Who needs a MM cartridge type when we have MC?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

we need a decent TT and decent tonearm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
Ag insider logo xs@2xrauliruegas

Showing 50 responses by fleib

Hi Raul, Very interesting. You now have what is essentially a Maestro stylus on a Virtuoso. The tip is a Gyger 2 instead of the microline (microridge). I suspect that gives you the best of both, the good stylus w/o the overdamped body. I say this based on your comments about the sound of the Maestro. Now that CA has increased the amount of wood, it might be an opportune time for some, to pick up an older wood CA that needs retipping.

I don't know what kind of agreement AT has as an OEM, but I would imagine there would be some kind of exclusivity. It would be smart for them to make a CA generator in a deluxe body to offer as an alternative to the 150MLX, but I doubt if it will happen. Phono carts are now more of a secondary business for AT. Microphones and headphones seem to be their main products. They'll probably keep making carts, and occasionally come out with a new model as long as there is demand. They must be aware of the CA performance quality with all the recommendations etc. Maybe contractual obligations limit them, and maybe if they came out with the same product it wouldn't have the appeal as that same product coming from a company that makes a $15K cart.

I think you'll find a few carts that are better with an aluminum cantilever. This probably doesn't include the vast majority. Sometimes cantilever resonance is built into the voicing and might enhance frequency response or lend a warmer or more forgiving nature. The DL-304 and DL-S1 come to mind. Perhaps Miyabi is another.
Regards,
Hi Lew,
"My OTL amplifiers require a fuse on each output tube. In other words, the fuse and fuse-holder are in the signal path, so I have no doubt that there is a rationale for using the best possible."

That's one of the most ridiculous things I ever read. I wasn't going to say anything, but... I had mono OTLs direct driving electrostats at 50KV w/o such fuses. With 4 big cap tubes each and a ton of storage, they could play louder than the panels could. Maybe you could bypass the fuses, but if the amp is so stupidly designed in the first place, you're probably better off dumping them. You should get in touch with Roger Modjeski. I doubt if he would put a crummy fuse on the output of each tube. You could probably improve the sound and pocket the difference after you sell the other amps.
Regards,
Lew, I didn't say it's ridiculous not to bypass the fuse. It seems ridiculous to go for an OTL and then have a fuse in line with each output tube. These are OTL and not direct drive so you have transformers on the panels? You have Sound Lab spks?

I don't know the capacitance/power requirements of of your spks, but Roger does make a electrostatic system with direct drive amps. I think it's Acoustat panels. I had Acoustat panels in a biamp configuration with ribbon tweeters. Mine were Acoustat amps, rebuilt by Dan Fanny, formerly of AHT. He had to gut the entire amp except the power transformer. DD is the way to go with electrostats IMO. I know that Roger is currently making these amps and might be able to use it on your spks. Here he discusses the requirements of some diff brands:
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=107869.0

Tuning fuses:
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=105425.0

Sorry to come off so outspoken, but in truth, I think we're all nuts. (Sometimes I miss those amps though)
Regards,
Lew, Roger says he can build amps that work at any voltage. You should read the first link (above). Current/impedance requirements are also a major consideration.
"Here is the run-down on what my direct drive amp can do. It can be made at any output voltage and I have a high and low current version because some ESLs draw very high currents due to high capacitance and some don't. This is just the same as the fact that speakers can be 2,4,8,16 ohms and anywhere in between. ESL speakers can be low capacitance, mine are just 100 pf. Beveridge model 2's are 4500 pF. That's a 45 to 1 difference, a much larger range than we see in cone speakers. In addition being capacitive the impedance varies inversely with frequency being lower at higher frequencies. When Beveridge went to transformer drive the result was a speaker that went from 100 ohms at 100 HZ to 1 ohm at 16 KHz. We had to find amplifiers that would deliver over 40 amps of current. These speakers were not suitable for most conventional amps tube or transistor. Roger Sanders makes a solid state mono amp that delivers 2000 watts at a cost of $8000 per pair."

"Thanks for report on an excellent comparison. Here are a few contributing factors. If played loud the Futtermans have not the current needed to drive Acoustats, especially ones 3 panels or larger. The impedance of any large, full range panel speaker is going to approach 1 or 2 ohms at high frequencies and Futterman amps put out nothing into 1 ohm nor do the tubes appreciate the task.

It is a long standing myth that OTL amps and ESL speakers were made for each other. This is true in one combination, the Futterman OTL and the KLH-9 which was a 16 ohm speaker that stayed pretty constant over the range. I have a copy of Julius Futterman's impedance measurements in my "Futterman File". He was certainly interested in driving this speaker as he measured its impedance at over 20 different frequencies. The advantage of his amp over others was it had lots of voltage which the KLH-9 needed. I am told that one of the classic listening tests was to compare the Futterman vs the Marantz 9 driving the KLH, particularly on Saturdays at Lyric Hi FI, NYC.

