Dear griffithds: IMHO I think that you like it the Stanton LZ over the HZ because you like it more the step up transformer " heavy " colorations where the HZ goes straight in. Differences from both cartridges are tiny ones and I think that the HZ puts a little more " life " to the music, more " there " with. I can live with either but if you push me I give my vote by a " tiny hair " to the HZ.
Now, maybe the Graham could makes a difference too. I made my LZ/HZ " fast " shoot-out with the Sony PUA 237/JVC UA7045 and with my own tonearm design and I made it with even SPL in both cartridges.
Anyway, I think both are worth to try it.
In the other side, I'm not telling that my Stanton is or has exactly the same LOMC music presentation level. I'm saying that my sample I can consider as a cartridge reference alond my LOMC references but not outperform any of these ones.
The ones that own both kind of cartridges as us know the differences in between but those differences with top both cartridge worlds I can consider exist a level that we can name it " reference " and my Stanton/XVS 5000 stylus is IMHO a " reference ".
Btw, a few hours ago I bought here on Agon an Acutex 315 flat nose where the difference ( specs. ) with the 320 is almost non-existence. It surprise me that the 315 ad was at very low price and no one of you pull the triger and that's why I did it.
Yes Nandric, I can't stop to buy cartridges and second-three samples on top performers.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Raul, You anvy Lew for his two styli? I thought you own 'second to none' system and > 100 carts. If it was his electrostatics (the best the are and plural) or, probable, his slate plinths I would understand your envy better.
Regards, |
Dear Lewm: I envy you: two NOS nude stereohedron?, just great!!.
Yes, my Phonolinepreamp was designed with two separate discrete phono stages: one MC and one MM.
R. |
Dear Acman3: I forgot, as good the 140he is I prefer the Stanton.
R. |
Dear Acman: Yes, Thakker is handling both vbersions the low and high impedance but you have to invest 500.00 Euros for each one. These 980 are the non-calibrated " 981 " cartridge models. Yes this 980 is IMHO better than your 881.
Well, your pocket will decide what to do about. Take in count that the re-sale price on your 881 is important too.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
To All,
Before anyone misunderstands, the TL4S that Tom (timeltel), and I have been talking about is a M/M type stylus. That means 880/881s and above line of cartridges. Anything below, XV15, 680/681 are M/I. THEY ARE NOT INERCHANGABLE! I would hate to have someone with a 681EEES buy a TL4S, on our recommendation, only to discover it doesn't work! Regards, Don |
To those interested, An old thread pertaining to Stanton/Pickering. Alot of useful information for the uninformed. For others, well, a refresher.
http://forums.audioreview.com/analog-room/stanton-881s-stylus-replacement-new-cartridge-28162.html
Regards, Don |
Timeltel and fellow Stanton/Pickering friends,
Hi Tom. As usual, your post are an absolute encyclopedia of information. I had to reread twice to absorb everything you provided. Your gift is much appreciated.
"The TL4S is a P-mount design, styli should be compatible with your Stanton carts."
My "resources" confirm you are correct. I hope someone in need of a replacement styli picks one up and enlightens the rest of us. Could be that non-available Stantering replacement stylus we have all been looking for! Take care my friend, Don |
Lewm, Check williamthakker.eu.
I currently do not own an MC phono stage. I have been going back and forth on upgrading my Preamp or getting a phono amp or stepup. |
Lewm,
I have in both of my posts to you, forgot to mention how lucky I feel you are in owning a XSV7500. You are living in rarified air territory with that one.
Regards, Don |
Dear Acman3,
"Or do I tell my daughter at college to get a job and buy both?"
You have answered your own question! |
Lewm,
I have the BAT VK10Se with all the latest upgrades. That includes the latest Lundahl SUT's. The BAT gives me from 44db up to 78db's of gain, more than enough for the 981's. With that said, I must admit I prefer the LZS over the HZS. Is there something that I could put my finger on to state why? No, there's not except this. I have set up both the LZS and the HZS on Graham arm wands and dialed it them in with the Mint LP device. The arm wand with the HZS gets cartridges rotated on it (removing the HZS). The wand with the LZS remains set up. I refuse to remove it from its wand. Subconsciously I think my brain is telling me something. Res. set at 47K, and cap. set at 100 plus the low cap. cables. I wish I could define what I like about one over the other, but frankly speaking, I could live easily for the rest of my life with either of them in my system. If you have heard the AT180/170 OCC, or the Signet TK10 MKII, you will have an ideal of what a 981s sounds like. Just a little more refined. Hard to imagine that considering the level of performance the mentioned comparison cartridges are at but believe it. Raul has hinted at but not come right out and said that the 981s is M/C like in its performance. I agree with him in that "hint" if you are only talking about what M/C's do right.
