Dear friends: The Vetterone's advise is not only very good but a necessity with almost all MM/MI cartridges in favor of better quality performance cartridge level.
That critical subject already was discussed three-four times through this thread and other than Lewm/Vetterone and me I can't remember whom one else took that " road ".
One advantage of the LOMC cartridges is that the cantilever/stylus assembly comes fixed against MM/MI removable assembly.
I can remember in one or two of those " warm " Signet 5-7s / At 20SS dialogues between Halcro/Timeltel with me that I pointed out that a main difference was how loose came the stylus assembly in those Signet 5s-7s against the ATs and I said that that was one reason of lower quality performance on the Signets against the ATs.
I remember too my post when I received from VdH my Nagatron 350 that performed better than ever and one of the reasons was that VdH glued the stylus assembly to the cartridge body and I noticed that in the post.
Other post was when I point out the advantage of those MM/MI cartridges that came with fixed or almost fixed stylus assembly as: AKG P100LE, B&O lines, ADC TRX, Technics P100CMK4, Signet TK10MLSeries2 and TK9s, Grado ones, etc, etc.
A loose stylus assembly always is a distortions focus and we can hear it.
Even that the 420 IMHO has nothing to do against the 315 or 320 long nose and flat/square one. Of course that perform better but the 315 and 320 improves in the same way and then the differences in between prevailing.
Anyway, now that Vetterone brought here again the subject I think is time that we take it in count more serious in favor of better cartridge performances.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: +++++ " After all, Raul's system and mine are pretty much as far apart in concept as two "high end" systems can get. " +++++
you always support that kind of statement to validate that " caution ". Till today and even that I posted several times here and in other threads IMHO the only differences between you, me and any other person are the kind of distortions that you have to accept against mines or other person and that's all: system?, who cares.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Citizen Steve, By the term "stylus holder", do you refer to the "stylus assembly", the entire element that comes out when one removes the stylus from the "body"? I found a similar strategy worked very well with my Stanton 980LZS. Apparently Stantons are notorious for having loose stylus assemblies. Mine was VERY loose. I took a very small rubber band and wrapped it around the stylus assembly/body so as to squeeze them firmly together. Man, does that cartridge sound great now. I think a lot of MMs suffer from this malady that is so easy to fix in a variety of ways. (But there's no going back from super glue.)
Dear Nikola, I understand exactly where you are coming from. I have not had 100% correspondence between Raul's opinions of cartridges and my own, after I audition ones that he has recommended. But his batting average is very high, I do admit. Nevertheless, those few instances of discordance are sufficient for me to realize I need to form my own independent opinion before taking the drastic step of selling one of these rarities. After all, Raul's system and mine are pretty much as far apart in concept as two "high end" systems can get. That alone justifies caution. |
Dear Lew, There are so many MM carts and I am , or like to believe, an cautious guy despite 4 Acutex 420. But I am very glad to have Rauls and other opinions for my orientation. I don't own all carts which Raul recommended but those that I own are without exception exactly as Raul described them. So I trust his judgement or his ears for 100%. However I also own carts which he never commented on like Stanton 881 S , Signet 9 Cl ,etc. I may have listened to the Acutex 420, 412 and M 312 for a to short period of time but they all were no match to my Virtuosos's, AT 180 and even Stanton 881S. My Signet 9 CL is NOS and so unbelievable beatuful that I am not brave enough to try. So I see no conflict or inconsitency between my believe in Raul as well is my own judgment. However I am only interested in the top MM carts because I already own some very good MC carts like Ruby 3S, Phase Tech P3 G and EMT 6. Besides my Basis Exclusive (2010) phono-pre is more suitable for the MC - than MM carts.
Regards, |
Hello citizens. If you want to get the most out of your 4XX series Acutex carts, try this. Remove the stylus guard and super glue the stylus holder to the body. Just a drop on each side and on top is enough. The stylus holder on both of my 420 units did not fit any where near tight enough IMHO. The improvement is more than subtle. Not much to lose. An Xacto knife will let you remove the stylus holder if you should need to in the future. |
Regards, Nikola: In 1992 J. Gordon Holt left his position as technical editor at High Fidelity magazine, this is part of his address: "We speak in hushed and reverent tones about reproducing the ineffable beauty of music, when in fact much real music is harsh and vulgar and ugly. We design the all-important musical midrange out of our equipment in order to try—vainly, I might add—to re-create the illusion of three-dimensional space through what is essentially a two-dimensional reproducer. And whenever we hear a loudspeaker or a CD player that shows subversive signs of sounding more "alive" or "realistic" than most, we dismiss it out of hand as being too "forward" or "aggressive." As if a lot of real music isn't forward and aggressive!
