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 pryso

Raul, interesting post, with a lot of food for thought - sort of a large audio deli counter.

I was struck by a point many years ago that many top mastering engineers reportedly used MM rather than MC cartridges in their work - Sax, Grundman, Ricker, Ludwig, etc. Now there may have been a variety of reasons for their choices but I couldn't believe these skilled ears would use cartridges that compromised their sound in any way.

Another point from the past. I've read from multiple sources that Joe Grado was the inventor of the MC cartridge - yet he never found reason to use that design on his own products, choosing instead the moving iron. Ever wonder why?

So Raul's information stirs up an interest I once held but got sidetracked (so to speak). This renewal should be interesting.
Raul, a point of clarification. When you say positive VTA do you mean the arm is raised above being parallel to the record at the pivot point? In other words, the stylus is tipped slightly forward?

This should be obvious to an old hobbyist like myself but it is best to be sure (if not Shure!).

Thanx.
A question for Raul and others with lots of MM experience - is it advisable to remove swing down (attached) stylus guards and brushes?

I'm about to finally begin auditioning a few MMs and some have stylus guards. You might say "try it for yourself" which may be the best answer but I'm nervous about breaking the guard or mounting and not being able to replace it. In years of using MC cartridges I've left the slip-on guard in place during initial mounting to avoid accidents.

In theory, it seems an attached guard or brush is something more to vibrate which might be audible. So if anyone has auditioned with and without, what are your conclusions?

Thanks for input.
Another thought on Raul's question.

When HP began publishing TAS in the mid-70s, I don't believe MCs were yet dominant in high end audio. This was still the era of Shure, Stanton, ADC, Empire, Grado, etc. MM and MI cartridges.

But HP quickly became very influential in the industry and he favored spatiality and soundstaging detail. These were areas when MCs seemed to excel so they were what HP reviewed and recommended. Later we learned that HP's preferred seat at Carnegie Hall (and I assume other venues) was dead center, second or third row. No wonder he considered soundstaging so important and looked to replicate it at home! The fact that few of us prefer (or can get) similar seating was not considered in our cartridge selections. But readers of his reviews also began demanding MC cartridges which produced large and detailed sounstages. Cartridge manufacturers were happy to respond.

Some years ago I noticed that several well respected mastering engineers still used MM or MI cartridges in their work -- Sax, Grundman, Kavi Alexander, Ricker, etc. So I began to wonder, if these cartridges were good enough for engineers to judge their work against master tapes, why were they not good enough for home audio? But then one friend suggested that professionals needed cartridges with user replaceable styli to repair damaged/worn out diamonds on the spot. Time was money!

In hind sight, the replacement factor may or many not be true, but I've come to realize none of these pros would compromise their work with cartridges that did not produce what they need to hear compared to the master tapes.

So Raul, thank you for providing the inspiration for so many of us to go back and experience these MM and MI designs.
Interesting that Raul brings up microphones (micros). One of my good audio buddies has years of experience recording acoustic music. He frequently complains about the current standard of "close mic'ing", on both vocals and instruments, and the subsequent multi-channel mixing.

Since this trend in recording technics has grown over the past 30 years, one might say it parallels the trend to favor MC cartridges. It may be said both this recording process and MC favor ultra detail and a false sense of air. It seems that MM/MI present a more natural sense of detail along with air and sense of space within the soundstage (as heard in live performances).

To extend this line of thinking further, is it any wonder for the popularity of clean, original LPs from the 50s and 60s? They had few mics, spaced placement, little mixing, and all musicians were present for the same recording (but that is a subject for another topic). They must have musical merit, it cannot be simply nostalgia that drives current demand.
Wow, ya go away for a couple of weeks and this Subject grows by 200 posts! Anyway, catching up on my reading raised a few points for comment.

First, about the advantage of owning multiple MM/MI carts for a comparatively low investment. One friend, who I must characterize more as a music lover than an audiophile, has at least three affordable cartridges in his system. He does so for the unique sonic "flavor" offered by each one. Because he listens to a variety of music, from symphonic to opera to small group jazz to jazz vocal, etc., he has chosen cartridges that best suit each type of music he enjoys. So for those who feel somehow challenged when a new "top" cartridge is discussed that they don't own, don't worry about it. Instead you might try looking for a few cartridges that bring out the best in the varieties of music that you enjoy rather than one single "best".

