Who needs a MM cartridge type when we have MC?


Dear friends: who really needs an MM type phono cartridge?, well I will try to share/explain with you what are my experiences about and I hope too that many of you could enrich the topic/subject with your own experiences.

For some years ( in this forum ) and time to time I posted that the MM type cartridge quality sound is better than we know or that we think and like four months ago I start a thread about: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1173550723&openusid&zzRauliruegas&4&5#Rauliruegas where we analyse some MM type cartridges.

Well, in the last 10-12 months I buy something like 30+ different MM type phono cartridges ( you can read in my virtual system which ones. ) and I’m still doing it. The purpose of this fact ( “ buy it “ ) is for one way to confirm or not if really those MM type cartridges are good for us ( music lovers ) and at the same time learn about MM vs MC cartridges, as a fact I learn many things other than MM/MC cartridge subject.

If we take a look to the Agon analog members at least 90% of them use ( only ) MC phono cartridges, if we take a look to the “ professional reviewers “ ( TAS, Stereophile, Positive Feedback, Enjoy the Music, etc, etc, ) 95% ( at least ) of them use only MC cartridges ( well I know that for example: REG and NG of TAS and RJR of Stereophile use only MM type cartridges!!!!!!!! ) , if we take a look to the phono cartridge manufacturers more than 90% of them build/design for MC cartridges and if you speak with audio dealers almost all will tell you that the MC cartridges is the way to go.

So, who are wrong/right, the few ( like me ) that speak that the MM type is a very good alternative or the “ whole “ cartridge industry that think and support the MC cartridge only valid alternative?

IMHO I think that both groups are not totally wrong/right and that the subject is not who is wrong/right but that the subject is : KNOW-HOW or NON KNOW-HOW about.

Many years ago when I was introduced to the “ high end “ the cartridges were almost MM type ones: Shure, Stanton, Pickering, Empire, etc, etc. In those time I remember that one dealer told me that if I really want to be nearest to the music I have to buy the Empire 4000 D ( they say for 4-channel reproduction as well. ) and this was truly my first encounter with a “ high end cartridge “, I buy the 4000D I for 70.00 dls ( I can’t pay 150.00 for the D III. ), btw the specs of these Empire cartridges were impressive even today, look: frequency response: 5-50,000Hz, channel separation: 35db, tracking force range: 0.25grs to 1.25grs!!!!!!!!, just impressive, but there are some cartridges which frequency response goes to 100,000Hz!!!!!!!!!!

I start to learn about and I follow to buying other MM type cartridges ( in those times I never imagine nothing about MC cartridges: I don’t imagine of its existence!!!. ) like AKG, Micro Acoustics, ADC, B&O, Audio Technica, Sonus, etc, etc.

Years latter the same dealer told me about the MC marvelous cartridges and he introduce me to the Denon-103 following with the 103-D and the Fulton High performance, so I start to buy and hear MC cartridges. I start to read audio magazines about either cartridge type: MM and Mc ones.

I have to make changes in my audio system ( because of the low output of the MC cartridges and because I was learning how to improve the performance of my audio system ) and I follow what the reviewers/audio dealers “ speak “ about, I was un-experienced !!!!!!!, I was learning ( well I’m yet. ).

I can tell you many good/bad histories about but I don’t want that the thread was/is boring for you, so please let me tell you what I learn and where I’m standing today about:

over the years I invested thousands of dollars on several top “ high end “ MC cartridges, from the Sumiko Celebration passing for Lyras, Koetsu, Van denHul, to Allaerts ones ( just name it and I can tell that I own or owned. ), what I already invest on MC cartridges represent almost 70-80% price of my audio system.

Suddenly I stop buying MC cartridges and decide to start again with some of the MM type cartridges that I already own and what I heard motivate me to start the search for more of those “ hidden jewels “ that are ( here and now ) the MM phono cartridges and learn why are so good and how to obtain its best quality sound reproduction ( as a fact I learn many things other than MM cartridge about. ).

I don’t start this “ finding “ like a contest between MC and MM type cartridges.
The MC cartridges are as good as we already know and this is not the subject here, the subject is about MM type quality performance and how achieve the best with those cartridges.

First than all I try to identify and understand the most important characteristics ( and what they “ means “. ) of the MM type cartridges ( something that in part I already have it because our phonolinepreamp design needs. ) and its differences with the MC ones.

Well, first than all is that are high output cartridges, very high compliance ones ( 50cu is not rare. ), low or very low tracking force ones, likes 47kOhms and up, susceptible to some capacitance changes, user stylus replacement, sometimes we can use a different replacement stylus making an improvement with out the necessity to buy the next top model in the cartridge line , low and very low weight cartridges, almost all of them are build of plastic material with aluminum cantilever and with eliptical or “ old “ line contact stylus ( shibata ) ( here we don’t find: Jade/Coral/Titanium/etc, bodies or sophisticated build material cantilevers and sophisticated stylus shape. ), very very… what I say? Extremely low prices from 40.00 to 300.00 dls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, well one of my cartridges I buy it for 8.99 dls ( one month ago ): WOW!!!!!!, so any one of you can/could have/buy ten to twenty MM cartridges for the price of one of the MC cartridge you own today and the good notice is that is a chance that those 10-20 MM type cartridges even the quality performance of your MC cartridge or beat it.

Other characteristics is that the builders show how proud they were/are on its MM type cartridges design, almost all those cartridges comes with a first rate box, comes with charts/diagrams of its frequency response and cartridge channel separation ( where they tell us which test recording use it, with which VTF, at which temperature, etc, etc. ), comes with a very wide explanation of the why’s and how’s of its design and the usual explanation to mount the cartridge along with a very wide list of specifications ( that were the envy of any of today MC ones where sometimes we really don’t know nothing about. ), comes with a set of screws/nuts, comes with a stylus brush and even with stylus cleaning fluid!!!!!!!!!, my GOD. Well, there are cartridges like the Supex SM 100MK2 that comes with two different stylus!!!! One with spherical and one with elliptical/shibata shape and dear friends all those in the same low low price!!!!!!!!!!!

Almost all the cartridges I own you can find it through Ebay and Agon and through cartridge dealers and don’t worry if you loose/broke the stylus cartridge or you find the cartridge but with out stylus, you always can/could find the stylus replacement, no problem about there are some stylus and cartridge sources.

When I’m talking about MM type cartridges I’m refer to different types: moving magnet, moving iron, moving flux, electret, variable reluctance, induced magnet, etc, etc. ( here is not the place to explain the differences on all those MM type cartridges. Maybe on other future thread. ).

I made all my very long ( time consuming ) cartridge tests using four different TT’s: Acoustic Signature Analog One MK2, Micro Seiki RX-5000, Luxman PD 310 and Technics SP-10 MK2, I use only removable headshell S and J shape tonearms with 15mm on overhang, I use different material build/ shape design /weight headshells. I test each cartridge in at least three different tonearms and some times in 3-4 different headshells till I find the “ right “ match where the cartridge perform the best, no I’m not saying that I already finish or that I already find the “ perfect “ match: cartridge/headshell/tonearm but I think I’m near that ideal target.

Through my testing experience I learn/ confirm that trying to find the right tonearm/headshell for any cartridge is well worth the effort and more important that be changing the TT. When I switch from a TT to another different one the changes on the quality cartridge performance were/are minimal in comparison to a change in the tonearm/headshell, this fact was consistent with any of those cartridges including MC ones.