Where did we go wrong?
"Part of this new skepticism about reproduced realism is because we've trained ourselves to listen well—perhaps too well. We've learned how to listen into the fabric of the sound, and hear the small distortions that mean "imperfection," so our ears have become very hard to fool. Yet how often have all of us heard music from a distance at an unexpected time and been startled by it because we knew instantly it wasn't reproduced, it was LIVE? How did we know so quickly unless, in fact, the real thing sounded completely different from what we're accustomed to hearing reproduced? Because that's where we're at. Real sounds very different from reproduced."
Thirty five or so years ago, his name forgotten but an approximation of his cautionary statement remains, "It is possible that some cartridges are so extremely analytical that the musical value of the performance is lost".
There are some very good cartridges that, IMHO, fall more into the "fun" group rather than "fine". The Acutex LPM 315STR-111 with its phenomenal bass, the Grace F9-L's ebullient mids or the reduction in hf brilliance heard when the ATN15XE stylus is substituted for the 20SS.
Micro-detail is desirable but can, in some instances, lead to the reduction of continuity. Extended hfs give one the impression of greater "air" but can become fatiguing, as can extravagant bass during long sessions. Excluding channel balance and separation, exaggerated soundstage may be related to phasing manipulations, there is a most interesting thread relating to a $4000.00 "QOL" device running in the "Amps" forum, it's worth reading. I suspect Tomlinson Holman and Carver "Holographic" amps, as well as Pio. & SAE "sound expanders" were doing the same thing in the '70s. Most musical information resides in the midrange region which is also commonly referred to as the "presence" region, consider all of the above as selective quotes or, from the purists perspective, the indefensible opinion expressed by a "self-confessed midrange junkie".
Fully aware of the difference between subjective and objective, also between "High End" and consumer level gear, it's always difficult to reconcile the position that "If it sounds good, it is good. If it measures good but sounds bad then you're measuring the wrong things". Or, as that muckraker Voltaire said (again) "Best is the enemy of better". Presuming a certain level of quality exists and that one is sufficiently experienced to make that determination, it then becomes a matter of implementation. No matter how highly the cartridge is thought of by another, it's neither a rationalization or unarguable that systems/environments differ so on the most elementary level of evaluation, if it isn't entertaining, why bother?
Do give the Acutex 412 a ten hour spin, it's good little cart.
Peace, |
Dear Nikola, Did you listen to the Acutex LPM420? If not, perhaps you should open one up and give it a try. It is not a given that the opinions of others will govern your results. Raul got into this MM stuff by having an open mind and by disregarding the pronouncements of the audio establishment. This is the biggest lesson I learn from Raul. And so I recommend to ignore even his opinion in lieu of developing your own. If you have had a listen, then I would like to know what you thought about that cartridge. I haven't opened the box that mine came in, so far, but I only bought one. |
Dear Griffithds, I know that my Balkan humor and the way I express my self can cause some amazement but you should not expect to much from the Acutex 420 STR. It was not my intention to praise the thing but to get, if possible, some good advice how to get rid of them. I was very lucky with the Virtuoso's but feel somehow punished for my greedy conduct with those Acutex carts. Anyway you are entitled to feel happy with your AKG Super Nova VdH because a good stylus for this cart is impossible to get.
Regards, |
Hi Nandric,
I have been enjoying my AKG Super Nova VdH so much that I have been sort of neglecting the last great find we discovered, the Acutex 420 STR. Thanks for reminding me. I will mount it for a comparision with the AKG. |
Dear Raul&Timeltel, By the so called 'top line' carts we usually see three carts in a special series ranked as 1,2 and 3. It is also usual that all three have the same generator. We all, I assume, will try to get the nr.1 but it is not necessarily the case that nr.1 is the best in the serie. If I remember well our Prof. prefered Acutex LPM 315 above 320 while Raul prefer MF 200 above MF 100 and probable AKG P8E above P8ES. If the only difference between such carts is the compliance than , probable, the cart/tonearm combo used may explain the preference. However there are also differences qua cantilever and stylus used. This aspect is more hard to explain. Considering the fact that we all are willing to pay much more for the nr.1 then 2 or 3 it looks to me relevant to elaborate on this phenomena. When Danny provided the 'Italian proposition' for the Acutex 420 STR ; 'the latest top line' cart with the'lowest possible mass-tri radial stylus' I was very fast to buy 4 of them. But one can imagine my feelings when Raul posted his comment about this one. I still own all of them + 3x 412 STR btw.
