Dear Lewm: Could you post the VE link?
Thank you.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Hello, Strat1117: Agree with all the above, one exception. VTA/SRA. On the fly VTA with the EPA tonearm systems make adjustment so simple, obsession overrides pragmatism and cartridge changes demand it. Mysteriously, the antique and difficult to adjust Infinity Black Widow hardly ever needs resetting. They just don't make them like that anymore. |
My insights, such as they are, into this question of tonearm geometry vs chosen alignment geometry, began with a thread on Vinyl Engine about twisting the cartridge in the headshell to align the cartridge body with a grid on any protractor. The person who started the thread, "Seb", is quite knowledgable about this subject, and he showed graphically that tracing distortion is reduced if one does twist the cartridge to conform with the protractor vs if one merely sets overhang correctly but then aligns the cartridge body with the headshell. At first reading, this thread made me feel OK about the fact that I had done exactly what Seb recommends with my DV505 when using the TTB protractor in Baerwald; all my cartridges ended up quite twisted toward the inner grooves. But then I started to think about how the vector directions of the forces on the cantilever that are in play when the cartridge encounters a warp or just heavy modulation are going to be at an angle to either the horizontal or the vertical pivot points, in this situation, and how that might NOT be a good thing and could introduce nasty distortions other than "tracing distortion". This led me to seek out a Stevenson protractor for the DV505, and the results of realignment are consistent with my hypothesis that such aberrant forces might not be desirable. Seb agreed and admitted he did not follow his own rule when he owned a Dynavector tonearm. I think this would apply to any pivoted tonearm but would be most noticeable with the DV tonearms because of the stubby vertically pivoted arm. |
Dear Lewm: I always take you seriously.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Timeltel: +++++ " Overhang still seems the first priority, the most appropriate alignment system is the one that best preserves the elements of design. " +++++
well, a tonearm designer normally fix the effective lenght tonearm: this is the distance from the pivot tonearm center to the stylus tip and preserving always the tonearm design distance between TT spindle center and tonearm pivot center, in this way overhang will be always in " site "/place.
Any tonearm manufacturer always give all these three parameters. Why should we change them? A tonearm is designed with an specific geometry and with that geometry was made the tonearm voicing. The problem is that we don't know what were the tonearm designer targets under " motion ".
So, we begin to made changes about. I normally respect the manufacturer advise with great results.
I can't imagine why so many people have so many trouble on the cartridge/tonearm set up. It is so " incredible " that today we " have " to buy a 100.00 to 600.00 protractor to be " there ": my God, where we don't understand the set up that we have to take " extreme " actions to made something so easy!!!!
Many times IMHO we are trying ( with out knowing or not on purpose. ) to correct some system distortions adding other distortions to compensate. IMHO if we made with care the tonearm TT mount and the cartridge set up following the tonearm manufacturer advise and don't like what we heard then is possible that we have " problems " elsewhere our audio system.
It seems to me that now almost everybody are using the tonearm/cartridge set up like an " equalizer ", that's fine with me but...???????
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Lewm: I intuit an apology may be appropriate. The above post was done late last night and after a full weekend of hosting overnight company. I may have been a little, um, testy?
First, the refered to cartridge with the stylus protector raised extends 9mm beyond the stylus, a small divergence of perhaps 1/2 degree outwards is very apparent because of the extension past the headshell. The next nearest alignment is Lofgren A, an arc protractor specific to the tonearm yeilds overhang of 15.478, Lofgren B and Stevenson are well past the Technics' designated 15mm. With them there is detectable grain in both the extreme inner and outer grooves but the cartridge does sit nicely in the headshell. Baerwald gives the best overall results with the EPA 250 and does most nearly preserve the 15mm overhang. Consequently, there is an audible difference between these alignment types, wether it is distortion or simplistically a matter of "tuning" makes little difference to the outcome.