Second, Grado cartridges. I used to say they were like Corvairs, you either loved them or hated them, no middle ground. I've owned a few through the years and my favorite was the original Grado Reference. This was a plastic body version, not the current wood. Supposedly it was not sold in the US but a record reviewer friend who introduced me to it helped find one. It offered great tonality, particularly through the important mid-range, but sounded a bit veiled. The Ortofon M20FL Super that Raul recommended suits me better. The mention of the Australian Grado appears to be another example of a Grado product sold only outside the US (does this seem odd to anyone else?). I did note that dealer identifies a number of products under the Amber label, the cartridge is actually called The Tribute. Also, it is claimed to be designed by Joe Grado. His nephew John has run Grado for at least ten years so that must be a NOS model. So much for conversion of pricing to today's dollar!

One thing about plastic body Grados that always concerned me was their potential for non-musical resonance, and an obvious reason for offering wood bodies on all their upper end models. 3M makes an anti-resonance, self adhesive material, available in sheets. Cutting a pair of strips 1/2" long and 1/8" wide and applying them to the sides of the cartridge body seems to help a bit (with negligible added mass). This could be done to any plastic cartridge body but I only have tried it on Grados.

The last point was noting a few feelings or egos about as thin as the ice on a pond after a 31.5 degree F night. I think we are all here to share information and help one another. If someone has a different experience or opinion than mine, great, add that to the mix. It adds to the information base. I won't feel offended if you heard something differently than I did. I loved the Corvair I owned in college but certainly understand all may not have been as much fun and reliable as mine so others may have had bad experiences.

Now that I caught up on my reading and got all this off my chest, it's time to go listen to some music!
Lew, sorry to say I never heard the TLZ. If I remember correctly, there was a more popular model (at least in terms of sales, if not quality) about that same vintage, the 8M. I know I heard that (hope I recall the correct model name) but after 25 years or so I couldn't describe the sonics. My wood Master and plastic Reference were the best examples of Grados that I owned.

I remember hearing that someone from Porsche (the good Doctor hisself?) had been contracted for input on the Corvair. Too bad GM used the convenience of Nader's book to kill the Corvair after they made so many improvements in it. As for Porsches in my history, only a 356 C and a 912.
Raul, where did you read that Van den Hul uses the Technics as his reference/standard? Is that recent? I have read that he has a Technics EPA-100 arm as one reference but no idea how many others he may own and use.

I'm not doubting that he may admire the performance of a 20+ year old cartridge but for a cartridge manufacturer to use one as a reference/standard seems to be a bit of a stretch. I would think if anything he would have a few master tapes and custom pressed vinyl from those for a reference.
The only consensus I ever found in audio is that there is no consensus. Looking at the big picture - tube VS SS, analog VS digital, dynamic VS electrostatic, belt VS direct/rim drive, chocolate VS vanilla; come on people, let's celebrate our diversity!

If we come to this site for information, how does finger-pointing and name-calling help? We all have different backgrounds that developed our personal tastes in music and music reproduction. If anyone posts what they've tried and what they prefer, that should help serve the information purpose. If someone posts an experience that is different from my own, I should either accept and respect that or look more closely at my own to see why differences might be observed. To belittle that person for seeing (hearing) things differently than I do only reflects back on myself.

Shouldn't all this be so obvious that it does not need to be said?
Raul, yes looks like you got a nice deal on a pair of headphones. Also, looks like the model number is RS-1i.

http://www.gradolabs.com/frameset_main.htm
Re: loading resistance

For Montepilot and others interested in trying loading higher than the standard 47K, this may help. You should not need to buy a new adjustable phono stage or build a more complicated variable device like Dgarreston described. But be advised I'm not an expert concerning electronics so if I misstate anything, hopefully wiser words will overlay mine.