So after the Phonolinepreamplifier IMHO the tonearm/headshell match for any cartridge is the more important subject, it is so important and complex that in the same tonearm ( with the same headshell wires ) but with different headshell ( even when the headshell weight were the same ) shape or build material headshell the quality cartridge performance can/could be way different.

All those experiences told me that chances are that the cartridge that you own ( MC or MM ) is not performing at its best because chances are that the tonearm you own is not the best match for that cartridge!!!!!!, so imagine what do you can/could hear when your cartridge is or will be on the right tonearm???!!!!!!!!, IMHO there are ( till today ) no single ( any type at any price ) perfect universal tonearm. IMHO there is no “ the best tonearm “, what exist or could exist is a “ best tonearm match for “ that “ cartridge “, but that’s all. Of course that are “ lucky “ tonearms that are very good match for more than one cartridge but don’t for every single cartridge.

I posted several times that I’m not a tonearm collector, that I own all those tonearms to have alternatives for my cartridges and with removable headshells my 15 tonearms are really like 100+ tonearms : a very wide options/alternatives for almost any cartridge!!!!!!

You can find several of these MM type cartridges new brand or NOS like: Ortofon, Nagaoka, Audio Technica, Astatic, B&O, Rega, Empire, Sonus Reson,Goldring,Clearaudio, Grado, Shelter, Garrot, etc. and all of them second hand in very good operational condition. As a fact I buy two and even three cartridges of the same model in some of the cartridges ( so right now I have some samples that I think I don’t use any more. ) to prevent that one of them arrive in non operational condition but I’m glad to say that all them arrive in very fine conditions. I buy one or two of the cartridges with no stylus or with the stylus out of work but I don’t have any trouble because I could find the stylus replacement on different sources and in some case the original new replacement.

All these buy/find cartridges was very time consuming and we have to have a lot of patience and a little lucky to obtain what we are looking for but I can asure you that is worth of it.

Ok, I think it is time to share my performance cartridge findings:

first we have to have a Phonolinepreamplifier with a very good MM phono stage ( at least at the same level that the MC stage. ). I’m lucky because my Phonolinepreamplifier has two independent phono stages, one for the MM and one for MC: both were designed for the specifics needs of each cartridge type, MM or MC that have different needs.

we need a decent TT and decent tonearm.

we have to load the MM cartridges not at 47K but at 100K ( at least 75K not less. ).

I find that using 47K ( a standard manufacture recommendation ) prevent to obtain the best quality performance, 100K make the difference. I try this with all those MM type cartridges and in all of them I achieve the best performance with 100K load impedance.

I find too that using the manufacturer capacitance advise not always is for the better, till “ the end of the day “ I find that between 100-150pf ( total capacitance including cable capacitance. ) all the cartridges performs at its best.

I start to change the load impedance on MM cartridges like a synonymous that what many of us made with MC cartridges where we try with different load impedance values, latter I read on the Empire 4000 DIII that the precise load impedance must be 100kOhms and in a white paper of some Grace F9 tests the used impedance value was 100kOhms, the same that I read on other operational MM cartridge manual and my ears tell/told me that 100kOhms is “ the value “.

Before I go on I want to remember you that several of those MM type cartridges ( almost all ) were build more than 30+ years ago!!!!!!!! and today performs at the same top quality level than today MC/MM top quality cartridges!!!!!, any brand at any price and in some ways beat it.

I use 4-5 recordings that I know very well and that give me the right answers to know that any cartridge is performing at its best or near it. Many times what I heard through those recordings were fine: everything were on target however the music don’t come “ alive “ don’t “ tell me “ nothing, I was not feeling the emotion that the music can communicate. In those cartridge cases I have to try it in other tonearm and/or with a different headshell till the “ feelings comes “ and only when this was achieved I then was satisfied.

All the tests were made with a volume level ( SPL ) where the recording “ shines “ and comes alive like in a live event. Sometimes changing the volume level by 1-1.5 db fixed everything.

Of course that the people that in a regular manner attend to hear/heard live music it will be more easy to know when something is right or wrong.

Well, Raul go on!!: one characteristic on the MM cartridges set-up was that almost all them likes to ride with a positive ( little/small ) VTA only the Grace Ruby and F9E and Sonus Gold Blue likes a negative VTA , on the other hand with the Nagaoka MP 50 Super and the Ortofon’s I use a flat VTA.

Regarding the VTF I use the manufacturer advise and sometimes 0.1+grs.
Of course that I made fine tuning through moderate changes in the Azymuth and for anti-skate I use between half/third VTF value.

I use different material build headshells: aluminum, composite aluminum, magnesium, composite magnesium, ceramic, wood and non magnetic stainless steel, these cartridges comes from Audio Technica, Denon, SAEC, Technics, Fidelity Research, Belldream, Grace, Nagaoka, Koetsu, Dynavector and Audiocraft.
All of them but the wood made ( the wood does not likes to any cartridge. ) very good job . It is here where a cartridge could seems good or very good depending of the headshell where is mounted and the tonearm.
Example, I have hard time with some of those cartridge like the Audio Technica AT 20SS where its performance was on the bright sound that sometimes was harsh till I find that the ceramic headshell was/is the right match now this cartridge perform beautiful, something similar happen with the Nagaoka ( Jeweltone in Japan ), Shelter , Grace, Garrot , AKG and B&O but when were mounted in the right headshell/tonearm all them performs great.

Other things that you have to know: I use two different cooper headshell wires, both very neutral and with similar “ sound “ and I use three different phono cables, all three very neutral too with some differences on the sound performance but nothing that “ makes the difference “ on the quality sound of any of my cartridges, either MM or MC, btw I know extremely well those phono cables: Analysis Plus, Harmonic Technologies and Kimber Kable ( all three the silver models. ), finally and don’t less important is that those phono cables were wired in balanced way to take advantage of my Phonolinepreamp fully balanced design.

What do you note the first time you put your MM cartridge on the record?, well a total absence of noise/hum or the like that you have through your MC cartridges ( and that is not a cartridge problem but a Phonolinepreamp problem due to the low output of the MC cartridges. ), a dead silent black ( beautiful ) soundstage where appear the MUSIC performance, this experience alone is worth it.

The second and maybe the most important MM cartridge characteristic is that you hear/heard the MUSIC flow/run extremely “ easy “ with no distracting sound distortions/artifacts ( I can’t explain exactly this very important subject but it is wonderful ) even you can hear/heard “ sounds/notes “ that you never before heard it and you even don’t know exist on the recording: what a experience!!!!!!!!!!!

IMHO I think that the MUSIC run so easily through a MM cartridge due ( between other facts ) to its very high compliance characteristic on almost any MM cartridge.

This very high compliance permit ( between other things like be less sensitive to out-center hole records. ) to these cartridges stay always in contact with the groove and never loose that groove contact not even on the grooves that were recorded at very high velocity, something that a low/medium cartridge compliance can’t achieve, due to this low/medium compliance characteristic the MC cartridges loose ( time to time and depending of the recorded velocity ) groove contact ( minute extremely minute loose contact, but exist. ) and the quality sound performance suffer about and we can hear it, the same pass with the MC cartridges when are playing the inner grooves on a record instead the very high compliance MM cartridges because has better tracking drive perform better than the MC ones at inner record grooves and here too we can hear it.

