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

Accuphase AC-2 designed by Nakatsuka with tubular sapphire cantilever:
http://www.accuphase.com/cat/ac-2en.pdf

Regards,
Griffithds,
Slimline was Garrott re-tip service. Brown Grado might be a TLZ?

I understand that Slimline is particularly good at reading the signal, err... make that groove. (smiley face)
AM-10 generator specs are nearly identical to orig
AT-440ML/OCC.
5 - 32,000
output 5.0 mV
490 mH
DC resistance 812 ohms.
Regards,
Hello Raul,
I (neobop) hope you don't mind my posting on your thread. I haven't previously. I've been listening to a few nice MM/MI carts over the past couple of years and find them seriously underrated by many record playing enthusiasts.

Timetel,
Regarding your previous statement -
"On the application of capacitance you wrote: "I'm using the cartridge capacitive load as a critical and very important way for a cartridge " final fine tunning ", said " final " means that we have to take care in deep on these capacitance load changes: not so easy as it " sounds " but when you made the " right " capacitance load cartridge set up you know immediately that that load is " right " against other values." Totally agree. Some might say the same for varying resistance."

I'm of the school that says, keep capacitance as low as possible and fine tune with resistance. Then add only as much capacitance as necessary. In examining HO cart loading as it pertains to amplitude and phase response, capacitance is used to compensate for mechanical irregularities in treble response (dips). It does this by lowering the high frequency resonance down to the treble area for reinforcement. This has a severe consequence on phase linearity, HF extension, and I believe overall clarity.

Phase non linearity (deviating from amplitude response) starts at the mech HF resonance. There it has a 180 degree phase reversal. This area of phase reversal is very narrow on an undamped cart. Damping is necessary to control cantilever movement. The effect of damping is to spread this phase non linearity out and down into the audible band. When capacitance combines with the inductance of HO cart, it makes matters worse by lowering HF resonance.

If I may make a suggestion, try loading at 47K initially, with minimal capacitance. Then vary resistance to get best response. Use capacitance as sparingly as possible to make up for deficiencies in the treble. I think it's worth a try. BTW, I read that using most pots for variable loading, adds lots of inductance.

I bought a used Clearaudio Virtuoso. These are made by AT. I like this cart. The entire MM line seems to share the same generator, specs are identical. For DIY stylus replacement there's a thread in the vinyl section of Audio Circle. You can actually transplant a stylus from a dissimilar series. It opens up a lot of possibilities.
Regards,
Hi David,
Your measurements are fascinating and I applaud your efforts in this time consuming endeavor. If I may be so bold to make a suggestion, I think you need to reexamine methodology and/or equipment. Your ears are more sensitive than your equipment and should take priority in reaching conclusions, IMO. I question these high frequency resonance figures, in particular.

It's difficult to draw conclusions with limited samples and limited equipment, so any deviation from manufacturer specs should be treated with suspicion and conclusions confirmed by ear, on a particular sample.

I don't know how you measure high frequency resonance, but from my limited observations I don't see or hear how it could be right. Are these secondary resonances?

In studying the Ortofon phase vs amplitude measured response (paper from 1983), these results don't seem possible for primary high frequency resonance. If a cartridge has response to 40K or 50K, it's not going to have a high frequency resonance at 23K, as far as I know or have observed. If a SAS boron/microridge has a high frequency resonance at 17K, that resonance is caused by something other than stylus/cantilever.

I hope I'm not offending, by posting this. It is my intent to help, not embarrass. I've been wrong before. Please correct me if I'm wrong again. I just don't see how it is possible. The electrical output of a cart is primarily determined by the mechanical. This is clearly shown by the limited viability of using electrical models to determine loading. If a cart can be used to decode 4-ch information encoded at 30K, like a V-15 sometimes was, then that similar boron/micro has a HF resonance at 17K? A 15/20SS at 23K? If a DL-S1 has response to 50K or more, you can see the limitations of an aluminum cantilever and a special elliptical stylus. I believe HF response falls off sharply, above HF res.

I think you're really getting somewhere with your analysis. I also think you're experiencing the limitations of the equipment your using. It is possible for capacitance/inductance to lower the HF resonance, but I question these results.
Regards,
fleib (neo)
Hi Timeltel,
There are lots of posts since I last visited. If I misread something, please forgive. When a stylus is swapped, the compliance becomes that of the stylus. So if a 20SS is used on a TK7_, then cu is that of the SS. This must be adjusted for new VTF or arm mass etc. I've found that the affect of mass is unpredictable. If there is no problem with feedback or physical shock, you just have to try it. Usually a very high cu cart doesn't benefit from dragging around a lot of mass. But a res freq of less than 8Hz is nothing to be afraid of, unless your woofers are pumping.

I've been using a Virtuoso. I bought one here with a wood top and a broken cantilever. AT is the OEM for these and I've learned to replace the stylus. It's a good cartridge. I'm not sure if I like it as much as my 15SS, but it seems like it has a lot of potential.
Hi Raul,
I've discussed measurements with Dlaloum on other forums. He's very well versed on the subject and making great progress. Most of us have time and equipment limitations that are hard to overcome.