Regards, Don |
Regards, Pickering admirers: Might take a look: http://www.pickeringuk.com/spex.htmlThe TL4S is a P-mount design, styli should be compatible with your Stanton carts. Hopefully Griffithds (hi, Don) will consult his resources and confirm? Might also take a peek at the fairly obscure Stanton 7804S as described on the VE database. Those familiar with this cart report a positive experience. A current production alternative to the 881, an elliptical from Stanton manufactured (AFAIK) in their Florida location, anyone know this cart? [url]http://www.musiciansfriend.com/pro-audio/stanton-890-fs-mp4-cartridge-for-finalscratch--matched-pair-2-rm[url] The description is imaginative, "2 matched cartridges mounted on tone-arm like devices (that would be headshells) ---."2 spherical styli---. 2 elliptical styli are designed for hi-quality playback for recording of records into the FinalScratch system or any other application where sound quality is critical." The 890AL would seem to be the most attractive alternate to the classic 881, 900 ohm impedance as compared to 1300 ohm imped. for the 890FS offered above. Thuchan reminded me to dig out one of my Shure V15-111s. Sporting the HE stylus, the slightly abrasive quality heard with the elliptical stylus (on my ancient SS rig) is corrected, resonance related artifacts in the upper registers are relegated into obscurity and the bass moves with an agile strength supporting the status of the V15-111 being, for some, a reference cart for forty years. Thanks, Thuchan, have listened to nothing else for a week & apologies to the Stantering crew for thread drift. Peace, |
Ac, I of course had to go right to eBay to check out Thakker. Seems he has a 980LZS, not HZS. Or did I miss something? Personally, I am sticking with the LZS. Z stands for impedance, I think. The LZS will have much lower inductance than the HZS version, which means impedance will be correspondingly lower at all frequencies. This is a good thing, one thing that MCs have over MMs as a general rule. Funny that Raul's fave cartridge is a LOMC with high compliance compared to others of that ilk, and one of my faves is this MM with low inductance compared to other MMs. (But the Grace Ruby is at least as good IMO and is more conventionally like other MMs.) |
You guys are killing me. I love the Stanton 881, so the 980 hzs on Thakker would be great, or do I get the NOS Shure ml140he?
Or do I tell my daughter at college to get a job and buy both? |
But Don, between HZS and LZS, which do you prefer? The phono stage plays a role in this comparison, as the LZS requires a lot more gain, which got me to wondering whether Raul is listening to LZS via the hi-gain (LOMC) section of his phono stage and the HZS via the lo-gain (MM) one. (As I understand it Raul's Phonolinepreamp has two completely discrete phono circuits built in.)
Raul, Last year I passed up the chance to buy an NOS D98S stylus for one week after I found out about, because of cost. When I finally decided to buy it, it had been sold. I could not find another anywhere in the world, so I bought the XSV7500 stylus as soon as I saw it for sale. (Thanks, Don, for correcting my acronym.) Then later came the opportunity to buy the NOS 981LZS, and I grabbed it, as a few others here did. Now I own both XSV7500 stylus and NOS 981LZS cartridge, but I am still listening to the used 980LZS I originally bought cheaply off eBay. Obviously, and at my age, I am set for life. |
Thanks Raul, I don't want to rush Axel, just was a little concerned. I bought the P100ED4 from a private seller on line, this was his only sample. All but impossible to find them now. |
Raul,
I own both the 981s. The LZS and the HZS. I also own the Stanton Epoch II LZ8S. It's also a contender. I only have 1 D98s styli. It came mounted on the NOS LZS. I bought a D3500E styli (XSV) and mounted "it" on the HZS. I must admit, I have never tried the D98s styli on the HZS. Your findings have got me thinking. Your calibrated numbers compared to the published numbers are kind of surprising. I need to look at mine. After hearing the 981s, and owning a 881s many years ago, I do agree with you. No comparison between the two. Not even close. Regards, Don |
Dear Lewm: Lucky you are to bought that NOS 7500 stylus replacement, well this is the same one in the 5000 and 981 ( both versions ): nude streohedron II.
