part of my SEM but hwta those grooves telling me about: accuracy, distortion level, tracking habilities, colorations, dynamics, inner detail, music power, music presentation, tone color, neutrality and the like.

++++ " but IMO you will never get anywhere.... " ++++++

maybe not but: whom really knows but me?

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lewm/Dover/Richardkrebs/Frogman/friends:

First than all I respect your opinions that I agree/disagree on the TT/plynt subject.

For months/years I posted several times that no one can design/build the " perfect " TT ( obviously plynt inclusive. ) till understand that the TT can't be designed as a stand alone unit.

IMHO the TT must be designed around the LP/cartridge needs. All the TT and after market plynths ( IMHO ) were and are designed with not only no scientifc foundations but with out precise and specific LP/cartridge targets.

The use of Fourier analysys or other maths tools means almost nothing till we not have that precise and specific LP/cartridge targets to from here start the TT design that can fulfil those specific targets.

IMHO till today I never read/see/heard or the like no one no site/place/designer that told us ( customers ) that his TT design fulfil the specific LP/cartridge needs: NO ONE.

To say that we need a well damped TT, a fast disipation build materials, a low resonance design and the like means nothing till we know for example:

which kind of resonances/distortions/vibrations ( generated through the whole TT design ), at which frequency range and amplitude have an influence in the /LP/cartridge signal degradation? which kind of degradation/coloration could we hear if we don't " tame " those r/d/v? how can we " tame "/disappear those r/d/v?

this simple/plain example has several alternatives/answers almost an infinite number where independent of maths modeling ( that can't tell me how can we hear it: music " color " presentation. )we ( the designers ) must to hear to confirm or not the maths modeling results and this means to have a work team where some of their members have to build TT protoype after TT prototype till we even what the math model said it with what we heard!!!!!

But ( always exist this: " but ". ) that: " we must to hear... " means that we need a " perfect " audio system to make all those tests, we need it along determinated references to make those comparisons.

Gentlemans, the answers and solution to that " perfect " TT certainly is not a stand alone one man task even if this man is " Newton " with top Universities below his " command ".

IMHO, to make/design that " perfect " TT we need a team work full of knowledge persons experts in different areas and obviously with different proved skills. We need experts in live music, experts in reproduced sound, experts on audio systems, experts on LP/cartridge relationship, experts on maths modeling and maths tools, experts on build materials, experts on vibration control/transmision, etc, etc, etc.

Who can do it?, please name it. With all respect: any one of the today and vintage TT designs or TT plynth designs as Lewm or Porter or any one of us?

I know that almost all of us want to improve the quality performance level of what we are hearing at home but almost all of us are doing that with out specific targets and many times we make changes almost at random where sometimes works and many times does not works. We have not a scientific method.

Today, I decided ( example ) to change fuses and maybe tomorrow I will change speakers position and latteron room treatment changes and we all did and do this with foundation in our each one experiences and what we like.
Yes, we have some range of advance but normally is not enough to be there.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear all, At present I have some real 'luxury problems'.
I just got the Benz LP S which is in my Triplanar on my
Kuzma in my main system in the living room. To test carts
I have a second system in my bedroom with SP 10 and FR-64
where I can change carts in 5 min. time.There I have the
Thorens 981 which substituted the Glanz 5 for the moment.
Then I also just got the 'Spotify'. Invented by Sweeds it is actually a music library with high resolution digital source and an unbelievable choice of records. I am not sure if all records ever produced are in the library but I discoverd that while very good records sound fantastic I also can enjoy Enrico Caruso despite the terrible sounding accompaniment.
One needs a separate PC and a very good sound card for the
purpose while the whole idea and installment is done by my
son. The same one who is still not capable to speak Serbo-Croatian.
BTW he is 37 years old meanwhile.
I come from a poor country in which there was not much choice at all. But this 'capitalistic abundance of choice' is not only very confusing but is actually 'killing me'.
I have no idea what to start with (grin).