It seems the visual discrepancy relates to the fact the headshells are of standardized dimension, the EPA 250 design comes later and does not utilize a headshell unique to it. Furthermore, all headshells are not created equal. In such a circumstance an adjustment must be made, choosing either appearance or function. Adherence to a 15mm overhang gives the best response. Using Baerwald, breakup and sibilance are essentially nonexistent. This is a priority for initial alignment, subtle nuance comes from "tweaking". It would not be logical to suggest that because the cartridge is not square to the headshell that alignment is then incorrect, just as it would be to state the cartridge must be canted for proper alignment. This now aside, we are in agreement on all else.
This brings me back to my first post on the matter. Overhang still seems the first priority, the most appropriate alignment system is the one that best preserves the elements of design. Accurate response is more desirable than appearance concerns and it may be necessary to do some exploring to find what works best. Makers seem reluctant to reveal this information, I speculate to protect themselves from criticism from fumblers, a clan I somewhat identify with. My few audio perfectionist traits remain in the aural arena, not the visual. Invoking Plato, function does indeed preceed form. Peace.
|
Dear Downunder: I try to be extremely precise when I mount the tonearm: center of the TT spindle to center of toneram pivot distance.
Then I set the overhang and centered perfectly the cartridge body on the headshell and then I put on a two or one point protractor just to see if everything is ok. What I align is the cartridge body when the cantilever is centerd or with a small side deviation. If the cantilever has a wide deviation then I align with the cantilever and normally I send the cartridge back to the seller for a change or in second hand cartridges I send to re-tip.
I don't have cartridges with serious cantilever deviations, almost all the cartridges are right on target.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Tt and Raul, Thanks for taking me seriously. I realized that my experience in these matters is very shallow. I heretofore only had to worry about my Triplanar, and it works fine with the Turntable Basics protractor, which is now very declasse' among the cognoscenti. I should have been a bit more emphatic in saying that my ideas are really "my opinion" based on a little experience. Surely the switch to Stevenson geometry from Baerwald did wonders to improve the sound from my Dynavector DV505 tonearm, regardless of the cartridge. |
Dear Lewm: +++++ " I don't doubt that you hear the colorations you say you hear, but it is not due to the choice of Baerwald, Lofgren, or Stevenson per se. " +++++
well with IEC standards there is no differences in the offset angle between löfgren and Baerwald, there is difference in the overhang ( around 0.5mm. ) and null points. Where exist an offset angle difference is with Stevenson calculations and where the kind of distortions we heard are way different. In Baerwald vs Löfgren are tiny differences if you can hear it and your system has that kind of resolution.
I can't say because I don't know which is the behavior of the cartridge cantilever against trackin error/distortions added for different set up geometry but here is more complex that only the forces against the cantilever because we have to take in count: compliance, antiskating , VTF and even VTA/SRA, 33rpm or 45rpm, LP recorded velocity, inside/middle/out side the LP, etc, etc., too complex to be sure on what you are saying about.
In the other side the tonearm manufacturers tell almost nothing on the subject. They give us the tonearm effective length and overhang. I can remember if they give the tonearm offset angle but I think normally did not.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Thanks Timeltel. Just one thing -- you mentioned the Wally Tractor. I use one that was made specifically for my tonearm (SME IV), but it provides both Baewrwald and Lofgren curves, so you still have to choose which you like the bet overall. Wally recopmmends Lofgren for modern records which have the grooves no closer than a certain distance from the stylus (I don't have the manual in front of me at teh moment). In practice, my experience mirrors yours -- the Lofgren is a littel more open but thinner, the Baerwald a little fuller with more "traction." Which is best depends upon your equipment, room, record collection and personal taste. I suspect one would work better for some records and the other better in other records. Unless one is prepared to adjust for every record in his collection (I'm not), reasonableness requires that you just have to pick one, do the best you can setting up according to those parameters, and then leave it.
Enjoy! |
|
Greetings, Lewm: Your struggle with the Dyna. TA was somewhat on my mind as I laborously composed. You are absolutely correct in your response, alignment should meet the requirements of the tonearm. The problem is that there are four generally accepted systems, all meet those requirements but none agree.