A Futterman can drive the QUADs or the Stax that airhead has but one has to be very careful not to exceed the maximum voltage which is 35 volts peak for the QUAD 57's and about 40 volts peak (100 watts from a 8 ohm amp) for the 63's. I do not know what the peak is for the Stax. I do know that most Futterman amps can put out 150 volts peak and therein lies the danger.

When Acoustat gave up on making their "Servo Amplifier" they went to a two transformer system, a system that is flawed in its very nature,. There is really no way to drive a single panel ESL with two transformers one being for the lows and one for the highs. One can split the band on the input side but they have to re-combine the bands on the output side and that causes the high frequency transformer to "see" enough of the low frequency information to cause saturation at higher levels and significant 3rd harmonic distortion at moderate levels. Although I don't have my measurements of the Acoustat Magnetic Interface handy, I do recall it is not easy to drive. It needs lots of voltage and lots of current.

Although rarely mentioned, the transformers in ESL speakers often eat up 25 to 50% of the drive energy due to their capacitance at the high end and saturation at the low end. When we eliminate them and the output transformer in a traditional amp and connect the tubes directly to the panels there is a great relief of work that the tube have to perform.

As you can see, from both a safety and sonic perspective, direct drive makes a lot of sense. When you can go directly to the panels, an ESL is actually easier to drive than a magnetic speaker."

Did you ever talk to him about Sound Labs? From his post, I got the impression that a Beverdige rebuild would include the complete amps, hence the price.
With your OTL I don't know if the high voltage speaker transformer would protect your amp if a tube or capacitor failed.
Regards,
Gentlemen, I'd like to point out that Modjeski's post (which is the one I linked to above) is an indictment of one brand of boutique fuses that don't meet industry standards. It would be illogical to draw any greater conclusions from this, even though it may be implied.
Regards,
Hi Nandric, If it has a needle you could always hook up the cart and try it on an unimportant record. If you want to test the generator with a meter, only use a digital meter, put it in the appropriate resistance range, and only test it long enough to get a stable reading. You'll be measuring DC resistance, not impedance, so the value will be lower than published impedance.
Regards,
Hi Lespier, In the '80s the LP12 got its PRAT by running almost 1% fast. It was rather addictive, making other tables sound dull in comparison. I had one of those but eventually tired of it's changing the pace, and the price of upgrading its electronics. I replaced it with a Goldmund direct drive. It ran 0% fast/slow.
Regards,
RE: New CA MMs. I haven't heard any but I suspect they may be slightly worse?
New Virtuoso has 4.0mV out, 680 ohm impedance and 400mH inductance. The body type and stylus appear to be the same. More extensive use of wood puts weight at 8.4g and recommended VTF is a clunky 2.4g (1.8 - 2.6).

Body looks like Maestro, which Raul thought was overdamped. Reminds me of orig AT-440 OCC vs the 440MLa. The OCC had stronger magnets and a higher output, otherwise identical. With the same cheap stylus assembly as before, the magnets are like garish lipstick? Don't see how it could be more extended unless the diamond was upgraded. It could be smoother with additional wood.
http://www.clearaudio.de/_de/tan_Virtuoso%20V2.php
Regards,
Yesterday I attempted to post some further conjecture about the degradation of CA MMs, how higher output and increased impedance is worse with greater distortion, and how increased wood mass was prob responsible for overdamped sound and increased VTF to maintain 90 micron tracking. I guess that was too controversial. Perhaps it's my mention of AT as being the OEM (an obvious fact) that relegated my post to obscurity?
This is disturbing.
On another note, happy Thanksgiving to those who celebrate today.
Regards,
I suspect that CAs recommendation of 2.4g VTF was to obtain 90 micron tracking. The range starts at 1.8g. Although not stated, I assume cu is still 15.

I believe CA might have made their older MMs an instant classic. Stronger magnets is probably worse, not better. Distortion might increase.

When I first posted here, my initial 5 or 6 posts were "subject to approval". After that, they just went on. My last post was once again moderated. Maybe if we stop discussing, it will go away?
Regards,
Hi Harold, you obviously have a defective stylus. There is a remote possibility that the cart is defective or has something loose, but it's doubtful. The ATN20SS was not exactly mass produced. Beryllium is brittle, so it's not something to mess with trying to straighten. What you're describing is often an azimuth problem or chipped or cracked diamond. Have you looked at it under magnification? Perhaps you can return the stylus?

