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.
rauliruegas

Showing 50 responses by fleib

Hi David, Assuming that's dynamic cu @10Hz, that figure looks high. It's vertical cu that's standardized and it's not necessarily equal to horizontal cu. I think the reason vertical is used is in consideration of warps and the possibility of mistracking less than flat records. Ortofon is the only manufacturer that publishes both vertical and horizontal cu, AFAIK. Another reason this mass - compliance matching thing is a guesstimate.

I've been to your site a couple of times and you're doing a great job with the samples and information. I know it took a ton of work. Want to let you know that I appreciate it and look forward to further evolution.
Regards,
Although vertical cu is used to compute tonearm/cart resonance, it's lateral cu that is more important in actual tracking. In checking Ortofon's site for these figures, I see they no longer publish vertical cu. Vertical and horizontal cu were identical on most of their carts. Although tracking is three dimensional, it's horizontal excursions that determine bass output and are more responsible for detail extraction. Starting at max VTF, ever notice that when VTF is decreased, usually bass is increased? Decrease it to much and it gets fuzzy sounding or has dropouts. Optimal VTF might have more to do with lateral cu than vertical. Importance of arm/cart resonance is usually overestimated.
Regards,
Hello Lew, Yes, quite right, but most people don't know the meaning or relevance of what they do. They do as they've been told or shown. Historically - goes back to the days of mono when the record player was developed. Vertical cu had much greater implications. I'm not saying it should be ignored, but we've all seen the "rules" break down when it comes to resonant frequency. While I wouldn't put a 103 on my 5g arm, IMO arm-cart matching is more trial and error than conforming to a formula. Arm-cart calculators are estimates at best. Internet discussions of what actually sounds good are what's relevant. Yes, Ortofon is now publishing only lateral cu.
Regards,
David, ***the lateral calc came out at 32 to 35cu where the vertical came out at 14 to 16cu
The former seems too high,and the latter seems too low....***

I would guess that your lateral cu is more like the actual static cu. Yes, the vertical seems just a bit low. You could try measuring the resonant frequency with an arm of known mass and seeing what that gives you. You might also want to verify the measurements with a non Japanese cart with known cu at 10Hz. I'd guess that would be the easiest way to calibrate.
Regards,
Dear Halcro, Nandric, The AT7V is not a product for the US market. It's intended for Japanese and/or other markets. LpGear imports these. $129 is supposed to be an introductory price. It's said to be the same as the Signet TK-7Ea, perhaps with lower compliance.
Regards,
Hi Griffithds, I believe the AT-15Sa, XE, and SS all share the same generator. I don't know if there are any body differences. Sometimes a deluxe body will have better shielding or materials. They all have 500 ohm impedance, which would indicate the same generator.
Regards,
Hi T_bone, The longer the distance between the stylus and the bearings, the slower the arm responds to the stylus/cartridge movements. MOI (moment of inertia) gets worse with increasing arm length. The advantage of reduced tracking angle error is slight compared to arms of around 9.25" and longer. Many feel that somewhere between 9 and 10.5" is optimal.
Regards,
Hi T_bone, When most of us conceptualize tracking we probably think of the cartridge (tip) in two dimensions at a time. In reality tracking is three dimensional. The cartridge and arm are constantly moving both horizontally and vertically. Thinking only in terms of compliance (springiness) is not adequate for understanding.

***This is, as far as I can tell (from my completely non-AHEE and still layman physics education about turntable/tonearm/cart/cantilever/stylus/groove physics), completely wrong. If the theory were right, then the ultimate tonearm would have zero mass and zero bearing friction. This would leave us with no music.***

No one is talking about the "ultimate" tonearm. It doesn't exist. Within the confines of real world record playing there are advantages and disadvantages with longer arms. The advantages are slightly lower tracking angle error and reduced SRA/VTA differences with warps. The disadvantage is worse MOI. I'm sure you're aware of the advantage of an underslung counterweight with arms that have bearings above the plane of the record. Arm length can be seen as part of the same thing. There is an increased time constant between bearings and stylus with longer arms.
Regards,
Happy birthday Raul.

T_bone, I think the problem is conceptual.
***I understand the underslung counterweight. I do not see the connection with arm length. I see the potential that longer arms have a higher MOI. I have not heard/seen any answer yet as to why a higher MOI is NECESSARILY bad.***
Within the context of any given arm mass, having the lowest possible MOI is desirable. The time constant refers to the length of the arm, cartridge to bearings. It is the amount of time it takes the bearings to respond to movements of the cartridge.