Many people think that inductance is the problem with most high output carts and the lack of, is one of the main reasons for MC superiority. That, and a fixed cantilever are the most often cited advantages. I started seriously using MM/MI a few years ago when I was interested in investigating different stylus profiles and cantilevers. At that time I thought MC were superior. Now I think it depends on the particular cart.

Electrical models are very limited in predicting response. It's primarily mechanical aspects that determine. A model like Hagerman's calculator is nearly useless. Loading results don't mean much if anything, and the resultant electrical resonance does not appear on measured response. The self-inductance of a cart combines with shunt capacitance and the net affect is to lower the high freq res of the cart. This is used sometimes to fill in response dips in the upper mid/treble, but it will severely roll off the extreme high end. It will also cause phase nonlinearities. This dramatically effects imaging.

The MK1 version of the M20FL Super came with caps attached to the back of the cart. I think they were 300 or 400pF. This was obviously to bring up mid/treble response. I don't know what changes were made to the MK2, but mine didn't come with caps. I enjoy listening to that cart. It sounds slightly distant and has a big dramatic sound like back of the hall. Bass is very good and the top is crystal clear and well defined.
Regards,
Hi Timetel,
Different strokes?
Wasn't the TK-9 similar to the TK-10? I'm trying to remember. In the mid '80s I sold Signet, but not AT. We didn't always have all the models in stock. I had a TK-10MLII - at home. It sounds very different than my 15SS. If by anemic you mean thin, I can understand. It was tricky for me to get it tuned in. But I think there's a difference here in preference, specifically tonal balance. I like the M20FL too, it's just different, they all are. I'm really responding to the thought of fresh trout. Mighty tasty.
Regards,
Hello Timetel,
Over the past couple of years I've done some stylus/cantilever substitutions. When you have the same tip on two different cantilevers, the difference can be revealing. If you swap a TK-7_ for a 20SS, it would be much more difficult to tell. I have an old 440ML. I used to load it at 32K because it was too bright. I broke the tip and replaced it with a MLa. This is essentially the same. The output is a little less because they changed the magnets. It is a ML tip on a tapered alum cantilever. I then tried a ATN152ML. This is the same tip on a beryllium cantilever. The difference is striking. With the 152ML it only was slightly bright at 47K. It was also more refined.

I think rigidity makes more difference than resonance. While playing a record the cantilever makes wild gyrations and bends. A rigid cantilever sounds more controlled and exact. An aluminum cantilever might sound more dynamic because of greater excursions. It might also sound warmer with more midbass. Of course these generalizations might not be appropriate in all cases.

I also think the shibata is slightly soft in the extreme high end compared to a ML. A ML is the same as a microridge. It is very exacting, close to the shape of a cutterhead. I'm thinking of removing the plastic wings from my AT styli and make them like Clearaudios. The part that holds the cantilever, the plug, has a little screw that allows styli to be transplanted from one style plug to another. That's what I do with my Virtuoso. I suspect that removing the plastic wings and stylus guard improves performance. I use a bit of tack on the bottom of the plug against the cart body. I do this with the C/A too.

I hope I didn't waste your time with stuff you already know. Time is more valuable then just about anything. At the rate I'm going, I probably won't complete all my stereo projects.
Regards,
Hello Raul,
***What in this regard tell us " physics " ?: well it gives the value/number/frequency where an arm/cartridge combination due to effective mass and compliance that set up resonate. That's all nothing more.***

I disagree. Arm/cart res freq is an overvalued aspect of the relationship. MOI (moment of inertia), bearing friction, damping are all of greater importance IMO. Arm design and energy transmission/dissipation, including relative mass of parts, is critical.

I'm well aware that good results can be obtained will res freq that is far from "ideal".
Regards,
Hello, I don't know about wooden arms, but I have a Sonus Formula IV. It's a 4.05g eff mass, aluminum unipivot. Mine has a custom aluminum headshell which brings the mass closer to approx 5g. Eff length is 240mm. Inertia moment is 5213g cm2 with 5g cart/stock shell. This is extremely low. This arm sounds spectacular with high cu carts. IMO it outperforms every other low mass arm.

I don't relate to using a high cu cart with a 35g arm. It's not that I doubt your results, it just that I wonder how much better it could be. The physics are irrefutable.
Regards
hello Lewm,
***By the way, it seems intuitively obvious that Fleib's points about tonearm/cartridge matching are spot on. Yet, I also take seriously the testimony of Thuchan and Halcro that those big heavy FR tonearms can work well with MM cartridges. I don't know what to make of this paradox.***

There are too many variables. When you think about it, why should we assume that matching vertical dynamic cu to eff arm mass is all there is to it? There are so many other aspects of cart and arm design/performance that come into play, it becomes unpredictable. I think we have to use experience to find what works, and/or what what might work better.