I have no idea where you bought the cart/stylus, but it's obviously defective, and perhaps counterfeit or a defective return, being resold. I suspect one major stylus shop in NY to be selling counterfeit beryllium or boron styli, but I don't think they have the 20SS. Hope this comes to a satisfactory conclusion, it's a great cart.
Regards,
Harold, if you can't return the stylus maybe you could fix it. If the tip is in good shape it's worth a try. First remove the stylus and inspect. To quote Timeltel, "If inspection of the "V" magnets proves them to be in the correct 45* position relative to the pole pieces but the stylus is not vertical then replacement/repair should be considered."

If the magnets are rotated the cantilever can be turned by using the compliance screw on the inside of the plug, which is the part that fits inside the body. This screw is painted over and must be scraped away. Once loosened, the whole cantilever can be rotated. If you don't feel you're able to do this (it often takes four or five tries), then send it to Axel for a nominal fee. Look for magnets out of alignment. This will tell you if it's repairable.
Regards,
Hi Raul, I'm wondering about the Precept 440LC, have you had a chance to listen to it much? I think these might be rare, I've never seen one. Does the stylus fit any other ATs? Apparently there was also a Precept 550ML. It would be interesting to explore these, but they might be hard to find.
Regards,
Merry Christmas everyone.

Hi Raul, Thanks for the Precept stylus info. I saw that the PC-550 stylus is beryllium/ML, but didn't know what series it fit. It seems there are 2 versions of the AT-440ML stylus. The orig 440ML/OCC must have stronger magnets than the MLa. OCC Output is higher, yet motors have identical specs.
Regards,
Regards Griffithds, I was reading a thread on Karma and someone asked LpGear/tunes if their Vivid line replacement stylus was made by Jico. Their reply was, it is not. These ATN95 styli also do not appear on Jico's site. There was some conjecture about the identity of the maker(s), but no conclusion.
Of the available styli suitable for replacement or transplant, the ATN7V is quite good. Cu is nearly identical and nude .2 x .7 elliptical performs well, good detail if not as sweet as the shibata. Quality control on the replacements isn't perfect. Of the 2 examples of shibata I bought, one was better. I suspect you got a good one.
Regards,
Hi Don, LOL the one I didn't like came from TTNeedles. The good one came from LpGear. I suspect they were from the same mfg. They looked identical. I doubt if Jico makes them exclusively for others, while they don't sell them themselves. Who knows?

If you check the bottom of the cart of the 120/440 series, against the 3400 (95, CA) series, you'll see that the cantilever angle is a little different. If you have 2 respective plugs with stylus and compare them, it's easy to see. An alum cantilever can be bent down slightly to work in the 95 plug, but beryllium and boron tend to break. Isn't the 152LP beryllium? If so, I hope you have better luck than I had. Maybe I'm just getting too old, but I broke a beryllium and a boron trying to transplant from a 120 series to a 95 plug. One of them was an irreplaceable 152MLP. Such is life.
Regards,
Hello Don,
I recommend AGAINST transplanting the 152LP. That's how I broke my 152MLP. Beryllium is even more brittle than boron and a small amount of bending is required. The 120 series plug, to which the 152 belongs has the cantilever exiting at a slightly different angle than the 3400 series plug, to which the 95/CA belongs. I suggest sticking with aluminum cantilevers for transplant.
If you're looking for an interesting candidate for your ATN152LP, LpGear imports the AT-100E. This is a normally Japan only cart. It is a lightweight like the 440, but the generator has identical specs as the 150MLX. It comes with a cheap bonded stylus but I'm told that the 120 series fits. Inductance is an admirable 350mH, and I believe DC resistance is 800, and impedance is 2.3K. Also uses PC/OCC wire - $90.

Yes, LpGear is authorized dealer for AT and Jico. I think they supply TT-Needles and possibly others, with product. Needles might have bought up a lot of old Pfanstiehl stock, they use their numbering system. Once I ordered a stylus from LpGear and the return address was NY. Needles is in Brooklyn so I assume they have a working relationship.
I don't think Jico even makes these or they would sell them too, which they don't. Quality seems pretty consistent, maybe the cantilever was slightly twisted on the one that didn't sound as good. Glad to be of assistance.
Regards,
Don, the problem with a transplanted cantilever (120 series to 3400 series), isn't just SRA angle, it's clearance of the bottom of the cart. If you want an exotic cantilever on your Virtuoso, I suggest sending it to Axel or Soundsmith. It's unfortunate, but there are no factory 3400 series high end styli available. I would go for beryllium/Gyger, but I suspect ruby/micro - Soundsmith level 3, would also be excellent.
Regards,
Nandric, Timeltel, As I understand it, compliance is a measure of springiness, and static or dynamic is measured in standardized units (cu) as the names imply, stationary or tracking. Things like rigidity, length, and VTF would all be determining factors. I think damping would be a secondary factor limiting the amplitude of excursions.