Lew, I'm currently fiddling with a very long nosed Acutex cartridge. At the specified 15mm overhang for the EPA 250, the cartridge looks like it's headed to the stable but sounds glorious with Baerwald alignment. The stylus is very true to the axis of the cartridge, effective length of the tonearm requirements are met. Lofgren B and Stevenson (I failed to mention Pisha of Dennison protractor fame, or Seagrave and Kessler the mathmaticians) move the eff. length past manufacturer's specifications, Lofgren A not so much and yes, I do hear different presentations with the different alignments. This is why some prefer one alignment profile to another.
About stylus deflection, this for you to answer: The cantilever is in line with the cartridge and as perfectly positioned as I can place it on the protractor at two points. In action there is a slight deflection when the stylus lands on the record. When the tonearm's inertia is overcome the cantilever resumes it's unloaded horizontal position. Antiskating is 1/4 the value of VTF, channel balance is good. Seems near perfect to me. Where is the stress you surmise? Should one square the cartridge to the headshell, maintain 15mm overhang and have the cartridge distort, exibit sibilance and assume a diet of vinyl curly fries instead? Because it's prettier that way? Mr. Baerwald I trust. If Lofgren B sounded better, Mr. Lofgren B I'd trust. Even if the cartridge assumed (as it would) a different rake. Relating to music, my ears I trust above my sight. Square to the shell or not, tonal accuracy, controled sibilance and absence of distortion are the signatures of accurate alignment. As always, I welcome knowlegable suggestion or correction.
Strat1117: JICO makes a fine stylus. Several years ago I did plastic surgery on a N97he/SAS for a V15VxMR and thought it was an improvement over the good MR stylus I had for the cart. The same stylus did wonders for a M97xE. Shures are responsive to loading, you made that point. Thanks for your comments, experience and technology are not, as some would have it, mutually exclusive.
|
Raul, thanks but a bit more info.
do you use the Wally/Mint mirrored method of aligning by the cantilever or just get the overhang etc correct and align by the cartridge body. Do you follow the same procedure if the cantilever is for example slightly off centre to the left viewing from the front.
cheers |
Dear Downunder: Normally I follow the manufacturer advise and if not then Löfgren B that gives lower distortion between null points ( during more play time ) and a little higher outside those null points.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Raul
What alignment method do you use? |
Dear Timeltel, I have to disagree with you slightly, I think it is first of all important to choose a geometry that is best suited to the design of your tonearm. The offset angle of the headshell is a major determinant of what geometry would work best. Once you have made a good match between headshell offset, overhang, and geometry you are then able to align the cartridge with the long axis of the headshell while also setting overhang correctly. In contrast, if the cartridge is at an angle to the axis of the headshell, as does occur when the alignment geometry and the tonearm geometry are very different, then this puts forces on the cantilever that are not accounted for in the concept of a typical pivoted tonearm. (Think about it.) It is these aberrant forces that can cause the colorations of which you speak, IMO. In sum, I don't doubt that you hear the colorations you say you hear, but it is not due to the choice of Baerwald, Lofgren, or Stevenson per se. I hope I have made myself clear. |
Raul -- I have read in many different fora that the Jico SAS styli are even better than the original Shure. It is my intention to buy one while they are available. Even if it is not an improvement, it is the only available option short of sending the stylus out to soundsmith or the like for replacement.
Teimeltel -- I think you are absolutely correct that geometry affects the sound in very obvious ways. So does the electrical parameters (capacitance aned resistance), all of which can be used to tailor the cartridge's sound to taste. Except in the rare instance of someone who is willing to adjust for every record (allowing for different thicknesses of vinyl, different cutting heads for the original mothers, and many other variables beyond our control), I think that you are also correct that the enthusiast has to pick the "sound" he likes best, as a compromise, and then set it and (try to) forget it.
Enjoy! |
Regards, Raul: Your posts concerning alignment are well put, applicable comments by others in that thread are also informative.