This is from Wikipedia:
"The moment of inertia of an object about a given axis describes how difficult it is to change its angular motion about that axis. Therefore, it encompasses not just how much mass the object has overall, but how far each bit of mass is from the axis. The farther out the object's mass is, the more rotational inertia the object has, and the more force is required to change its rotation rate."

The cartridge is constantly moving toward the center of the record. The axis is the arm bearings and the arm is the radius. In reality it's also tracking in three dimensions, so not only vertical movement is included but also angular movement. Stereo grooves are cut at 45 degrees. Thinking of the cartridge as stationary with the cantilever and tip doing all the movement, is incorrect. The body of the cartridge is constantly moving.

Compliance is not a force. It's a measure of springiness and describes how the suspension reacts. Whether you have a high mass/stiff cart or a low mass/springy cart, lowest possible MOI is desirable. Think of it in this case as arm bearing reaction time.
Regards,
Dear T_bone, I didn't say that MOI was the over riding issue for longer arm inferiority. I said it was a disadvantage. The cart not only moves constantly toward the center of the record, it also moves in response to the movements of the stylus/cantilever. That assembly has a certain springiness, but what is the "fixed" object the assembly pushes against on the back end? The cart body is attached firmly to the arm which must respond to vertical movements with warps and back and forth movements with off-center records. All these movements are actually angular because the cart is constantly moving inward.
Regards,
Hi Stltrains, According to the cart database the 4000D/I has a max VTF of 1.75g. The others max at 1.25g. Why 1g?
They all have a dynamic cu of 30. I'd think you could probably go a little higher than 1.25 if necessary. I don't have one of these so I'm just going by the VE info.

FWIW, MOI generally goes up or down with eff mass.
Regards,
Hi Halcro, I'm not sure what a #2 or #3 stylus is, but as I understand it a 7E and 7SU are the same body. They would have the complete designation printed on it just like a AT-155LC or 155ML. I'm told the 7E or 7SU can substitute a ATN 15/20 stylus. The SS might be the ultimate upgrade, although I never tried it. I see AT-15 bodies for sale once in a while. They're very nice. Your 7LCA can take any modern 440/120 stylus. That would include a 150MLX. I imagine the 155LC sounds great on there. I love those beryllium cantilevers.
Regards,
Dear Raul, The Virtuoso is indeed an AT. If you pull out the stylus plug you'll see an AT assembly with the 2 magnets. All the top Clearaudio MMs have identical specs (inductance and impedance), which means the generators are the same. There are some body differences with the Maestro, but they look insignificant. The big difference is the stylus/cantilever. Unfortunately only the AT3400 series, which includes the AT-95 share the same plug. Swapping styli requires transplanting. This has been very worthwhile for me. Thanks for the review.
Regards,
Hi Halcro, That's just the way AT designates their carts. The complete model # is on top. Unlike Fidelity Research, AT has produced hundreds of models over the years. There is even a duplication or two. When the Signet line was redesigned, if there was just a TK7 on top the new version would not have a stylus interchangeable with the older ones anyway. The stylus/plug is different on the LCA and I think the Ea. The older ones use the same stylus as an AT-15/20 and the newer ones - the 120. At that time AT started using the modern 440/120 style plug on the TOTL. BTW, I think if you cut away the plastic wings from any AT stylus and use it like a Clearaudio plug, you can get better performance. I put a little bit of tack around the plug at the bottom of the body. Sometimes the fit isn't quite as tight as I like. Here's a thread on the subject with pics etc.
www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=88878.0

Regards,
Hi Raul, Yes I own a Virtuoso, one with a red wood top. Unlike you, I bought it with a broken cantilever. I was curious about these carts and when I learned that AT was the OEM, I picked it up for experimentation. It shares the same stylus plug as the AT-95 but is a much more sophisticated cartridge. I'm sure Clearaudio worked with AT in developing the generator and voicing the cartridge. It seems to have about the lowest compliance of any AT MM. It's similar to an AT-95 or 7V. That would be around 6 or 7cu @ 100Hz. This was probably chosen for greater compatibility with heavier arms and necessitates relatively heavy VTF. I disagree with you about the voicing of the stylus/cantilever. Although the top carts have the best stylus etc, the generators seem to be identical with all Clearaudio MM. If you broke in a Maestro and then put the stylus on the Virtuoso, you might not be able to tell them apart. Indeed, if you sent out your Virtuoso for an exotic tip/cantilever, it might outperform a Maestro. We are in agreement about the Clearaudio MM though. They are excellent. I have a 7V stylus on mine and it sounds considerably better than my modified 95. The textures, detail and natural presentation are really outstanding. I'm looking forward to hearing it with a better stylus.
Regards,
Dlaloum, Dean_man, Indeed you can improve the performance of most AT carts, but a 95 is not a Virtuoso and you won't get (IMO) a TOTL performance. I don't think the 95 even has OCC wire. The generators are different. The impedance of the 95 is 3.2K. My 95 is potted internally and has an aluminum top plate. It sounds really good but doesn't seem to have the finesse of the Virtuoso. The Jico shibata stylus for the 95 will fit the Clearaudios if the plastic wings are cut off. It too is outperformed by a high quality orig AT stylus transplanted in an appropriate plug. All the Jico styli for these are bonded with a straight alum cantilever. For those interested in transplanting, the link above (AudioCircle thread) has pics and discussion about it. I'll check the pics and maybe add some more.
Regards,
This is somewhat disconcerting: Peter: +++++ " The original cantilever was aluminum with a very low cost bonded elliptical stylus. +++++

