Dear @eaneverson : Please to re-start our dialogue in the stages you are looking and for we can have a wide dialogue by both parts I suggest you to send me a: Hi in the following link:
Thank's in advance,
R.
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.
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.
13,665 responses Add your response
Dear @eaneverson :
SimAudio Moon 610LP MM & MC Phono Preamplifier | eBay This is very high quality performance level that permits that your Umami Red can shows at its best.
R. |
Dear friends: This time and thank's to the link that posted @theophile we can read the review of the Stanton Epoch HZ9S ( page 32. ):
HiFi-Stereo-Review-1985-01.pdf (worldradiohistory.com)
R.
|
Dear @mijostyn @lewm and friends: Here the brochure of the 3160 phonolinepreamp with really important information about its design and how that design José took with extreme care. In page 4 comes the specs measured that are conservative because the unit surpass it:
Essential 3160 brochure.pdf (canva.com)
here you can look/read that is a fact that the 3160 not only accomplished those specs but even beats some of them as is the case of the RIAA deviation that in those times we compared against Halcro, Boulder and Dartzel where non came close the 3160:
The phonolinepreamp RIAA calibration uses a propietary digital multitone audio signal with 24/192 resolution, with the multitone frequencies and amplitudes calculated according the values of the RIAA eq. curve. This technique allows an overall phono re-equalization accuracy to within 0.01 db, guaranteeing that the musical information decoded by the 3160 is completely neutral to the input source.
Well all those in the 3160 and in the new Essential 3180 is just unimaginable because not even us think it was possible a few years ago but over the last times we mad i some mods here and there and the 3180 borns this year and no today phonolinepreamp can not only be a challenge for it but can’t outperform it. Yes we are proud that the 3180 fulfill all the cartridge needs and all that what any audiophile with any audio/MUSIC standard levels/targets can want it and can enjoy in his room/system for the very first time in his life no matters what due that the unit is truer to the recording with the lower noise and distortion/coloration ( I can say no coloration, no unit signature bu only signal reproduction. ) you can’t even imagine.. No I’m not boastful/arrogant it’s that that is a fact. My last comparison experience was against today D’angostino ( less than 10 days ago. ) unit and before that against today FMA, VDH and others of that level including Dartzel.
As lewm shared we hope to build only a few units that we can count with our hands fingers. We will see.
Comments are welcomed, R.
R. |
No I pointed out exactly what you posted
For active and passive parts that is a very poor overload margin- running anything at 60% capacity - far behind most commercial products. Perhaps you should check your statement with the designer of your preamp and get him to explain to you the ramifications of what you are saying.
|
Dear @dover : In some circuit stages are parts with over 1000% overload margin but I was not speaking of that.
I posted: " the unit can’t be overloaded by any cartridge " situation " due that’s headroom is a huge one, " but you as always looking words or whatever just trying to hit me but as always you failed again. The 3160 MC overload margin is 30mv and in the 3180 is even better. Your whole Marantz is with all respect a ridiculous item vs the 3180 level. So, stay calm and instead to post again with that negative attitude try to enhance the overall issues in favor of all audiophiles that read it. Be positive, can you?
R. |
That is a very low overload margin by any standards. 40/60 sees an overload margin of only 67%. Some of the components in my 1960 Maranta 7 tube preamplifier are running with a 800% overload margin. Such low overload margins as used in your preamp will lead to higher noise floor.
|
You just have it.
Btw, the 3180 comes ( as the early models. ) with a logic dual mono control independent circuit board where exist a proccessor that whe we switch on the unit starts its job checking in both channels that main parameters stays spot on and blinking for around 8 seconds and after that is ready to play with. If after the checking time exist a " trouble " will stays blinking and does not permit to play. I have and can say that the play operation design and build is almost bullet proof.
All the active and passive parts that we choosed are running at no more of 60% of its capabilities under any condition.
Take care, R. |
Dear @mijostyn : I will do, please email me your cell phone to do it.
