The correct answer is always "something else", no matter what. Chakster got it right.
Showing 7 responses by lewm
Dear Chakster, I was reading a very interesting white paper on static electricity and vinyl reproduction, published by Shure in 1978, when I came across this very interesting comment on the use of exotic metals in cantilever construction. Of course, Shure is here defending their own choice of using a "special" alloy of aluminum in what was then their latest flagship cartridge, the V15 Type IV. I think you can consult the referenced article at the bottom, if you want to see some data in support of what they wrote here: "What material is used to make the shank? Why? Why not use Beryllium or Boron, etc.? Answer: Normally it is not our policy to divulge the material and proprietary processes that are used to fabricate our products. In this case, however, a departure from that policy is warranted, because of the great deal of confusion that seems to exist in the marketplace as to the pros and cons of certain exotic materials, such as Beryllium, Boron, Titanium, etc. It seems that by the sheer sound of these exotic and strange names, tremendous performance advantages are implied. Since these materials were developed for space age applications, it is easy to understand that there is a connotation of super strength and other advantages. Shure has made use of and studied a variety of these materials for quite a while. In the early days, Beryllium Copper was used, then Magnesium, Aluminum, and special Aluminum alloys. Aluminum and Beryllium combinations were used for example, in the V15 Type II stylus as early as 1967. A special heat treated Aluminum alloy is used in the V15 Type IV telescopic stylus assembly. This coupled with its shape and structure determines the performance criteria." The method of analysis is outlined in L. Happ’s paper, "Design Considerations of the V15 Type IV Phonograph Stylus." |
In this hobby, I try to avoid the categorical statement (like "all MC cartridges are superior to all MM cartridges", or vice-versa), and I am suspicious of categorical statements put forth by anyone else. Therefore I would say that a $15K cartridge might be absolutely superb. But so too might a much, much less expensive cartridge. I have to accept this proposition, because I don't want to be buying $15K cartridges just to prove that it is right or wrong thinking. (The most I have ever paid is around $2K.) Among those of us on this thread, only a few who have taken the mega-expensive leap are qualified to dispute the proposition. And it seems that neither Halcro nor Raul are prepared to take the contrary position that $15K (or let's say more than $10K) buys Nirvana. |
Orpheus, The best of the Stantons/Pickerings (which are really analogous to each other) are from the 70s and perhaps 80s. We had nothing like them in the 50s, for sure. Stereo came in only in the late 50s and didn't take over until the mid-60s. You are making these cartridges older than they really are. I agree with Chakster: Stanton 881S, 980/981LZS, 980/981HZS, and 100WS, and probably the analogous Pickering series, from XVS3000 through XVS7500, are the best of that bunch and very competitive still today, with anything. |