Hear my Cartridges....🎶

Halcro

The user Halcro stopped posting in 2021. Anyone know what happened to him? @rauliruegas @dover 

millercarbon, I take your “contribution” to mean that you guessed wrong both times? ☺️

@halcro 

Thread Drive

I actually tried a number of 'approved threads' sent to me by Dertonearm for driving the Raven AC-2 as an alternative to the rubber belt.
Unfortunately....none of them could regulate the platter speed correctly due to the Raven's design of requiring the 'rough' side of the rubber belt to 'grip' the Delrin edge of the platter.

The problem with most turntable motors is that the motors are not designed to withstand side loads imparted by the belt. With some manufacturers they get the motors modded by adding roller bearings to support the motor spindle. Thats why they go noisy over time.
Thread drive presents higher loads than rubber belts, so you need a motor that is much stronger. The motor in the Final uses a large diamoeter spindle, sintered bushings top and bottom, and a thrust pad similar to a TT.
Also the pulley needs to be concave for thread drive. 

And yet you thought the 'rubber' Belt-Drive turntable was a DIRECT-DRIVE in the above test...🤔

Yes, I'm going to drown my sorrows with a very good Central Otrago Pinot Noir tonight.
Notwithstanding that obvoiusly the Raven AC is one of the better belt drives out there. Have you looked at the possibility of upgrading the platter ( 10kg ) to the Anniversary platter ( 20kg ).
According to Brinkmann they believe that magic number for enough mass is 15kg and if the bearing is up to it I would expect the Anniversary platter to be a good upgrade, particlualry in terms of stability.

@dover 
Thanks for that detailed and fascinating contribution...🤩
I love it....

I actually tried a number of 'approved threads' sent to me by Dertonearm for driving the Raven AC-2 as an alternative to the rubber belt.
Unfortunately....none of them could regulate the platter speed correctly due to the Raven's design of  requiring the 'rough' side of the rubber belt to 'grip' the Delrin edge of the platter.

However look at the evolution of the GP Monaco direct drive - it entered the market with "state of the current art" error correction algorithms, streets ahead of what was technically possible in the 70's/80's when the SP10mk3 & LO7D were built, and yet the GP Monaco is now on its 3rd or 4th upgrade path, and all owners describe massive improvements with each upgrade.

This point has not been noted by the Audio World in the way its importance warrants.
As you say....if you look at the published performance figures of each new version of the GP Monaco....they appear to be out of this world 🤯
Yet no universal adulation or praise has followed (except I think from Greg Gregory..?)

So from this reference and having had many top end TT's in my system, what I have found is -
All belt drives that use a lossy belt ( rubber the worst ) lterally sound rubbery in the bottom end. Leading transients are diffuse. 

And yet you thought the 'rubber' Belt-Drive turntable was a DIRECT-DRIVE in the above test...🤔

I think what this 'blind' objective test demonstrates (as others also have), is that we AUDIOPHILES will never release our own hard-won subjective beliefs formulated over years of personal experience.
Regardless of what evidence might be presented 🤥 👀

And so proceeds the High-End Audio world.......blindly into the ether 🙈 🙃

Thanks for your thoughts Maestro....
I think you bring up the important contributions that cartridges AND arms bring to the whole turntable question.

Of course, when one is dealing with gear of this caliber, the deficiencies in any one sonic parameter are very small and the music does not suffer too terribly in any case.

I think that is why millions of us are able to extract sonic enjoyment from an unlimited combination of audio gear 🤗

Thanks again for participating Frogman.

@halcro 
I thought it was a fun exrcise. I'm pretty relaxed sbout the outcome, happy that I got the first comparision correct. As I said I found the second a little harder to pick.

I am a little surprised on the second - I listened to the bottom end extension and definition and on my "reference" standard issue earbuds TT4 was a little imprecise. I am more surprised given the Dynavector arm, which I've had for years, is very tight in the bottom end. The astringency of the of Palladian in the mid to top end was also a little surprising because I remember the comaprison when you switched it from the Dynavector arm to the Cobra unipivot, most of this went away.

DD vs Belt Drive

The most interesting thing here is that for over 30 years my reference has been the thread drive Final Audio VTT1. To summarise - it has a 26kg platter, inverted bearing, huge by most standards AC motor driven directly off an Onix OA60 power amplifier controlled by precision independent sine and cosine generators for the motor. There is no speed correction - it relies on huge inertia and a large AC motor independent of mains fluctuations. The recommended "belt" which I use is a chalked silk thread. This is important.

HP had it in house briefly at Seacliffe in the late 70's/early 80's and he described the Final Audio VTT1 as sounding more like a direct drive TT than a belt drive.
Qualitatively he compared it favourably to his Goldmund Reference, but in typical HP review he mentioned "midbass hump". Unfortunately the US importer had set the Final up on a crude air bag platform which destroyed the whole intent of the design. The whole design is premised upon sinking all unwanted energy to ground. There are no lossy materials used, materials used are processively from stylus to ground - chromium copper, aluminium, gunmetal ( leaded bronze ), SPZ ( superplastic Zinc alloy ). Additionally I use Final's recommended platform which is a constrained and compressed stone plinth using the same materials and principles that support the Shinkansen bullet train cement sleepers. This all sits on a custom steel table.

