Not much but it is a start.
Many thanks. I saw this but am very dubious about it.
In fact, I have already seen all of these pieces (for which I am truly grateful) and this only heightened my curiousity.
The claim that Glanz is German would seem to be substantiated by the name of the range: "glanz". However, the pieces from Vinylengine and the cartridge data base make explicit claims about it being a Japanese product. Maybe the Astatic link would be the answer (meaning, Japanese made under/for a German owned company).
They are all cited as being moving magnets. Even the Japanese retailer from whom I bought mine has them down as Japanese made moving magnets. What makes you think they are moving flux (or, excuse my unabashed technical ignorance but, are they the same thing?)?
Please keep an eye out and if anything further can be found out (maybe by a former owner), it would be hugely appreciated
I just had another thought. The G5 and G3 cartridges are not noted in the French review of the Glanz range. Could these products be later, German productions?
I'm dubious about that argument though, if only due to the serialisation of the range. Would Glanz (Japan) make a G1 and G7 skipping the G3 and G5 for these latter two to be subsequently produced (German)? I doubt it and believe they are all the same manufacturer (even if only German 'owned'). However, you can see my confusion and need for clarification!
Again, any help really appreciated
Many thanks in hope and anticipation
Glanz are a moving flux design I will dig out the little brochure I have when I find it tomorrow. What I remember is they sounded pretty damn good for the money. I owned a MFG 71S and it rocked. I found a MFG 71E with a busted cantilever and I keep it just in case I find a replacement somewhere. Replacement stylus/Cantilever on these just snap into place. My front of house is worth $55,000 so that should be recommendation enough. Cheers
Many thanks for this. Do you know about any difference in sound and performance between the MFG line and the G line? Also, do you recall how the two lines were esteemed at that time?
Again, many thanks. I think that is correct and would tie in with my above suggestion about producer/owner distinction. I respect the technological fervour of both Japanese and German engineering. The word "precision" can hardly be used without these two nations springing to mind.
No, my interest is in knowing the tool that I am about to use. Ultimately, I'd hope to be in dialogue with users who can advise and recommend on issues such as tonearm matching, general set up and performance characteristics.
In the meantime,knowing the history of its production and its standing within its line and time is an interesting part of this learning experience. I am amazing grateful for all contributions and any scap of informaion would stil be welcome.
Many thanks again. Is there anywhere that I might find the Astatic MF series linked to the Glanz line? Also, as always, anything further would be truly appreciated.
For example, is it true that you cannot set effective length/overhang nor SRA with a glanz cartridge but that they operate wherever the tonearm drops them - as long as the tonearm is set at its correct position? What tonearm/s play best with the Glanz and all the other questions about performance, peception and comparisons...?
I guess you are talking about Glanz G series of cartridges - integrated into headshell. For many integrated cartridges the overhang adjustment is possible, e.g.: Audio Technica AT-25, Technics Technics EPC-205Cmk3. I'm not sure about Glanz G series. What is the distance from tonearm connector to stylus tip in your G5?
I link Glanz MFG and Astatic MF series by the fact that they look alike, the stylus assembly look alike and spec are the same.
Regarding the tonearm for my Astatic MF-100. I had a difficulty to match it at first (technics 1200, Micro Ma-505), but I found that tonearms with effective mass above 16 g should tried first. For example: there is excellent match between my Kenwood L-07D tonearm and this Astatic. One of my other friends reported that it works very good on his Audio Technica 1503 tonearm. Both of them have effective mass around 19 g.
Hope this helps.
Many thanks again. I am currently using it to excellent effect in a high mass tonearm. However, I really want more rigorous information and comparisons as a key part of the learning curve that I am hoping to go on with this remarkable cartridge.
My interest is proportional to my surprise and pleasure at getting acquainted with this most unexpected arrival. I do not know (ie. have not knowingly heard) the Astatic range but if it truly compares in performance, just excellent.
Any first hand experience or even second or third hand experience with the G range of Glanz cartridges (and/or with the MFG line) would therefore be just brilliant. All contributions are exceptionally welcome.
Just one additional factor that makes the Glanz G5 a true joy: so long as the tonearm mounting position is spot on you just need to set VTF and VTA. Everything else (SRA and overhang) disappear as issues. Given what I am hearing at this early point, this begs the question, why were more top range cartridges not built with an integrated headshell and the loss of the usual set up dramatics??