Btw, some Agoners ask very worried ( on more than one Agon thread ) that its cartridge can’t track ( clean ) the cannons on the 1812 Telarc recording and usually the answers that different people posted were something like this: “””” don’t worry about other than that Telarc recording no other commercial recording comes recorded at that so high velocity, if you don’t have trouble with other of your LP’s then stay calm. “””””

Well, this standard answer have some “ sense “ but the people ( like me ) that already has/have the experience to hear/heard a MM or MC ( like the Ortofon MC 2000 or the Denon DS1, high compliance Mc cartridges. ) cartridge that pass easily the 1812 Telarc test can tell us that those cartridges make a huge difference in the quality sound reproduction of any “ normal “ recording, so it is more important that what we think to have a better cartridge tracking groove drive!!!!

There are many facts around the MM cartridge subject but till we try it in the right set-up it will be ( for some people ) difficult to understand “ those beauties “. Something that I admire on the MM cartridges is how ( almost all of them ) they handle the frequency extremes: the low bass with the right pitch/heft/tight/vivid with no colorations of the kind “ organic !!” that many non know-how people speak about, the highs neutral/open/transparent/airy believable like the live music, these frequency extremes handle make that the MUSIC flow in our minds to wake up our feelings/emotions that at “ the end of the day “ is all what a music lover is looking for.
These not means that these cartridges don’t shine on the midrange because they do too and they have very good soundstage but here is more system/room dependent.

Well we have a very good alternative on the ( very low price ) MM type cartridges to achieve that music target and I’m not saying that you change your MC cartridge for a MM one: NO, what I’m trying to tell you is that it is worth to have ( as many you can buy/find ) the MM type cartridges along your MC ones

I want to tell you that I can live happy with any of those MM cartridges and I’m not saying with this that all of them perform at the same quality level NO!! what I’m saying is that all of them are very good performers, all of them approach you nearest to the music.

If you ask me which one is the best I can tell you that this will be a very hard “ call “ an almost impossible to decide, I think that I can make a difference between the very good ones and the stellar ones where IMHO the next cartridges belongs to this group:

Audio Technica ATML 170 and 180 OCC, Grado The Amber Tribute, Grace Ruby, Garrot P77, Nagaoka MP-50 Super, B&O MMC2 and MMC20CL, AKG P8ES SuperNova, Reson Reca ,Astatic MF-100 and Stanton LZS 981.

There are other ones that are really near this group: ADC Astrion, Supex MF-100 MK2, Micro Acoustics MA630/830, Empire 750 LTD and 600LAC, Sonus Dimension 5, Astatic MF-200 and 300 and the Acutex 320III.

The other ones are very good too but less refined ones.
I try too ( owned or borrowed for a friend ) the Shure IV and VMR, Music maker 2-3 and Clearaudio Virtuoso/Maestro, from these I could recommended only the Clearaudios the Shure’s and Music Maker are almost mediocre ones performers.
I forgot I try to the B&O Soundsmith versions, well this cartridges are good but are different from the original B&O ( that I prefer. ) due that the Sounsmith ones use ruby cantilevers instead the original B&O sapphire ones that for what I tested sounds more natural and less hi-fi like the ruby ones.

What I learn other that the importance on the quality sound reproduction through MM type cartridges?, well that unfortunately the advance in the design looking for a better quality cartridge performers advance almost nothing either on MM and MC cartridges.

Yes, today we have different/advanced body cartridge materials, different cantilever build materials, different stylus shape/profile, different, different,,,,different, but the quality sound reproduction is almost the same with cartridges build 30+ years ago and this is a fact. The same occur with TT’s and tonearms. Is sad to speak in this way but it is what we have today. Please, I’m not saying that some cartridges designs don’t grow up because they did it, example: Koetsu they today Koetsu’s are better performers that the old ones but against other cartridges the Koetsu ones don’t advance and many old and today cartridges MM/MC beat them easily.

Where I think the audio industry grow-up for the better are in electronic audio items ( like the Phonolinepreamps ), speakers and room treatment, but this is only my HO.

I know that there are many things that I forgot and many other things that we have to think about but what you can read here is IMHO a good point to start.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
Ag insider logo xs@2xrauliruegas

Showing 50 responses by chakster

Sarcher30, i think you have to try 205c mk4 if you like Technics sound of this 205 series.

I have tried 4 copies of 205 mk3 and at least one of them was top condition with original stylus. Later i've tried it with new Jico SAS but the original technics stylus was better! There is nothing wrong with Jico SAS stylus for 205 series, but the BEST of 205 series is MK4 model. It took some time to find 205c mk4 it top condition. Suspenssion do fail on these models. I had 4 copies of 205c mk4 and one of them was amazing (like new). The original 205c mk4 stylus is much better than JICO SAS, also 205 mk4 is much better than original 205 mk3 vesrion of this cartridge (if you can find nos or near mint comdition).

I was a big fan of Technics MM cartridges before i sold my EPA-100 tonearm this month. My top of the line Technics MM was EPS 100cMK3 and i still have it in collection. I can't use headshell integrated cartridges anymore on my new tonearm (Reed 3P). But i can say for sure that 100 series is better than 205 series. That's why i kept my 100c mk3 and sold all 205c (mk3 and mk4).

Technics 100c mk3 and 100c mk4 are the best Technics MM cartridges.
The 100c mk3 is the best looking champane color design in 100 series (the mk4 is just black). If anyone interested in Technics 100cMK3 in very good condition feel free to drop me a message: chakster45 on gmail.
Sarcher30, one NOS EPS-207ED needle stylus for EPC-207 cartridge is available on ebay right now BTW.

I see your point, i can't use headshell integrated cartridges on my new tonearm anymore :(

Anyway this year i've seen NOS in the box stylus available in Japan even for impossible to find technics EPA p100cmk4 cartridge (raved by Raul on here).
I'm in the middle of reading this thread, but couldn't find the opition about modern production of Garrott for example.

While people talking about benefits of vintage MMs, we still have so called upgraded versions of the classic MMs like Garrott P77i vs P77, Nagaoka MP50 vs. MP500, Audio-Technica AT155LC vs AT150MLX vs. AT150ANV ..., also old Signet TK7 vs. Audio-Technica AT7V etc.

Laterst versions of Garrott use the most complicated stylus profiles.

If someone compared vintage classic models vs. modern upgraded models of the same series, it would be nice to read about in this thread.

And the question about vintage ADC for experienced users:
Does the super rare ADC Astrion is superior to rare ADC TRX 1,2,3 ?
thank you Griffithds
That's what i heard before about TRX-2 and Astrion, seller also preffered TRX-2.
Thanks Halcro
I wonder how do they perform against fabulous Technics EPC-100cMK3 ?
I forgot who shipped his Technics to Alex for suspenssion replacement / "refresh" etc, but i'm still not sure about my own EPC-100cMK3 which perform very well (but maybe could do better after Alex service).

However, In my experience i didn't like modern Jico SAS stylus on my EPC-205cMK4 (the original technics stylus deliver what you're talking about).

