2. analog
  3. 1200430667

Who needs a MM cartridge type when we have MC?

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.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
Ag insider logo xs@2xrauliruegas
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas OP
13,004 posts
 
Dear Dlaloum: I agree that almost everything here ( cartridge/tonearm ) has a complex relationship and yes that resonance figure is important and I don't diminishs it, I always posted about that everything the same things could be better if we are on that 10hz ideal resonance frequency.

Now, for the newcomers and due to all the analog imperfection and all what any one needs to know to achieve a decent cartridge/tonearm/TT/phono stage set up IMHO it is of some help that that newcomer don't worry about that subject because one way or the other that makes his cartridge and tonearm options/alternatives dificult to choose.

The concept of resonance frequency on that couple for a newcomer could be to much. You have to look on this analog forums ( as Halcro posted. ) a lot of threads asking for advise about.

I remember that several years ago when my ignorance level was really high I was not worried ( because I did not knew that I have to be worried. ) on the resonance frequency subject and I can asure you that I never need to know about for be " happy " enjoying the music and as a fact I can't remember bad experiences for that unknow subject. Over the time I learn and everything was more complicated from there.

Anyway, this is only a point of view.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
thuchan
1,009 posts
 
Hi David - you describe it very well and also "the problem is with absolutes". As we are a group of afficinados of a very special tribe we in the analogue corner are sometimes more intolerant on special topics as are other audio friends. Of course we seem to be also very special regarding the tonearms we use and we're talking about. I was always wondering when I got feedback that the FR-66s is not suitable for MMs - not only here.
In this respect, also for instance for the SAEC 506/30 or for the Continuum arms - just to name some - Halcro's essence is absolutely true. And with the additional notes from Dertonearm we know now why!

Best & Fun Only - Thuchan
lewm
12,856 posts
 
It would seem to me (without of course my having done any work to investigate it) that a resonant frequency higher than 10 Hz might be more problematic than a resonant frequency less than 10 Hz, for example the 4 and 5Hz figures that some mentioned above (but not lower), if the associated equipment is of very high quality (tonearm, turntable, turntable mount). Above 10Hz is likely to give an artificial boost to the bass response, or at least one is risking such a boost that could give a bloated indistinct bass. But it might also be beneficial in systems that are bass shy but where the added energy could be "handled". So, assuming good equipment that absorbs or otherwise dissipates the resonant energy, you could say that the "issue" of the calculated resonant frequency being too high or too low is over-stated.

I've got to mount my FR64S on something to see whether I can agree with the FR-lovers on its goodness with high compliance cartridges. Raul, I think the Technics EPA500 has similar low bearing friction to the EPA100. Do you think this is about bearing friction? You once posted something to that effect, I think. Also, I gather from your response to Dertonearm that you are still not a fan of FR tonearms.

Both of the Technics tonearms have trick spring-loaded counter-wts that are designed to spread the resonant frequency out, so that the peak energy is lower over a wider frequency range. Dynavector does something similar in a different way. (There is a weight on a spring mounted under the tonearm; resonant energy causes it to vibrate thereby dissipating energy of resonance. It is adjustable but no one knows how to adjust it and for what. The instructions in badly translated Japanese are quite opaque.)
dlaloum
227 posts
 
Dertonearm...

Please do not limit your explanation for the success of some high mass arms with high compliance cartridge to PM's...

We are here a forum discussing specifically MM cartridges many if not most of which are high compliance - and in an environment where many (perhaps most?) arms are high (higher?) mass... this is very relevant and valued input.

bye for now

David
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas OP
13,004 posts
 
Dear Thuchan: +++++ " I rather go for lively, emotional sound, no neutral or clinical clean waves or flat in terms of frequency response. " +++++

that's the key to understand each to other:

Music per se is " lively and emotional " and I like you always look for that in any home audio system, so my targets on this regard is no different from yours: one " point " to both for agreement.

" Neutral or Clinical clean waves ": IMHO Neutral means " something " and Clinical clean waves means " something different ".

If we take Neutral let me say that something to be Neutral must be accurate. In theory the Music/sound that comes in the LP recording ( where the recording was made and is out of your/mine control. ) almost always came with that " lively and emotional " charge level ( different charge levels but came with. ). IMHO it is not the cartridge or the phono stage or the speakers or the room treatment or all these " factors " the ones that put that " lively and emotional " charge. These " factors " all and each one what can do is degrade, distort, put colorations, noises and the like to the the recording signal.

My take here is what I promoted for several years in this forum: ADD AND LOSE THE LESS TO PRESERVE THE RECORDING SIGNAL INTEGRITY and now I can add: to preserve the " lively and emotional " recording charge level.

That statement means ( between other things. More on this latter. ): accuracy and neutrality, with out these characteristics we can't achieve those overall targets.

One stop I have to do is: that today almost any " decent " audio items designs IMHO are good enough ( they improvement over the last 10 years, especially on electronics/speakers. ) to be accurate, neutrals and with out any sign of " clinical, analitic or cold " performance, especially the SS designs. If a system sounds clinical/analitical something is wrong in that audio system chain and has to be fixed.
IMHO Accuracy and Neutrality is no more a sinonimous of: clinical, analitical or cold performance, this was in the past and over the years the AHEE promoted it as a myth.