Regards,
Nandric, I found on Audioreviews where the Thorens TD 147 Jubilee came with the Stanton 981HZS in 1983. This may give you a further avenue to explore.
Acman3 & Comrade Nikola,

I only have spec. sheets for my LZS. I bought the HZS used and it didn't come with anything but the stylus guard!
From my Stanton Cartridge Specifications page,
Tracking range---.75-1.5
Channel seperation 35db
DC Resistance 535 Ohms
Inductance 400 mH
Output .8 mV
Nandric, the specs. for the cartridge just mentioned are much closer to what you have stated. The cartridge the specs. I have just listed are from a Stanton 500EE MKII from their Broadcast series.
Nandric, how sure are you that it is even a 981. Have you varied that it is even a M/M and not a M/I.
Nandric, That's what I'm suggesting as well - a different cart or a variant. I never heard of a T designation on a 980/981 Stanton. I suspect you have a model custom made for Thorens, just like a Grado, S-smith, or Benz made for VPI. The specs indicate it's not exactly the same model. You might have a rare and wonderful cart. How does it sound?

Regards,

Hello Nandric, Another possibility is that you have a unique dog. If Don or Raul would check their Stanton 981 HZS calibrated specs. , we will know. The chart I am referencing says it is for both the 980/981 carts.

A Stanton made for Thorens with different specs.? Anyone ever hear of this?
Dear Fleib, 'the 981 IS a 980 with a matched stylus'...
The 'is' in your statement suggest the identity relation between the two except for the stylus. But from my and Acmans post from 12-29-12 it is obvious that there are
other differences which have no connection with the stylus whatever because the stylus was not even mentioned by us. I deed not quote all the measured data but only 3 of them.
By all 3 of them there were differences between his and my cart. By dismissing those differences as 'unimportant' you can't produce identity relation between them. By identity relation all the 'qualities' must be the same while any difference imply the opposite. I learned from Frege to be very careful with words and more in particular sentence
constructions with the connective 'IS' which has 4 different logical readings.Frege warned about common language traps and I must confess to have had my own hesitation because of the signs:'TH 981' looks different as '981 HZS'. But what is the relation or connection with the 'real things'? The signs are about the language the real things are not. When we compare two carts we are not I hope involved in some linguistic analysis but with the 'real things'. Or so I thought.

Regards,
Regards Fleib: Blame it on Raul. Comments concerning "Distortion" led to an interest in vibrational/harmonic disturbances and ultimately (don't tell Raul) a general agreement with his assessment. (As there are distinct types of distortion, I do wish he'd be a little more specific). ;)

Anyway, this led to the following quote, the source identified only as: Release 13.0 - © 2010 SAS IP, Inc. All rights reserved.

"The (static damping) procedure is to introduce a damping force which is proportional to the nodal velocities and which is aimed to critically damp the lowest mode of oscillation---. "The solution is then computed in time in the normal manner until it converges to an equilibrium state. The user is required to judge when the equilibrium state is achieved."

This refers to "critical damping", a state in which under/overshoot or ringing do not exist. For a scientific analysis with formulae bearing a resemblance to the writings in the movie "Alien", the last sentence, essentially a disclaimer, does stand out.

Fleib, you are correct. Although there may be a relationship between damping and compliance, these are distinct and the terms should not be confused. Like Dover's "abattoir", knowing when to split hares is a good thing.

Great discussions going on, pleased to see mention of bamboo. Currently contemplating sorbothane supported laminated bamboo panels with my "ringy" subs spiked to them. Considering the 170 yr. old platform framed/soft pine floors in my wreck of a home, raising/isolating the subs will be an informative experiment.

(Griffithds: Don, if neither cantilever is curved, an assembly transplanted to the correct plug MAY function as intended. As mentioned, just a thought. In this, Fleib is da' man.)

Peace,
Acman3I was not aware in the differences in specs. between the two. If I had I would not have answered your question and "fooled" you into thinking I wanted your dog. Live and learn.

Sorry again for any confusion.

Dog Definition.

Feet (My dogs are throbbing!)

Friends (I'm hangin' with my dogs tonight.)

Food (Get me two dogs and small fries.)

Insult/Humiliate (Oh, you just dogged him!)

B.S./Lie/Cut short (Why you doggin me?)

Good worker (He works like a dog.)

Bad sports performance (I played like a dog.)

Euphemism (Dog it!!!)

Chauvanist/immature/singleminded (No class, he's such a dog!)

Any male in general (Where the dogs at?)

Going through the motions (Stop dogging it, you are here to work!)

An interjection (Aw, dog!; Doooooog!!!!)
Animal – mans best friend

AND TO KEEP WITH THE THEME OF THIS THREAD.

