Who needs a MM cartridge type when we have MC?


Dear friends: who really needs an MM type phono cartridge?, well I will try to share/explain with you what are my experiences about and I hope too that many of you could enrich the topic/subject with your own experiences.

For some years ( in this forum ) and time to time I posted that the MM type cartridge quality sound is better than we know or that we think and like four months ago I start a thread about: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1173550723&openusid&zzRauliruegas&4&5#Rauliruegas where we analyse some MM type cartridges.

Well, in the last 10-12 months I buy something like 30+ different MM type phono cartridges ( you can read in my virtual system which ones. ) and I’m still doing it. The purpose of this fact ( “ buy it “ ) is for one way to confirm or not if really those MM type cartridges are good for us ( music lovers ) and at the same time learn about MM vs MC cartridges, as a fact I learn many things other than MM/MC cartridge subject.

If we take a look to the Agon analog members at least 90% of them use ( only ) MC phono cartridges, if we take a look to the “ professional reviewers “ ( TAS, Stereophile, Positive Feedback, Enjoy the Music, etc, etc, ) 95% ( at least ) of them use only MC cartridges ( well I know that for example: REG and NG of TAS and RJR of Stereophile use only MM type cartridges!!!!!!!! ) , if we take a look to the phono cartridge manufacturers more than 90% of them build/design for MC cartridges and if you speak with audio dealers almost all will tell you that the MC cartridges is the way to go.

So, who are wrong/right, the few ( like me ) that speak that the MM type is a very good alternative or the “ whole “ cartridge industry that think and support the MC cartridge only valid alternative?

IMHO I think that both groups are not totally wrong/right and that the subject is not who is wrong/right but that the subject is : KNOW-HOW or NON KNOW-HOW about.

Many years ago when I was introduced to the “ high end “ the cartridges were almost MM type ones: Shure, Stanton, Pickering, Empire, etc, etc. In those time I remember that one dealer told me that if I really want to be nearest to the music I have to buy the Empire 4000 D ( they say for 4-channel reproduction as well. ) and this was truly my first encounter with a “ high end cartridge “, I buy the 4000D I for 70.00 dls ( I can’t pay 150.00 for the D III. ), btw the specs of these Empire cartridges were impressive even today, look: frequency response: 5-50,000Hz, channel separation: 35db, tracking force range: 0.25grs to 1.25grs!!!!!!!!, just impressive, but there are some cartridges which frequency response goes to 100,000Hz!!!!!!!!!!

I start to learn about and I follow to buying other MM type cartridges ( in those times I never imagine nothing about MC cartridges: I don’t imagine of its existence!!!. ) like AKG, Micro Acoustics, ADC, B&O, Audio Technica, Sonus, etc, etc.

Years latter the same dealer told me about the MC marvelous cartridges and he introduce me to the Denon-103 following with the 103-D and the Fulton High performance, so I start to buy and hear MC cartridges. I start to read audio magazines about either cartridge type: MM and Mc ones.

I have to make changes in my audio system ( because of the low output of the MC cartridges and because I was learning how to improve the performance of my audio system ) and I follow what the reviewers/audio dealers “ speak “ about, I was un-experienced !!!!!!!, I was learning ( well I’m yet. ).

I can tell you many good/bad histories about but I don’t want that the thread was/is boring for you, so please let me tell you what I learn and where I’m standing today about:

over the years I invested thousands of dollars on several top “ high end “ MC cartridges, from the Sumiko Celebration passing for Lyras, Koetsu, Van denHul, to Allaerts ones ( just name it and I can tell that I own or owned. ), what I already invest on MC cartridges represent almost 70-80% price of my audio system.

Suddenly I stop buying MC cartridges and decide to start again with some of the MM type cartridges that I already own and what I heard motivate me to start the search for more of those “ hidden jewels “ that are ( here and now ) the MM phono cartridges and learn why are so good and how to obtain its best quality sound reproduction ( as a fact I learn many things other than MM cartridge about. ).

I don’t start this “ finding “ like a contest between MC and MM type cartridges.
The MC cartridges are as good as we already know and this is not the subject here, the subject is about MM type quality performance and how achieve the best with those cartridges.

First than all I try to identify and understand the most important characteristics ( and what they “ means “. ) of the MM type cartridges ( something that in part I already have it because our phonolinepreamp design needs. ) and its differences with the MC ones.

Well, first than all is that are high output cartridges, very high compliance ones ( 50cu is not rare. ), low or very low tracking force ones, likes 47kOhms and up, susceptible to some capacitance changes, user stylus replacement, sometimes we can use a different replacement stylus making an improvement with out the necessity to buy the next top model in the cartridge line , low and very low weight cartridges, almost all of them are build of plastic material with aluminum cantilever and with eliptical or “ old “ line contact stylus ( shibata ) ( here we don’t find: Jade/Coral/Titanium/etc, bodies or sophisticated build material cantilevers and sophisticated stylus shape. ), very very… what I say? Extremely low prices from 40.00 to 300.00 dls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, well one of my cartridges I buy it for 8.99 dls ( one month ago ): WOW!!!!!!, so any one of you can/could have/buy ten to twenty MM cartridges for the price of one of the MC cartridge you own today and the good notice is that is a chance that those 10-20 MM type cartridges even the quality performance of your MC cartridge or beat it.

Other characteristics is that the builders show how proud they were/are on its MM type cartridges design, almost all those cartridges comes with a first rate box, comes with charts/diagrams of its frequency response and cartridge channel separation ( where they tell us which test recording use it, with which VTF, at which temperature, etc, etc. ), comes with a very wide explanation of the why’s and how’s of its design and the usual explanation to mount the cartridge along with a very wide list of specifications ( that were the envy of any of today MC ones where sometimes we really don’t know nothing about. ), comes with a set of screws/nuts, comes with a stylus brush and even with stylus cleaning fluid!!!!!!!!!, my GOD. Well, there are cartridges like the Supex SM 100MK2 that comes with two different stylus!!!! One with spherical and one with elliptical/shibata shape and dear friends all those in the same low low price!!!!!!!!!!!

Almost all the cartridges I own you can find it through Ebay and Agon and through cartridge dealers and don’t worry if you loose/broke the stylus cartridge or you find the cartridge but with out stylus, you always can/could find the stylus replacement, no problem about there are some stylus and cartridge sources.

When I’m talking about MM type cartridges I’m refer to different types: moving magnet, moving iron, moving flux, electret, variable reluctance, induced magnet, etc, etc. ( here is not the place to explain the differences on all those MM type cartridges. Maybe on other future thread. ).