Regards, |
|
Dear Nandric: Yes, that's what my post means.
After Acman3 brought to the thread his experiences with the Astatic MF-200 and MF-300 I was curios ( as always. ) to confirm his findings and what a great " surprise " because my MF-200 is a fabolous performer and even better than its bif brother and top of the line MF-100.
I was so sticky with the MF-200 that I refused to test the MF-300 even that Acman3 had very good praise on it and when I decided to my system goes down.
Certainly I need to test in deep the MF.300 that following the Acman 3 opinion I think it is a very good challenger.
I hope you can find out one of these Astatic ones.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Raul, Considering the amount of carts that you own your 'sound memory' is remarcable. I missed, alas, your post about the MF 200 but you mentioned your MF 100 in your first post (2008!) among the top carts then. Then recently you was suprised with the MF 200 and even 'shocked' by the MF 300. But the context of the MF 300 was your expectation as you pointed out. Ie you deed not expect from a third model in this series to be so good. This may mean that this cart is 'so good' considering the price?. If I understand you well this is your provisional valuation because your system is 'out of work' (sorry to hear that). So I assume that as soon as your latest 'mod' of your system is done you intend to spend more time with the MF 300. Then you will in a better position to 'rank' the MF 300 in (co) relation to MF100 + MF 200 as well in general. That is probable why you wrote 3 question marks after MF300. Regards, |
Sorry Lespier, Even for someone who is not a Kantian this is a (too) easy way out. Your excuse is like Raul blaming us for his 100 + carts. To my knowledge only the Freudians have a good excuse: the father or ( most probable) the mother. |
Dear Acman3: Yes, I remember what happen in that time.
I bought the three Astatic cartridges NOS but the MF-300 that was second hand. I never give the time to the MF-100 and if I remember the test on the MF-200 was only to know was in good operation condition. When I mounted the MF-300 I was " shocked " for what for me in that time was an inferior cartridge/performer against both top of Astatic line, I mean " inferior because was the third step model from the top but not because of comparisons in between Astatic cartridge line.
Unfortunaly right now my system is out of work and I can give a listen to the MF-300 but certainly I will do pretty soon.
These MF-200 and MF-300 are just overwhelming cartridges against almost any cartridge in our each one top of the list ones.
The Astatic experience IMHO is a must to have to experience to any music lover.
Oh!, that tremendous applomb that the MF-200 shows with its tracking " power " second to none ( Mf-300???' ).
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Nandric Sorry to say I've been a little busy(lazy??) and am yet to try either the Piezo or the Signet TK7ea I also picked up recently........you guys are a bad(good??)influence:-) I will get around to it eventually but at the moment am making some changes to amp and speakers so comparisons are a little meaningless. |
Dear Lespier, I am still curious about your comparison between the Piezo YM 308 and Acutex M 320, etc. series. What is your conclusion if any?
Regards, |
Hey Danny im in a waiting mode hopefully I will get a green light to ship soon. How's all on your end Mike |
Hello Stltrains, Mike, any update on the AKG100le?
Danny |
Hello Raul, While looking at discussion on another thread I was lead almost unbelievably, to your statements on the Astatic MF300 on 2/8/08 on this thread. Check it out. You were talking to Goodytwoshoes. |
Regards, Lew: Just a small detail, you say? Reminds me of the '56 DeSoto a guy tried to sell me many, many years ago. "Just a rod knocking" said he. Just finished listening to Willie Nelson's 1978 "Stardust" with the F9-L, a delightful combination. Don't laugh, I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool Willie fan but this one is very nicely recorded in a "you are there" way, Columbia #JC35305 mastered by Bernie Grundman. Booker T. Jones does piano and organ on classics like "Stardust", "Georgia On My Mind", "Blue Skies", 'Moonlight In Vermont" and "On The Sunny Side Of The Street". Lively bass, crisp brushes on the cymbals, plinky nightclub piano and Willie just strumming along, it's all good.