Badly aligned MM cartridge – (that sounds like a dog to me.......)

Hope all you dogs have a Happy New Year .........
Dear Nandric, I was aware that the Stanton 891 was calibrated and the 890 was not. Like Don, I was not aware in the differences in specs. between the two. If I had I would not have answered your question and "fooled" you into thinking I wanted your dog. Live and learn.

Sorry again for any confusion.
Dear Nandric, It was explained to me that a 981 is a 980 with a matched stylus, and therefore worthy of calibration. The 980 I have is my first Stanton, so I'm no expert. Electrical parameters between 2 examples of 980, 981 should be within tolerances. I think you might have a somewhat different, and possibly superior cartridge.

Regards,
Regards, Nikola: "What to do with it?" LOL :)--- Walter Stanton's original profession was metallurgy in the aeronautical industry. He was reputed to be extremely secretive concerning the alloys used in Stanton cantilevers. A measure, it is said, to prevent his competitors from copying his designs.

Not being privy to the recipe of W. O. Stanton's concoctions, there's no concise answer available to me. Possibly the answer can be found in Arthur C Clarke's third law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". So there you have it. Pixie dust. For his fiddle playing English associate, Pickering dust.

"If you keep your mind sufficiently open, people will throw a lot of rubbish into it". --William Orton

Sincere best wishes (all) for the coming year &

Peace,
Dear Professor, 'Ask the professor' is a very understandable
question. The problem is what to do with the answer. I have
read somewhere that matalurgy is more an art than science.
But 1.475 registered alloys is not what I anticipated as your answer.
Because of the name my son was asked at school if he speaks
Serbo-Croatian. He was very disturbed to admit that he does
not. In Holland the kids always ask: 'who is this guy'
refering to their own dad. So probable the native languge
they speak should be called the 'mother tongue'. Despite
of this fact I was very suprised when my son asked me to
theach him Serbo-Croatian in the weekend such that he would
be able to demonstrate his new languge at school on Monday.
I started with what I thought was a very smart and funny
'definition' aka 'aluminum is not aluminum'. But my intention,
which was not hampered by any knowledge, was to
get some explantion about 'our own' aluminum cantilevers.
Beside I want toknow why I should pay 350 Euro to Axel for
one kind instead of 100 Euro for one other?
I feel now like my son but he was then 6 years old.

Regards,
Dear comrade Don, Richardkrebs mentioned 'Pandoras box' while I know no better exampel than the identity relation.
What the logicians actually mean and need are the corefering names such that whatever is true about, say, Vienna is also true about Wien, Wenen, Bec, etc. They need this to make sense of substitution while quantification and substitution go hand in hand. But what about the real objects? I am not very fond of Wittgenstein but admire this statement of his:
'for two objects to say that they are identical make no sense and for one to say that it is identical with itsself says nothing'.
Well Acman fooled us both by substituting his 980 for my 981. Something like 'John owns the same dog as Peter'.
You are wondering about the 'real thing' because of the 'measured' discrepanties . However measured (aka celibrated) is my 981 but not his 980. I understand the
wish of the owners of the 980 to be identical with the 981 but this also apply to desire to winn the lottery. The dog which is meant by John and Peter is not the same dog but
the same kind of dog, say, a poodle. In this sense Acman owns an MM cart.
BTW you overlooked even the difference between the number 980 and 981.

Regards,
Tom,

"Just a thought." Yea, and a very good one!
Thanks to both you and Fleib. I'm not interested in having someone else change the Virtuoso. I wanted to do this myself. Yea, a fool and his money are soon parted but sometimes that's how we learn. Asking questions and having people like you two also contributes. Thanks.
Regards,
Don
Nandric, Timeltel, As I understand it, compliance is a measure of springiness, and static or dynamic is measured in standardized units (cu) as the names imply, stationary or tracking. Things like rigidity, length, and VTF would all be determining factors. I think damping would be a secondary factor limiting the amplitude of excursions.

Regards,
Thanks Fleib,
I don't mean to be a pest over this. This angle difference must be far greater than I have been mentally picturing it.
You still have given me additional options with your previous sugestions. Thanks again, over and out!

Best of Regards,
Don
Regards, Griffithds: Relating to the AT/CA cartridges, a 2* change in cantilever angle, 20* to 22* (for instance) may result in the V-magnets changing their relation to the pole pieces by the same degree. Shimming a cart, although a good idea, is an external adaptation and will not influence the internal magnet/pole relationship. Just a thought.

