Benz Ruby 3 cartridge loading

Hello, I am currently using this cartridge loaded at 47k ohms in my Audio Research SP-14 pre amp phono section. It sounds wonderful to me and I have no complaints. My question is, am I missing something by not loading it much lower, say around 1k ohms where I think I read it should be? I believe the specs for this cartridge say greater than 400 ohms. Some of my other components are; VPI Aries I TT with VPI JMW 9 sig arm, Cary Rocket 88 amp (in rotation with a custom built OTL 6 wpc amp) and Klipschorn speakers. Most of my listening is classic rock and some jazz.
It it's not too bright sounding then you're fine. Otherwise, loading it down more will roll the highs a bit and increase the focus somewhat.
Hi Markpao, I assume that you are refering to Ruby 3 S?
BTW the 'S' should be FG-S. Ie Fritz Geiger stylus;also used by Jan Allaerts. My first attempt was 1000 Ohm but I
prefer 400 Ohm (10 x 38 Ohm ). 'It all depends' as one says. My phono-pre is Basis Exclusive 'gold' (2009).
Plato is right on. Lower resistance can take the edge off excessive highs and fill out the lows. Too low a setting results in fat, flabby bass.

My table has a Graham 2.2 arm with his IC-30 cable. I ran it at the 475 and 825 ohm settings with a Pass Labs Xono.

I've tried the 500 ohm and 1.0K ohm settings on my Mac C500T. I use the 1.0K ohm setting.

In my system, ideally, it would be best somewhere in between 500 and 825 with my arm and IC, but don't sweat it. Just enjoy the music.

Relax, have a Goose Island Bourbon County and listen to some Neil Young...
You would benefit if you took the steps down in loading to 200ohms that way you would be sure of what you liked best and won't be wondering all the time. As a bonus you'd get the knowledge of what changing cart loading does to the sound in your system and one more tuning tool in the experience box.
Samhar, 'steps down in loading'. Nobody mentioned HF units in his speakers while the most MC carts have pronounced high frequency. My are beryllium-kind (Usher BE-20) and I had the impression to tame them by 'step down' to 400 ohm.
However in the German magzine LP they measured the influence of loading but on the 'frequency line' there was
hardly any evidence for (my) assumtion. My (other )assumtion: if you want to be sure you should choose other
Isn't it a balance between loading, VTA and VTF? Who said anything about rolling off the HF? Why shouldn't he try different combinations so he understands what the settings do and how to balance the three for the sound he prefers in his system. He might find he likes something other than his current settings and why!!! That was the point of my original post.
Hi Samhar, My post was not in any way indented as critic to your post. One can only try what he thinks will help.
If one is not aware of something then it is impossible to
include this in one's reasoning. My premisse was double-sided: the MC carts have usualy pronounced HF and HF units
in the loudspekers also differ in this regard.So my trial was based on the assumption that diff. loading may help.
But I deed not in any way claim that my assumptions are true or tenable in technical sence. So I also provided this
reference to the LP magazine for the contrary. And you are right regarding 'who said anything about rolling off the HF'. But this was my question and not my claim. So to answer your question: I deed. But my question in no way iplicates that my question is relevant or reasonable. You know the forums like our are about all kind of questions. Ie not necessarily smart or intelligible one. We all,I asume, want te learn from the more knowledgable persons.

Plato,Sorry for my omission. I should also refer to your
assumptions reg. HF. If my assumptions are similar to yours
that is. Ie it is not my claim that I was the first to
ask the question about possible correlation between loading
and HF performance.