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 rauliruegas

Dear Albertporter: With all respect till today I can't understand why any one invest big big dollars on LOMC cartridges only to degrade its quality performance through a SUT, any SUT at any price. I have to say that years ago I belongs to this LOMC owner's group.

Any top LOMC cartridge demands specific playback/set up " conditions " to performs at its best something that you can't achieve through a SUT. Same demands are asked by the Stanton.

Why invest in high price analog rig that surrounded a top LOMC cartridge only to add a full degradation to the cartridge signal through a SUT. ????? I think that we don't buy a Ferrari and instead to use/mount the Ferrari's tires is asking we mount it on cicle ones: makes sense to you?

I understand that you are happy with ( this is what it matters and not what I think. My post is only an opinion. ) and that that kind of distortions are not only the ones that you like but the ones that you have to accept amd I respect that.

Of course that if that was the only alternative to handle LOMC cartridge well we have to accept it but exist not only other alternatives but alternatives that fulfil exactly what any of those cartridges are asking for: craying for!

Maybe I'm wrong and I'm always willing to learn: am I missing something in this subject that I'm unaware other that: " this is what I like " answer?

I know that you as me and us are part of the AHEE and that's the " road " that the AHEE push to take it in favor of comercial targets$$$. They know are wrong but the subject is not what is wrong or what is right but: business$$$.

Fortunately some of us learned about and in this as other AHEE audio susbjects decided think " twice " before follow the AHEE advices.

Btw, the AHEE was the one that proscribe the MM/MI alternative diminished to our " eyes ".
I like many other persons today know the AHEE was and is wrong.

Anyway, enjoy the Stanton.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lewm: Not exactly. What I posted about is that the similar H output is IMHO a little better but I never said the LZS is not a good cartridge because it is.

Certainly IMHO there are better performers out there: vintage and today designs but these Stantons are good contenders.

How do you compare it against your Grace Ruby?

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Delamostre1: My experiences with re-tipping vintage cartridges tell me that " always " we can have an improvement, not only because a newer cantilever and maybe a better stylus shape but because when the re-tipping fix works the retipper fine tunning the cartridge suspension that in vintage cartridges due to its time is already degraded.

I'm not saying that you have to send the 9600 to re-tip because I " know " that in its original shape the cartridge will performs very good, what I'm saying is that the re-tip could be a good alternative to improve an already good quality performance level.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Timeltel Thank's to put some light in the Stanton/Pickering.

Btw, many people are " crazy " looking for Stanton/Pickering vintage original stylus replacement when IMHO could be better to retip it to today standards. What do you think in this subject?

Years/moths ago I was reluctant to change " nothing " in a vintage cartridge but through experiences about maybe I was wrong due that the cartridge motors on those vintage cartridges are so good that the improvement through retip to today standards put almost all those gems steps further a top its original " shape ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Nandric: Well, that opportunity was not for you this time.

Teh cartridge is very good performer and very low output (0.1mv ) and not easy to handle. I hope you can keep your hands on it in the near future.

In the mean time try to get the G800 by Goldring.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Albertporter: +++++ " Many ways to skin a cat, LOMC cartridges have fewer windings and lower internal impedance. Some engineers and designers think this is more important than the high output alternative, " +++++

problem is not with the cartridge designers

+++++ " No way to argue which is best as each ear must decide for themself. " +++++

subject is not what your ears decide or what you like but what is right or wrong.

Years ago I made my self these simple questions: what if what I'm listening that I like it is wrong? what if what I learned through the AHEE is wrong?

the answers to those questions along added other questions/answers were the big step on all my audio life.

For the first time I was aware and was " concious " of the reality and understanded this reality this true. From here I started to destroy to left behind almost all what I learned that were wrong and started to build a new " road " that till today I'm on the way.

I know is not easy for you speak against SUTs due that you promoted through the electronics you have on sale.

I want to put you two examples of two regarded/praised audio item designers whom I respect along one audiophile that I respect too.
One is R.Kartsen from Atmasphere whom know very well the damage that make SUTs, certainly he knows a lot about and that's why his phonolinepreamp is a non-SUT design and certainly not because " many ways to skin the cat ".
The other is J.Carr cartridge and electronics designer whom choosed ( for very good reasons. ) no SUT it his great phono stage design.
The audiophile/music lover is Dougdeacon that for some time was the best advocate to SUTs you could find out till he listened/tested a high gain active stage that he loves till today.

All these persons IMHO choosed what is right because they knew what was and is wrong.

M.Lavigne is another very good example. He owned or at least had on hand tubes electronics with inside SUTs and at the end when he decide to " download " his system choosed for no SUT in favor of active low noise high gain phono stage.

Do you want a reviewer?, well J.Atkinson.

As you I'm not alone and the " crew " are growing up in the same manner than the MM/MI " crew ". Btw, my today cartridge reference is a LOMC not a MM/MI type.

