Glanz moving magnet cartridges


Hi,

I have just acquired an old Glanz G5 moving magnet cartridge. However, I cannot find out any details about this or the Glanz range or, even the company and its history.

Can anyone out there assist me in starting to piece together a full picture?

Any experiences with this or other Glanz's; web links; set up information etc would be warmly received. Surely someone knows something!

Thanks in hope
dgob

Showing 50 responses by rauliruegas

Dear @dwhistance  :  The G7 is an integrated headshell cartridge that weigths 19gr. and 12 cu compliance. With this information and your tonearm(s) effective mass you can know which of your tonearms mates better with that cartridge using this resonance calcukator:

https://www.vinylengine.com/cartridge_resonance_evaluator.php

In the other side any integrated headshell cartridge models are not really good against the same model in stand alone fashion. Is up to you and over time you can find out the stand alone model or you can find out the Astatic MF 100 or the MF 2500 that came with the same cartridge motor generator.

 

R.

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,
Raul.
Dear Storyboy: Just curios: Where do you read what you posted? or how do you know that Glanz is Astatic?, thank you.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Storyboy: Reading here: http://www.vinylengine.com/library/glanz/cartridge-data.shtml

and seen the cartridge/headshell picture looks like an Astatic and both operate in the same priciple: Movin Flux, so it seems that you are right.

Regards and enjoy the music,
raul.
Dear Dgob: You have to re-read the Vinylengine paper about.

That someone say its " German " could not means is made in germany, in those times almost all cartridges was made in Japan ( OEM too. ). Btw, what difference can make if was made in Germany or Japan?

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
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,
Raul.
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,
Raul.
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,
Raul.
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,
Raul.
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,
Raul.
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,
Raul.
Dear Dgob: I agree with Lewm on the Azden performance. Maybe needs a better tonearm/headshell match, maybe the cartridge is out of specs or maybe that coloration comes from the amplifier/speaker/roo combination, who knows.

+++ " should say a lot about my tastes " +++++

I don't think that all is about your tastes but how your system is performing with different cartridges, it is not only the Azden subject but with other of your cartridges where I disagree too.I think that we can be different but not so different and that's why I think there is/are some other things that are out of " target ". Of course that we could be totally different but this does not makes common sense to me.

I really can't say what happen because I don't hear/heard ( don't know. ) your system and cartridge different set up. So it could be useless what I'm posting and continue argue about.
Anyway good luck in your quest.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Dgob: +++++ " I might send my spare (G5) to Raul for audition at some future point... " +++++

Thank you for your kindness, appreciate.

Right now I'm waiting the Top of the line Glanz in 1/2" mount design. As you know I'm against vintage cartridge/headshell integrated designs due that the internal headshell wires and clips/connectors after 30+ years are not the best we can have ( you already know that the headshell wires always makes a " difference " for the better or bad/wrong in cartridge overall quality performance. ) and IMHO a distortions source, that we need the right tonearm to make the right set up, that if I need a tiny change on the offset angle I can't do it and even many times these kind of cartridge designs does not permit azymuth changes.
So there are many limitations that IMHO are against the cartridge and because of that could be unfair to compare against cartridges that does not has those kind of set up limitations.

That's why too I left 4-5 opportunities on the Technics 100C till I find a non cartridge/headshell integrated design: fortunately I found it.

As we know Glanz and Astatic share the same kind of cartridge design. I like the Astatic's I own: 100, 200 and 300MF models and that's and your post on Glanz makes me that I want to search about but in even/fair cartridge conditions with the Astatic and other cartridge different designs. We shall see when I test it, I don't want to speculate about.

Btw, you say that your Glanz cartridge set up ( geometry ) is out of target and that you can't hear distortions, well you don't have a real reference about when you can't know how that cartridge perform with the right set up.

Anyway I will report on the MM/MI thread ( like always. ) on my Glanz when I put my hands on it.

Btw, I think that you and your friends are not the only guys out there that have live music as reference.

In the other side: +++ exceed the Audiogon norms. +++, this statement on level quality capacity of what you and your friends " hear/heard " is something that IMHO has no precise foundation.

I think that here on Agon and elsewhere there are a lot of audio people that are not only " competitive " but better on the subject than you, your friends and me: such is life!

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
I forgot. If you think on that way on the " Agon norms " capacity level then: why you post here ( threads/answers. ) with people that are not at your and your friends unique level, why with " lesser " people?, this is and is not a question and needs no answer in anyway.

