Dear Marakanetz: +++++ " Bare in mind that there's no great MM set up that can uncover what average MC set up can. " +++++
IMHO that is a daring statement where exist no clear and precise foundation from your part, at least you explain nothing about that could confirm what you are saying.
Even that I repect your opinion I have to say that I like both alternatives: LOMC and MM/MI cartridges, both are more similar than differents but this depends on the phono stage characteristics under use.
In the same way that a LOMC cartridge needs that we try to fulfil its set up needs ( mainly load impedance.) the MM/MI cartridges for it can shows at its best always ask the same: that we can fulfil its needs and this means load impedance and load capacitance.
We can get the best on a MM/MI cartridge is our phono stage has no load impedance and load capacitance options.
If we can fulfil the MM/MI needs as with our beloved LOMC cartridges then your statement is IMHO way wrong. There are a few top MM/MI cartridges that compete bis a bis not with average LOMC but with the top at the top LOMC cartridges but as I said all depends on the right set up.
Of course that I disagree on this regards with Ejilf and Nanbil.
If any one of you want foundations on the MM/MI alternative you can read that long thread about that's full of good reasons on what I states here.
Now Lostbears are not looking for the best of the best and the Lewm advise seems to me adequate for him.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Nanbil: Yes, you are right and I made a mistake because Idont read carefully your post.
Btw, Exist some vintage MM/MI cartridges that are superlative but not available for the people but if you have time to " hunt " trhough the internet, here are two of them that I'm sure you could like it ( even more than some top LOMC ones. ) if you can find out: Technics P100CMK4 and AKG P100LE or Acutex M320IIISTR ( flat nose. ).
I enjoy both cartridge designs and IMHO no one is perfect.
Regrads and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Lewm: ++++ " At least I attribute this to the superior tracking ability of the MM/MI ...." +++++++++
I agree with you and if you re-read the first page of the MM/MI thread you will read that one of the main MM/MI characteristics that made a difference between these cartridges and the MC is IMHO: cartridge tracking superior habilities.
The LP grooves are not a flat " road " but more similar to a " stone "'s road where a " car " is driving.
The cartridge stylus is almost forced to jump every nanosecond on playback and as that cartridge stylus stay in permanent touch with that " stones " /groove as better the music information pic-up by the cartridge at the same time as more microscopic " jumps " ( tiny very tiny. ) the cartridge stylus has as more distortions appear on the cartridge sounds/performance.
MM/MI cartridges have better tracking habilities and we can hear it as you already experienced.
In the other side, what the TAS reviewer stated that the 150MLX150 has not the last bit of air and detail in the highs could be that in his set-up system he can't achieve it but not because the cartridge but his system ( trhat can't fulfil the AT cartridge needs. ) or his cartridge set-up.
IMHO Part of the LOMC " last bit of air and detail in the highs " are caused by distortions, distortions that came from tracking cartridge behavior and for the overshoot that LOMC cartridge have at high frequency levels. only a few LOMC have clean and accurate highs. Normally MM/MI ( the top ones. ) are better.
regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Nandric: I respect you but you are no contender at least on audio subjects and that's why you "use " other persons ( as J.Carr. ).
Be your self, you are better that what you think, don't dimish your self: learn and enjoy.
R. |
Dear Rockitman: IMHO that depend not only on the audio system resolution and facilities as what are your music/sound priorities what are you looking for.
I never left behind the LOMC alternative when I took the MM/MI one. Why? because there is no reason serious reason to left any of these alternatives when you knew both.
As I always name it are just alternatives.
What are my experiences on the whole subject ( LOMC vs MM/MI that never was my " attitude " and certainly not the main subject other that to know the MM/MI alternative along what I had: LOMC cartridges. ) is that the best MM/MI ( almost all vintage ones. ) with the right set-up can compete with the top LOMC ones bis a bis and if you push me a little even beat some LOMCs. There are a few MM/MI cartridges that competes easy with the A90 and other LOMC of this caliber.
Now, my main music/sound reproduction targets are accuracy, neutrality and even tonal balance. I can achieve those targets more easily with MM/MI cartridges, but that's me.
Even that my today cartridge reference is not a MM/MI one but a LOMC cartridge.
Cartridge tracking abilities is IMHO the lost-link on cartridge quality level performance.
We need, as I posted several times in different threads, that the cartridge's stylus stay always in the groove ( terrible road, btw. ). This cartridge tracking abilities in my experiences depend mainly on the cartridge whole design and not in what tonearm is mounted.