No, I don't try it yet my Pickering XSV 5000 but obviously I will in the sort time. Btw, I like it more the gold shiny 5000 metal cartridge body that the " plain " Stanton silver.
The 5000 is a step down the 7500 and the 100komhs to loading is to have success with not only the CD-4 but in general because frequency is extended almost flat to 50khz.
LOMC is a different design than the MM/MI, both with is own advantages and disadvantages. Yes the LOMC ones are really good and today my reference cartridges belongs to LOMC cartridges with high compliance that gives it a lot better tracking habilities. Btw, my Stanton , I think , I could put on that " cartridge reference " niche.
+++++ " I long ago spotted the Victor tonearms as stone cold bargains in today's market, but I've never bought one, because I don't "need" it. " +++++
I can tell you for sure that you need that JVC UA-7045 tonearm, is really good and handle with accuracy/neutrality and applomb almost any cartridge, it makes that the cartridges shows improvements that you did not aware were there.
It is not so very good looking and wow factor as the SAEC 8000 or 506 but its performance put on shame those good looking SAEC tonearms. Well, I like the JVC and Sony look and love its quality performance and as you said today we can get by " penauts " both of these " stars ".
I bought a JVC TT ( TT 71 ) not because the TT ( I don't need another TT. ) but because it came with the UA-7045 tonearm. I bought for almost nothing, the tonearm was " free " of charge.
Btw, I tested the TT 71 in naked fashion and compare it against the 81 and 101 and my Denons and for my surprise the 71 outperforms overall the 101 and compete almost bis a bis to the Denon 75/80. I still prefer the Denon but this JVC is a lot lot better that what we could think. Nice discovery by " accident ". I think that between other things ( specs for example ) the Denon double-construction platter help a lot to makes a difference against the JVC ones that are very good performers too. No, the Denons's are not perfect but very hard to beat even for the Technics SP10MK2. Yes, I like the Denons, I don't use ( for now ) any more my Technics because gives me no advantages against the Denon.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Hi Lewm, "where does the XVS5000 fit in the scheme of the 4500 and 7500 cartridges? Was it a special model specifically for 4-channel LPs?"
Your statement is a somewhat loaded question. I conceder this cartridge line (the XSV), "a special" line of cartridges. The 2nd part of your question can be answered this way. There was no cartridge manufactured "just" for Quad. They would all play and was designed to play standard 2 cannel stereo but in addition would play the extended frequency 4 channel tracks. I believe there was only one additional XSV above your 4500 and it was the 5000. Your 7500 IIRC is a XLZ. The XSV line started at 3000 and went up as the stylus profiles improved. The 5000 being the best. There is a guy by the name of Richard Steinfeld (ex Stanton employee), who has written a handbook titled "The Handbook for Stanton and Pickering Phonograph Cartridges and Styli who can be contacted at rsteinbook@sonic.net The handbook is full of information about the history of the 2 cartridge manufacturers and all the various cartridges and styli that was provided to the public during the Golden Years of analog. Amazing read if you are a Stanton/Pickering fan which I certainly am one of! Highly recommend you get yourself a copy. Regards, Don |
Dear Griffithds: Yes, I'm still loading my MM/MI cartridges with 100kohms that with the Pickering 5000 is what Pickering recomended for that CD-4/50K extended frequency but the same is for the 981 HZS.
The 981 are calibrated cartridge models ( the 5000 it is not, from Pickering I understand that only the 7500 is calibrated but I'm not totally sure. ) and through its specs runs to 50khz.
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. Only the 981 models are calibrated ones.
Now, about the 5000 and 981 stylus in my cartridge samples both are the same: Nude Stereohedron II.
Perhaps the one from the 5000 was polished in a better way I can't be sure why with this one tracking improves over the 981 original stylus.