Raul.
Dear Dgob: I take your point and I understand the Nandric one too.

Maybe you could understand better the Nandric post with this example on the thread ( second page. ):

you posted on: 09-07-10 and from here there was no single other post for more than a year till you posted again in: 10-08-11 and only to " reaffirm " ( that's what I read in this post. ) something that you posted before.

Makes sense this scenario to you?, I respect what you think and obviously you are free to make anything you want in any thread. I'm not questioning either if there are persons interested on the subject.

Anyway, go on: this is your privilege and not Nandric one or mine.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear nandric: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1252605722&openflup&2&4#2

http://www.vinylengine.com/library/glanz/cartridge-data.shtml

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1252605722&openflup&12&4#12

Nothing to comment on Glanz/Astatic other that the MF-200 is an stellar performer. On the MM/MI thread are my experiences with Glanz, nothing that the MF-200 can't do it, even I don't have any more the Glanz.

I know that for Dgob Glanz is his star but not for me, period.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Dgob: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1252605722&openflup&56&4#56

I bought on Argentina and now the cartridge is with my brother. Was the MF-71L ( non-integrated headshell but stand alone model. I don't know but maybe what you like are the additional integrated headshell design distortions, I never heard that integrated design and certainly I don't care about integrated headshell designs: I don't like it for very good reasons that already discussed in this and other threads. ) and was identical to the MF-100 ( tha's why I remember was the 71L. ) that performs similar but a little better than the Glanz sample ( my MF-100 was a NOS and not second hand as the Glanz. ).

Anyway, the MF-200 IMHO outperforms both Astatic/Glanz. I think you need to hear the MF-200 and I'm sure that's as other MF-200 you will be surprised.
My MF-300 is on the road to Axel for an up date and to find out the Astatic up quality performance limits, the MF-200 on stock fashion is great one.

Btw, no I'm not ignorant on the Glanz.I think for my part is all said it about, I'm done on this Glanz subject.

Please go ahead and as till today you can follow sharing your experiences. As Lewm could be that other people want to follow with your thread/interest about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
I forgot, Vetterone: """ +++ Do the bodies look like the Astatic MF series? " ++++

the Astatic are stand alone ( 1/2" ) mounting cartridges where the ones you named ( the ones that Dgob owns. ) are headshell integrated designs: way different.

R.
Dear nandric: My MF-300 is still " on the road " along several cartridges and right now I can't say the up date price because I don't decide yet if I go for the very top Axel up date ( expensive. ) or something " different ".

Of course that like any other cartridge if cantilever/stylus are different on two similar cartridge motors the performance is a little different on both cartridges. I have a second sample that permit me to experiment about and of course I can make the up date to my MF-200 too but I need this one in stock fashion as a reference so maybe latter after comparisons that I will report on the MM/MI thread.

Btw, as with other cartridge manufacturer/models where exist an integrated headshell cartridge design always exist its stand alone counterpart, you can see that on the Technics P100CMK4 or with Yamaha and many more and Glanz is no exeption. The one that own my brother is the top of the line stand alone one.

I decided to go with the Astatic ones through its up dates: we will see.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Henry: +++++ " It would seem impertinent to assume that the manufacturers did not conduct a thorough testing procedure to determine the best possible results in their integrated designs... " +++++

I'm not assumming that. Now, even that suppose I was " impertinent " , seems to me extremely stupid ( for say the least ) assume that 30-40 years old cartridge designs manufactured with the way of thinking of 40 years ago can be today justified as the best way to go against its stand alone counterpart.
All the integrated headshell designs came from the same times, was a trend with the those days way of thinking that a dedicated headshell was the better for a cartridge can shows at its best.

In those old times the subject of cartridge headshell comparisons for a better performance was not only the trend but almost no body cares about. Today we learn and cares about: that's why ( according to Nandric ) you own 30+ headshells and 100+ by my self.

Try to find out the P100CMK4 stand alone cartridge and compare it against your integrated headshel counterpart you own.

Now, I have no single doubt ( because I'm not stupid ) that the FR7 in stand alone fashion outperforms easily the integrated model.

Today we know that the same cartridge in the same tonearm mounted in two diffrent headshells performs different. If not why every one of us are looking for " new " headshells?