The conventional 47K load in most phono stages (stand alone or incorporated into full function preamps) is achieved by a 47K resistor soldered across the hot and ground leads for each channel. With resistance, you can load down (from 47K to 20K, 10K, 1K, 400, etc.) but not up to a higher resistance. Therefore, to experiment with 70K, 100k, or any other higher value, the standard 47K resistor (each channel) should be replaced with the highest value you are likely to try. If you install a 100K value you can still try lower loads (for example 47K to make direct comparisons). This may be done with external loading. Unless your phono stage has two inputs (most don't) you can do this by constructing a "loading" plug with adaptor for your single pair of phono inputs.

Buy a pair of "Y" RCA plugs of good quality with two female inputs and one male output connector, plus a pair of standard (such as found at the ends of any interconnect cable) RCA plugs. Solder an appropriate value resistor across the hot and ground inside each standard RCA plug. Then insert a new Y plug into each phono input. Plug your tonearm cable into one of the females on the Y and your newly configured "loading" plug into the other female of the Y. Choose the value for the loading plug to bring the newly installed 100K down to the desired total value.

OK I'll admit I have not made this change to my stand-alone phono stage as yet but I will soon. Good luck and have fun.
Tubed 1, the pricing alone may serve as a caution to "beware".

But I wonder if you have any other reason to post your warning, such as bad business dealings?
Royi, Raul, any information about the LTD designation on the Empire LTD 750 which Raul recommended some time ago and where it fits into the Empire range? All your discussion about the EDR is what raised the question for me.

I must admit that all this discussion is fascinating. I shared with Raul that my curiosity with MM/MI cartridges was revived several years ago after reading different reports of some of the best known mastering engineers favoring Stanton, Shure, or other MM/MI cartridges. Hey, if they are good enough for Doug Sax, why would I shun them? Then further reading over time found that some hobbyists favored Pickering or Empire over Stanton or Shure. But about that time Shure ended production of the V15 Type V (something) and I assumed none of the others were available any longer. So, not even thinking about possible NOS, I abandoned my interest until Raul began this post.
Axel, I like your theory. Furthermore, I believe it applies to every component in our respective systems, not just these dust-gathering cartridges.
Raul, I understand that your 1-10 rating system is purely a subjective way to order the relative performance of the many cartridges you test. And so long as we do not get hung up by thinking "I'd better get rid of X because it is only a 7 so I can buy a Y which Raul ranks an 8," then I think it is useful.

But you confused me with you 2/15 comment, "seems that the cartridge belongs to 6-7 range level but there is a cartridge characteristic that I don't like it: it has an uninnvolving performance with no " emotion "/soul". If there is any characteristic about a cartridge that leaves you feeling disappointed or unconnected with the music, how can you rate it 6-7?

I've been reading your comments long enough to respect your perspective of seeking components which do connect you emotionally with the live music experiences you enjoy so frequently. So how can you rate anything as above average when it does not provide such a connection?

Regards,
Raul, thanks for the reply. But if I'm not out of line for suggesting it, whenever you test a cartridge that does not come up to your expectation but believe more playing time might help, why write a comment at that time? Why not wait until you are satisfied the cartridge is broken in, then offer your comments?

I offer my suggestion because such short term comments, by Raul or any of us, may not be much help. The only benefit I can see would be to warn others not to expect much until a given model is broken in. But that could be stated simply without yet assigning a rating.

My 2 centavos worth.
Any recommendations for a glue that could be broken/cut when stylus replacement time rolls around? I would guess Super Glue and similar products to be too permanent. But what about a clear glue intended for plastic models like cars, planes, etc.?

On the other hand, I'll guess those who insert any absorbent material between their cartridge and headshell will not be candidates for stylus assembly gluing experiments. 8^)
FYI, the supply of Azden cartridges sold out while I waited for a confirmation from the seller that it included the standard mount adapter. My caution meant I missed getting one.
Rich, Re: mono cartridges

After doing research on mono playback (I have several hundred mono LPs), I posted this on another site. No one posted a dissenting perspective.

I believe you must first consider which records you will be playing before buying a mono cartridge. Note this applies only to 33 LPs, not 78s which have at least 3 mil requirements. Dates refer to master cutting, not performance date for reissues. This is a function of the groove size/shape created by the cutter head.