I hope that over time you can get one of the very top MM/MI performers where IMHO you could find MM/MI performers nearest to your beloved LOMC ones.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Dover: Well, the one in your link has the 143 on serial number. I can see through that link that the price on the Karat Nova 13D had fluctations on the 25%: 40,000 yens against a second sample ( the same year. ) for 49,800 yens.

Now, seems to me a little weird that Dynavector choosed an elliptical stylus shape for its top of the line cartridge against other down models where choosed line contact ( 23R or 17D. ).

In that same link appears the Karat Nova 17D ( wood body. ) and in this one the stylus shape was line contact with a longer cantilever: 1.7mm against 1.3mm on the 13D.

Could you share the specs on the 13D and specs to make the cartridge set-up along your opinion on its performance level?, thank you in advance.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Dover: Now after reading your last post my expectation with the 13D grow up. Tomorrow I will have on hand but my system still down.
I will post my experiences with the Karat Nova 13D.

Another curios " subject " is that according the information I have the elliptical stylus in the 13D is not the normal 0.3x0.7 or 0.2x0.7 but 0.25x.0.7. Certainly Dynavector had reasons to choose a non-orthodox elliptical stylus shape.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Montepilot: I really appreciated your time to share here your fine audio analog experiences through MM/MI and LOMC cartridges.

I agree that the 20SS is a tiny step a top the 4000D3.

I read again your Reed2A tonearm review ( as a fact I posted tehre in the past. ) to " figure " about what surrounded all the cartridges you own.

Halcro question was critical and I assume for the same reasons I read about your system and agree with him that the MM/MI cartridges are really demandant/ask for the best set up we can make for it can shows at its best, same for the LOMC ones.

I heard the Allnic electronics and the Veito ( in my system. ) but not the Puritas. Allnic cartridge is no surprise: a good one but nothing exceptional. Well only a few cartridges out there are exceptionals.

I had and have deep and long experiences with SUTs ( external and internal to phono stages like Allnic. ), in some times I was convinced that nothing could be better than LOMC through a SUTs, that was what I learned till I grow up.

My position about SUTs are not a new one but older. Here two posts on that subject by me:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1130451054&openflup&29&4#29

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1138829438&openflup&41&4#41

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1138829438&openflup&20&4#20

IMHO your electronics can't do justice to any LOMC cartridge including your Puritas, but this is only my opinion.

I believe what you hear through your system with LOMC cartridge whaT i CAN'T BE SURE IS IF WHAT YOU HEARD IS WHAT IS IN THE RECORDING OR ONLY A KIND OF " INTERPRETATION " by your self due to the own electronics high distortions. TYhose Allnics are far from be accurate and certainly this makes huge differences for cartridge comparisons.

In the other side, good that your SS phono stage can handle 100k impedance that IMHO with many MM/MI cartridge is a must along the right capacitance loading.

I know, as Fremer " posted " that the Samuels is very good for its price range but IMHO not the best out there.

If it is true that loading set up is critical for MM/MIs it is critical too the phono stage design and phono stage quality performance level. Your Samuels use IC for its gain stages and active RIIA implementation, these design choices has some advantages but critical disadvantages. Why to use ICs instead discrete circuits?, one reason is to stay in a market price range ( normaly a low price range, like the Samuels ) other reason is that to fulfil top performance through a full discrete design demands a higher knowledge level and better skills from the designers.

Till today I never heard an ICs based phono stage design that outperforms a good discrete based design. I'm talking of quality level performance.

I think that your experiences and comparisons in your system , IMHO, can't be taked as a true comparison because not only electronics ( critical ) but tonearms were different.

Maybe if you compare the Puritas and the 20SS through the Samuels you can have a more " fair " comparison with less " different parameters " that affect the overall comparison.

As I posted my reference is a LOMC cartridge and for good reasons but for good reasons too some of the top MM/MI I own and owned are a real challenge to any LOMC including your Puritas.

Both designs ( LOMC and MM/MI ) are not perfect and the best on these designs is that many of us today have two alternatives instead only LOMC like in the past.

I know that the important subject here is what you heard and hear through your system because is the way you like to " live " with. This post is only an opinion but yours is the important one.

Thank you again for share your experiences that as many other audio experiences always are: learning ones.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Fleib: Certainly I know what I'm saying. The subject is that you designed an ICs electronics so you have to support it but that does not means is the best way to go only an alternative: as Albertporter said " different ways to skin the cat ".

As with the cartridges on electronics does not exist the " perfect " and the ICs designs are not perfect. As I posted: advantages and disadvantages.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Jbethree3: That PS Audio phono stage is better that we can think and yes it will works with your DL-S1. I hope you enjoy this best ( IMHO ) Denon ever.

Your feedback is welcome.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Chopin123: It is weird, you are Agon member since 2008 and this is your very first post ever.
Certainly you choosed the right thread to " win " slef notorious.

I can believe that you heard some of the cartridges mentioned through the thread but I think is almost imposible to heard all even me that I'm so fast to test cartridges I have several cartridges ( mentioned here ) that till today I had/have no time to tested.

That you like more the 103R means almost nothing against the MM/MI cartridges you compared because between other things that kind of comparisons depends not only on each one targets but on how good is the audio system and your skills to make the right set up to each cartridge.