Today we have several options on headshells, several options on mount screws, several options on headshell wires, several options on headshell wire connectors, several options to align the cartridge. Even some of us like to tame the cartridge " color " through the mount screws using different pressure on the screws/cartridge mounting to the headshell.

Many of these " severals" was almost unexistent on those old times, example: almost all the japanese tonearms use the Stevenson cartridge/tonearm alignment, no options and no one cares about. One of the reasons on those integrated cartridge headshell designs were because were almost " plug and play " and suppose more user friendly.

Today we have a lot lot better cartridge wires against those 30-40+ years old internal wires that came with those old integrated headshells..

All we know the critical and paramount difference that those headshell wires can and makes on favor to quality performance level, this " sole " parameter makes huge differences between any integrated headshell cartridge design and its stand alone counterpart.

Glanz is no diffrent to Astatic, Astatic bought the patent of that design but were clever than Glanz and even that Astatic cartridges came along a headshell this is not integrated one but an univeral headshell where you decide if mount the Astatic there or in other headshell and of course with headshell wires of your choice,

Anyway, my point is that any stand alone vintage cartridge design beats its integrated headshell counterpart.

The last integarted cartridge design I remember was the Nightingale ( I think that was the model. ) for the Graham tonearm and has no success on the market, today IMHO that kind of cartridge designs is a huge mistake/error for any cartridge manufacturer.

Audio and most important the understanding on the " fine tunning " audio parameters today are far away on the way of thinkinh of 40+ years ago. Everything grows up.
Vintage cartridge designs are really great ones with very very good " motors " but as you and many of us already experienced every single vintage cartridge that we send to any cartridge fixing source for an up date outperforms the sound quality level of that cartridge in stock condition.

For me there is no way to support the most critical subject in the cartridge quality level performance: cartridge/headshell/headshell wires saying that the 30-40+ years old cartridge with integarted headshell are better that its stand alone versions with todays " technology ".
Today IMHO that a cartridge manufacturer said 30-40 years ago that's its integrated design is better means almost nothing.

Other subject with those integarted designs are to know : how the designers voiced those cartridges, which tonearm, phono stage, speakers, electronics, ewtc, etc? because as you pointed out the " manufacturers made and had testing procedure ".

The only integrated headshell design that IMHO was a wise design was and is the Dynavector Karat Nova 13/17D that came with a dedicated headshell but you can use it in stand alone fashion too!!!

Things change over time, after those monolitic cartridge designs the trend for the top cartridge models was that with the cartridges came a dedicated headshell ( separate ): this is the case of the AT100, AT700, Ortofon MC2000/3000/5000 and many more.

Monolitic cartridge designs today are a wrong cartridge design and if you support it then why you own not only several headshells but several removable headshel tonearm designs?

I respect you opinion but disagree with.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Lewm: Integrated headshell cartridge designs were a trend a fashion on those old times. As I said the way of thinking on that subject was how 40 years ago manufacturers thinked.

What Nandric pointed out has no sense: how any one could think that magnets can't go in an stand alone design??, IMHO Nandric can't assume that he assumed but with out foundation and about the SPU/EMT that's only to fans ( mainly in Asia. ) of that kind of sound.

Anyway, I made my points and till here I can't see/read any argument that was/is strong enough to convince the common sense and experiences about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear nandric: I repeat, those integrated headshell designs were a fashion on those old times and in many ways more marketing that a scientific achievment.

Almost all the cartridge manufacturers of this kind of designs were tonearm manufacturers too: Technics, Audio Technica, FR/Ikeda, Yamaha, Sony, ADC, etc, etc.

Wonder where those integrated headshell designs performs the " better "?, you are right!: with its tonearm counterpart designed by the same cartridge manufacturer.

I owned several of those integrated headshell designs on those old times and I remember the USA distributors/sellers how they push to the integrated designs against its stand alone brothers, curios was that normally first appears the stand alone one and suddenly after that the integrated headshell design arrived and some " stupid " people like me goes through the integrated designs too!. At the end we owned two same model cartridges that means profits$$$ for the manufacturers: who cares?????

Japanese manufacturers does not cares about those " high end " tonearms with non removable headshell designs ( the Lewm argument. ) because almost all of them have on sale their own tonearm designs that were the " best " tonearm match. The integrated cartridge designs were on sale mainly in Asia, then Europe and in lesser way in America.

Marketing always has an important " weight " on audio item designs and in many cases with no clear audio quality parameters/factors as its foundation.