In the mean time I want to " complete " the whole 3180 information:
it’s a full discrete design even the output buffers, circuit board is 4 layers, the unit can’t be overloaded by any cartridge " situation " due that’s headroom is a huge one, obviously no SUT in the 3180 we don’t need it it’s designed as an active high gain unit, MC gain stage designed with bipolar transistors and the MM with FETS but the unit can comes with two MC stages and no MM stage, signal has the shortest path we can achieved and this as all the design we have on mind that the cartridge signal always suffer for hard and heavy manipulations inside any phonolinestage ( no matters what ) including the 3180 and due to that fact one of our main targets is to " impede " it loweing manipulation to that signal and that the 3180 manipulation be made in " delicated " way if this could exist, yes it comes as a choice the RIAA 3.18u pole that’s how the recordings/LP comes to be played in each one of us room/system so it’s a choice that you or I want or do not to use. R. |
@rauliruegas , That is great Raul. Can you send me pictures? I'll send you pics of my new subwoofers! |
Dear @mijostyn : As @lewm pointed out is our self design/manufacture PhonoLinepreamp. After several tests in my room/system and due that some top high end México distributors been here and were them who borrowed samples to me coming from top designers and with top quality level performances like: FM Acoustics, Gryphon, Levinson, Krell, Boulder, etc, etc, with no tests with tubes electronics that in those times I already left behind me ( I used 10 years only tube electronics. ) and I dit it all those tests looking for a phono+line stage that could satisfy my demanding quality level during playing recording MUSIC. My last phonolinepreamp was the Classé Audio DR-7 that was modified by us to goes to a next step a top the original ( btw, in those ( old times ) I owned the NIL-2 by Classé too pre-preamp that was a current design but Classé never mentioned "current " but Natural Impedance Loading ( no input resistor for loading ) and it was running as today current phono stages. Because I could not found out what really satisfy me José and I ( 18 years ago ) started to " play " with our self design and in our few starting phonolinepreamp even we had a battery powered unit ( I still have it just as a " remember " ) but that was how we decided to start our adventure where through the time we have to solve many many obstacles to stay where we are TODAY.
15 years ago appeared the first unit made/designed only to use in my room/system and I posted here the quality level achivement we did it and in those times a gentleman that was and is an Agoner ask for a unit for him ( he lives and born in England. ) an we said NO ( because we are not members of the manufacturer market, we are only two audiophiles/MUSIC lovers with a deep passion for MUSIC/Audio and still we are. ) ) but after several emails we accepted to do it and it borns the Essential 3150 that we shared with him a other 3 gentlemans that still own it.
Around four years latter and through some modifications to the original design born the Essential 3160 that was similar to the unit lewm mentioned. Our laboratory is the unit I still own that today even that's a " frankestein " it performs truly better and I could say that even better that any CH or similar units ( I never had a CH in my room/system. ) I remember that when I been in San Diego CA showing the 3160 we made it a live ( several audiophiles down there ) comparison against nothing less than Dartzeel and guees what : the 3160 not only was a challenge for it but outperformaed overall. 3180 as the 3160 is a differential balanced design totally dual mono in pure class A with no feedback input to output and obviously with a dual mono external Power Supply and from the umblical chords connectors that are nothing less but Swiss Lemo ones as all parts were choosed not for its high price out there but first target was " zero colorations " . So the unit has a wide bandwith over 1.5Mhz, a very fast rise time, extremely low noise level ( lower than your Zeta. ) and almost unmeasurable distortion levels. Even that all the circuit design is 100% analog ( no digital any where. ) the Essential 3180 RIAA deviation is around: 0.011 db ( if you look a chart both RIAA channels stays in the same frequency line, you can't see any deviation between both channels. All the unit dual mono configuration mimic every parameter in between channels. Now the 3180 as the 3160 has not only one phono stage internally but two totally separated balanced dual mono phono stages along a dual mono separated line stage.
The critical importance of all those is how it sounds: well there is no signature sound of any way in the 3180 only true enjoyment of MUSIC: hardware just disappeared and runs with any cartridge ranging from 0.01mv yes with very low noise even at full position of both level attenuators. Current design? are you kidding me?, the 3180 is voltage gain, yes voltage gain. Other time I will leave to José why our design is not current but voltage one and he coincide with wynn palmer about but José explain in the same way that him but is really " brutal " against all the why's exist current designs and I don't want to be agressive against not only audiophiles but manufacturers too, at the end every one has its own " ideas " and we respect all gentlemans. Yes and as you are with what you did and do with your room/system we are proudly of the 3180. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Btw, other than the fenomenal transient response of the 3180/Es-10 couple is its developed true low distortion levels that the Etsuro Gold can't showed.
Even that both cartridges comes by Excel its cartridge motors are different and the output level says that: 0.2mv vs 0.4mv in the Gold and this one has not the tracking abilities that shows the Excel Es-01.
R. |
Dear friends: From almost just when I began with this thread I was looking for a LOMC cartridge by EXCEL due that in Japan was a very well regarded cartridge in an extremely way competitive market on those old/vintage times.