Let me go out on a limb: Different set-up geometries also slightly alter the heard characteristics of a cartridge. Baerwald seems minimally warmer, with Stevenson and then Lofgren B gaining progressively in analytical qualities. My old friend the Infinity Black Widow/SP25 deck with it's fixed headshell/SME base is specific to Baerwald, 15mm o.h. Technics specifies 15mm for my EPA 250/500 TA systems. This seems a contradiction to the usual advise that Japanese tonearms are engineered for Stevenson or Lofgren B profiles, frequently resulting in overhang in the 16-17mm range. Is overhang the first priority and alignment a contingency or is it the other way around?
To me this demonstrates the need to compare the qualities of different alignment systems in determining the most suitable outcome. What I cannot resolve is this: is "suitable outcome" a purists' mathematically precise, analytical and technically invariable placement, or, if you accept that different emphasises {distortions} result from different geometries, then a matter of an enthusiasts' personal preference. I tend to favor the "enthusiasts'" option but may not know better.
If I have made any misstatements, correction is, as always, appreciated.
|
Dear Strat1117: Certainly you are reffering of what I posted in 2008 on the original thread.
As you say over the time things change a little and now I own a Shure 97 and III with Jico SAS stylus that performas really good. Now that you point out maybe is time to re-set on the Shure V and test it again, we will see.
Glad that you enjoy the MM/MI analog source alternative through your Shure cartridge. Well IMHO maybe that is only the tip of the iceberg and you could try other vintage cartridges like: Ortofon M20E Super, Nagaoka MP50, Empire 1080LT that you can find NOS through the net ( ebay/LPgear. ) or these ones:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&2092&4#2092
Welcome a board and keep in touch.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear friends: Due that we are talking on cartridges and cartridge set up it seems to me that could be important to read and comment on what I posted in other thread on that subject:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1271618618&openflup&47&4#47
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1271618618&openflup&64&4#64
Regards and enjoy thye music, Raul. |
Dear Lewm: The AT 20SS was a favorite of mine cartridges for many years, can I say my reference?.
I own and owned almost every single top AT cartridge, I love AT.
Now, as good as the AT20SS is the time already pass on when you compare it against the 170/180 even against the AT24 that is very good too.
Now, Am I saying that the AT20SS is no any good today?, certainly not it still is a good performer, I still like it and keep with me this cartridge, but the 170/180 are in different level quality.
I would like that other AT20SS owners could share their opinion in this subject.
Now, I understand you own that cartridge ( right? ): do you already heard it? which are your experiences with?
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
|
Dear friends: One info that i forgot about Azden company, Azden was/is a Division of Japan Piezo Co.Ltd.
In those times ( 1985 ) the Azden Equalizers ( Real-Time Spectrum Analyzer ), Headphones and mixers were very well respected along the phono cartridges.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Raul -- I have come to the same conclusion about MM vs. MC, except that I disagree with you completely regarding the Shure. (I apologize if this subject has already been covered, but this thread is way too long for me to catch up completely.)
After more than 20 years of nothing but low output MCs, on a lark, I decided to try a Shure V15VxMR and I fell in love. My reaction wasn't immediate; in fact, at first I thought it was "too dull", "not involving", etc., etc. I even listed it for sale a couple of times, but I am glad I did not sell it. As compared to the many MCs I have owned (everything from a Supex to the various Monsters to a variety of Koetsus, Lyra, Shelter, van den Hul and ZYX, just to name a few), the Shure is MUCH more organic, natural and neutral. By comparison, the MCs, while more "exciting" sound more mechanical and synthetic. Granted, the MM allows me to eliminate the head amp and one set of interconnects, but I believe that the difference is much deeper than that. After spending a couple of months with the Shure, I simply couldn't go back to the Koetsu (I tried, but I couldn't do it).
