Dear Axel: Reading on your posts when you talk about the Empire cartridge you reffer to it like the S1000 model.
In my " book " the S1000 ( I have two ) is a stylus replacement for the Empire 1000GT, these facts makes things a little confusing because the Empire model in which I'm reporting is the 1000 ZE/X that is a different model, could you explain about?, thank you.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Lewm: +++++ " I will have a listen and decide for myself " +++++
absolutely, no doubt about that is a personal " call ".
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Axel: I have to say that this Empire ( elliptical stylus. ) is really sensitive to VTA/AZ changes, normaly cartridges with elliptical stylus are very friendly but this one is a little " nervous ".
Well, after 20-25 hours and with a fine tunning I can say that the cartridge quality performance is just: splendid! and an additional top contender in any quality performance cartridge list.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Headsnappin: Good to know that you like it, welcome to the P-76/MM experience!
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Travbrow: I think that more than a mystery is that the Andante cartridges maybe never were something really especial on those times against other cartridge big names and aside were P-mounts.
In the little sheet that I have of these Andante cartridges you can read:
" each is individually crafted by the same manufacturing team responsible for some of the most respected ( and expensive ) moving coil cartridges in the world. "
so like you say ( at some time ) maybe Grace people were involve but certainly was not Grace the MC manufacturer Andante was in reference ( I know only one Grace MC against more than 25 MM models. ).
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Dgob: +++++ " Hence, it's spent much of its life on the shelf. Move forward to today and I now possess some important new tools. These include the Essential 3160 phonolinestage preamplifier, Dr. Feikert's set up protractor, a resolving sub/satellite speaker system and a different choice of tonearms and headshells. ...." +++++
your statement/assessment is crucial to understand the real MM/MI alternative value.
Many of us that are only on the MC alternative have not the best " memories " on the MM/MI alternative ( just like you on the Spectral. ) thinking that things about are still the same with that MM/MI cartridges with out think that the whole " thing " already change it for the better because our today audio system is way way better than the ones we owned 20-30 years ago and not only that but today we are more experienced audio/music people with better discern/judgement and more precise audio/music priorities. That's why IMHO this is our best time to remove/try the MM/MI alternative ( new ones and vintage ones. ) enjoying its inherent high quality performance.
IMHO there is no single real factor that preclude that we can give us this great and unique opportunity to " know " the MM/MI experience, if you can don't lose it!!!
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Dgarretson: +++++ " It may be about time for a reevaluation, but is anybody here as yet really prepared to part with their high-end MCs? " +++++
this can be more than a controversial assessment a subject that through its analysis makes me think that at this moment IMHO both alternatives ( MC and MM. ) are here to stay and " live " in good co-existence.
Both alternatives are very good and more than a matters which we can choose it is more a matter of have both and enjoy it in our audio systems.
Nothing is perfect and only through the time, hearing both alternatives, we can decide which one achieve each one person audio/music priorities in a better and precise way.
I'm still hearing top LOMC cartridges ( I like it. ) but I'm having a " oriented " thought/feel about: any time I switch from MM to MC I really enjoy the MC quality performance but I enjoyed for brief time because after this brief time my ears ask to come back to MM for a more free/whole music enjoyment. This fact does not happen at the inverse, I can hear the MM alternative almost for ever asking for nothing different.
I think and I hope that the best on both cartridge designs are for coming at least if both cartridge technologies are not " exhaust " or near to it.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Armstrod: I own 5-6 adapters for the P-mount cartridges and after " test " 2-3 of them ( with out the adapter pin connectors. ) I have to choose the Shure one ( similar to the one you are using. ) because this one is more thin at its back side and permit that the cartridge pin connectors come out of the adapter with more length/surface for the headshell wire pins makes better contact. You are right, the cartridge pin connectors are really small in diameter so it is not easy to find the right cartridge clips.
I don't experienced any " loose " problem between the cartridge and the adapter ( I think due that the adapter pin connectors disappear. ) and like you I take care to really put presure ( tight. ) on the screw between the cartridge/adapter.
It is worth all these additional effort to hear the P-76?, certainly is in favor of better quality cartridge performance that even with out this " direct " connection is very good performer.
David, all I can say: no one who cares about music deserve to lose this " new " experience.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Travbrow: No I can't say which is the P-76 catilever build material: maybe aluminum ????
