Raul, What are your thoughts on the Technics 100C and 101C? Has anyone else tried one? I haven't read the bulk of this thread for a while, and I just did a brief search on Audiogon and find no reference to either. I seem to remember a reference earlier in the thread but don't remember if it was a mention or if anyone had tried one.
I first tried a 205C Mk3, which I very much liked, and then I tried a Garrott P77, and a Grace F9 ruby, and then I went back to the Technics 205CMk3 and I found it to be different but still quite competitive (the Garrott has a wonderful tight bass which makes listening to string bass a wonder). Then I tried the Technics 100c Mk4 and found it to be quite a bit better at the transients than the others I had tried. I am still trying to figure out whether I like the bass better than the 205C Mk3 and Mk4, but the treble has been better on the 100c, and the midrange is clear like I have not heard any other MM cart... wondering if it is the setup on which I got lucky or whether I have a real prize on my hands. I have to say it is a shockingly good cartridge.
Interestingly enough, I find myself comparing the MM carts I try with the FR-7f and the Sony XL-55s which I have discovered in the last 6mos. Many have the same combination of liquidity and attention to transient detail that the FR-7f has. |
Raul, The 101c was introduced the same year as the 100c Mk2; it had a titanium cantilever where the 100c had a boron cantilever. It also had a substantially higher VTF (2g vs the 1.25g of the 100c). Both were integrated headshell cartridges. I'll try to report back on the 100c vs MCs when I am back where they are... |
Lharasim, You are presenting everyone with a dilemna. What about selling one of the "few more"? :^) Not having a P-76, I cannot venture real-world experience but I based on my experience with other light-ish low VTF MM carts and these two arms (the MA-505 in a few different guises), I would probably keep the EPA-100. This offends my aesthetic sensibilities because I love the machined look of the Micro/SAECs of the era (aside from being a fantastic arm), but I think the EPA is a more flexible arm which sounds very good with my MM carts.
That said, the real problem with the EPA-100 in its normal configuration is that it cannot take heavy carts the way the Micro can (with an added c/w) unless you happen to have the sold-optionally heavy-weight end-piece for the EPA-100. |
Phaser, You'll like the Garrott P77. I think it is one of the better MMs I have. |
Raul, Let me know what you think about the 100c after you have spent some time with it. I heard one, and found it to be the best MM I have heard, so starting looking for more. I don't have an AKG or an AT180/170, or several of the others on this thread. I have the Empire 999Z/EX, the Grace F9, the Garrott P77, the Technics 205CMk2/3/4, and a few others, and end up liking the Garrott and the Technics 100C . I have not yet figured out how to explain the difference between the 100C and 101C in writing. I'll have to do an all-afternoon shootout at some point.
The one thing noone mentions is that because it has a built-in headshell, it is structurally quite sound. AND, it has an overhang adjustment feature in the cartridge mount itself. Very convenient - much more so than many other integrated headshell carts. |
Siniy123, I think the Yahoo Auction in question is here. By going through that dealer's online storefront, they have a 10% off sale for the next couple of weeks but I do not know if it applies to items on consignment like this one. |
WRT the AKG cart link in my previous post, keep in mind that there is 5% sales tax which needs to be added onto that dealer's prices. |
Raul, You could either make a new "system" on Audiogon and post the pictures there, and make links to them that way, or you could get a photobucket account and post them there. I cannot remember if there is a way to post pictures into the thread itself. |
Raul, Nice review. I knew you'd 'come around.' Separately, does anyone know how to deal with VdH's cart retipping service? I don't think Japan still has a VdH distributor to go through. |
Raul, Thanks. That's what I cannot figure out how to do. There appears to be way of contacting them directly on their website (or other) that I have found. |
|
Raul, On Technics 205C models... As far as I can tell, the first 205C was introduced just after the SP10 was introduced in the early 1970s. It had a titanium cantilever. The 205C-II was released a few years later. The 205C-IIS, -IIL, and -IIH were released around 1976, along with the first 100C and 101C, around when the SP-10Mk2 was released (the 205CMk3 released a few years later). In the 205-II later series where they started adding letters at the end of the model names, the S is the standard model (3.5mV), the H is High impedance/output (7mV), the L is Low impedance (and low output - 2mV). Out of those three, in my opinion the L is the nicest-sounding one, but that's just me. There is also a 205C-IIX but I have never figured out whether it was a replacement stylus or actually offered for sale as a cartridge. I have had a couple of those in and out of the system and they also sound nice. |