If the 103 is your champion certainly you deserve it that king of performance level and nothing more.

Thank's to post here, welcome any time.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Storyboy: +++++ " this statement reveals your arrogance " +++++

I don't think so. Let me tell you something: that person posted that he prefers his 103R against " any single cartridge named here ".

I own the 103 and owned the 103R and I know and have very clear its quality performance level that's very good for the price these current Denon models have but this does not means that can beats not one of the very top MM/MI vintages but ( for example ) the Grace Ruby or the AT-20SS.

Do you think that a stock 103R could beats the Technics P100CMK4 ( for example ).?, IMHO the only chance to do it is because a wrong Technics overall set up.

For that person the 103 performance level is what he liked and then that's all what he deserve. Which the problem to posted in this way: arrogance? well that's your opinion mine is that that is what that person is " living " with.

Nandric posted that that post was " provocative " but IMHO was not provocative but almost stupid one because there is no single explanation by him as : why he think what he posted? or at least two-three cartridge comparison tests he experienced against his 103R even we don't know not only if his 103R is a modified cartridge and certainly we all don't know which audio system he owns and under which circumstances he made all those cartridge comparisons tests.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Fleib: Good to know you don't design AHT. This is the second-three times where we discuss about and if my memory don't fail in one of those ocasions you posted was the designer but now I can't be sure till I find out that post.

Anyway nice to read that: +++ " ICs are superior in some areas of performance. " +++++
that's in " some " and that's similar of what I posted: " advantages and disadvantages, nothing is perfect ".
The bigger disadvantage ( IMHO ) is that to achieve low distortions IC handle and works with hundred of feedback dbs and feedback has a " bad " signature " that IMHO uneven the ICs advantages.

Btw, my audio system is down for very different reasons. For your information the MM section just from the begining catches up and that's why this thread started. Only if my audio system can make " justice " to the MM/MI alternative I can post and posted whay you already read over the thread.

++++ " especially considering that your preamp is probably second rate " +++++

certainly that is something that you can't confirm but there are other persons that think is first rate and I can tell you that's second to none by design, quality design, quality's excecution and second to none quality performance level.
Any time you want could confirm my statement.

In the other side and as Nandric pointed out Agon forum is not a tribunal and I don't need and don't feel the necessity to give you or to give to any other persons any single explanation about.
It is clear to me that as you some other persons here are not not only my friends but persons whom I don't like them and try to take advantage any time they can.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Fleib: I think I was not enough clear and precise: I have not to give any explanation to any one on my private actions, period.

R.
Storyboy: Btw, I decided to modify the Astatic MF-300. I have good expectations about.

R.
Dear Lharasim: Maybe my IQ musical is inferior to the one you have but nothing for what I shame of me. Always trying to learn about.

As many other persons here I attend with some frequency to live events and yes the live music is my " natural " reference. This is what you can read on my Agon virtual system description:

+++ " My reference is: live music, I use at least 12 hours ( each month ) hearing live music, mostly classical and jazz/blues.
I attend to hear live music not only because I'm a music lover ( first than all. ) but because in this way I don't loose my references, this way I try to have my foots on earth an my ears equalized.

My audio/sound reproduction priorities are in this order: neutral and natural tonal balance, accuracy ( low distortion, low noise, no colorations, no cliping, grain free, liniarity, no compression, etc...), timbre, dynamics, focus and soundstage .

My whole audio system target is to be nearest to the recording adding the less and loosing the less of the audio signal through each audio system link. " ++++

In many ways my system is better than the " real thing " but this is only because a microphone at 2-3 m. has not only better resolution but takes in better way the live music sound than my ears at 15-20m from the music source.

In the other hand I try to mimic the natural tone color of the live music as its dynamic, this last with not very good success. No, I don't try to get what please me but what is right.

IMHO we can catch the whole real thing but only some " high lights ". How good are our each one systems depends on those real thing's " high lights ".

The suts issue could be controversial till we analyze one or two suts limitations like ( for example )to handle accurate/non-colored low bass frequency range against a good active design: no contest in this regards. The key here is " good " active phono stage design. There are many active and expensive high gain PS with a mediocre quality design, I don't know which ones you already compared against suts. Anyway, could be no important on the whole subject because by physics laws we can't do nothing against each technology self limitations where suts are more imperfect than active gain stages.

Btw, good that you " hear the REAL thing all the time ". I hope you already learned about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Jmowgray: +++++ " Even though Raul is not the biggest SS fan, I'm sure he would agree that this would be the way to go... " +++++

agree.

Btw, SS was the source that fixed my Virtuoso wood and I have no real compliant with. My take on SS subject was for what I posted months ago where B&O made a comparison with the two official B&O cartridge sources: SS and Axel. Well they find out that the work by Axel was a better one that SS one.

See you after 12 weeks of expectation!

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear nandric: That Virgo " scene " happen all the time. Modifications to axhieve a real improvement are not only modifications per se ( better this or better that. ) but a knowledge level and skills by your self because if not you only get a different performance but not a better one.