That brings up another aspect. Many of us take different paths. I start out at 47K and keep capacitance very low with a MM/MI. If I want to change the load I use resistance as much as possible. Why? Final results sound better to me. For me, this is right or wrong. For others, their results or methods are just as valid for them. I get greater clarity and transparency with lowest possible capacitance with any HO cart. That value might vary, but that's how I do it.

If changing a tonearm cable can make a great difference, why should we presume that everyone will get the same results? Most everything else is different.
Regards,
Dear Raul, It's been awhile since I was last here. My apologies if I am repeating something already said.
I realized that you asked my opinion about inductance and I failed to comment. In general, I consider 400mH to be the line of demarcation. That is not to say that a value of 450 or 500 is hopelessly compromised, but 600mH or above is a dis-qualifier imo. Some popular carts have as much as 900mH. Oh how we like our mellow colorations. Sweet - maybe, clear and articulate - not a chance.

Inductance as a property of the output voltage is probably the greatest compromising factor of the MM/MI carts. Increasing resistive loading does virtually nothing to address this. Keep shunt capacitance as low as the cart will allow. Look for high frequency resonance as high as possible. Here is your defensive interceptor missile:

Actual measured MM vs MC comparisons (Ortofon at VE, AES summery) show that electrical resonance is near meaningless. Hagerman and Ellison are dead wrong. All phase nonlinearities hinge on high frequency resonance regardless of design. It is only damping of the moving system that tames the rising high end of a MC cart. That damping also causes phase divergence. The thing that makes the MC listenable also compromises imaging and clarity. The same is true for a MM, but the presence of capacitance combined with the cart inductance will lower the high frequency resonance. Some MM carts have a very high resonance, as much as 50KHz. These are often 4-ch designs. They will exhibit better phase linearity than many MCs.

Some might come on your thread with a hidden agenda. I believe that the truth will set everyone free.
"All warfare is based on deception" - Sun Tzu

BTW, a little rust on the magnets is no problem. Carefully remove with some sandpaper or mini file. These magnets do not degrade with time. The rubber dampers don't either. 30 year old dampers work as good as new in vast majority. It's the suspension wire that usually goes. Old rusted Decca carts are worthless - cheaply made and another overpriced POS imo.
Regards,
Dear Lewm, Your comments say more about the design flaws of the LO-7D than about Lurne. I must plead ignorance concerning your Kenwood, just as you are ignorant concerning Audio Mecca, Goldmund direct drive and Lurne.
Regards,
Standards Aplenty

Flashed all their experience with care
Flashed all splitting the philosophers' hair
Laying before all their thoughts with care
Speaking audio truths where
others only wondered
Plauged by Hegel's intermnable pen stroke
Disdainful of the ancients, of Kant they spoke
Of tubes and proven vintage
and where cascoded blundered
Measurment or implementation
They charged forth and back
You must fix said each
What the other had sundered.
The 980 your kidding pray tell
The pragmatist with shock, it fell?
You SOLD it, a thought from hell
FOOL what were you thinking the blues
O well
Get pickering D3000 through
7500 and hold fast you rue
replacement cost as the
day you were born. no that
doesn't make sense. said the gipper
send it to the tipper
and maybe dog nipper
will bark his
approval to you
forget not the goo
fix the tip in lieu
of gooey super glue
Its solvent will take
out the plastic and you will no longer fake
for heritage sake
the sound of the one not half bake.
Methodology one and all
the cart did fall
a wheel broken is now a plough
The cart pushed the horse as it got loud
and loud to fill the hall
said one and all
we are having a ball
even though we Kant hear
I know not what said but please pass me a beer.

The 980 and 981 are the same cart. The 981, if there was one, came with a matched stylus. I'm told that the low output is far superior. I don't doubt it. This came from as guy called desktop, a pro who used to post on VE. I suspect that any who prefer the high out have inferior hi gain capability. The 7500 is the Pickering counterpart to the 980. The specs are identical. The stereohedron is said to be similar to a shibata. The whole stylus assembly is the weak link imo. That's seems to be true with virtually all carts with removable stylus. Fixing the assembly to the body is mandatory for optimum performance.
With an output of 0.3mV, there is virtually no inductance.

Mine will eventually go to Soundsmith for a ruby/micro LC. The only saving grace of the orig alum cantilever is the short length. Shibatas sound soft in the extreme high end. That can sound nice but it's all in what you like. ATs seem to sound better with the plastic stylus holder removed like a Clearaudio. All the voodoo and witchcraft gets a little tiring. It's not all that hard to figure out what does what. Deciding what you like is much harder I think. Most of us have a wealth of good stuff.