So from this reference and having had many top end TT's in my system, what I have found is -
All belt drives that use a lossy belt ( rubber the worst ) lterally sound rubbery in the bottom end. Leading transients are diffuse. I concur with @edgewear when he says

My old Micro RX1500 (with separated motor unit, stainless steel plateau, copper mat and brass stabilizer ring) uses the non compliant SF-1 kevlar belt. This is a massive improvement over a rubber belt and largely closes the gap with DD in terms of pitch stability, 

A few years ago I wanted a second TT and bought a Platine Verdier. 
Even with it's high inertia, I could not achieve anything like the pitch stability on the Final - converting it to thread improved the stability, removing the rubber bellows feet and replacing them with rigid footers, improved the stability, modifying the motor mounting helped, but unfortunately still a dog.

Now for Direct Drives. 
I have heard the Technics SP10mk3 and Kenwood LO7D on inumerable occasions, had them in house. Although they are quite good, I always hear a grey wash, the LO7D less so. The SP10mk3 appears more pitch stable than the LO7D, if you look at the error correction systems the Technics uses fast recovery. The LO7D allows a much larger speed error before correction.
Your Victor measures and spreads the error correction over a longer period of time, smoothing out what I call jitter induced by the error correction systems.
Some folk on this forum are sceptible as to the connection between error correction and sound. however look at the evolution of the GP Monaco direct drive - it entered the market with "state of the current art" error correction algorithms, streets ahead of what was technically possible in the 70's/80's when the SP10mk3 & LO7D were built, and yet the GP Monaco is now on its 3rd or 4th upgrade path, and all owners describe massive improvements with each upgrade.

That does not mean i am against DD in principle, as with any TT it comes back to the quality of the design as much as the Technology chosen.
If I were to build a DD turntable I would use a very high inertia platter ( 25kg ), and no error correction.

Some folk refer to the fact that some cutting lathes use direct drive motors, but what they ignore are 2 important facts -

1. The load on a motor when cutting records is far far different that the load on a motor when playing records. This means that the motor when used in cutting is being driven considerably harder, and in most instances the motor will be operating at a level at which it produces higher torque. This is the same principle as the eddy brakes used in some idler turntables - for example on the Garrard301/401 the eddy bake is designed to make the motor work harder, at an operating point where it produces more torque. Putting drag on a motor can also assist speed stability - some belt drive TT's are designed with "bearing drag" so force the motor work harder.

2. Cutting lathes use flywheels to add intertia. Even one of the most powerful cutting lathe motors ever produced - the Technics SP02 - which dwarfs the motor used in the SP10mk3 was designed specifically for the Neumann lathe, and more specifically for the Neumann lathe when used with an additional 70lb flywheel.

Idler Drives
Funnily enough after the disaster with the Platine Verdier, I rebuilt an old 60's Pioneer idler drive I had lying around. I wanted a 2nd deck with 78rpm capability. This demonstrated far better pitch stability than the Verdier, when compared directly with same arm and cartridge ( I used multiple FR64S I had to compare decks. It did lack some resolution, but given the bearing was stuffed and I had made a crude replacement this was not surprising.
And so I picked up a Garrard 301 and rebuilt it. Mine has been considerably refined, full motor rebuild including new bearings and blueprinting and hand tuning for minimum noise, elimination of metal to metal contact in the linkages under the chassis by replacing all rivet/pivot joints with nylon bushes/teflonwashers/nautical grease to eliminate noise, modified bearing/thrustpad, but standard platter. The standard platter was precision ground to ensure the surface is flat - the original is concave.
This is the nearest I've got to the Final. From listening to other idlers including the massive Denon RP52 I think that it is the big AC motors used in idlers as much the idler drive per se that provides the drive.
I have 2 friends with SME 20's and 30's - the Garrard 301 slaughters them, and no loss of transparency despite the "idler noise".

Ultimately I think in reality folk have to make the best of what they can afford or have, and what really happens is that folk buy arms/cartridges that work to mask the deficiences in their TT , complementary colourations - no TT is perfect. 

All good. 
I'm still waiting to hear the LDR on the DD where I think it will open up.

For the record, there is no "Vince" in Pulp Fiction. The name is Vincent.
I would not even THINK about getting a detail like that wrong around Vincent.
https://youtu.be/qo5jnBJvGUs?t=8
Also pretty sure Vincent never said, "Ain't it cool."    
"Tell that bitch to be cool!" Vincent said that."Yeah, we cool." Marsellus Wallace said that."Ain't it cool" I'm thinking no one says.

It's actually quite amazing that the gestalt of the musical presentation remains intact even through such a mediocre device as - in my case - a laptop 'speaker'.

For me the Casino Royal comparison was fairly easy, probably because the music itself is rather slow paced and a bit wavery, which is accentuated even more by the presentation typical of BD. With the Stravinsky it was much harder as the music itself is very incisive and spikey, which to some extend hides the intrinsic flowing nature of BD. And this BD characteristic was perhaps further masked by the Decca London. While I haven't heard it myself, it shares the rhythmic articulation associated with 'direct couple' or cantileverless cartridges like Ikeda 9 Rex and Victor MC-L1000, which I'm very familiar with.

I don't necessarily think this should make you jump ship. For me the wavering aspect of BD should mostly be attributed to the use of a rubber belt. My old Micro RX1500 (with separated motor unit, stainless steel plateau, copper mat and brass stabilizer ring) uses the non compliant SF-1 kevlar belt. This is a massive improvement over a rubber belt and largely closes the gap with DD in terms of pitch stability, while retaining the somewhat more organic presentation of BD. In terms of rhythmic presentation is sits between the BL-91G with rubber belt and the Pioneer DD table.