Pre-stereo era monos (roughly '48-'57), select a 1.0 mil conical stylus.

Early stereo era monos (roughly '58-'68), select a 0.7 mil conical stylus.

Recent mono reissues (mid '90s to present), select a mono cartridge with a modern narrow stylus profile or a stereo cartridge if you have a mono switch.

Lyra may have been the first to promote narrow profile stylus tips for better performance in mono cartridges. I think this may be true for playback of the modern mono reissues, but not as good for older originals. This is not to say a mono cartridge with a narrow profile stylus would not work on earlier pressings, it simply would not be optimal.

Hope this helps and good luck.
Lew, confession time. I ended up purchasing a Denon DL-102 mono cartridge which has a 0.7 mil conical stylus. This was based on numerous favorable comments from users plus an attractive price of roughly $125 (no exact memory on this, it was months ago and I can't remember what I had for lunch yesterday!).

So the confession is that I have not mounted/listened to the 102 yet. That one, along with a couple of Raul's recommended MMs are still awaiting construction of the plinth for my two-arm SP-10. After multiple set-backs in finding better woodworking tools than I own I'll be meeting with someone within the next week to discuss how we will proceed. My other table/arm, the Kuzma, has a one-piece arm/headshell so not so easy for swap out for comparisons.

Concerning your ? about post-57 that are reissues of pre-58 LPs: note I suggested considering dates for master cutting reissues, not originals. Therefore to best match the likely cutter heads, I'd go with a 0.7 mil. My plan is to utilize a more modern stereo stylus (using mono switch on my pre) on newer mono reissues and the 0.7 Denon on all original monos. There, rather than buying two mono cartridges, the 0.7 should work better in both pre-stereo and early stereo era monos than would a 1.0 mono stylus.

While this may not be the appropriate site to report back on my MC Denon, I will make an attempt to share findings somewhere once I have all my arms/wands/headshells/cartridges in play. Also, I will be looking into the issue of equalization for non-RIAA recordings. But I do NOT plan to go to single channel for mono listening!
With the mention of Denon headshells I had to rummage through my parts box. Yes, I found I have a Denon but no model indication. So before posting an ID question here I did a search. To save others the trouble, here is a handy table I found. I discovered I have a PCL-4. Hope there will not be a conflict mounting it on my Technics arm. ;-)

http://audioinvest.no/denon/denon_hs.htm
Alignment protractors, another small diversion from the MM subject. But this is important stuff so I'm not objecting.

It seems to me that all set-up devices, be they arc, two point, or single point such as my Dennesen Soundtracktor, attempt to achieve the same two functions, correctly set both overhang and offset angle. I agree with Lewm, if the protractor is constructed accurately and the set up is done carefully, why would one be more accurate than another? I think it is more a matter of ease of use (preventing frustration!).

If done carefully, the overhang distance should be equally correct with any of the three types. I believe it is the offset angle adjustment where the waters become muddy. I have never used an arc protractor but I really cannot understand Roy's "outboards by a few degrees" alignment. It seems to me the degree of inboard or outboard offset alignment will be dependent on the design (angle) of the arm (S or J) or headshell, not the type of protractor used.

I have used a DB Systems two point protractor, among others, and find it very difficult. Shifting back and forth to adjust offset between the two points is difficult because the cartridge must be loosened enough to move between the two measurement points.

The single point Dennesen has a more precise overhang measure because it anchors to the pivot point of the arm (but not all arms allow for this). Then there is a tiny "pit" for the stylus tip to settle into when overhang is correct. With the aid of a magnifier, this step is hard to get wrong. That leaves offset. Like several other protractors, the Dennesen includes an alignment grid surrounding the stylus point (pit). With a good light and magnifier, it is fairly simple to align the cantilever on the grid. I never use the cartridge body for this step. Obviously this assumes the stylus is set correctly in the end of the cantilever. Since I am not moving back and forth between two points, I find it relatively easy to set overhang and offset this way.