I owned other top cartridges made by Excel as Lux and Audiocraft and other and in my thread early times I bougth almost all the top or one step down to the top LOMC that appeared in the Japanese audio bible. You can name it and can be sure I still own or owned that cartridge, I think that only I never been in my system was Final and Excel.
For my " fortune " about and like 2.5 months ago a gentleman in the Argent thread posted a long list of Argent NOS ( over 50 samples ) cartridges and between that list came nothin less that the Excel ES-10 that was one step down the top of the line where thedifference in between is that the tp one came with micro-ridge stylus against the PH in the ES-10 but everything ( cartridge motor ) is exactly the same. Excel never puts in the market outside Japan these MC cartridges till they do it latter on with Argent for Europe and USA. Argent looks as the ES-10 but are not exactly the same: when the cantilever in the Argent 110 is titanium the Excel is berylium and other minute differences. Anyway I pull the riger for the Excel that's a 0.2mv output and runs at 1.7-2.0 grs with a medium compliance 13cu and where the cartridge top plate is a " plattform " of around 7mm of hard ruby/saphire. Excel specify that's FR is : 10hz to 50khz and inside the original box comes the chart measures of my sample where you can look that the cartridge is dead flat from 20hz to 16khz and with a deviation of 1.0db at 20khz, output for each channel measured exactly the same 0.21mv ( exceptional . ) and the measures where made running the cartridge at 2.0grs.
I have to say that we are finishing the latest Essential 3180 " fine tunning " phonolinepreamp in my personal/system unit.
Ok I mounted the Excel ES-01 in our own tonearm design and for the first 5 tracks ( with out yet any fine tunning sessions. ) in the LP was not disappointed but " extreme " disappointed " and was after 3 LP sides that the light comes on and on and on an almost indescriptible quality level. Yes is an overwhelming cartridge and top performer by any today cartridge standards. Was I surprised by its quality performance ? not really because Excel today it's behind all pricey Etsuro cartridges and behind ,as in the past , of many other cartridges in the audio market: they know what they do and they did and does it with a very low profile: seems to me that they does not needs other kind of profile and what we need as audiophiles is to know who is Excel . Not surprised but true satisfied as ever before, I never imagined how the cartridge will be speciaLLY BY BEEN A 1981 design/manufactured. By specs the cartridge is a medium compliance but during play it plays anything including way demanding recordings like the Telarc 1812 that even some high compliance cartridges can't do it. As is with my Essential 3180 unit the ES-10 change your room/system perspective to a real new level that, at least me, was unknow by its rewards. After a little more than 2 weeks with it past week-end an almost new audio friend ( he was at my place only one time. ) came to my place and brought 2 cartridges: Etsuro Gold and other AR wood body and ruby cantilever that was unknow for me and he told me that paid around 15K for it.
Btw, I ask him if his Gold Etsuro was the Gold Special and he told me that he unknow if it's ( The Etsuro site says nothing on that " Special " model. I know that exist the model because @mikelavigne own it and maybe he could explain us which differences are in the Special against the Gold becauser nowhere exist a clear explanation. ). Well , first my friend and I listen the Etsuro Gold with LPs that he choosed and that I know very well too. This is my first time in my system with the Gold and I can say is a very good performer and a little better than the Umami Red that's manufactured by Excel too. I test the Etsuro with specific 6 tracks ( from MoFi Power and the Majesty, Sheffield Drum Record, RR Dafos and RR Fiesta. ) of my comparison normal proccess and repeat very good performer.
Now the true moment when stiched to the ES-10 usinge exactly the same tracks he choosed and the ones I choosed too and what was his reactions? his first words ( because during playing those tracks he with closed mouth. ) were: almost the same I said here: new perspective due the cartridge habilities to handled the transients and this unique characteristic makes all differences for the better ( along the Essential 3180. ) where both cartridges shared the same room/system and guess what? he never mentioned to listen his AR new cartridge but only following listen and enjoying MUSIC for at least 4.5 hours. My audio friend owns D'angostino electronics mated with the Sonus Faber Aida II speakers that I listened at his place. Last Monday I was by second time at his place because he ask me to bring with me the 3180 so we listen what for him is deep knowledge system. Now, could be that the similar look of the Argent 110 performs exactly as my ES-10? maybe the Excel signature of those old times but not exactly. All of you have the opportunity to have for " penauts " the 110 and listen in your system.