So there's a middle ground that can offer the best of both worlds. Obviously this Micro is nowhere near state of the art, so you don't even need to spend a fortune to get there.

Perhaps a better way of asking the question is:

When the playback equipment is of such high caliber, where (turntable or cartridge) does that extra bit of improvement bring one closer to the music?  I suppose it is, as always, a subjective call.  Does one react most positively to that extra iota of tonal truthfulness, or of rhythmic integrity?  Of course, then there is still the arm to contend with.  
To quote Vince in “Pulp Fiction”:

“Ain’t it cool?”  

Can also drive one crazy.  😱

Excellent, Edgewear!

In answer to Halcro’s question, my primary takeaway goes to our agreement about TT4 being DD. You describe the sound as “tightly organized rhythmic presentation” while I described it as “solid pitch stability” compared to TT3’s slight pitch waver. One can’t have great rhythm without rock solid pitch stability. It confirms my feeling that DD, in general, offers superior pitch stability; something that has been a struggle for me in setting up my belt drive turntables over the years. Perhaps time to jump ship.

One of the mysteries of this hobby is how the advantages AND disadvantages of the different technologies impact our perception of the music; sometimes in ways that are contrary to what would expect from a logical standpoint. Belt drive, as you point out, are known for highlighting “the flow” of the music. Yet, the flow of the music, from a musician’s perspective, is entirely dependent on great pitch stability. A conundrum.

As I wrote, due to the nature of the music there weren’t obvious clues re pitch stability in the Stravinsky examples. Yet, I associated what was for me the “bolder with more hf energy sound” of the belt drive TT2 with my expectations for DD. Knowing now the cartridges involved, it all makes sense. This is what I wrote in the previous MC/MM “test” re the Glanz cartridge (on TT1 in this test and cartridge B in the previous test):

**** Cartridge B requires (allows) that the listener “lean into” the music instead of it being pushed in the direction of the listener.

“A” seems to present a more generous soundstage and with larger individual images. “B” ‘s soundstage seems more compact with smaller individual images. ****

The Glanz, even on a DD (TT1) which I expected to provide a sound which was “bolder”, retained its more polite and “set back” sound. Pretty consistent observations, I would say. So this brings up again the often asked question: barring gross pitch stability issues in a TT’s performance what is most important, turntable or cartridge? Of course, when one is dealing with gear of this caliber, the deficiencies in any one sonic parameter are very small and the music does not suffer too terribly in any case. Thoughts?

Thanks, interesting and fun as always, Halcro.

Thanks for accepting the challenge Edgewear......
We now seem to have all bases covered 🤗
Almost......

• TT1 - DD with Glanz 610LX
• TT2 - BD with London Decca Reference
• TT3 - BD with AS Palladian
• TT4 - DD with Sony XL-88D

Congratulations Edgewear 👏🎉

All that said, I feel TT1 & 4 have the more tightly organized rhythmic presentation I associate with DD, while TT2 & 3 have a more relaxed and flowing presentation, so these would be the BD tables.

This is how I hear it 'Live'....
Your experiences with the Raven and Pioneer turntables possibly gave you the edge 😃

It would be interesting to hear what you all take away from this experiment? 🧐
Thanks for your 'bravery'.
No-one on YouTube had the guts to try it... 

Thanks for this experiment Halcro, great fun. It is still difficult for me to listen through the distortion of the laptop speakers and tonal nuances mostly get lost in translation, but I'll give it a go anyway.

I concentrated on listening to the rhythmic presentation, based on my impression that DD is usually prone to latch on to the attack, while BD more emphasizes the flow of the music. At least that is what I hear comparing my own DD table (Pioneer PL-70L II) and BD tables (Micro BL-91G and RX-1500S). I also tried to bring back from memory the experience with my previous BD table (TW Acoustic Raven GT SE with Black Knight battery power supply), which tended to sound slightly dark and subjectively slow paced. This could be a TW family character shared by Halcro's Raven AC.

All that said, I feel TT1 & 4 have the more tightly organized rhythmic presentation I associate with DD, while TT2 & 3 have a more relaxed and flowing presentation, so these would be the BD tables.

Would mr. Fremer take the challenge? The suspense is growing.....😆

Btw, Halcro, very sneaky of you to have both TT’s spinning at all times 😉

Hahaha.......
Not only that Maestro.....I also alternated where my stylus cleaning apparatus was located to confuse the 'eagle-eyed' even more 🧨 😝

So to recap:-
Dover and Noromance pick 

• TT1 - DD
• TT2 - BD
• TT3 - DD
• TT4 - BD

Frogman picks

• TT1 - BD
• TT2 - DD
• TT3 - BD
• TT4 - DD

I think this shows....regardless of the results....that this is not as easy as most pundits have been declaring for decades!!?
Those declaring their astute 'hearing' abilities the most....are conspicuously absent in all these 'listening tests' 🤥

Before the 'Big Reveal'......does anyone wish to reconsider his choices?
Still time for Edgewear or anyone else to chime in....

Wouldn't it be great if @grooves (Michael Fremer) had a try....? 🙏

Tough one; and interesting and insightful comments by Dover and Noromance.