Btw, 80% of the sales on Ortofon/EMT integrated cartridge designs goes to Asia where today still exist a " cult " for that kind of sound.

I don't see that you and the other " proponents " of integrated headshell designs have wide experiences with this kind of cartridges.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

@dgob  : Sorry you already pull the triger but was a bad " move " because the cantilever should/must be boron material.

 

R.

Dear Dgob: That was in 2009, we all have the right to learn to grow up. I'm not married with any audio subject, as the life in audio " things " change and change when we give us the opportunity to learn the opportunity to think in a different way.

Again, in a vintage integrated cartridge the " aquila's heel " is precisely those vintage old internal wires/connectors and of course the non-flexibility to make the best cartridge set-up for the cartridge could shows us at its best.

There are other " inconvenients " in a vintage cartridges but are not the subject here.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Dgob: Please do it your self a favor: don't be sticky with me on this subject.

It can't help you and it can't help to any one looking this thread.

Whom cares What I thinked on an audio subject 3 years ago or 7-10 years ago, makes no sense to me your post other that try to show that I'm " wrong ".

Dgob, if that makes you happy then I can accept I'm wrong. So what? what difference does that makes against my today opinion in that subject?

Please forget about me and like till today enjoy your cartridge as many other integrated cartridges proponents are doing it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Dgob: +++++ " to aesthetic judgements ... " ++++

you are absolutely wrong with me. I posted several times even for some time in my Agon virtual system I writed: " I don't care about aesthetic but about quality performance, nothing less and nothing more. ".

Aesthetics is not the trouble it is only that your common sense is way different from mine. My whole audio experiences through the years is way different from you and seems to me, for your post where you take your time to revise the longest thread on Agon only to find out how to show other people that 3 years ago I had a different point of view, that you have a " problem " of personality with me.

Please forget about me on this subject: forgeret what I think about.
Why do you care so much about, so much that you take a lot of time to find out what I posted 3 YEARS AGO ?, my God!!!

Certainly IMHO you are not helping any one with your attitude and even I think you could make a " damage " to your self, don't do it: it is not worth to do it !!!!!

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear nandric: Your point is of paramount importance and I already posted several times in several threads including this.

IMHO any cartridge where you can't make change azymuth set up always be a wrong cartridge set up and the same if you can't make a headshell changes or even overhang changes.

In the old times I bought it almost all the cartridges that came with integrated headshells but some manufacturers as Technics and AT where wise/knowledge enough to permit in those designs both parameter changes. Some other very respectable manufacturers as Yamaha or FR just don't care about. I think that with these kind of designs they made it a mistake a heavy mistake.

IMHO there is no single justification or no single argument to support no-azymuth change designs, period.

Today all those integrated cartridge designs including the ones where we can make azymuth/overhang changes are the " wrong " item because that so old internal wiring/connectors and because we really can't match if with the right headshel/tonearm.

Like today I read this thread but IMHO is useless ( at least for me ) that some of you put all that energy on " faulty " cartridge designs.

Of course that fortunately we live in a free world, go a head! some of us likes to be sticky with some audio subjects/items.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear nandric: Not only that but even you can't make a precise/accurate cantilever alignment!!!

R.
Dear Nandric: With an integrated cartridge design you can't move the cartridge to the left/right side incase that the cantilever came in with a tiny side deviation. Remember that when you make the cartridge alignment/overhang with the protractor ( MINT LP, for example. ) you must align not only the stylus tip but that the cantilever coincide with the protractor " lines "/align-lines and almost always to achieve that in precise way we need to make tiny very tiny cartridge changes to one or the other sides ( left/right. ).

Nandric, in those all times many of the cartridge alignment subjects that we already learnend were almost no " important " for the cartridge designers ( for different reasons, between them: no-knowledge about. ).

I know many of us already grow-up through the years ( and still doing every single day in favor of music. ) but unfortunately some of us ( including cartridge/tonearm/TT/phono stages designers. ) did not.