When you note that, "In my opinion Glanz G7 is basically is Glanz MFG-71L, which is same as Astatic MF-100", the Vinyl Engine article gives quite distinct characteristics and suggests that the G series of Glanz are superior (at least as far as calibrated measurements are concerned).
I've already posted this on Raul's 'MM v MC' thread but would just like to repeat my plea for any information on the Glanz G5, G7 or MFG-71E or L.
I don't know the Glanz line, but I have Astatic MF-100 and MF-200 cartridges. They are exceptionally fine, IMHO. The sound is similar to a Grado Signature 8, but with better extension at both ends. I posted a pic on Vinyl engine of that odd pivot through the top of the widely tapered cantilever. The patent referred to previously shows it (thanks).
I have been testing the Glanz G5 extensively and I've grown more impressed with each comparison that it has undergone in relation to other renowned cartridges.
A curiousity around its stellar performance is the fact that I use mine in my Audiocraft AC3300 tonearm with the s-shaped wand. This means that overhang and off-set are way off the standard and, obviously, cannot be adjusted in their permanent headshell. Nevertheless, the Glanz outperforms everything that has been reviewed in comparison to it. This finding being based on my own criteria of assessment and reference to specific live performances at familiar venues. Simply phenomenal but difficult to find!!!
If the Glanz G7 is indeed an improvement on my G5, my mind is literally boggled. I should suggest that although the G7 claims better performance parameters statistically, you need always to be careful in following these as the sign of a better cartridge. Similarly, one needs to be careful in accepting a manufacturer's necessarily claimed hierachy of its products. These often fall back on a parameter of improved statistical behaviour, with prices and performance being seen as increasing year-on-year. Only careful auditioning will tell the true tale (a case in point here being the ADC XLM range).
If you get the chance and love live music (and your system is generally up to it), the Glanz G5 cartridge simply demands your attention.
Dear Dgob: +++++ " his means that overhang and off-set are way off the standard and, obviously, cannot be adjusted in their permanent headshell. " +++++
now I can see why a similar cartridge design than the Astatic MF line could sounds different and especially when the G-5 is not the top of the line.
I had, at least, two similar experiences with two cartridges ( FR-702 and Nagatron 350E. ) where ( by " accident ". ) the overhang and offset cartridge set up were way off.
In both cases ( and not over the full frequency range. ) I was really happy for what I was hearing ( especially on treble. ) that I never heard it with any other cartridge at that top quality performance.
I heard the FR-702 for more than two weeks and I was so " happy/satisfied " that I did not aware of what was happening and was unaware of the " problems " in the other frequency ranges but after that time to hearing one day I take in count that something was wrong with what I was hearing and then check the cartridge set-up and take in count the " wrong " set-up ( with the Nagatron it take me 4 days to be aware on that wrong set-up. ) and made the cartridge set-up according the " rules ".
At the beguining I feel that I was missing something ( that treble especial performance. ) but after two-three hours everything comes in place and for the better.
What happen when we have a cartridge set-up out of target ( way off. )? the distortions ( every kind )/tracking error ( between other things. ) goes up and that's what you are hearing.
Some of those distortions could gives to the cartridge performance more " transparency "/better higs/extended/etc but are only distortions not music on the recording.
In your cartridge sample an additional source of distortion are the internal cartridge headshell wires.
That you like those higher distortions against other lower distortion cartridges performance is IMHO not the subject, you have the right to like or dislike what ever you want.
Of course that this is only an opinion with foundation on similar experiences.
Anyway, the important subject is what you think because is you who have to live with that kind of " distortions " and if you like it then go a head.
Regards and enjoy the music,
I hear your opinion and appreciate the received logic that underpins it. It is too difficult to explain the lengths and depth of testing that this has gone through.
Really, and honestly, if you get the chance you need to hear this cartridge. The design of cartridge in headshell was in fact the preferred manafacturer's set up and the performance statistics are also higher on these G series cartridges.
Some say that a millimetre here or there is not essential but for me that is "way off". You might differ but you really would not be able to question the performance of the Glanz G5. I know your commentary well enough to be certain that you would not want to continue to talk from a position of ignorance and I'm sure you will let the cartridge speak for itself - when you get a chance.