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

Regards,
Nandric, That's what I'm suggesting as well - a different cart or a variant. I never heard of a T designation on a 980/981 Stanton. I suspect you have a model custom made for Thorens, just like a Grado, S-smith, or Benz made for VPI. The specs indicate it's not exactly the same model. You might have a rare and wonderful cart. How does it sound?

Regards,

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

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

Satirically yours,
Nandric, I was surprised to read that you thought there was anger or hostility in my post which was poking a little fun, more at communism than you. Maybe cultural or language differences lead to misunderstanding. Sometimes I read Raul's posts and get it wrong.
I'm glad to read that you're enjoying the Stanton. If you'd like to compare it a low output one, you can try mine. I'm not using it now. Let me know.

As end users there is little we can do about a cartridges' internal construction, but cantilevers and tips are a means to possible improvement, or degradation as the case may be.
SRA is the angle of the stylus in the groove with respect to the record surface, as viewed from the side. A SRA of 92o would be 2o forward of vertical. VTA is the angle of the cantilever with respect to the record. These are different aspects of the same thing.

Hope you, and everyone has a happy and productive new year.

Regards,
Hi Nandric, My offer of the cartridge wasn't a peace offering, rather an opportunity for you to hear the superior version of the cart. I think it unlikely that you will prefer it to the HO one, as Raul already influenced your thinking. It's been my observation that an individuals evaluation is determined more by expectations than performance. In the unlikely event that you rise above preconceptions and recognise the superiority of the LZ, an exchange of "gifts" can probably be arranged.

Regards,
Hi Timeltel, Interesting correlation between inductance and suspension damping. Thanks for posting that. Perhaps the ATN140LC would be better on a 440 or 120 body with 490mH?
I have one of those styli unused, maybe I'll try it. So far best results on a 440 was with an ATN152MLP. It was spectacular on a low mass arm.

Hi Raul, The 980 LZ might be the most neutral and least colored cartridge I've tried. I have yet to explore the possibilities with this cart, and now, after he mentioned the problems with shipping, I'm relieved that Nandric didn't take me up on my offer. As you might remember, my main phono stage has only one gain stage and I vary the amount of gain to suit the cart. Eliminating the need to employ a separate device or even an additional gain stage might give me an advantage in judging this aspect of performance. Although I don't own an HZ, it didn't seem to have the same level of neutrality. I realize this answer isn't definitive, but an ex lawyer was trying to entrap me and the situation called for relative performance conclusions.
My history on this thread is brief, and I don't know about past Stanton fever. Unlike Nandric, the only cart I bought on your recommendation was the M20FL Super. Although not bad, I didn't make a profit.

Regards,
Nandric, **My statement about the problems with the USA customs does not necesseraly imply a symmetrical relationship with Holland.**

Its return is what concerns me. Is that "retired lawyer"? Sorry if I misspoke.

Lewm, At times the cart seemed to be dull, uninvolving. I wouldn't call it dark. This could be due to lack of coloration? I'm not sure. I'll have to explore this further. I don't have much time on the cart. I also don't like the plastic stylus holder. The Pickering style is better IMO. I believe inductance spec is < 1mH. Could be quite a bit more than the typical MC.

Regards,
Lewm, Maybe dull was a poor choice of words, I meant it in the sense of uninvolving. Mine is NOS with few hours on it, so I can't say much more, except most of the time it sounds very good. Neutral would still be my best descriptor.
Regards,

Hi Raul,
**Other consideration here is that my HZ runs with the Pickering XSV 5000 MK2 stylus replacement that between other things fits ( stay in place with out loose. ) better than the original one.**

You tested the HZ with the D5000, and not the LZ?
The differences you described could be due to a loose or different stylus, especially with transient response. I'm not saying that is the case, but it could be.

What you described as the difference between 980 and 981 is exactly as I was told. The only way Stanton could calibrate the performance was to fit a stylus, that when measured, met that performance standard. I don't see any confusion/controversy here. I assume all 980/981 examples were within tolerances, whatever that standard was. I don't believe Grado, Stanton, or AT tested all examples of a model and hand selected the best ones. They may have fitted a stylus on some and selected those combinations that met calibration design goals. In the case of Grado, I don't believe it at all.