What is a true is that IMHO the Stanton 981 HZ MK2 series is a real top winner and a must to own over other of our " stars ". The 881 is no challenger for the 981, is this one the one to go.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear travbrow: I think now Axel is aware of that post office problem because I had it too and told him about.
In the other side remember that Axel is " one man show " for everythinng and we at Agon give him a lot of work where he was not prepared and can't be prepared till he has other persons that can help him.
Btw, please let us know your source for that NOS P100CMK4 stylus?, appreciated.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Raul, I've got Pickering XVS4500 and 7500. In the latter case, it may be that I have just an NOS XVS7500 stylus, which I purchased as a future replacement for the unobtainable D98S Stanton stylus in my 980LZS. You might also try your XVS4500 stylus in the LZS version of the Stanton. (I assume you have one, since you have such a strong opinion of it.) Also, have you tried the all-Pickering version of the XVS5000? One could do just fine with only Stanton and/or Pickering products of yesteryear. Great stuff.
Don or anyone, where does the XVS5000 fit in the scheme of the 4500 and 7500 cartridges? Was it a special model specifically for 4-channel LPs? I guess I can look that up somewhere.
I tend to agree with your generalization about tracking ability as a correlate of performance excellence, but then why is it that the MC has reigned supreme for so long, and remains supreme among most? Pavlovian conditioning of the buying public, perhaps?
I long ago spotted the Victor tonearms as stone cold bargains in today's market, but I've never bought one, because I don't "need" it. The quality of construction is obviously top level. |
Hi , I am Eva , Axel's secretary. I am sorry but I was busy lately with Christmas shopping. ( kindly translated by Nandric for all those who are not Germans or from New Zealand). |
Hallo, ist es Eva hier. Ich bin Axel Sekretärin und ich habe damit beschäftigt meine vchristmas Einkaufen in den letzten Tagen. |
Does Axel always request pick up of his mail from his post office then leave it sit there several days? I sent my Technics P100C MKIV cartridge plus a NOS stylus to him for check and refresh suspensions. After tracking my cartridge it's been sitting at his post office at least four days. Sent email to him no reply. |
Raul,
Are you still running your phono stage at 100K? The Pickering XVS 5000 was a CD4 Quad cartridge. Pickering probably use the top (cherry picked), stylus to extent the fequency responce flat out to 50K for CD4 playback. The Stanton 981s only needed a stylus that would play flat out to 20K. You got yourself the best of the best as far as stylus profile. Simply as that! Regards, Don |
Dear friends: When an unfortunate home audio system event/accident was at the same time a fortunate one?????
well I just had that kind of experience that I want to share with all of you:
for the last two weeks I was testing two formidable and unexpected great vintage tonearms, the Sony PUA-237 and the JVC UA-7045:
http://www.vinylengine.com/library/sony/pua-237.shtml
http://www.vinylengine.com/library/jvc/ua-7045.shtml
at the same time Iwas and am testing several " new " cartridges that I bought in the last months ( you can read it to have an idea which cartridges are on my virtual Agon system : LOMC and MM/MI. ).
well, when I was testing my " new " Stanton 981 HZS/2 ( mounted in the Sony PUA-237 ) and after made it a comparison with its low output brother ( the 981 LZS. Btw, no contest in almost any way, IMHO the high output 981 Stanton is a better performer than the low output version. Lewm is you like it your LO 981 then I'm sure that you " will die " for the HO 981 after heard it. ) I started a comparison against the the Clearaudio Virtuoso black wood ( mounted in the JVC UA.7045. ) and the Astatic MF-200.
As you know in all my tonearms I use as " internal tonearm wiring " the Audio Note Silver that is so tiny that could be broke is you " see it in a bad way ". This Audio Note cable I'm using in external way in all my tonearms so it is exposed to anything.
Suddenly when I took my wood clamp from a TT to use it in the other TT I hit ( by accident ) with the clamp the JVC tonearm and the clamp " flight " alone and hit the Sony tonearm where the Stanton was mounted and with no stylus guard on place because I was playing with.