The entire frequency range is far superior to so many of the popular cartridges that I expect nothing but complete satisfaction and I am willing to be that you will love it (or the G7, MFG-71E or MFG-71L, assuming the G7 to be superior according to performance statistics).
Thanks for your kind comments they are always interesting and you will no doubt be surprised.
Just a quick noted about the design of the G series Glanz cartridges. The distance between stylus tip and end of afixed headshell is 50mm. It uses silver connector cables in the headshell. Once afixed to your tonearm, the key issue is that the tonearm is exactly set at its correct mounting distance. You then need to ensure VTA and VTF.
Once you achieve these (very simple) tasks, the cartridges are designed to operate at their optimum. Regardless of tonearm recommended overhang parameters (and here one of course recalls the error in the Ikeda IT407 tonearm set up instructions and template!!), the cartridge headshell design will be at its optimum. You will, for example notice that off set is accurate at both null points.
It is not a cartridge for the uncreative nor for the hifi obsessed: because you will need to use your ear (and/or those of professional musicians or piano tuners - as is my case) and follow the above instructions above anything else. What it/they are is a tool with an unrivalled - in my experience - ability to convey live music in a manner that recaptures live performances at specific venues where I have experienced these.
However, forget any dogma and - as I suggested to the last poster - let your ears guide you. They are VERY special.
Dear Dgob: +++++ " The distance between stylus tip and end of afixed headshell is 50mm. It uses silver connector cables in the headshell. Once afixed to your tonearm, the key issue is that the tonearm is exactly set at its correct mounting distance. " +++++
IMHO to say that " is exactly set at its correct mounting distance " is a misunderstood and plain wrong for say the least.
To achieve and follow the Baerwald or Lofgren cartridge/tonearm ( a pivot one. ) set up you have to know the distance between the TT center spindle to the center pivot tonearm point and the overhang ( each tonearm has its own shaped geometry to achieve the offset angle. ).
You can take your AC3300 tonearm that has a spec on overhang ( a very specific one ), this means that the cartridge has to be mounted in a way that meets that overhang, if the overhang can't meet that target then the tracking error will be different as tracking distortions.
Now take the AC4400 ( that is exactly the same Audiocraft AC3300 but with lomger arm wands. ) and you find out that the overhang is different to the one in the AC3300, so you have to change the cartridge headshell position, something that you can't do it with that cartridge.
Of course that maybe that cartridge could meet the precise asking overhang on some tonearms but certainly not in that " easy " way you posted.
In those old times the cartridge manufacturers was not aware or they don't give to much importance to that cartridge/tonearm precise set up as they don't be aware of the critical importance of the cartridge/headshell relationship for achieve the best quality performance in a cartridge. Today things already change about: we learn through the years.
Glanz was not the only " old " cartridge that comes with a integrated headshell, many cartridge manufacturers of those times choose to do the same, IMHO a not so good choice and not only because what I posted here about but because additional we can't improve the cartridge internal wiring that we all know makes a difference for the best or worse.
You have to think that that cartridge cables/connectors in your sample has around 30 years!!!, IMHO not the best.
IMHO you are surrounded of many additional distortions with that cartridge. Btw, nothing wrong with that you like it.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Hi Raul and Siniy123,
Thanks for sharing your views, information and opinions. Yes Raul, the Spu cartridges for example have a 52mm distance and are easily optimised engaging the same methods.
Siniy123, I will try it in my Ikeda once I have the time. Also, thanks for the heads-up about the 1000 ZE/X. I gave Raul my Empire because it was in a poor condition and (as with the M20FL Super and Andante P76) its bass performance was very hifi-ish. I might try it once I see enough feedback from a range of convincing users to merit my giving it another go.
If you get the chance Raul, I repeat that you really should give the Glanz (given your beliefs, maybe a MFG-71L; MFG-71E or G7) a go. Given the fact that there are various recent dialogues about the qualities of vintage cartridges, I don't think you should let the age of the Glanz make you quite so prejudiced.
I'd not claim it/they is/are the "BEST" cartridge[s] ever made at any time but I would place my honour behind my claim that it/they is/are [a] great cartridge[s]. All Raul's guesses are not as weighty as they will be when he has some experience in this area. Nevertheless, I do welcome your comments if not being convinced by certain claims.