I made all my very long ( time consuming ) cartridge tests using four different TT’s: Acoustic Signature Analog One MK2, Micro Seiki RX-5000, Luxman PD 310 and Technics SP-10 MK2, I use only removable headshell S and J shape tonearms with 15mm on overhang, I use different material build/ shape design /weight headshells. I test each cartridge in at least three different tonearms and some times in 3-4 different headshells till I find the “ right “ match where the cartridge perform the best, no I’m not saying that I already finish or that I already find the “ perfect “ match: cartridge/headshell/tonearm but I think I’m near that ideal target.

Through my testing experience I learn/ confirm that trying to find the right tonearm/headshell for any cartridge is well worth the effort and more important that be changing the TT. When I switch from a TT to another different one the changes on the quality cartridge performance were/are minimal in comparison to a change in the tonearm/headshell, this fact was consistent with any of those cartridges including MC ones.

So after the Phonolinepreamplifier IMHO the tonearm/headshell match for any cartridge is the more important subject, it is so important and complex that in the same tonearm ( with the same headshell wires ) but with different headshell ( even when the headshell weight were the same ) shape or build material headshell the quality cartridge performance can/could be way different.

All those experiences told me that chances are that the cartridge that you own ( MC or MM ) is not performing at its best because chances are that the tonearm you own is not the best match for that cartridge!!!!!!, so imagine what do you can/could hear when your cartridge is or will be on the right tonearm???!!!!!!!!, IMHO there are ( till today ) no single ( any type at any price ) perfect universal tonearm. IMHO there is no “ the best tonearm “, what exist or could exist is a “ best tonearm match for “ that “ cartridge “, but that’s all. Of course that are “ lucky “ tonearms that are very good match for more than one cartridge but don’t for every single cartridge.

I posted several times that I’m not a tonearm collector, that I own all those tonearms to have alternatives for my cartridges and with removable headshells my 15 tonearms are really like 100+ tonearms : a very wide options/alternatives for almost any cartridge!!!!!!

You can find several of these MM type cartridges new brand or NOS like: Ortofon, Nagaoka, Audio Technica, Astatic, B&O, Rega, Empire, Sonus Reson,Goldring,Clearaudio, Grado, Shelter, Garrot, etc. and all of them second hand in very good operational condition. As a fact I buy two and even three cartridges of the same model in some of the cartridges ( so right now I have some samples that I think I don’t use any more. ) to prevent that one of them arrive in non operational condition but I’m glad to say that all them arrive in very fine conditions. I buy one or two of the cartridges with no stylus or with the stylus out of work but I don’t have any trouble because I could find the stylus replacement on different sources and in some case the original new replacement.

All these buy/find cartridges was very time consuming and we have to have a lot of patience and a little lucky to obtain what we are looking for but I can asure you that is worth of it.

Ok, I think it is time to share my performance cartridge findings:

first we have to have a Phonolinepreamplifier with a very good MM phono stage ( at least at the same level that the MC stage. ). I’m lucky because my Phonolinepreamplifier has two independent phono stages, one for the MM and one for MC: both were designed for the specifics needs of each cartridge type, MM or MC that have different needs.

we need a decent TT and decent tonearm.

we have to load the MM cartridges not at 47K but at 100K ( at least 75K not less. ).

I find that using 47K ( a standard manufacture recommendation ) prevent to obtain the best quality performance, 100K make the difference. I try this with all those MM type cartridges and in all of them I achieve the best performance with 100K load impedance.

I find too that using the manufacturer capacitance advise not always is for the better, till “ the end of the day “ I find that between 100-150pf ( total capacitance including cable capacitance. ) all the cartridges performs at its best.

I start to change the load impedance on MM cartridges like a synonymous that what many of us made with MC cartridges where we try with different load impedance values, latter I read on the Empire 4000 DIII that the precise load impedance must be 100kOhms and in a white paper of some Grace F9 tests the used impedance value was 100kOhms, the same that I read on other operational MM cartridge manual and my ears tell/told me that 100kOhms is “ the value “.

Before I go on I want to remember you that several of those MM type cartridges ( almost all ) were build more than 30+ years ago!!!!!!!! and today performs at the same top quality level than today MC/MM top quality cartridges!!!!!, any brand at any price and in some ways beat it.

I use 4-5 recordings that I know very well and that give me the right answers to know that any cartridge is performing at its best or near it. Many times what I heard through those recordings were fine: everything were on target however the music don’t come “ alive “ don’t “ tell me “ nothing, I was not feeling the emotion that the music can communicate. In those cartridge cases I have to try it in other tonearm and/or with a different headshell till the “ feelings comes “ and only when this was achieved I then was satisfied.

All the tests were made with a volume level ( SPL ) where the recording “ shines “ and comes alive like in a live event. Sometimes changing the volume level by 1-1.5 db fixed everything.

Of course that the people that in a regular manner attend to hear/heard live music it will be more easy to know when something is right or wrong.

Well, Raul go on!!: one characteristic on the MM cartridges set-up was that almost all them likes to ride with a positive ( little/small ) VTA only the Grace Ruby and F9E and Sonus Gold Blue likes a negative VTA , on the other hand with the Nagaoka MP 50 Super and the Ortofon’s I use a flat VTA.

Regarding the VTF I use the manufacturer advise and sometimes 0.1+grs.
Of course that I made fine tuning through moderate changes in the Azymuth and for anti-skate I use between half/third VTF value.

I use different material build headshells: aluminum, composite aluminum, magnesium, composite magnesium, ceramic, wood and non magnetic stainless steel, these cartridges comes from Audio Technica, Denon, SAEC, Technics, Fidelity Research, Belldream, Grace, Nagaoka, Koetsu, Dynavector and Audiocraft.
All of them but the wood made ( the wood does not likes to any cartridge. ) very good job . It is here where a cartridge could seems good or very good depending of the headshell where is mounted and the tonearm.
Example, I have hard time with some of those cartridge like the Audio Technica AT 20SS where its performance was on the bright sound that sometimes was harsh till I find that the ceramic headshell was/is the right match now this cartridge perform beautiful, something similar happen with the Nagaoka ( Jeweltone in Japan ), Shelter , Grace, Garrot , AKG and B&O but when were mounted in the right headshell/tonearm all them performs great.