In the absence of the common denominators of same cartridge and tone arm, I have to go by my experience as a long time strictly-belt-drive TT owner and my expectations of what the stereotypical differences between the two technologies might be; most notably, the presumed superior pitch stability of DD.

First, I agree with Dover and Noromance and would say that TT’s 1&3 and, by default, TT’s 2&4 are the same turntable. However, I’m afraid that I don’t agree with some of the characterizations of their respective sounds and the attributed technological provenance. In fact, I hear TT’s 1&2 in completely the opposite way that Noromance does. Possibly a semantics issue; or, perhaps playback gear. Besides, I wouldn’t dream of disappointing can’t Halcro by NOT “breaking the consensus wide open” 😊

I hear the sound of TT’s 2&4 as bigger, bolder and with more (not less) high frequency energy. However, the sound is also a bit less colorful with just a hint of the dreaded (for me) bleached quality, especially in the Stravinsky; and, too tight and borderline shrill (piccolo) in the higher registers. The sound of TT’s 1&3 is, to my ears, a bit rounder and plush, with more of the natural tonal colors that I hear in live sound. However, it is also less bold and less expansive; more contained and set back a bit further and, on the Stravinsky, it could be described as slightly covered. I do agree with the comments about bass articulation.

Taking into account the unknown but expected unique contribution of the arms and cartridges used, what is left for me and the deciding factor is the perceived pitch stability of each and my, possibly fatally biased, expectations of what that may mean. This, taking into account that the pitch stability of this belt drive will be excellent regardless.

There is little in the Stravinsky to provide an obvious clue re pitch stability except the perceived boldness of TT2; possibly attributable to superior pitch stability. However, on the “Look of Love” I hear just a hint of waver in the decay of piano notes with TT3. Those decays sound more solid to me with TT4.

Which one sounds more like the real thing? I suppose that, as always, it depends on one’s priorities. Tonally, TT’s 1&3 do it for me. Pitch stability wise, 2&4. So, with that and the other observations in mind, I will go out on a limb and say that TT’s 1&3 are the belt drive and TT’s 2&4 are the direct drive.  As always,  very subtle differences and very fine sound all the way around.  

Oh, the pressure! 😱

Btw, Halcro, very sneaky of you to have both TT’s spinning at all times 😉

Take your time Maestro.....
There's only two audiophiles sweating on the verdict 🥴

This afternoon, I promise.  Sorry, obnoxious, I know.  

Late to the party and away from Agon. Sorry, guys.  It’s been a very hectic time as the live music scene opens up again,  finally!  Will offer some thoughts later this evening.  Best to all.

Thanks @noromance .....
Your courage is noted 👍
You and @dover are in agreement. That should give you both some confidence.....
Although I do detect some hesitation from both of you...🤔

But where is our in-house maistro @frogman ......?
Could he break the consensus wide open?
Or could he make it unanimous....👀 

TT1 sounds better - more detail retrieval, deeper insight into the music. Better drive. A little coarse but clean.

TT2 duller, further back in the auditorium. maybe nore space between instruments but loss of detail makes this a drag.

TT3 sounds better right from the opening. More dynamics, defined bass, air..

TT4 meh.

Now, I really don't have a clue which one is which but I have heard the Raven at AXPONA with triodes and Acora speakers and it sounded very warm and fluid but not very dynamic. I've also heard Technics 1200GAE and it was pretty detailed.

With that I mind I'll GUESS:
DD
BD
DD
BD

@dover 
I give you kudos for putting your neck (ears) on the line.....👏
I'll delay revealing your 'score' in the hope that others may also be so brave....👀

Hope you don't mind.....

@halcro 
I've actually been busy getting my new ensuite ready for the plumber to hook everything up.

I'm happy to give it a go, but in an ideal world I would want the same arm/cartrtidge on both TT's - I believe I could pick it every time in a blind test with the same arm/cartridge.

TT1 - DD
TT2 - Belt

On TT1 I hear grain in the treble region, which I would associate with the Victor. There is also a slight imprecision in the lower base region on TT2  which I have heard on your Raven before.


TT3 - DD
TT4 - Belt

This was much harder to pick - on this recording the bandwidth limiting seems to narrow the differences in the upper mid/lower treble.
However again there is a slightly better very low base articulation with TT1, and therefore based on previously hearing the Raven's imprecision in this region, would guess TT1 - Victor, TT2 Raven.

Sock it to me - how did I go.

Not so easy........? 🤔

I remember years ago, when I stated on another Audio Forum that I couldn't be confident of picking the difference between my Belt-Drive Raven and my Direct-Drive TT-101 in a 'blindfold' test....I was derided as being 'clotheared' 🦻!!!
This Test, not only contrasts different turntables....but different arms and cartridges!!!!
There MUST be 'differences'??!!

Yet no-one can hear them....🤔
What does that say about Audio Reviewers who can prattle on about the differences between a turntable they happen to be currently testing, and others that are no longer in their listening room?
They're doing it from MEMORY!!!!! 🤥

So don't give me this drivel about 'attack' and 'sustain' and 'drive' when comparing turntables, tonearms and cartridges.
Especially when you're doing it from 'aural' memory 🤪

We're such a gullible lot when comes to 'unprovable' subjective opinions proffered with 'authority' or 'superiority'.....😳

I like the  Glanz 610LX a lot.....

