The Mutech RM Kanda Hyabusa

Anyone out there have this cartridge? Very intriguing design ala Transfiguration. Impedance is 1.5 ohms, Output 0.45mV, Compliance is not listed. $4500 and you get a two week trial period. Neat.
E30bfe46 c951 4f07 8d5f 08b0a596e00dmijostyn
I used to have a Suzuki Hyabusa, now that was a wild ride.

The Following is a review from a Forum Member that I Trust their experiences and reports.

It is a Translation, so will be best read with a Broader Mind.


The time had come this morning, DHL delivered it

Mutech Hayabusa

Breakfast was postponed and the tools unpacked.

In the meantime, I was still in contact with Asian Hayabusa users who suggested I use the 12 'gloss tonearm, so I had already released the gloss over the weekend.

Since my last system all played in the Arche Headshell, I also installed the Hayabusa in one.

You notice the proximity of the two developers, Kanda and Matsudaira, to the Hayabusa housing, the needle guard, and so on; you would suspect that Kanda gets some of the raw parts from My Sonic Lab, which wouldn't be the worst.

Accordingly, assembly is quite quick and easy.
Compared to the MSL Platinum Signature, I have reduced the tracking force slightly, but increased the anti-skating a little, and the Hayabusa in my case may be slightly higher at the back.

These are at least the settings of the initial assembly,

that may change after a few hours of play.

The first sonic impression brings the system close to the family sound of My Sonic Lab and related brands, whereby I really like the very beautiful and expressive mid-range and immediately noticed.

Obviously, the yoke-free structure of the magnet brings certain advantages / differences here.

The Hayabusa is definitely characterized by a deep space and a very three-dimensional and emotionally appealing rendering. Especially since the system will surely gain even more resolution over the break-in period.

In my chain I will leave the Hayabusa in the gloss tonearm, but I will probably switch from the also very full and round sounding gloss tonearm cable to one from Nordost or JPS, as my current chain is currently rather warm and the tonearm cabling is therefore more neutral may.

With My Sonic Lab and other pickups from this company, you usually have to pay twice as much as the Mutech Hayabusa for the Boron needle carrier.

In this respect, I find the price-performance ratio of the Hayabusa very good,

a successful entry into Germany

Now I'll continue to implement the system and enjoy it, I'm curious to see how it develops.


Pindac, thank you very much. My feeling was that it was a lot of cartridge for the money. With a trial period what's to lose?
The Reviewer in my view can be trusted with their perception of the Sound Qualities on offer.
The Sonic Labs is a Reference Cartridge
Again the following is a extract from the same reviewer,
  comparing the Audio Technica Art 9 XI.
This might be a Good Competitor to Trial as well, with money left available.

  Now I enjoy playing records with a cello or a violin, for example. The vocal range of the XI is very precise in terms of its spatial representation and, overall, more in the warm range. Tonally not dissimilar to my My Sonic Lab systems.
I don’t know which Transfiguration cartridge this might be comparable to, but the very low internal resistance with the relatively high output (although still in the low output category) reminds me of another Japanese cartridge that has been on the market for a few years. The company name or the cartridge model name begins with "H", I think, and is not "Hana". The one I have in mind has an internal resistance around 1 ohm and an output of about 0.3 to 0.4mV. It got good reviews but is rather faded from the scene these days. I’m searching for the identity but no luck so far.