You have to consider a lucky " boy " with your two P-76 samples ( right now is almost impossible to find any NOS sample. ) knowing that ( by today ) IMHO you own the best ever made overall quality performance cartridge.
Regards and enjoy the msuic, Raul. |
Dear Axel: Both cartridges ( At-20SS and Empire 1000ZX/E ) are top performers but have different presentation.
The main differences are at frequency extremes where the low bass in the Empire is a little deeper and the highs on the AT comes more " alive " ( I'm not saying that the Empire is slouch on it, it is only that in the AT exist a little more precense in that frequency range. ), these characteristics makes that the Empire overall presentation goes a little ( tiny ) on the " warm " side from " absolute " neutrality.
Which one is better?, in this quality performance level I think that more than say " this one is better or the like ", the subject is that according with the audio system which one is close to our priorities but in this case both cartridges are close to those " our priorities " and makes difficult to have a winner, IMHO both are a winner!
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Dgarretson: Main characteristics to consider: headshell weight ( to match different cartridges to different headshells. ), build material ( through my experiences magnesium and aluminum/aluminum alloy works really good. I try other build materials like wood/carbon fiber/ceramic/etc, but I don't find that give me any advantages and all these " rare " material headshells are expensive. ), size ( what I mean with " size " is that the headshell surface/side where the cartridge goes must be enough not only to mount the cartridge but with space for the rear pin connector headshell wires. You can think that in this regard all headshells works but did/do not because someones are to short like the very good Audio Technica Technihard. Several cartridges has long body or the stylus is at non usually distance and when you want to make the overhang set-up suddenly you take in count that there is no space for the headshell wire connectors. ), facilities ( for easy overhang set-up and azymuth, with threaded or with out threaded mount holes, example: the AT Technihard and other AT headshells ( AT has magnesium headshells and aluminum ones. ) comes with threaded mount holes ( at different distance between them to set-up overhang. ) in the side where the cartridge goes attached to the headshell, this is very nice for almost any MM/MI cartridge that usually comes with mount non-threaded holes where you need bolts that makes more difficult the cartridge mount but on the AT headshells you don't have to worry about bolts because the cartridge/headshell does not need it, obviously that if the cartridge has threaded mount holes is almost impossible to fix it in a mount threaded holes headshell.
As you can imagine I own a lot of different headshells to help to match a cartridge to the tonearm, in some ways I prefer magnesium headshells but with some cartridges the aluminum could works better especially if you need more weight. I use Audio Technica ( every single model. AT has several different headshells. ), Nagaoka ( magnesium that is the original one. The today Nagaoka comes in aluminum. ), Grace ( magnesium ), Dynavector ( aluminum ), LP Gear ( the one you name it. That is the same that Jelco and similar to the aluminum by Nagaoka. ), Technics,etc,etc .
Usually I buy it second hand ( there are some models that are very good and are out of production. ) through ebay and here in Agon.
As different are the headshells you/me own as different are the posibilities/alternatives to match the cartridge to the tonearm in a better way to achieve the " best " quality performance.
The headshell wires are important too, I use after-market Ikeda silver/cooper and Audio technica.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Tobes: ++++ " are starting to look a bit silly to me - at least with my level of gear. " +++++
in my experience as better is the gear quality level as more evident are the differences in favor of MM/MI cartridges. These cartridges likes a lot top level audio system, the experience in these kind of gear is stunning.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Dean_man: +++++ " A poster on another forum mentioned a few years ago that the Andante company was made up of Grace designers/engineers after Grace went out of business, can anyone add any history to this bit of a mystery? " +++++
after reading carefully all the info I have on the P-76 I find/conclude that the Andante cartridges were made by Supex.
I own the Supex SM-100 MK2 ( MM ) and its performance is different from the Andante P-76/38.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear friends: I wnat to share my " whole " experiences with the Andante P-76.
first I mounted with a regular P-mount adapter and hear it for two hours ( I like what I heard. ) and latter on ( like I posted ) I mounted on a modified P-mount adapter that permit a direct connection between the cartridge pin connectors and the headshell wires.
Like always I set-up the VTA/SRA ( start ) in positive way ( angle ) and with 1.25grs on VTF with out anti-skating and loaded at 100K. The tonearm I choose was a Grace G-940 with its own magnesium Grace headshell.