Other things that you have to know: I use two different cooper headshell wires, both very neutral and with similar “ sound “ and I use three different phono cables, all three very neutral too with some differences on the sound performance but nothing that “ makes the difference “ on the quality sound of any of my cartridges, either MM or MC, btw I know extremely well those phono cables: Analysis Plus, Harmonic Technologies and Kimber Kable ( all three the silver models. ), finally and don’t less important is that those phono cables were wired in balanced way to take advantage of my Phonolinepreamp fully balanced design.

What do you note the first time you put your MM cartridge on the record?, well a total absence of noise/hum or the like that you have through your MC cartridges ( and that is not a cartridge problem but a Phonolinepreamp problem due to the low output of the MC cartridges. ), a dead silent black ( beautiful ) soundstage where appear the MUSIC performance, this experience alone is worth it.

The second and maybe the most important MM cartridge characteristic is that you hear/heard the MUSIC flow/run extremely “ easy “ with no distracting sound distortions/artifacts ( I can’t explain exactly this very important subject but it is wonderful ) even you can hear/heard “ sounds/notes “ that you never before heard it and you even don’t know exist on the recording: what a experience!!!!!!!!!!!

IMHO I think that the MUSIC run so easily through a MM cartridge due ( between other facts ) to its very high compliance characteristic on almost any MM cartridge.

This very high compliance permit ( between other things like be less sensitive to out-center hole records. ) to these cartridges stay always in contact with the groove and never loose that groove contact not even on the grooves that were recorded at very high velocity, something that a low/medium cartridge compliance can’t achieve, due to this low/medium compliance characteristic the MC cartridges loose ( time to time and depending of the recorded velocity ) groove contact ( minute extremely minute loose contact, but exist. ) and the quality sound performance suffer about and we can hear it, the same pass with the MC cartridges when are playing the inner grooves on a record instead the very high compliance MM cartridges because has better tracking drive perform better than the MC ones at inner record grooves and here too we can hear it.

Btw, some Agoners ask very worried ( on more than one Agon thread ) that its cartridge can’t track ( clean ) the cannons on the 1812 Telarc recording and usually the answers that different people posted were something like this: “””” don’t worry about other than that Telarc recording no other commercial recording comes recorded at that so high velocity, if you don’t have trouble with other of your LP’s then stay calm. “””””

Well, this standard answer have some “ sense “ but the people ( like me ) that already has/have the experience to hear/heard a MM or MC ( like the Ortofon MC 2000 or the Denon DS1, high compliance Mc cartridges. ) cartridge that pass easily the 1812 Telarc test can tell us that those cartridges make a huge difference in the quality sound reproduction of any “ normal “ recording, so it is more important that what we think to have a better cartridge tracking groove drive!!!!

There are many facts around the MM cartridge subject but till we try it in the right set-up it will be ( for some people ) difficult to understand “ those beauties “. Something that I admire on the MM cartridges is how ( almost all of them ) they handle the frequency extremes: the low bass with the right pitch/heft/tight/vivid with no colorations of the kind “ organic !!” that many non know-how people speak about, the highs neutral/open/transparent/airy believable like the live music, these frequency extremes handle make that the MUSIC flow in our minds to wake up our feelings/emotions that at “ the end of the day “ is all what a music lover is looking for.
These not means that these cartridges don’t shine on the midrange because they do too and they have very good soundstage but here is more system/room dependent.

Well we have a very good alternative on the ( very low price ) MM type cartridges to achieve that music target and I’m not saying that you change your MC cartridge for a MM one: NO, what I’m trying to tell you is that it is worth to have ( as many you can buy/find ) the MM type cartridges along your MC ones

I want to tell you that I can live happy with any of those MM cartridges and I’m not saying with this that all of them perform at the same quality level NO!! what I’m saying is that all of them are very good performers, all of them approach you nearest to the music.

If you ask me which one is the best I can tell you that this will be a very hard “ call “ an almost impossible to decide, I think that I can make a difference between the very good ones and the stellar ones where IMHO the next cartridges belongs to this group:

Audio Technica ATML 170 and 180 OCC, Grado The Amber Tribute, Grace Ruby, Garrot P77, Nagaoka MP-50 Super, B&O MMC2 and MMC20CL, AKG P8ES SuperNova, Reson Reca ,Astatic MF-100 and Stanton LZS 981.

There are other ones that are really near this group: ADC Astrion, Supex MF-100 MK2, Micro Acoustics MA630/830, Empire 750 LTD and 600LAC, Sonus Dimension 5, Astatic MF-200 and 300 and the Acutex 320III.

The other ones are very good too but less refined ones.
I try too ( owned or borrowed for a friend ) the Shure IV and VMR, Music maker 2-3 and Clearaudio Virtuoso/Maestro, from these I could recommended only the Clearaudios the Shure’s and Music Maker are almost mediocre ones performers.
I forgot I try to the B&O Soundsmith versions, well this cartridges are good but are different from the original B&O ( that I prefer. ) due that the Sounsmith ones use ruby cantilevers instead the original B&O sapphire ones that for what I tested sounds more natural and less hi-fi like the ruby ones.

What I learn other that the importance on the quality sound reproduction through MM type cartridges?, well that unfortunately the advance in the design looking for a better quality cartridge performers advance almost nothing either on MM and MC cartridges.

Yes, today we have different/advanced body cartridge materials, different cantilever build materials, different stylus shape/profile, different, different,,,,different, but the quality sound reproduction is almost the same with cartridges build 30+ years ago and this is a fact. The same occur with TT’s and tonearms. Is sad to speak in this way but it is what we have today. Please, I’m not saying that some cartridges designs don’t grow up because they did it, example: Koetsu they today Koetsu’s are better performers that the old ones but against other cartridges the Koetsu ones don’t advance and many old and today cartridges MM/MC beat them easily.

Where I think the audio industry grow-up for the better are in electronic audio items ( like the Phonolinepreamps ), speakers and room treatment, but this is only my HO.