IMHO any tonearm/cartridge combination where you have set-up/alignment limitations means that what you are hearing is a higher distortion performance against the ones with out those limitations.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear banquo363: +++++ " but I'm pretty sure that it could sound better if adjustments were possible. " +++++

absolutely right. Now, don't have to believe in my words right now is a XL44L on ebay if you try it I'm almost sure that's performance level beats the XL55 you own. Btw, mine already has the Axel's touch.
Sony made a great job in that XL cartridge family, very good indeed.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Dgob: +++++ " The owner's manual asserts that on a Sony tonearm overhang error of +/- 3mm (!) is not a problem for it's "practical use" " +++++

++++ " It is a thinking shared by Glanz and Nagaoka ... " +++++

I think I did not made clear my take down there:

the cartridge integrated headshell designs had its " euphoria " ( marketing more than any other real meaning. ) at the end of the 70's early 80's.
I was " infected " by that market euphoria and even that I owned the stand alone model I bought it the " new and better " integrated one ( I still own a FR one. ) and for many years I live thinking that the integrated ones was the best road to go.

Why accepted that marketing " hype "? IMHO for the same reasons that some of the manufacturers had when they started with those designs: ignorance, in my case " full ignorance " and maybe in some cartridge manufacturers: part ignorance, part marketing$$$$ and part don't be aware of the critical importance in any cartridge alignment/set up.

Please tell me any one of you when was the first time/year that you be aware of the importance and the why's of: Baerwald, Stevenson, Löfgren, etc., when you was really aware of the importance to match the cartridge to the right tonearm/headshell, when you was really aware of the importance of VTA/SRA/VTF/AZ/Overhang and accuracy in all those parameters, when was the very first time that you read a cartridge/tonearm review where the reviewer made it emphasis on all those critical cartridge/tonearm alignment/set up, when was the very first time that you read from any single cartridge designer about, when you heard for the first time that an audio dealer/distributor talked in that way?????when???????

IMHO today any one of us are truly aware of all those subjects in a way that no one in those old times been and many times not because they as " professionals " don't know about but because they did not gives the importance level it has.

Take that Sony statement: " +,- 3mm. " this means that 6mm on overhang makes no difference but we all know it makes a whole and huge difference for the better or bad.

Why am I still with the FR integrated design?, because sounds good but even that I can't be sticky with a cartridge where I can't improve its performance due to set up cartridge limitations when exist ( in my case I own. ) almost endless cartridge alternatives that outperform my FR, the Glanz, the Yamaha or AT integrated ones.
I always support and supported that the best way to improve any audio system and any audio cartridge signal is. TO LOSE AND ADD THE LESS. A wrong cartridge set up permit that I " lose and add " not the less but the " more ".
My target my main target is to have the lower distortions( any kind. ) in my audio system and the cartridge integrated headshell designs IMHO can't help me to achieve that main target. Remember that to " lose and add the less " accuracy is a critical factor to achieve it. This was and is our Essential target when designed.

Fortunately I have an " adventure audio attitude " that permit me till today learn each single day and that permit me discovery new roads and new alternatives in favor of music.

I understand you about but I already left behind that audio stage of my audio life. Almost everyone pass through the same audio stages trhough our audio life, well I already passed there as I'm sure you will pass it sooner or latter.

In the other side each one of us like different kind of audio system distortions and things are that I like different distortions you like.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Halcro: I own the FR and I posted that I still own because I like it.

Now, I think I don't posted that VTA/VTF can't be changed because that is something that any one can do it through the tonearm facilities.

No, it is not " only " azymuth as you said ( latter on that. ). I don't know if you really don't care about azymuth or what you posted is only in " defense " ( no sense defense. ) of a IMHO a limited wrong cartridge designs:

++++ " but I have found that azimuth, when adjusted by the majority of users......is more often wrongly set.... " ++++

the main subject is that to make and achieve the best any cartridge can show us we must have the azymuth facility to make changes during the set up/alignment, azymuth changes makes a difference always. So try to diminish its importance makes no sense to me but I respect your " no sense " defense????

Halcro, why in the hell today you own several tonearms and dozens of HEADSHELLS? why? please let me know.
As many of us you already learned the critical importance to match the cartridge not only with the tonearm but with the " right " headshell and this " characteristic " that always makes a paramount differences on performance cartridge level is " deny " in an integrated design.

At least two other critical characteristics that are " deny " on integrated designs: you can't change the internal(headshell wiring for a better today one and you can't make a precise alignment never because you can't align the cantilever in an integrated design.

Halcro, what is all about?....you are aware of all these so why post something like what you posted?
Are you telling me that all what we learn on cartridge/tonearm set up/alignment is not true or important?.

I respect your opinion but not only can't agree with you but with those kind of posts I even am in doubt I really know you as I thought I know you!!!!