I heard it for 2-3 hours ( passing for my LP's tests. ) where the most impresive characteristic was/is that endless high frequency performance: accurate, precise, right in tone, clear, transparent, fast, real, flowing, etc, etc,. No other cartridge I know but my Colibri ( very low output ) and the Ortofon MC2000 share this unique and stunning characteristic. I could say that you don't know how a cymbal sounds till you hear the P-76 ( I mean its real sound. ), the sound of the metal percussions are so " tactile " that you can't believe it! n not even with the Colibri or the Ortofon I name it and the Piano: Oh1 that Piano sounds with the P-76: a totally new experience for a home audio system.
Armstrod posted that he never heard better bass on any cartridge than this one. Well my experience is a little different, I can say that the low bass is really good and have the right quality/quantity to along that highs present a very neutral/real tonal balance. What I found is that the P-76 low mid-bass is something especial and very rare to find in almost no any other cartridge ( MC/MM ) at least not with this presence quality.
The P-76 is an alive and " energy " performer but with out any sign of: bright, edge, cool, boring, unpleaseant sound.
To my ears it has the lower distortion of any other cartridge I know. Is so lower in distortion and so " real " that for many hours I was hearing it with out take in count that something was " wrong " with the set-up. Like I told you the cartridge performance pass/aprove every single music/LP test I try it, sounding " wonderful " ( especialy after 10-12 hours. ).
Well, the positive VTA/SRA that I change two-three times ( always positive. ) was the " culprit ". While I'm hearing LP after LP and almost everything sounds very good there was " something " where my ears were not totally " comfortable " but hard to say what was that " something " till I concentrate my hearing more in deep and I find that the frequency range between the high mid-bass and low mid-range was a little out of tone ( very low/shy. ) so I change twice the VTA/SRA till now the cartridge/headshell is even with the LP.
What can I say now?: I don't want to hear anything ( LPs ) but through P-76. Yes it " sounds " like I'm in love with my new " lady ", well I'm!
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear friends: This P-76 is so especial because IMHO it handle the transients/attacks of the music like no other cartridge ever made.
One main characteristic/difference of the live/real music against a home audio system reproduction is the " natural " dynamic on the live event that we can't have at the same level in our audio systems ( any ) and one factor that made/make that dynamics difference so important is how the transients/attacks on each single instrument/notes are in live events that in our audio systems are " slow " with out the real dynamics. Well, the P-76 is so dynamic thanks to its fast reaction ( the fastest I heard on any cartridge including the Colibri. ) to the music where the transients/attacks are very near to what we hear in a live event.
These characteristics gives a unique quality performance level to the P-76 that no other cartridge ( IMHO ) has/had.
I posted the word " tactile " in the sound P-76 reproduction because you almost can " touch " the music ( not only feeling or enjoy the music emotion ), because the word soundstage with this cartridge take a new perception level that I believe only because I'm hearing it.
As better is your audio system resolution/performance as better is what you hear through the P-76.
I pay 50.00 dollars for it and I can say that if this cartridge comes ( will comes.???? ) for 20K ( it is better than any other cartridge at any price, so it has to be higher in price that any other cartridge, right?. ) and I have the money ( that I have not. ) then I pay for it and that 20K will be a justified money against its very high and unique quality performance.
IMHO here and now the P-76 is the Analog Source to have, no doubt about.
Btw, I don't know when ( I don't want to touch or change nothing in my P-76. ) but I will try the Andante option with a different cartridge stylus: elliptical one ( this comes with the P-38 that is the same cartridge but different stylus. ), that I own and can use it in the P-76 too.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear friends: Like Lharasim say and I agree with the brass attack instruments are not only peculiar but a challenge for any audio system, I mean to reproduce it right. Well the P-76 is a champ on this " area ".
Till two days ago I was hearing the P-76 with some nice Jazz/ blues and Pop music but I decided that now is time to a more real challenge: big classic full orchestra scores at " real "/near real SPL at the sitting position ( average of 88-90db with 97-98+ db on peaks. )
I choose ( between others. ) some not so easy recordings ( especially on brass performance. ), RCA/Living Stereo: F. Reiner- Pictures at an Exhibition and Sherezade, Witches'Brew; Mercury: Dorati- Firebird, Reference Recording: ( 45 rpm, both. ) ) Symphonie Fantastique and Dafos, ( 33 rpm ) Fiesta!!