Anyway i preffer my high output vintage Argent MC500HS to both of them.
Reel to reel would be nice, but first i have to sell my soul to devil to make it more affordable in my area. Today i come across this article, maybe you have seen it before, this is an interesting quote:

"Kavi Alexander is monitoring disc production by comparing test pressings to the master tape. What cartridge is he using? Another moving magnet, this time the Technics EPC 100 MK IV. But he describes the Audio Technica ATML-170 as very similar, and very close to the actual sound of the tape. In this comparison, he says, virtually no moving coil does so well; most have seriously apparent colorations. "

Any thought about Audio-Technica ATML-170 ?

source: www.regonaudio.com/Stanton881AudioTechnicaATML70.html
Yep Griffithds
If the SAS for 205c MK3 is an improvement I can't say the same about 205c MK4 which is a much better cartridge with stock technics stylus. It was not easy to find 205c MK4 in absolutely perfect condition (suspension/stylus). I have tried 4 good working samples and only ONE of them was absolutely amazing (like new).

Now i have only upper model 100c MK3 and i hope Jico could release their SAS stylus for this extremely rare 100 series. I really want to hear full potential of this cartridge. Sometimes i even start thinking of suspension refresh and retip of my 100c MK3 (Alex in Germany can do that, i asked him several times). But i would prefer to find one extra original 100ED3 stylus just to make A/B test with my used 100ED3 stylus. Sometimes i just want to sell my 100c MK3. it's a big question to keep it and invest more or to sell it. That headshell intergated version is not for my main system anymore (since i sold my EPA 100 tonearm). but for second system it's such a great MM cartridge.
It's a matter of taste then. To my ears original stylus of 205c MK4 has very pleased presentation, sweet, delailed (especially in the upper range). My sample also came from Alex Tan. However even used 100c MK3 goes much deeper in the bass with better soundstage and more organic presentation than sweeter sound of 205c mk4. That's why i only keep100c MK3.

Jico SAS stylus looks too ugly on the beautiful 205c mk4, but this is just aesthetic point of view of course. Original Technics 205c MK4 is their best design IMHO. Looks a bit like lipstic from the colorful 80s era. Jico SAS with that big black front pannel kills everything aesthetically.

In terms of sound SAS is full of details etc but somehow boring, maybe it's just me.

P.S. My flat mate who tested those Technics with me also voted for full original 205cmk4 and 100cmk3 (his own cartridge is Sony XL55 MC). Jico SAS replacement was new from Japan btw.
I guess so ...
Otherwise i don't understand why people retipping old cartridges to the new standard when totally new cartridges available and claimed to be better. Ferefing to you own comment the old ATs are better than new ATs. Same we can see looking at their specifications (if it means something).

The questions is also a comparison of MM vs. MC of the same brand (Audio-Technica) when the price for their 150ANV (MM) is similar to the price of Limited Edition AT-ART2000 (MC). I can confirm that the last one is amazing cartridge, but i never checked their MMs.

So why do we need MM when we have MC (for the same price) ?
Answering your question i can clearly say that all MC cartridges in my arsenal are better than vintage MMs i have tried. But i'm in the beggining of the road, i do not have much experience as you guys. I wish i could find decent MM design to compete with my MC (for example my favorite vintage Argent MC500HS high output sapphire cantilever with hyper elliptical stylus).

Audio-Technica MC ART-2000 ltd (boron, micro line stylus) simply blown away all top Technics MMs like selected 205cmk4 and used 100cmk3. With ZYX CPP-1 Pre-Pre connected to MM stage this AT ART-2000 MC sounds even more detailed. The price of this MC is not much higher than their top MMs (no matter vintage or new in $300-750 category). This Argent MC on the right tonearm also blown away all the technics top line. Before i have tried them (MCs) i thought these MMs are fantastic.

I'm not talking about my ZYX Airy or ZYX 4D Premium here, cos the price is much higher.

I'd like to check top Glanz/Astatic, Garrott, Signet/AT line people advised on here, but do you think they really can compete with top of the line MCs ? It's hard to believe.

I have starded another thread about exotic Bamboo cantilever of Madake by Miyajima. If you think cantilever is very important i wonder what do you think about organic bamboo cantilevers :)

"Whilst the AT150ANV sounds similar tonally to both the AT155Lc and the Signet TK7LCa....it somehow misses the ability to convey the emotional impact of the music." -Halcro

Yep, looking at vintage AT155LC spects (1982) i found it superior to latest AT150ANV (and AT150MLX).

--------------*** AT155Lc SPECTS--------------

Frequency Response: 5-35,000 Hz ***
Channel Separation: 32 dB (1 kHz)
Tracking Force Range: 0.8-1.6 g
Stylus Construction: 0,12 mm, Nude square shank
Recommended Load Impedance: 47,000 ohms
Output: 5 (mV at 1 kHz, 5 cm/sec)
Channel Balance: 0.5 dB
Stylus Shape: Linear Contact
Cantilever: Beryllium
Compliance: 16 (100Hz)

--------------*AT150ANV spects. --------------

Frequency Response: 10-23,000 Hz
Channel Separation: 30 dB (1kHz)
Vertical Tracking Force: 1.2 - 1.8 grams
Recommended Load Impedance: 47 k-ohms
Output: 4 mV
Channel Balance: 0.8 dB (1 kHz
Stylus Shape: MicroLine™ (ML)
Cantilever: Sapphire Pipe
Compliance: 10 (100Hz)

--------------*AT150MLX spects--------------

Frequency Response: 10-30,000 Hz
Channel Separation: 30 dB (1 kHz)
Tracking Force Range: 0.75 - 1.75 g
Stylus Construction: Nude square shank
Recommended Load Impedance: 47,000 ohms
Output: 4 mV
Channel Balance: 0.8 dB
Stylus Shape: MicroLine™ (ML)
Cantilever: Gold-plated Boron
Compliance: 10 (100Hz)

Now i wonder how all these MM sounds compared to my ltd. Audio-Technica MC design (which i like). Is is worth to try AT MMs (i'm not sure).

-------------- AT-ART-2000 spects --------------

Playback frequency range: 10 - 50,000Hz
Output voltage: 0.4mV
Channel separation: 30dB (1kHz)
Output balance: 1dB (1kHz)
Stylus pressure: 1.6 - 2.0g
Coil impedance: 12 Omega (1kHz)
Direct current resistance: 12 Omega
Load resistance: Head amplifier: 100 Omega or more
Trance: 20 Omega or more
Coil inductance: 50 mu H (1kHz)
Stylus: Angular MicroLine™ (ML)
Compliance 9 (100Hz)
To be honest, untill this thread i have never expected people re-tip budged MM cartridges so often (along with cantilever and suspension replacement). I alway thought re-tipping is for MC (due to their desing) or just for very rare expensive MMs like Technics P100CMK4.

At the same time i have seen so many re-tipped MC cartridges on sale after the customer got it from re-tipper. It's quite often people broke the tip or cantilever on original MC, then they pay for re-tip (often SoundSmith or VDh) and after it's done they just tryin' to get rid of the cartridge (even if they say it's much better than the opriginal of course :) Which make me think than original desing means something important (at least for MC). No?

Still curious how good is the original motor of Technics 100cMK3 and who can make re-tip, new cantilever and suspension to make this cartridge much better than original and place in at the top leven MM even made ?
Fleib

"There's lots of misinformation and/or apples/oranges comparisons the last 10 posts. We're presented with specs that ignore the generator and price comparisons that span 20 or 40 years. When I was a little kid gasoline was $0.25/gallon. As Miles would say, So What."

Please explain where is misinformation?

BTW The name of this thread itself is about Apples (MM) / Oranges (MC).