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Halcro: ++++ " but the fixed headshell of the FR-7 cartridges is not one of the places that I would select to work upon? " +++

of course not because you can't do nothing about!!!!!

I repeat: IMHO today an integrated cartridge design is a wrong very limited design. That some of us prefer it does not means is a good design and IMHO can't justify that ignorance level/marketing that the cartridge manufacturers had it.

You own or owned the Technics 100C in an integrated version ( MK3. ) and for what you posted on that cartridge performance I remember that you was not " happy " enough because that cartridge can't shows you what really is. Ask any one that own the stand alone version and everybody can tell you its very top performance even one of those Technics owners posted in the MM thread that he prefers the Technics ( MK4 stand alone. ) over the Lyra Atlas that he own and compared in between!!!!

Again, what are we talking about? what are we achieving through this " excercise " in favor of music, in favor to improve our each one system? what???????

R.

R.
Dear Nandric: My take on that subject is based on facts not theory.

Btw, almost all Japanese tonearms alignment by manufacturer advise were made it through Stevenson. I don't want to go inside again to that subject but IMHO Stevenson is the " wrong " way to go against Löfgren A and B.
Stevenson is a " way to think ", Japanese manufacturers took it. My way of thing is different and in no single of my more than 25+ tonearms I use Stevenson alignment. I respect to whom did it or like it.

As I always say: each one of use like differnt kind of distortions and each one of us common sense level is different too and each one of us music sound priorities are different too.
So it is not easy to agree in every audio subjects.

Regards and enjoy the music,

R.
Dear Dover: I can't agree more with you.

+++++ " If we cant rely on cartridges costing US$2k-10k to have diamonds accurately placed in the cantilever then ..... " +++++

Mediocrity is a " polite " word to say is a SHAME, there is no excuse for that after all those years of analog/cartridge manufactured experiences.

Problem is that almost no body cares and not only the people pay big KK$$ for that kind of " high-end " cartridges but they " report " here and everywhere its top quality performance. Can you beieve it?

Regrads and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Halcro: Now I can confirm why you like what you like ( I was not wrong about you. ) , why you like those kind of distortions.
Yes we are way different about audio system music priorities. Your last post is your " testament ". Good for you.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear nandric: +++++ " there is no way to avoid distortions with any pivoted tonearm " ++++

there is no way to avoid it with any tonearm and if our target is to achieve lower distortions then the cartridge/tonearm/headshell/ set up/accuracy alignment is of paramount importance: each single alignment parameter. Seems to me that for some of us the importance level that we give to each parameter is different and between other things that's why differences in what we heard, I mean: more " wider " differences due to wider/higher distortions on that analog set up/alignment.

Years ago almost no one took care on cartridge cantilever alignment and today we all know the critical importance on this parameter as on the AZ or overhang.
I think all of us already learned about but things are that some of us are not to " anal " about.

We know what is the best to each one and that's how we decide and decided what to do or where to be " anal " or not.

Regards anbd enjoy the music,
R.
Nandric: The other critical side about is that if our audio system has not the necessary resolution level then we can't hear we can't be aware of an accurate set up/alignment against a " so, so " set up because the audio system can't shows those differences.

R.
and of course that we/our self have the knowledge level to distinguish between mere distortions ( any kind ) and music, because sometime what we think is music in reality is only " nice " distortions.

R.
Dear nandric: +++++ " What are we supposed to do with 'distortions' that we
are not able to hear? Whatever componets we own
the unknown one may have 'less distortion'. How are we
supposed to get the right unknown component of any kind? " ++++

first build/improve the audio system to permit be aware of different kind of distortions everywhere: how?, well that's part of each one forward in each one audio learning curve. I know that your audio system is not up to the necessary level of resolution: you posted that you can't distinguish/be aware after a comparison between two Virtuosos where one has an aluminum cantilever and the other a boron cantilever and if your system can't tell you anything about differences on performance then you have a lot of work to improve your audio system resolution.

IMHO Halcro is not in better status that your system is. He can't either distinguish between " nice " distortions and music and it is not that his ears are not able to but his system is the one that has not the required resolution level.
Tha's why he likes those distorted Signets or the FR6SE or the FR tonearms( heavy distortions everywhere here: IMD, THD and the like. ), Da Vinci no-azymuth facility, poor performance with the 20SS or with the TK10 or the Azden or the 420 or with that system feedback or ...or....
I know very well his Halcro electronics an almost all his system including the Vandersteens.