I'm a self-confessed midrange junkie so when the F9-E dies, and since to my ears it seems a little forward in the hfs, it'll then get the LC/ruby fix. Check yr email.
Peace, |
|
Hi Tom, I bought a second Grace Ruby that is really like new except for the small detail that its cantilever was wiped out along with the stylus. I intend to have it rebuilt, most likely by SoundSmith. As you may know, they offer a ruby cantilever/line contact stylus rebuild that looks to be the best choice for the Grace. Do you have any thoughts on the sonic effect of going to an LC from the stock elliptical one on an original Ruby? Thanks. Anyone else can chime it, too. |
Regards, Nandric: Hi, Nikola! In a purely conversational mode, here's some more to toss around, this from Dual in the '70s when everyone drank the low-mass koolaide: "The high inertia of a typical tonearm-cartridge combination with a total of 18gm effective mass causes a stylus to dig in when riding up a warp and to take off when riding down. Tracking angle and tracking force can vary as much as 30 percent(!) and a warp as little as 1.5mm can cause distortion of up to 2.7 percent. (---) "Tracking the same 1.5mm warp with a tonearm of 8gm total mass reduces this same distortion to 0.01%, that's 270% less than that produced by the typical tonearm. Not only is the overall sound audibly improved, but stylus and record life are significantly extended."
All appropriate "caveats" apply to the marketing propaganda quoted above.
I've several styli intended for the Signet AM20me, a miniature elliptical on a thin-wall al. alloy cantilever and it performs wonderfully. One of my favorites but when considering the contact area of the stylus then accelerated record wear when compared to LC/Shibata/Gyger or the spectacular Ortofon Replicant (100um major radius) is a concern.
Due to various criteria, some defensible and some not, a LC stylus with a healthy major radius mounted on a be. cantilever has become a first choice. Oh!, the sacrifices we vinylistas make.
Have you listened to the TK9LC yet?
Peace, |
Hello Raul, I only had the Astatic MF200 cartridge to compare MF200 to MF300 stylus. I now have another Mf400 body for back up but other than verifying it worked I have not compared to MF200 body. |
Dear Professor, Your lecture is as usual impressive and scientific founded. I own the AT 180 and the Signet 9 CL and am really stuned by their cantilevers. They look as if no cost and effort are saved to design and produce them. But I think that at present the situation is different. All cart producers and retip services order the cantilevers with styli already fitted from their suppliers. By the most MC carts one can see the dominance of the boron cantilevers. The cheaper carts all use aluminum cantilevers while only some use ruby and beryllium cantilevers. So actually the producers of styli and cantilevers determine what is available. Or, to put it otherwise, the demand will determine supply so no wonder that the price difference between boron- and aluminum cantilevers is not worth mentioning. This however does no apply for the styli. By Axel ,for example, the Shibata is twice as expensive as the nude line which is twice as expensive as conical, etc. As I mentioned in my post about Gyger the production of styli is very complex and hardly profitable so I assume that there are only few producers.
Regards,
|
Regards, Nandric: For discussion purposes, consider Young's modulus: "The bulk elastic properties of a material determine how much it will compress under a given amount of external pressure. The ratio of the change in pressure to the fractional volume compression is called the bulk modulus of the material. The bulk modulus of a solid influences the speed of sound and other mechanical waves in the material, it also is a factor in the amount of energy stored in solid material. For the description of the elastic properties of linear objects like wires, rods, columns which are either stretched or compressed, Young's modulus can be used to predict the elongation or compression of an object as long as the stress is less than the yield strength of the material." (Copy/Paste.)
These concerns are reflected in comments from the successor to Peter Pritchard about the ADC RZL (IIRC) stylus assembly. With this designed by committee assembly the stylus was shared with the Astrion but eventually the assessment was the cantilever lacked rigidity and as a consequence transitions were slurred and definition suffered.