I did checked the prices for top MMs mentioned in this thread, some of them goes for up to $600-1400 used on ebay, some modern MM goes for $750 new. And some unknown MMs goes (sometimes) cheaper on auctions where nobody bidding on them (like Glanz, Astatic this week). In general some legendary MM are in the same category as some nice used MC (let's say $500-700). As someone mentioned before the increasing prices on good MM connected to this thread too.

I don't know who pay full price for new "high piced" MCs (say $3000) when they can be purchased here for half price (say $1500) with low hrs on it. But those are quality new MCs with modern Micro Ridge stylus with 2000 hrs life minimum.
Fleib pointed out: "no two cartridges sound exactly alike, even if they are the same brand and model."

It's a bit scary - no ?
I hope you can't say the same about tonearms ? If they build in garage then maybe, but new hi-end products from one brand must be identical or nearly identical... when it's very hard to hear the difference. Otherwice it's not a hi-end production. If the quality is different from item to item then it's low quality production. Used items are different - i agree, but new items must be identical (i mean the sound for human ears, not specs on the paper).
Fleib, i have a massive collection of vintage 45s (American original pressing with big hole) from the 50s, 60s, 70s and early 80s (Jazz, Soul, Rhythm'n'Blues, Latin ).

Most of them are stereo, some of them are stereo on one side and mono on the flip. Some of them are mono only.

I do not have any mono cartridges yet, never tried mono cartridges. maybe i should use my spare Shick tonearm for mono (if i will even buy Miyajima mono MC)

I use stereo cartridges and 45s sounds good, no problem if the pressing is good. Some of them sounds amazing BTW. My records are clean and VG+ or Mint- condition. Apart from my favorite hi-end needles (vintage Argent, new ZYX and AT) i have tried NOS broadcast MM Denon DL107 conical on EPA100 tonearm for 45s and it was OK for it's price, also MC Ortofon SPU slassic GM mk2 on Thomas Schick tonearm which i didn't like at all (and sold the cartridge).

I've noticed that for stereo 45s i preffer hi-end cartridges (MC), same that i use for LPs, my Technics MM cartridges also played 45s very well.

So i really doubt there is a dedicated cartridge for stereo 45s (7' inchers), but since the 45 groove is close to the spindle (like the last track on LPs) maybe STIVENSON'S protractor/alignment is better for 45s ??
Fleib, OC9II and ART2000 are slightly different:

Frequency Response: 15Hz-50kHz (OC9II)
Frequency Response: 10Hz-50kHz (ART2000) *

Tracking Force: 1.25 - 1.75g (OC9II)
Tracking Force: 1.7 -2.0g (ART2000) *

FULL SPECS OF ART2000 HERE:
http://www.edsstuff.org/docs/atart2000.pdf
Griffithds, you're right. Never had a problem to play 45s with MC on different tonearms. I lost any hope that somewhere can be a special cartridge dedicated for 45s. That's why i have mentioned rare 102SP which some people on agon identify as MM for Singles (in fact it was just for 78 rpm).

But tonearm alignment for 45rpm/7'inch singles still intriguing me.

Most of the rare 45s from independent labels (in the 60s/70s) never been issued in any other format and never been reissued in any format.
Flaib, are you serious when you advise "Stanton straight DJ arm." to user of REED 3P "12 tonearm ?

Or that was some vintage stanton tonearm that i don't know ? If you're talking about modern stanton short straight arm it is not only a very bad tonearm (like all modern products of stanton), but that kind of arms made for conical stylus profile only (or to kill the records) for those who call themself "turntablists" in the clubs. The ony one good dj product is Technics, but we're not talking about that kind of equimpent here.

I've seen ViV tonearm and i know some people are happy with it, but this is one of the ugliest tonearm that i know, especially headshell (sorry).

Anyway let's make it clear:
45 rpm (7' inch) invented by RCA in 1949 and later become a Radio Standard (apart from jukeboxes and club djs of course). I have many promotional 45s made especially for radio stations. Remember which tonearms did they used in Broadcast Studios in the 60s, 70s, 80s? Denon, SME, Technics, EMT just to name a few popular brands. Can't remember any straight tonearms without offset angle.

When i'm talking about Stivenson protractor i'm referring to his point that distortion in the end of the record is more important (this is where the 45s grove is as you stated correctly).

Acording to Van Den Hul interview MM cartridge is better to read high modulated 45 rpm groove.

Dover, as far as i know all Denon carts are indeed different from sample to sample and that's why brands like Zu Audio sell hand selected (tuned) Denon mods. Anyway with a stock Denon price no one should complain. It's the cheapest mass production MC after all. But if the $5000 hiend MC from respected brands like Dynavector, Zyx whatever... would be different from sample to sample i would complain. This is a typical problem of DIY products made somewhere in the basement.
Lew, i don't onow if it helps but my Orsonic 11v weight 9.52 g. with two short cartridge mounting bolts and nuts, but without lead wires. This is the lightest Orsonic shell.
Mounted my NOS ADC Astion few days ago to check it out in the second cheaper system on upgraded SL1210 (i have two of them) with grado preamps. Not sure if the cartridge need some more burn-in hrs, i put it on cardas burn-in LP for couple of nights. Anyway my used Technics EPC-100cMK3 cartridge creamed the new ADC Astrion.
Hello, i'm back to this thread to ask for ADC Astrion now. The last auction for sealed nos ADC ASTRION on ebay ended @ AU $955 in June 2015 (wow)

The package looks great:
http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NTg2WDY1OA==/z/B0YAAOSwBahVYteX/$_12.JPG

It's a bit shoking price for me as i have one NOS Astrion myself, but i don't have the right tonearm for this cartridge. It was in the Raul's list of interesting MM cartridges in the beginnings.

Any ADC ASTRION users here ?

Seems like it's a pretty RARE cartridge, top of the line ADC (Saphire cantilever etc). Comments by Eric who was the designer of the ADC in 1978-1982 here: http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=305018&page=3

The designer of the previous model ADC TRX was Count Hisayoshi Nakatsuka (now ZYX owner). I wonder how is the ADC Astrion vs. ADC TRX ?
Yeah, Fleib
I use my cardas burn-in LP, cos i have no speakers in the second room (just headphones) where the Astrion mounted just on the sl1210 with silicon fluid damper. The cartridge was nos and i'm the first user. The deck was totally rewired with cardas and zu phono mission rca. It's a second system and i do not expect much. Once i brought this deck to main room and replaced my SP10 for a little while (with Reed 3p and Argent MC500 on it) i couldn't resist even 10 min of listening sl1210. Just proved myself it's a dark sounding turntable and not involving presentation compared to sp10 with Reed and Argent. Not sure which arm can change the sound of sl1210 to make this deck much better (i think it's just a waste of time and money).

ADC Astrion is probably good cartridge, my favorite Argent MC500 also comes with sapphire cantilever btw. I was very optimistic about ADC Astrion. Strange but in the scan of old review on vinyl engine they said even with 26g effective mass to earm the resonant frequency of Astion was 8Hz. They used it also on medium mass arms for review.

Not sure about Astrion compliance, but not as high as Sonus cartridges for sure!
Everyone can download from my google drive ADC Astrion review (scan from the 80s magazine):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7SnhzDV__cCel9VT2ZpZTB1Y0U/view?usp=docslist_api

It's also on vinyl engine.