Raul, I don't know how different the 205CMk4 is from the 205CMk3, but between the 205CMk3 and the 100C there are several differences (despite use of similar materials in places): cantilever structure is different, and coil structure is completely different - the 205Cmk3 uses relatively bulkier coils, and the 100C has wisps of coils. FWIW, even in 1984, the price of the 205CMk4 was half that of the 100C version of the same period. |
Raul, In my statement about prices, I mean nothing other than what Technics meant by pricing them the way they did. It is a fact that their prices were different. Price does not always correlate to quality. I have a lot of cheap carts which are better than some more expensive carts. It happens less often within a given line, and the fact that some people somewhere prefer a lower cart in a line does not prove that two carts produced at the top of their respective model lines are even close to the same (which also does not prove that the less expensive one does not sound better). Perhaps Technics did not intend for the 100C to be a better cartridge with better sound when they used a more difficult/finer cantilever, and a different coil system, and a fairly significantly different electrical characteristics, matching it with their top of the line tables, and putting a price tag to match. Perhaps they did intend it, and were not successful. Perhaps they did intend it to be better, and for many people it is better, just not for you.
In my statement about their construction, I only meant exactly what I said. They have the same materials but different construction. You could probably make an HO MC cart with the same materials and almost the same specs and it would not necessarily sound the same.
As to specs being the same, I note that every single Koetsu made (according to a Koetsu retailer's spec sheet I have seen) has the same frequency response and compliance, and same channel separation and channel balance specs. Most of the materials are in the same ballpark. That does not mean that they all sound the same.
I have, at home (and have listened to) a 205C-IIS, 205C-IIL, 205C-IIH, 205C-IIX, 205CMk3, 205CMk4, 100C, 101C, 100CMk2, 100CMk3, and now a 100CMk4 (not to mention a 207C, 270C, 305C, and others). All of them are non P-mount carts. I have listened to all of them on a Technics table with a Technics arm. The 205CMk3/4 are quite good. There is also a 'house sound' to some extent. Personally, I prefer the 100C and even 101C to the 205C series and note the difference, as does my wife in a blind test, strongly preferring the 100C. That is perhaps just us and YMMV.
As an afterthought... among specs, the few that Technics published to my knowledge include one showing that the 205CMk4 has more than double the output of the 100CMk3 (and to my knowledge, 100CMk4 output was even slightly lower than the 100CMk3). The electrical properties which allowed for that would indicate a different level of sensitivity, and probably a different reaction to capacitance. It would also warrant a different loading level. Again, YMMV. |
Dgob, Thanks for pointing that out. I had not seen that. It may be useful. I think it would be great to strike while the iron is hot and allow professionals to disclose their affiliations with an "affiliations/disclosures" link as well. It would allow professionals to disclose the brands they sell/distribute/have a vested interest in, would allow non-professionals to observe the professional affiliations without someone (Bill) calling them out on it and the thread in order to make it clear. It would allow professionals to speak about their expertise in good conscience, without fear of appearing underhanded. End of rant. |
On the Technics 100C, my 100C carts (of varying "marks") are usually happiest at just over 1g up to 1.25g. Only one of mine has ever been "happy" at over 1.25g, and then after a while it settled down to be happiest at around 1.20g. Some of this (being happiest below the middle range) could be due to age as none of mine have been rebuilt or 'refreshed'. |
Downunder, The 407 has a pair of screws set at a 90-degree angle to each other, which tighten at the base (they go horizontally through the mounting collar). It's not terribly difficult to change VTA but it is not as easy as it cold be. |
Kcc123, a most informative post. Thank you. |
Raul and all, The Grace F-8F and F-9F had Shibata stylii and blue clamps, and were oriented for playback of quadrophonic records. The F-8/9E were the "normal" version which used the same super-light cantilever. The "Level II" stylii were the later/redux series of stylii for the F-8 body. The "14s" were for the F-9. Personally I like the Es with the elliptical stylii.