Once the Shure really broke in and hit its stride, it opened up so that it is appropriately dynamic, realistically detailed and timbrally accurate. It's tracking ability is undisputed, and that counts for a lot; more than most people think. Just put on any Rickie Lee Jones album and you will know just exactly what I mean. This may all sound like faint praise, but it isn't. I love this cartridge, and no component in recent memory has given me this much pleasure (and for so little money). I suspect that few audiophiles have tried a Shure V15VxMR (or any other "serious" moving magnet, for that matter) in a really high resolution system. I know I wouldn't even consider it unil, for no particular reason, I went ahead and did it. I am here to tell you that this Shure cartridge not only thrives in such a system (my system consists of SME, VTL, Wilson and MIT, among other things), it can take on all just about all comers.
Do I have any complaints about it? -- of course I do, but the primary complaint (other than that it is discontinued) is that it is so darn inexpensive that it is hard to take it seriously. Nevertheless, it is serious, and should be regarded that way. There is a reason why it was chosen by Sony Music and the Library of Congress for their archiving projects. Give it a serious listen, you may be surprised.
Enjoy! |
Dear Raul, A few posts ago I asked you to compare the AT20SS with the AT170 and AT180 cartridges that you most recently have been praising. Perhaps the question got lost in the shuffle, but if you would be so kind as to let me know your opinion (of how they compare), I would appreciate it. Thanks. |
Dear friends: I find that in 1985 the Azden YM-P50VL had a price of 150.00 and that contrary of what the Azden line specs there were some differences other than the stylus shape with the other line models mainly in frequency response and separation at 1khz ( 30db ) and 10khz ( 25db. )
The other thing is that in that time Azden had the 50, 20 and 10 different line models going from 60.00 to 150.00 where the more expensive Azden cartridge was its LOMC one GM-P5L for 250.00.
Btw, Dgob please let me know which AT cartridge that was reserved to Japanese market was better that any other foreigner AT cartridge ( like you states on other thread. ), thank you in advance.
regards and enjoy the muusic, Raul. |
Dear Timeltel: Thank you, I already had that link.
Keep in touch.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Greetings, Raul: I trust my ears and audio experience, but your respected opinion is frequently a confirmation of my impressions. Please delay any positive statements regarding the Acutex line until I can find several replacement styli, as when you post prices rise.
For more information see:
http://www.turntableneedles.com/Acutex-M210-IIE-Stylus_p_3848.html
Scroll down to "Acutex Cartridge Catalog" for the 1980 product line and some interesting information. The section on stylus shapes presents some informative statements regarding potential groove damage from Shibata profile styli, which Acutex seemed to view as primitive.
I am exceedingly pleased with the midlevel LPM 412STR, apparently the last incarnation of the series before Acutex discontinued cartridge production in the analog "dark days" of the early 1990's and hope to find both of the TOTL models you have. For those who might be interested, be wary of replacement styli, many are conical and of poor quality but sold at high HIGH! OEM prices. |
Dear friends: These ones are highly recomemded, good luck:
http://cgi.ebay.com/SIGNET-TK10ML-moving-magnet-phono-cartridg-/220596917969?cmd=ViewItem&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item335c99d6d1#ht_500wt_1182
http://cgi.ebay.com/MMC1-Bang-Olufsen-Stereo-Phono-Cartridge-/120562281762?cmd=ViewItem&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c12126d22#ht_1081wt_1165
http://cgi.ebay.com/EMPIRE-4000D-lll-GOLD-ORIGINAL-TURNTABLE-NEEDLE-/250622543896?cmd=ViewItem&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3a5a448818#ht_500wt_1182
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Ddriveman--
Yes, the rubber washer is considered a bad thing by most folks. |
Dear Jb0194: I can see that you are really in " deep " love with Stanton/Pickering, good because are great cartridges.
Btw, do you own other different MM/MI ones?
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Kingmacaw: Btw, how wide isthe cartridge frequency response on cartridges and its deviation is an important factor on the cartridge quality performance but is only one factor inside several other cartridge characteristic.
IMHO the cartridge whole design and cartridge build execution are what determine its quality performance not the " sole " frequency response.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
|
Dear Timeltel: Good to know your Acutex experiences. I'm already testing/hearing the LPM 315STR, I think I need a few more days on it to be sure what I will report about. I'm testing against the Technics " The Best ", Empire, AT and the Grado. Yes, it is so god that I'm having hard time to discern on its quality level, even maybe I will do a official review.