Peace,
Don, the problem with a transplanted cantilever (120 series to 3400 series), isn't just SRA angle, it's clearance of the bottom of the cart. If you want an exotic cantilever on your Virtuoso, I suggest sending it to Axel or Soundsmith. It's unfortunate, but there are no factory 3400 series high end styli available. I would go for beryllium/Gyger, but I suspect ruby/micro - Soundsmith level 3, would also be excellent.
Regards,
Regards, Nandric: The Washington Monument was begun in 1848 but funds ran out and it lay partially completed through the American Civil War. A radical group calling themselves the "Know-Nothings" assumed the project, funded by selling inscribed stones which were then incorporated in the monument's construction. These can be observed from the stairs inside. Little progress was made so after four years Congress rescinded the "Know-Nothings" permission and for 22 years there was no further progress towards completion. Congress then appropriated funds for resumption of construction. The project was completed in 1884, the year in which the cap was hoisted to the top. Aluminum was used for the pinnacle, this because at that date aluminum was rarer, and more precious, than gold.

"Fun" facts: Aluminum is pure to 4n's in it's most highly refined commercially available form. There are 1,475 listed alloys, the most frequent are alloys of magnesium and silica. In electricronic applications, gold, iridium and palladium. There are two broad categories: Heat treatable and Non-heat treatable. Heat treatable alloys can be wrought, others must be cast or machined. Annealing involves heating to a critical temperature, then cooling. The speed at which a metal is cooled determines it's malleability relative to brittleness, or temper. Strain tempering involves a 5% deformation between the steps of heating and cooling, all of which dictate the quality of tempering.

Aluminum can also be anodized, an electro-chemical process resulting in an oxidized surface tougher than the base material. I'm unaware of spluttering or vapor depositing applications, perhaps due to either the relatively low melting temperature of aluminum, or possibly it simply serves no purpose..

These precesses determine the mass, Young's modulus and for our purposes, vibrational or resonant characteristics of the material. Dynamic and static damping then become considerations. To the audiophile, the required degree of control in producing a good quality cantilever also results in a cost/weight factor comparable to that of the pyramidical cap on the Washington Monument.

Dynamic damping determines "compliance". Static damping has the effect of spreading vibrational discontinuities over several elements and allows a smoothing of harmonic formation and growth. This effects a vibrational control which balances characteristic harmonic slopes relative to output impedance, if anyone (Fleib? Lew?) can describe this more succinctly or provide more specific information it would be appreciated.

Peace,
Hi Fleib,

If the slight difference in cantilever angle was quantified, lets say 2 degrees positive, could you instead of bending the cantilever, just place a thin, very thin tapered wedge on top of the cartridge body at installation to the tone arm/headshell/arm wand? Wedge could be made from ebony, lead, carbon fiber or whatever to satisfy resonance questions. Would not a tone arm with VTA adjustment on the fly (like my Graham 2.2), be able to do the same thing? If we are talkin slight angle adjustment of the cantilever, seems to me that this method would be a simple answer. Perhaps I'm not mentally seeing something?
Regards,
Don
Hello Don,
I recommend AGAINST transplanting the 152LP. That's how I broke my 152MLP. Beryllium is even more brittle than boron and a small amount of bending is required. The 120 series plug, to which the 152 belongs has the cantilever exiting at a slightly different angle than the 3400 series plug, to which the 95/CA belongs. I suggest sticking with aluminum cantilevers for transplant.
If you're looking for an interesting candidate for your ATN152LP, LpGear imports the AT-100E. This is a normally Japan only cart. It is a lightweight like the 440, but the generator has identical specs as the 150MLX. It comes with a cheap bonded stylus but I'm told that the 120 series fits. Inductance is an admirable 350mH, and I believe DC resistance is 800, and impedance is 2.3K. Also uses PC/OCC wire - $90.