Certainly Dgarretson knows very well what he did and do everytime!

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Nandric: Perhaps the most " elusive " audio ling to design is a speaker. It is an electrical/mechanic item where is very complex to achieve an equilibrum between all the factors/parameters involved to get firt class quality performance in any environment.

It is IMHO so " elusive " to get the " near perfect " speakers that if we read or see through the Audio and Stereophile magazynes ( bible audio items year by year. ) we can confirm that spekers models are the higher number of items against any other audio link ( amps, TT, cartridges, cables, cartridges, CDP and the like ).

Obviously I don't heard every single speaker out there but I heard several ones from the top to the lower performance steps on the speaker quality performance ladder and even that there are some great designs I never encountered a " perfect one ", that's why I'm still with the ones I own that are far away to be perfect.

In many ways is more easy to modified speakers than to design it and that's why we can get real improvents through modifications.

This is the same that many of us already experienced through cartridge modifications as with the Clearaudio Virtuoso or Acutex or Astatic or ATs/Signets.

What all of us already made/done about: we decided to take a very good cartridge motor design and changed cantilever/stylus with great results.

Same happen with modified tube electronics and not so often with SS electronics where is way more dificult to modify it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear friends/Dover: I received my Dynavector Karat Nova 13D and it is just amazing the very high craftmanship level that Dyna achived here, the best I ever saw from Dynavector.

My sample came with out cartridge pin connectors but hard wired all over the dedicated headshell pin connectors. Everything looks so special on this cartridge: from its wood body and dedicated headshell through its removable stylus guard.
This cartridge makes that any one of us be so proudly to be an owner of this " baby " as I never experienced before.

I can't test it yet because my system still down and because through micro the stylus needs a retip. I have no doubt that will be a whole experience listen to this LOMC Dynavector.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Rnadell: There is no G800 source I know other than ebay/agon.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Albertporter: Very nice looking. Btw, what happened with the similar high output model, do you bought it?.

I own/owned both and I prefer the HO by a hair, could be interesting to know opinion from you. It is not often that the same person owns both models.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Timeltel: ++++ " from which I gather there are 130 various styli to select from. " ++++++

now I can see what move you more. Like with AT/Signet the Stanton/Pickering is a good toy for interchangeability not only between both lines but in between.

Maybe that's why you don't buy yet the Astatic MF-300 that appears frequently from the same seller on ebay: Astatic has not that versatility but I can tell you that even the top Stanton/Pick/AT or Signet could have a very " hard day " against it on quality performance level and of course Axel always is a good option to MF-300 up-grade.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Timeltel: I can see that like with the AT/Signet the S/P alternative gives a lot of fun:
++++ " from which I gather there are 130 various styli to select from. " +++

is this what moves you to be behind these cartridges?. I ask this because someone like you that like quality performance over other parameters don't try yet to get the Astatic " magic " and I wonder why . Today the Astatic ( MF-300 ) is still available ( NOS at very good price. I think we have to get it whiule it last. ) ) and IMHO worth to own with the perspective Axel's up-grade.

I don't heard the 500EE/XV-15 ( only the 981s. ) but for what other persons reports here on the Astatics and for what I heard those Astatics are a little better and I mean over the 981s.

Anyway, only " thinking " about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Jorsan/Jbthree: I think that may be could be a better alternative to the 981/980s to buy a similar motor Stanton cartridge and then send to Axel to a cantilever/stylus up-grade. IMHO this alternative can outperform the original one if for no other thing because the suspension " refresh " when cantilever/stylus is up-dated. Now, you not only can achieve a better quality performance but with less money.

Today and after several first hand experiences I'm for the vintage cartridge up date, till today every single cartridge I made the up date performs not different but way better: Acutex, Virtuoso, Dimension 5, etc are a good example.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Jorsan: I think that Timeltel or Dlaloum could help you in a better way than be on that " motor " subject.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Timeltel and friends: After read the link you posted about Stanton/Pickering OEM stylus replacement IMHO Axel is still abetter option, let me explain:

top of the " line " cantilever stylus is the berilyum cantilever along nude Shibata for 325 euros and with Gyger II 365 euros ( Gyger II is similar as the replicant 100 by Ortofon and is the one that comews with the top of the line Allaerts cartridges. ). Of course that we can choose boron or aluminum cantilever too for less money.
Another advantage is that we send the cartridge to Axel an he will make an inspection to the cartridge and will fix any single trouble on it so when we receive in return the cartridge we have a NEW cartridge with the best we can get today. Not bad !!!

Years ago I was reluctant ( in this same thread ) to modify the vintage cartridges I own but today I learned and IMHO I know I was fully wrong.

As I posted before: a good vintage cartridge motor with today " technology " ( cantilever/stylus and suspension refresh ) is not only a better cartridge than the original but a cartridge in a top and different " league ". So, today makes no sense to me buy vintage top of the line cartridges ( like that 981LZS ) but similar motors along an up grade. Yes for persons that are " collector's item " original status is the name of the game but I'm not a " collector's item ".