I guess it really doesn't make much difference but I doubt if CA makes these "in house". The cart is AT through and through. The generator and suspension, even the plug is classic AT. Impedance and DC resistance terms are often used interchangeably, but the DC resistance of mine is 408 ohms in 1 ch and 409 in the other. CA chose parameters that meet their high performance goals. The fact that the CA line use an AT 3400 series plug is also a cleaver choice. There are no high performance 3400 series styli available. CA's charge for re-tip is excessive. Not all CA MM have a wood top. Maybe they make the tops or finish the body work in house. I suspect Peter Ledermann will be getting many more of these.

It is probably the combination of body damping and cantilever/tip type, that determines whether it's optimally damped. The Maestro has more extensive use of wood. An aluminum cantilever is livelier. The greater excursions provide a more robust sound. A more rigid cantilever is more detailed and refined, all else being equal. More extended contact tips extract more High Freq info and tend to be brighter. I haven't tried an exotic stylus on my Virtuoso yet, but I suspect, going on Raul's impression, that the black wood Virtuoso or a non wood Maestro is the one to get. I also suspect that cu/arm match up might have something to do with with results.
Regards,
To whom it may concern, The AT-95 and CA MMs are NOT the same. I own both. My modified 95 isn't nearly as good, but a big improvement over a stock 95. Your sarcasm misses the mark. AT might not have the snob appeal of some high end companies, but is a logical choice to produce a superior cartridge. The style of the moving system and generator are the same as a 20SS, 155LC, etc etc etc. Here's what they look like w/o the wood.
http://www.clearaudio.de/_en/Tonabnehmer.php

Regards,
Hi Lew, I never heard a Maestro. I'm basing my conjecture on Raul's impressions, which seem reliable. All the CA MMs share the same basic generator. There might be some internal differences with the least expensive ones, but a Maestro is a Virtuoso in a wood overcoat rather than a top hat. It has a micro tip and a boron cantilever. The voicing of a cart is the sum of the contributions of these parts. Perhaps the wood Maestro has a little too much wood. I've only heard my 15/20SS with a SS tip. The beryllium/shibata is controlled, detailed. The shibata is a little sweet on the high end and gives it a seductive sound. I think I'm in agreement that the CA has just a little better motor. It seems slightly more open and real. I have a spare SS stylus. Maybe I'll transplant it when I'm feeling brave. I think the 2 bodies might be pretty close. It seems like specs win out with the CAs.
Regards,
David, I get 401 and 409 as the resistance of the 95. They list the impedance as 2.8K. I don't get it. Maybe there's something wrong with my Chinese meter, LOL. As I said previously, you can get a very nice performance out of a modded 95. Take off the top piece, fill the spaces with mortite and seal it with epoxy. Because it's not an up-line cart and doesn't even have the OCC wire and whatever else they do internally for TOTL carts, I don't think it will compete with a CA or 20SS etc. BTW, the bodies are not the same, just the plug that holds the cantilever. I think I mentioned earlier 3.2K as the impedance. I got it mixed up with the 440/120. If you're looking for a budget model that might have greater potential, look into the 110E. It has the OCC wire but I don't know the specs. The inductance of the 95 is 400pF.

Can you explain the discrepancy between the resistance and impedance?
Regards,
Hi David, ***Then they made recordings of live occurences in the street - trees in the breeze etc... and had people listen to them with various Lo-Pass filters in or out - testing for the point at which people no longer heard the difference.... Double Blind fashion - results were statistically analysed.

Interestingly in this analysis at least one person could detect the presence or absence of the 80kHz filter - and as the frequencies came down from there many could hear the lower filters.