I've been thinking for a while now......🤔
You guys can detect the smallest differences between cartridges.
You can hear:-

• Whether a MM or MC
• Differences in Loading
• Differences between Headshells
• Differences between Arms

I have little doubt that if I recorded the same track with various changes to VTF and VTA....you'd be able to hear them 🤗
This is really mind-blowing stuff when you think about it...🤯
You're able to detect these differences via the limitations of the YouTube Video!!

But can you hear the differences between TURNTABLES??!!!
Of course you can....🤪
Many lovers of Belt-Drive claim they can't stand the sound of Direct-Drive 🙉
Good grief.....the entire world of High-End Audio (particularly in Great Britain in the '70s and '80s) began with the 'revolutionary' CLAIM that the 'Turntable' was the most important element of the Audio System!!!
Linn, Rega, STD, Pink Triangle, Avid, SME all swamped the turntable market and drove the 'lowly' Japanese-made Direct-Drive industry into a DJ and low-consumer-only product.
I bought my first serious Hi-Fi System in 1978 before reading any journals or doing any research.
So I bought a Technics SL-1700 with Kenwood Integrated Amp, Tuner, Tape-Deck.
As soon as I heard the sound, I was 'hooked' and delved into the world of 'AUDIO'.
In Australia at that time, there was no Stereophile or TAS (I learned later that these were 'Underground Magazines'...not available at Newsagents) but we had the British 'Hi-Fi Answers' and 'What Hi-Fi' which were very entertaining and convincing.....
After two years of reading 'only' about Linn, Rega and other Belt-Drives...I saw a Rega Planar 3 with Hadcock Arm in the Classifieds (John Russin-"Exotic Stuff Cheap") 🙏
I sold my SL-1700 to a friend at work and set up my new deck....
I was about to experience the 'High-End'....👏
As I worked my way through my modest record collection....I couldn't for the life of me, hear added detail, information or PRAT over the Technics!!!?
Was I the victim of a 'scam'....? 🤥🧐

The previous 'blind' cartridge comparison here was great fun......
Why not try it with two turntables?

TURNTABLE 1 - Belt-Drive or Direct-Drive? 
                           And WHY?
TURNTABLE 2 - Belt-Drive or Direct-Drive?
                           And WHY?
TURNTABLE 3 - Belt-Drive or Direct-Drive?
                           And WHY?
TURNTABLE 4 - Belt-Drive or Direct-Drive? 

@halcro 
cc @frogman 

Glanz with teeth - 

Much better now.
Marias voice is more articulated, leading edges of words are clearer, you can hear her chest cavity, more power, dynamic contrasts, tonal colours vastly better - she soars.
With regards to the orchestral presentation - much more urgency, instrumental tonal colours much much better to my ears. Woodwinds and strings to me sound much more realistic.
For me there is much less compression of sound.

Whats your view of the cartridge now ??

Finally the Glanz seems to have run-in so that I can settle on the VTF and Loading.....
I just hope Maria has put her teeth back in.....😬

GLANZ MFG 610LX (with teeth)

GLANZ MFG 610LX Toothless 

Thanks for all that info @dover
This Glanz is a strange beast.....Haven’t experienced a cartridge quite like it before 🧐
It can change its sound whilst I’m sitting listening to it!!!??

As a consequence of the low inductance it is very sensitive to resistive loading, less sensitive to capacitive loading.

VERY sensitive is almost an understatement 🤪Also VERY sensitive to the smallest changes to VTF and VTA

I hope all this sensitivity and changeability settles down...?

@frogman 
@halcro 

The Glanz moving flux system is patented 
https://patents.justia.com/patent/4072823
as are their stylus profiles.

From my understanding it has a unique construction that provides a very linear flux density field as the cantilever moves.

It also has very low inductance ( approx 120mH ) compared to most typical MM's at 400-800mH.

As a consequence of the low inductance it is very sensitive to resistive loading, less sensitive to capacitive loading.

My MFG61 has at times blown away my Koetsu Black Goldline, at other times it has sounded as dead as a doornail. It's a very sensitive beast to tonearms/loading/cabling.

@halcro 

I found the specs for your MFG610LX
Recommended load 47k
Recommended Capacitance 100pf
Recommended tracking force 1.5g plus/minus 0.25g

In theory you should set your MM input to 47k and lowest capacitance possible for linear response. From what I can find due to its low inductance the Glanz are more sensitive to resistive loading than capacitive loading.

The MFG610LX and MFG61 have slightly different specifications -

MFG61 has better channel separation 25db versus 23 for the 610LX.
MFG61 has a Special Polyhedron stylus profile versus a Line Contact in the 610LX. "Special Polyhedron" is according to Glanz patents more refined - looks to me its moving towards to van den hul/geiger profile.
MFG61 has very slightly higher compliance - 25 vs approx 15-20 for the 610LX ( at 10hz ).

Thanks.  Also, as Dover pointed out it is a Moving Flux, not a MM.  In your and Dover’s (or anyone else’s) experience, could this explain the absence of the telltale HF ceiling that I usually hear from MM’s?

I seem to recall Frogman, that you really liked the Glanz the previous comparisons I posted as that is why I mounted it in the Dynavector DV-507Mk 2 last week for an extended listening.
And I agree with you 😉

It is beginning to sound even better with the changes to the setup suggested by Dover and the further break-in of the cartridge.
We may have a real challenger here.....💪

Needless to say, I am very surprised at the sound heard from the Glanz. I will have to go back and search for my reaction to the first time you included it here, Halcro. I don’t remember having a similar reaction. The Glanz is now one of two MM’s heard here that, for me, play with realistic tonal color and no hint of tonal blandness which for me is most important above all else. May I ask which arm/headshell it was mounted on for this most recent shootout? Thanks.