Btw, you had an important influence in me on this regard, thank's

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear friends: That's were the top of the line up grades but as Nandric posted somewhere: from the same source we can get superior overall cartridge performance with this " entry " level up grades: tapered aluminum with pressure fitted nude line (+/- 150 Euro) and boron / elliptical (?) for +/- 160 Euro.

Other than my Goldring G800 Axel (between others ) has on hand by me: Nagatron 9600, Azden P50E, Acutex flat nose 320, Clearaudio Virtuoso Wood, Astatic MF-300, Acutex 315 ( long nose ), Ortofon MC3000MK2, Dynavector Karat Nova 13D, Highphonic MCA6 and counting.

One advantage from my side is that I own two samples on some cartridges or at least a second stylus replacement sample and where I have not does not matters I make the up grade anyway.

Next step is to go a head with my ATs and a lot of different lines/models Empire cartridge ( I think I own around 10 models on the Empire lines. ) and with my AKGs. Well step by step because that means money.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Dgarretson: Well I know that is almost impossible to follow all the posts in the thread but I have some examples where the vintage cartridge up grade/date performs way better than the original not mid but top of the line: Sonus Dimension 5, Acutex 315, Clearaudio Virtuoso, Technics P100CMK4, AKG P100LE, etc, etc and today I'm sure that all my vintage top of the line that already send to Axel will outperform the original one: I have no single doubt about.

In other site I learned that the famous Garrot P77 ( that I own. ) share the same cartridge motor than the A&R Cambridge 77 and some other cartridge models,.
Well subject is that some A&R 77 Cambridge owners bought a Jico SAS stylus replacement ( today new design ) and they swears that not only outperform the original Cambridge but the Garrot P77 and even the today Garrot Optim ( ? ) that sent it back 2K dollars and you know for how much you can buy an A&R 77 Cambridge? no more than 100.00 and with broken stylus way lower and the up grade with the JIco is only 111.00

I have no doubt either that if you take your 981 and made an up grade will beats the original performance and I mean not different but better performance after the up grade.

I'm not refering you when I posted that make no sense to buy top of the line vintage cartridges if in the cartridge line exist lower prices for similar cartridge motors and this " IF " is the whole subject and answer to own the best of the best.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Dlaloum: Agree. One important subject is to ask the re-tipping source to make the work conforming the cartridge needs especially on the cantilever length and suspension tunning.

Yes, that load impedance along capacitance cartridge set up is critical. I found out that 100K works fine with almost all the cartridges I have but as you said we have to be sure making some measures about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Audiopulse: As I posted I'm not an expert on the Stanton/Pickering subject but I read on VE and Lencoheaven ( richard is the right member to ask here. ) sites the information on similar motors for different models so we have to take a look down there.

In the other side Dominic was my reference to obtain the Goldring G800 that it is already on the whole fixing retip/refresh work.
This G800 ( modified. ) is the today Dominic's reference so we have to try it. We can get for a few coins and then the retipping!

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Nandric: Well that " entry level " was to have a difference with the top up grade works.

I decided to move on this refurbishing vintage cartridges because we have to " move " we have to keep walking trying to learn trying to discover all what is a head of what we already have already know. IMHO there is a lot of land a head so why not try to conquer it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lewm: As Nandric posted Axel " take " English with no trouble. One advantage with him is that he handle nude : elliptical, superelliptical, line contact, shibata, Gyger2, etc, so we can get what we want with different cantilever build material: boron, aluminum, ruby/sapphire and Be.
Yes with more options is more dificult to make a choice.

You ask for differences when listening elliptical (0.2x0.7 ) against line contact and even that in theory there are differences on performance because in theory ( as Fleib posted ) you can get more contact area with the line contact things are that due to so many imperfections on playback that those differences could be real ones or only distortions from either stylus shape. In many ways could be more important how good the fixing source align the cantilever and the stylus in the cantilever and his " touch " in the suspension.

The other side is the real cantilever construction/shape/dimension and how good was polished the stylus. Each cartridge's fix source has its own cantilever and stylus source and not necessary the same one.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Acman3: As you and Halcro I like very much the Garrot P77. I just finished a comparison against my A&R 77 where even I interchange stylus in the cartridges and I have to say that performance is almost similar and I say " almost " because the A&R77 with the Garrot stylus makes a " tiny " better performance but this could be because the A&R 77 stylus has a lot more hours ( I bought it two weeks ago for " penauts ". and with two original stylus but both well used. ).

Now, I just received the Jico replacement and I like it in both cartridges and performs the same even that I listened only 3-4 hours I like what I heard that I already ordered two more Jico samples between other thinks because all the similar cartridge motors that Audiopulse posted I own and want to try.

Now, I will send to Axel the secon A&R 77 stylus replacement to an up grade in this way I will be abble to compare the Jico/Axel/Garrot/A&R and decide wich one in true is the ones that permit that both cartridges shows at its best but in the mean time I'm hooked ( for the moment ) with the Jico one.