The hit to the Sony tonearm was " abrupt " and the Stanton crash against the in place LP. Obviously that original in mint condition Stanton stylus/cantilever bent and the " terrifc " 981 HZS stay out of work. Even with the cantilever bent I tested and one channel had no sound. After this I checked the Clearaudio for sound and when the stylus hit the LP there was no single sound from both channels and the first thing that came to my brain was that because " something " my Phonolinepreamp " was damaged as soemthing different but not so different happened with the Halcro electronics. That night was a nightmare for me because I even can't dream because I was rally worried on the whole concecuences of that accident.
Next day I analysed if the Essential could be damaged for that " something " and my conclusion was that can't be damaged ( our design is bullet proof. ). So, I change the cartridges for other different models with out success, at this moment my stress level was at the top. Then I checked both interconnect cables that were fine.
The Audio Note silver wire is so tiny that you can be aware if was broken and this exactly is what happened. In the JVC tonearm 3 of the four wires were broken and in the Sony tonearm one wire was broken ( that's why the Stanton had sound only in one channel. ). With this " discovery " calm return to my mind and what I did was try to fix both tonearm wires but I recovery only one because the other ( the one that suffer the three broken wires ) was broken almost at the half length of the wire so I can't use it any more ( and I have to say that this cable is an expensive one. ).
Now, I sstill was truly disapointed because the Stanton 981 HZS was out of work but then I remembered that I own/have the Pickering XVS 5000/2 that in theory came with the same stylus than the 981 HZS. The stylus holder in the Picckering and Stanton are way different but for my luck each one fits in precise way in between. Now, I', safe!!!and started to make a Stanton set up ( the Pickering stylus/cantilever/holder is more weighty than the Stanton one. ) again and what I " discovery " was astonished::
the original Stanton stylus was in mint condition as the Pickering one. I made the Stanton set up in the same Sony tonearm and nothing changed but the original Pickering XVS 5000/2 stylus replacement.
What a fortunate accident because the Stanton quality performance level that already been extraordinary improves overall in an unpected way. Why? what happen here?, I could not say it for sure because both stylus assembles were in mint condition but even that both stylus did not track the grooves with similar " applomb ". Example, in the Telarc 1812 recording the original Stanton can't track in clean way all the cannon shots, against that the Pickering one tracks all the shots inpristine way and this difference made and make the diffrence in the Stanton cartridge quality performance level. This fact is a confirmation of what I posted sevral times: that in even circumstances the cartridge with better tracking habilities is always the best performer.
Any one of you need to hear the Telarc 1812 cannon shots through my Stanton is just an amazing and unique experience. Well maybe you can approach that experience because FIM recording label just put on sale a new recording direct from the original Telarc mastering where FIM forms a team for that recording where were the same team that recorded the original one but using the today digital technology. I had on hand this FIM 1812 LP and is really fine.
It is better this transfer than the original? , not really: in some ways it is and in other the original is better. In some of the cannon shots the original beats this FIM re-issue but even that and due that the original Telarc is dificult and expensive to have the FIM recording can gives you a very good " touch " of what " has on hand " your audio system. Btw, with the FIM you have to crank-up the volume because was recorded at lower level than the original.
Ok, where put I this Stanton 981 HZS/2 against other cartridge stars?, obviously at the very top even better than the Clearaudio. I like it a lot even with its original Stanton stylus but with this Pickering one is just formidable!!!!
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: For the Acutex " hystory " all things seems to me that those cartridges share the same motor. According with the Acutex manual impedance and DC resistance is the same and the only difference between the 315/312 and 320 is that the 320 has an output level of 3.8mv against 4.00mv of its brothers.
So, I think that is probable that after the Axel or other source " refresh " that cartridge will perform " even better " than the stock 320 one. I think is worth to try it.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Nandric: I agree with you. Today cartridge fixing price is higher than the price we paid for the cartridge it self so we have two think twice before that " refresh " be justified but this fact is something good because today we will send to " refresh " only what is worth to do it and not like in the past that we send it everything with a " happy " attitude where" cost was no object ".