Edit: Found it! The Haniwa HCTR-01. This cartridge has rather astounding specs: If I am reading the specs correctly, internal resistance is 0.4 ohms and inductance is 0.3uH (micro-henry). The inductance is 30 to 100 times LESS than a typical LOMC cartridge, which is in turn about 1000X lower than a typical MM cartridge. The Haniwa website does not state the signal output voltage, I think because the cartridge is designed to drive a current-mode phono stage, specifically their own product, the Haniwa HEQA03, which presents an 0.25 ohm phono input impedance!!! Now I realize the Haniwa is totally unique, probably not related to the cartridge you want to discuss. Sorry.For anyone who is interested, here is the web page:
The Mutech, like the aforementioned Haniwa cartridge, ought to be auditioned using a current-driven phono stage. I bet the results would be staggering with a good example of that type of phono circuit.  Fremer used the BMC MCCI when he reviewed the Haniwa in 2014.  He liked it better than the Haniwa phono stage, using their cartridge.
Absolutely Lewm perhaps the Channel D Lino C. I lust after the L20. Any cartridge less than 25 ohms can be use with a current mode phono stage. The lower the better. Fortunately this includes the Lyra cartridges, Air Tights, My Sonic Labs and many Ortofons.  Clearaudio cartridges need not apply. 

Did you check out the Haniwa turntable?  The tonearm is a non starter for me. I am of the school that says the platter and tone arm need to be rigidly connected on a stiff subassembly and the tonearm can only allow the cartridge two degrees of freedom. 
The current drive depends not only on the internal resistance of the cartridge but also on the input impedance of the phono stage. If you investigate, the phono stages said to be of that type actually have quite a wide range of input impedances among them. So, if your cartridge has a 10 ohm internal impedance and your phono stage has an input Impedance of 10 ohms or greater, then the drive will tend toward voltage rather than current. It’s really tricky to figure this out. You need to know for sure the specifications of each component for good matching. Also as a result, if you have a very low internal resistance cartridge like the Haniwa or the mutek , and you use a phono stage with a 10 or 12 ohm input impedance, which is quite common for so-called current drive phono stages, then that cartridge will be driving that phono stage in voltage mode mostly. This is not to say that a combination like that would not sound good. It might sound great.
Channel D does not list an input impedance for the L20 only that as long as the cartridge has on impedance less than 25 ohms it will function well in current mode. The L20 also has  voltage mode and MM inputs. It is the quietest phono stage made and it also costs $43,000. The Lino is $2000 some odd dollars and does most of what the L20 does but it is not as quiet. It is however in there with the higher echelon.  
What they say suggests that the input impedance of the Channel D L20 (odd name for a very expensive phono stage) must be less than 25 ohms, but to work well iin current mode with cartridges like the Mustek or the Haniwa would require a phono input impedance of less than 1 ohm.  The field of choice is quite narrow at that specification, but like I said, these cartridges can drive in voltage mode, providing there is enough gain available.  Same old problem.  Didn't mean to side track your discussion.  One of these days I will have to buy a current drive phono stage to satisfy my own fascination with the idea.
It's full name is the Seta L20. But this is the one getting the very positive reviews  
If you go to the specification section in the manual they list the input impedance as less than one ohm. I was also mistaken. It will only work with cartridges <10 ohms not 25. The lower the cartridge impedance the higher the gain. Up to 85 dB if you use the highest gain setting. Inputs are only balanced so people might have to rewire their tonearms, no problem for you. There is also an RIAA bypass so you can use it with Channel D's software RIAA correction. I already have Pure Vinyl and I am dying to give it a try. 
"<10 ohms", makes more sense to me, especially if input Z is <1 ohm.  You'd be surprised to find that most of the phono stages that claim current drive operation actually have much higher input Z, which means they cannot really operate fully on current drive with some of the cartridges that have very low internal resistance.
It certainly seems to be the way to go with very low impedance low output cartridges. I'm psyched to try it.  
A Lino C 2.0 + ZYX Ultimate 100 ( impedance 4 ohm ) is my current setup. The adjustable gain is set at +12db which achieves approximately 75 db with the 4 ohm input. Rob at Channel D had cautioned that using the highest gain may cause distortion due to overload margin. However, as I am also using a Lightspeed Passive Attenuator, I need all the help I can get in the gain department. My sense is that with my setup, an impedance of 4 ohm is really the upper limit of MC cartridge choices. 