There was however no analysis to the best of my knowledge of whether they were hearing the high frequency or its intermodulations which are within the 20-20kHz range.... (both of which would have resulted in the exact same results in the tests...)***

I think one of the problems with listening tests is that you often wind up with the lowest common denominator. If one person could consistently hear a 80K filter, that speaks volumes. That's quite a few octaves from the range of human hearing. If a cart has a rising high end from 15K on up, it seems like people can hear it. That's above the range of hearing for most adults.
Regards,
Hi Raul, That's interesting about the wood. The fernambuco tree, native to Brazil, yields Pernambuco wood used in violin bows. Of course ebony is used in fingerboards. However, I believe that a few yrs ago CA said they used satine wood. Satin wood is a hardwood native to S India and Sri Lanka. Whichever it is, it might not differ much in the damping properties or transmission of vibrations, from ebony.
Regards,
Hi Griffithds, ***There is quite a difference between the Specs. of Rauls cartridge, and the specs. of my old Virtuoso (see the comparisions earlier on either this thread or on Rauls actual review).***
What specs are you referring to, the stylus/replacement? There is no difference in electrical specs AFAIK. It would not be unusual for a replacement stylus/cantilever to have a slightly different SRA/VTA. I assume that Soundsmith's replacement is superior to to the original stylus/cantilever. Raul mentioned that Peter Ledermann said that it was a bonded diamond. Pictures of the cantilever look like it's not even tapered on the orig. Mine came w/o a cantilever, so I don't really know. I think that if you sent the old one to Soundsmith it would be the same except for the wood top.
Regards,
Hello Griffithds, Sorry I missed your follow up to Raul's review. The specs you posted might indicate a change in the stylus/compliance, or they might just be a correction of their specs.
Frequency Response 20Hz-20kHz-- 20Hz-20kHz
Output Voltage 3.6mV------- 3.6mV
Channel Seperation 30dB-------- 30dB
Channel Balance 0.2dB-------* 0.3dB
Tracking Ability 90um--------* 80um
Tracking Force 2-2.5 optm.2.2--* 2.0
Coil Impedance 0.66kOm-----* 0.68kOm
Coil Inductance 0.42H------- 0.42H
Load Resistsance 47K--------- 47K
Load Capactance 100pF------- 100pF
Cantiliver Alum-------- Alum
Weight 6.0g--------* 10g

The change in the impedance spec is pretty much meaningless. The difference is less than 3% and is probably less than the tolerance on most carts. With the inductance remaining the same, it looks like a correction of specs rather than any change to the generator. The tracking ability and VTF change also looks like a tightening and refining of the spec. There might have been a change to the moving system. 80um is excellent. 90um is exemplary. This becomes irrelevant with a Soundsmith replacement stylus. I think CA did a great job in choosing parameters for their line of MMs. Their 10Hz cu is rated at 15. This is more appropriate for med/heavy arms that are likely to be used. I think this contributes much to the resulting performance on these arms and is a bigger factor than has been previously stated.
Regards,
David, That's really interesting stuff. It's ironic that the old audiophile adage that using an equalizer introduces phase shift, has come full circle, LOL. A word of caution - a phono cartridge was not really designed to reproduce a square wave. The sq wave results may not be completely accurate or indicative of the actual cartridge performance. IMO you should verify results with listening at every step along the way and not base conclusions on test results alone.

It's been my experience that eliminating extra components in the signal chain tends to improve fidelity. That is, if high quality components are used. I can't help thinking that it would be preferable to have a reasonably flat frequency response without the EQ. Cartridges with extended response - high frequency resonance, seem to have very good phase linearity. It will be interesting to see what you come up with.
Regards,
Is anyone familiar with a Denon DL-109d MM cart? There's one for sale here, and it's said to be the best MM ever.
Regards,
Thanks Raul, the ad sparked my curiosity. The seller seems to have experience with many carts. The ad is here on Agon.

David, I still can't reconcile resonance between 19 - 23K, on carts that have response beyond 30K. Beyond primary high frequency resonance, response should drop off like a rock. Wasn't the 20SS spec to 35K? I'm not sure what to make of this. AT wouldn't publish that spec if it was down 20dB.
Regards,
Hi Griffiths, I've never owned an Ultra 400. I seem to remember reading something lately, but can't recall who posted it. There was an Ultra 500 too.

About your CAs; If you want to save the original stylus (possibly for comparison), talk to Peter. He might have an extra plug. If not, you could get the cheapest replacement stylus for an AT95 and use that for the plug. Also, the AT P-mounts with the unusual looking plastic stylus holder, also fit perfect. You can get an AT-90 on ebay or amazon for around $20.
Regards,
Hi Griffiths, I can't help feeling that putting a micro stylus on the aluminum cantilever is a mistake. You could wind up with the voicing of an AT-440 (alum/micro), slightly sweetened by the wood.