In the mid-time my advise is that any one that " see " it somewuere in the net just buy it with confidence.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
To Raul and others who use removable headshells,
I noticed that on some removable hedshells (like the Belldream that Raul recommends), they have a rubber wasjer between the headshell connector and the tonearm pipe. Do you find that removing this is beneficial? I remember reading somewhere that the rubber washer can degraded the sound. Any inputs? |
Regards, Raul. Continuing with Acutex, some general information/impressions for those who may be interested concerning a rarely mentioned brand. I've found a LPM 310E, the stylus is elliptical and has little (to my ears) to recommend it. The bass is disproportinate to the remainder of the range, hf's are recessed, rolled off 6db. The stylus is similar in appearance to the 412 (orange stylus holder instead of red) but the 3xx and 4xx styli are not interchangable, internal dimensions differ. A NOS maroon 312STR (modified Shibata) stylus is on the way for the LPM 310, hopefully it will improve the 310's hf's.
The soundstage for both cartridges is noteworthy. Acutex refers to the ground pins not as L & R but as earth and neutral, "used to avoid spurious crosstalk. Outstandingly clear channel separation and high resolving power in addition to a dynamic, solid and rich tonal quality". I won't argue this. Concerning Bluz Bros prices, these weren't inexpensive "back in the day" either.
The NOS LPM 412STR is continuing to improve after 5 wks. in use. I will not yet say it is "Audiophile" quality. It is however one of the most entertaining and pleasing cartridges I've heard. Bass and hf extension is remarkable, distortion is minimal, midrange warm and well defined. From what I can gather, the x15 and x20 models are more desirable, the blue stylus x15 hf response to 40KHz and the gray x20 to 45KHz, tracking @1.0-2.0 gm. Graphed response for these two is essentially flat.
Conservatively, I'd suggest the higher end Acutex as of real interest rather than recommend it. However, I'm enjoying the 412STR as much as (or more than) several of the cartridges mentioned previously. Realignment now that it is settled in, a change to silver leads and a heavier headshell (9-10gm?) is needed before a currently very positive impression can be substantiated. Compliance of the 15/20 series is much higher.
Raul, thanks again for your interest, willingness to share knowledge and do conserve your energy. Peace.
|
How far off the Azden/Empire 1000z/ex is the Empire 1080lt? Thanks in advance. |
Kingmacaw, for the older mm cartridges I own and enjoy (Pickering XSV5000 - own three of these plus an XSV4000 and Stanton 881) it is the lifelike midrange and sense of realistic space around instruments and voices that is their appeal. Yes, the bass is both articulate and full, the treble clarity in proper balance - but it is the body and soul ("center") of the music that comes across best. |
Dear Royj: Thank you for your wide and usefull Empire explanation.
regards and enjoy the music, raul. |
Roy your post was very informative. I have not been able to find anything online about the 1000S/EX. I am glad I do not have a big investment into the cartridge since you describe it as quite below the performance of the 1000Z/EX. However that view could change so I will give it a try.
Dgarretson, thanks for the tip on getting a clip mount. I will contact them tomorrow to see if I can get one.
Regards to all, |
Montepilot, I was able to acquire a spare Empire clip mount from Adam at Bluz Broz when I ordered a stylus. The clip has a three-point mounting that mates to a horizontal dimple along the upper front edge of the cartridge, and into crescents in the plastic on opposing sides at rear of body. |
Dear Kingmacaw: Grado has very good design cartridge and due that very good quality performance. I never had hum problems with my Grado but some people had.
Please read this week post where you can read on a great Grado cartridge:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&2060&4#2060
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Monte,
The Empire 1000S/EX was made in the late 1970's, as their base model. It uses the same metal clip (for mounting into a standard headshell) as on the Empire 2000 and 4000-series cartridges. These clips are not available separately.
An Empire 1000Z/EX was made in the early 1970's, as their flagship. It comes with black plastic molded around its metal body, to mount into standard headshells. The 1000Z/EX sounds a lot better than the 1000S/EX.
