Dear friends: who really needs an MM type phono cartridge?, well I will try to share/explain with you what are my experiences about and I hope too that many of you could enrich the topic/subject with your own experiences.
For some years ( in this forum ) and time to time I posted that the MM type cartridge quality sound is better than we know or that we think and like four months ago I start a thread about: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1173550723&openusid&zzRauliruegas&4&5#Rauliruegas where we analyse some MM type cartridges.
Well, in the last 10-12 months I buy something like 30+ different MM type phono cartridges ( you can read in my virtual system which ones. ) and I’m still doing it. The purpose of this fact ( “ buy it “ ) is for one way to confirm or not if really those MM type cartridges are good for us ( music lovers ) and at the same time learn about MM vs MC cartridges, as a fact I learn many things other than MM/MC cartridge subject.
If we take a look to the Agon analog members at least 90% of them use ( only ) MC phono cartridges, if we take a look to the “ professional reviewers “ ( TAS, Stereophile, Positive Feedback, Enjoy the Music, etc, etc, ) 95% ( at least ) of them use only MC cartridges ( well I know that for example: REG and NG of TAS and RJR of Stereophile use only MM type cartridges!!!!!!!! ) , if we take a look to the phono cartridge manufacturers more than 90% of them build/design for MC cartridges and if you speak with audio dealers almost all will tell you that the MC cartridges is the way to go.
So, who are wrong/right, the few ( like me ) that speak that the MM type is a very good alternative or the “ whole “ cartridge industry that think and support the MC cartridge only valid alternative?
IMHO I think that both groups are not totally wrong/right and that the subject is not who is wrong/right but that the subject is : KNOW-HOW or NON KNOW-HOW about.
Many years ago when I was introduced to the “ high end “ the cartridges were almost MM type ones: Shure, Stanton, Pickering, Empire, etc, etc. In those time I remember that one dealer told me that if I really want to be nearest to the music I have to buy the Empire 4000 D ( they say for 4-channel reproduction as well. ) and this was truly my first encounter with a “ high end cartridge “, I buy the 4000D I for 70.00 dls ( I can’t pay 150.00 for the D III. ), btw the specs of these Empire cartridges were impressive even today, look: frequency response: 5-50,000Hz, channel separation: 35db, tracking force range: 0.25grs to 1.25grs!!!!!!!!, just impressive, but there are some cartridges which frequency response goes to 100,000Hz!!!!!!!!!!
I start to learn about and I follow to buying other MM type cartridges ( in those times I never imagine nothing about MC cartridges: I don’t imagine of its existence!!!. ) like AKG, Micro Acoustics, ADC, B&O, Audio Technica, Sonus, etc, etc.
Years latter the same dealer told me about the MC marvelous cartridges and he introduce me to the Denon-103 following with the 103-D and the Fulton High performance, so I start to buy and hear MC cartridges. I start to read audio magazines about either cartridge type: MM and Mc ones.
I have to make changes in my audio system ( because of the low output of the MC cartridges and because I was learning how to improve the performance of my audio system ) and I follow what the reviewers/audio dealers “ speak “ about, I was un-experienced !!!!!!!, I was learning ( well I’m yet. ).
I can tell you many good/bad histories about but I don’t want that the thread was/is boring for you, so please let me tell you what I learn and where I’m standing today about:
over the years I invested thousands of dollars on several top “ high end “ MC cartridges, from the Sumiko Celebration passing for Lyras, Koetsu, Van denHul, to Allaerts ones ( just name it and I can tell that I own or owned. ), what I already invest on MC cartridges represent almost 70-80% price of my audio system.
Suddenly I stop buying MC cartridges and decide to start again with some of the MM type cartridges that I already own and what I heard motivate me to start the search for more of those “ hidden jewels “ that are ( here and now ) the MM phono cartridges and learn why are so good and how to obtain its best quality sound reproduction ( as a fact I learn many things other than MM cartridge about. ).
I don’t start this “ finding “ like a contest between MC and MM type cartridges. The MC cartridges are as good as we already know and this is not the subject here, the subject is about MM type quality performance and how achieve the best with those cartridges.
First than all I try to identify and understand the most important characteristics ( and what they “ means “. ) of the MM type cartridges ( something that in part I already have it because our phonolinepreamp design needs. ) and its differences with the MC ones.
Well, first than all is that are high output cartridges, very high compliance ones ( 50cu is not rare. ), low or very low tracking force ones, likes 47kOhms and up, susceptible to some capacitance changes, user stylus replacement, sometimes we can use a different replacement stylus making an improvement with out the necessity to buy the next top model in the cartridge line , low and very low weight cartridges, almost all of them are build of plastic material with aluminum cantilever and with eliptical or “ old “ line contact stylus ( shibata ) ( here we don’t find: Jade/Coral/Titanium/etc, bodies or sophisticated build material cantilevers and sophisticated stylus shape. ), very very… what I say? Extremely low prices from 40.00 to 300.00 dls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, well one of my cartridges I buy it for 8.99 dls ( one month ago ): WOW!!!!!!, so any one of you can/could have/buy ten to twenty MM cartridges for the price of one of the MC cartridge you own today and the good notice is that is a chance that those 10-20 MM type cartridges even the quality performance of your MC cartridge or beat it.