P.S. Kevin's little stock of Astrion sold out long time ago and his stuff does not contained original box, manual, individual test of the actual cartridge, tool etc (thats why ebay auction ended over $900). So that was from another source, a true nos collectible from the 80s.
Joined the Glanz club recently. It was the best find this year. Purchased locally from an old guy at the car service here in St.Petersburg for a very reasonable price in Mint condition. The man told me he owned 18 turntables and it was mounted on one of his Luxman delivered from Japan. This Glanz MFG 31L is the most musical MM cartridge i have ever heard. Mounted on ZYX LIVE-18 headshell in my second system. Simply amazing, this Muving Flux is really something. Can't beat my Argent MC500HS, but anyway the GLANZ MFG 31L is exceptional MM/MF in my opinion.
Yes, Acman3
Glanz 31L (line contact) equal to Astatic MF200 (shibata) according to Nandric experience. The MF200 raved by Raul before he discovered mega rare MF2500 (older and better model).

The Glanz top and very rare models: MF61 and MF71L
If the 31L is so good i can expect 61 and 71 must be simply amazing.
Everybody talking about SAS stylus as an upgrade over originals on several cartridges: Garrott, Victor/JVC, Shure, Technics and others. I have mentioned before that my experience with SAS is limited to the one made for Technics 205 series and to be honest i preffer the original stylys on Technics 205c mk4 and it was far more enjoyable than SAS. The only problem is to find original technics stylus in decent condition of suspension.

After this experience i'm not a fan of jico sas in my system.

As for the Glanz upper models i will report a bit later.

But with the cost of Glanz 31L in stock condition it is a winner at the moment. On Zyx Live-18 headshell it looks like they are made for each other, integraded very well. I will upload pictures later.
It would be nice if someone can email me Glanz MFG61 manual or any tech specs ? chakster45 on gmail

Lewm, this is not a low compliance cartridge, but higher compliance than 31L (which is a mid compliance itself).
Ok, it's 1st of october and i can name new cartridge of the month now.

Seriously the GLANZ FM-61 is probably the best find so far! Thanks to all contributors in this thread.

This one beat every MM/MI i have owned before (including Technics 100cmk3 and 205cmk4, ADC Astrion, Glanz 31L ... ). This GLANZ 61 Moving Flux design sound way different from nice Glanz 31L. The MF 61 (by MITACHI CO., LTD) is their rarest and best cartridge with ultimate highs (this extended highs remind me a bit of top of the line technics). This is my new favorite cartridge.

It's been said before on here about GLANZ 61 by others:

"The MFG-61 with its special tiny stylus tip and boron cantilever may very well be the finest of the GLANZ MF carts."

"The MFG61 is certainly in MY top five or six cartridges. Don't have a 71L, Glanz 5 or 7 to compare so I will try to describe its sound relative to the MF200/MFG31L. It is more refined than the MF200 (which I like a lot) and slightly faster. Better leading edge attack and decays. The highs from the 61 are more three dimensional than most any other cart I own. Don't think I have ever heard better reproduced cymbals. Vocal textures are heavenly. The bass is where the 61 is suspect, at least with the five or six hours I have put on it. The deep bass does not have the control I like to hear. Powerful but a little wooly. It was NOS when I received it so it deserves another 20 hours to be fair. For all I know it may have the distortions of a Salvador Dali painting but it sounds good to me." - Steve Dobbins
Last night i have mounted Glanz MF61 on Reed 3P "12 and was blown away. Before i have tried Glanz in my second system on lighter arm, but with Reed (18g effective mass) it's much much better.

The only think is missing is the manual of this cartridge! Would be nice if someone can share (chakster45 on gmail).

Fleib, absolutely no broblem to track all bands on HiFi Analog Test LP with 2g tracking force. I must say the sounds really opened up on Reed 3p tonearm with much more air and details. Before i have tested it on several arms including EPA-100 and Schick. It was much better on schick than on EPA. This cartridge really rocks and do some magic.

"HS" means High Output & Sapphire Cantilever.
With output like that it's possible to use even MM imput on my preamp, but the magic starts only when i use MC imput on my WLM Phonata phono tage (with automatic impedance).

The cartridge sounds so lound that even with my 5W per channel triod tube amp (WLP Minueta) paired with Zu Druid MK4 (101db) i always use minimum volume control (almost nothing at late night sessions).

The cartridge is very obscure and i know it's nothing in the internet, except one image of their catalog page with all models listed with spects. Argent diamont is the top of the line. My 500HS (sapphire) also available as 500HR (ruby).

With this cartridge i just enjoy music and happy to listen more and more. I have tried Zyx Airy, Zyx 4D Premium, AT-ART2000 ltd, Technics EPC-100cmk3, Technics EPC-205cMK3 and MK4, Denon DL-107, Ortofon SPU GM Classic MK2, Ortofon SPU Spirit Ltd ... etc.

The tonal balance of Argent 500HS (on Reed 3p) with slam of high output i like the most.

I'm still not sure it was made in USA or in Japan for Argent. Compliance listed as 8x10-6 (but i don't know at 10Hz or at 100Hz). Anyone?

There must be an article in Absolute Sound Mag (Vol.8, number 29, March 1983) on page 170. If someone can scan and upload it would be nice :)
This is very interesting fact:

"The earlier Pyramid stylus - released in the late 1950's appears to be the first attempt at a Line contact stylus, however at that time there was no pressing need for it in the market, and the concept appears to have failed commercially, and disappeared with very little trace. The idea was then resurrected with the release of CD4 and the Shibata.)"

I wonder which stylus profile people use for retipping top of the line Technics 100c series mk3 and mk4 (eliptical), those who want to keep it close to the original (as someone described here earlier). If the original Technics naked stylus was laser mounted to boron cantilever i guess modern profiles are just glued to the boron cantilever ? Correct me if i'm wrong.

Technics mk3 spects are:
5Hz to 100 kHz (20Hz ~ 15 kHz ± 0,3 db)
Eliptical 0.2 x 0.7 mil / 5 x 18 um

range of eliptical profiles are:
Eliptical 0.4 x 0.7 mil / 10 x 18 um - budget styli
Eliptical 0.3 x 0.7 mil / 8 x 18 um - quality styli
Eliptical 0.2 x 0.7 mil / 5 x 18 um - premium styli *

"When they developed CD4 Quad 4 channel recordings, they needed to be able to record and play back frequencies up to 45kHz - more than twice the highest goal frequency attained with the eliptical styli. Also the very fine corrugations in the groove required for 45kHz could be more easily worn away, so a design was required that could 1) track much higher frequencies and 2) Reduce wear on the record. "

and now we have all these:

Shibata "large" design 6 x 75 um
Shibata "small" design 6 x 50 um
Hyper Eliptical (various sizes!)
Stereohedron 0.3 x 2.8 mil / 7 x 72 um
Line Contact (various sizes)
Fine Line 8 x 40 um
These are all much the same.
Micro Line 2.5 x 75 um
Micro Ridge 3.8 x 75 um
VanDenHull 4 x 70 um
FritzGeiger 5 x 70 um
SAS 2.5 x 75 um
Paratrace 4 x 70 um

Source: https://sites.google.com/site/zevaudio/turt/stylus-shape-information
Meanwhile i remember someone mentioned rare Technics model EPC-102SP. It's hard to find any information about this SP model, but it was described as the cartridge to play SP records (with special stylus profile) without mentioning that SP is actually not just a singles, but a 78 RPM SINGLES (you know LP, EP, SP). I assume this is a MONO cartridge for 78 rmp vinyl only! It's headshell integrated model, but not for standard tonearm because it looks like Ortofon Type "A" headshell (all others from technics are standard like "B" type with 52mm overhang).

http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200911/21/47/e0193247_085627.jpg
http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200911/21/47/e0193247_0152354.jpg

I decided to post it here since the Technics EPC-100cmk4, 100cMK3 and 205cMK4 were mentioned here. To make it easy to understand for someone who looking for old Technics pickups.