Of course, the best method for stylus alignment for offset would be with an oscilloscope and test record, but how many of us have access to those?
Lewm, see the link in my 3/7 post. It shows pictures of both the PCL-4 and 5, plus gives Denon's weights. It lists the 5 at 6g as Raul suggested. The PCL-7 is 8.5g.
Sorry but this "refresh" thing has become a bit confusing. Raul, I had a similar question as Lew on what you auditioned but he beat me to posting.

So Raul, van den Hul will replicate the original stylus profile if requested with a retip, rather than mount one of his vdH tips? That is interesting because I believe Soundsmith uses their own preferred profile when retipping (as well as cantilever material), rather than duplicating the original stylus (and cantilever). In fairness, I have not inquired if Soundsmith would replicate an original profile for an added charge if requested.

This does relate to a question I did ask Soundsmith however. That was, how much of the sonic result with his rebuild comes from the new cantilever/stylus (and possibly different cantilever resonance and tip profile) compared to that of the motor design and construction of the original cartridge? His reply was "Impossible to say – too complex - it depends on how the energy is handled in each specific cartridge design."

One reason for asking was the recollection of Raul's comment a while back that he preferred the sonics of an original B&O MMC 20CL over a Soundsmith rebuild of that model.

Another issue with vdH though is pricing from the US. A friend checked on retip prices by vdH compared to Soundsmith for his vdH cartridge and vdH was 2-3 times more expensive.

No one said this would be easy. :-(
Lew, good thought to provide your list. However it might be helpful to identify new MM/MI separately from NOS, at least for those new to this thread or new to vinyl.

We can add Shure, Stanton, Benz, other Ortofon models to the list of new MM/MI still in production. Also, I thought the P76 (a NOS) was sold out, although not to say the odd one may not still pop up on A'gon or Ebay.
A contrarian comment - Many of you have read, or at least heard of, Jim Smith's "Get Better Sound". That book is full of useful tips based on his years of experience with system set up and I heartily recommend it. If you buy a copy you become eligible to receive his "Quarter Notes", a quarterly update with comments and additional information. But in Vol. 1, Issue #3 there is some advice that runs contrary to Raul's thread.

Jeff Dorgay of TONEAudio contributed a piece called Vinyl 101, tips for those returning to vinyl playback. First, Dorgay barely skims the surface (or should I say scratches?) since he only offers three suggestions. But the first is if your "cartridge is more than five years old, throw it out and start over"!

Now I don't own as many older cartridges as many of you here but I do have some NOS or ones I've owned more than five years and I strongly disagree with Mr. Dorgay. So I wrote to Jim Smith and related my experience and a reference to this thread. I suggested it was irresponsible to recommend throwing out cartridges just because they were built more than five years ago. Jim replied that he generally agreed with Dorgay because of the potential for suspension failures and believes most hobbyists would not be interested in having a cartridge rebuilt (although he agrees that can be a good option if done properly).

My counter is that not all suspensions fail after five years, or ten, or even twenty. In addition to the MM/MI I've been inspired to buy, I have a Shinon MC over ten years old that still sounds very good. Now consider all the cartridges discussed in this thread that were manufactured over ten years ago. Mr. Smith has elsewhere made the point that many audio "opinions" are not necessarily based on real world experiences and I'm afraid in this case he (and more so Mr. Dorgay) is guilty of the same error.
So, based on Lew's discovery of the alignment mis-match with his DV arm, I'm wondering if there is a simple way to identify the alignment utilized in the design for any given arm? Could it be something as simple as observing if the cartridge requires more than slight offset relative to the headshell?

I would think this may not be a problem for most common pivoted arms but would appreciate comments by anyone with a better grasp of design engineering.

Thanks if you can offer enlightenment.
Lew, I don't mean to sound picky but your comments are normally quite precise. In describing your 980LZS audition you stated, "This brought it back to life, so there is some life left in the stylus after all." That could imply to a newbie that playing a stylus can restore life. I believe your intent was to suggest that playing the test record perhaps loosened up the cantilever suspension which brought some life back to your cartridge, correct?

As Raul has reminded us many times, one major value in sharing experiences here is to help educate one another. Because of this I think we should all do an "edit read" of our posts to ensure we are saying what we intended before submitting them.