Raul indicated that the Maestro was over-damped with the extensive wood and boron/micro stylus. Maybe a wood Virtuoso is the perfect vehicle for the micro with a exotic stylus. I'm guessing that you would have the ultimate CA. It would be interesting to compare the Satin wood to ebony with that stylus. I've read reports of others who were extremely happy with SS ruby CAs. I'm thinking of sending my Virtuoso to him for the ruby/micro. I think you should reconsider.
Regards,
Hi Tubetan, I think that's a great idea. Do you have an Aida? Have you ever heard one, or the Voice? I have no doubt that they're excellent cartridges. Unfortunately, neither one is feasible for me to get, at this time. Perhaps someone who has one can comment.
Regards,
Hi Raul, Griffiths, I already stated my opinion and read nothing to convince me otherwise. The only thing is, I haven't heard a Maestro so I don't have that experience on which to base my opinion. Because the generators of these cartridges are identical, and the Maestro is highly thought of, I don't think it would be a great leap of faith to read between the lines.

***I think we (those of us who are following this thread), would learn more as to what can be acomplished using the same basic cantilivers but using the 2 different levels of styluses. I on the other hand, would wind up with 2 absolutely amazing cartridges no matter which way I
choose!***

Correct me if I'm wrong. Doesn't the cart come with a straight (non-tapered) cantilever? If so, you've already changed the voicing of the cart. Maybe it's changed less than if you change cantilever material, but even changing the tip will effect voicing. An exotic cantilever is far superior in resonance characteristics, detail retrieval, and tonal nuance. The voicing with an exotic cantilever doesn't always compliment the generator, but I doubt if that is the case here. It seems to me that with a ruby/micro you will probably wind up with a cart superior to either the Virtuoso or the Maestro. This isn't new ground here. It's been successfully done before. Perhaps you should talk to Peter (SS) about it. I think that putting a micro tip on the stock cantilever is like pearls before swine.
Regards,
One size does not fit all, regarding cantilevers and their properties. Even cantilevers of the same length and general material can be different. A straight aluminum cantilever might be more rigid than a tapered one, but heavier. Ruby and sapphire are generally heavier, but SS uses an extremely thin single crystal piece of ruby. Combined with a micro tip, I would think tip mass would be reduced compared to stock. But exotic cantilevers aren't always preferred. Maybe Takeda san puts the time and expertise into making the output of the Miyabi compliment the resonances of the cantilever, but I doubt if mass market companies do the same, at least to that extent.

During the heyday one of the big MC manufacturers, possibly Dynavector, made a video(s) of cantilevers in action. They used laser interferometry or some such method to tape this. The description of aluminum cantilevers was of wild gyrations like a bull whip and at times it looked as if it would fold up on itself. I would love to see that video. An aluminum cantilever usually sounds more robust, especially in the midbass, but less detailed and exact. We all choose what compliments our system and taste. I don't subscribe to the notion that there is one best cartridge.

Regarding ATs answer to the digital challenge; Maybe it was because early digital was so harsh and unmusical that AT got off track. Their cartridges generally got much worse from that time. For the sake of a higher output, they compromised inductance/impedance and went for detail uber alles. I believe the 440 came out in the 80's. Output was 5mV. It had a nude ML on a tapered cantilever. I had to load it at 30K/100pF to prevent ear bleeds. In all fairness it sounds good like that, but even better with a beryllium ML or LC at 47K. AT now seems to be finally addressing that. The generator of the Virtuoso is more like an AT-15/20. The wood top damps vibrations or whatever, right at the mount. I wish there was a beryllium/boron stylus that would transplant into the plug. They break if you try. I'm sure CA ordered that body and plug for a reason. They charge something like $600 for a new crappy stock stylus. The Jico LC is probably better. I'd sooner send it to VDH or SS, but I don't think the generator is better than an AT-20. The body is lighter, the compliance is 15, and the wood works wonders.
Regards,
Hi Nadric, There is no "best" cantilever material. Perhaps the best cantilever is no cantilever, as Raul suggested.

Cartridges are of sufficiently different design that you can only describe general characteristics to cantilever material ie. weight and rigidity. Switching from one material to another may or may not yield pleasing results, depending on the cartridge and the listener. While Miyabi may have an aluminum cantilever, the vast majority of high end MCs have boron. The top ATs all have boron except the newer 33EV. That doesn't make boron better in all cases. If you changed to boron on a Miyabi it would probably sound worse. I think you have to discuss this on an individual basis. Because the Maestro has a boron/micro, but might sound a bit over-damped with the extensive wood, it doesn't take much imagination to guess that the Virtuoso might sound even better with an exotic cantilever/micro. The generators are the same.
Regards,
Hi Griffithds,
I think that depends on who/what we're talking about. Certainly ZYX, VDH, Benz etc use boron without question and design around it. It is generally considered superior. Because rigidity is higher and it's light weight, detail is greater and resonance is of higher frequency. Cantilevers contribute more to tip mass than the tip. Miyabi and Denon are strictly aluminum, which is more forgiving and possibly "musical". I think aluminum is also slightly more dynamic. Less rigidity allows for greater excursions, but with less control. Long aluminum cantilevers will almost always resonate in the top of the audible band. (Thanks Dlaloum) This tends to blur the highs. I suppose that can be overcome with design.