Curious, the same bad experience you had with your 205 Jico is the one that other people reported in the net. I had and have very good experiences with the Jico SAS in my M97 by Shure.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Acman3: Jico SAS alternative as we experienced is not always the best option. Other than the Technics 205 bad experience I have first hand another one: when I bought my Shure M97 Jico SAS and due that I really like it a friend of mine owner of the Shure V15 VMR ask me about and I in some " stupid " way recomemend his the Jico SAS for his Shure with out taking in count what Dlaloum posted here several times with out taking in count the Shure V15 cantilever original build material.

What happened?: that my friend ordered the Jico SAS for his Shure and after 30 hours of playback we take in count that the Shure original stylus was way better than the more distorted performance in the JICO SAS. The only thing that I made with my friend was a " shamed ": sorry.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Halcro: I almost agree with you, as a fact your experiences are what through this thread other members reported including me.

Now, " working " again with LOMC cartridges in the last 1.5 year I found out at least two LOMC cartridges that did not conforms exactly as what you stated but that in some ways gives what we like for the top MM/MI and do it more accurate with lower coloration than in the MM/MI cartridges.

In a home audio system IMHO the frequency extremes are the ones that " tame " the midrange, as better the frequency extremes as better the midrange we have to recall that music is conformed by harmonics.

IMHO a " weak " link ( if we can name it that way. ) in the MM/MI cartridges against my prefered LOMC ones is at frequency extremes where one-two maybe 3-4 LOMC cartridges performs ( as I said ) with not only best applomb but with accuracy that the MM/MI even that are near it can't even.
I'm talking here of small/tiny " colorations/distortions " but not because are tiny are not there. System resolution and system accuracy IMHO is the name to evaluate that subject.

I'm waiting to receive all my MM/MI and LOMC " up graded " by Axel to make a re-evaluation on the whole subject looking for what I was missing before the up grade or lossing after it.

Something very clear to me is that the MM/MI performance quality level is almost always very high against LOMC where there are several cartridges that are terrible. The MM/MI alternative is more " even " on that subject.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lewm: +++++ " "It's more musical" " +++++

like " smooth " " musical " IMHO almost always is a sinonymus of un-natural and accepted coloration/distortion...

Live music is accurate and has natural tone color, it is smooth but at the same time with natural agressiveness.

Musical, smooth, warmer, analityc, lean and the like are audiophile terms that means that kind of performance is not accurate but colored and/distorted.

There are no audio systems that be perfect so those colorations are " normal " and the differences in between for quality performance level resides in those " colorations/distorions " level differences.

So it is normal for many people speak with those " normal " terms. Maybe we need a different set of audiophile words or change its today meaning.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lewm: Good that you know everything but I'm not making a critic about you but what your friend said that's acomumn audiophile vocabolary for say: " I like it " more that's " right ".

Anyways, I don't need to been at your place to know what you are talking about ( almost. ): I know that you use modified tube electronics, I know your analog rig and more or less your ES speakers so I don't have the necesity to figure nothing.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Halcro: That Jico SAS for the P77 could be something that you need to try and decide about. Is there a lot of difference with the original P77's stylus?, well I have to wait because again my system goes down but what my brief listening gives me was a welcomed add option to the Garrot/A&R 77.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Dgarretson: I have not that experience but normaly is hard to take out a cartridge in that condition and when goes out ( if this coukld happen. ) there is no way to mount it in an universal headshell: that cartridge was not prepared for that kind of set up/mount. In the other side always exist the posibilioty that trying to do it the cartridge could be damaged.

Now, I know that " something " is better that nothing but here differences on quality performance level are important beteen the MK2 and MK version, I mean not subtle. Of course that if you already own it you have to live with but if not then try to wait for a better carrtridge " offer ".

yes, I know too that the P100CMK4 ( stand alone version. ) is very hard to find out .

Btw, I was so stupid to let it go my MK4 version but fortunately I recove it. IMHO, any carrtridge looking for be name it the best out there must pass over the Technics P100CMK4 before can achieve that " name ". The MK4 is an extraordinary performer in its stand alone/non-integrated version.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Nandric and friends: As I posted maybe is time to have more precise and clear audio-words related to explain quality performance on audio-items.
A common audio language is a must to have but IMHO it is a lot more easy/simple tell it that achieve it.

I think that that " new " audio glozary must include two real aspects of the whole " thing ": objectivity with a touch of subjectivity.

The " touch of subjectivity " I'm talking is not the usualy: " I like it " or " what a soundstage " and the like, what I'm talking is a little on the side of what happen with live music through an audio system on subjects like: tone color, dynamic. agresiveness, direct sound, etc, etc. and not compare both mediums: live music against audio system, we can't compare it in any way and IMHO the best we can do is to take the live music as a reference of something we can't achieve.