Again, a genuine thanks
Dear Siny123: There are at least two important and critical subjects about: one is that those internal wire connectors deteriorate over time making poor connections.
The other subject is that those internal wires are precisely at the source where we have to have the best " connections " all over the audio system. Why don't you make a test? re-wire your audio system with 30 years old cables instead the ones you are using now: you will hear the huge difference in quality performance.
Siniy123, months ago I re-wire my Velodyne's ( the wire that goes from internal amplifier to the woofers. ) where I change a 50-60cm wire for a better one and even that is not easy to be aware of this kind of changes in a subwoofer the quality performance was/is really better.
Now imagine a change of wires at the source.
I don't want to follow on this Glanz subjects. I think I already write my opinion/worries.
Regards and enjoy the music,
If it makes you happier and gives your opinion a little more fact, the AC3300 places the G5 exactly on the null points and at the exact overhang and off-set when you use the MC-A armwand, which is what I am doing. Now, believe that churlishness or ignorance should be no excuse to try this gem.
If you wish to continue giving opinions in complete ignorance and are not willing to learn any longer, so be it and good luck. I will not respond again until you have the relevant knowledge to comment.
I don't want to start another subject. Since from the begging it is already a moot point. But just the example: do you know how old the wire on that Empire 1000 XE/Z is? Probably 40 year old. And do you know how long is the wire there? I afraid to say that I use device that is more than 30 year old and full of electronic components. This Accuphase C-220 is very good performer. Probably wire inside the enclosed headshell can be improved, but this is not we should be worry about in this excellent (as reported) cartridge. May be this enclosed headshell plays some magic with mechanical resonances. I speculate: it can give a notch above their brethren such as Astatic MF-100.
I've seen enough of new crappy carts with fresh off the mill wiring and you-name-it headshell wires and tonearm cable. Mechanical properties of vinyl playback are magnitudes more that interconnecting wiring influence.
Dear Dgob: +++++ " A curiousity around its stellar performance is the fact that I use mine in my Audiocraft AC3300 tonearm with the s-shaped wand. This means that overhang and off-set are way off the standard and, obviously, cannot be adjusted in their permanent headshell. " +++++
due to this statement that you posted I give my opinion and now you come here , with prepotence ( big man. ), to tell me that that statement was not true ( was/is false. ) because the cartridge was/is set up on target!!!!!!!
Before you make false statements analize what you are posting because the answers will be of what you posted. The relevant knowledge?, that " relevant knowledge " comes on what you posted. Useless to go on.
Regards and enjoy the music,
On my suggestions, they stem from your willingness to cast opinions about everything and every cartridge ever made and enter a thread about Glanz before declaring:
"I don't want to follow on this Glanz subjects. I think I already write my opinion/worries."
Don't get so stressed out. Ignorance is everyone's option. My change to the MC-A was intended to remove your considerable prejudice to learning and trying something new. This latter fact leads to my concern about your mental stability - given your professions elsewhere to the contrary.
Now I can conclude this matter by suggesting you return to the Glanz thread when you know the cartridge and - therefore - what you are talking about. That's it...
Dear Dgob: The only reason why I start my posts on the subject ( 01-27-10 ) was when you disclose ( after four months ) that the cartridge set up was off/out of target.
I only posted what my experiences were with a similar wrong overhang cartridges set up.
I don't/wasn't questioning the cartridge performance ( but its wrong set up. ) only give my opinion/experiences with similar set up.
I don't care and I'm not interested what a cartridge quality performance can or could be with a wrong cartridge set up.
You give several cartridge quality performance opinions knowing that the cartridge was out of target on set up but you don't tell to any one , you hide this critical/main information.
After this how any one can/could trust in what you post or posted?
I buy almost any vintage MM/MI that I not own so sooner or latter I will have a Glanz one as other additional cartridges.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Look, you and I have some obvious disagreements and you tend to interpret things in a very negative and small spirited way.
How and why did you find out that "hidden" fact - about my initial set-up?
I do dispair at times! I hide nothing and you seem to accuse others of what you must obviously be capable of. You need to reflect on our discourse over the years and move on.