@dover
Yes....20k Ohms and 40k Ohms......

Unfortunately my Glanz came without box or specs.
I seem to recall that some Poster on A’Gon alerted us to the fact that there was a Seller offloading a handful of these NOS cartridges....

HERE is a close-up of the cantilever/stylus which is the best I can do for you.
Any similarities to the MFG61?

@halcro 

Recommended VTF for the MFG61 is 1.5g plus/minus 0.25g.
From memory initally I started at 1.7 due to the age of the cartridge - my rational is that the suspension can stiffen up with age ( or collapse - which will result in a low rider ) and therefore to avoid mistracking I start at the higher end ( I do this with new cartridges as well ).
Then once I am happy it is running well and tracking well, after running in I'll lower the tracking force.
I'm pretty sure I ended up around 1.6gm.
Dont forget when you adjust VTF you change the VTA, and it needs adjusting. For correct tracking force I use "feel" rather than frequency response - in other words at what VTF does the cartridge sound like its tracking securely but not slugged ( too heavy ).

When you say 40ohms loading - do you mean 40k ?
I would suggest stick to 47k. This is the recommended load ( for 61 )

Do you have the specs for the 610 ?? I'm curious to know whether the cartrdiges are the same.

Thanks for the advice @dover re the Glanz MFG 610LX.
As you suggest.....I find mine to be PARTICULARLY sensitive to all the parameters of set-up, although that may be exacerbated by the fact that I have less than 100 hours playing time on it?

I found I was needing to load it at nearly 20 Ohms initially to tame its high-frequency response and I added about 100pf capacitance.
This was with a VTF of 1.35Gm......
That is how the YouTube video was recorded.

Strangely enough.....the day after posting the video, I was listening to it with some familiar music and it sounded awful 😟
After some adjusting....I increased the VTF to 1.5Gm, changed the loading to 40 Ohms and the Capacitance to 70pf together with subtle changes to VTA.

I don't think the adjustments are anyway near final and a lot more playing is obviously required.

What is your VTF on the MFG61?

Fun indeed!  Yes, playing devil’s advocate can get one in trouble.  My wife always tells me I like to be contrarian.   Much in the sound of “A” told me that it should be the MC, but still…… Thanks, Halcro.  Interesting as always.

@halcro 
Thanks for the reveal.
After @frogman 's last post I thought maybe I screwed up, unless he was being devil's advocate.

But alas "MM" for me is green eggs and ham. I knew "A" was a MC, as I called it, the only doubt was was it the Decca ? or a MI/IM, but it sounded too uneven to be a Decca.

I was surprised at some of frogman's qualitative comments - this has only happened once before - I think my standard i buds are presenting quite differently to his stax headphones as you would expect.

The actual cartridges are a surprise - my faded memeory of the SPU was a little warmer in tone than in the video.

Now the Glanz MFG 610LX is an interesting one - of course it is a moving flux, not a moving magnet. It sounds quite different to my MFG61 which would seem to be more extended in the top end.

I am wondering if your capacitance and/or resistive loading is out. It sounds like mine with too much capacitance. With the MFG61 the recommended capacitance is 100-150pf and resistance 47k. I'm running 146pf - to get there I have to change my phono cable to an ultralow capacitance Audioplan ( 46pf total  ) instead of my usual MIT which is very capacitive ( not a problem with MC's ). Try these and let us know - you will have to allow for your phono cable.
From what I can see on the net if you are using Cardas Golden Reference RCA , then 3m is about 120pf, and you would need about 30pf max on the phono input. If you are using CGR XL your cables are about 70pf, you would need 30-80 pf max on the phono input.

Great experiment - and as you say it shows we can hear differences via youtube video's online.

That was fun. It's a relief that B was not the LDR!

Fabulous.......!!! 👏
Thanks guys for all your comments....especially @noromance and  'virgin' @edgewear 😃
I wouldn't have been game enough to risk public humiliation 😳 although there is absolutely nothing shameful about getting this 'right' or 'wrong'....
That's exactly why I began this Thread in the first place!
To demonstrate AUDIBLY that good cartridges needn't necessarily cost an arm and a leg 💰

And thank you especially to @frogman who, although spending years patiently explaining to us the subtleties a musician like he can hear....has explained it again in a way that finally makes sense to even me!! 🤪

The only disappointment here is @dover .......
Aussies and Kiwis share many similarities.
One of the most noticable is their penchant for saying what they mean and never 'beating around the bush'!!!
Yet here we have @dover ......umming and aarhing....dillying and dallying and leaving us with no idea what he actually thinks 🤣

If I was attending a live performance and Maria sounded like "B" then I would ask the singer if she could put her teeth back in.

Priceless!!!!!

And now for the big 'reveal'......
Cartridge A
ORTOFON SPU Ae GOLD 
A vintage LOMC

Cartridge B
GLANZ MFG 610LX 
A vintage MM

Man, talk about pressure!