Example, Dlaloum posted: ++++ " Speed / Dynamics - the ability to accurately reproduce the incredibly steep rise time of the many sounds of music. " +++++

why those " speed/dynamics " diferences are IMHO THE MAIN DIFFERENCEs BETWEEN LIVE MUSIC AND AUDIO SYSTEM. My take here is that in live music there is nothing but the air between the music instrument sound and you: fastest than this does not exist, is from here where the full live music dynamics belongs to that straight and simple: an audio system never can not even but not be near it. You have to think all the linka that exist between the live instrument to be recorded till that sound emanate from the speakers!!!! all the speed/dynamics took by the microphone were loosed on all those audio links during the recording and playback proccess.

Dlaloum ( I love this guy. ) posted: " soundstage / imaging when talking about transparency - personally I think soundstage / imaging are a side effect. " +++ and I agree with Lharasim here: who cares about when does not exist in live events as we talk in an audio system?, if you take a look to my virtual system music priorities this one is the last in importance to me.

I'm with Dlaloum about to take objectivity as main parameter to evaluate audio item performance. Not that I'm against subjectivity ( because I'm not. ) but if you think a little subjectivity depends on objectivity even if we are not measuring the right source, all what we heard/hear can be measure no doubt about.

Problem with subjectivity is that all of us are already biased to some kind of sound that we like because all what we learned ( bad and good things. ) and experienced and I have to tell: some of us and I can tell almost all are biased in a wrong way by the AHEE.
An example of this is that many people today still are in love with tubes ( please don't go inside that's is not a subject here but only an example. ) or with hoprns on speakers or LOMC cartridges or fancy cables.

How can we get or meet to a concens when we all are biased in some different ways?, to achieve that concens could be a fenomenal, titanic and almost impossible target with out a common bias on what we hear.

Years ago ( 1-2 ) in this thread I invited all of you to try again ( dertonarm posted the first official thread asking for the same and after 100 posts I was the only person that took the " bull by its horns ": no one else cares or understand the main importance of the subject in favor to understand in between all of us. ) to find out that common bias on what we heard. I explained about, even I linked my posts on that Dertonarm's thread, and the result was the same: no one cares. Everybody talks but no one really cares and do nothing about.

That's why some of you not only can't understand why I support that the FR-64/66 is the more distorted tonearm out there even some of you are in love with and like this tonearm subject there are many more.
We are in a Babel's Tower where more or less we think we understand each to other but the real subject IMHO is that is not that way: the warm term ( for example ) has several kind of meaning in each one of us, could be at random that some of us could coincide in the meaning but I can't know for shure.

An audio glossary terms IMHO means that we understand the same on one term ( tone color or dynamics or whatever. ): its meaning and that meaning how is reflected in our audio system. For achieve this we have to have a common bias on some LPs/tracks where all hear/experience almost the same. With out this common bias we can't go on.

Every one of us have their " propietary " system's proccess to make evaluations and that proccess is the one that we use every single time we are making comparisons.

I posted several times in this an other threads my proccess that always follow with the same tracks and the same protocol, I never changed and only make a change to enrich the whole proccess. That's why I'm so fast to evaluate not only an audio item but any audio system with over 90% of success, at least till now.

As you can see the task is a hard an complex one and more complex because as Lewm poste: normally " we agree to disagree ".

Anyway, sooner or latter we must do it. To live every single day in this Babel's Tower is useless and non-productiv for any one.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Halcro: Maybe you miss this post where I willl test all alternatives about the P77:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&7109&4#7109

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear friends: +++++ " and not compare both mediums: live music against audio system, we can't compare it in any way and IMHO the best we can do is to take the live music as a reference of something we can't achieve. " +++

that is what I posted one or two thread's pages before.

along:

++++ " soundstage / imaging when talking about transparency - personally I think soundstage / imaging are a side effect ( Dlaloum ). " +++ and I agree with Lharasim here: who cares about when does not exist in live events as we talk in an audio system? " +++++

I know that almost think 3D exist in live music and yes could exist if we are seated like funflyer at 40'-50 feets and even here depends on several factors as he pointed out.

Microphones are not at 40-50 feets but really near the sources, sometimes 1m-2m from there. Micros taakes the direct sound where exist no 3D and takes almost no reflected sound or at to low SPL that that reflected sound disappears with the higher SPL of the direct sound.
A classical music Director playing/performing a wide orchestral composition as any of the Mahler symphonies can't look for 3D at 2-3m from the source but more on pin point source on the sherzos/moderato stages but in the " tutties " he not only can't perceive that pinpoint image but certainly no 3D or any reflected sound as we can perceived 20-30 m from the Director main stage position.

If we hear or heard jazz music in a club/night jazz club it does not matters where we are seated ( normally all the seat positions are nearfield ) we can't detect the 3D phenomenon.

I read all the post here and after that I'm still with Dlaloum and Lharasim about: no real 3D in live events ( at least at the micro/Director position but only through audio systems.

Btw, two mics against multimics. I don't remember whom of you posted something like this: " at the end we heard with two ears not multimics ".
I agree in that we hear with twoo ears but we make all the functions that are similar of what the recording enginners makes but we make it in automatic version with no sound manipulations. Let me explain alittle what/which is my take here:

a musi's Director hear with two ears but he is hearing not from two sources , as can be what takes two mics, but from multi-sources ( each orchestral instrument: multimics. ) that inside his/our brain were blended in natural way with no single manipulation.
Problem with multimic recordings is that the blend is manipulated in the wrong way but not because is multimic recording.