FWIW, there was a "60th Anniversary" stylus series with a "US-" model appellation which was released last year. It was offered only to people who had been registered with Shinagawa Musen as owners of Grace carts (i.e. people who had sent in those little cards which came in the box with the cart (i.e. very few), and who hadn't moved in the interim (even fewer)). They were re-dos fitting most of the extant bodies, with the possible exception of the lowest-cost F-8H and the broadcast-model F-8D. Most of them were quite wide bandwidth and had 'super luminal trace', 'special elliptical', or 'micro-ridge' stylii. I'm still trying to find one... |
Raul, I think it may still be 'alive'. The address and phone number show up in an online directory of Shinagawa Ward.
The best way to get in touch with them might be to go through Kimura Musen, as they were a/the main retailer in Akihabara for Gracecartridges and replacement stylii. |
Wayne,
I do not have the experience with the "western" brand tonearms such as the Helius, Roksan, etc (even though they are probably made at the same factory as the Japanese tonearms). I have no experience with the JELCO arms. I like the long SME 3012R with some carts.
Among "vintage" arms for less than your budget, I can highly recommend the Micro Seiki MA-505 (any version; the MkIII is most versatile, with different armpipes, but I personally prefer the regular 505 or the X with silver wire); the Audiocraft arms (also sold as "Ultracraft" in the US) such as the AC300/400 and AC3000/4000 (the 3000/4000 have variable damping and several different armwands making cart-matching a breeze across low to high compliance carts); some of the arms from Stax and SAEC; and the Technics EPA-100 arms (or the 500/250 arm/armwand arms) are great and occasionally show up at around that price (more usually a little more). Most of these will work well with all but the highest of compliance carts. The Audiocraft AC3000/4000 will even work with those, as will the EPA-100 and EPA 500/250. With most all of these, it is not too difficult to find someone to rewire them later if necessary.
Disclosure: I have used and own a whole host of older Japanese tonearms (I live in Japan) both in the sub-$1000 range and above. I will probably be letting go of several arms in the not too distant future. I have previously owned/used/purchased/used at least one of most of the above, and may again. |
|
I know that in the past certain manufacturers had a 'recommended' capacitance level but is there a case with an MM cart where MORE capacitance would be desirable than the minimum possible? |
Raul, I generally use the "ears" guide. I am fine with the distortions in my speakers. However, I am also interested in learning the science behind sound. So far I have not run into a case where I could change the capacitance upwards AND doing so sounded better with an MM cart. Maybe I am missing out on life in the high capacitance lane... |
3s are sometimes available. 4s are quite rare. You usually have to wait until they come out on ebay or similar. JICO made a stylus specifically for the 3 but they too are rare, and out of production. JICO styli for the 205CIIX are available much more frequently. I have heard they will fit the 3 but have no experience and so would take that info with a big grain of salt.
Separately, it is possible that a company such as Roundale Research (a Japanese retipper) or JICO themselves could retip/re-cantilever the stylus carriage you have. |
Brings new meaning to "that cart really got my feet tapping!" |
Lew, DU probably prefers a good bottle of Barossa Shiraz (or some of that lovely single vineyard grenache produced by Mr. Bratasiuk, of which I think I have now a decade-plus supply of :^). The 205CMk3 and the later Mk4 also used boron cantilevers, but a different coil system (both turns and, it would appear, wire). They are quite good but they lack the 'grace' of any of the 100Cs. I am not sure of the right descriptive words, but I find the 205 series more 'meaty' in the treble registers where the 100C is more 'wispy'. The biggest 'problem' with the 205CMk3/4 is that they have bigger brothers which are so good. The 205CMk3/4 are fine carts in their own right.