Excellent and astute observations by all. With a couple of exceptions, I agree with most of what has been written about these two cartridges. I may be stating the obvious, but I should also point out that while I generally prefer MC’s over MM’s, I don’t believe that any and every MC is superior to all MM’s. This thread has shown that handily; Halcro owns many fine MM’s. So far there seems to be pretty general agreement that cartridge A is superior to B. However, the question is not about preference, but identification of the type that each is.

By comparison, cartridge A exhibits some of the typical MC traits. As has been pointed out it seems to offer higher resolution than cartridge B leading one to think that it is of the MC type. However, the detail that this “higher” resolution gives is of the “more in your face” type. Cartridge B requires (allows) that the listener “lean into” the music instead of it being pushed in the direction of the listener.

“A” seems to present a more generous soundstage and with larger individual images. “B” ‘s soundstage seems more compact with smaller individual images. However, although it is smaller, “B” ‘s soundstage seems better proportioned, hence more realistic. When the voice enters, the accompanying woodwind arpeggiated filigrees are much more clearly set behind the singer, as they should be. That is a type of “resolution”, no?

At first, “A” seems to be more rhythmic. However, this may be due in part to the above observation about the more “up front” quality and possibly also the fact that the volume level heard from “A” is slightly higher than that of “B”.

”A” is more generous through the lower midrange and bass. However, it is also a little plummy in that range with a bit of overhang of bass notes. “B” is slightly leaner through this frequency range, but sounds more realistic due to the lack of the overhang which results in better pitch definition; it is easier to hear actual pitches from the basses and not just low frequency energy. This also makes it easier to hear when the bassoons play in unison with lower strings. Again, resolution of a sort.

To my ears, “B” is a better tracker than “A”. With “A” there is audible breakup, not just on the vocal’s dynamic peaks, but also leading up to those peaks. With “B” the sound sound stays fairly well controlled up until those peaks. “B” also does a better job with the passages in which the full orchestra plays along with the singer. “A” sounds more congested in those passages.

So far it could go either way. With the possible exception of the slightly plummy quality in the bass, which is fairly typical of MM’s, I have heard cartridges of either persuasion that exhibit the above characteristics. What tipped the scale for me is the following:

I can’t claim to have owned anywhere near as many different cartridges as have been heard on this thread, but in my experience there is one characteristic that I have heard from practically all MM’s that I seldom hear from a good MC…..with two exceptions. I almost always hear some degree of a kind of “gray” or bleached tonal quality in the sound of music played with even the best MM’s that is almost always absent with a good MC. This robs the sound of instruments and voice of their natural color; and hence their distinctiveness as heard in real life. I hear that quality from “A”. “B” lets one hear more of that natural timbral color. I mentioned the arpeggiated woodwind filigrees heard when the voice enters. With “B” it is obvious that the piccolo is a wooden piccolo. With “A” its not so obvious. Wood or metal? In the same passages, with “B” one hears more of the clarinet’s wonderful round quality; what players call a “pingy” sound. More importantly, each instrument’s color is very different. Once again, higher resolution of a sort. “A” homogenizes their (and the voice’s) individual colors and sounds a bit dry overall.  

There has been one MM cartridge’s that I have heard here that does not exhibit some degree of that tonal bleaching, the Victor X1. Another is the Azden which I own, but which is not nearly on the same level as the Victor overall; and highly unlikely to have been Halcro’s choice for MM. So, if “B” is in fact the Victor, then all bets are off. Otherwise, I will go out on a limb and in spite of the things heard that tell me that “A” SHOULD be the MC (and I do prefer “A” in some ways) I will play devil’s advocate and buck the trend by stating that “A” is the MM and “B” the MC.

😱

Btw, “A” is very reminiscent of the sound heard from the recent “Signet” MM with FR headshell. Edgewear’s “B”/Denon comment is something that also came to mind; although the Denon 103R that I own is not on the same level overall.

Okay, I’ve finally made a serious attempt to listen through the limitations and distortions of the iPad speakers.

Cartridge A is much clearer and open than cartridge B. Much more dynamic as well but perhaps also a little edgy, if the distortion on these little ’speakers’ is anything to go by. Probably one of the modern high resolution MC’s, perhaps the Palladium which I’m not familiar with. I’d be surprised if it would turn out to be the XL-88D, which is also wide open and transparent, but has a more full bodied and warmer presentation (based on my experience with the Takai Lab Final version).

Cartridge B sounds very limited and constricted, almost AM sound compared to FM. It’s probably the MM cartridge, but this assumption is not based on any recognition of the ’species’, as I don’t have any MM’s to compare. It could just as well be a Denon DL103 or some other limited MC with a less advanced or perhaps even spherical tip. If so, than cartridge A would be the MM. In that case I’d be most curious to find out what it is and get one.

First try, so please be gentle with me 😔

@halcro 

How are you. We are in lockdown here now, so sanding and painting is the daily routine. Tomorrow - more sanding and painting.

Well they are quite different - if I was a gastronome I would describe "A" as a fine consumme, "B" as gruel.

If I was attending a live performance and Maria sounded like "B" then I would ask the singer if she could put her teeth back in.

"A" has far more resolution, bandwidth, is quicker and communicates the tempo much better. The voice alone is vastly more transparent.Ditto with the orchestra.
"B" is bandwidth limited, the top end of Marias vocal has gone awol, leading edges of notes notes are lost. Both the orchestra and vocals are  homogeinised into a thick gruel. 

I would assume A is the moving coil - now you can tell me if you got me !