I think that a good non-manipulated multimic is faraway a better one recording than a two mics one because these mics has no the habilities of: take the multisource sound and blend in natural way as our ears/brain do.

++++++ " , what I'm talking is a little on the side of what happen with live music through an audio system on subjects like: tone color, dynamic. agresiveness, direct sound, etc, etc. and not compare both mediums: live music against audio system " ++++++

I think in some way Lawrence posted something like what I posted too.

Now, if that 3D really you think exist maybe is time to ask our self: Ravel, Berlioz, Bethoven , etc, etc, took in count that reflected sound many of us are talking about? because that reflected sound is the main " culprit for that 3D image. My answer is NO no one of them took in count any single reflected sound in their compositions even in those old times several performances were in a free space.

I think that in some ways several of the 20+ last posts on the subjects are mixing apples with oranges, maybe I'm wrong or did not understanded those posts and the one mixing those apples with oranges is me but all these is what I think about.

I respect all opinions from you but I think we have to re-think about with out closing " eyes " when trying to evaluate something on the subject ( like Dover. ).

Btw, I almost always suppor and supported that in the very first moment we close our eyes when listening music in that same moment we are lsitening everything our imagination want to hear according how we are biased in that moment. Dear Dover, we hear and perceive sound from all our body including " open eyes " tha's the natural way not closed eyes.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Jorsan: Koetsu Rosewood cartridges are low riders low/medium compliance ones, not all samples are low riders because quality control on this model is not even but normaly are low riders but 1mm seems to me to low and maybe in that cartridge exist a suspension problem.
Now, if the cartridge performs good then maybe you have not be worried about.
In the other side and as I said there is no even quality control in this Koetsu model and depends on its vintage production how it runs.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Dlaloum: ++++ " We do not know what the composers did or did not intend, with the exception of the occasional letters/notes left by them. " +++++

I'm refering to this statement and agree with you. Of course that the halls are builded with the direct/reflected sound subject but I'm not refereing in specific to the halls.

I'm refering on what we can experience at the orchestral Director position or what we experienced in a jazz club where IMHO and trhough my experiences the direct sound SPL is so high that made that the reflected sound almost disappear. This happen at2m-3m from the sound source when in a hall we are seated 20-30m from there: way way differences on what we get and what the mics get with no manipulation.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Downunder: Great experiences. The Technics P100CMK4 with the right overall set up is just a fascinating performer hard very hard to beat and a real challenge for any cartridge out there.

Good that you own the stand alone version and good too to hear from you again.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Frogman: Yes, " musical images " could be better. Now, let me to ask you: which could be the musical image of a pair of horns/trumpets playing at 2m from you.? what musical image permit those trumpets natural agresiveness high SPL direct sound been percieved?

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Frogman: You understand my meaning and appreciated your answer.

Now, there is a link of my questions on the 3D " imaging, let me explain:

here in México city we can find out persons that are playing single instrument to get some " coins " to survive. These persons goes on a street walking block after block: this is their daily work.
Yesterday when I go out ( walking. ) very near of my home I heard the sound of a trumpet/horn coming from somewhere ( I was at 80m. from the source ) in the street in free space, even I can't seen the player but as any one of us immediatly I was aware was a live and real sound. I follow walking approaching the player till I was at 10m. in the other side of the street and even at 10m that high SPL ( in free space and with a normal street surrounded noise. ) that impose the trumpet gives that natural agresiveness we are talking about.

With my eyes open I try to figure the imaging on 3D and was elusive for say the least. I cross the street till I was at 2-3m and then at less than 2m: I can't detect that 3D. Btw, I love this people and if for no other thing because they give us the opportunity to enjoy a live music performance.

Well, I let that he finished and started to talk with him and because we were so near my place I invite him to come with me and explain what I want to test.

My place is an apartment with not to high ceiling, I asked him to play inside my place and knowing what a trumpet can makes ( high SPL ) in a closed room ( like my apartment ) I took position 6m from the source trying to find out that 3D we are talking about that 3D that came on the recordings and I can't perceive in that way: yes exist an overall " imaging " as you say ( and I agree ) but this kind of dimensionality is something that several audiophiles are not aware as you and other persons including me are.

I approach 2m from the trumpet and as you say that dimensionality almost disappear against the very very high SPL of the trumpet direct sound.

After those tests now I have a new friend, a good one.

Btw, even at 2m. inside my place the SPL even with its agresiveness does not " hurt " my ears and had not the necessity to " lower the volume " because I can't been aware of no single distortions like the ones that always exist in our each one audio system: any system.

Every single day even that I'm not a player I listen to live music because in the apartment next flor ( a top ) of mine I have two boys that are learning music: one with the guitar and the other with a piano, both are very good and even that the sound came from other closed room it is marvelous. Three four days everyweek I'm at its place hearing their " training ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.