I know that there are many things that I forgot and many other things that we have to think about but what you can read here is IMHO a good point to start.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
Ag insider logo xs@2xrauliruegas
Hi T-Bone'
My Graham is the 2.2 and there was no problem mounting/setting up the 4000D in its jig. Most of the cartridges that I have sit towards the back of the arm slots. The 4000D is the 1st cartridge that I've had that had to be set more into the center of the slots to align properly. Still had room for more foward/backward positioning if it was needed. Concidering how much I like the 4000DIII, I quess their won't be a Graham Phantom arm in my future. Thanks for the heads up!
Dear T_bone, I didn't say that MOI was the over riding issue for longer arm inferiority. I said it was a disadvantage. The cart not only moves constantly toward the center of the record, it also moves in response to the movements of the stylus/cantilever. That assembly has a certain springiness, but what is the "fixed" object the assembly pushes against on the back end? The cart body is attached firmly to the arm which must respond to vertical movements with warps and back and forth movements with off-center records. All these movements are actually angular because the cart is constantly moving inward.
Regards,
In_shore,
The EPA-100Mk2 I had rebuilt/modded was in pretty terrible cosmetic condition, and the VTA ring had come unstuck, and it had cigarette smoke residue gumming up the bearings slightly. I had the arm completely overhauled/cleaned, some of the silk-screening redone, the ruby bearings replaced with higher quality (greater degree of roundness compared to the original rubies) silicon nitride bearings, and got it rewired from headshell collar to phono stage inputs with shielded solid-core silver air-cotton dielectric and silver Eichmanns. The original P3 arm can be brought up to EA-3 standards by using some kind of damping material on the armband. The 'dynamic resonance absorber' can be replicated with a thin strip of sponge wrapped semi-tightly by a piece of lead tape, with the bulk placed just in front of the place where the armwand plugs into the main pivot. On the EA-3-style arms, i have had a few (still do). One EA-3 (the newer one with built-in DRAs) and one original are as original. One original arm has been factory-rewired recently.

I will be trying the Empire/Yamamoto HS-3 combo later this weekend. It was discussed and I had never used one so I found one and snagged it. Looking forward to it. The boxwood is slightly heavier than the cherry it seems.
Griffithds, you have to thank In_shore for the warning about the Phantom and the Empire. I have never tried the pair.
T_bone,
The very best arm I have found for very high-compliance cartridges is the Continuum Copperhead. This is out of the 10 or so vintage and modern arms I have mounted in my system.
The Copperhead recommendation is academic though as it was re-wired with DaVinci Grandezza wiring due to RFI problems with the original unshielded Copperhead phono wiring.
The second best arm I have found for high-compliance MM cartridges, strangely enough, is the high-mass Fidelity Research FR-66S. Go figure?

In_shore, I'm currently listening to the Empire 4000DIII in the Copperhead and it is quite luminescent although I agree with you that the MA-505S with a Yammy headshell punches above its weight.

Griffithds, do you have another arm for the MMs or are you only using the Graham 2.2 as I found the Phantom 2 to be a rather poor match with high-compliance MM cartridges?
Hi T bone, I am enjoying the EPA 100MKII tonearm very much. Even with the stock cable and wiring I like it better than my rewired EPA 500. Both these tonearms are very user friendly and great designs.

Since the tonearm is new to me I am not sure how to tweak the damping adjustment for best sound, I have been just mostly setting it at recommended amount dependant on cartridge compliance. Any tips for adjusting damping on the EPA 100 tonearm?

About bearing friction, low bearing friction allows the cartridge do its job easier, track the record grooves accurately without needing to "fight" the arm drag? Or am I wrong on this assumption?
Hi Halcro,

My primary table is the VPI Aries with the Graham 2.2 arm. I have 4 wands, one of which is his ceramic wand. The other 3 are his standard wands, alum I think. Believe me, I have no problem with MM cartridgs on the rig. Before I started reading this thread, I was using primarily MC cartridges. The Benz Micro Ruby III, Blue Oasis by Win Sau, Denon 103R with Expert Stylus ruby cantilever and a Paratrace stylus, and my MM's were the Clearaudio Vituroso Wood and a Otofron M20FL. Due to this thread, I purchased a Audio Technics AT15sa and installed a AT20ss stylus. This has become my favorite cartridge, as good as the RubyIII. I have not used it long enough to state it's better, so leave it just as good as. Years ago, some outfit in Japan were making these thin lead shims that were to be used (sandwidged), between the cartridge and the headshell, arm wand in the case of the Graham. They were for resonace control on the plastic bodied cartridges that were coming out at that time. I quickly discovered they also add weight the the front of the tone arm. At that time I was using a SOTA Saphire table with a Alphason HR arm. The lead wedge vastly improved the compliance issues I was having with various cartridges (Denons), at that time. During that era, the term compliance was not banterned around. You were just told you needed to use a lighter/heavier arm when certain cartridge were installed.I have continued using those same lead shims as needed to this day. When I install any cartridge, I expect it to sound great. If it doesn't, I try the shim. I have been susprised more thatn once doing this.
Hi In_shore,

Sorry I confused your threat with T_bones. Thank you for your imput about the Phantom. I have considered selling my 2.2 and buying the new Phantom. I would of had to give up all the multiple arm wands I use, and buy additional phantom wands. We are talking big $$$ hear. Because of your comment about the 4000D setup issues on the Phantom, I will just keep what I have. Thank you again.
Halco,

I have been thinking about your comment comparing the issues of the Phantom arm with the 2.2 arm. I wish the Pantom was intended to be a upgraded 2.2 but it wasn't. Bob designed a completely different arm when he built the Phantom. Parts are not interchangable. I tried to order from Bob, the Phantom wands for my 2.2 and was told by Bob that I might be able to swap a few screws B/T the two arms but that is about all. Each arm seems to have issues, but they are not the same issues. The needs of a MM cartridges did not seem to be on Bob's mind when he designed his latest creation
A silly thought (perhaps) - MM went through its fall into shadow around the same time that the big (Japanese) LT manufacturers pulled out of the market.

Was Linear Tracking a logical development associated with high compliance MM?
The two do coincide, and the disappearance of mainstream LT also appears to coincide with the fall from grace of MM cartridges.

Is T_Bones comment about LT being an ideal solution to High compliance a marker to why LT rose to prominence.... and also perhaps to why it fell from favour when MC's became dominant (along with low compliance)?

Are the inherent compromises with pivoted arms least evident with low compliance, and the inherent compromises of LT's least evident with high compliance?

In particular I am thinking of short arm LT's with tracking happening directly over the record... Long arm LT's may be quite different beasts - my LT experience so far is with the Revox.

bye for now

David
Dear Griffthds: 1) that cartridge ranking was a little old and maybe not useful today where not only I heard a lot more different cartridges but where I made some system ( important. ) changes/improvements to my audio system. All in all those Ortofon are very good and in those times I prefer by a " hair " the E over the FL but I can't say today.