The 100Cs get better as you go later, and perhaps more importantly, for 'pig-in-a-pokes', the TTDD dampers were implemented from Mk2 and beyond meaning they may last longer. Personally, I like all of them. I find them more alike than different, but they do sound a bit more MC-ey (in terms of presenting detail) as you go to the later models. If I had to choose just one, I'd choose a Mk4, but I have at least one of each and like them all. I also like the 101C (which as far as I know only had one generation) which seems to get no comment on these boards. |
The EPC-101C was introduced at the same time as the EPC-100CMk2 (1979) at the same price. The 101C has a titanium nitride cantilever. Like the 100C it has a 0.2x0.7mil elliptical stylus but has a slightly larger 'square-block' diamond tip on the stylus than the original 100C (and the Mk2). The Mk3 and Mk4 tips were even smaller. The 101C plays with a fair bit more VTF (2.0g if memory serves). I have never seen a compliance number. I have seen them in black and champagne-color one-piece headshells. I have never seen a P-mount 101C. Personally, I'd probably rather have a 100CMk4 than a 101C but I'd much rather have a 101C than a 205CMk3. The 101C is, if anything, more MM-ish in my mind than the 100C. I assume the 101C was seen as 'losing' to the 100C at the time so was not continued. It could have been marketing (because not long afterward, the label on the new EPA-100Mk2 was 'boron' rather than 'titanium nitride' even though the Mk2 armpipe is a boron-titanium mix) or it could have been that everyone preferred the boron - it IS lighter and probably performs better. Another possibility was a desire to make all the cantilevers for the top carts be the same - Technics must have had a serious 'boron farm' operating at the time.
FWIW, the 101C is not very common, and I have seen almost nothing written about it. Raul may not have ever heard it. Also, 'foxtan' is out of Hong Kong I think. |
Siniy23, I did not know there was an AT22. The AT23 is kind of a 'slightly junior version' of the AT25. Bigger stylus. Have been looking for one but haven't found one. |
Timeltel, Just to tease you further, the 'final' iteration of the F-9 series was the F-14 series, which had the choice of aluminum, ruby, boron, beryllium, and sapphire cantilevers with micro-ridge styli. Then there was a 60th anniversary version released last year which had an MR stylus. |
Halcro, you may find Jcarr stays away from that line. There isn't much near-term upside for Beelzebub to get into a discussion on deism with the newly faithful... Or is it a case of trying to pull back the Proud, Envious, Wrathful (I am probably in the higher altitudes -Gluttonyville) from across waters where they perch on Mt Purgatory... Heck, you're from the southern hemisphere... |
'Vast' is inaccurate. I have one of each but don't have enough listening time on either to say that they rock my world. I'll get to them eventually. |
|
Perhaps Jcarr can enlighten us, or those with period catalogs (from 1969 for the FR-5/FR-5E and the mid-1970s for the FR-6SE) might be able to add to this. I am not sure the FR-6 was meant to be an 'upgrade' vs the FR-5. From the drawings I remember, it is basically the same as the FR-5. It appears to have been meant to rectify an issue with the FR-5. IIRC, the prices of the two were not significantly different, despite the passage of time. From what I remember reading an interview with Ikeda-san from probably 18 months ago, he said the FR-6 was built because the F-5 toroidal core was too small. He explained that the replacement stylus assembly sleeve was super-narrow and dampers were sized to fit perfectly (no extra space) and to remedy that, he had made the FR-6; it had a larger coil, and larger magnet, and larger hole for the replacement stylus. A Stereo Sound reviewer noted that the FR-6SE "sounds like an MM made by a guy who makes MC carts"; another noted "if listening blind, lots of people would say it is an MC cart." |
Raul, The specific quote I mentioned was regarding a specific cartridge and was made by one reviewer to two more reviewers. I inferred he was talking about people who might normally have experience with both. I inferred from the article that the particular cart(s) in question had an MC-like sound partly because of their design and execution. After I wrote that, I dug out the magazine and checked what I wrote against what was in the article and see no reason to change what I wrote. I also would not use that quote in any other general sense.
So far, in my personal experience, I have found that great carts sound great. I have heard lousy-sounding MCs and lousy-sounding MMs. Personally, I find that lousy-sounding MMs have a different way of sounding lousy than do most lousy-sounding MCs. As they get better and better, MMs and MCs start sounding similar. I do not find that MMs are better bang for buck than MCs when bought new. I do find that examples of great MMs from yesteryear can be found cheaper than great new MCs. This is not terribly surprising. However, I find that there are some great old MCs from yesteryear too which sound better than MCs which cost much more when bought new. There could be a whole long thread about those. It might not get to be quite as long as this thread but that wouldn't be for lack of merit, or number of great carts available.