Re: Stylus drag - Torque is probably a greater factor than inertia and dynamic speed correction seems necessary for a belt drive to get in the ballpark. The belt that decouples the platter from the motor, also decouples stable speed, as it stretches and contracts. Superiority of belt drive was a sales lie, fostered on the consumer after the demise of Japanese DD mfg.

Regards,
Hi Nandric, **BTW I now understand why the Americans are regarded to be so generous. They expect to get their presents back. Strange custom I must say.**

It was never offered as a gift, merely an opportunity for you to hear it. You were already told this. What does that say about your persistence in this matter? I'm afraid your upbringing makes you an opportunist, perfectly suited for western capitalism but with the advantage of leagal training and manipulation.

**Now what happens if the measured 981 does not satisfy the conditions which are formulated in advance? I would say: try some other which is actually the same as 'selecting' or 'hand picking' as Raul prefer to describe the possible procedure. In this 'possible world' all 980 may be those which deed not satisfy the prescribed conditions . One may even say that those are rejected in quality terms **

In order to test the cartridge they have to fit a stylus onto a body. If the combination doesn't meet the criteria, they would have to try another combination. This is more likely to be the stylus than the body. That is, if it was even done at all. In the '80s it was a commonly held belief that all cartridge print-out sheets, regardless of cart price, were run off on a copy machine.
In your case it doesn't matter. Yours is a different model.

Regards,
Hi Nandric, the calibration of a cart does not include resistance and inductance measurements. Those are checked stationary. Frequency response and separation are measured "in groove" with a test record.
That requires a stylus, and would probably change (Fr response) with a different test record.

Regards,
Timeltel, Time for me to reevaluate cartridge electrical parameters. I've come to think you were right concerning output impedance. Turns out, the PC110E is a high inductance cart, 1050mH. I've been looking at that PCN550ML stylus for awhile, and Raul threw me a curve when he thought it was a 120/440 type. It fits the AT-10 and 11. The plug probably fits the the AT-12 through 20, but some plastic trim is necessary for 15/20, I'm not sure about the rest.

I don't know if the PC-440 or 550 have the same inductance, it would seem odd with response to 45K, which makes me wonder that the 220 and 440 generators are the same. Maybe they both have less inductance than the 110E, but the 220 is an XE (.2 x .7), the same with a different tip?

I've come to think that 100K loading is the difference. How else could one add 300pF to preamp + cables on a high inductance cart? I'm awaiting the 550 stylus, but I don't care about the Precept body. I'm sure that for my purpose, loaded at 47K, there are a number of better choices with < 550 ohm impedance, including the 15/20. series. The best AT stylus I've heard is a beryllium/ML. I had a 152ML on a AT-440 and it turned a screech into music, like magic. I suspect the same on the 15/20SS. The shibata is nice, the ML resolves.

I had a theory about high inductance, that it was used instead of some mechanical damping which causes phase nonlinearities. Because of tracking considerations, I don't know how much damping could be reduced.

Raul, thanks for your straightforward reports of results. I don't see this as flavor of the month. It seems to me your choices are constitent with performance, even if the inductance of the Precepts seems strange. I'm glad MCs are now in the mix. They were overdue.

Regards,
Hi Timeltel, No. Assuming Hagtech electrical resonance actually shows up in the measured response, is wrong. Yes, it does have the affect of lowering hf resonance, but nowhere near those calculated values. Others thought there was 180o phase shift at electrical resonance. That's wrong too. It's the mechanical performance that is the overwhelming determinate of resonance fr. Virtually all carts have a naturally rising high end. It's a combination of electrical and mechanical design and damping, that determines fr response.
There's an interesting Ortofon paper, it was in VE, on the imaging capabilities of MC vs MM. They measured phase nonlinearities and fr resp. The plots are pretty conclusive that electrical resonance causes neither primary resonance or phase shift. It may influence response other than lowering resonance fr, but that's unclear. It can't be determined from the plots. Many high inductance carts are "mellow", maybe that works with an AT generator?
The speed of sound through different materials has nothing to do with this. The stylus/cantilever is mechanically reacting to the groove, not a sound pressure wave. Eff tip mass would determine transient response and influence detail. Cantilever material influences character.
I don't understand all the aspects on performance of inductance and impedance. I always looked for low inductance and thought impedance was inconsequential. I think (not sure) the Precept impedance is low.