2) you already have answers.
3) I can do it after you send your cartridges as a present to me!!
3') I own that Clearaudio that I really don't test it yet. I had same information on its performance as you experienced. The cartridge ( I understand ) is made it by AT for Clearaudio. I will give a listening and report about.
4) No, Azden designed and manufactured standard mount models like these ones:
http://www.vinylengine.com/cartridge_database.php?m=Azden&t=mm&mod=&sort=1&Search=Search&sty=&ovlo=&ovhi=&can=&dclo=&dchi=&stid=&masslo=&masshi=¬es=&prlo=&prhi=

even you can buy one of these here:
http://www.adelcom.net/AzdenCart1.htm , only have caution with this cartridge source because almost all experiences that persons in this forum had were dissapointing ones for say the least.

5) I can see that you are really " armed " to run the great analog LP road!!!

Thank to you to remember my birthday, appreciated.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Travbrow: Thanks to bring the Supex cartridge here.

The one I tested is the SM-100MK2 that even that comes with two different stylus: 38E ( elliptical. ) and the 5 ( conical. ) my tests were with the 38E. The cartridge was designed for 4ch. too so it takes advantage with the 100kohms on load impedance.

No WOW factor here at first glance, it take me some time to made a near perfect cartridge set up on VTA/SRA and capacitance loading ( 350pf added. ). VTF set up at 1.40grs and Supex recommend Grace tonearms for it so I mounted in my Grace G-945 in an AT-D 8.5grs aluminum headshell.

After set-up and settle down playback hours the word that came to my mind about its quality performance level is: just great performer.

The music flows freely with out any added tiny rough as the nagatron. The cartridge lets the music goes into your ears with no single obstacle, it never tell you: I'm here.

Beautiful natural tonal balance with very good performance top to bottom. If you don't have nothing on hand to compare it you can swear there is nothing that can beat it. Well, I compare it against the AT 180 ML-OCC and I was really surprised that can compete at this very high top quality. The main differences are as almost always at both frequency extremes especially in the bass where the Supex has a little more rounded response than the AT that has the rigthness in this frequency range at the 100CMK4 quality level, so we are talking here of the best of the best in the comparison for the very very humble Supex. IMHO a winner with very low distortions either from tracking abilities and cartridge body/stylus assembly resonances.

Only for the records: the Supex is very good tracker an almost pass all my tests on the subject, as an example the cartridge is abble to pass all 16 cannon shots on the Telarc but the first and the last one.

Yes, it can compete and gives a good challenge to any cartridge I know.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
T_Bone and Halcro with all of your experience your comments on your top choice of tone arms is highly valued.
No doubt there are others here , so please join.

Hi Raul,

Hope you had a wonderful birthday. I had to laugh to your answer to (3). You have a good since of humor. In reply to your comment about this paticular Clearaudio being made by AT answers a lot of questions I've had about Clearaudio in general. If it was not for this cartridge, I would say I didn't like anything Clearaudio had to offer. I have heard a lot of them and they all sound thin to me. I have a reply sent to me from Wyndham Hodgson of Expert Stylus in the UK. I had inquired about a retip and this was his reply. I have tried to attack it here but no luck, so I wil retype for you to read. I quote what he has written____"I should point out that we have never been impressed with Clearaudio cartridges, they are very expensive and one can purchase very much cheaper cartridges sounding equally as good if not better".___end of quote. I decided not to retip it.
Dear Travbrow: The Supex ( after set up " right ". ) has an immediate WOW factor free of distortions against other WOWs full of distortions.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
I have just recieved in the mail today, a cartridge body that I bought on eBay. I think I got ripped off. It is a Empire 4000DIII. This identification, on my other 4000D cartridges, has been stenciled/painted on. This one has a decal? Also my other 4000D's had the pin locations color coded. This one does not. The pins are also rough like sloppy soldering. Also the gold body has forming stretch marks in it. My other 4000D bodies are very smooth. Any one out there have simillar 4000D's as I have described? To look at it, it sure looks like a 4000D, removal mounting bracket and all. Any chance the Empire QA went down hill at the end of their run? I did mount it with a know DIII stylus. It does sound like an Empire, but just not a good one. Before I contact the seller I thought I would get some backup to my question as stated above. Thanks for your input in advance.
Hi guys-
I think mentioning the most basic aspects of the tonearm and cartridge relationship will clarify some thoughts above:

Above ~10Hz, the tonearm must remain motionless. This includes any vibrations of the tonearm structure and any 'chatter' or 'looseness' in its bearings.

Below ~10 Hz, the tonearm must move in any direction unhindered by friction, so that the stylus and cantilever do NOT move.

Why ~10 Hz? Because it lays between the most common warp frequencies and the lowest tones of music.

That transition between the motionless and freely-moving condition is a 'mechanical crossover', governed by four factors:
-- The arm's effective moving mass (its moment of inertia)
-- The compliance (softness) of the cartridge's suspension
-- Any damping in the arm and in a cartridge's suspension (and any Pickering, Stanton or Shure type of brush)
-- The friction in the arm's bearings (also = damping)

One aspect of any crossover, mechanical or electronic, including any subsonic filter, is that they all create phase shift on the way down to that 10Hz. Phase shifts are also time delays in the signals.

While all of us could care less what happens down at 10 or even 20Hz, that phase shift begins in the middle bass. The only way to minimize it up there is to get that 'crossover frequency' even lower, far below 10Hz, which means we then must play very-flat records.

The increased phase shift at 40-80Hz from using a low-mass arm with a low-compliance (stiff) cartridge adds more time-delay to the bass. One then hears less-distinct bass, which can sound like sluggish rhythm, less 'propulsion' to the song, for example. Also, the generator at the end of the cantilever spends more time off-center, which affects many other aspects of reproduction, including tracking ability.

Increased tonearm-bearing friction also makes the generator-end spend more time off-center via record warps and off-center pressings, and from that slow inward-spiral velocity.

Increased effective VERTICAL moment of inertia (vertical effective moving mass) lowers the transition frequency.

Increased HORIZONTAL effective moving mass only hurts on warps that 'tilt' while going up and down. Very high horizontal effective moving mass, as in Dynavector's DV-505 tonearm, reduces phase shift in that 40-80Hz range by lowering that ~10Hz transition frequency in the HORIZONTAL direction. This seems worthwhile since low bass is often a mono signal, a L-R motion only.

Finally, it is much easier to visualize many aspects of analog reproduction when all dimensions are magnified by a factor of 500. A fully-modulated L-R (mono) bass groove would then appear about one inch wide, peak to peak, with the pivot of the tonearm nearly 400 feet away.

I must add that changes in electrical loading also affect the phase shift beginning in the low-treble, something as audible as any broadband change in frequency response.

Hope this helps!