Nandric, IMHO one target that IMHO you have to improve is your system bass range management, several " problems " are fixed down there and when that frequency range is at optimum level then that system resolution we are talking about appear as a " pile " and then you will continue to build/improve other system areas. Read one of my last posts in the MM thread as a comment to what Stanwal poste there.

In any tonearm the main target ( at least for me ) is to ta achieve the best bass frequency range management, only the best ones achieved and one of those ones is not the FR one that is really bad down there and not permit that resolution we are talking about: high IMD/THD and other kind of distortions hide those distortions.
All these is not easy to understand till we experienced till we learned.

Please don't thing for a moment that I'm dimished your or Halcro system: NO, I'm only trying that you can take a " different road " to really improve your system performance and to be aware of distortions and only with better true and high resolution you will be aware of and then you can fix it not before.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Nandric: That is a proccess, step by step till you be THERE, you will know when arrived!

R.
Dear Halcro: +++++ " Do I ever want to just listen to the music?' " +++++

of course every day, things are that that is our target: " just listen to music with the best quality performance I can achieve through each one audio system ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Halcro: S3 headshells?: mainly!!!!, no-azymuth adjustment and a pain to align the cantilever.

R.
Dear Nandric: clairvoyant?, certainly not only experienced about as exist some other persons with even and better audio personal qualities that mines.

From your main system I know very well: TT/Triplanar/Ruby 3 and the Reed. I know too your electronics and better yet your phono stage design ( I don't know if was the 2010. )and your good speakers, so I have a tiny idea about.
I don't want to go deeper on your system subject because that could be useles. Btw, I saw your ad on the Virtuoso: do you already sold it?, good luck.

++++ " on quess work about
my or Henry's 'system'. " ++++

no it is not a guess, all what I know about system components on several audio systems are complemented with what the people posted through several and different threads, normally I never speak if I don't have the " hair in my hands ".

Let me put one example now that you name it Halcro:

he sold it his 20SS and TK10ML cartridges, both top of the line models.
Till today, including me, I never read or saw any single " sign " for no single person everywhere where the owner of those cartridges was unsatisfied with its high quality performance levels.
Halcro does not like it neither so other that both cartridges were faulty what that could means: that Halcro is right ( both cartridges are inferior performers. ) and all several owners ( hundreds. ) are wrong?.
Could be but I seriously doubt about.

I know that when some body " touch " our each one beloved audio system we react against that " touch " but this is not my target with any one of you and never is with any one through the net. I try to help and try that we can understand today or in 5 years from now what in reality we are talking about and the importance to have or to improve the system resolution and that's all.

Stay calm, no bad feelings. An apolize to you and Halcro if both could think I want to hurt both of you because it is not that way.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Timeltel: ++++ " I'm sure Raul is unaware of this. " ++++

Somewhere exist the posts between Halcro and me. In one of them I stated that the only reason whay the 20SS could have a poor performance were because out of specs or after market stylus, he stated that was not ( if I remember?? ).

+++++ " The other mentioned carts: The TK-10 is 2.2mv output & not all phono stages have a MM section with a compatible input sensitivity...... " +++++

I think sometimes you read my post maybe to fast, or you don't really understand it or I'm to bad to self explain.
Timeltel when I say that I know Halcro electromics first than all I'm not refering to Halcro his self but Halcro electronics and when I say " I know " it is because I know it first hand for several time.

Things are ( I posted several times. ) that my friend and co-designer in our tonearm owns Halcro electronics and almost all the cartridges I bougth/buy he did/do it too.

The Azden and 420 were no exeption and my TK10 sample was auditioned in those Halcro elecvtronics WITN OUT ANY SINGLE PROBLEM ABOUT.

I'm truly responsable on what I post always and I try never " talk lightly " as any one could think.

I hope this time I was clear about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear Halcro: I like your ironic or I have to say " humor sense "?, but brocoli certainly is not a phono cartridge and needs no accurate/precise alignment/set up.

I know perfectly what you like and are hearing and I respect about.

As any one of us our each one audio system overall set up was made it and is working according what each one of us like it not what other persons like. I know that you are enjoying your distortions in the same way is a pleasure to hear mines..

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Dear nandric: You are right and I agree but for different reason: the ANV is mire accurate with lower distortions than the MF I own too.

You are a wise man and maybe you should think where in your systems are the problem with the ANV " digital " oriented because I know it is not the ANV.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.