My minimally informed understanding is that with MM cartridges capacitance & resistance are adjusted to take advantage of mechanical resonances. A short list of other approaches include various materials used in the assembly, potting, damping, wether the cantilever is sleeved (mass & interruption of line transmission of resonance), tapered, resonance reductions through coatings, platings, vapor depositions or anodizing, and of course, carefully matched styli. It might be appropriate to anticipate an al. cantilever will, similar to stylus profile, demonstrate certain characteristics but having an al. cantilever or ellipt. stylus is no guarantee of a cart's superiority. Stereotypically MM's exhibit a mid-range slump, the carts you've listed are all MC's which are generically considered to have a rising hf response. Cantilever construction or loading is surely a component in voicing each.
Presume a person has 4 turntables, five tonearms and fifteen cartridges. 4 x 5 x 15 = 300 possibilities. Additionally, headshells, IC's, and ancillary equipment also make their contribution to what he'll hear. It's no wonder the debate over "best" continues. In this regard, reflection on that rascal Voltaire's comment "Best is the enemy of better" adds a valuable perspective. Some might tend to be attracted by the character of LC styli on beryllium, ML or ME on boron, minature ellipt. on thin-wall al. or any of several lab created crystal cantilevers & etc. Thoughtfully implemented, any of these might be considered reference quality but it is unlikely any two will sound precisely the same.
Several years ago Peter L. (SoundSmith) responded to a question regarding upgrading a perfectly good F9-E to the universally acclaimed ruby by commenting that it might not be heard by all as an improvement to the al. cantilever. When listening to a F9-L, it's euphonic nature in comparison with more analytical cartridges is always a charming and welcome alternative, an entirely subjective demonstration of emotional response in preference to measured response.
Peace, |
I think it boils down to the fact that what you hear when listening to a record is the sum of a myriad of factors that govern the sound quality. And to make it more complex, those factors interact with each other in unpredictable ways. Therefore, the correlation between this or that cantilever material and sound quality may be understandably poor. By the way, not everyone thinks the Magic Diamond is so highly regarded. And I thought the TOTL Miyabi cartridges use Boron, but evidently I am wrong. |
Dear Jbthree: Good that you own both Astatic cartridges for as you say compare performance in between.
Acman3 comments on this subject were almost with no superiority from MF-200 over MF-300 but that for some kind of music he prefers one model or the other. This means both are very good.
Acman3: could you tell us if during your Astatic comparisons used both stylus in the same cartridge or each stylus with its own cartridge body?, thank you.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Acman3: ++++ " He originally said the Astatic MF 200 and 300 were just below the best, but that was 3 years ago. " ++++
I will try the MF-300 next week because now my system is " out of work ".
The MF-200 is perhaps the better tracking cartridge I sawed, it is the only cartridge I tested that pass cleanly my tests procedure and this gave it along the whole design its very high quality performance level.
Easy: the MF-200 always is in touch/contact with the grooves in better way than other top cartridges, this fact IMHO is an advantage.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Danny & John, It seems to be obvious that we expect that the MF 200 stylus should be better than MF 300 stylus. Assuming that Raul is right regarding 'the same generator' what other explanation is there for the difference? I think that we are right to assume the importance of the cantilever/ stylus combo because those are connected with physical properties of both and those are objective. I am not sure about physical properties of diamonds but there is no question about that their quality is related to the care and knowledge with which they are made. Now J. Carr mentioned as advantage of aluminum cantilever the fact that no glue is needed to fit the stylus while all 'exotic cantilevers' need some kind of glue to be fitted. However there are also other important properties involved and that is why he uses boron for his cantilevers. When Raul tested his Virtuoso black for the first time he was very suprised with the quality of this cart. But he also posted this cart to Peter Ledermann(?) for the upgrade. This means that he also assumed that some other cantilever/stylus combo will improve the cart. If I remember well Peter told him that the original stylus in the Virtuoso was 'mediocre'. But this imply that the Virtuoso was an exceptional cart even with an 'mediocre' stylus. Regarding the cantilevers I made an provisional list with aluminum cantilevers: 1. All Ikedas with FR 7f, etc. included; 2. Miyabi (both models); 3. Kondo Io (Audio Note); 4. Magic Diamond (Andreoli).
All those carts are very highly regarded by the 'connoisseurs'. But I must confess to be confused with this result because the assumption that the 'exotic' cantilevers are (physicaly) better is not refuted.
Regards,
|
Thanks Danny, just ordered a NOS MF-300 stylus from Ed Crockett to try on my MF-200 cartridge. The price was very reasonable. It will be interesting to compare the two.