If A is the moving coil - I might hazard a guess its the Acoustical Sounds Palladian, its a little ragged at times.

Quick listen on the phone so there's that. A sounds better to me. It's probably your Sony XL88D! But knowing your penchant for MM finds, it wouldn't surprise me if A was a vintage MM.

Gorgeous aria from Verdi’s “Simon Boccanegra”

And so beautifully sung by Maria Chiara 😘

Btw, gesundheit, Princi!  Or, perhaps it was Halcro.

Hahaha....😂
Princi is nearly 16 years old and seems to have developed a constricted throat which he needs to 'clear' from time to time.
Sometimes it can go on for hours....😢
Now the real question for you Frogman.......
Could you tell this was 'live' sound as opposed to the 'illusion' of the 'reproduced' sound? 

Easy to tell that the two cartridges sound significantly different.

I was afraid you might say this......
But as evidenced by the lack of confidence here.....there seems to be very few audiophiles who share your gift??
Does it surprise you, that with over 30 'hearings' there seem to be only 3 audiophiles (including you) who claim to hear the differences between MCs and MMs?
Less than 10%....?!!! 🤯
I can't help but think that a goodly number of audiophiles with expensive MC cartridges are simply buying on 'reputation' rather than audibility?

I can't wait for your analysis on these two......

Gorgeous aria from Verdi’s “Simon Boccanegra”. Nice!

Easy!……..Easy to tell that the two cartridges sound significantly different. Their provenance? That is the question.

Btw, gesundheit, Princi!  Or, perhaps it was Halcro. Now, THAT would make an interesting challenge. 😊

Thanks @noromance 😃

Let's try something slightly different 🤗
I've readily admitted that I can't discern the differences between MCs and MMs (all things being equal)......
But I profess to hear the differences with a boron cantilever.....🤬

So we all hear differently depending on our brain/ear interfaces and genetic predispositions.

I think we've accepted that two golden-eared contributors here (Frogman and Dover) CAN discern between MCs and MMs......but they've had it too easy up to now with me REVEALING the cartridges a priori.....👐
Can they do it BLIND......? 🙈

And how many others (like Noromance, Edgewear, et al) can hear attributable sonic signatures...?

Now I thought I could be tricky by actually using two MMs or MCs, but that may be for another time...? 🤔

Apologies for the mic overloads on occasions. The human voice is powerful 🗣

Cartridge A 

Cartridge B 

Perhaps in the first instance (so that others are not swayed).....if Frogman and Dover could just say whether they find it 'easy' to tell or not.....with comments to follow in a few days?
That would be great guys.....

Anyone else....don't be shy. This could save people money 💰

Yamamoto HS-4 Carbon Fibre headshell

@halcro Congrats on the new car. 
I have never liked carbon fiber. It sounds grey and lacking in detail. It's overdamped. I belive I have commented on this thread before on this subject. 

Like you Frogman, I love Little Feat...... but it's ironic that the best recording of their music happens to be their only 'live' album 😢
Their studio albums are so uniformly poorly recorded/mixed/mastered that whenever I force myself to play one.....I keep shaking my head incredulously wondering if the band members/managers ever actually LISTENED to their records!!!?
Absolutely devoid of bass and the lower heft essential for the  contagious transmission of the emotion contained in rock and R&B....surely their oeuvre is ripe for a complete all-analogue remix/mastering/pressing 🧐?

Agree with you about Zero Hour being Astor's best......first turned me on to him 30 years ago but I only have it on cassette.
Just ordered it from Discogs on vinyl 🤗...so thanks Frogman.

I was most interested to see what you and Dover might say about these two cartridges because listening to them 'live'.....I can't hear any differences 🙉
Even after your comments....I just can't hear any!
What does it say when two different manufacturers produce two different cartridges that sound identical (to the cloth-eared)?
And what's the point of me having both installed in my System?
I should install another cartridge which gives me a differing perspective....👂
Are cartridges just 'tone-controls'.....🤔

As always Frogman...thanks for taking the time.

Nice music selections! One of my favorite Rock records from one of the all time best R&R bands that many have never heard of. Love the music of Astor Piazzola! Wonderful music. If you don’t have it, may I recommend “Zero Hour”; arguably, his greatest recording.

**** this will not please Frogman 🥴 ****

Not displeased at all! The Signet is a very fine cartridge and clearly one of the very best MM’s in your collection, based on what has been heard here. However, it’s all relative isn’t it? Compared to a great MC or Decca….…..or the Victor X1, to my ears there is just something not quite right with the top end which also affects the upper partials of the lower frequency spectrum. There is always an obvious high frequency ceiling that causes a kind of subtle dullness and sameness of instrumental colors. With few exceptions, I have heard something similar with most of the MM’s I have owned, or heard here.  Of course, the Signet and Victor are on different tonearms, but still…….. I have heard the same things to one degree or another regardless of arm. The Signet, however, seems to do a better job in the tracking department. Both carts had trouble with the Piazzola recording, but the Signet less so.

Overall, the Victor sounds much better balanced and without the hf ceiling. With the Signet, perhaps partially as a psychoacoustic result of the hf ceiling the midrange sounds a bit thick and the bass drummy and too corpulent and with inferior pitch definition compared to the Victor.

All relative. Fine sounds as always; and, once again, Princi got it right 😊.

Thanks for sharing, Halcro.