Thanks to MMs with replaceable styli, we can hear for ourselves what these differences are, at least to some extent. I already posted about putting a beryllium ML on a 440. Maybe a 440 stylus will sweeten a 150MLX? LOL, I doubt it.
Regards,
Hi Nadric, **The Virtuoso is already proclaimed as 'the best' cart ever so you need to explain how 'better' than the best is possible?**

1) I respect Raul's opinion but I might not always agree. He has experience with more cartridges than I, and I've found his opinions invaluable. I know there was a coronation, but IMO there is no, one best cart.

2) Raul's sample was not a stock cartridge. The stylus and cantilever were replaced by Peter Ledermann (Soundsmith). It had a nude .3 x .7 elliptical on a tapered aluminum cantilever. Stock would be a straight alum cantilever. I'm not sure what the stock stylus is. Apparently it's a bonded elliptical. I haven't seen one and CA tells us nothing about the tip on their site. Tell you the truth, the stock assembly looks like a Jico replacement stylus for the AT-95. I wouldn't be surprised in the least. If you cut the plastic wings off one of these Jicos, it plugs right into any CA body. They are pretty good quality bonded styli with a straight alum cantilever.

Exotic refers to any cantilever made from material other than aluminum. That would usually include beryllium, boron, ruby and sapphire. They're all somewhat different in rigidity and weight. Carts are different in design and cantilever length, so we can only talk in generalities or about specific carts. Kings come and go. Who was king a month ago, 20SS or Technics? Any crusader will tell you that the holy grail has yet to be found, if indeed it exists.
Regards,
Hi Jcarr, Thanks for your post, very interesting. Maybe it's due to modern adhesives, but exotic cantilevers usually don't sound like the tip/cantilever interface presents much of a problem.

**Also, I will point out that Denon used aluminum alloy cantilevers for a number of cartridges that offered wide-bandwidth playback. The 103S was designed for Quad-4 playback, and offered a playback bandwidth that extended out to 60kHz. With the 103D, Denon claimed a playback bandwidth out to 65kHz. The 301 claimed a bandwidth of out to 60kHz. And so on.

I no longer use aluminum alloy cantilevers for my own cartridge designs, but I have no doubt that it remains possible to design a fairly good-sounding, fairly nice-measuring cartridge using an aluminum alloy cantilever.**

That really is interesting. The current DL-304 and DL-S1 are somewhat unusual. They have relatively high compliance, low VTF and seem best in med/heavy arms. They also have very low output and 30 or 40 ohm impedance! Results seem very system dependant. I have an old 103d that came with a vintage table I bought. I've been afraid to use it cause it has the original tip and I don't have a proper microscope to check it. I'll have to get that together.

It seems that AT and Ortofon are getting away from using micro tips on aluminum cantilevers. I get the feeling that AT is trying to tone down a bit. The 33EV has aluminum and a .3 x .7 with response to 50KHz. The OC9III has boron/LC, also out to 50K. the orig 440 spec was 32K. Notice that Ortofon put a shibata on the 2M Black.

I've read opinions favoring the sound of aluminum.
Regards,
Hi Jcarr, thanks for your response.
**A cartridge like the DL-S1 prefers to have as few electrical contacts between itself and the phono stage input as possible, and a v-e-r-y good phono stage. In this sense, their requirements are no different from any other low-output MC. A little bit more extreme in degree, that is all.**

I'm not so sure about that very good phono stage requirement when it comes to the DL-S1. Perhaps a more forgiving phono stage with lots of gain would be more likely to insure acceptable results. With an output of .15mV I'd guess that a SUT would help. I participated in a group review of this cart. Although I didn't keep it long enough to get it "right", some people loved it at 100 ohms. I heard an emphasis on the overtones that gave it a hyped up sound - very irritating on acoustic music. Another participant using SUTs and/or a high end pre, got similar results. A fellow who posts on Asylum loads it at 30 ohms and loves it. He must have gobs of gain though. I must admit, I never thought to load it at 30 ohms. That's why I said it's system dependant. I read that it's being discontinued, but that's unconfirmed. (I blame that overtone thing on the alum cantilever. LOL)
Regards,
Jcarr,
Thanks again for your informative answer. "Everyone" says that LOMC inductance is so low, it's inconsequential and can be dismissed. Your description of the ultrasonic peak and possible consequences, is not widely known. I assume the inductance is much higher on the DL-S1 than most. What's typical LOMC inductance, 30uH?