John |
|
Hello Nikola, The MF300 styli are available through the seller of the MF300 Cartridge on Ebay.
The Astatic MF200 was available through this seller, Ed Crockett, up till about 1-2 months ago. I purchased the last one according to Ed off Ebay last month.
Danny |
Sorry Lew, If we admit complpaints about wifes this thread will become a vale of tears. But may I remind you that you own your own hobby cellar with the big Beveridges in? Such a luxure have only few lucky b... among us. There dear Lew you can pretend to be 20 years old and totally free.
Regards, |
You bet it is, Nikola. Sadly, the wife is not a follower and will not accept quotes from Sartre or even Kierkegaard as an excuse. |
Dear Danny, thanks for your info. My assumption is that the cantilevers are different. I am not much impressed by the Shibata styli btw. Your statement 'If I owned the MF 200 , the MF 300 can be had relativly cheap' is confusing for me. First your comparison imply that you own both and, second, that the styli for the MF 300 are easy to get? But I hope that Banquo 363 will get his (strong) will back, get rid of his MF200 (to me) and live further in accordance with all Kantian imperatives.Then he can be proud of him self and I will declare that he has the strongest will among us all. I myself intend to join Lew with existentialism because this movement is much more liberal than Kant in moral issues. Regards, |
Hi Raul,
I have a question for you. I picked up a SOTA Saphire TT from an estate sale. I have requested a shipping carton from SOTA Industries so that I can send it to them for their latest upgrades. It did not come with a tonearm. My question to you is how close are you to bringing to market, your tonearm?
Regards, Don |
Hello Nandric, The Astatic MF200 is shibata, and the MF300 is elliptical. In my comparison the MF300 is the more lively of the two. It gives up a little in refinement/resolution but not a giant step down. I preferred the MF300 on some recordings and moved back and forth with the different presentation between the two stylus. If I owned the MF200, the MF300 stylus can be had relatively cheap. The MF200 is harder to find.
I would like to hear Raul's take on the MF300 with his torture test. He originally said the Astatic MF 200 and 300 were just below the best, but that was 3 years ago.
Danny |
Dear Banquo363, The remorse is a dreadful feeling to live with but as good forum buddy I am willing to help...
Raul, Is the stylus difference between the MF 200 and 300 such that MF 300 should be regarded as a sub-top cart? I noticed not only difference between styli shapes but even more between the styli quality qua polishing work done.
Regards, |
I was suffering a bit of buyer's remorse, so that's excellent news. Thanks, Raul. |
Dear Nandric: Perhaps you'll appreciate the following. I had a personal rule that had prohibited me from acquiring another cartridge, and it 'worked' for a year or so. The night before though, I went to sleep after having read the TAS's review of the AT 150mlx. I must have dreamt about cartridges all night long because when I awoke, I had a running fever to buy a cartridge. That fever, in conjunction with the general one induced by this thread, caused me to hyperventilate and violate my principle when I saw the mf200. From this we can conclude 2 things. As a general rule of thumb, don't go to sleep after reading a glowing audio review. Secondly, passion is motivationally stronger than principle and the only reason my principle 'worked' for a year is because the fever wasn't strong enough. As a corollary, we can't be trusted to act on rules of our own devise. Kant must have been wrong then to make that the foundation of morality.
The cartridge I got is not exactly a mf200 but rather a hybrid. If Mike is right (thanks, Mike), then the value is not quite the same. If the cart doesn't measure up, then the search is on for a mf200 body. |
Dear banquo363: Iown both the MF-300 and MF-200 and according to its manual both cartridge motors are the same so IMHO what you bought was a real MF-200, good.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
|
Dear Banquo 363, I was sure that you are refering to MF 300 which we all, I assume, have seen. But this one is listed for the second time. But when I looked to your 'flavour of the month' I was perplexed to see the MF 200. How I missed this opportunity I have no idea. I check ebay.com, ebay.uk and ebay.de each day. On the other side one can see Rauls influence. He deed not recommend the MF 300 so for this one there was no interest at all ($99). The MF 200 was probable listed for a single day? If so the seller also missed his opportunity.
Regards, |
Hey Banquo dont know i let that one slip by. Whats said here by those in the know is the totl are the best of the best bodys. They may look the same but inside the totl grade out better spec wise.