Beginning in the mid-70s, as overall sales continued to increase, USA specialty retailers began to turn to other brands such as ADC, B&O, Goldring, Ortofon, Sonus and Satin, later followed by Dynavector, Micro-Acoustics, Nagaoka ("Osawa" in the USA), ADCOM, and finally Signet.
During that period, the entire earlier lineup of Empire (1000Z/EX, 999S/EX, ...) was replaced by their 2000 and 4000-series. A couple of years later, they introduced the 1000S/EX as their budget model, with the metal-clip and other parts from their 2000-series. All were seen as rather cheap, even though the sound was good from their upper-two 4000-series models. No specialty retailer liked the metal-clip mounting and Empire also never offered exotic cantilevers like many of the others. Empire's USA sales began to slip, never recovering.
By that time, the original 1000Z/EX had been gone for many years, so there was little confusion about the new 1000S/EX model. Grado, Pickering, Shure, and Stanton were also becoming ignored as serious contenders for top-notch sound is my experience-- all seen as 'old fashioned', regardless of how they sounded. Denon was only beginning to be known in the USA, and no one wanted to sell/put up with Decca.
Best regards, Roy |
|
Raul, I knew you would come through with a good suggestion. Thanks very much. I will keep on the lookout for this cartridge. At least I was fortunate enough to find a replacement stylus. I am very curious if it is as good a performer as the 1000ZE/X?
Regards, |
hello raul, just wondering a lot of the older mm cartridges you are reccomending have large frequency extremes compared to todays general 20-20khz cartridges. hopefully, this isn't the real reason to recco them (i know it isn't but some might get that impression)but what about the grado line? even their prestige line starting at $60 has wide frequency ranges. most of their cartridges are 10-55khz. |
Dear Montepilot: This is the first time that I have a notice about Empire 1000 ZE/x. I thought ( as is my sample ) that the cartridge was designed/build with only one presentation: fully ready to mount ( 1/2" not P-mount. ) but with Empire we never know for sure.
I think that this same problem but with a different Empire model was posted by Dgarretson ( if I remember. ). My advise was and is that you try to find a D4000 I, II or III that are very similar in the metal body with other Empire cartridges. The D4000 comes with a metalic " clip " made especially to mount in any tonearm, this clip is removable. You can find D4000 on ebay and if you are lucky enough and find the D4000 III good because is top performer too.
Maybe some other person can put some better " light " on this Empire subject.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
I acquired a very clean Empire 1000SE/x. It was without a stylus but I was able to purchase a new replacement stylus at LP Gear. The Empire came without an adaptor. I ordered the only adaptor offered by LP Gear and it does not fit this cartridge. So, I have a beautiful cartridge and stylus but cannot fit it to my Triplanar tonearm. Anyone have a suggestion where I can obtain an adaptor to fit this cartridge? Any leads would be very much appreciated.
Regards, |
Dear Timeltel: The Acutex ones I own are exactly the two top Acutex in the BlueBros site, the only difference is in the 320 description that mine say: improved.
I will test the LPM first because I already have in hedashell where the 320 not. Btw, the BlueBros 320 stylus replacement comes at: 188.00!!
When I have my Acutex cartridge impression I will post about.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Thanks again. I'm looking forward to your review. |
Far as I recall, yes. Has plenty enough output for a typical MM phono stage, however. |
Thanks much Lewm. Is it correct that the output is 1.5mv? |
Dear Headsnappin' (sounds painful): I am in Switzerland at a meeting this week. First thing I will do when I return is to re-audition my TLZ using the Stevenson alignment I found to work best with my Dynavector (meaning cartridge is aligned geometrically AND cartridge is also aligned to the long axis of the headshell). I will let you know. I also need to give the Ortofon M20 FL Super another spin, for the same reason.
Raul, At one time you and others were really fond of the Audio Technika AT20SS. How does that one compare to these other AT cartridges you have been talking about lately? |
Thanks much Jim and Raul! |