I have therefore been extremely interested in low impedance MC's, My Sonic Labs, Transfiguration, Lyra.... and of course Mutech. I think Mutech makes part for Transfiguration and it uses parts from My Sonic Labs. While I am not in a position to upgrade or acquire a new cartridge right now,  I am especially interested in Mutech. It seems that the RM-Kanda Hyabusa is an export model, while the RM-Kanda is the top of the line retailing at $6,000. But with impedance or 2 ohm, it should work very with the Lino C. 
ledoux1238, what do you think of the Lino C overall. Is there any improvement over your last setup? I think you are forgetting the Air Tight cartridges. They are very closely related to My Sonic Labs. Same designer. These are great sounding cartridges but they are stiff, require heavy arms and although not terrible are not the greatest trackers. I lean towards the Lyra Atlas Lambda SL. Just over 1 ohm impedance, medium compliance for use in a lighter arm with less inertia. The top Ortofon cartridges are around 5 ohms, are great trackers and work well in intermediate mass arms. The Gold Note Tuscany is 4 ohms but on the stiff side. 
The present setup with the Lino C and Lightspeed Passive Attenuator is on paper diametrically opposite to my previous rig, MFA Luminescence A2. Both Fremer and the TAS reviewer called the Lino on the warm side of neutral. However, for me coming from a decade of listening to tube euphoria, the Lino is dead neutral. Or to put it another way, I did not know what neutral sounded like until I heard the Lino. The soundstage is perhaps not as wide as the Lumi, but everything with the stage is very well organized. The placement of instruments is very precise. Likewise, the bass is  not as powerful, but not as boomy as well.
what the Lino has taught me is that I like both vintage and ‘modern’ sound. Both are equally valid and enjoyable ways of presenting music. Instead of selling the Lumi, I have decided to send it back to Scott Frankland for a full update sometime in the future.
One problem I am experiencing with the Lino concerns the tonearm. The Trans Fi Terminator in use has bare wires going from cartridge leads to the phono preamp. It is unshielded. And proper cable shielding is very important in order to trigger the battery charging. Rob has given me pointers to make a twisted pair of bare wires which I have yet to implement. For the time being, I have to disconnect my tonearm cable after each listening session. I doubt this would be an for most arms.
@mijostyn  Of the cartridges you mentioned above, the Air Tight is most probably not for the Terminator arm. 
ledoux1238, I hate to a PITA but that arm is a problem for most cartridges and this is why. You need a compliant cartridge for the vertical effective mass of the Terminator but a low compliance cartridge for the horizontal effective mass which is more than twice, perhaps three times larger. Nobody makes a cartridge like that. You run into problems which ever way you go. You want to spread the two resonances out a little to flatten and spread out the resonance but tonearms like this spread them out way too far. If you want to lower FM distortion and like tangential tracking look at the Reed 5T and the Schroder LT arms. They accomplish tangential tracking with similar vertical and horizontal EM, they do not skate and they have a low moment of inertia. Tangential trackers that use animated carriages to move the arm across the record could also be made to work. There is a German arm that does a good job of this. Can't remember the name but the carriage is belt driven and the arm is silly money.
The Lino C requires balanced lines so you need to twist the pairs as Rob suggests and take the third leg from the tonearm ground and solder XLR connectors on. That should do it. What you are doing has to get old fast. 
You could also set up a terminal strip and use regular shielded cables from there. 
I like neutral. If I want more bass or treble for a given recording I can add or subtract it from my preamp. Frankly, I am usually happy to listen to recordings the way they are. It is like coloring a black and white picture.
Every piece of art has a time and place which is an inseparable part of that work. The best systems can pull more reality out of the worst recordings. Some audiophiles listen to music they really don't care for because it sounds good. Music lovers will take it any way it comes. 
Anyway, look at the Schroder LT. It is a bargain for what it is.
Mijostyn, Your indictment of the Trans-Fi tonearm would seem to be an indictment also of nearly every linear tracking tonearm, since they all have very high horizontal effective mass as compared to their vertical effective mass.  And yet there are thousands of happy audiophiles who use linear trackers.  (Okay, maybe only hundreds.)  Your critique raises the question of what is the comparative importance of horizontal vs vertical resonance in reproducing the full audio spectrum.  Since bass frequencies are primarily encoded in horizontal or lateral motion of the stylus, and since treble is primarily encoded in vertical displacement, I would think the question of resonance is very different for the two directions.  One guru mentioned that high effective mass in the horizontal direction is good for bass reproduction, because it inherently damps the overhang in stylus motion (the tendency for the stylus tip to keep moving due to its own inertia) once a bass tone has been transduced.  (I realize there is a guru for every opinion in audio.) Also, as you know, the formula we all commonly use to calculate tonearm resonance uses vertical compliance and vertical effective mass.  It's also difficult even to get the data for any given cartridge relevant to horizontal compliance.  So, I would say the situation is much muddier than you make it out to be, and furthermore that the demonstrable excellence of the Trans-Fi and some other top notch linear trackers, across the audio frequency band, should make us think twice about whether we understand the physics.
All that is true lewm but you have to add in record irregularities which are at very low frequency. If you watch one of these arms carefully you can see the cantilever move sideways back and forth except with perhaps the stiffest cartridges. This produces FM distortion. I was hot to try the Clearaudio TT 5 at one time until I saw one and watched the cantilever drift back and forth. Some are going to blame this on the bearing but I also watched an Airline do exactly the same thing and these records where reasonably well centered. I am not the only one who thinks this is a problem. I do believe keeping the resonance frequency low produces more accurate bass but with horizontal trackers it is too low. This is what makes arms like the Reed 5T and the Schroder LT so exciting. They are also lighter arms which have mechanisms for adjusting effective mass. 
I never use the equation now RF = 159 divided by the square root of mass X compliance. The figures are always too far off the measured values. I just stick to lighter arms now and add mass when needed. Arms with less inertia produce less tracking distortion given equal resonance frequencies.