The cartridge behavior on that subject depend IMHO and experiences on it self.
Every thing the same between two or more cartridges the one with better tracking ability will perform way better not only better because one of the benefits of that tracking cartridge ability is that distortions goes really down.
We have to think on the cartridge tracking ability taking in count that the LP what's in the recording through the grooves came with distortions of different kind between them distortions caused by imperfect work by the LP cutter head in the vinyl.
IMHO the main target in any cartridge is not to increment the self LP distortions, that's why is so important that cartridge ability along other cartridge desired characteristics.
LOMC cartridges normally are not very good trackers but the few that are makes the difference for the better: lowering distortions.
The A90 is one of them.
Btw, buy a Clearaudio Virtuoso Wood and give a try for 2-3 weeks. Could compete with your A-90?, this depends on the cartridge whole set up: " mechanical " and electrical.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Rockitman: That benefits of superior cartridge tracking abilities that means lower distortions means at the same time more music recorded information that with cartridges that are " jumping "/out of the groove walls at microscopic levels.
So, two advantajes: more precise and clear recorded music information with lower distortions!!!
Well, you can flame the MM/MI if you want.
Regrads and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Rockitman: I will email you about.
Btw, IMHO and in the other ( many. ) people opinions my MM " information " is not only theories but something that you as any one can confirm.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Mikelavigne: +++++ " there are still others which have been found to be even better. maybe they can be equal or better than the best MC's; or maybe they are just different. but i've moved on from that question for myself. " +++++
yes, through my experiences about there are a few better MM/MIs but the whole subject is not which kind of cartridge design ( LOMC vs MM/MI. ) is better than the other.
IMHO the best of the best of both worlds are more alike than different on quality performance level. Both cartridge designs are imperfect ones with its own trade-offs and are these trade offs the ones that could define which design matched our each one music/sound reproduction targets.
I think that the " presence " of one does not in anyway diminish or eliminate the other alternative.
Both are very good alternatives and the people that are fortunate to own top samples on both enjoyed both at almost the same level.
From my side and from the very first moment ( 6-7 years ago- ) that I was " aware " of the performance MM/MI level I said and posted that this was and is another alternative where in those times the only road was LOMC.
Two good alternatives to enjoy our LPs is IMHO a very welcomed " stage " instead only one, don't you think?
You are right the LOMC needs cares on set-up and IMHO the MM/MI deserves the same ( if not more. ) cares on set-up. For many of us the MM/MI alternative is almost " new " and we are learning ( still learning. ) how fulfil what MM/MI ask for it can shows at its best, not only at mechanical/geometry set-up but electrical one that means: load impedance and load capacitance and this load combination determine the success level on cartridge performance when in a LOMC we have only one electrical parameter: load impedance.
Anyway, I like both designs and as you I'm trying to go " simple ": less cartridges, less TTs and less tonearms, I don't know if I can have success about but I decided to do it.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear J.Carr: +++++ " The tracking ability of a cartridge depends greatly on the tonearm that it is installed in----- " +++++
I respect your opinion but I disagree with that statement.
Through hundred of experiences in my own system testing same cartridge with different way different tonearms ( decent tonearms. ) the cartridge shows its tracking abilities does not " matters " in which tonearm. I'm not saying that's not important the tonearm in this regards but what I'm saying is that the tracking abilities is something mainly on onw and inherent to each cartridge. Can be one or two exceptions to my experiences but these exceptions only confirm the " rule ".
My experiences were with MM/MI and LOMC cartridges where the LOMC cartridges shows were more dependable on the tonearm but even that its tracking abilities mainly belongs to it.
I can give you some examples: AT20SS running/playback the Telarc 1812, it does not mattters which tonearm you are using always track clenaly the tortuose grooves on the recording, Denon DL-1000/Ortofon MC2000/DL-S1/etc tracks in that way too.
In the other side, Clearaudio Virtuoso can't do it or the Acutex M320 ( flat nose ). Not only fail on tracking but always did it on the same grooves it does not matters which tonearm in use: same for KRSP or XV-1 or Goldfinger or Lyra Skala.
Why this happen, I don't know I'm not an expert cartridge designer, I report only it happened.
Certainly there are reasons that can give answers to the whys but at this time I have no answers but only speculations and I don't like speculate on any audio subject.
We need scientific tests/research to be sure about.
+++++ " I have heard no current or out-of-production product that has made me think that I must add a similar MM or MI to our cartridge lineup. " +++++
well in the same way that are manufacturers/designers that are biased through tube electronics and others to SS ones you are an advocate ( for whatever reasons. ) to MCs and that's a good option and your privilege as designer.