Normally you can hear these RCA on the bright side ( between other things due to recording clipping amplifiers. ) and even with a shrill sound in the highs and normaly at 90db ( SPL ) at the seat position with unpleaseant high distortions. I posted that the P-76 ( IMHO ) is a cartridge with the lowest overall distortion that I heard and through all those recording but especialy on these RCA I can confirm it. If it is still true that very high agresiveness on the high frequencies ( and brass frequency range ) I can tell you that through the P-76 things are a lot better with no shrill at all ( even at that high volume levels. ) and almost no over-brigthness. Now I can not only hear these full scores but " feel " the inmense emotion that can " wake up " a non-distorted brass performances with the right transient response and the same I can tell for any other single instrument group and my God that Arp and concertmaster Violin on Sherezade: you can't believe it, it is a full music orgasm.
Same experience with the Firebird but here with an improvement in that normal layering soundstage that has the recording, with the P-76 you can count every single instrument in each single layer/row of orchestra instruments overall position.
The Berlioz score and Fiesta recording are very demanding recordings in any single frequency range and the P-76 permit that the full score flows like the water in a cascade: way natural!
The Dafos recording is no slouch on the demanding challenge. Some of the percussion instruments are very hard to handle in apropiate manner with its complex harmonics,transients, time decay and full volume on it. The P-76 stay imperturbable on this full challenge.
Two common characteristics of the cartridge in all these recordings is its precise, no-overhang, tightness, resolution and accuracy on the low bass quality performance and its outstanding tracking recording: inner groove distortions?, no way: this cartrigne does not know what is that " inner groove recording distortion even that in almost all these recordings there are full demanding music parts at the inner grooves.
I have to say that I try ( briefly. ) some recording tracks at 93-95db with peaks at 108+db with no strange quality performance.
Like I already posted this Andante cartridge is a great surprise.
Regards and enjoy the music, raul. |
Dear Dean_man: In general almost all audio reviews are out of reality, I know that all reviewers say that what they " posted " is what they heard but sometimes is so " wrong/unreliable " what they write that I serious put on question that they are really honest, corruption is everywhere and unfortunately the audio magazynes reviews has especial " weight " in the audio designer goals.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Jimpcn: You already have answers to your question, I'm only want to add that IMHO the MM alternative quality performance was/is the " best secret ever guard " against other analog source alternatives and this intentional fact was/is truly unfair for us music lovers and audiophiles ( all audio customers. ) because for many years we almost all were deprive of these " gems " for the analog audio reproduction.
The good news is that IMHO the MM/MI alternative is alive and I hope stay with us for many years to come and many years to enjoy it.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Toufu: I already posted my experiences with the Ruby ( original one. ) that is a first rate performer and you can read on two-three of my last posts about the P-76 where you can see that as good as is the Ruby ( that I like very much. ) the P-76 is a little better and a: " what more to ask in a cartridge? " , because is really hard to say any weak in this cartridge. Good that you are a lucky owner of the P-76.
Btw, I'm interested too if other people own the Ruby and the P-76 and share with us his/their experiences.
Regards and enjoy the music, raul. |
Dear Lewm: Unfortunately this cartridge is out of production and we can't buy any time and like with other very good MM/MMI cartridges we have to buy/react very fast.
Now, this one is very good too and worth to have it:
http://cgi.ebay.com/High-End-MI-Cartridge-EMPIRE-1080LT-NOS_W0QQitemZ190331211250QQcmdZViewItemQQptZVintage_Electronics_R2?hash=item2c509fcdf2&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14#ht_720wt_973
Good luck.
Regards and enjoy the music, raul. |
Dear friends: Travbrow experience with the P-76 is relevant because the Technics 205 was only behind what is considerer the best cartridge ever made the Technics EPC-100 and I have to say that both Technics cartridges are very near on quality performance.
Yes, the P-76 not only shows its high quality performance but when you compare with other cartridges ( MM/MC ) it shows the faults on them that we don't take in count before heard the P-76 and from this point of view IMHO we can consider it like a standard to beat.
I own many cartridges that I don't have yet the opportunity to hear it ( just like the Andante. ) and I don't know if one of them could give me a " new and unique " big surprise like the P-76.
I want to tell you all that I can't have the ocasion to mount it in our self tonearm design ( where I know for sure will improve its quality performance. ) due that in the last weeks and at least 2-3 more weeks we will be working in what we think could be the finish product/last prototype, so I'm still exited to test the cartridge that coming day. we will see!