Mike |
I have been enjoying the Shure ml140he for not more than 5 hours when the flavor of the month (sort of) pops up on my screen. Why am I so fickle? Hopefully, a mf 300 cartridge with mf 200 stylus is as good as the flavor of the month. I read somewhere that the mf cartridge bodies are all the same. True? |
Dear Raul,
I agree with you about the Astatic MF-200. In particular I admire it's ability to portray a level of musical nuance that goes missing with some other 'top' vintage cartridges I've tried. This thread recently reminded me to enjoy it again, and I over-dosed on chamber music for a week or so before getting back to my Stanton 881S audition...
The Astatic remains among the small handful that I have kept for the longer term and it's hard for me to imagine selling.
Jim |
Dear Lew, The Glanz 5 was an allusion to your apposite (aka Dgob). But whatever you own I can't wait to hear about the further development of your Beveridge. To me the speakers are still the most important part of our systems.
Regards, |
Well, Nikola, you got me. I am guilty of all you say. But I don't own a Glanz cartridge and never heard one. And from my ~10 cartridges, I would probably keep six of them, not just the Grace Ruby. I believe Casanova would have said, "Love the one you're with". Compared to owning boats or collector cars or chasing women, it's a relatively cheap passion. |
Dear Lewm: +++++ " My point is that one can live happily with any one (or two?) of many of these cartridges, that while I believe they all sound subtly different from one another, more than one can be truly "great" or "exceptional". So it is not a tragedy not to own any one particular one of our collective favorites.... " +++++
all this statement is far away to be true, you as other people including me CAN'T LIVE WITH ONE OR TWO!. If your statement be true you and any one else own only one or two and the fact is that no one of us own only one or two cartridges and you know the reasons behind this fact.
Even the persons that are LOMC advocates owns several cartridges because today many persons owns several tonearms.
In the other side " I believe they all sound subtly different from one another, " this is one of the reasons to own several cartridges.
I remember your posts in the past where you " swear " you won't buy any single cartridge again and after those posts you follow buying more cartridges and I'm sure that if you see one cartridge you like then you will buy it.
Btw, I don't know which Astatic MF model Dgob is refereing to but IMHO is very hard to believe that any one with a MF-200 could put it as an " inferior " performer against other top MM/MI cartridges other that a wrong set up or a cartridge sample out of specs that could happen due to its vintage state.
Anyway, I love the MF-200's distortions.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
There is a problem Lew, 'One can live happily with any one (or two)...' The problem is that 'the one who can' is usually somebody else. Consider Giacomo Casanova stating:' I could live my whole life with Silvia only'. Paraphrasing Casanova for your situation:'from the 4 TT's that I own I would keep the Kenwood (if forced ), from the 15 carts I would probable keep the Ruby , from my 5 tonearms I have no idea (yet) which one I should keep and reg. my electrostats I need first to fix my Beveridge and then decide.' Well I hope for you that there is some Freudian shrink in your neighbourhood who will seriously listen to such confessions. Now the opposite of the Casanova kind are those who really believe in 'the right and the only one'. I noticed for some time already that the Glanz 5 is such a kind of a 'unique being' worth to spend the rest of ones life with. This 'choosen one' got its own thread btw. Strange however that 'Casanova' and the opposite one are able to reach such a consensus.
Regards, |
|
No problem Lewm,
And I share your view "that one can live happily with any one (or two?) of many of these cartridges". That is in fact the approach that I have pursued.
I also did not intend to undermine the performance of the Astatic or its little siblings in my admission. It was just that I came down to a straight choice between the Glanz G5 and the Astatic. The former - although sharing many design characteristics - seems clearly superior when it comes to detail retrieval. I felt that fact gave me the option to further thin out my collection of cartridges, which I had been hoarding somewhat shelfishly.
As I sought to suggest much earlier in the life of this thread, I also share your view about the complexity of what you call 'taste' and I've sought to indicate this with specific reference to research and publications around varying acoustic conditions at distinct venues. My view was that this is very relevant "if" one takes live performances as the criteria for assessing our hifi systems and the spiritual satisfaction that these can bring.
I also feel that I share many of Raul's sonic objectives, although not necessarily all of his surrounding views. I suppose that is reflected in his direct impact on the early manifestation of my current set up.
As always... |