Yes, LpGear is authorized dealer for AT and Jico. I think they supply TT-Needles and possibly others, with product. Needles might have bought up a lot of old Pfanstiehl stock, they use their numbering system. Once I ordered a stylus from LpGear and the return address was NY. Needles is in Brooklyn so I assume they have a working relationship.
I don't think Jico even makes these or they would sell them too, which they don't. Quality seems pretty consistent, maybe the cantilever was slightly twisted on the one that didn't sound as good. Glad to be of assistance.
Regards,
Dover, Frogman, others. Thanks for your thoughtful and informative remarks about shape. I think it is a given that shape (and mass) affects resonant frequency. Now the question is whether there is some shape for a given homogeneous composition that will have a flatter/broader resonant peak when excited, as compared to some other shape? For example, I can envision that an irregular polygon might do better than a sphere in such a test, because the waves of energy will be more randomly be dissipated as they reach boundaries (in this case, the boundary between the acrylic object and air), for the latter shape vs the former. I just want to know whether Clearaudio's claim for their former acrylic plinths could have any merit.

And no no no no, I never want to build another plinth in this lifetime.

And it's fair to say that the subject is OT. I apologize to anyone who finds it distracting or beside the point. By now, I feel like we are all old friends; we can sit around and shoot the shit about anything related to audio without busting a gasket.
Hi Acman3 and Balkin comrade!

Never heard of the Th 981? Surprised at amount of difference between the your 2 cartridges numbers! I didn't know/realize actual readings could be "that" amount of difference.
Regards,
Don
Dear Nikola, I am fine as is, but thanks for the offer. The Santon 980/981 is great. When I was told it was better than than the 881s I knew I would like it, but never dreamed it was this much better. I hope you enjoy your new find. Let us know what you think about your Th 981.
Dear Acman, If I understand you well you actually wanted
my 981 in Texas in order to switch your 980 for my calibrated
981 ? OK but what kind of compensation do you have in mind?
On the usaudiomart.com web site there is a Virtuoso Wood with a slightly bend stylus for sale. Concidering how easy and cheap ($33), to actually get a replacement stylus, the asking price of $250 seems down right cheap. If I didn't already own 2, you would of never seen this HEADS UP!
It seems I should have used a smiley face. I live in Texas and I was kidding you about sending your better specced cartridge to me for a listen. The 980 HZS has a generic sheet of specs,As I gave them to you. It is not individually calibrated.

Sorry for the confusion. :)
Dear Acman, There may be something wrong with your cart.
Why should you assume that your cart is ok and my 'wrong'?
Both are individualy measured with explicite mentioning that
those measurements apply only to the carts by which
the data are provided. 'The 980 is uncalibrated' according
to you but I don't see any relevance of this statement for
our two specimens because both have calibrated data sheets.
Anyway you are nearer to Texas than I.

Regards,
I think there is probably something wrong with your cartridge. You better send it to Texas to be checked out.

The 980 is uncalibrated. Also the output is .8 mv/cm/sec. I did not have to turn the volume up to get proper sound. Let us know how it compares to your LP s.
In_shore. Thank you for the contact. I will see if I can track Richard down. I have found damping to be a Pandora's box. It needs to be applied judicially. It is so easy to go too far.
Yes I agree that there are many other materials of merit to choose from for plinths and arm boards. I would add to your list some of the zinc alloys, and even bamboo composite.
The fun of all this, and our hobby as a whole, is that there are many roads to enlightenment. I think we should celebrate that.
Dear Acman, According to the calibration data sheet
each cart is individualy calibrated so the info provided by
a cart appllies specificaly to the measured cart. By my
specimen the vertical compliance is 30 mm/ Newton as I
already mentioned. The discrepancy with your specimen is
the resistance : 850 Ohm versus 626 Ohm (my specimen);
Inductance 450 mH versus 308 mH (my specimen) and output
0.8 mV versus 1.01 mV (my specimen). So there are
some obviuos 'deviations' between the two but I have no idea
how important those are. There are much more difficulties
by the so called 'identity relationship' while my quess is
that the cause are the names and not the objects themself.