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Travbrow: I agree.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Dgarretson: Good that you get the Mf-100. Like me Lharasim own all Astatic models that he has in very high praise/level maybe he has more extensive experiences with that me but I can say that the MF-100 is a top and distinguished cartridge different for the P-76, the Astatic is very natural with very good tonal balance but a little less " alive " than the P-76, I could say is a little lean ( i don't have the right word. ) and unforgertable cartridge, with it you " see " only the music.
Btw, we will be waiting your tests on all those cartridges ( I like a lot the Fe5. ) that you will try in the " same conditions ". Can you switch in your MM stage to 100 ohms?, I ask because the MC ones likes a lower impedance than the very high for the MMs.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Dgob: As you say very interesting article. REG is one of the few pro-reviewers that use only MM cartridge ( as I posted in the thread. ) and he do it for many years.
I agree on the performance of the Stanton and AT cartridges where I can add that in my system experiences the AT is no slouch ( against any other cartridge ) in the low bass performance but the cartridge performance is tonearm/system dependent.
Anyway, the article put/add light to the MM alternative and to its understanding and differences with other analog sources ( MC ).
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Dgarretson: This is the first time that I see that kind of facilities in a phono stage, I understand that you can have it because you made in deep mods to have it. Anyway that permit a very fast switching between different options to make comparisons, good.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Tobes: Reading on your Jubilee/P-77 experiences I would like to add some comments ( it is not an argue of what you are hearing because I can't do that: that's what you are hearing and I respect that. ).
My experience with that Garrot cartridge is similar of you have and only a difference on the low bass performance where in my system and with different tonearm I achieve a " tight and fast " low bass performance, I could think ( because I try the cartridge in different tonearms but the one you own. ) that its response in that frequency range is in some ways dependent on very fine tunning in VTA/SRA and AZ parameters.
Anyway, it is a great " give/praise " to the humble Garrot your comparison with the Jubilee and your last sentece: """" I think I'll maintain a foot in both MM and MC camps. """" match the essence of this thread.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Dgob: Obviously I'm with the " balancing act ", but the comments on REG and the fact that serious and important recording producers use MM to monitoring their recordings instead LOMC means something along with the fact that several of us now are in the MM land.
For the last months there is a question in my head: which advantage or advantages can give me any LOMC against the MM/MI alternative? and believe me that till today I don't have a single precise answer and as time goes on I see that answer far from be answered.
Maybe the best answer is still for coming when appear ( I hope ) a new LOMC that can give us a real advantage(s), we will see : the ball is in the cartridge designers/builders camp/side.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Lewm: 16K?, well this put that cartridge over the Coral but other that you can have 100 MM cartridges for that price the question could be here:
WHAT GIVE YOU FOR THOSE HEAVY ONES 16K? it could be better than the humble 50.00 P-76 or other top MM/MI performer or other LOMC cartridges? how much better if any? or for that money is only different?, because a high price means almost nothing other than big commercial business.
I can say that I want to hear it and I hope sooner or latter to be able to have that opportunity.
Btw, even if that ZYX is better that price is no-sense to me: when will stop that growing prices? justified?, I doubt but we will see.
Btw, do you have a link to at least see it?, thank you.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Siniy123: The cartridge/audio market has the same rules of other markets: offer and demand.
Unfortunatelly there are many wealthy people with very poor music/sound know how and with a high himselfs pride that pay for that kind of audio products with out care about quality performance, many of them un-know what means " quality performance " levels in a cartridge.
I'm not wealthy but if a cartridge could exist ( in the future ) that due to its unique top quality performance could justified that high price certainly I will try to buy it.
In the mid-time I shall go for all those MM/MI that give us so high emotional and so vivid music sound reproduction experiences.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Toufu: +++++ " The only thing I wish it did better was seperation of instruments " +++++
I think that with a little more hours on it things will improve in this area and as a whole performance.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Lewm: Now I see it, it is very hard to even imagine why the 16K on this ZYX cartridge.
Btw, any one already has the opportunity to heard/hear it?, thank's.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear friends: I'm thinking why all those old and humble MM/MI cartridges sound so good ( like the P-76 ) against today cartridge designs mainly LOMC ones where the cartridge builders are using exotic build materials elsewhere the cartridge designs: neodynium magnets, boron/titatinium/diamond/ cantilevers, complex stylus shapes, minor moving mass ( micrograms. ) designs, " better " suspension materials, cantilever shapes, wood/precious stones/boron/titanium/aluminum/ceramic body build materials, etc, etc and in the MM/MI old design sides we are looking: rare earth smarium cobalt magnets ( the more " sophisticated " ones. ), spheric and elliptical stylus shape ( almost no linear/micro ridge stylus shape, maybe the Shibata one was the more " exotic " stylus shape on it. ), plastic bodies, aluminum cantilevers, nothing exotic or sophisticaded down there.