Other characteristics is that the builders show how proud they were/are on its MM type cartridges design, almost all those cartridges comes with a first rate box, comes with charts/diagrams of its frequency response and cartridge channel separation ( where they tell us which test recording use it, with which VTF, at which temperature, etc, etc. ), comes with a very wide explanation of the why’s and how’s of its design and the usual explanation to mount the cartridge along with a very wide list of specifications ( that were the envy of any of today MC ones where sometimes we really don’t know nothing about. ), comes with a set of screws/nuts, comes with a stylus brush and even with stylus cleaning fluid!!!!!!!!!, my GOD. Well, there are cartridges like the Supex SM 100MK2 that comes with two different stylus!!!! One with spherical and one with elliptical/shibata shape and dear friends all those in the same low low price!!!!!!!!!!!
Almost all the cartridges I own you can find it through Ebay and Agon and through cartridge dealers and don’t worry if you loose/broke the stylus cartridge or you find the cartridge but with out stylus, you always can/could find the stylus replacement, no problem about there are some stylus and cartridge sources.
When I’m talking about MM type cartridges I’m refer to different types: moving magnet, moving iron, moving flux, electret, variable reluctance, induced magnet, etc, etc. ( here is not the place to explain the differences on all those MM type cartridges. Maybe on other future thread. ).
I made all my very long ( time consuming ) cartridge tests using four different TT’s: Acoustic Signature Analog One MK2, Micro Seiki RX-5000, Luxman PD 310 and Technics SP-10 MK2, I use only removable headshell S and J shape tonearms with 15mm on overhang, I use different material build/ shape design /weight headshells. I test each cartridge in at least three different tonearms and some times in 3-4 different headshells till I find the “ right “ match where the cartridge perform the best, no I’m not saying that I already finish or that I already find the “ perfect “ match: cartridge/headshell/tonearm but I think I’m near that ideal target.
Through my testing experience I learn/ confirm that trying to find the right tonearm/headshell for any cartridge is well worth the effort and more important that be changing the TT. When I switch from a TT to another different one the changes on the quality cartridge performance were/are minimal in comparison to a change in the tonearm/headshell, this fact was consistent with any of those cartridges including MC ones.
So after the Phonolinepreamplifier IMHO the tonearm/headshell match for any cartridge is the more important subject, it is so important and complex that in the same tonearm ( with the same headshell wires ) but with different headshell ( even when the headshell weight were the same ) shape or build material headshell the quality cartridge performance can/could be way different.
All those experiences told me that chances are that the cartridge that you own ( MC or MM ) is not performing at its best because chances are that the tonearm you own is not the best match for that cartridge!!!!!!, so imagine what do you can/could hear when your cartridge is or will be on the right tonearm???!!!!!!!!, IMHO there are ( till today ) no single ( any type at any price ) perfect universal tonearm. IMHO there is no “ the best tonearm “, what exist or could exist is a “ best tonearm match for “ that “ cartridge “, but that’s all. Of course that are “ lucky “ tonearms that are very good match for more than one cartridge but don’t for every single cartridge.
I posted several times that I’m not a tonearm collector, that I own all those tonearms to have alternatives for my cartridges and with removable headshells my 15 tonearms are really like 100+ tonearms : a very wide options/alternatives for almost any cartridge!!!!!!
You can find several of these MM type cartridges new brand or NOS like: Ortofon, Nagaoka, Audio Technica, Astatic, B&O, Rega, Empire, Sonus Reson,Goldring,Clearaudio, Grado, Shelter, Garrot, etc. and all of them second hand in very good operational condition. As a fact I buy two and even three cartridges of the same model in some of the cartridges ( so right now I have some samples that I think I don’t use any more. ) to prevent that one of them arrive in non operational condition but I’m glad to say that all them arrive in very fine conditions. I buy one or two of the cartridges with no stylus or with the stylus out of work but I don’t have any trouble because I could find the stylus replacement on different sources and in some case the original new replacement.
All these buy/find cartridges was very time consuming and we have to have a lot of patience and a little lucky to obtain what we are looking for but I can asure you that is worth of it.
Ok, I think it is time to share my performance cartridge findings:
first we have to have a Phonolinepreamplifier with a very good MM phono stage ( at least at the same level that the MC stage. ). I’m lucky because my Phonolinepreamplifier has two independent phono stages, one for the MM and one for MC: both were designed for the specifics needs of each cartridge type, MM or MC that have different needs.
we need a decent TT and decent tonearm.
we have to load the MM cartridges not at 47K but at 100K ( at least 75K not less. ).
I find that using 47K ( a standard manufacture recommendation ) prevent to obtain the best quality performance, 100K make the difference. I try this with all those MM type cartridges and in all of them I achieve the best performance with 100K load impedance.
I find too that using the manufacturer capacitance advise not always is for the better, till “ the end of the day “ I find that between 100-150pf ( total capacitance including cable capacitance. ) all the cartridges performs at its best.
I start to change the load impedance on MM cartridges like a synonymous that what many of us made with MC cartridges where we try with different load impedance values, latter I read on the Empire 4000 DIII that the precise load impedance must be 100kOhms and in a white paper of some Grace F9 tests the used impedance value was 100kOhms, the same that I read on other operational MM cartridge manual and my ears tell/told me that 100kOhms is “ the value “.
Before I go on I want to remember you that several of those MM type cartridges ( almost all ) were build more than 30+ years ago!!!!!!!! and today performs at the same top quality level than today MC/MM top quality cartridges!!!!!, any brand at any price and in some ways beat it.
I use 4-5 recordings that I know very well and that give me the right answers to know that any cartridge is performing at its best or near it. Many times what I heard through those recordings were fine: everything were on target however the music don’t come “ alive “ don’t “ tell me “ nothing, I was not feeling the emotion that the music can communicate. In those cartridge cases I have to try it in other tonearm and/or with a different headshell till the “ feelings comes “ and only when this was achieved I then was satisfied.