One of the main advantages of a MC is the cantilever is fixed. That's also cause for concern. It makes the mounting and arm more critical with respect to vibration and energy dissipation. The MC is the ultimate cart as far as dealers are concerned cause it demands much more high dollar sales. Many do think the MC is the ultimate. At this point I really don't care. Even though 99% of my listening is jazz, I can hear a difference between a good and a better cart. Is forgiving a trait of compromised performance? If so then I think we need different sounds for different records. My records are all over the place and unless you're one of those guys who play a few audiophile records, yours are too.
Regards,
Dear Lewm, Yes, a couple of years ago I was visiting the KAB site and happened to go to the cart section. Kevin was selling the 980 in both hi and low. I didn't need Desktop's recommendation to choose the low. BTW, he thinks the 980LZS might be the world's finest MM. I don't know about all that. I know that I like it. For around $100 I got the body and for an additional $80? I got a Pickering D3001. That's a .2 x .7 ellip. I also have a Jico D81 bonded shibata. The Pickering has more finesse. Kevin at KAB told me that the Stanton is the finest tracker he ever had on a 1200. It was the only cart he tested that could complete his torture test record.

That's a wonderful table you have there. I have a couple of Kenwood DD, but not an LO-7D. Maybe you're just using the arm? I suspect your termination, tranny or load, might have more to do with the character of the sound. It was very strange for me when I first played the cart. I have an AHT prototype phono stage. I loaded it at 100 ohms, 67dB gain and got only midrange. It was the best midrange I ever heard. Funny, as I changed the load and broke in the cart, that same midrange wasn't quite as spectacular any more. Glorious by default? I took it up to around 2.4K. After it loosened up, somewhere around 270 ohms does the trick. Like some LOMC it gets more dynamic with higher value load and more focus with lower. This seems to vary a lot with preamp and system. Manufactures could make it easier on MM/MI users by providing options. Hi out carts would be much more desirable if users could load and tune to their system. They think everybody is looking for the holy grail. Most times I just want to play a record and have it sound really nice.

If Raul prefers the hi out, I don't see a problem. We all get different results to some extent. If someone likes a TK-7_ does that make it wrong? There's really no morality involved in all this. Maybe the one who likes the Signet will try a 20SS and like that more. Maybe not.
Regards,
Lewm, Lucky you. I've seen a couple of 7Ds sold here on Agon for ridiculously low price lately. ERS cloth is a great idea. You can get it with adhesive backing. Put it under a delrin mat and you'd have the ultimate interface? Built in constrained layer damping sounds appealing. Perhaps a contact points interface would be the only competition, but that's for belt drives.

I used to have a Studietto w/zeta. That was my fav. The suspension was the weak part, but I was in the biz and had all kinds of extra springs. My ex partner had a Reference. That one was fun. One thing I learned was how to goose decent performance from even a modest deck. It's a lot easier if it spins at the right speed. Some of the entry decks are like a money pit of a house. If you're on a budget, who wants to spend a grand or whatever, on a box to make it run at speed? I'm thinking of making some videos on modifying tables. But like my Sapphire/Teres rim drive project, it sits on the floor barely touched.

I have tweeters to install, an open baffle project and a full range driver idea is formulating that might really take the cake. This is a hobby for me now, if only I could squeeze a few more hours in each day.....
Regards,
Thank you Timeltel, I started investigating the differences in tips a few years back. This necessitated using MM/MI carts for obvious reasons. Although I wanted to approach from a standpoint of "no preconceived notions", it's impossible to put aside what you already know. The AT micro line is the same as a micro ridge. These are cut in the same facility in Japan. There are only a handful of places in the world that cut diamonds for tips.

The shibata was the first extended contact shape, invented for 4-ch reproduction. It sits near the bottom of the groove. Even if a record is cleaned well, it might reveal some noise when deburring parts of the groove previously unplayed. Because the facets are different on front compared to back, the contact with record spinning is curved rather than straight. I believe this is what gives the shibata the uniquely sweet high frequency sound. From a technical viewpoint it could be seen as a flaw. I suspect the delay is less than the difference in transient response between some cart designs. I admit I never tried to calculate. I think this invention is more of a stroke of artistic genius. Like it or not, it is or was unique. Some approach this as calculating the trajectory of a rocket. I try to approach as how does it sound?

Of course the side dimension is the detail extraction aspect. I tend to go for very detailed. It seems that many prefer musicality or overall coherence over detail.

AT offered a great way for me to learn the something about the art of cart design. Once you can do stylus/plug transplants, you're not limited to body style type substitutions. Choice of tip, cantilever and compliance applies to all carts, not just MMs. Another Agoner, Glrickaby, seemed to discover the Clearaudio/AT relationship, and post in on VE and Audio Circle with me.

There are other things you can do as well. I have a potted AT-95 with an aluminum top plate. It sounds pretty damn good. Right now I have an AT-7V tip on there. I keep it in the same plug and can swap with my Virtuoso. But don't think the Clearaudios are the same as a AT-95 body. They're not. They have different generators.

There's no such thing as 47K being the standard for terminating a MM/MI. It's only there by default. "They" perpetuate this mentality to sell carts for thousands of dollars. Those carts are fine if that's what you're into, but offering no options for the rest of the people is a conspiracy of indifference or greed.
Regards,
Timeltel, I made it out of an old aluminum headshell, using the old slots to align with the mounting bolts. It is fixed with epoxy. A broken keyboard is forcing me to use an old one whhhhhhhhhich had coffee spilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllled on it. lol, I'll have to get back to you.