Anyway, glad you found another contender.
I never read about the "Temperature Defensive" Dumper but a friend has an EPC-100 Mk 4 that he bought new, oh so many years ago. He always claimed it was the most musically accurate cartridge he ever owned (he has quite a bit of experience making live recordings). But the suspension failed and it lay idle in his parts box for years. Finally after we talked about it last fall he sent it in to Soundsmith to be rebuilt. Eventually Peter got back to him saying he was not able to rebuild it properly.

I thought this sounded a little strange but perhaps this Dumper than Siniy123 mentions is the reason. My friend's experience may be an example of "not aging well".
Dave, many, many years ago some company offered an accessory damper attachment to clip to the headshell. As I remember it there was a small, soft pad to contact the record to assist in stabilizing the arm. I never heard one so cannot comment on effectiveness.

Also for years Max Townshend has advocated the use of a damping trough at the cartridge end of the tone arm, rather than near the pivot as SME and a few others offered.

http://townshendaudio.com/home/products/turntables/the-rock-v.html

So it seems that a number of designers/engineers believe such stabilization or damping may be worthwhile.
Raul, regarding your point of agreement on eliminating the "seven filters/veils", I still sometimes wonder about detachable headshells and their additional connections. I know you favor them to allow "fine tuning" for mass and resonance in matching cartridges with given tonearms. But when you described your recommendation to eliminate the extra connections with a standard P-mount cartridge adaptor with direct connection to the cartridge pins and the benefits you heard in doing so I began thinking about the headshells again.

So I'm wondering about a possible solution when rewiring an arm. Carefully drilling a hole on the underside of the arm, just before the locking ring, could accommodate an extension of an additional length of the continuous wire. The wire could then pass underneath the headshell/tonearm joint to reach the cartridge pins. If done carefully this could preserve the advantages of a continuous wire (cartridge pins to tonearm wire RCA/XLR plug) while maintaining the advantages of the interchangeable headshell.
Don, you read through the followup posts and got the impression none were made by "any experienced audiophile"? Truly amazing! ;-)
Well, at least Raul and Aolsala agree that it is the whole quality of the arm, not just the mass, that affects the sonic result.

In the mid-70s I bought a new XLM II, in part influenced by HP. At the time I had a Phillips turntable and arm (202? 212? I just remember the green lights in the touch-sensitive buttons). In spite of my later opinion that it was not a very good arm, it was relatively low mass and I thought the cartridge sounded wonderful - detailed, deep, and dynamic. I also had Stacked Advents (those thanks to HP after a couple of years with single Advents) and HK Citation 11 and 12. Lew, the preamp was the 11. It included a 5-band equalizer. I was very disappointed and got rid of that quickly. The 12 amp sounded great but did not stand up to driving the 4 ohm load of the double Advents and after a repair I replace it too.
Aolsala, I can respect your experience, history, and opinions. But one thing you said really caused a double take -

"publications such as AUDIO, High Fidelity, Stereo Review, etc.. I have all of these in my collection and very informative reading indeed."

We had an internationally known high end store in San Diego in the '70s, Audio Directions. One of the owners had strong opinions regarding magazine reviews. He felt only two bits of information in reviews had any relevance; the component dimensions could tell if it would fit on your shelf, and the weight would suggest if the shelf might be strong enough to hold it. ;-)

I think the reviews by Richard Heyser in Audio were an exception but I still have a few copies of some of those magazines and most reviews read like manufacturer's ad copy.

Now enough of all this, back to the OP on MM cartridges . . . what's the latest discovery?
Lew, your cartridges can live for another day. Even for your retirement if necessary.

Take care of your family first. Then get that amp working.

I realize you are wise enough not to need this advice, but a little friendly encouragement never hurts.

Best wishes with all these issues, and in the order suggested. ;-)
The need for low bass? Hope this does not seem OT but I'm responding to (supporting really) Lewm and DU's comments.

Other than some electronic instruments, only five instruments produce tones below 40 Hz (tuba, contrabassoon, harp, piano and organ). So how much music has been written that reaches into the 20-40 Hz range?

Since I'm not much into home theater effects, my personal goal in audio has always been to have reasonable response playback down to about 40 Hz. This came from the 42 Hz of an open E string on an acoustic bass. I admit some 5-string electric basses may go lower but those are not common.