I like both alternatives and in both sides are very good performers. IMHO and as with cartridge cantileverless design in the MM/MI alternative exist a very wide " land " to explore ondesign to improve the today status. IMHO too I think that the research ( serious and deep research ) on MM/MI alternative stoped several years ago when MM/MI alternative did not " business$$$ " any more.
For me had no sense to change under hard pressure by the AHEE from MM/MI alternative to LOMC one. This happen several years ago with no clear reasons other than $$$$$.
J.Carr: why in the hell the AHEE took the customers and left in the LOMC road? when this alternative was and is not user friendly as the MM/MI one?: a LOMC cartridge needs additional gain, additional care on noise and audio pollution around, extra stages, " special " tonearms, etc, etc: all these in change for what? when a normal MM/MI with an user friendly approach by inherent design gives to the customers 99.99% of what any LOMC can offer.
Makes sense to you?, not for me but that's me.
J.Carr, take a Technics EPC100CMK4 that in stock shape is fully IMHO competitive with any today top LOMC cartridges ( including Lyra models. ), then rebuild it to today standards on build materials as coils, cantilevers, suspension or/and stylus shape to improve it and I can tell you that that " new " Technics will now not only competitive as already is but will outperform the best LOMC today samples.
As I said: MM/MI is a land almost virgen and I hope that the best on it is to come.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear J.Carr: I own the L1000 and yes it is very good performer as the 100CMK4.
Now, on phono cartridges as in other audio products theory not always is confirmed through playback, many of us experienced this fact.
Of course that I can hear differences very tiny differences. Things could be that those differences that you and me are hearing could be " different " because different audio systems and maybe different main self targets.
What for you is right for me ( against my goals ) could be not so right.
Argue about could be endless till you can hear my system and I can hear yours: there are the main differences, different system distortions and different system resolution. I hope some time we can do that, IMHO could be a learning time ( and fun too. ) for both of us.
I respect your phono stage but our Essential is IMHO second to none. This is not the subject because I know that your audio systems are first rate.
As you I know what I'm hearing " problem " is that you don't know what I'm hearing and that's why this is an open invitation to meet you here at my place as my guest. You only need time to do it. We will see.
Yes, I posted that as designer/manufacturer is your privilege decide what to build, no problem with this.
About the AHEE pressure I talked that " pressure " exist every single day, customers almost has not a wide and free land to choose: for years suddenly audio magazynes speaks on the MC superiority and not only that but stop to review on MM/MI cartridges; audio distributors only marketed MC cartridges not MM/MI as alternative and even if they handle one or two MM/MI models they almost always took as a very inferiuor source; manufacturers ( like you ) for whatever reasons just don't care and diminish MM/MI cartridges as an alternative in his cartridge line, internet forums for years speaks about MC not MM/MI with out reasons.
I remember that when Lewm ask something to the designer/manufacturer about MM set up of the phono stage he was using with MM cartridges ( I think Ayre, can't remember ) this person told him something like this: " don't waist your time and go with MCs ", and this happen a few months ago.
As like this there are several examples of what is happening around.
J.Carr we can't close/disappear the sun with a finger: ask any of the top guys in Agon ( megabucks systems. ) about MM/MI or if 5-10 years ago they owned MM/MI cartridges when even today is almost an " insult " to think they can own and hear to MM/MI alternative: no way, it is a " shame " against its friends to have a humble MM/MI with them: you know, it is not expensive enough to own it and in the other side: distributor, reviewers, designers are not against but does not cares about and still think ( as you posted. ) MM/MI as an inferior source.
I respect persons that as M.Lavigne took the time to heard the MM alternative perhaps for the first time in last 20 years with out taking in count what his audio friends could think about.
For me this kind of audio environment where we have no alternatives is a " pressure " and there are other factors that the AHEE use to make that pressure.
I'm intenting to have a cartridge that can outperform every other cartridge we have today but I'm a rockie on cartridge design so I don't know if I can fulfil that target but at least I'm on this proccess.
I don't die for the MM/MI in the same manner that I did/do not with the MC, as I posted several times both are only alternatives and each one with its own trade-offs.
Anyway, I think you made your point of view and I made mine.
Could this change?, could be but the " future " is the " ball's owner " and has the last word in the subject.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Nandric: I know I'm not your cup of tea, my personality that for you is arrogance only means what is a fact: you don't know me in almost no way.