Certainly I'm not an expert on the subject because I'm not a designer/builder of phono cartridges but IMHO ( between some things ) other that the differences in technology: MM/MI against MC designs I thing that the voicing ( by the designer/builder of any cartridge ) of the cartridge is/was the main critical factor that affect in higher way the quality performance on all those cartridges and the " culprit " of those differences.
It is the designer/builder of these fine cartridges who define each one cartridge " signature sound " and as good is the audio system(s) where they made the voicing as good are those cartridges on its each one quality performance. Not an easy task because IMHO the target here is that the cartridge performs ( overall ) good in almost any enviroment. So that voicing makes a paramount difference on the cartridge intrinsic quality performance.
What do you think? which is your explanation to those " alarming " differences?
Your thoughts are very welcome.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Siniy123: You take only one factor of the all I name it that from the old cartridges I refer to: aluminum cantilever.
Yes there are some cartridges with boron ( Nagaoka ) or beryllium cantilevers but the in deeep subject in my post is not to take each word " literally " but to say that with things so different why so much quality performance differences in favor of the old designs, got it?
Dean_man take it in the sense I was looking for.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Siniy123: Btw, thank you for your contribution.
regards and enjoy the music, raul. |
Dear Lewm: I think that there is not only one factor ( like gain or moving mass ) that determine the differences but the combination/relationship of several factors in each cartridge design.
No one of each design ( LOMC and MM/MI ) are perfect, both has its own trade-offs and " today " IMHO the MM/MI alternative is nearer to that " perfection " at least to our ears.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Dean_man: +++++ " I think it's at least in part due to the goals of the designer of the item at hand. And, at least in part due to the kind of music used as a reference by the designer. " +++++
yes I agree and this is what I'm posted/thinking when I'm talk about " voicing ". In this cartridge voicing goes the goals and preferences of the designer where he test that cartridge with different kind of music in different system environments.
It is true that the customer audio perception quality performance market " suffer " changes over the years and that today is more strong the " well balanced sound image " than other critical factors that have more intrinsic relationship with the music: tonal balance, timbre, dynamics, pitch, natural aggressivenes of the music,etc, etc.
Like with other audio items and even in the recording process normaly we have/get what the designer/builder/recording producer are their personal priorities that in more or less way are near in some areas of what we are looking for but not overall similar or identic to each one of us.
Achieve the goals of all of us through a cartridge voicing is not easy and not because the designer goals ( some times. ) are totally different for us but because many other factors like the audio systems where he made the voicing and where each link in the audio chain contribute to the final sound and obviously the designer ears/brain music/audio perception that is not identical to each one of us.
Like you say in your post the voicing is only one factor on the differences and as important it is as important are other ones about.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Dean_man: I think that other factor is the tremendous presure that have the cartridge designers when ( for commercial business. ) the customers are asking for un-real quality performance audio devices that the customer ask sometimes because very low know-how and sometimes because several of those " terrible " audio magazine reviewers that made a wrong " orientation " about.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Pryso: +++++ " but I've come to realize none of these pros would compromise their work with cartridges that did not produce what they need to hear compared to the master tapes. " +++++
and that's why they choose MM/MI ones.
Thank you to add " light " to the subject.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Frogman: +++++ " I think that one of the big factors affecting the perceived sonic advantage/disadvantage of MM's vs. MC's, and one which has not been analyzed nor discussed nearly enough, has to do with output level, and the interaction of the cartridge, as concerns output level, with the phono stage. " +++++
certainly the output level between MC and MM/MI cartridges is another difference factor and IMHO not precisely because a LOMC cartridge has not the " guts " because it has but more because the cartridge signal in each one design ( MC and MM ) is " manupulated " in different way by the analog audio links ( phono stage, cables, SUT, connectors, air electromagnetic and RF pollution, etc, ).
We have to think that the LOMC signal is more sensitive to add noises/distortions and lose its integrity due to many outside " pollution " factors including its travel through the tonearm cables than the MM/MI higher output cartridges.
Other factors are the additional stages ( that the MM/MI did/do not. ) where the LOMC cartridges signal has to pass to achieve the right gain for the amplifier signal amplification.