Certainly some organ buffs and those who may listen to a fair amount of electronic music may feel the need for sub-woofers extending their systems below 40 Hz, but it seems to me most of us can live quite happily without the need for having our bowels stirred! ;-)
Raul, since we continue to discuss subwoofers (this is your thread so you can take it any place you please), I must say I agree with your points. In fact, it brings one experience to mind.

Many years ago I was considering subwoofers and visited a very reputable dealer for a demo. Interestingly he played a violin recording over a pair of Spendor BC-1, with and without the sub system. The difference in upper bass and mid-range clarity (I'm defining as 80 Hz and above) was obvious when the subs were activated. This seemed counter-intuitive to not play an organ recording or other "deep bass" demo, but he explained that a major benefit in adding a sub was to relieve both the woofer and amp from signals below the crossover point. This is one reason why I cannot understand the popularity of subs like the REL designs, but again that is a personal choice.

So my post was not to deny the benefits of adding appropriate subs, but to imply this is less critical for most music reproduction, i.e. above 40 Hz, than other basic system considerations. My understanding is that harmonics occur above the basic tone, not below it. So an open E string on a bass at 42 Hz will have overtones at 84, 168, etc., but not at 21Hz.
Raul, Lewm, all; perhaps I should not be commenting here since I've never owned a subwoofer. But several friends do and I expect to add them if I ever move and have a more accommodating room, so I have done a bit of listening and research.

The point I first attempted to make (but failed I'm afraid) was to suggest the importance of having a system with response down to 40 Hz as an initial priority. Certainly for those with the space and budget to add subwoofers to extend below 40 Hz that would be a desirable addition.

The most successful subwoofer systems I've heard are set up as Raul advises. It is beneficial to keep the lowest frequency signals from your main amp(s) and speakers and this is heard in the important upper bass and mids. Lew, this is why I do not understand the recommendation for REL subs. As I understand them, they are designed to add on to main amp(s) and speakers playing full range.

At the same time I appreciate Lew's concerns in finding ANY sub that can blend sonically with his Soundlabs. Of the Martin Logan models I've heard for example, only the CLS (which I owned) presented a cohesive frequency response. All other models had dynamic woofers.

Lastly, Duke states up front he did not develop the multi-sub concept for smoothest in-room bass response. He credits Dr. Geddes for inspiring him. And Duke's Swarm system is four subs, not five. Since they only require an 11"x11" footprint and are intended for scattered placement, they may be more easily accommodated than one or two large sub cabinets.

http://www.audiokinesis.com/product_ak_swarm.html

And now, back to MMs?
Lew, I'm sure your quote is accurate. But that does not suggest Duke originated the concept. Hopefully, this will clear things up. It is quoted from a Stereo Times interview with Duke:

"DL: The concept behind the Swarm arises from a brief conversation with Earl Geddes, as I was driving him to the airport after CES in 2006. I had been trying for years to come up with a subwoofer system that would match up well with Magneplanars and Quads, trying various enclosure types in a quest for very good “pitch definition” in the bass region, along with good impact (good planars excel at the former but not the latter,). Anyway, Earl mentioned that scattering multiple subs asymmetrically around the room resulted in a net smoothing of the in-room bass, as each sub would interact with the room differently so that the sum would be smoother than any one along. The lightbulb went off in my head, and I asked him for permission to use the idea. He said yes."

And NOW back to MMs?
Ahhh, back to the land of MM cartridges!

Raul, did you see the selling price of the 100 Mk4? It was $1,324 with shipping!

Now I would not blame you as selling price will be determined by whatever someone is willing to pay. But I would not pay that much for a used cartridge over 20 years old. One of my local audio buddies has a 100 Mk4 that he bought new back when they were a current product. He considered it the best MM he heard then, but got out of analog around 1990, only coming back a few years ago. After he and I talked about the renewed interest in MM and MI cartridges, stimulated by this initial thread, he dug out his 100 Mk4 and installed it for a listen. Unfortunately due to aging, the suspension had collapsed. This is not an uncommon occurrence and I know you've sent many vintage cartridges in to be "refreshed" as you put it.