Regards,
Dear Nikola, The 980 hzs shows:

Tracking : 3/4 to 1.5grams
channel sep :35 db
D.C. Resistance : 850 ohms
Inductance : 450 mh
Compliance : ?
Output : 0.8mv
Hi Fleib,

LPGear is in my understanding, the US distributor for Jico. Do you think Jico grades their stylus (grade 1,2,3,), then ships to LPGear? They (LPGear),then distributes to say TurntableNeedles and others, keeping the grades 1 for their own sale. Sounds like a good business decision to me. What you experienced kind of proves it. I think I'm going to start making all my Jico buys confined to just LPGear or Jico direct!
The Beryllium cantilever is my favorite and what I would like to install in a Virtuoso. What that cantilever (with shibata tip), did to my Goldring G800 still to this day has me absolutely stunned! I haven't intended to cut up the housing of either of the previous mentioned stylus (152LP or 440MLa), but do a transplant to a much cheaper AT95e (LPGear $33), green in color housing in which I would cut up to fit into the Virtuoso. I understand it to have the screw for stylus removal. I've experienced far to many bend stylus by accidents. I have no desire to start bending them on purpose. I remember reading somewhere that during the removal of a Boron or Beryllium cantilever, that just the backing off of the screw, shattered the cantilever so I'm a little nervous about this!
Considering your past experience and knowledge in this process, If you have additional or corrective input, it would be much appreciated. Thanks again Fleib for opening my eyes and ears to a this new experience!
Best of Regards,
Don
Hi all, Does anybody owns the Stanton TH 981 ? I just got
one. The prefix 'TH' refer to Thorens and means or imply
that Stanton made his 981 HZS for Thorens. As far as I know
the only Thorens worth mentioning were those which were sold
without the tonearm. Anyway the celibration data included by this cart are:

Tracking : 100 microns with 1 1/4 gr.;
Channel sep. : 35 dB ;
D.C. Resistance: 626 Ohms;
Inductance : 308 mH;
Vertical compl.: 30 mm/Newton
Output : 1.01 mV

I hope someone who owns the 981 HZS will compare those
data and report about possible differences.

This cart was designed as an improvement on the 881S and
I compared them. While the 881 S is a very good cart the
981 is much better. If the primary reason is the new cantilever
and stylus ( I have read this assumption somewhere) then we
should elaborate on the so called 'aluminum cantilever' first.
This means in my logic 'aluminum is not aluminum'.
Axel mentioned to me that those aluminum cantilevers differ
in 'quality' but was not specific in any way. I heard about
'aluminum alloy' but never what is mixed with aluminum
to get whatever aluminum alloy.
Looks to me something for our Professor, Fleib and Dover to enlighten us.

Regards,
Richardkrebs you may find Audioqualia.uk is up your alley so to speak, I believe the owners name is Richard also.
A few years ago I sent him damping material to test and post results on his site, however you will have to contact him as I have no idea if he still does this for experimenters.
Personally I like my own plinths with pivoting arm boards using solid bronze , high grade stainless steel or panzerholz. I liked the ease of direct comparisons between tables using any particular arm and cartridge that I have, sometimes with surprising results.,...Dover owns a very interesting table I would love to see and hear in action if I ever get to his beautiful country for a holiday, of course only by invitation.

Another problem then trying to tame resonance you don't read too much about and virtually every turntable manufacture but only one from the past ignores is off centre spindle holes in our records, anyone remember a product from the 1980s called Center-A-Disc?

Timeltel

the Micro Seiki 505s arm is a real pleasure to use and to look at, the factory head shell the first hole closes to the tube sets pivot to spindle distance just set it over the spindle, the last hole for over hang, but I would order a Mint Trctor. The other adjustments are equally fine to use.
My last remnant slabs of B-25panzerholz went all the way to southern California, the shipping cost was scary,but if your still interested by the spring Kentucky is much,much closer.This material is quite good with a well thought out design, off the shelf material is no contender.
Dear Dover, I have no problem at all to admit that I was
wrong. Anyway if math. is involved I usualy skip the whole
subject matter. And I just started to like you. How about
'Fourier analysis' as a separate-separate thread?

Regards,
Well then the answer to Lewm's question is yes - shape will affect resonance.
You can mathematically model a proposed shape using fourier analysis, but the traditional method of measuring resonance is the use of accelerometers to measure the resonances induced by applying a frequency sweep to the item to be measured at multiple points. The pencil & ear test does not really do much here as I would surmise that it is checking the dampening behaviour at 1 frequency point only for the particular mass, size and shape of both the pencil and the sample material tested. The "sound" of the tap will vary with the positioning of the "tap" on an irregular structure as well. Of course if you add feet - 3 or 4 - then you have built a trampoline and the resonances induced will be quite different to no feet, or varying the location of the feet.
The more complex the shape the more nodes there will be that need to be factored into the calculations. A concave plinth will have more nodes and the maths will be more complex than a flat plinth for example.