All the tests were made with a volume level ( SPL ) where the recording “ shines “ and comes alive like in a live event. Sometimes changing the volume level by 1-1.5 db fixed everything.
Of course that the people that in a regular manner attend to hear/heard live music it will be more easy to know when something is right or wrong.
Well, Raul go on!!: one characteristic on the MM cartridges set-up was that almost all them likes to ride with a positive ( little/small ) VTA only the Grace Ruby and F9E and Sonus Gold Blue likes a negative VTA , on the other hand with the Nagaoka MP 50 Super and the Ortofon’s I use a flat VTA.
Regarding the VTF I use the manufacturer advise and sometimes 0.1+grs. Of course that I made fine tuning through moderate changes in the Azymuth and for anti-skate I use between half/third VTF value.
I use different material build headshells: aluminum, composite aluminum, magnesium, composite magnesium, ceramic, wood and non magnetic stainless steel, these cartridges comes from Audio Technica, Denon, SAEC, Technics, Fidelity Research, Belldream, Grace, Nagaoka, Koetsu, Dynavector and Audiocraft. All of them but the wood made ( the wood does not likes to any cartridge. ) very good job . It is here where a cartridge could seems good or very good depending of the headshell where is mounted and the tonearm. Example, I have hard time with some of those cartridge like the Audio Technica AT 20SS where its performance was on the bright sound that sometimes was harsh till I find that the ceramic headshell was/is the right match now this cartridge perform beautiful, something similar happen with the Nagaoka ( Jeweltone in Japan ), Shelter , Grace, Garrot , AKG and B&O but when were mounted in the right headshell/tonearm all them performs great.
Other things that you have to know: I use two different cooper headshell wires, both very neutral and with similar “ sound “ and I use three different phono cables, all three very neutral too with some differences on the sound performance but nothing that “ makes the difference “ on the quality sound of any of my cartridges, either MM or MC, btw I know extremely well those phono cables: Analysis Plus, Harmonic Technologies and Kimber Kable ( all three the silver models. ), finally and don’t less important is that those phono cables were wired in balanced way to take advantage of my Phonolinepreamp fully balanced design.
What do you note the first time you put your MM cartridge on the record?, well a total absence of noise/hum or the like that you have through your MC cartridges ( and that is not a cartridge problem but a Phonolinepreamp problem due to the low output of the MC cartridges. ), a dead silent black ( beautiful ) soundstage where appear the MUSIC performance, this experience alone is worth it.
The second and maybe the most important MM cartridge characteristic is that you hear/heard the MUSIC flow/run extremely “ easy “ with no distracting sound distortions/artifacts ( I can’t explain exactly this very important subject but it is wonderful ) even you can hear/heard “ sounds/notes “ that you never before heard it and you even don’t know exist on the recording: what a experience!!!!!!!!!!!
IMHO I think that the MUSIC run so easily through a MM cartridge due ( between other facts ) to its very high compliance characteristic on almost any MM cartridge.
This very high compliance permit ( between other things like be less sensitive to out-center hole records. ) to these cartridges stay always in contact with the groove and never loose that groove contact not even on the grooves that were recorded at very high velocity, something that a low/medium cartridge compliance can’t achieve, due to this low/medium compliance characteristic the MC cartridges loose ( time to time and depending of the recorded velocity ) groove contact ( minute extremely minute loose contact, but exist. ) and the quality sound performance suffer about and we can hear it, the same pass with the MC cartridges when are playing the inner grooves on a record instead the very high compliance MM cartridges because has better tracking drive perform better than the MC ones at inner record grooves and here too we can hear it.
Btw, some Agoners ask very worried ( on more than one Agon thread ) that its cartridge can’t track ( clean ) the cannons on the 1812 Telarc recording and usually the answers that different people posted were something like this: “””” don’t worry about other than that Telarc recording no other commercial recording comes recorded at that so high velocity, if you don’t have trouble with other of your LP’s then stay calm. “””””
Well, this standard answer have some “ sense “ but the people ( like me ) that already has/have the experience to hear/heard a MM or MC ( like the Ortofon MC 2000 or the Denon DS1, high compliance Mc cartridges. ) cartridge that pass easily the 1812 Telarc test can tell us that those cartridges make a huge difference in the quality sound reproduction of any “ normal “ recording, so it is more important that what we think to have a better cartridge tracking groove drive!!!!
There are many facts around the MM cartridge subject but till we try it in the right set-up it will be ( for some people ) difficult to understand “ those beauties “. Something that I admire on the MM cartridges is how ( almost all of them ) they handle the frequency extremes: the low bass with the right pitch/heft/tight/vivid with no colorations of the kind “ organic !!” that many non know-how people speak about, the highs neutral/open/transparent/airy believable like the live music, these frequency extremes handle make that the MUSIC flow in our minds to wake up our feelings/emotions that at “ the end of the day “ is all what a music lover is looking for. These not means that these cartridges don’t shine on the midrange because they do too and they have very good soundstage but here is more system/room dependent.
Well we have a very good alternative on the ( very low price ) MM type cartridges to achieve that music target and I’m not saying that you change your MC cartridge for a MM one: NO, what I’m trying to tell you is that it is worth to have ( as many you can buy/find ) the MM type cartridges along your MC ones
I want to tell you that I can live happy with any of those MM cartridges and I’m not saying with this that all of them perform at the same quality level NO!! what I’m saying is that all of them are very good performers, all of them approach you nearest to the music.