Best regards,
Roy
Green Mountain Audio
Thanks Roy,
Your summary of the forces and relationships makes perfect sense (at least to me).
And from that, I can see that formulae may be derived to calculate and prove all that you say.....after all, it's not rocket science?.......or with the calculations of forces on moving masses and their reactions.....perhaps it IS rocket science :-)
Roy,
What a nice, clear explanation - an excellent contribution to this thread and to understanding of tonearm/cart interactions. I agree it makes perfect sense (again, to me). I had certainly left out the aspect of sub-10Hz resonance, partly because I was specifically trying to limit the discussion to flat, perfectly-centered records (I don't think talking about ideal tonearm design should be centered around the problem of dealing with warps). Your comment about too-low MOI (vs. compliance) effecting a higher range for phase shift was especially interesting. Thinking about it in physical terms certainly brings the concept of 'phase shift' to the fore.

In_shore,
There are any number of arms which do admirably well with high compliance carts. Many date from the same era as the relatively inexpensive MMs discussed on this thread, and many of those are now relatively inexpensive too. The Micro Seiki MA-505, the Victor 7045/7082, the original EPA-100, the Audiocraft AC-3000/4000 were all made to be able to deal with the carts which were popular at the time in Japan, and there was, as Dlaloum pointed out, an era when high compliance was King (but I will point out also that the era did not last forever... The King is Dead! Long Live the King!).

Dlaloum,
I am not sure I said LT would be the 'ideal solution' but it certainly has it's place. I might agree with you about making the distinction between short arm LT and long-arm LT, but I think i'd have to think about it some more. A friend reminded me earlier today of some of Teragaki's efforts in linear trackers (which required flat, centered records in order to work). I have never seen one in person but the concepts seem valid.
Dear Travbrow: Could you share your experiences with your Supex SM-100MK3? and one question: its stylus has the SMM/38E ID?, thank you.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Royj: How I wish to have in home a fully laboratory with the right tools to make this extremely interesant cartridge/tonearm in motion relationship research and the why's of the perceived quality sound and determine which are the precise trade-offs with different cartridge and tonearm choices designs.

I was trying to remember any experience I had with a low compliance cartridge mounted in a low effective mass tonearm but I can't remember of any, maybe is time to confirm ( comparing. ) what you stated about. I have to give me the time to test it.

Good to hear from you again.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Griffithds: Interesting what Expert people said because I like the Clearaudio LOMC cartridge designs.

This week I will try to give a listen to my MM Clearaudio and see what I hear.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Raul, Do you really like the sound of Clearaudio MC cartridges, or is it their "design" and construction? I ask because I have disliked the sound of every single Clearaudio MC that I ever heard, and this includes the Insider Gold (in a Walker Proscenium tt), etc. They all sound thin and steely to me. None portray the harmonics and richness of real music, IMO. Also, I think of their sound as the antithesis of what I like about these vintage MM and MI cartridges.
A fact of lighter tracking MM cartridges would be lps that are not flat. My 4000d tracking at 1g has no problems on relatively flat lps. Records that are more than slightly warped it will skip.
I have a idea using the hot Louisiana sun and some12X12 marble floor tiles to flatten a warped test lp out. My previous MC tracking at 2g had no problems tracking these lps
Hi Stltrains,

Shure discusses the issues of tracking in their technical seminar paper from 1978...

They resolved it with the introduction of the damping brush...

ie: to at least some degree the solution was found to be damping...

Also where the arm/cartridge resonance is a mismatch - mistracking is a likely consequence as the resonance not only shifts in frequency but also (apparently) increases in magnitude. (I have not measured this aspect - so it is hearsay)

But it is clear that a high compliance cart. in a heavier arm will place the resonance close to the critical warp frequencies, and if that resonance and the warp frequency get close to coinciding.... then your stylus starts to take ski-jump lessons....

If the resonance is damped... this goes away - if the arm/cartridge are well matched (f=10Hz or thereabouts) the frequency is far enough away for the stylus suspension to handle it on its own. (although damping the resonance can still improve things)

I've seen a Shure V15VMR track spectacular warps on a light arm with the brush down....
On the other hand many cartridges have a reputation of requiring flat records to track properly on the ultra light revox linear tracking arm. (I will be checking this shortly with several cartridges.... with an without damping brush...)

My gut feeling from my own previous experience is that it is a matching and damping issue...

bye for now

David
Hi Raul,

Seeking some advice please.

I have tried both Grace F9 Ruby and Garrott Brothers P77 at 100 setting and the results are quiet, dull and lifeless compared to 47 - am I doing something wrong?

Kind regards
John
Lewm,
Your description of the Clearaudio cartridges surprises me."Thin and steely" is certainly not a characteristic I would use after having the Clearaudio Insider Gold and Concerto in my system over several years.
Lush and coloured would be more like the sound I heard from them ...especially the Insider.
This is not to say that this describes the sound of the good MM cartridges but rather that the Clearaudios, unlike most of the other LOMCs I had heard, were more akin to that quality of 'presence'.
Regards, Stltrains (T_bone, are you still there?): Stltrains, is there evidence the Empire's suspension is bottoming out on these extreme warps? Resonance is the usual suspect but the recently discussed MOI in the vertical plane could be a factor, too. Just wondering if your arm is static or dynamically balanced and if you can damp it. VPI?

T_bone: I've three arms. No, I've three TONEarms. EPA-250, EPA-500H and a Black Widow. Low med, low and low low mass, statically balanced and never (Stltrains) a tracking issue with any high compl. cart. Anyway, I'm lusting after a gorgeous DD Pio. Exclusive PL-70L 11, the P3's little bro. It's equipped with the carbon-fiber "S" arm, not the straight pipe. Although the low-mass CF straight pipe (or ceramic) is available I prefer the removable headshell option: Enjoyed four cartridges today, an ADC XLM-11 improved cart, an AT20SS, a Signet TK7LCa and also a TK7SU with a fresh AT14 Shibata stylus recently transplanted into an OEM Signet grip, an unanticipated treat for the ears.

So the intention is to replace the second-system Tech. SP-25/Black Widow, an old compadre from the late '70's which would then go to my son's basement rig. I like the prospect, he already has my SX-980 and four even older original Large Advents, all rebuilt and with the SP-25/BW would be a reunion of my 1978 rig. (Raul would cringe) :).

I'm fairly sure the AT20SS at 10x6cm/dyne-100Hz (about as low compl. as any I run) will be OK on the PL 70L arm, not so sure about the other carts. Any thoughts? Lateral improvement? Poor match for the above carts? Keep the bullet-proof SP-25/BW?