While I agree that there are several MM/MIs which are just plain great carts, I for one have not moved to MMs exclusive forsaking all MCs. I find some of my MCs to be preferable to any MM I have yet heard, and I have none of Raul's favorite MCs. It could be the phono stage and head amp I am using are better matched for MCs than the phono stages/SUTs/headamps used by people who find MMs better than their MCs. It could be difference in taste.
I, for one, am curious to know whether there are inherent design issues which make high-end MMs more pleasing than high-end MCs to some people. I have my suspicions, but they are certainly speculative, so I will leave them to myself for now hoping that I can discover the reason for myself at some point. |
Lew, I agree that there is so much difference that getting to where we like is bound to involve different tools.
FWIW, titanium cantilevers were, as far as I have read, made first by Technics in the very early 70s. The first generation 205C had a titanium cantilever, as did the later 101C (introduced somewhere between 100CMk2 and Mk3). I think the 205CII-X also did, which may be why some people actually prefer the IIX to the Mk3. I think Audio Technica had at least one or two carts with titanium cantilevers, and AudioNote (or whoever made theirs) had/has a few with titanium cantilevers, as did Pioneer in the 70s and I believe ADC as well. |
Lew, I'd have to agree with others saying that something was not right. A properly set-up UNIverse will have absolutely no issues with bass. In general, I find the UNIverse's treble extension to be quite good as well.
Now back to your regularly-scheduled thread. |
Dgob, and others who have used the systems, How much of the difference comes from the plinthlessness and how much from the use of the Audio Technica footers? Did you try the footers underneath the plinthed SP-10Mk2 as well against the unplinthed SP-10Mk2?
Any thoughts as to why unplinthing it would make you feel as if pitch would become 'more perfect'? IME, I think that all of those things - composure, detail, timbre, etc all arise from the added detail of reduced resonance 'noise.'
I personally believe that some kind of pneumatic isolation system is one of the easiest ways to make almost any turntable sound better. |
Dgob, A few of my TTs have the isolation built in (Denon DP100, Exclusive P3). The Technics SP-10Mk3 stock came with similar footers. I have a number of magnetic flotation footers from Yamamoto and Sony and have used those under many tables. Currently, one set is under an L-07D. I have also put lab-use air tables underneath TTs and think the world of them in terms of performance to cost ratio (I buy them used off auction from people who resell lab equipment). All in all, other than room treatment (the ugly kind), I think good pneumatic isolation is the best bang for buck upgrade anyone can make for an already decent analog sound reproduction system. The lower the resonant frequency the better (you can get very low through the structural attributes of the isolation system you use, or you can achieve something a bit similar by going to the heavy end of the loading range of your footers (i.e. if your footer does 3-6kg apiece, go for 5-6kg effective load).
That said, I have not yet seen anyone come up with a test of a good plinthed table vs the same table unplinthed. Most of the commentary so far has been "unplinthed is great" (which I see no reason to deny). Philosophically, I am very sympathetic to the Micro/Kenwood/Exclusive/Sony(PS-X9) method of keeping the bearing-armmount relationship as rigid as possible, though as long as an outboard armpod were as immovable as possible, and mounted on the same base/plinth as the part supporting the bearing, and both were very heavy (armpod and the thing supporting the bearing), you'd be accomplishing pretty much the same thing. |
Dgob, I personally think it makes sense to keep one's TTs away from air-borne resonance in any case, but this could be one place where the mass-loading would help to overwhelm air-borne vibration if there was no way to avoid some influence. The Japanese engineers who designed tables in the late 70s and early 80s generally took airborne vibration into consideration (Denon and Exclusive in particular seem to have paid attention to that; and I think Micro's attention to that is obvious); their general method of combatting it was mass, special dustcovers (at the top end of the chain), and for Denon and others, work on mats and platter suspension (Denon's dual-platter construction on the DP80/75 and DP100 at a minimum, perhaps on others too) was meant to deal with airborne resonance influences). |
Dlaloum, Thank you. Very clear. I agree. The trick is finding carts with structurally low inductance (i.e. fewer coils and low internal impedance, nececssarily leading to lower output?). This sounds like a Technics 100C... |
Stone him! Stone him! Stone him! |
Banquo, Even when markets have price data widely/publicly available people 'overpay' (pay more than the last person). Given that the information can be completely asymmetric in auction purchasing (if I have purchased a used cart from Seller X before but the other participants have not, I may feel I have a better understanding of what 'looks really nice' means, which will enable me to pay more (or be willing to pay less) than what the 'last price' was.