I set up my tonearms with both vertical and lateral resonance tracks. With the arm I have now the lateral resonance is 1-2 Hz lower than the vertical so I compromise between the two. 

I have always found tangential trackers intriguing but on this one I am inclined to agree with Michael Fremer. Excepting the Reed and Schroder you are better off with a short, light and stiff pivotal arm. 
Michael Fremer is a perspicacious listener and good reporter, but on technical terms, he is often weak.  In the case where he criticized at least one linear tracker for high lateral effective mass, I believe he was parroting some other guru.  You can find "experts" on both sides of that question, and I am not saying I know better than any of them, but merely that the proof has to be in the pudding, for linear trackers one by one.  Sure, the Reed and the Schroeder are intriguing in terms of addressing that one issue, but they have other possible issues related to bearing friction etc.  I agree with you about inserting parameters into the equation for resonant frequency; we are usually kidding ourselves that we know the values of M and C with any degree of accuracy, for that tonearm and that cartridge we are using at that moment.
Let me preface by saying that the Terminator replaced a SME V and it was not even close. Now the SME V is not a Schroeder, but for the Terminator to outperform a veteran arm is, to me, impressive. And I also plead guilty to not appreciating many of the finer technical points in question. But the observation of lateral swaying of a linear tracker was one of the issues that concerned me when I started with the Terminator. As I have posted on my Terminator forum, recent experimentations on surge and soothing tanks have yielded tremendous sonic benefits. One of the physical manifestation of increased air flow regulation is...... almost no swaying. I observe perhaps less than 1mm right to left movement. At least on this particular 'defect' of a linear tracker, a solution has been found to overcome it.
The Terminator is a thousand dollar arm! Everything that has been suggested for comparison is in the 5x to 10x category. I would say that the Terminator is an over-achiever, regardless of tonearm type, and leave it at that.