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Raul,I understand your passion although my is of a different kind . Something to do with the upbringing. The Balkan kind is more bloodthirtsty: revenge at any cost for the rest homo economicus. Since the (considerable)price incrise by Axel his only attractive proposition is the line contact stylus pressure fitted in a aluminum cantilever (+/- 160 Euro). The 'exotic kinds'are above 350 Euro. Well I never bought any MM cart for such kind of money. Even my AT 180, Signet TK 9 LC, Glanz 5, Glanz 31 L, Astatic MF 200, etc.,etc. I got for less. One of my Virtuoso's black got the boron/super elliptical but for the old price (170E). At present the same upgrade is 359 Euro. I deed try to compare the retip prices and was suprised to discover that Axel is still the cheapest alternative. His only 'shortcoming' is the fact that he is not able to provide ruby (sapphire) cantilevers and micro ridge styli. This is strange because Peter as well as Dominic (Northwest Analogue) can provide both. Axel and I deed try to find a supplier but ,alas, without succes. I hope some of our members has a good suggestion. Depending on the supplier prices this may become an attractive proposition. I myself have no intetion whatever to pay such amount for a MM retip.
Regards, |
Dear Raul and anyone else, In addition to my newly acquired NOS M320 (flat nose), I also own a used M312 of unknown provenance. Is the M312 body identical to the M320 one? Could I therefore hope to benefit from an Axel "refresh"? Here I define the term "benefit" to mean would the resulting cartridge be competitive with some of these other top ranked ones? Like someone else wrote here recently, I have no desire to acquire yet another "good" or "OK" also-ran; I am only interested in pushing the envelope. |
Dear Dgob: Your 420 experience came at random because that was something you was not looking for. Several times things happen by " accident "/at random and happen great things like the 420 improvements. Remember: Newton?
I always say that every single day is a learning one, no exeption.
As Frogman posted thank you to share here your Acutex 420 experiences.
Could be a good thing that some of you that will revamp your 420 could choose a different fixing source than Axel to have another comparison level that can help to all of us. Obviously is up to each one of you if try a different source.
What I maybe will do trhough Axel is to look if one of my 315 stylus samples can fit on the 420 with the help of Axel's wwork. We will see.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Hi All,
My post is still in moderation and I see that Raul has responded in the mean time. I hope nothing I say in that (actually it might still arrive ahead of this - no doubt - also to be moderated) post offends.
As always... |
Dear Frogman: You are right. We don't need the 420 but the 415/412 to arrive to the modified 420 as the Dgob one.
This is what I experienced with my 315/320 ( long nose ). I revamped through VDH the 315 that now performs a little better than the stock top of the line 320.
My experiences through a cartridge ! refresh ! till today always was and is worth to do it with rewards on quality performance improvements. Is the same experiences that Griffithds shared in his last post.
I can't remember any other people experiences contrary to that statements.
Will I send my 420 to be revamped?, no I don't because I already have the 315 VDH and the 320 flat nose that in stock form are better than the stock 420. What I will send to a VDH " refresh " is my second sample of the 320 flat nose that I'm sure not only will beat the Desmond's " refreshed " 420 but the 315 VDH too.
Not all of you owns all these cartridges so the one of you that only owns the 420 or 415/412 could be a good idea to try the 420 " refresh ".
Well, there is no doubt that Acutex made it its " job ", great job.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Hi Frogman,
I really have no idea about exactly what he did, apart from the bits I've pointed out on the Glanz thread. In fact, I had given up on the 420 altogether and so was genuinely surprised when the package arrived. I think I posed a tempting challenge to Axel with my claims about the seemingly insurmountable limitations of the cartridge's ability (even after his initial attempts to adjust it). Well now I have to eat my words because the only thing I know for certain is that he has elevated this cartridge to a very high performance level. That might mean that he can do the same with its lesser siblings but I would of course want to check that the motor/magnets and everything else is the same before assuming that the change would bring about the same outcome.
I'd say the revamped 420 makes some other great performers seem coloured in many areas but wouldn't want to go down the 'abandoned' (by me and many others) road of 'it is the best' at anything in particular. But it is very good and a marked improvement on the original that I owned.
Leaving me with the reflection: 'you live and you learn'!
As always... |
Dgob, thanks for sharing your experiences with the revamped 420. It has been pointed out that the only difference between the 420 and it's "lesser" cousins, the 415/412, is the stylus/cantilever. Are you aware of anything that Axel did as part of the revamp that would preclude having him revamp a 415 or 412 and result with the exact same cartridge as a revamped 420? If he replaces the cantilever/stylus, unless the rubber suspension is different for the 420, I see no reason why this would not be the case.