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=88878.0
RE: The TK10ML on ebay. That's not a 10ML stylus. It's a TK-9Ea which is an elliptical on a beryllium cantilever. It could be a 10ML body with a replacement tip. There was also a TK9LCa with a line contact. The AT 22 through 25 have the same style style tip holder with a screw.
Regards,
I think that Teres no longer offers belt drive motors. The Verus is the outer rim drive.

www.teresaudio.com/verus-motor.html

Regards,
Hello Timeltel, Sorry about that post last night. The 2nd set of pictures at the AC link I provided, above, shows the 95 with mods. I didn't want to add a lot of mass, that's why I used a cut down aluminum headshell. The epoxy holds it rigidly in place. This is the same 5 minute gooey type epoxy I used to pot the cart. Near the back-top of the cart is a screw that holds the plastic top to the body. I removed the screw and gently pushed the epoxy into the body. The plastic top was damped with rope caulk and glued on to the body. I pre-cut the headshell and glued that on to the top. Others have reported that potting the inside of the cart makes a significant difference. I figured that reducing or elimination internal vibrations could only help. It does seem to make a nice improvement on the 95. It seems quieter and more like a master tape sound. The other report I read was on an AT-14. The 95 is inexpensive so I didn't mind risking it for the experiment. The danger is with the delicate wires going to the output pins. I'm thinking about doing this to some of my others, but haven't yet done so.

Running near the front of the AC vinyl section is the thread on phase shift. Although it is lengthy, I think you might find it interesting.
Regards,
Hello Lewm, I really have no experience using a RF/EMI shield on a platter. I never had a problem in that regard, but I would imagine it could be something that you might not realize it needs fixing until you hear it w/o interference. Is that the case?
My thoughts were more about platter design and energy dissipation. I very much belong to the Pierre Lurne school of energy dissipation. There are about 1/2 dozen interviews with him on the net. One platter is a sandwich of 9mm of lead between slices of delrin. This is designed to reflect back at different times and break up reinforced reflections back to the record. Regardless of original intent of Kenwood designers, some things can be improved.
Regards,
Hi David, Square wave response was shown to me by an electronics designer. The output of the device was plugged into a scope and analyzed. In the case of an amplifier a signal generator can be used as the input. In the old days square wave response was sometimes published for carts. The pictures were like those on a scope. Perhaps there are oscilloscope programs for PC?

Again, I would quibble about high frequency resonance figures but it would be prudent to wait till controls are in place. I realize your comparison was "off the top" but I believe the compliance is much lower on the 7V and every aspect of stylus and cantilever is apples to oranges to the 155LC. I also wonder about damping and the 440. I believe it might be something other than damping. The 440 sounds "right" with a beryllium cantilever and a ML tip with "standard" loading. Compliance is even higher with a 152ML, but damping goes with the stylus. It's interesting to speculate.
Regards,
Dear Lewm, No offense taken. I think it's unfair to Lurne. A Goldmund direct drive was my all time favorite table. I wish I still had it. It left my LP-12 in the dust. Now I have a Sapphire sitting on the floor disassembled. It awaits my redesign with a Teres rim drive motor. I can't listen to most heavy plattered belt drive tables. Whatever floats your boat and belt drive tends to sink.
Regards,
Hi Lewm, Fair in the sense of limited experience. Maybe sometimes it's best not to say anything at all. I've seen many of all kinds of tables in need of repair. I've only heard a 7D a couple of times. I was impressed, but by no means definitively. How could I be?

Imo the suspension plinth etc of the Sapphire are not worth saving. It's old anyway and needs refurbishing. The oak base and lid will dress up another table. I like the platter, mat, clamp and main bearing. I might use part of the wood/lead subchassis. I haven't yet figured out exactly what I'm doing with the armboard and its mounting. That's where Lurne"s ideas are good to know.

I've yet to hear Teres direct drive tables, but I have little doubt that they are the way. They start at $10K so I doubt if I'll be getting one soon.
http://www.teresaudio.com/certus.html

The problem with 30 yr old tables is the electronics start to go and sometimes small parts need replacements that are hard to find. I know a couple of techs but lugging everything is a hassle. I read about some guy on the net who used a DD table with video tape around the platter to drive another table. You have to be a little crazy to qualify as an audiophile. Maybe he had the drive table anyway and gave it something to do.
Regards,
Regards David, The LC denotes line contact and ML is micro. There's no doubt that it's damping cantilever movement that causes phase nonlinearities. You are probably right regarding the ATN440ML vs the 7V. The 7V is intrinsically damped due to cu. I would think much less rubber is required. The donut on the 440 does seem substantial. A 152 or 155 is even more compliant than a 440. But beryllium vs aluminum seems to make all the difference.

I think it might be a mistake to wait for more advanced square wave analysis. With good resolution you can see just about everything and calibrated right before your eyes. There should be an interpretive guide that came along with the program? If you need one I'm sure it can be found on the net. There's some question about a cart doing square waves anyway. Stereo Review type results seemed to reflect the sound of a cart. Do you think the signal has to go straight in? How can you subtract the phono pre when it's worse than the cart? I know you'll figure it out.