I have just secured the pending arrival of the G7 (among other cartridges) and will see how well that performs. Given the near infinite combinations of cartridge and all aspects of the system I still think you are niave in constantly playing scoring games (against strangers or cartridges). All I can tell you is what I prefer and not the BEST. Take or leave it but do talk from experience, please!
Dear Dgob: +++++ " How and why did you find that " hidden fact... " +++++
I don't you did in your last posts:
+++++ " 1, I was using the AP-300S, which did not quite meet the overhang.
2. I replaced it with my MC-A armwand which does. " +++++
Now: +++++ " I hide nothing and you seem to accuse others " +++++
I did not accuse you your own/self " facts "/posts accuse you.
Btw, I always speak by personal experiences and that's why I don't speak on Glanz quality performance.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Anyone who wants to view this apparent concealment can trace my posts (including the initial ones on the MM/MI thread initiated by Raul. My posts on 09-10-09 and 09-26-09 there will give you a sense of the evolution of my listening etc). You might also be able to reflect on how and why he found this apparently dastardly fact out!!? I understand his disappointment on not knowing everything but he will have to get used to that as part-and-parcel of the human condition. Raul, just be pleased that I let you know about my set-up and look back to former threads on which I had noted (very clearly, my fastination with the plug and play approach that I was enjoying with the Glanz). To move on...
I'm awaiting the G7 and will let you know how it sounds once I've given it the months of testing that it takes for me to form an opinion.
I now have the Glanz G5 and my Astatic MF100 running at the same time. Strangely, the Astatic seems to be sounding better in my Morch DP6 green dot than it did in my other tone arms. I am now re-evaluating this in this setting and it is amazing how much difference different combinations can make.
As I constantly promised with my G5, I will let you all know when I have had time to test these and find my preferneces. If such an obvious maxim were needed for sane adults, beware that my set up, listening environment, life experiences with live music and related psychoacoustic preferences may not be the same as yours (or, as I believe the acronym goes, YMMV).
Thermonicavenger, have you had a chance to get your Glanz a stylus yet?
Dear Dgob: IMHO I think that all those Glanz posts ( that I start on the subject. ) help at least two things: first that the cartridge is now mounted right on target where before my post was with a wrong set up, so this is a good news for you.
The other thing is that now you know that that headshell integrated cartridge does not works " automatic " with all tonearms.
It is clear that I'm not " your coup of tea " but even that IMHO my posts help ( one way or the other ) to go up in your audio learning curve.
Regards and enjoy the music,
The Glanz G5 is still very special (in case there has been any confusion regarding my position), even in the new Audiocraft (MC-A) armwand and "on target" overhang etc. A case in point would be a direct comparison between it and the Astatic MF100 when dealing with high frequencies. A simple test is to play Verdi's 'Vedi! Le fosche notturne' (Anvil Chorus) on both cartridges and distinguish the sound of the anvil as reproduced on both.
I'm awaiting my G7 but would emphasize that I do not want anyone to be put off trying the G5 by misunderstanding anything that I have recently written in this thread: if the opportunity to buy or borrow one presents itself. In my system and for my criteria - it remains a convincing, engaging and beguiling tool for musical reproduction of the highest calibre!
I hope the statistics make my G7 even more convincing. Time will tell!!
If the data on the Cartridge database is correct, the performance parameters of the G5 would appear to exceed those of the G7 and MFG-71 range (I do not possess historical data and so use the atemporal term "range" here rather than "series", which implies some temporal progression).
Some will remember that this thread was initiated to find out more about this particular gem and to discover why the G3 and G5 do not appear in the same brochures as the G1, G7 and MFG range. Could those two come from a different period and, if so, are there any notable production and performance characteristics?
Any real knowledge would still be hugely appreciated
Just a return to the issue of set up on the G5. I should point out that there appears to be a reason behind my initial findings for the plug-and-play nature and ease of set up. I must also clarify that I receive a far better sound when the cartridge is placed in the AP-300s armwand than my longer MC-A armwand. Apart from shouts of "distortion", could there be any reason for this perception? Well, not unlike the experience of one of the posters here, there might have been an happy coincidence of set up.
I was recently reading literature for the Nagaoka MP50 cartridge and found that they also recommended the MP50H as their top model due to the use of their integrated and specially resonance matched headshell:
"One of the special features of the MP-50H and MP-30H lies with the magnesium alloy headshell."