About the Essential ( I'm not on commercial " road ". ) and about my " arrogance " I can tell you that I already heard in my system and other great systems almost all the top Phonolinepreamps through years to be aware if our design can fulfil our main targets that as always is to be the best: period.
I don't care about magazines I care about music and music sound reproduction at home.
Second to none: I can show it. Why not prepare a meeting at any place where exist a top audio system and where you or any other person could bring with any/several top phonolinepreamps including the J.Carr one and then I will meet all of you with the Essential to make a serious shoot out and then we will see if my statement: " second to none " could be confirmed or not.
Before the shoot-out we can arrage the shoot-out rules/mechanism and audio items involved. We can do it with two sources analog/LPs and digital.
In the mean time I can say you again that IMHO the Essential 3160 is second to none.
Btw, I'm not dismiss the opinion of J.Carr in any way. As acartridge designer he has that advantage against me but as an " audiophile " he as any other persons is just as me or as you. He has his opinions and I have mines, some times we agree and some times we disagree. In both sides for very good reasons.
Nandric, you as any audio roockie ( and I'm not saying you are. ) looks to the pro-reviewers, designers, manufacturers and even auido distributors as something near " God ", people that knows more than you.
Through my audio life I learned that that is not true, I know several " pros " that are worst than you are. Those kind of " especial " audio persons are only that: audio persons as any one of us. J.Carr or any other designers can have a superior knowledge level of what he design but in my case only in that regards.
In the other side we have to accustom that always exist people with a knowledge audio level superior to the one we have because there are several a lot of different audio subjects where IMHO does not exist any one that is " perfect " in all them.
I have two-three audio areas where I know I have a good knowledge level but I know too that in other audio areas I'm almost ignorant.
Problem with you and me is that you can handle my " personality " for what ever reason.
Stay calm and be happy, especially today.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Nandric: There are advantages with ignorance:you don't have to worried of anything.
Be happy, useless to argue with you.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Thuchan: +++++ " for the ongoing controversy about MM,MI and MC carts as it seems here in particular. " +++++
seems to me is because people does not seems as two alternatives as can be BD and DD in TTs. This is ok with me but as you states: " It is a very good alternative for a beginner`s system as well as for experienced users. " +++++
About the importance on phono stages, either for MC or MM/MIs, my experiences tell me that out there there is no first rate MM/MI dedicated PS but dedicated MC stages that gives the MM/MI option.
The PS I have on use is not on this last kind, it has a dedicated MM/MI PS and not only because its facilities for impedance/capacitance but because fulfil the whole MM/MI needs, example: both dedicated phono stages ( MC and MM/MI ) use different active devices for gain: bipolars in one and Fets in the other. Choose of these devices was thinking on specific needs for each kind of cartridge: MM/MI or MCs. Even that we can think are similar well are not and needs are differnt.
I posted several times that MM/MIs are in disadvantage against the MC because there are no MM/MI dedicated PSs when in the other side all are dedicated MC Pss.
Anyway, now lostbears could goes to the digital alternative.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
|
Dear nandric: Yes, " contender " was my word mistake.
regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear T_bone: +++++ " a cart/arm combo to track the cannonball shot of the 1812 Overture is not a relevant determinant of how well the cart does with other music). " +++++
yes, I agree. That and other cartridge tracking tests only tell us that cartridge abilities, how good the stylus tip is " always " or not in touch with the grooves.
Cartridge quality level performance depends on several additional factors that as a whole makes the difference- Cartridge tracking abilities is one of those factors.
Yes, too: Phono Stage is almost as important as the cartridge/source. Its role IMHO is that trough it preserve the cartridge signal integrity loosing and adding the less. This is more easy to say it than to achieve it, the PS overall role is " complex " because at the same time that amplify the delicate cartridge signal ( some times 10K times with very low MCs.. ) must do it with no noise added or distortions added in a signal that's extremely sensitive to contaminate by trash pollulation.
It has to do it following an inverse RIAA eq. with no frequency response deviation.
All these factors are a challenge to any PS and these factors are not independent but are interrelated and in some ways ( inside some limits. ) one of those factors can be against others, example: active high gain vs noise, the equilibrum in this relationship has a tiny tiny line.
Btw, I assume that headamp is the Pionner one. I never owned but heard it but even that my memory has almost nothing to remember because in those all times my ignorance level was to high. One headamp that I owned was the Classé NIL-2/3 and was a good one.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Downunder: I agree and IMHO: with out software " we are nothing ". At the end software is all about.
Rergards and ennjoy the music,
R. |
|