Regards,
Greetings Prof, The Ortofon paper from '82, was based on an AES paper. I used to have a PDF copy, but that PC crashed and burned, taking the paper with it. I'll have to hunt it down in my mailbox. The paper Ortofon published for the public discussed imaging capabilities, with listener panels they concluded it's a direct result of phase integrity. They used an accelerometer to plot phase vs amplitude in their MC-200 cart and 5 unnamed MM. They concluded that mechanical damping was the cause of phase nonlinearities and loss of imaging, but is necessary to control amplitude response and I imagine, tracking. None of the 5 MM showed a resonance or phase shift within the audible band, but they all had worse phase performance due to the need for increased damping.
The MC200 has a hf resonance at 27K. Undamped, they said imaging was spectacular but the cart was unlistenable due to rising high end. Plots showed that damping to tame amplitude response, increasingly effected imaging negatively.
There's a thread on VE about loading. It's lengthy, but CarlosFM (an EE) asserts that mechanical performance is the overwhelming determinate of hf resonance, not electrical parameters. This is correct IMO, although electrical resonance can and does lower the frequency of said resonance, especially with high inductance carts.

OK, but it's not the transmission speed of sound, we're talking about mechanical transmission at diff frequencies, not sound pressure waves.

My first inclination is that a MM should not "see" capacitance or resistance through the arm ground wire it's not connected to. Maybe there is some interaction with capacitance, depending on length and proximity, or phono pre?

Regards,
Prof,
"The problem is that the input ground will have a DC voltage referred to output/chassis ground so the left and right cartridge ground leads must be separate, and the turntable ground wire will have to be cap-coupled to chassis. This is not foolproof so basically limited to DIY use."

What is the context, designing a phono pre? Sounds like eliminating the coupling cap, and implications of a DC coupled pre. Haven't seen this thread for awhile.

More Precept. Turns out, DC resistance is slightly less than inductance. That should put the 220/440 in the 500 ohm range for impedance. Seems to me the AT-12S, SA would be the counterparts, although output is 2.7mV rather than 4.2. The AT 15/20 series has 500 ohm impedance, I believe.
Regards,
Hi Raul, Yes, I think I've read all of Dlaloum's posts. He's very knowledgeable and we agree about most things. If you're talking about reference to speed of sound in different materials, I think that would pertain more to plinths, than cantilevers. The stylus tracks groove humps and physically moves in reaction. Those movements are transmitted up and excite the generator. The needle talk you hear with your ear near the cart (poetic ain't it) is like heat from a light bulb, a byproduct. It's the movements that are transmitted, not the sound of. My .02

The comparison of Pickering 7500 (low inductance) to another HO with 600mH, is just an anecdote, and conclusions are questionable. The 7500 has extremely high inductance for the output, and 600mH is somewhat high, but I think the 2M series for example, is higher. Comparing a LO to HO doesn't work for me. Carts in the 900mH range and even higher, tend to be rolled. But I agree with him that all aspects of design, in combination, determine performance. Inductance is considered the Achilles heel of HO carts. There's no getting around lowering of hi fr resonance, although this is sometimes used to augment a dip in response. Plug in x capacitance and lower the freq of the peak and roll off the extreme high end.

Maybe this will get a response from Dlaloum. Haven't heard from him lately.
Regards,
Raul, That's interesting about the output level. I saw a copy of an owners sheet for the 440 and it said 4.2mV, same as yours, so that must be the spec. This was from an old post in a tape forum by someone who bought 2 in 1981. He seemed pleased with them. The only thing I can think of, off hand, is maybe the magnets lost some of their magnetism. Coils are laminated and normally don't change. If the output is lower on your example, that would make the generator closer to an AT-12S,SA or perhaps a 15/20. I believe weaker magnets would also reduce inductance in a coil with a magnetic core.

I don't think the Precept stylus will fit anything other than an AT-10 or 11 without trimming the plastic. My 550 stylus arrived, but I haven't looked at it yet. I suspect you're having too much fun with yours to mess with it. I'll have to check it out.

Nandric, Don't abandon hope for your AT-12S it may be a hidden gem with the right stylus.
Regards,
Timeltel, With the bit about separate grounds on each channel, I thought it might refer to balanced. I thought the cap to ground they were referring to was on the tonearm ground? If the cap is on the signal ground but not the hot, would it add capacitance to the mix? I guess it wouldn't be shunt capacitance, but being in series with the ground would add to tonearm cable capacitance? Beats me.