Regards. |
Hi Dgob, Would never have thought to look in the Glanz thread to read about the 420. Thanks, Regards, Don |
Pryso, I was chiefly interested in compliance, output, and tracking angle specs-- mostly to compare to published Grace specifications. At this level of price and performance it is reasonable to expect such info from a manufacturer of finished goods-- though irrelevant to routine inspection & servicing of other manufacturers' cartridges. However, a degree of mysteriousness is inevitable in high-end audio, and after 8000+ posts hereabouts I suspect we all grownups when it comes to "blind" set-up. |
Re: Peter unresponsive to Emails.
As I understand things, his business is almost a "one man show", meaning he personally does the inspection, repair, and replacement work. If true, no wonder he doesn't have time to send additional messages, his line up of work is already long enough.
I sent him a van den Hul I'd purchased that came with the cantilever out of alignment by 15-20 degrees. Peter was able to "refresh" (sorry Raul, I couldn't resist!) the alignment and verify the suspension so a cantilever/stylus replacement was not necessary. I was pleased with the work but never received any documentation. I guess that is simply his business method. |
Lew, circa '09 I never had any luck by phone either. If you succeed in reaching Peter it would interesting to know if he thinks that the performance of his $500 turn-key assembly will exceed the performance of a $350 Ruby/OCL retip to your OEM Ruby holder. I imagine that the performance would be the similar-- assuming that he replaces your aged suspension as part of the deal. |
Dear Griffithds: If you like the OM20 then you need to hear the =M40 that's even better performer. Ortofon is warranty of high quality performer products and the OM is no exception.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dave, You wrote, "Peter gets a poor grade for unresponsiveness to emails." This is exactly why SS does not (yet) have my broken Ruby stylus assembly for repair. As you know, on their website they advise communicating by email. Thus far, I have sent two, both last spring, about 6 months ago at least. As of this date, no response. I guess, when the mood strikes, I will use the phone. |
Terrific post, thanks.
****In fact, in an age of super-saturated networking, one may even take perverse pleasure in an eccentric hobby in which a service provider remains subbornly uncommunicative for months or years, only to resurface with something truly extraordinary. ****
I like the way you think. As with music, how boring the hobby would be without the "characters". ------------- Zoot Sims, when asked what he thought about Stan Getz:
"Stan, he's a great bunch of guys" |
After 75 hours of break-in it is time for an update on the Soundsmith Grace F-9 Ruby OCL stylus assembly. To get this out of the way: Peter gets a poor grade for unresponsiveness to emails. No reply to my request for set-up advice or specs on the stylus, and no documentation with the purchase except for the recommendation of a minimum VTF of 1.5gm. This is at par with Soundsmith's silence during the eight months that it took for me to receive their retip of a Lyra Helikon in the 2009 timeframe. However, given the esoterica of custom styli, I don't care much about communication as long as the product acquits itself with honor. In fact, in an age of super-saturated networking, one may even take perverse pleasure in an eccentric hobby in which a service provider remains subbornly uncommunicative for months or years, only to resurface with something truly extraordinary.
It was only necessary to say this to unbruise my ego over the Helikon retip and as caveat emptor to any audiophile who expects coddling by customer service. To close on the point, the Ruby OCL assembly arrived inside of three weeks from order. Unlike the broken OEM stylus that came with my used F9, it fits snuggly in the cartridge body. Had the stock stylus holder fit better I might have sent it to Axel for a retip. However, it was too tempting to hear the F9 with a Ruby cantilever consistent with construction of Grace's original TOTL offer. Finally, in favor of working with Soundsmith, I felt it was worth the sporting bet of $500 to hear a fully finished product in which Peter had full control over the integrated assembly of SS holder, suspension, ruby cantilever, and diamond.
It is physically well-made, with a properly alligned cantilever requiring minimal azimuth adjustment. Consistent with his claim for the OCL diamond, there is a narrow range of VTA and VTF to get it right-- so far tail slightly up and VTF of 1.6gm on Trans-Fi linear arm.