I started with 300 then 400 ohms and couldn't seem to find the magic number. As I approached 100 ohms, it got worse. Gain and noise wasn't a problem. It must have been IMD. This phono stage has very low capacitance. I've had great results with other MCs and didn't know what the problem was. I think you've solved the mystery.
Regards,
All this theological talk has inspired me to start a church. Don't laugh, churches are a great racket, almost as good as banks or mortgage traders. Churches are tax free and employees pay a special rate. I envision a sort of Unitarian type free for all, except for the nominal dues, of course. Divine revelation through music, or any other revelatory pursuit, would be the theme. One of the big advantages would be the opportunity to make group purchases. A problem might be agreement on what to purchase. For now, an ebony Virtuoso near dealer cost for all who want one?

Services could be held online with music and videos. There would also be a physical church/warehouse to house the divine components. Every members listening room or studio would be their local chapel.
Inspirationally yours,
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Mockery as a form as worship? How crude.

Building temples takes big bucks. There will be plenty of opportunity for that later. That is, after the church is established and corrupt. The Church of Aesthetic Revelation will have many branches. Every member's listening room or studio will be their sanctuary. Ministers will have their facilities open to other members (by appointment only) for revelatory experiences. Ministers will be ordained and be eligible for whatever tax relief is available in their area of residence.

Enlightenment through aesthetic revelation is serious pursuit of God-head. All manner of drink or substances is approved in the attainment of that goal. It is not the business of this church to make up fairy tales or prescribe approved methods of enlightenment. Each individual must find their own path. We benefit from the revelations of others in similar pursuit. There is no approved definition of heaven or hell. For me, hell is a broken cantilever. Heaven is when it sounds awesome. May the aesthetics be with you.
Regards,
Dear Nandric,
You are whatever you assume to be. That is, once you assume the position. It's up to you to figure out how political and social-economic philosophies fit in with aesthetic revelation.

Now I'm in a quandary about what stylus to try next on my Virtuoso. I removed the 7V stylus from the modded 95 and noticed it was slightly off-azimuth. Trying to realign, it broke. A word about transplants; You can't transplant a stylus from a different series with an exotic cantilever. It will break. The cantilevers are set at different angles in different series. If you want to transplant a modern 120/440 7V series, the cantilever must be bent down slightly after it is aligned. This can only be done once. Trying to re-bend will break it. In other words, if you take the stylus-plug off a 120 and shave the plug so it fits in the CA receptacle, the cantilever is too close to the body. If you transplant and do it right the first time, it should be OK. Just don't bend it until you're sure it's aligned perfectly. BTW, the 7V stylus is a good candidate if you're considering a transplant. It's a nude .2 x .7 on a tapered cantilever. The cu is 7 @100. I believe all the CAs are 6.5cu (100Hz). They are listed as 15cu at 10Hz.

I put a 92E (P mount) on there and will try on a light arm. If I like it I might try transplanting a 140LC I have. The CAs might make great high cu carts. It only weighs around 5g w/o stylus. Any AT P-mount with the unusual looking plastic holder, is a direct swap - no transplant required.
Regards,

Hello Plinko,
The Clearaudio MMs are probably the lowest compliance MMs being produced today. The equivalent 10Hz cu is 15. That is the same cu shared by many LOMCs. AFAIK, all other current MM/MI have higher compliance. Very few, if any MM/MI types ever had lower cu.
Regards,
Hi Raul,
Because my AT-95 is potted and has a custom aluminum top plate, I didn't want to say too much. Even with these modifications I had much the same results. BTW, Wm Thakker was selling the regular 95E for around $32. I believe LpGear charges $10 more than the price of the respective replacement stylus. There is a new stylus for it - a line contact, called vivid line. All these 95 replacement styli fit the CAs. You could remove the stylus on your Virtuoso and try it on the 95, and vise versa. It's a nice cart for a secondary table, especially one with a med/heavy arm.
Regards,
Greetings Timeltel, I haven't heard one of these cartridges. My speculation about a hole in the middle or dropouts was in response to comments here. The tri-magnet thing is interesting, and probably responsible for superior separation. I was reading other speculation that it might be similar to Azden US patent on an induced magnet (YM-308II) with both rod and disk shaped armatures, called tri-pole armature. I didn't find any other info on the Acutex tri-magnet. In my search I found Raul's excellent review of the 315 III which states that Azden is the OEM.