I suspect you know the PL-70L 11 so your thoughts (and of course any others' opinions) are welcome.

Peace,
Dear Professor,
I love the looks of the Pioneer PL-70L......particularly that cool ebony lush veneer.
I'm sure T_bone will have some pertinent experience to pass on?
Good luck.
Henry
Please forgive the off-topic wanderings...
I have had the PL70LII, the PL-50L, PL-7L, the P10, and the P3. I think there is excellent bang for buck in the whole line of Stable Hanging Rotor tables if you can abide the strong yen and shipping costs, both of which make them less attractive in USD terms than just a few years ago (but in yen terms, prices haven't moved).

As a general rule, I would not buy a TT with two removable armwands as standard unless I could get both with it. With the PL-70LII and higher, the straight arm is the one suitable for high-compliance carts.

An issue with these tables is that motors are less easily transplantable to other plinths, and in the case of the P3, a plinth change, while not absolutely impossible, would require some CAD work, and multiple pieces fit around the structure in order to make it work. You'd also have to be careful not to overload the springs too much as it would change the resonant frequency of the under-structure. An arm change on any of them in stock form is not likely to be easy outside the possibility of the AC4000/4400, for which there is an adaptor which works with the P3, and could probably be made to work on the PL70 and above.

The motors are generally nice. I think the P3 is a stonking bargain.

And now back to your regularly-scheduled program....
Stltrains, as The Good Professor suggested, I'd bet you need more MOI but that will get me in trouble around here :^) so instead I'd suggest checking the resonant frequency and trying to get a better match at the other end of the range... :^). (phew)
Stltrain's comment on 8-14-11 about MM tracking forces I feel is the main reason the MC became the desired cartridge to have . I remember the horable QA contol issues that were present back in the 70's and 80's pertaining to record albums. Not just warps, bet some so were thin you could almost hear what was on the other side. As MM's touted how low they could track, most at less than 1 gram, they were shooting themselves in the foot. The only thing at the time that could track this crap was the MC's. With their rising high frequency responce and demands they put on the phono stages at the time, is it not a wonder that CD's were able to step in and damn near kill analog! Records are no longer mass produced in large quainties, therefore QA has improved. Materials are better. This thread has revitilzied the use of our beloved MM cartridges. I don't think it could have happened if all we had to listen to was the warped, thin noisy crap of the past. I have records in which I have placed a red dot on the plastic sleeves that I use. It means can't play with MM's. Thankfully I have multiple arm wands (Graham), and can quickly switch to a MC when I want to play these.
Dear Justjb: No I don't think you are doing something wrong. Any cartridge set up to achieve top performance depend on the tonearm match and what the audio system " has to say ", so it is dependable on that.

In my system both cartridges performs very good at 47 but a little better at 100k. Other factor that has influence is loading capacitance where you need to " play " a little as with VTA/SRA. Both cartridges are very good and not lifeless at 100k but if you are achieving good performance at 47k then left in that way and enjoy it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Thanks, T-bone. Have found a source (Japan) for the PL-70L's C-F straight pipe, ceramic version too. Reading btwn the lines, the curved wand is massy? Info. on these decks is scarce unless one reads Japaneese so I appreciate your experience and willingness to share it.

Peace,
Hi Stltrains, According to the cart database the 4000D/I has a max VTF of 1.75g. The others max at 1.25g. Why 1g?
They all have a dynamic cu of 30. I'd think you could probably go a little higher than 1.25 if necessary. I don't have one of these so I'm just going by the VE info.

FWIW, MOI generally goes up or down with eff mass.
Regards,
Timeltel , Just for price and condition comparisons regarding your interest with the Pioneer line. Tommy Cheuk of Top Class Audio out of Hong Kong has a few Pioneer tables up for sale, PL-70, PL-70LII, Exclusive including a separate sale of a Pioneer Alumina ceramic wand.

T_Bone would certainly know better then me regarding going street prices however Cheuk does have a Exclusive P-10 with the EA-10 arm overall in 9 out of 10 condition for $4.200.00 bucks which maybe quite reasonable.
I would of snapped it up but I have other expenses going on in my system now.

A breif mention of the AT 20SS, it does not like wood shell heads, well the only two woodys that I have at least.
The Yamamoto boxwood and a Koetsu rosewood head shell.
I sense the music wants to burst out but it can't.

Further about wood head shells I mentioned above that I removed the finger lift from the Yamamoto for reasons that I did not do a forensic analysis why,just that something was bothersome. It turned out I can hear the thing vibrate also the head shell itself without the finger lift, you will hear it.

This was confirmed using the head phone jack of a active Placette preamp with the stunning Sony mdr ryos headphones.
.....Good Lord I have problems I need to address with my speakers and room.

Dear Stltrains: For happened what you posted with yiur 4000D3 IMHO or there is a severe mistmatch between tonearm/cartridge combination or that cartridge came with a big suspension problem or that tonearm has a bearing trouble.

Here you can read about that subject:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ranlg&1275323834

where I normally run at 1.0grs but even at 0.5grs there is no problems with this Empire cartridge.

I have to add that in all my years of audio experiences I never had that kind of trouble with any cartridge either MM/MI or LOMC.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear griffithds: I never had that kind of trouble with any cartridge and I own too many LPs from the 70-80's.

Now, the higher or lower VTF value is not what determine the cartridge tracking ability. IMHO any LP that a MC cartridge can " read " any MM/MI can read it too and if not then there is a mistmatch down there on the cartridge/tonearm set-up.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Henry, Perhaps my language was a little too strong in describing my feelings about the Clearaudio, but suffice to say I would not buy one based on what I heard more than once in my friend's very expensive system, which includes an all-Walker front end, tube amplifiers, von Schweikert spkrs. But obviously ancillary components, no matter how expensive or carefully selected, can sometimes have a very large positive or negative effect on the "sound" we perceive to be inherent to a phono cartridge. I am still wondering about Raul's opinion.
Dear In_shore: Aluminum headshells as the AT LS-12 makes a very good match with the 20SS. This cartridge is very sensitive on what is mounted but when already is like it like it it is a great performer.

regards and enjoy the music,
raul.
Hi Raul,

I didn't mean to inply that this is a MM/MC comparrision tracking issue. My Clearaudio Virtroso Woods which is a MM, tracks ever record I've ever played it on. But then it tracks at, and I have it set at, 2 grams. If you don't have records that skip (tracking at the recommended 1 gram or less),on the lead-in groove pinch warps, great. I do have records that skip when tracking at 1 gram or less on the lead-in groove warps. Not a problem at 1.5, 1.75, 2.0, or even in case of my Denon 103R, 2.5 grams settings. By the way, I long ago stopped looking at the red dots and just played my records. It wasn't until resently, I had a skip on a lead-in groove. The cartridge was tracking at 1 gram. It just happened to be a MM. Lately, because of this thread, I have been having a steady diet of the MM's. But perhaps your right Raul. Perhaps it is a set-up issue. My Adzen should be arriving soon. I'll tear down the 4000DIII and pay extra carfull attention to the Azden set-up.
Dear Lewm: I almost concur with you on the Dyscovery model that's is a little on the analytical side and not an easy cartridge with tonearms on choice.