It took 50-75 hours to reveal refinement in detail, expanded soundstage, concussive dynamic envelope, and full embodiment of well articulated LF. It is impressive in all of these and other respects, over-turning any preconception of yin-yang dichotomy between MM/MI and MC. It's right up there with the short-nosed Acutex M320III STR. The Ruby OCL may be a bit more resolving and perhaps a bit less enveloping. I need to revisit the Acutex to see if there is really any meaningfully difference between these two beyond confirmation bias that tends to favor the last mount in the saddle. Unfortunately I don't have an OEM Grace stylus to compare it to.
It's great that Soundsmith has an off-the-shelf turn-key TOTL stylus replacement for F9 that is generally available for instant gratification. This one changes the rules of acquisition for MM/MI. Had I started at this point I could easily have limited at least several diversions into vintage cartridges. |
My dear Balkan friend,
I for one also have a "exit strategy". The problem is I am finding it quite difficult to control the "just one more desire". I must admit, it is a capitalist consumption curse. My cartridge resell will be a complete failure as far as selling for profit is concerned. Loss control is where I am at now. I'm at a point where every M/M cartridge I do a cantilever/stylus change on, will only raises that cartridge up to the level of several other cartridges I already have at best. Just "burning money" is an old saying that comes to mind. Yes, I do have a spare 420 that I could offer to Axel for the "Dgob transformation". Do I really need another also ran? But then I ask myself, what if the cartridge (in its new configuration), actually raises the bar? Lets find out just what Axel did to the Acutex 420. Then, well, lets see how strong my "exit strategy" really is. Deepest Regards Comrade Don |
Gentlemen, Many thanks for your very informative guidance and taking care of my problem. The further The Tale of the Sibilant AT20SLa proceeds, the more professors appear in the scene. Let me repeat the facts: The ATN20SS never misstracked or, to say more precisely, I never heard misstracked/distorted sound, but it suffered from sibilance and over brightness. Under magnification the stylus/cantilever itself seems to be OK. Also the "V" magnets proved to be correctly oriented to the pole pieces. Only the cantilever was slightly bent. This proves the otherwise pure sound. Logical ? For me it really has been a challenge to try to solve this interesting problem. Following Timeltel´s instructions by pushing against the compliance donut very gently using a wooden stick I have managed to straighten the cantilever much ! Now it´s only a few degrees off-axis. But I don´t dare to push more, I probably would cause damage to fragile suspension. So I will leave it for more capable hands... I have adjusted the cart slightly to the right on the headshell (from viewing above) to compensate the now very slightly bent cantilever so that it will track correctly. And I need to buy this: Tomahawk 2 with rotating headshell. Carts with off-axis cantilevers can easily and correctly adjusted , another wonder of the TERMINATOR. Also the azimuth seems OK under magnification. And following Timeltel´s suggestion I´m running lower VTF at 1.4 g and I have got rid of over brightness, just a hint left ! But the sibilance is still, a bit lower though. Logical conclusion: the AT20SS must be 100 % perfectly adjusted to a certain, very narrow range of values to avoid sibilance, no compromises ?
To confirm the stylus´ condition I have bought this stereo microscope:
http://www.villenkello.fi/shop/kauppa4/products.php?&action=show&id=3944&show=all
The magnets of the original "SLa" stylus are rotated and I didn´t manage to loosen the cantilever screw. But this is not important, I can try it again later. Without your help I wouldn´t have succeeded alone. I thank you all.
The Tale will be continued... |
Hi Griffithds,
So as not to repeat myself or bore the largely uninterested, might I suggest that you look at my Glanz thread as I have discussed these points with others on there.
I hope that helps
As always... |
Dear comrade Don, With all those MM carts I was forced to 'invent' some 'exit strategy'. In my case this strategy consist of hypothetical assumptions regarding the resell possibilities of each cart I buy. While I like Axel very much he gets from me only carts with broken styli or cantilevers.It is not my intention to provide him with 'healthy' cantilevers/styli combos as a kind of solidarity contribution.
Regards, |
Hi Dgob,
I have 2 of the 420's. One never taken out of the box. Did he say what was revamped? I would asume a cantilever/stylus change but to what. Would I just ask for Dgob's conversion? Regards, Don |