So my friend sent his 100 Mk4 in to SoundSmith to be rebuilt. His cartridge did not have more than a few hundred hours use so suspension work should have been all that was needed. Peter got back to him saying he tried but could not rebuild the suspension and the only option was to find the proper replacement stylus assembly. Supposedly Peter has been watching for a replacement but this has now been over a year without success.

So why is the Technics suspension so unique that it is difficult or impossible to rebuild? Apparently van den Hul has rebuilt them but anyone in the US must go through the official vdH importer who charges unreasonable prices.

I've owned other older cartridges with suspension problems and I think buying any cartridge more than 15 to 20 years old is taking a chance for suspension failure. BTW, this may apply to MC designs even more as most of them are not built with as heavy (sturdy?) a cantilever and suspension.
My Cramolin red did not come with a brush. Maybe only "newer" supplies did so, thus further telling how old mine is!?!

But at least my technique of using a clean toothpick has kept the bottle "junk" free.
Dertonarm, Syntax, I checked the Klyne website but could not find any articles or papers. Could one of you post a link?

Thanx
Hi Raul, you posted "the Empire 4000DIII was designed to " see " 100K on load impedance". Where does this come from?

I just received an Empire 4000D III and the instruction sheet calls for 47K loading. I'm not disagreeing with a 100K recommendation, I know you have found that to be best for the majority of MM you've reported on. Rather, I would like to know your source for stating it "was designed" for something other than what Empire printed?

And hopefully by the time I get to try the Empire in January I will also be able to modify my phono unit to the 100K basic loading.

Best of the holidays to all.
Bad news Lew, the MSRP of the JC-1 is $9K. I think even Stereophile finally updated the price in their recommended components list.

But that is said with my tongue in one cheek. Everything you say about value still applies. And I know someone who could cut you a sweet deal on a near-mint pair.
Raul, thanks for your source recommendation on Empire 4000DIII loading. It may be one difference between earlier 4000DIIIs and the Gold version (there is at least one other). At first I thought the 100K might have been a typo on the VE site. But I quickly scanned the three pages of Empire data and did find ONE other model with a 100K recommended loading, the 4000DI, so that lessens the chance it was a typo.

Again, none of this is to suggest one should not at least try the 100K loading. I'm just way behind in modifying my phono unit to provide that.
Lew, what would you say to a silicon adhesive? One that does not harden and form a permanent bond so the stylus could be removed when necessary. It would require careful application to avoid any contact with the shank entering the cartridge body.

I don't have much experience with them so cannot offer a specific suggestion.
Lew, and other "elder eyes" like myself; it seems some sort of vision enhancement is a requirement for any cartridge alignment.

I also have a (metal version) Dennesen that I've used for many years. I use it with a 2" magnifier (marked 1/2" on the handle?) to sight both the stylus tip into the "tiny dimple" and to align the cantilever with the appropriate grid lines. Prior to that I used a DB Systems protractor but found the back and forth adjustments a bit tiresome. I've never used a Feickert or Mint LP, but for myself, I cannot imagine using any protractor without the aid of some sort of magnifier. Note I can read fairly small print uncorrected at 12-18" but must have correction with objects less than 6" away.
So Raul, the obvious questions -- how soon do you expect production, and have you posted any specs/pictures of your "final" prototype? Oh, and projected price (US$) would be good to know too.
Nandric, FYI Cramolin was produced and sold by Caig Laboratories, not those Monsterous people. As indicated in the attached link, a significant component was banned, thus forcing the development of a replacement product.

http://store.caig.com/s.nl/ctype.KB/it.I/id.1411/KB.215/.f

I still have and use Cramolin red as a contact cleaner. Such a small amount is needed for each application that I suspect it may be a lifetime supply!
Nandric, I may be missing something but I never tried the blue. If I remember correctly, Caig claimed it to be a preservative to be used after the red cleaner. Does that sound right?

I've had my bottle of red for over 10 years. I dip the tip of a toothpick in to pick up a drop, then apply that to the connector surface, after which I wipe it with a clean white cotton cloth. Sometimes it is amazing that so little can bring back the shine if it is a reflective surface.