If you ask me which one is the best I can tell you that this will be a very hard “ call “ an almost impossible to decide, I think that I can make a difference between the very good ones and the stellar ones where IMHO the next cartridges belongs to this group:
Audio Technica ATML 170 and 180 OCC, Grado The Amber Tribute, Grace Ruby, Garrot P77, Nagaoka MP-50 Super, B&O MMC2 and MMC20CL, AKG P8ES SuperNova, Reson Reca ,Astatic MF-100 and Stanton LZS 981.
There are other ones that are really near this group: ADC Astrion, Supex MF-100 MK2, Micro Acoustics MA630/830, Empire 750 LTD and 600LAC, Sonus Dimension 5, Astatic MF-200 and 300 and the Acutex 320III.
The other ones are very good too but less refined ones. I try too ( owned or borrowed for a friend ) the Shure IV and VMR, Music maker 2-3 and Clearaudio Virtuoso/Maestro, from these I could recommended only the Clearaudios the Shure’s and Music Maker are almost mediocre ones performers. I forgot I try to the B&O Soundsmith versions, well this cartridges are good but are different from the original B&O ( that I prefer. ) due that the Sounsmith ones use ruby cantilevers instead the original B&O sapphire ones that for what I tested sounds more natural and less hi-fi like the ruby ones.
What I learn other that the importance on the quality sound reproduction through MM type cartridges?, well that unfortunately the advance in the design looking for a better quality cartridge performers advance almost nothing either on MM and MC cartridges.
Yes, today we have different/advanced body cartridge materials, different cantilever build materials, different stylus shape/profile, different, different,,,,different, but the quality sound reproduction is almost the same with cartridges build 30+ years ago and this is a fact. The same occur with TT’s and tonearms. Is sad to speak in this way but it is what we have today. Please, I’m not saying that some cartridges designs don’t grow up because they did it, example: Koetsu they today Koetsu’s are better performers that the old ones but against other cartridges the Koetsu ones don’t advance and many old and today cartridges MM/MC beat them easily.
Where I think the audio industry grow-up for the better are in electronic audio items ( like the Phonolinepreamps ), speakers and room treatment, but this is only my HO.
I know that there are many things that I forgot and many other things that we have to think about but what you can read here is IMHO a good point to start.
Mother Teresa was even more helpfull but , if I am right she was catholic while the Russians are Greek orthodox.
Please remember that i do not belong to this small group of religious people and all that stereotypes about my country you are using in every 3rd post in your metaphors (vodka, lada, rich people, orthodox, you are only forgot bears on the streets, snow, matreshka and balalayka).
Now, when I read and listen for the first time to the SS Strain gauge I did not know that its design just was made it with out conforming the RIAA standards. Latter on and reading the SS site I learned that critical RIAA subject with that Strain gauge system and I knew it because in their site they showed a chart/diagram where every one can observe that the SS cartridge was designed with out that RIAA eq. in mind. PL arguments many things about trying to compensates for that " mistake ". Through my posts in two different SS Strain Gauge threads he posted that he never be again to accept any cartridge re-tipping to my cartridges ( I was a customer from him with 4-5 of my cartridges in the past. ). Btw, sooner after those threads he deleted the link in his site that showed the differences between the SS curve and the RIAA curve.
Who was it that said "The more things change, the more they stay the same"?
I wasn't going to respond any further on our analog/digital debate since I felt the subject was getting a little tired, I felt I had said just about all I had to say, I feel that our differences are a matter of different priorities when listening to music, and you would probably have the last word anyway. Mainly, as I have said, I trust my ears and I know what I hear, and if you need to feel that you are "correct" that is fine with me. However, I had to chuckle and could not resist when I revisited the "strain-gauge" thread that you linked above; a thread that I had forgotten I had participated in. I bring this up because my comments (and yours) in that thread are remarkably relevant to the more recent debate:
++++++ frogman 3,650 posts 12-05-2008 8:12pm
I have been following this thread with a bit of reluctant curiosity. I was, at one point, going to chime in and encourage responders to cut Raul a little slack; but only a little. Reason being that as a person for whom the English language is a second language, I understand all too well how sometimes one's statements, particularly those made in writing, can sound more severe and austere than what was really meant; due to a certain linguistic aukwardness. I can't recount how many times I have had to mediate misunderstandings between my Anglo wife and Latino mother; all due to the in-law's less than perfect command of the English language. But alas, after upwards of twenty posts, I think Raul has made his point perfectly clear; language aukwardnesses and all. While I admire anyone who is so passionate about audio as he is, I just happen to think he misses the boat. One comment he makes I think says a great deal:
"...when you play a recording that was recorded with ( before ) a non RIAA eq. standard then you heard a totally different performance of what is in the recording that comes with a different equalization curve."
Absolutely not true. It will be different as far as frequency response goes, but as we all know there is far more, and arguably far more important, to the proper (I deliberately did not use the word "accurate") reproduction of a recorded performance besides absolutely accurate frequency response. In fact, as I understand Peter's comments (and I confess to limited technical knowledge), a deliberate choice was made to make some sacrifices in absolutely accurate frequency response, in order to gain the potentially more musically significant advantages of fewer phase problems. Makes sense to me.
What doesn't make sense to me is how it is possible that one of the most prolific writers on this forum, one with such strong opinions about audio, and the reproduction of sound, one with over seven hundred responses in various threads, has not made one single contribution on the subject of MUSIC. +++++
Additionally, while I realize that it was made a few years ago, in one of your comments was this nugget:
+++++ I just don't like what I'm hearing specially on the high frequencies and a little in the un-natural tonal balance of its performance, I'm a little sensitive on both frequency extremes and after a time my ears were " tired " of that SG sound ( maybe because that SG was almost new . ) that was not analog like or music live one it was more like a digital source: a good one digital source ( DVDA ). +++++
I find a bit of humor in it all; I hope you can as well.