Interestingly, when it comes to the issue of set up, Nagaoka, Japan state that:
"Adjust the overhang to proper length to minimize distortion. (At present the cartridge is fixed at a position in which h in figure 1 measures 50mm. This matches the overhang in most tonearms.)"
When I first set my Glanz G5 up (which, as I noted earlier, has the same 50mm length), I was removing my Nagaoka MP50 from my Audiocraft AC3300 tonearm still bearing the AP300S armwand. Obviously, mounting distance remained the same for the tonearm. Surprisingly though, the VTA of the Glanz also seemed best in the exact same position as the MP50 had just occupied, requiring no adjustment (although I was using my MP50 with a 2-3mm elevation at pivot). This left only the VTF to be adjusted to 1.5g. The result in this set up is the reason that I advocate others to try it out and referred to the plug-and-play nature of my experience with this gem. I can therefore only refer to my consistent argument that this G5 is a great cartridge.
I hope that gives real clarity and less controversy
It appears that the Glanz, particluarly my G-7 has some common roots with the Astatic MF range as had been suggested earlier in this thread. However, there are clear differences, which might explain some of the clear sonic differences in performance. A couple of references on Japanese sites provide the following detail:
"Mitachi Onkyo Seisakusho (brand name "GLANZ"),
Pickup cartridge called as "Moving Flux"(see also 4011417). Unique construction having merit of MM/IM/MC. Also see Design patent D266504(1982) assigned to The Astatic Corporation (cartridge model MF200). Also 4123067 about unique stylus pivot suspension (embodied in model G-7 cartridge), 1978"
"New type MM cartridge (coils fixed to the end of yoke) looking like mixture of MM, IM and MC, 1977"
I hope that is helpful/interesting to others as well as myself. My G-7 is on its way as I write: can't deny my excitement!!!
Well at long last, I now possess my Glanz G7. It will be some time before I test or report on it as it needs a suitable tonearm, which I do not currently possess. I have identified what seems to be the best option and will be keeping an eye out for one going at a reasonable price. I suspect this exercise might be necessary to maximise the potential of both my G7 and G5 cartridges but will report when I am certain.
In the meantime, I have acquired various rated MM/MI cartridges and will be testing these.
I've not been able to resist. Having sent my Technics EPC-P100 Mk4 cartridge off for a touch up at Van den Hul, I put my Glanz G7 back on my Audiocraft AC-3300 tonarm last night with its original arm wand (AP300). Despite the fact that it does not match up on normal overhang nor null points, it rocks!! If there is distortion, I'm not hearing it. However, I'm still looking into a tonearm that might bring even more out of it with better alignment. Along with my soon-to-be revamped Technics, that could make up my two MM cartridge selection for my final set-up (along with either the Dynavector DRT XV1s or a - still unheard and unpurchased - Ortofon A90 MC). That my Azden YM-P50 does not make the shortlist should say a lot about my tastes and these cartridges. I try to indicate what I mean here.
If I were to group my above favoured cartridges, they would sit along side the Nagaoka MP50 and B&O MMC2 in voicing. While the Azden would sit along side the Andante P76, ADC XLM 2 Super, Ortofon M20FL and Audio Technica AT20. My tastes and experiences of live music obviously lean to the less warm presentation and incisive definition at frequency extremes of the former group (that is, the Technics, Glanz, B&O, Nagaoka and Dynavector) than the warmer sound and fuller midrange of the latter group and their like.
I should hasten to add that the live venues from which I seek to draw reference and on which my appreciation of high fidelity bases itself means that your mileage might invariably differ from mine. Which is closest to the mastertape of the songs is a totally different (and a difference that is both very significant and massively overlooked) issue. That one performance that the tape captures is not THE definitive sound produced by the same musicians performing the same music in distinct venues on distinct occassions. On the longer thread about MM v MC that Raul Ireugas started, I already point to two very useful books that will assist in clarifying why distinct systems will continue to satisfy distinct expectations without necessarily being 'wrong'. Voicing of cartridges and our appreciation of them is very, very complex. Nevertheless, the Glanz G5 and Glanz G7 seem phenomenal cartridges to my hearing and based on comparisons with the various named cartridges and many others.
I'll return once I have the new arm and have heard these under presumably optimised conditions. If you come across one in the meantime, definitely worth a try.