Anyway, all single day in audio is a learning one. Thank's Excel.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Dear Raul, you certainly get a lot said. As an audiophile for over fifty years I have owned or auditioned with my system many moving magnet, moving iron and electret cartridges including offerings from Shure, Stanton, Empire, Grado, Clearaudio, Micro Acoustics, etc. Some were only good others were near great. However none of them provided me with sound that a little willing suspension of disbelief allowed me to imagine I was hearing live musicians playing as well as a good low output moving coil cartridge does. My present cartrdge is the Ortofon Cadenza Bronze. This post is purposely subjective, but then my subjective judgement is all that really matters to me. |
I don't have the expertise that many of you here have, but I do have recent experience with both types of cartridges. For the last few years I've run a Hana ML MC on both a VPI HW-19 and a NAD 588. A few months ago I found a killer deal on a lightly used clear audio Maestro V2 ebony mm, they're top of the line moving magnet cartridge. They both have wide and deep sound stages. The hana, however, is much more bold in its presence. The maestro, in comparison, is a bit more polite and laid back. I'm running a Hagerman trumpet MC phono stage that has gobs of loading and gain options and I've dialed in both cartridges in terms of alignment. I wouldn't say one is better than the other, although I prefer the hana's sound more. Even though it cost half as much as the clear audio. |
That makes sense, Raul. I'm not obsessed with measurements, as there is so much we cannot measure. But we can take an objective approach to things we cannot measure. I argued, briefly, in a thread in another sub-forum here that users of a plug-in power filter should try some blind testing to see if they could identify if it was in use. I was accused of being a troll from "ASR". No theoretical basis for that device, so no way to know what to measure, but you can still rely on your ears if you are willing to do it blind. I was impressed with how quickly they came up with a way of negating the desirability of blind-testing - their product takes 15 minutes to start working (by which time one cannot remember what the sound was like before)! It's easier for pickups. We can use frequency response to guide us towards what might be good, but at the end of the day the listening experience is what we spend our money on.
|
Dear @dogberry : At the end my goal is the same when the cartridges inside my room/system puts me nearer to the recording and this nearer to the recording means and have several characteristics.
Cartridge measurements that today we can’t have in any way other that do it by our self could and should confirm why we " love " the quality levels of this or that cartridge or why we prefers this over the other or confirm we are rigth or wrong even if that wrong cartridge measurements came from the cartridge that " pleases me maximally ".
If we like what we like and we are sure why we like it and why is so near live MUSIC measurements can’t change those fact. I just posted in other thread: what we like is our privilege that been personal is untouchable.
Btw, i like the mix between objectivity and subjectivety, always exist a gradation level of that mix but that's me.
R.
|
Serious question: if it sounds great to me, why should I care about objective measurements? My goal is to listen to music in a way that pleases me maximally, not to acquire the most theoretically perfect transducer. |
Regarding the Ortofon 2M Black others have commented on...This is my favorite MM cartridge. I’m debating upgrading to the LVB 250. I’m curious if there is any difference in the LVB 250 cartridge shell with the other 2M compatible shells (Bronze and Black). I originally purchased a Bronze to upgrade my turntable. I then purchased a Pro-Ject 6 Perspex SB with the 9" Pro-Ject Evolution carbon tone arm. So I upgraded with the 2M Black stylus. I was very pleased with the sound. I did however have suspension issues with both the Bronze and the Black 2M stylus collapsing after a very short period of time. Ortofon was great to work with and continued to send me replacement stylus. I’m currently on my 3rd 2M Black stylus and this one seems to be holding up. Before the comments start...yes...all the settings and setup were correct and confirmed by Ortofon via photos and videos that were sent. |
Dear friends : I can’t imagine how today top LOMC cartridges could do under the same tests did it in the MC2000. Today not even manufacturers give us a chart of the cartridge FR by channels when the humble vintage Denon 103 did and does it ! !. We don’t know almost nothig critical/important of the today cartridges we are listening other than " we like it " BUT in an objective way I think we customers has the rigth and the manufacturers the responsability to tell us about those kind of tests.
Why not? perhaps @jcarr can gives us an explanation or at least puts some kind of ligth down there. I don't ask for reviewers including Atkinson because all them showed that just do not cares about even that has a responsability and we pay for it to those " proffesional " magasines. Today top LOMC cartridges Lyra included " sounds " great but: are that great under objective tests? I could think " maybe yes ", so please shows us.