Look, when we have a 2db deviations in a signal curve as the RIAA against " no deviations " then we have a different kind of sound . Please tell me why that is not true when the fundamental notes and all its harmonics developed are different in between those signal curves.
The digital players in those times was not using the today ADC/DAC levels, even that I posted that with the begin of the DVDA I learned that something was happening in favor of the digital experience.
In the other side on that strain gauge discussion my point is that PL was not saying in his site the true behind its design. He was telling something different to the people and to the customers. That's all. I ask him by email and never gave me an answer and was through my self research/learning work that I " discovery " the whole " thing ".
As I said, I don't know if today finally that starin gauge cartridge conform the RIAA eq.
Perhaps it IS a linguistic or semantics problem why we don't seem to be connecting on this issue. Anyway, I have too much respect and admiration for your passion about audio to risk our back and forth getting contentious; and, with my "cartridge drawer"as proof, I have learned quite a bit from you about phono cartridges.
My comment was in response to your comment "totally different performance" and which you now characterize as a "different kind of sound". Of course, I agree it would be a "different sound"....as concerns frequency response. But, to me those are two very different things and what I don't understand is why you don't understand the point that I (and others) am making, which is is that there is much more to the record/reproduce process than frequency response and how "accurate" it supposedly is. In my book that is not what determines whether the most important aspects of a musical "performance"....the music, are reproduced well. Even if your use of the term "performance" refers to the technical performance of a piece of audio equipment, to me, again, frequency response is not the most important. As I said...different priorities when listening to reproduced music. Not because some of us are "ignorant" about some kind of "truth" in technical matters, but simply because as with all art what moves the listener emotionally can seldom be explained fully with data and numbers. Personally, I think that's a good thing.
We all have lots of RIAA standard records. When using the Soundsmith Strain Gauge amplifier how does the frequency response (line) look after it has left that amplifier, is it flat or curved in some/certain extent ? And how wide is it ?
Dear @frogman : Yes, original performance is the same but it's home reproduction sound is different.
I understand perfectly your point of view. Now, every kind of expression/musicality/rythm comes in what the microphones pick-up during the recording process and I mean everything. That " everything " is reflected in inherent way through measurements as frequency response and many other kind of. We can't say that inside a frequency response chart content only numbers, well in the chart are numbers but inside those numbers comes " everything ".
Dear @harold-not-the-barrel : The eq. RIAA curve is measured between 20hz and 20khz and when the recording signal in the LP grooves goes inside the phono stage is applied the inverse eq. RIAA that gives as a result a flat frequency as was in the recording process before the RIAA eq.
Any minute deviation in that inverse RIAA eq. makes that what we have inside the phono stage does not mimic the recorded signal. Those inverse RIAA eq. deviations affects not only to a discrete frequencies where are those deviations but affects almost third complete octaves. We have to remember that we are talking of a curve.
Now, normally a decent phono stage comes with RIAA deviation of 0.1db that in theory is near of what was in the recording.
By words coming by the SS owner ( you can read it in the link I posted. ) he measured a deviation in the straing gauge self curve of a swing of 2 full dbs. ( that per sé is terrible. ) between 50hz and 12khz where below 50hz and and above 12khz the deviation is even greater. Unfortunatelly he deleted from his site the chart/diagram of the italian reviewer that measured the starin gauge curve.
Of course that with that very high deviations levels there is no more flat frequency results.
I don't know if today he fixed this critical subject or not. The other issue is that with SS electronics you can't use other cartridge but SS starin gauge, again I don't know if this was fixed or not.
Btw, through my posts in those two " old " threads my attitude was not to questioning the SS owner his choosed trade-offs with his design. No one can do it because it was his privilege to do everything he wants it.
What I was " quetioning " was that he said in his site that the starin gauge design coincide en natural way with the RIAA inverse eq. and looking for those italian diagramas ( deleted by him from his site. ) and as he posted that statement is totally untrue because it does not conforms in any way with the inverse RIAA eq.
What I made it in those threads after learned about was to disclose that critical characteristic/subject, that's all. I never try to questioning him in any way.
That 2 dB RIAA devitation is way too much for me, well actually my GENELEC active monitors broduce less devitation at that 50 - 12K range :) So it seems to me that SS SG is a romantic approach to vinyl record play. Don´t be wrong, I am a romantic but prefer female curves instead. Life goes on and I keep searching for other flat (and dull) cartridges, and just recently I suddenly get interested in MI carts, adviced by Chakster, Nandric, Lewn, Raul, bdp24. Thanks, much appreciated. The DECCA Reference doesn´t look so romantic but on an appropriate arm it is a killer (looks like a piece of a Star Wars weapon to be honest) gadget. I also owe one of the best MF carts, no other than the (in)famous GLANZ MFG-610LX w/ boron cantilever. The MFG 51L w/ tapered aluminium cantilever is also a superb performer in my system. And as for MC carts, I´m very curious about certain Highphonic models. I must point out that I do like both frequency extremes but only quality, not quantity. A very few cartridges are able to do it right in quality, in those demanding areas IME. My search is just begun, again.
And last but not least. A very special thanks goes to Peter Ledermann at SS for his passionate dedication for work on his MI alternative, there are many interesting models and the best part is that they are modern, today´s technology. Especially the Hyperion. At the moment it´s beyond my budget but hopefully some day.
Dear @frogman : Thank’s to the AHEE 99% of true music lovers/audiophiles as you don’t takes very seriously measurements and specs in audio items, as a fact almost all just does not care about. What they care is what they are listening with out knowing that what they are listening is a huge clown from what recording microphones pick up.
All kind of measurements has a precise meaning and when you combine several of those measurements and its charts/diagrams you can see its in between relationship and you can have an explanation on the why’s ( not all why’s. but many. ) you are listening that ( example. ): transients are a little soft or slower than in other different system, or diffrences in the midrange in between two audio systems or brigthness or why the bass is not tigth or almost whatever is happening in a room/audio system.
To understand all those we have first to learn the stand alone meaning of each kind of measurements and its charts/diagrams, then we have to learn which ones of those measurements when are " looking/analized " tell us a more " complex " information that gives a more shiny ligth of the whole room/system behavior.
Normal specs are ( example, not all. ): slew rate, RIAA eq, frequency response and its deviations, dynamic range, crosstalk, separation levels, common mode refection, input overload, input impedance, output impedance, gain, different kind of distortions: THD, IMD, FIM, etc,, electrical impedance, phase, lateral/vertical response, step response, spectral decay, square waves, etc, etc.
Now, the whole understanding of measurements/specs and charts/diagrams can’t tell you if that room/system will like you. Maybe in the near future some one can develop a mathematics model to achieve that.
Through all the relationship on those measurements/charts comes everything was pick-up by the recording/playback process and ovbiously with what left of that expression/musicality you taled about and that I agree with you.
So, maybe is time for some of us to begin to learn on what till today is a "demon " for audiophiles when in reality is a " false demon " that the corrupted AHEE with success teached all of us for many years, was them whom build that demon when in reality is a totally and usefull TOOL when you learn how to use it. That’s all. Time to learn.
Here one of many " tools "/analyzers used to obtain audio/digital measurements ( not only J.Atkinson use it but are tools over the world. Even we used ( something similar. ) to measures our self design: Essential 3160 phonolinepreamps. )):
A target for any manufacturer must be that both channels measures the same like in my Essential or my 20.6's monobloks. Any one can make a test in your own system and will found out that both channels in any single audio item measures different at each channel ! ! !, yes I know that that is what we are accustom to. I think it's time to be better audiophiles , more DEMANDING for.
Dear Carr, the ''problem '' with my sister is that she claims to be a man. After some thinking I decided not to mess with linguistics but to answer the ''real question'': what kind of person is she/he? You ''forget'' to say how those ''new kinds'' sound (grin).
Over the past few months, I've been hunting down several additional cartridges from the vintage list discussed here... But I must say, I keep coming back to my Ortofon 2M Black. It just sounds right. And closest I can find to the original master tape like sound.
I'm using a Michell Gyro SE and Tecnoarm (Rega) at the moment. But I'm curious to try some different tonearms. I'm not against trying vintage, as a matter of fact, I'm interested in ordering an SME Series III to play with.
Any tonearm recommendations that would work well with Michell, as well as with higher compliance MM cartridges?
Finished my heavyweight custom racks for two Luxman PD-444. Now it looks like a battle between a turntable with MM carts and a turntable with MC carts. This is what i use to test rare vintage high-end cartridges to find out what i like the most in my own system. In my current setup on the left turntable i have signature Stanton SC-100 W.O.S. MM cartridge (on Lux TA-1 tonearm) and Audio-Technica AT-ML180 OCC (on Victor UA-7045 tonearm). On the right turntable i got the SPU Royal G MK2 MC (on Lustre GST-801 arm) and Ortofon MC2000 (on Sony PUA-7 arm). The rack in the middle is for amp, preamps, sut, headamp. All racks are my own design. Everything goes to super high efficiency Zu Audio Druid full range speakers.
@invictus005 I would recommend Victor UA-7045, not only because it’s much cheaper than Micro, but also because this is amazing tonearm. Now when i have Technics EPA-100mk2 i can sell my spare Victor UA-7045, but i still use another 7045 as you can see.
Dear @invictus005: Yes, the Series III can goes with out problem with your Michel TT and is very good match with high compliance cartridges. It has only 5 grs. on effective mass but is very good quality construction. Is a very well damped tonearm that's something really desirable.
You can't wrong with this SME. Other advantage is that it's an interchangable arm wand that permits and easy change of cartridges.
Good recomendation for whom gave you . It's better tonearm that what we can imagine. As other SME of those old times its bearing is balls/knife.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R.
Btw, @chakster the only " but or if " that I see on those pictures are those terrible tubes that ( it does not matters what you think or like. ) only degrade the cartridge signal .
If I was you that I'm not my question will be: why take so much care on TT/cartridge/tonearms/set up if those tubes destroy everything?
@rauliruegas Thanks for your comments. The other tonearm I’m considering trying is the Technics EPA 500 with either the E (6 grams) titanium wand or the H (8 grams).
Do you have a sonic preference between EPA 500 and SME III tonearms?
@rauliruegas haha, i know how much you like tubes, i don't mind to try First Watt if i will ever find them used for reasonable price, but they are so heavy to ship like the ancors. The modern tubes sounds like sh***t, but i was pretty serious about the choice of vintage low microphonic, extremely low noise military NOS tubes from the 60s or early 70s (Telefunken, Sylvania, Matsushita ... )
I am not sure if Russian Federation has ''snake wood'' so the question is why chakster used simple wood for his racks?
Where do you see wood in my racks? Too much snake oil? I was inspired by those metal racks for studio broadcast turntables. So my racks are actually made of metal, pretty heavy, one of them has 3mm thickness of the wall. Metal is cheaper than wood in my area, maybe in Asia i could made a wooden racks for the price i paid for my metal racks. Actually i like metal, this is how it looks before powder coating.
P.S. the rack for the amps in the middle i made in 1999 and just refreshed in 2017.
Chakster, What is "sh***t"? I cannot think of an obscenity that starts with SH and then has 3 letters and ends in T, in English.
Nandric, The titanium spy plane to which you refer is the SR70, also known as "The Blackbird". I have seen one at the air and space museum outside Washington, DC. I don't know whether the US used Russian sourced titanium to build it, but the Russians never built anything that can go quite as high with quite as much velocity. They're all in mothballs now. The Blackbird is unhappy on the ground; the entire body sags at rest, because the titanium shell is so thin. The Blackbird was the successor to the U2 spy plane, famously flown by Francis Gary Powers who was shot down on his first mission in it, over the then Soviet Union (East Germany, I think).
Nandric, The "spy plane" to which you refer is the SR71 "Blackbird". I have seen one at the Air and Space Museum here in Washington, DC. It's a beautiful piece of art. Perhaps the titanium came from Russia, but the Blackbird could fly higher and faster than anything the Russians ever built with their titanium. In fact, in some aspects of its performance, I think it has never been surpassed by any other airplane (that we know about).
Chakster, I own a U7045, as well. I am told that it has a low effective mass and is a good match for high compliance cartridges. Is that how you use it? My sample has a decided sag at the rear, due to a worn rubber bushing that supports the CW. I need to replace it some time.
I will not get into yet another argument with Raul about "tubes", but I do have an interest in and admiration for the First Watt series of ss amplifiers. I would love to hear one. I think Nelson Pass is one of the great designers.
The Blackbird is unhappy on the ground; the entire body sags atrest,because the titanium shell is so thin.
Not only did it sag on the ground, but it also leaked fuel like a sieve. The heat from friction with the (very thin at that altitude) atmosphere at the speed (Mach 3.2+) the SR-71 flew caused the metal to expand so much, that the joints had to be left "open" on the ground.
Dear @chakster : """
but i was pretty serious about the choice of vintage low microphonic, extremely low noise military NOS tubes from the 60s or early 70s (Telefunken, Sylvania, Matsushita ... ) ... """
you really like s me and I have respecto for you but your statement and " nothing " is almost the same. Real and true problem has one name ( modern or vintage. ) TUBES, that's all.
If you want to grow up to a serious system quality level performance just forgeret about those First Watt amps. Through my experiences maybe the best job that N.Pass did it was when he designed his amps using bipolar transistors and one of those great amps that I can recomend to you is the 550e. Yes, it's extremely heavy and beatiful design with a top quality level excecution.
Listen to me: YOU CAN'T EVER TOUCH NOT EVEN NEAR OR APPROACH IT THE REAL TOP QUALITY AUDIO SYSTEM PERFORMANCE WITH OUT TWO SELF POWERED SUBWOOFERS ( if you use passive speakers. ) AND CERTAINLY NEVER USING TUBES, period.
@rauliruegas i hear ya I sold my Dynaudio SUB-300 long time ago, i just don't want to bother my good neighbours with extremely deep bass.
Zu Audio Druid 10-incher promises to do sufficient 40Hz bass to not require a subwoofer, i'm fine with it now. As for the amps i will definitely try something else, this is a part of the hobby, i think i have plenty of time, but at the moment i love the tubes.
Nandric, Please give me a break. In recounting the history of the SR71, I was only intending to inform the group about this important piece of aviation history. I've had a fascination for the SR71 ever since I saw photos of it and read about it back in the 70s. I just like airplanes. Believe me, I am not entirely happy with everything my country has done, nor would I defend all of its actions, especially since January 20, 2017, during which time I have more often been embarrassed by US policy than not. On the other hand, I apologize for the two consecutive posts that are largely repetitive in respect to the SR71. My computer crashed in the middle of writing the first post, and I had assumed that it was lost to the ether.
Swampwalker, thanks for that addendum. I agree that everything you wrote about the SR71 is correct. I saw one on the deck of the WW2 aircraft carrier that is or was moored at one of the piers on the West side of Manhattan. The innards, including both massive engines, had been removed from that one, and the shell could hardly keep itself together. Daylight was showing through the hull at many junctions.
Some day, I hope Raul will learn to distinguish between the typical measurements of the output signal of a transformer-coupled tube amplifier and the actual performance of vacuum tubes per se in electrical circuits. But I am not holding my breath.
Please ignore the nonsense and stay a member. As in music, which is what all our opinionated rantings should boil down to, this forum benefits greatly from colorful and creative thinking and expression even when the connection to the subject at hand may not be obvious to simpler minds. Happy New Year to all!
But why moderators does not removed all those everyday questions regarding DIGITAL whatever in the analog section of the forum? I hope today everything will be removed, we will see.
Dear @chakster : """
i just don't want to bother my good neighbours with extremely deep bass. """
Who told you that those both self powered subs in stereo fashion primary/main target was for that?, main target in any passive stereo home system is not that. If that's what you think then you have a misunderstood.
"""
10-incher promises to do sufficient 40Hz bass to not require a subwoofer, i'm fine with it now. """
Again a misunderstood by your part, obviously that your system needs those subs but because that misunderstood you don't know it yet.
Please read here if you want to approach the true high end listening experience or stay inside mediocrity:
Chakster, I own a U7045, as well. I am told that it has a low effective mass and is a good match for high compliance cartridges. Is that how you use it? My sample has a decided sag at the rear, due to a worn rubber bushing that supports the CW. I need to replace it some time.
My AT-ML180 OCC on Grace Cabron Fibre HS-6 Headshell is what i use right now on Victor UA-7045 arm. It was not easy to find two samples of this amazing vintage toneam without problems with that rubber part that support the counterweight, but i got them. If the counterwight is fine then it’s definitely "best buy" option among the vintage tonearms, people just don’t understand how good it is compared to the current price for this uderrated tonearm, it’s a bargain under $700 in perfect condition! Victor own cartridges are not the highest in compliance (like the AT-Ml180), so it’s perfect match. I’m gonna use Grace F-14 on this arm as well, because the only lighter toneam that i have is Luxman TA-1 with removable armwand and huge stabilizer under the tonearm base (all made by Micro Seiki). I think it was the answer to Black Widow, but much better.
I will not get into yet another argument with Raul about "tubes", but I do have an interest in and admiration for the First Watt series of ss amplifiers. I would love to hear one. I think Nelson Pass is one of the great designers.
Exactly, but which one? There are many. I’m looking for a used and the smallest First Watt (i only need about 8-15w power for my 101db speakers by Zu Audio).
Thanks for your response, Chakster. I know the AT-ML180 is beloved, but I am unfamiliar with its specifications. Is it high compliance? And is your carbon fiber headshell also lightweight? I acquired the UA7045 in the context of purchasing a QL-10, which is a TT101 and a UA7045 on a Victor plinth. As you may know, it took a few years to finally get the TT101 up and running, and I have never yet tried the UA7045. Love the TT101, however. It looks like the rubber bushing on the CW extension aft of the pivot is a simple O-ring. Have you or has anyone any experience replacing that rubber piece? Any info appreciated. I probably could use the tonearm as is; there is still some decoupling effect of the original bushing.
From what I can find out by reading, the several models of the First Watt series of amplifiers are each dedicated to a particular use. At least one of them is built so that the output stage of the preceding device (a preamplifier or CDP, presumably) directly drives the output stage of the amplifier. In other words, the "amplifier" consists only of perhaps a driver stage plus an output stage. There is no conventional "input stage" on the amplifier chassis. Other models differ in power output, the number of output devices, etc. Anyway, there may be websites that help sort out the many versions of the First Watt. You can probably get more info from Nelson Pass’s website.
Dear @chakster : """
I do have an interest in and admiration for the First Watt...""
Admiration? why? what you are looking for? do you want to improve the quality sound system levels you have ?
"""
i only need about 8-15w power for my 101db speakers by Zu Audio.. "
so what? you can use a 15w amp or a 500w. That high speaker efficiency does not determines the amp power you need. What determines the amp you need is the quality level system performance you are looking for.
@rauliruegas well, low power amps are normally cheaper and doesn't weight like the navy ancour to ship. First Watt and Nelson Pass products are well known for the quality performance, also my speakers manufacturer often used First Watt to demonstrate the Zu Audio speakers on their shows. I definitely don't need high power amp, even with 8watt tube amp the volume control is on 12 o'clock maximum with 101db (16 Ohm) speakers. It make sense to look for the amp designed for super high efficiency speakers.
Prices on the used market is not so high here (he doesn't ship internationally).
Anyway, i'm just trying to figure out which model, each of his amp is unique design, they are all different from each other.
@lewm i saw a few Victor 7045 toneams with replaced rubber bushing, but i have no idea who did the job. The compliance of the AT-ML180 is lower than 20cu, the weight with Grace HS-6 headshell is 18.6g (the headshell alone is about 10-11g)
Dear @lewm : Maybe I'm a little " slow " to understand the tube technology with or with out SUT.
Now, it's useless to go in deep about. What's important is the end result that in an all tube amp design ( OTL or not ) those results are really poor and with phonolinepreamp are even worst.
In the " Denon S1 " thread I posted how bad measures a 80K+ tube phonolinepreamp and in that same thread I posted the same for a very well regarded OTL amp. I appreciate your advise but as I said is useless, it does not helps in the main subject that's overall tube technology quality performance level against today good SS technology. This is the matters.
You can't separate main measures from music/sound reproduction in a home system and can't tell that it does not matters because " I like it ": frequency range, noise levels, THD, IMD, slew rate, output impedance, RIAA deviation, trusty units, etc, etc.
Please remember that we are living in 2018 not in 1965 year. You are happy with tubes, go a head. Any one choose if can live in the " mistake " or likes to live inside each day reality.
Follow in your dream and do it a favor and don't wake up because you can " die " of " horror ".
I enjoy your ’debates’ on the benefits of tubes vs solid state, so I would like to throw a middle-of the road candidate into the ring.
I have a Sony TA-4650 V-fet integrated amplifier that I purchased new in 1975. Other than an initial repair and diode fix (in the first year), this amp has been rock-solid. But, that’s not why I bought it. I read all available literature and auditioned it numerous times because of the "tube-like" sound that it produced. I don’t have a tube rig to compare it to, but it has delivered very faithful sound through my 91db 3-way columns for many decades. I have been so pleased with this amp that I have not seen the need to ’upgrade’ it. My only upgrading has been to acquire the TOTL 70s and 80s Audio Technica cartridges and stylii. That effort has paid off in spades.
Granted, the V-fet amp was somewhat of a unicorn because it was only made for a few years, but they were special. If you have nothing better to do, look up TA-4650 or 5650 or 8650, and see what other people think of their sound. IMHO, the Sony V-fet series was the best of both worlds.
FWIW, per the Sony service manual, the phono stage has an input impedance of 50k, rather than the standard 47k. Any thoughts on this?
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