Regarding out of band noise; Most of my electronics have bandwidth from DC to light. On one system I was getting high freq hash on everything. I made a zobel across the speaker terminals and cured it. That's a shunt, cap and resistor in series.
Regards,
Dear Lew, What brouhaha? I plead guilty of implying my Sota is a pos. For all I know they completely redesigned and the 4 springs no longer hang from a 1/2" piece of mdf plinth, which bends under the weight. Now I envision this as being steel with the armboard supporting structure completely redesigned to something other than the same layered stuff. This new Sota would require a complete re-evaluation. Alas, mine is an old one and it is what it is. Modding is too much work, and what about the motor and cheap power supply? I think I'll stick to plan A.

Lurne's latest is designing a CD transport. It makes for some interesting reading. He is a physicist or studied physics if he didn't actually work as a physicist. You'll find interviews at TNT, Stereophile and 6 Moons, Enjoythe Music etc.
Regards,
Hi Tuchan, Tell you the truth, I'm no longer on the quest. I just like to play records sometimes. Most of my experience with comparative tables is from 20 yrs ago. I set up tables (among other things) for a living at a couple of different high end shops. Matter of fact I set up the first production TNT. There was no manual so I did it over the phone with HW. He's a great guy, BTW. Although I didn't relate to the sound of the TNT, I have a feeling that I could live with a Classic. I heard it a bit at a dealer and it seemed very nice w/o that ponderous feeling. Most of the platters weren't all that heavy but I was never partial to belt drive. I still feel it was/is always a default go-to for start-ups getting into biz with mostly desire.

Later I was partnered with a friend who had a Reference. Now that was one heavy belt drive I could live with. It wasn't just the name on an impressive black throne. After all it looked more industrial than the Thorens whatever it was called. That one was fit for a queen. It was all cream and gold like the fixtures in a Hilton hotel. The Reference seemed neutral. It had the weight and the pace, quite a rare combo. I have no ax to grind, I'm long out of the biz. I'm sure my custom will be fine once I get it together. In the mean time I can listen w/o all the speed issues.
Regards,
Hi Geoch, It's funny, I only saw the Thorens Reference. I never heard it. The dealer who owned it kept it in the back room under a blanket. Because I knew the guy for years and I was in the biz, I had the privilege of seeing the throne.
The ST4 was the last regular Goldmund and had an integrated arm. I used a Zeta on mine. I had a Studietto. But I had extra springs of different stiffness so I could tune the suspension. I was also a qualified Linn set-up man so I knew how to do that. But it became popular to substitute sorbothane pucks for the springs and severely modify the design. Lurne eventually abandoned the linear arm. There's an interesting interview where he explains why. My buddy who had the Reference invented a set-up jig and got his sounding very good. He had a Grasshopper. Have you seen the pics of the new Reference? It's on Goldmund's site. It costs something like 1/2 a mil? and a set-up team comes to your house. I guess it costs more in the States. They're in Switzerland, LOL.
www.goldmund.com/products/reference_ii

Lew, The Teres motor uses it's own weight to keep it against the platter. It comes in 2 heights so you can design around those. This guy puts it in brass and angles the motor.
www.trans-fi.com/orberus.htm
Best wishes to your family. Here's hoping that your son will continue to do well.
I agree with Raul in the sense that measurements are very revealing of performance and are completely dependant on that performance. It's not always easy or convenient to reconcile subjective results with measurements, but more thorough investigation will explain differences.

How can a fast cart sound slower than one with worse transient response? One of the problems is that there are many aspects of performance that interact. It could well be that a combination of different parameters, some better, some worse, might sound wonderful in one system and be bettered in another. That is more likely than not.

All most of us can do is use subjective results applied to scientific criteria for selecting candidates. But the evaluation is specific to your individual taste, equipment, set-up etc. How does that apply to me, with a totally different set-up? My AHT phono stage is different from anyone else posting here. I don't expect to get the same results if I use that pre.

This is the same problem with all the BS reviews we get these days. The words and catch phrases have become so trite they are meaningless. If you don't have a black background you probably forgot to dim the lights. BTW, that dimmer is likely to be making noise in your phono.

I always liked the Signet carts. The TK-5 or 7 were sweeter than my TK-10MLII. If Raul thinks another cart is better, what's the big deal? Everyone is hung up on owning the very best. I'm telling you there is no such thing. If you get that notion out of your mind you'll be able to see things for what they are and appreciate the good in what you have.
Regards,
Hi Lew,
***It would seem to me (without of course my having done any work to investigate it) that a resonant frequency higher than 10 Hz might be more problematic than a resonant frequency less than 10 Hz, for example the 4 and 5Hz figures that some mentioned above (but not lower), if the associated equipment is of very high quality (tonearm, turntable, turntable mount)***

I think you're right about the importance of a low freq res being too high. More or less important would depend on the particulars, I think. In investigating phase shift in phono cart performance, it became obvious that the high freq res peak was a major determining factor. The undamped peak looks like a loudspeaker low freq resonance on a freq resp graph - severe. The immediate effect of such a peak would be for an octave or two on either side of the peak. But I suspect that repercussions from low fr peak would actually effect the entire output.