R. |
raul my friend, two replies -- First, that comment was intended at least in part in humor. That's why I included the smiley face. But secondly, I'm far from the only one with that recollection of Hirsch. I've seen many dubious or negative comments over the years about his reviews. Many considered them laughable. But he has little recognition now since he retired so long ago. I approach any commercial review with a bit of skepticism. But some reviewers simply lack credibility. If they say, "We listened to X component and tested it on our bench. We found it meets the manufacturer's specifications so we recommend it", that is hardly helpful to me in deciding what to audition. |
Dear friernds : I know that audiophiles as @edgewear @neonknight @lewm @nandric and more will appreciate the Ortofon MC2000 LOMC cartridge ( that Iwas a proud owner with 3 new samples. One modified with boron cantilever: just sublime. ) review that was reviewed by Pisha that is a gentleman that along Baerwald, Stevenson, Bauer and others followed the Löfgren tonearm/cartridge alignment solutions, yes exist the Pisha alignment. Page 83:
https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-Audio/80s/Audio-1984-12.pdf
I would like that in the past 10+ years of any cartridge reviews all those " regarded " analog gurus " from STHP or TAS been reviewed in that " same " shape ". It's pity and a shame no one of them did it or do it. Please take a look how deep was the committed by those " old " reviewers with their job and with the magasine readers. I can say nothing less than : W O W !
R.
|
Dear @pryso : I’m sorry for your limited view about. This is not if this review or reviewer is good or bad and ceratinly not if you like it or not because you can be sure that several audiophiles/gentlemans as @dimitry really appreciated.
The whole issue is that trhough all those vintage audio magasines samples I shared here ( more than 20+ different from Stereo Review, Audio and High Fidelity. ) are writed part of the whole audio industry History. There we not only can read about cartridge reviews but other reviews of TTs, tonearms, speakers, amplifiers, phono stages, line preamps, CD, tape decks, cables along the kind of advertasing and several audio articles that even today are important or have important analog and digital subjects analisies. It’s the audio industry " legacy " with the effort showed by those designers/manufacturers of any kind of audio items. Any one trhough those magasines at least can figure out from where we all come and why we are " seated " here, all that is part of the overall audio development and as a plus we can read the review of some of the cartridges that some of us still own or owned with an unknowed information for us and the magasines are all very good examples of how could or must be a full audio item reviews because today we really ( at least me. ) have not critical information in today magasines reviews than in the past we all had and in any audio item. We can take today cartridge or tonearm or TT reviews with no single real time measurements or even reference on its full specs. We have to learn, the audio industry has to learn.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R.
|
Dear friends: Yesterday I posted information about MC patent due that a gentleman posted that Grado was whom invented and patented the MC cartridge principle and that is not true but a misunderstood by him because the one that in vented the MC cartridge principle was ORTOFON in 1950, even that year Grado company just dis not exist.
Here that first patent and other that came before Grado: https://patents.google.com/patent/US2591996A/en
https://patents.google.com/patent/US2983796A/en
https://patents.google.com/patent/GB805221A/en https://patents.google.com/patent/GB690490A/en
Two of them by Ortofon and one from Garrad. Anyway, all before Grado.
R.
|
Raul, with all due respect, referencing a review by Hirsch? Back in the '70s a local high end dealer offered this on his reviews: "They usually offer two worthwhile bits of information. The component dimensions tell if it will fit on your shelf. And the component weight suggests whether the shelf may be strong enough to support it." That doesn't apply to cartridges, but you get the gist. ;^) |
Well I don't know what I made wrong but that review is of one of the best Stanton ever the 980, I still own the 981HZ.
This was the latest MM Technics design and something to have or at least listen it, it's the 205 MK4. Look page 79:
https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-Audio/80s/Audio-1986-01.pdf
Here the glorious best Empire ever design the 4000 D3. Look page 37:
This Grado cartridge is not top of the line but at next down setp catalog model and a very good example of what Grado designs were in those old times, it's the 8MR. Look page 87:
https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-Audio/80s/Audio-1986-02.pdf
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R.
|
Dear friends: Last year I posted several links of cartridge reviews on vintage MM/MI cartridges, almost all what we learned in this thread. Now, I will post additional links reviews of very well regarded cartridges:
this one was the last Pritchard design colaboration with ADC it's the Astrion with saphire cantilever. I really like this MI model. Look for the page 35: https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-High-Fidelity/80s/High-Fidelity-1981-07.pdf
This one was and still is one of the Audio Technica with higher sales by the brand it's the AT 155LC. I'm sure than some of you owned or still own as me, really good. Look for page 30: https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-High-Fidelity/80s/High-Fidelity-1981-07.pdf
R.