AFAIK all shibatas have a different cut on the rear. Is this different from others with an additional facet?
Regards,
There is no escaping our early development and what we were taught, i.e. how to think and act and what to believe. The most we can do is realize this training and take steps to overcome, if necessary.

A performing elephant raised in captivity will have a chain tied around his ankle and staked to the ground. The elephant learns that he can not escape the chain. When the elephant grows up he is still bound by the chain even though he could easily break it.

Aesthetic revelation could have something to do with traditional religious training/practice, but not necessarily. I suspect that each of us occasionally has some sort of revelation on an individual basis, at home in our sanctuary. These forums serve as an exchange of methods (practices and equipment) to attain that revelation or to get more enjoyment from our rituals.
Regards,
Hi Raul,
I use the IRC R55 series (1/4 watt) in my phono stage with excellent results. They outperform the Caddocks I've tries. I plug in resistors for gain and load. The IRC are very clean and neutral. The 0.1% tolerance makes them easy to try different values as you don't have to buy batches and match them. I used to use the Vishay 102 series. I like the IRC more. The Caddocks I tried were MK or MP series. I also tried some tantalum (Audio Note?) that sound very nice, but seemed romantic rather than neutral.
Regards,
Hi Raul,
Funny that your application is attenuators. I found out about IRC from Goldpoint level controls. I needed precision resistors to try different loads in my phono. They seem excellent, although they might not be the ultimate.
www.goldpt.com/r_series.html

I think you should keep an open mind about tantalum. The ones I tried were very nice. They are an odd value - for a HOMC I no longer have, so I haven't used them much. My impression was, they are somewhat romantic, euphonic, but that is by no means definitive. They seemed to improve the texture of a DL-160.

High power resistors in a crossover are a problem. They all seem to sound lousy. My crossovers don't normally have resistors. I only tried them with a new tweeter and in zobels. Some people think highly of the Duelunds, I haven't tried them. In the past I used 2 watt resistors in parallel - 3 to 5 of them to get the value. That can sound much better than conventional wire wound speaker resistors. There might be some inductance with that, though it might be inconsequential in a crossover.
Regards,
Dear Lew,
May I ask what preamp you're using with the 980? If you're going straight in, what resistance?
Thanks,
Lew, Raul,
Thanks for your responses. I'm always curious about other peoples experiences with this one. I usually load it between 200 and 300 ohms, depending on the pre. Apparently there was a MKI and MKII version of this cart. I don't know what the difference is. I think I have the MKI. Mine doesn't say MKII on the side, like an 881 MKII.

I've only had it a couple of yrs. I bought it NOS with a Pickering 3001 - .2 x .7 nude elliptical. I also have a Jico shibata. I always get the feeling that nice as it sounds, there is potential that I'm not getting. Part of that might be the need for more hrs play time but I can't help but feel that a high quality stylus/cantilever would improve things. I'm not going to order a custom stylus at this time, because I don't have a good feeling yet about any options.

In my MM investigations of the past few years the stylus differences on the same cart provides a real education. Look at an Ortofon 2M Red vs Blue. They are identical except for the tip. The nude elliptical on the Blue seems to provide adequate tracking, based on user reports. The bonded tip on the Red presents problems with inner groove distortion and sibilance. I've read many complaints. The obvious solution is to replace the stylus. The Red/Blue generator isn't very different from the Black/Bronze.

While there is always the fear of changing the voicing for the worse w/cantilever change, there are examples of carts that came with either a high quality alum cantilever or an exotic one. The AT-15/20 is a good example. On the other hand, put a SAS on a M97 and the freq resp is changed significantly. This might be due mostly to inadequacies of the electro-mechanical system, but are better carts immune?
Too bad there are no exotic styli available for the CA. I think this was intentional, but possibly the only body AT would use for OEM purposes. I'm also guessing that AT makes the body/generator and the stylus. The plug on the CA has no compliance screw, just a fitting - the same as a 95. All the Jico styli have the screw.
Regards
Hi David,
This is interesting. One tidbit I didn't see in the Audio Circle post, was this: **On another topic - compating my Revox Linatrack arm to the JVC QL-Y5F... the high frequency response is pretty much the same, resonance frequency range (5Hz to 25Hz) reflects the expected mass and damping differences.**

Was 25Hz with the Shure? Do you notice any anomalies in the bass/lower midrange with it or other med cu carts with the Revox arm? Many carts have rising response in that region. The low mass arm might minimize it and the high mass arm maximize. I'd guess the rise would be greater with the M97. I'd also guess that the rise is greater w/aluminum cantilever. You need a med mass arm on your next acquisition.
Regards,