The Technics EPC-102-SP is not designed for 33/45 rpm stereo 7' inch singles (i would like to have MM cartridge designed for 45s), but designed for old 78 rpm 10' inch singles (SP records).

http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200911/21/47/e0193247_09288.jpg

So this is another rare MM design for broadcast tonearms and in comparison to standard EPC series it looks like this:

http://yosigaki.s214.xrea.com/heppoko7.jpg

Long time one seller on a'gon advised this model to me when i was looking for a pickup dedicated to play singles (45 rpm, 7' inchers). He was wrong and i was a bit naive to dream about 45s dedicated pickup.

Source: http://audiooyazi.exblog.jp/d2009-11-21

Being a disc-jokey myself for the past 17 years, i love vintage 45s as the best format of vinyl to carry and play in the clubs. Just 3 min song but at least you got only what you're gonna spin, no additional tracks you don't like/need and no additional weight in the record bag/case. Pretty good format for traveling too (to bring 100 records for example).

LPs mostly for home listening in my case, anyway some of my favorite Latin tunes are LP only. I have a friends in Finland with Neumann SP-79 Master Console (with Neumann EQ’s, compressors and amplifiers), Neumann VMS-70 Cutting Lathe, Neumann SX-74 Cutter Head, Neumann SAL-74 Cutting Amps etc. Sometimes i just cut LP only tunes on 45 / 7 inch acetate (lathe).

Could be easy with digital, but i don't use digital and i don't like most of the digitally remastered reissues on vinyl. When i have ability to compare vintage original vs. digital remaster in most cases original is way better even if the vinyl surface is a bit worn. Probably because modern reissue labels (if it's not majors) doesn't care about proper mastering and cutting at the right place. Vintage 45s are just better recorded, mastered in analog way.

I'd like to check "direct to disc" mastering LPs, never heard them, hope i can find some jazz released with this technogy, i'm not into classical music.
It's a great news that Mr.Iruegas is back right before the X'Mas.

I'm really looking forward which new/rare discoveries Santa has brought to the game, we've been waiting for it. It is also cool that i have finished reading this thread from begginingt to the end not so long ago, but it's still growing! Appart from spectacular Glanz MF 61 (which was not the Raul's discovery, but absolutely the best in my opinion) i'm now waiting for Ortofon M20FL and original Garrott p77 before the New Year, hopefully. It's a shame that i have missed Garrott p88 MC from Michael Fremmer (his review sample) just because the pc was too slow in the last few second of auction (next time i will bid only from iPhone). Anyway that was the reeson to buy original P77 few days later (what a great find). I've been looking for decent sample for quite some time to put my hands on legendary vintage product from Garrott Brothers. 

Speaking about Garrott i would like to add this info i've recently received from Australia regarding the difference between old p77 and new p77i.

" Hello Misha,
The principal difference between the two Cartridges is the Stylus Assembly. The Ps-77i is fitted with a Micro Scanner MKII diamond and tuned accordingly. The Ps-77 uses a Micro Tracer Diamond.
The sound of the MSMKII is more extended at both ends of the Audio spectrum therefore sweeter treble and deeper bass with overall flatter Frequency response."

Thanks and kind regards,
Philippe Luder | Managing Director   
Two Astatic MF-2500 sold on ebay recently. Hope we can read some comment about them here sooner or later.

If it was top Astatic model ever made i have the feeling that Glanz top model beats them all. This is only my suggestion. Since these brands are clones of each other, there is (however) no clone of glanz 61 in astatic line. I believe that was a step forward (and probably the last step in technology) in the glanz line of MF cartridges to create something special (tip mass and cantilever materials on MF 61 are different from anything else in Ganz or Astatic production). 

The Astatic mf 200 equal to Glanz mf 31L is a good one, but the 31L with shibata is not even close to Glanz 61 (it's a day and night in quality of performance, own both in mint condition). 




Dear Raul, the answer is very simple:
I've learned about Astatic vs. Glanz right here on the forum reading posts of owners of the both models (and many other models of these two brands). Guess you've been away for quite some time, but it was discussed before between several members you know.

So let'e get back to this question to find out is that truth or not.

I have Glanz mf31L, mf71L and mf61

I really need help from someone who can email me manual for Glanz 61 (chakster45 on gmail).   
Sure, some quotes below: 

01­.11­.13: Nandric
"Dear Raul, ... Glanz and Astatic carts are made by Mitachi Corporation. Even the boxes are identical. The only difference are the styli: Shibata by MF 100 and 200 and line contact by Glanz 71­31. The corpusses look to me also identical..... I compared MF 200 and Glanz 31L and was not able to hear any difference. Vetterone made the same conclusion (Glanz thread). The Glanz 31 L is much better than Glanz 31 E ..."


Vetterone
"The MFG61 is certainly in MY top five or six cartridges. Don't have a 71L, Glanz 5 or 7 to compare so I will try to describe its sound relative to the MF200/MFG31L. It is more refined than the MF200 (which I like a lot) and slightly faster. Better leading edge attack and decays. The highs from the 61 are more three dimensional than most any other cart I own. Don't think I have ever heard better reproduced cymbals. Vocal textures are heavenly." 


01­.11­.13: Storyboy
"The Astatic is a very good cartridge but I do not feel that it is in the same domain as these Glanz. Coil windings, materials used, coupling mechanisms and output are distinct across them. And the G7 is, as you note, rated at a whopping 4.2mv. For testing purposes this means that you have to elevate the gain/volume control in order to place the other two on an equal footing when it comes to sheer scale and definition. The Glanz are simply better at retrieving detail than the Astatic and the G7 is better than the G5 on this aspect: once correctly set up and run­in! .... Incidentally, the G7 comes as close to repeating the accuracy that I detect with my Technics P100c MK4 as any cartridge I have heard. The most notable difference between the two is the Glanz's transient speed and dynamic impact." 



02­.26­.13: Nandric
"Dear Raul, When we the 'ordinary people' make an ranking among our carts this means among 10 or so which we own. The 'best' in this context means the best of the 10. We can't compete with your + 100 carts. With this 'reduction of complexity' or simplification my ranking is: .... 6) Glanz31L (=AstaticMF200) ..."












Take it easy, Raul
Maybe brothers or even twins is a better word, i don't mean they are 100% identical inside in construction and specs, but as i said people like Nandric can't hear ANY difference between Astatic mf 200 and Glanz MF31L. Some other people said Glanz are much better desing.  

Talking about extra rare Glanz 61 I would say there is nothing like that made by Astatic in their top of the line cartridges, i've seen the specs of Astatic 2500 (frequency range 10 - 40 000, tracking force 1.5 , Line Contact stylus, Inductance 120, Output 3mv, weight 5g). Those specs are closer to Glanz than to some other Astatics, right ? 