Tracking is the # 1 basic function of a cart. I don't think that statement needs qualification. While in theory I agree with Dlaloum, I think examples must be looked at on an individual basis. Perhaps some high quality carts of 20 to 30cu sound great on a FR arm. Perhaps one of 50cu or one known to have a weak suspension, isn't a great match. I'm not saying this as a statement of fact, just a suspicion.

BTW, if anyone has access to AES paper #1866, convention 71, this might be helpful.
Regards,
Dear Raul,
Concerning tubes and ICs. I question the wisdom of your approach in an epistemological sense. I refute all absolutes in this regard. I know there are exceptions to these rules. The output impedance is not always a limiting factor. While an IC might have negative feedback the benefit can outweigh. Just like a tube circuit, regulation and configuration can make all the difference. The proof is in the sound or the measurement, not in a philosophy that rules things out. I could say that transistors all sound bad and that they are incapable of voltage swings. They stack one on another all lined up and multiply their lack of fidelity and little constrained sound, but I won't.
Regards,
Halcro, I don't know the difference between a TK-10ML and a MKII. IMO many carts have loading requirements that are normally not met. This is another myth perpetuated by the powers that be. Much discussion and tweaking is done for MCs, but MM/MI are supposed to be perfect at 47K and whatever capacitance is used. If you fork over a few grand, you too can experience the transparency, imaging and superiority that you so richly deserve. Of course that comes only with MCs and never an IC.
Regards,
Dear Raul,
**IMHO outweight " nothing ". Do you know why a designer build a unit around ICs?. I know the answers but is useless to tell you, I think is better if you find out the reasons real reasons for such kind of designs where quality performance is not the main target.**

You don't know what you're talking about. You throw around phrases like negative feedback as dirty words. Many designers of multi thousand dollar units use IC because you just can't duplicate the function, speed and cleanness with a bunch of crappy discreet components all strung together on a circuit board. That's the way it is my friend and there's no getting around it. There's no such thing as a good sounding component part. There are only some that are less bad than others.

I came on this thread to talk about cartridges. I happen to think that MM/MI carts are seriously underrated. This is a side issue and we obviously disagree. Please don't talk down to me about such things. It's very insulting. I happen to be the co-founder of AHT and not some novice you can browbeat. If you allow this response, maybe we can chalk it up and continue on about cartridges.
Regards,
AT-7V vs TK7_ On LpGear which imports the 7V, it's intimated that these are the same generators. It could very well be. There were 2 series of these Signets. The first has tips that can be exchanged with a 15/20 series, like the SS. The 2nd has styli that can be exchanged with the modern 120 series, with the exception of using the Signet stylus on a modern AT. The plastic holder prevents it from seating properly. Remember the styli are quite different and you have to use the VTF etc of the stylus, if not the original.

This brings up another aspect. IMO the stylus guard can only hurt performance and is better left off. I think the same is true for the whole plastic stylus holder called wings. If you trim this away and use it like a Clearaudio, I think it sounds better. You might want to use a bit of tack on the plastic plug at the bottom of the body.
David,
***With sufficiently low C, higher inductance designs can be given the same performance parameters as lower inductance designs***

IMO you couldn't be further from the truth. You're relying on amplitude response and that's only one aspect. A truly high inductance cart can not offer the fidelity of a low inductance high quality version. A 681 vs a 881 would be a good example, except one is a MM and one is a MI. But take any example of a high inductance model and play around until you have flat response. That sound will lack reality. When you hear it playing from another room, the sound won't almost fool you and sound like it could be live.
Regards,
David,
Interesting - using shunt capacitance reduced overshoot on the Talisman. The curved or angular square wave is phase angle anomaly on the MM. Perhaps reducing capacitance will improve it. It would be interesting to see if there is an effect on transient response as well.
Regards,
Dlaloum, I went to Ortofon web site to look up eff tip mass. It seems they no longer publish that. However, I stumbled on this, that you might find of interest.
www.ortofon.com/technology/the-measurement-test-chain

Regards,
Dertonarm, It's tough making generalizations like that about moving mass. Core-less has nothing to do with it. Some MCs have only 11 or 12 turns of fine wire, but that depends on the output. Every moving part including the tip and the cantilever contribute to moving mass. Your point is absurd. Lederman knows what he is talking about.

You can't be serious about someone producing a new LOMM. We're lucky we have what we have. I take that as a dig at the Stanton/Pickering LO. Be that as it may, I bet if one is sent to Soundsmith or VDH, it will come back truly amazing.
Regards,
Tuchan, Dertonarm,
It's not that I wouldn't like to see new superior designs, it's just that I think it unlikely. A LOMM would be seen as many to exhibit the worst of all worlds. MM designs have generally been going downhill qualitatively since the demise of 4-ch. There may be exceptions to that, but it seems that way to me.

The market today seems to be centered around big ticket MCs. This isn't surprising considering that not long ago it was thought that vinyl is dead. A hand made high ticket item would make more sense than an investment in mass market items which are already covered. Maybe you could convince Ortofon or AT to produce a LOMM, but I kind of doubt it. On the other hand, I know of one new LOMI that seems to be getting some acclaim. Even though you might doubt what he says, he produces some very fine carts. This is the new TOTL Soundsmith Sussurro.
Regards,

www.sound-smith.com/cartridges/sussurro.html
Without considering totally impractical output levels like .01mV, I wonder why it is that Soundsmith's TOTL cart is low output? Granted, his other MI carts have an output of .6mV and I don't know the inductance but it must be quite a bit more. I think this is an interesting question and deserves more than a compromise solution. Maybe after the holiday I'll call and see if he's available. I've spoken with him before and he seems like a really nice guy. There's also a big price disparity between the top HO cart ($1500?) and the LO ($4500). Maybe it would be best to get if from the horse's mouth, as it were.

I imagine that designing a cartridge is like a juggling act to get everything to work and sound like something desirable and coherent. A very light moving system should sound fast but the more damping used the more phase deviation there is. That's why David observing that capacitance reduced overshoot in a HOMC is an interesting occurrence. Would this be available to most HO users? With many HO carts, when you get up to 300pF or more, the hi freq resonance is lowered and augmented, and the extreme hi end is rolled off. I suspect that along with HO comes a compromise in electrical performance sometimes. Different designs seem to exhibit very different relative amounts of inductance.
Regards,
Hi Dlaloum,
***I think the real clue behind LO vs HO designs is in the marketing info about the LO models***

What was the marketing info you're referring to? Did it have to do with cable length? It seems to me you're drawing conclusions based on preliminary findings which are suspect due to a noisy set-up. I don't know what the inductance is of the 980 HO, but the 250mH you compared it to is extremely low for a HO cart. It was always implied, AFAIK, that someone with an "average" set-up would be better off with with the HO version.
Regards,
Hi Dlaloum,
***This is pretty much the only cartridge family that I know of where this type of comparison is possible, and it allows a determination of whether inductance and level are truly a factor in sound quality - or whether it is in fact other factors that make the difference.***

This is exactly what I was referring to about jumping to conclusions. Even if you determine that in this case inductance doesn't seem to be a factor, it does not necessarily follow that inductance is never a factor. Indeed, I am convinced that in extreme cases, inductance is very much a factor. I've been wrong before, but in this case I don't think so. It is difficult to compare high inductance carts to low inductance counterparts which don't exist, but lack of objective data doesn't "prove" anything.

It was stated, in the past, that when carts were equalized for identical response, they tended to sound alike. Extended listening would often reveal differences in transient response, dynamics, textural, low level harmonics and detail etc. Perhaps more extensive tests or listening would be more convincing.
Regards,
Hi Siniy123, Although I no longer have proof, I owned a Signet TK 10MLII in the '80s. I'm quite sure it was a MKII, although I can't tell you what the difference was from the original. Often changes like this are minor. For example, the difference between a AT-440ML OCC and a 440-MLa is the magnet strength. The OCC has slightly higher output. All other specs are identical.
Regards,
As far as I can tell the AT-22 through 25 all had nude .2 x .7 elliptical on beryllium cantilevers, except the 23. The tip on the AT-23 is described as a .12mm prism elliptical on a beryllium cantilever. The Signet TK 9E and Ea had elliptical on a beryllium cantilever. The TK 9LCa had a nude line contact on a beryllium cantilever.

The ML designation is micro line not shibata. In cases of fraud such as this, cancel your credit card charge. Do thus before sending anything back. There's nothing the merchant can do. It becomes a game of who has the money.
Regards,
Hi Raul, I remember from the old days that those Signets had beryllium cantilevers. The information about the prism stylus was from the cartridge database. I've found their info to be pretty accurate in the past. I have no personal recollection of these styli. To tell if a stylus is genuine, see if it's a nude square shank on a beryllium cantilever. Beryllium usually looks different from tapered aluminum. It usually looks like a very thin non-tapered shaft. Replacement styli are usually not nude square shank diamonds.

Ct0517, The AT7V is the lowest compliance cart being produced by AT, next to the AT-95. Cu is 7 @ 100Hz. Recommended VTF is 2g +/- .25g.
www.lpgear.com/product/AT7V.html

Regards,
"Moderate" age related hearing loss, as opposed to severe hearing loss, just doesn't work the way one might expect. It seems that the brain compensates for the loss and high frequency sounds are indeed heard. I first discovered this years ago with elderly stereo customers who seemed to have no problem hearing cymbals, piccolos etc that they thought they might be missing. Since that time, I've seen articles and threads on this subject that confirm these observations. Ironically, often these people become more sensitive to high frequency anomalies.

The onset of hearing loss is characterized by having trouble with hearing speech, especially if there is background noise. Even if this is the case, one can usually listen to music with no problem for many years.
Regards,