In the other side my experiences with my Insider Gold is different and if not the best cartridge for accuracy I can tell you that in my system I can't detected a thinh/steely or cold " color ".
I had a two days experience with the Reference ( a model in between the Insider and Dyscovery. ) in a Rockport TT and if I detected something on the steely side was only that because the cartridge was not fully settled-down I remember it as a little on the bright side but this and the Insider are good performers in the bass and mid.bass frequency range where the Discovery is more analytical.

Now, the Clearaudio are a little jelaously on the tonearm and phono cable and asked for very precise VTA/SRA set-up.
Maybe the Walker tonearm is not the best match for the Clearaudio cartridges and you have to remember that even with tubes those speakers are alittle" agressive " on the highs.

Yes, I agree with you that those Clearaudios did not match the richness of the MM/MI but all we know: which LOMC can do it?

Last Clearaudio I listened in my system was the Stradivari and I did not found out with a thin sound but all we know that in this quality performance cartridge behavior things are system/set-up dependent, with the Clearaudios load impedance can be an issue.

Anyway, I posted that I like it but that does not means that I prefer over top MM/MI cartridges.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Regards, In_shore: The P-10 is reputed to be second only to the P3 in Pioneer's Japan only offerings. I thank you for your interest. If the not quite mega-table PL-70L 11 offers a real improvement over the SP-25/BW (I suspect it will), then an upgrade to the main rig may be considered but would first need to compare the Pio. to the versitile EPA-250 or alternate high compliance friendly EPA-500H arm. Perhaps, like Henry with his eight arms, I should consider becoming an octopod?

Interesting comments about the AT20SS, finger lifts and headshells. The 20SS was tried on both a Jeweltone 8.5 gm headshell and one of my "go-to" ADC 7.5gm magnesium shells. With both, midrange resonance was unacceptable but settled down with the boxwood Yammie. Dynamics at the extremes were retained but the stylus was then still in the break-in process. Over 50 hours on it now, it's probably time to revisit options. It's not inconcievable it'll be found overly damped now but at the time I did like what the Yammie HS3 did in bringing coherence to the mids.

Raul, thanks for the input. Now my curiosity is up. Will try the 20SS with a 12gm AT shell that should be coming in soon, an AT15XE cart as part of the package, but 20+ total grams pushes the 250 arm to it's max. If I understand T_bone correctly, the PL-70L should handle that load without breaking stride. Elements of varying tonearm/headshell mass, material and how resonance is distributed or contained make set recommendations difficult but the sharing of information is always valuable and for me, welcome. Two carts, two styli, two headshells, eight variations possible there. Aha! An experiment!

Peace,
All thanks for your very informative responses I should have described the mistracking better. Of all the lps played in the 70 or so hours I have on 4000d3 only 2 or 3 have jumped on nicely warped lps. The suspension is fine and the sound is wonderful. I have played with vta and prefer 1g. Like was mentioned marking the severey warped seems the answer. Thanks to all of you again and believe this I am not looking back when it comes to MM cartridges.
Raul,
Thank you for your advise with the AT 20SS,.. you made out o.k. on your birthday? I understand you Mexicans are similar to the Italians when it comes to celebrations, great food and drink, no doubt it was memorable.

Timeltel ,
If you get your hands on a PL-70L II I hope it turns out to be a fabulous step up in performance for you, very handsome looking too.

Regards, In_shore: Thanks. The loyal SP25/Black Widow is otherwise adequate for the purpose but in the small home office it's in and with the 170 yr. old pine board floors, both acoustic and mechanical resonance is causing woofer-pumping and feedback distortion. A servicable "plug & play" deck with a fluid damped arm is an attractive proposition and I do appreciate all the input.

AT15XE/headshell arrived today. For those who'd like to know: Fine tapered alu. alloy cantilever & nude .2 x .7 ellipt. Two hours in, this is a nice sound. Soundstage is starting to tighten up as channel balance improves. Hopefully leading edge attack will pick up definition as the suspension loosens up, a cart with this pedigree has no business sounding so, ummm, romantic.

Raul, the 15XE will stay mounted on the 12gm AT HS until run in but I'm looking forward to trying your suggestion, the 20SS on what seems like a good headshell matchup for the EPA-250.

Peace,
Raul, Thanks for taking the time to respond. I agree with the logic. The whole system was brand new, including the Insider Gold, when I listened to it, surely that could have been a factor in the sound. However, Lloyd Walker himself came my friend's home to set everything up, so I doubt there was any issue around improper adjustments of the turntable or tonearm. Did not much care for those von Schweikert speakers, however. (They would now be 6-8 years old.) Every several years von Schweikert undergoes a sea change in their design philosophy, and this was not one of their better efforts. So what I was hearing that made my ears bleed could largely have been a function of the speakers per se. Still, "lush" is not a word that I have heard frequently as a descriptor of Clearaudio MCs.
Banquo.363:
I want to personelly thank you for refurring me to the audiogon ad for the Azden YM-P50Vl. Being NOS it came with the mounting adapter. This is an absolutely amazing 3 demensional cartridge. My smaller system which I listen to in the near field, is a 3 pc. The sound stage literally fill the entire room. Depth, height, absolute magic. It sounds so real it's almost scarry.
And to think this cartridge has been out of production for years. Sad really.
You're welcome, Griffithds. I'm happy to hear you're enjoying it so much. It's a great cart.
Hello Raul, I picked up a ADC XLM3 the other day and noticed during internet homework that you owned one. The cartridge arrived in a baggy with no protection of stylus. It seems and sounds OK but I would like to replace the stylus. Have you are anyone else heard this cartridge with the XLM 2 Super with the Shibata stylus from Thakker?

Hello Timeltel, Good luck with the PL-7OL.

I finally found a Signet 7ea body and will use the AT155lc while looking for the legendary 7lca stylus.