To amplify the LOMC cartridge signal always is a big challenge because it is not only the subject of gain and overload/gain but that that gain must be a " clean gain " with very low noise and very low distortions: this is the heavy challenge that only a few phonolinestages ( that maybe I can count with the fingers of one hand only, maybe less. ) out there can say: I do it in the right way!.
The degradation of the LOMC signal in all those additional stages makes a huge difference against a more " clean, accurate and less-touched " ( less additional noise/distortions/colorations. ) MM/MI cartridge signal ( and Axel I don't " touch " the SUT subject yet. ).
Obviously that both trasducers ( MC and MM ) are diferent on its signal generator principle but IMHO either type cartridge can be intrinsical near perfect ( diferent roads to Rome. ) per se but each design needs are manipulated in different way by the after-cartridge analog audio links.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Dgarreston: +++++ " There is a set-and-forget quality about MM that makes MC seem fussbudget. " +++++
I think and concur with you that that is one of the main characteristics of those cartridges against MCs, the natural and easy flow of the music is something stunning.
Btw, I don't detect yet any mistracking on the P-76 on sharp transientes, maybe this can happen due to a not the best matching tonearm: I can't be sure, or maybe it needs more hours to settle-down.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Frogman: +++++ " HP of TAS has always been a fan of MC's. Another prominent reviewer, REG has always been a fan of MM,s. I don't think its a coincidence that HP is, for the most part, partial to tube amplification, and REG a strong supporter of SS designs. I think this is a great example of the balance that I am talking about. " +++++
I agree than synergy is critical in the audio system configuration/build but if a type of electronics ( SS or Tube ) needs a specific kind of " sound signature " ( MC or MM. ) audio link like cartridge then IMHO something wrong with that electronics that can't handle with nearer the same quality performance both cartridge designs other that that electronics were designed in specific for MM or MC cartridges.
I'm for the universal intrinsic operation of audio devices ( especially on electronics. ), it is only a point of view.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear jb0194: I don't own or owned that Pickering cartridge but the similar Stanton model and I concur with your statement on its quality performance. Btw, which other MM/MI cartridges do you own?
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Toufu: You already has at least the answer of Timetel regarding the different load impedance values ( I agree with )and like you I'm interest on other people opinion.
The one for sure ( because he can make the change in " real time " : ) that could do it is Dgarretson and I hope he can share with us his experiences on the subject.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Lewm: I'm using a humble unipivot Grace G-940 with own Grace magnesium headshell.
Btw, I'm not a fan of unipivot ones but this Grace along Satin are surprisly good.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Stringreen: Well that 3K LOMC is a good cartridge. I don't have many experiences over Grado cartridges other than The Amber Tribute ( exceptional one. ) but if I remember Pryso change from Grado to one of the MM/MI amed here and he was very satisfied.
Maybe it is time that you try some ( one ) of the very good MM/MI that offer this alternative, I'm sure that, like many other people, you will be nicely surprise of how good are those cartridges.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Axel: I concur with Dgarretson, those TX2575 ( Vishay. ) are really neutral and top choice.
You can find here: http://www.percyaudio.com/Catalog.pdf
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Toufu: Good that you already try/change it and IMHO you still could improve the quality performance if instead of those RS resistors change it for the ones that Dgarretson use: Caddock TF020.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Dgarretson: Well, it seems to me that now we have an assent that 100K is a good choice for MM/MI cartrridges.
I'm with you too on:
+++++" These improvements are reminiscient of a good MC cartridge-- further diminishing any advantage that MC might have in the areas of resolution & spatiality. " +++++
things are that Axelwahl is running his cartridges at 47K and that's a difference.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear friends: This one is a good chance for the AT20SS ( I think is the SS, but you have to ask. ):
http://cgi.ebay.com/AUDIO-TECHNICA-TURNTABLE-CARTRIDGE-MODEL-AT2015S-NICE_W0QQitemZ290346526386QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item439a0066b2&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14#ht_3035wt_1165
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Funflyer: Welcome aboard, Agon is an audiofest.
Like you explain there is no doubt about the " name of the game " is synergy and when we are talking of analog and in specific of cartridges the matching between toearm/cartridge ( synergy ) is what makes the difference like with your Decca experience.
It is not an easy task to achieve whole synergy in our each one audio system, very complex because many and different factors that has multiple interrelationship in between and this is what makes this hobby so estimulant and creative: each one audio learning curve.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |