Glanz moving magnet cartridges

Hi Nandric,

I have emailed you the details about the cartridge and hope it turns out well. Do let me know.

On the issue about the similarities across brands and cartridges, I am not so certain. If you look at the patent data that I posted here on 05-30-12, you see that the differences seem to exceed styli alone. I believe that both Glanz and Astatic used Mitachi who - as the OEM - designed to distinct customer specifications and/or conditions at the time/s. And, yes I am acutely aware of Goebbles' maxim concerning the forceful repetition of an inaccuracy leading to it becoming accepted as fact. Yet my logic here relates to the noted patented distinctions, my own auditioning of the top the range models in both makes, and now to the styli distinctions that your reseach has helpfully identified. (On your question, "no" I really don't think there would be any mileage in sharing your findings on this particular matter with Raul.)

As I also suggested in my second post of 05-23-12, there are other grounds why I am not certain of the distinctions between the noted cartridges. I think I've also raised the question on 06-24-12 about distinctions regarding types of magnets and their arrangements.

Yet, as I say, these reflections are based on my noted triangulated logic and need not be wholly accurate: except that the performance distinctions are certainly profound and notable. Maybe your experimentation will prove the case to be otherwise regarding construction and so I'm hopeful that you do get hold of the cartridges and share your findings and impressions. It can only help.

As always...

Dear Dgob, You obviously overlooked my connection between
wishful thinking and logic. From only two carts of both
kinds (Astatic and Glanz) I constructed the 'all quantor'
by help of which the universal statements are made. Now
by Astatic versions MF- 100, 200 and 300 only the styli
differ. I own the 200 and 300. From 'all possible' Glanz
carts I own the 31L (line contact) and 31 E ( elliptical?).
Those Glanz look exactly the same as the Astatic's
qua body and even (packing) boxes. All of them
have the marking 'MF' on the styli with respective numbers.
Ie without the stylus one can not determine which
one one has at hand. There is not much to compare visualy.
But if one compare the prices there are huge differences.
I got my Glanz 31l and 31 E for about 30 Euro each. As
Vetterone also concluded there is no difference qua sound
between Glanz 31l and Astatic MF 200.

Regards,

Hi Nandric,

Sorry, my points only relate to the Glanz G series and their distinctions really and I should have made that clear. My triangulation only works in that domain - no real experience with the others (only the specified Astatic and Glanz): although I have observed the cosmetic similarities between the Glanz MFG and Astatic MF ranges. I think your logic and experience here seem sound.

As always...

Dear Dgob, We both try to inform other members about the Glanz and Astatic carts. While both kinds are not easily available one may have luck and if one find ,say, Glanz
31 l or E even more luck because of the price difference with the Astatic MF 200.
Thanks to your info I was able to at least see the G3 which should be similar to your G5 and G7. I do believe that those are exceptional carts but I also noticed that
they have no azimuth and eff. lenght adjustment provision.
By the integrated headshell/cart combo's such a provision is necessary for the correct geometry adjustment. One can see by Technics 205 mk 3 ,for example, how those provisions look like. BTW there is no standard or 'norm' for the 'right stylus place' in a cart. That is why the most headshells have this adjustment provision.

Regards,

Dear nandric: Your point is of paramount importance and I already posted several times in several threads including this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

regards and enjoy the music,
R.