AFAIK, the AT-12S, SA, and the 15/20 series are the only ATs with 500 ohm impedance. If the PC-440/550 have DC resistance as indicated to me, then they probably have the same impedance. There's a thread on Karma with this info.
Regards,
Raul, Lew, I think 5 cm/sec is the standard now. If you go to Ortofon, AT, Grado, site, they're all rated at 5 cm/sec velocity. When I saw the sheet for the PC440, I didn't notice the velocity.
I haven't looked at my 550 stylus yet. I don't have the Precept body, so I'm in no rush. It might be interesting to compare it to the 20SS stylus. I usually prefer the ML tip over a shibata. Shibata has a different facet on the front and back sides. That's supposed to give it a curved (rather than straight) contact area as the record spins. I'm not positive, but that could be the reason I hear the shibata sweeten the top end - not always a bad thing though.

I like Pierre Lurne' approach to platter w/no mat. He made a lead sandwich with methacrylate as the bread. The mass and resonant frequency of the lead prevented vibrations from being reflected back to the stylus.
A few years ago somebody on VE was using tiny spikes, or rounded spikes points up, as a mat. A few people swore by it.
Regards,

Hi Aceman3, Does an ATN15/20 stylus have to be modified to fit Precept body? I thought it was the other way around.
I haven't gotten to it yet. Those 220 bodies seem to be dried up - as in no longer available.

Hi Raul, I can't figure out where the shibata is in the Precept line. As far as I can tell, the line consisted of:
PCN-100E, 110E, 220XE, 330LCU, 440LC, 550ML. The 220 should be a .2 x .7 elliptical and the 440 a line contact. Shibata was designated with an S. These designations were consistent throughout the years, even today.
Regards,
Hi Raul, If the owners sheet for the PC440LC says it's shibata, then I guess it is. As you know, over the years AT has made about a million different models. It seems like extra letter designations can mean slightly different things, depending on the rest of the series.
Normally, E is elliptical, but it can be either .3 x .7 or .4 x .7, and either bonded or nude. I think the only time a .2 x .7 had only an E was when there was no other E in the series. The PC-220XE has the X in front of the stylus designation and means .2, probably also a tapered cantilever. I don't know about the other Precept E's. I also don't know much about the 330LCU, I assumed it was line contact. The only other "U" I found seems to designate a carbon fiber cantilever M12E/U and 3482 H/U P-mount. I doubt if that's it. AT only used carbon fiber on a few inexpensive carts, AFAIK. Sometimes AT deviated from normal designations. If you examine the stylus under a microscope, the shibata should look like a line contact, but have different facets on the front and back sides.

All this talk about fitment made me open the 550ML stylus. It has a round plug just like the 15/20 series. It now sits on my 15SS body, ready to go. It required extensive plastic trim and I caution everyone to be careful. The plastic is thick on the back and hard to trim. About 2mm had to be trimmed off the back and back of the sides to get past the rear fatter part of the AT15. Then you have to trim the sides down like the 15SS sides. The plugs seem identical with respect to cantilever angle, so there should be no problem. I'll let you know.

Regards,
Hello again, Okay I found verification of your info, even if you don't actually have the owners sheet. It's not that I doubt what you're saying, sometimes I misunderstand.

Half way down this page is a copy of the PC440 owners sheet. The 440 has a nude shibata and the 220, a nude .2 x .7. Unfortunately there is no info about inductance and impedance. The info I already posted about electrical parameters came from a user/owner on Karma.
http://www.tapeheads.net/showthread.php?t=8831

Regards,
Hi Raul, perhaps your 150ANV needs more hrs to realize the potential compared to the 440LC, which you've had longer. ATs in general seem to need long break-in. Most TOTL ATs are excellent trackers. I wonder if this is the complete picture.

Hi Nandric,
I suspect J Carr's statement is based on his experience with ruby, possibly sapphire cantilevers, and their viability with his designs. So what? Even if it pertains to ruby in general, it's just one persons opinion. Didn't Raul say that there was no need to spend Atlas, Goldfinger, Anna money, they are inferior to a nearly 40 yr old AT?
There's nothing new in cart design, only possible refinements. Look at the Grace F9 ruby, isn't the generator the same as without ruby? Unfortunately that example won't necessarily hold true for other designs. We've been through this before and there is no one right answer for cantilever material. Cantilevers not only resonate differently, they wiggle and flex differently when the tip is deflected off a groove wall. It's those wiggles that excite the generator that produces the electrical signal.

General differences can be described to different cantilever material, but it's only meaningful in context to a particular cart design. There are too many variables like amplitude response and damping, that necessitate specifics.
Regards,

Hi Audpulse, So far you've said nothing to contradict my statement, there's nothing new in cart design, only refinements. If this is something new, it should at least be interesting. I'm sure you've peaked our curiosity. Is this ground breaking good or a pre sales pitch?
On the other hand, you've already said it's a MC. They've been around a long time, so it's a refinement or design variation?
What's new?
Regards,
Hi Lew, It's interesting to imagine what a completely new type of moving coil could be. Seems like there could be a lot of different magnet configurations, but you have coils connected directly, or indirectly depending how you look at it, to the cantilever. Wouldn't it be interesting if there were no magnets and generating electricity was supplied on demand by the preamp or some kind of regulated battery supply via an extra wire or two?