But back to the OP, in re-reading the other posts, the Hyabusa was compared to the top-of-the-line MSL. I would love to hear more testimonies and observations from users, please!
Yes ~ A wonderful cartridge! Into the Sutherland Big Loco transimpedance phono its performance is musically sublime.
I really like a dynamic performance so I plan on moving over to a current mode phono stage and low impedance cartridge. I really like the Lyra Atlas and the impedance is a lowish 4.2 ohms but the lower the better and The Mutech is one of three or four cartridges with very low impedance and there are not a lot of reviews on it yet.

The Terminator has the same problem that other arms of it's type
have. I have seen it do it. Consequently lewm I would never consider  one. As for friction, the Reed has the same friction as any other arm. The Schroder actually has less friction horizontally than any other arm assuming it has decent bearings. It is a brilliant design for this reason. Friction of the stylus in the groove pulls the arm forwards as the arm has no offset. Because the horizontal bearing is off on a lever arm this forward pull is magnified pulling the mechanism forward. The magnetic guide has no friction at all. The pull overcomes any friction further reducing any side forces on the stylus. So, which one would you get, the wooden arm version or the magnesium arm version sold by Xact Audio? 
Which current drive phono stage do you plan to buy?
I am hardly in a position to argue you should by a Terminator tonearm.  I decided long ago that no matter how great linear tracking tonearms might be, I don't want to bother with the pumps, filters, noise, etc, associated with their use.  If I did decide to put up with it, I would indeed place the Terminator at the top of my list for its brilliant design and modest cost.  That lack of pumps and other paraphernalia is to me what makes the Schroeder LT and maybe the Reed most tempting.  Anyway, I would be interested to learn how it goes with whatever current drive phono you select.  I have long been hooked on the BMC MCCI, as an idea.
The BMC Signature ULN is a beautiful little phono stage but in that price range I think I would go with the Lino C because it has an uncorrected output you can use with computer correction and a battery power supply.
I hope to get the Seta L20 because it has three inputs and the lowest signal to noise spec of any phono stage out there. It also has a MM input just in case I prefer one for Rock over a current mode MC. I love the Clearaudio Charisma. It is a blast playing rock and jazz.  Only problem is the price but in a year or so I should be able to manage it. I wull certainly let you know how the Schroder fares as I am pretty sure that will be my next arm. The only thing the Reed has over it is the ability to swap cartridges fast as it has removable arm wands like the Graham. 
Since this is your thread, I guess it's OK to go off-topic.  Do you mean to say the Lino C permits RIAA correction in the digital domain?  Does it have a digital RIAA built in?  That would involve, of course, ADA conversions, which I don't fancy myself.
If using digital riaa one might well use a (really good) mic preamp from studio world.

Channel D has a program called Pure Vinyl. It is for use on Apple Computers only. It has built in RIAA correction. In order to use it you need a phono stage with a flat uncorrected output which all Channel D phono stages have. Then you digitize the output and send it to the computer. The computer will apply the correction then either play it back immediately or record the album to your hard drive getting the  metadata for the album from the internet putting it all together in the iTunes library.
Michael Fremer uses this to record vinyl and compare cartridges and turntables. Yes, it requires an AD then DA conversion but at 24/192 this is "invisible."  I have to digitize my phono stage anyway to send it to my preamp which is entirely digital up to the DACs. Is it worth it? Like always there are various opinions. The computer RIAA is more accurate and has less distortion. I have not tried it yet so I can not say. Fremer continues to use his CH phono stage for most of his listening instead of the computer.
But I love the Channel D phono stages. The L20 is a beast. When I get one I will certainly compare digital to analog RIAA correction
Thanks for your informative response.
The distributor happens to be my set up guy and I was glad to give this a go with an industry accommodation price as a bonus. My previous cart was the well regarded Kiseki Purple Heart. The Mutech was quite nice through my Allnic 1202, I will eventually have SoundSmith retip it as I did with the Kiseki(I am currently using a retipped Air Tight Opus 1 which I prefer but has a MSRP almost 4 times as great). My impression was of a very dynamic cartridge that was fun to listen to. Your impressions may vary.
Some poor bastard broke an Opus 1!