As for the specs of all Glanz they have listed 20 - 20 000 frequency range for all their models (31,51,71 ...) except the very low costers.

I'm curious about Glanz 61 vs. Astatic 2500

 


Well, i will remind Raul's previous statement to Lew and to everybody:

05-02-13: Rauliruegas: "I tested the Astatic MF-2500 and compare it against the MF-200 both JVC X-1s, the ANV, the Precept 440LC and Pioneer PC550 and the MF-2500 outperforms all them in almost any single cartridge performnace characteristics." 


P.S. I wish Raul to find Glanz MF61 in the future (Steve Dobbin's top 5 cartridge). 

Below you can read information from ex Pickering dealer in USA about STANTON W.O.S. 100 MM cartridge (with sapphire coated al. cantilever and stereohedron II stylus, i've seen at least 3 for sale this year). Hope it will help:

"Series 100" cartridge
also known as the "WOS 100" ("WOS" standing for "Walter O. Stanton"), the cartridge has its beginnings in the legendary Pickering XSV-3000, introduced all the way back in 1976. At that time, most people were startled to hear just how good the 3000 was, and even asked, "Who really makes this cartridge?" believing Pickering incapable of making anything so good. One such "non-believer" was Saul Marantz, to whom I gave a 3000 to use at a consumer audio show while I was PIckering’s National Sales Manager.. He was reluctant to use it at first, but after installing it into the turntable he and Jon Dahlquist were using, Saul came over to the Pickering booth and proclaimed the cartridge the best sounding moving magnet cartridge he’d ever heard.

As design improvements were incorporated into the 3000, the Stanton 881-S was born. While the 881-S was slightly better than the original 3000, those changes silently went into production 3000’s at the time, so that the two cartridges were in fact, identical (this was typical at the time with Pickering and Stanton, and actually a rather clever marketing ploy.)

Over the years the design (using samarium cobalt as the magnetic material) and a stylus that had more than 12 patents on its internal design and construction, eventually evolved into the WOS 100. In addition to the company’s proprietary "Stereohedron" stylus shape (a variation of the Shibata-type), a super-thin, sapphire-coated beryllium cantilever was fitted with a "nude" variant of that Stereohedron stylus. The WOS-100, aside from the customary "Calibration" that all Stantons came with, also came with individually-run frequency response charts. Of course, it also had to be packaged well, and the solid walnut box it came in was something to behold too.

Glamour and glitz aside, the WOS 100 sounds just plain wonderful. It hasn’t been manufactured now for about 10 years, and, despite glowing reviews and huge sales success in Europe, suffered from a genuinely vile and needlessly insulting review in "The Absolute Sound" from a young a**wipe who, by his own admission, never liked Stanton cartridges in the first place. (I believe I’ve written a thread about this entire ordeal before - it’s too long to go into here, but if anyone’s interested, send me a PM and I’ll give you all the "gory details" about the truly fraudulent and misleading efforts of TAS in this matter.) Sales were quite modest prior to that review, and all but collapsed afterwards.

I also own a Shure V/15 Type V MXR, which is a highly-touted MM cartridge. Just a few days ago, I decided to fool around with my turntable setup, and to check the cartridge aligntment. To my horror, I discovered it was way off, and corrected it. I also did the same with the Shure, which I had mounted in an additional headshell. Then I did a comparison.

I used my wife again (who usually thinks I"m nuts whenever I ask her to see if she can hear a difference between anything) as my "audience." I played a favorite track on a Sheffield direct to disc recording of Dave Gruisin, and listened to all of it. It sounded clear, distinct and pleasant.

Then I switched cartridges, without telling my wife which was which. As soon as the first note of the track was heard, there was an immediate difference, and as the music continued, there was no question that the second cartridge was far and away the better of the two: much, much more distinct, brilliant and "alive" sounding, without a deliberate peak in the high end, and a good deal more "bite" to the initial attacks of many instruments. ALL frequencies seemed to be reproduced better, with more "sparkle" to the highs, "presence" to the mids, and "guts" and "impact" to the bottom. These are all my adjectives: my wife simply said, "that one’s much better."

And, of course, "that" cartridge was the Collector’s Series 100.

I guess I went through this exercise to convince myself that I’m using a cartridge that’s still as good as many others of today, other than taking that giant leap into the multi-thousand dollar area for top end moving coil models and their associated step up transformers. While Walter Stanton believed to his dying day that NO moving coil cartridge could ever be any good, none of us in the sales department ever agreed with him, and for the sake of our careers, wouldn’t dare admit that either. Still, some of the company’s products (both Pickering and Stanton) were really first-rate performers, with the WOS-100 firmly planted at the top of the heap.

Stanton today is primiarily a DJ-oriented company, having been sold to a new owner in 1999, and with a new CEO heading up what’s now called "The Stanton Group." Going gun-ho into the DJ marketplace made sense for the company, and I fully support its efforts. Still, if not only for the sake of nostalgia, it’s a crying shame that a product like the Collector’s Series 100 can no longer be had from them."
Lew, it was not my own opinion, just a quote. This is what an old pickering dealer originally posted online few years ago. You will not find anything else about this cartridge. So his opinion is at least something.

I have never owned Stanton WOS cartridge or Shure V15 myself (i’m not a fan of shure).

I’ve been looking for limited edition Stanton WOS CS100, but never seen anything for reasonable price this year, they were all overpriced even compared to top of the line Stanton and Pickering (approved my many users as the best from the company).

I’m looking forward for your opinion!
Few days ago i have received my Garrott P77 (original vintage one), i've been looking for Garrott stuff for a long time and finally it's here on my Reed 3P / Tech SP10mk2. 

What a wonderful cartridge ! Pretty much "warm" presentation, especially on vintage 45s from the 50s/60s/70s. I really enjoyed it. My sample is used but most likely very low hrs. 


@nandric does that mean FR-7 fz surpassed your Miyabi Standard?

I’m glad that top contributers are back after a long break. Good start of 2016. Happy New Year!
I agree with Raul, it’s boring to stick to one or two cartridges, so many things to try... and to learn things about analog playback is so interesting (to pay the bills also).

My belowed Glanz MFG-31L is on ebay auction ending today. It’s a spare one in stunning condition for those who knows. This obscure Glanz is even cheaper than Astatic MF200 with broken tip someone offering at the same time.

Glanz 31L is here:
http://www.ebay.com/ulk/itm/331745458656
So we have another Raul on the message board, i'm a bit confused why you guys ignoring some nice features offered in this new upgraded version of the forum, such as:

"quote"  button above the window where you're typing your text. Simply select quote you want to use and push the " button


Or simply type @ if you want to address your message to some person, you will be surprised that nicknames pop up automaticly when you just type @ ... 

@rauliruegas @rgs 

Also members can edit posts after publishing, that's nice

All these new features makes reading much more enjoyable for visitors and members. 

Cheers! 

chakster,

Yes, many nice improvements but still one missing. It would be great if pictures could be posted. Sometimes it is hard to describe something and having a picture makes it so much more understandable.
Perhaps the next improvement cycle will be the charm but much thanks need to go the caretakers of this forum. Thankless job I am sure so I do tip my hat to those responsible.

@griffithds you’re right, embedding pictures option would be very nice, indeed. I’m still waiting for a proper audiogon APP for iphone, sometimes it’s hard to read from mobile devices i use most of the time.

Meanwhile everything remain old school here on the message board.