|
Dear @bill_k : Your Cadenza Bronze has a better stylud shape, nothing less than the stylus shape we can find out in the top Ortofon models but even that the Cadenza Black is a little better performer with its Shibata stylus shape and it's not only because boron is better than aluminum material for cartridge cantilevers but that the Black model has higher tracking abilities due that its compliance is higher than in the Bronze so it's a better tracker and can pick up " more " information and with lower " distortion " levels. R. |
Dear @tobes : The 2M Black was and is a success cartridge rigth from the time appeared in the market and came with the Shibata nude stylus. The change of build material cantilever makes a huge difference especially with boron that's the choosed cantilever material by almost all top LOMC cartridge manufacturers. J.Carr Lyra designer years ago posted here as and answer some one did it that a change of say aluminum cantilever or ruby one for boron cantilever makes a higher difference for the better that a change in any stylus shape profile.
Rigth now this new 2M Black is a top MM winner and with very good price tag ( as @bill_k posted. ) . Highly competitive even against some LOMC designs. Congratulations for you that pull the triger with.
R. |
Is anyone else using the Ortofon 2M LVB 250? I upgraded my stock 2M Black to the LVB stylus (boron cantilever, Shibata stylus) and I’m very surprised at the magnitude of improvement. Soundstage, focus, clarity, detail, timbre - pretty much every aspect of SQ has improved. Tracking and composure too - and a very involving listening experience overall. |
Dear @dover : I noted that too but the trouble is what really means: Vital Line Contact and what Goldring says in its site:
" vital-shank, nude-diamond stylus. This polyhedral, line-contact profile was chosen because it has a very low tip-mass and a large contact area whilst being very narrow from front to back; even enabling the undistorted retrieval of ultrasonic frequencies in a recording. " Which could be its cantilever/stylus source that could be Gyger too but no spec stylus tip shape measures, In theory if I use Gyger S in other model the new top of the line cartridge should be using the Giger S and if not then it could be that the new VLC is " better " than the Gyger or that Gyger/Goldring relationship end it. R
R. |
@needlestein, The Gyger S and Replicant 100 are very similar but not exactly the same. The Soundsmith OLC stylus is also very similar. |
I know it's true because I have a few of them and have viewed them under the microscope. The next one down is Gyger FG 2. You are right to place "inexpensive" in quotes. The cost of the replacement stylus for the 1042 is well over $400 USD and that includes the street price on discount websites and auction sites. It's an absolutely wonderful cartridge, though. Even after all these decades of it being in existence. It's probably the worst cartridge for mounting though. Very little room for nuts and screws, but it's worth it.
|
Dear @needlestein : In other thread you posted that the Ortofon Rplicant 100 stylus is the Gyger S.
Now, Goldring states that in its non-MC 1042 model the cartridge stylus is a Gyger S. This is a " surprise " for me and due that you are an expert about I ask if you can give us an explanation how an " inexpensive " cartridge can comes with that Gyger S similar to the top Ortofon MC models? ! ! do you think the Goldring statement is corecct?. Thank's in advance:
R.
|
Dear friends : More vintage cartridge reviews.
I have a very special edition of this very fine class Audio Technica AT 160ML:
https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-Audio/80s/Audio-1984-09.pdf page 72.
This one by Shure needs no presentation:
https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-Audio/80s/Audio-1982-11.pdf page 65.
Whom out there did not yet experienced this famous Grace one, yes the Ruby:
https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-Audio/80s/Audio-1983-07.pdf page 92.
I own other cartridge models by Nagatron but even that I look at really hard never keeped its unique Ribbon design that’s very very low output cartridge. Here in Agon forum I know ( I can’t remember his name/moniker ) only one audiophile that owns it and runs through the top Technics SUT: go figure "
https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-Audio/70s/Audio-1979-05.pdf page 66
I own or owned all models of this old Pritchard works ADC XLM:
page 55.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Dear @dimitry The B&O tagential tonearm accept directly the B&O cartridgeas.
If you want to mount a B&O cartridge in a non B$O TT it happens several good and bad " things ".
A bad thing is that we need an adapter to mount the cartridge in a different tonearm and here happens at least two things: first the cartridge output pin connectors have to be connected ( additioanl metal connection. ) with the input addapter headshell connectors and second is that the cartridge body goes hold by a screw to a second " cartridge " body that's the addapter.
What I did it with my B&O and Technics cartridges is to take out the addapter input connectors and the removable headshell input wires connectors just reduce its internal hole to connect directly to the cartridge pins and that's it. Works and performs really nice with pivoted tonearms.
R.
|