Dynavector made a couple of MCs with ruby cantilevers, the 23R and the Karat Ruby.

I think a diamond needle is used with a cactus cantilever. A cactus needle might be good for old 78s. In the real old days they used steel needles or sharpened nails, in a pinch.
Regards,
Hi Audpulse, I thought you said $1700 MC. It's a $7K MI. That changes everything. Obviously Joe Grado has collaborated with Peter Ledermann and came up with a new MI with a laser cantilever/tip. Peter is a Denon dealer and does extensive mods to 103s. Maybe it's Peter without Joe. Good guess?

Still a refinement.

Regards,
Peter's $350 ruby cantilever tip is described more like a micro type - optimum contact, I believe. He will also re-tip an intact cantilever - $450.

Regards,
Hi Nandric, A cantilever that is not broken and can still be used, is intact. This is usually an exotic type on a MC. He says that it's better to retain the existing cantilever if it's still usable. The price is higher because he says the job is more difficult.

Regards,
Hi Raul, **Now, I repeat no one including you can asure or can be sure that a top of the line cartridge motor shares and it is eaxctly the same in its down " brothers ". Can you?**

Why not? You said the PC-220 with PCN440LC sounds the same. If it sounds the same.....

If you're talking AT, Signet, Precept, the limited lines are better matched, hand selected as it were, and bodies might be different, but motors might be shared. The inexpensive AT-100E has identical specs as the 150MLX. If the output, impedance, inductance is identical and the magnets interchangeable, it's the same. If the 100E was made with regular wire, the specs would be different like the 95 vs CA. It is made with PC OCC wire, but has a plastic body and a cheap CA type stylus.

There are cases of different magnets, look at new CA line.
Specs are virtually identical but output is increased. The orig 440ML had stronger magnets. This was changed in the MLa - output is less but specs are identical.
Regards,
Raul, look at what you said, **I repeat no one including you can asure or can be sure that a top of the line cartridge motor shares and it is eaxctly the same in its down " brothers ".**

I assumed "motor" means generator, not body or stylus/cantilever.

**Of course that cartridges in the same series line shares in between some signature line characteristics. My experiences with the AT/Signet and other cartridge lines tell me now that mostly the top of the line was
" manipulated " in a little different way other than different stylus shape to be really the top of the line. That two cartridges shares same specs means only that but does not means are the same.**

If it makes you feel any better, John Curl said that he couldn't find 2 samples of the same MC cart model, that sound the same. In a line like AT, virtually all the MM are of the same general type. Top models tend to be matched, ch to ch. Coils are wound on a machine, not by hand. There can be as many as 3000 turns of wire in a MM coil. I didn't look at the specs, but isn't the ANV generator the same as a 150MLX? Select coils for a perfect match, put it in a titanium body and give it a sapphire/ML - like magic it's "manipulated".
Regards,

Dear Nandric, I'm not an cantilever expert, just someone who has done some investigation on the subject. AT is the obvious choice for this and stylus/cantilever substitution is part of the formula (for me) for better performance.

The model # for the cart is AT-150ANV and the specs appear identical, except for weight and possibly dimensions, which I didn't check. The titanium body should make a big difference and mfg cost would be dramatically higher. The cantilever is described as a sapphire pipe, not a rod and that is significant. From what I've read, those words are often mistranslated from Japanese, but I suspect it is a pipe. AT is discounted in the US, but list for a 150MLX is $680. Look at it that way and the ANV is a bargain.

After I bought a Virtuoso with a broken cantilever, I bought an AT-95E for experimentation. After putting a few hrs on the 95, I potted it. It wasn't completely potted, just some liquid epoxy poured into the threaded sleeve screw receptacle that holds the top on. I tilted it back slightly so no epoxy would get into the area where the plug and magnets fit into the body. It didn't take much epoxy, perhaps a thinner mix would give more coverage. Then the top has to be glued on, the screw is defeated. A wood top would have been nice, but I don't think it would have been worth the effort in this case. The AT-95 is a nice budget cart, but lacks the PCOCC wire. I cut down an old headshell and made a top plate that goes over the plastic top. It made a nice difference - experiment successful, but I started from a plastic body not a 150 deluxe type metal one. I'm not going to speculate about competing with a titanium body, for a few hundred dollars difference, I doubt if it would be worth the effort.
Regards,