The way to make the data public might be for someone who tracks the data to post it once in a while. But again, sometimes more data is not really more useful because while a share of a stock is the same as the next, a used cart is decidedly not.
I expect this is more a case of caveat emptor than anything else. |
|
If it comes with all 23 templates, it would make sense for a few of us, but one thing with the Mint is that when you sell the arm, you can include the protractor with it.
Wonder why the templates are also $65 apiece... Can't really use a template without the device and you seem to get all the templates with it in the first place... |
My apologies to all for not having read the description in sufficient detail. It is there for all in gory detail. It all makes perfect sense now. Now I'm curious about the 'more benefits not apparent on first sight'... :^)
It certainly looks like a really top-notch design, especially useful for someone who has a boatload of arms. |
Banquo, I think the tonearm on the original PS-2250 is the PUA-114. I always thought the 2250 looked kind of cool - a period piece as an interior decorator might say - but I have never tried one. I liked the looks of the TTS-3000 so much I bought one, but have never done anything with it. Oops. |
Timeltel, It is only the rest of us who have systems we actually choose and like, and compromise with the various distortions that Raul promises are everywhere in audio. It is obviously true that more than one road leads to Rome, but perhaps that is where the rest of us are lacking... We are all heading for Rome! It seems at least one of us claims to have found the road to Olympus so as to meet up with Apollo!
And those who are careful with their mythology history will know where I am going with this... :^) |
Hi Timeltel, Welcome to the club. My system sucks too, and I cannot know that because I have not learned anything over the years, because if I had, I would only know that I don't know. I am, therefore, blissfully ignorant about being blissfully ignorant. Which is convenient... Because otherwise, being learned (or at least further up the Learning Curve), I would have to confirm, with authority, that I did not know whether I was ignorant or not.
Yours in blissful ignorance, |
There you have it Thuchan... Don't respond, but do check, but... know before checking that if you like what you have vs what visits, you already know you are wrong so don't need to respond then either. It's good to know you have someone watching out for you, isn't it? |
Lew, Any idea where to find a replacement stylus for the 981? I have a body which has long been sitting in my drawer but it remains stylus-less. :^( |
Lew, Mine is actually a 981 HZS with a D98S II stylus (with broken cantilever). I wouldn't mind finding a 981 LZS. |
Nandric, I don't think it is as much "emotional aspect" as the coincidental appreciation of the aesthetic aspects. I was just discussing this very aspect of the FR-64S a few days ago with someone else deep into analog. Neither of us are currently using one but both of us have. I actually think the other guy brought it up, but we had a short discussion about the industrial design aspects - just the looks, nothing else.
I don't know of another tonearm where I think the industrial design is as well done, but other ones which I think also have great industrial design are the Dynavectors, the Morch arms, the Schroder, the Scheu Classic, the Artemis Labs arm.... and there are still others where I think the aesthetics are excellent, but in terms of industrial design are not as well done (the Triplanar certainly looks 'industrial', and I happen to like its looks, but it is not what I would call great industrial design). |
Geoch, If I were a museum curator, and had to put a single tonearm into a museum as an example of good 20th century design, it would be the FR-64S. If I had to put a group of them in, they would include the Dynavector, the Morch, the Triplanar, the Scheu Classic, possibly the Thales (or both), and the Karlsson arm from about CES about 8-10yrs ago. A larger collection would include a bunch more, including the Garrard 100 arm, the great stonking long one which went on Denon broadcast tables of the late 50s, a Wilson Benesch ACT tonearm, and probably even a SAEC. While I admire the industrial "look" of the SAECs, and think they look great on my stainless plinth for my Technics, they don't have the design simplicity to make them truly great design. I might even prefer the looks of the SAECs to the FR-64S, because they look like they are supposed to do what they are supposed to do. My comment about the FR-64S has nothing to do with tonearm performance/quality/desirability - just good design. |