Accuracy and neutrality not only not preclude that " lively and emotional " recording charge/content but enhance it, permit that you and me be nearer to the recording nearer to that " lively and emotional " content.

Thuchan: why do you need or any one else to add a " ton " of distortions ( every kind ) to achieve that " lively and emotional " music enjoyment when that " lively and emotional " content is already " there " and does not needs " distortions " surrounded it?.

Audio items specifications at least serve for we can know what we are adding and loosing to recorded signal. Following with my statement and trying to take decisions according with: that " simple " 1db RIAA eq. deviation in the EMT Phonolinepreamp preclude even to " see " it for more information, that RIAA deviation is IMHO unacceptable inside " excellence level standards ".

Why ( everything the same. ) any one can choose that RIAA deviation over other unit with a 0.1db?, why? why? why ?

Thuchan, please remember that the RIAA eq. is a curve and any single deviation affect not only that frequency but at least two octaves and this means that if we have a deviation say at 300hz we will have a " coloration/distortion " in the frequency range between: 300hz and 900hz. If the deviation came at 2khz this affect the frequency band all the way up to 6khz. You can take a look to that DM10 or the Dartzeel charts I linked before.

So we are not talking here of " something " that we can diminish in anyway if the name of our targets is: EXCELLENCE, I asume this is your target too.

If we take those Wavacs I would like to take its output impedance measure ( that you can't find it anywhere and for good reasons. ) that even that does not exist as an amplifier specification anywhere in the net and due that is a tube design I asume is a high output impedance, say over 0.1 ohm maybe over 0.5 ohm or even higher.
But what this amplifier output impedance means? why is important to achieve our Excellence level target?,
very simple: the Ohms Law where the amplifier output impedance is the one that " decide " how will be the response/sound when the amplifier " see " ( is in direct touch. ) the loudspeaker own electrical impedance and phase curve.

Here are two examples of that electrical impedance and phase curves, one for the B&W 802D and the other for the MagicoQ5:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/bw-802d-loudspeaker-measurements

http://www.stereophile.com/content/magico-q5-loudspeaker-measurements

we can see how the loudspeakers impedance/phase curve " moves " ( up and down ) over frequency range and this is what the amplifier " see " and has to handle with " aplomb ".
If an amplifier ( like yours ) has a high output impedance its response will almost " mimic " that curve with its output level, so that amplifier is functioning as and additional equalizer with what you see on those charts.
This is not what you or any one want it, what we want is that it does not matters the speaker electrical impedance and phase curves the response be flat with the same gain over the frequency range.

Here either we can't IMHO diminish that fact. For years I used tube electronics till I learn.
The incredible " fact " is that several today speaker designs were voiced with tube electronics and this is not because the speaker designers does not know Ohm's Laws but because Commercial$$$$ issue ( there are a lot of tube electronic users out there and growing up!. ) and on some cases because tubes hide bad speaker designs: yes the AHEE " write the rules ".

These are only two examples ( RIAA and impedance. ) of many more that many of us are not taking in count because: " It's wrong but I like it " attitude.

Lewm posted someting questioning my Velodyne's/speakers. I did not choosed the Velodyne's just for " fun " or at random, as in almost all my audio items/links there are " deep " reasons.
There are a lot of subs out there and many of them very good too but till today and for a two channel system no other subwoofer has a THD so low like the Velodynes. The THD is in this audio item extremely important and almost no one cares when choosed their subs.

Not only that, you can go to any subs manufacturer site and you can't find the sub THD specification and if you ask to the manufacturer he has no answer ( I know this because I did it. ).

Is it to go down to 18hz-20hz ow whatever important? certainly it is but is more important how we achieve that low bass and with which THD level because our hears are sensitive ( quite sensitive ) to high distortions in this frequency range ( well if you can recognize that kind of distortion.

I remember that no more than two years ago an Agoner in this forum was showing how good his system " performs " and if I remember well he stated that his system subwoofers had the capacity to performs over 138 db ( maybe more at 20hz ) on SPL, I posted a single and simple question about: please let me know with which THD levels at different SPL? and you know what: till today he never gives an answer.

It is extremely dificult to have low distortions in a subwoofer that's why the THD figure is so important and the 0.5% on the Velodyne is a good standard.. Do you know which is the THD number on your subs at 120 db of SPL? no?, well try to measure it and you will be surprised about. Do you know the IMD figure in your main speakers at say 95 db continuous SPL?, you will be surprised here too when you take that measure.

Btw, Halcro: ask Vanderstenn for that figure at different SPL, I have the answer.

Thuchan, Why have we to accept " mediocrity " when we can choose the Excellence?, there is no reason for that. We all are surrounded by audio mediocrity that the AHEE promoted over the years and as Lewm said: we are almost traped there.
This is not the way I like to live my audio life I decided to take a different " road ": is it that way what you want to live?, I don't think so: always is time to make the right changes.

Don't think that I'm against the tube electronic designers, not at all I have a lot of respect for them because even all the tube technology limitations there are some guys like the Atmasphere /Ralph that really contribute to serious improvements on the tube world. I'm against the tube technology heavy limitations that goes against the MUSIC.

When I brought the Dertonarm idea of that Common listening Approach my intention was to show you ( all of you ) how a specific listening process ( my process. ) can help any one first to understand what each one of you are hearing/listening, second to discern very precise about different kind of distortions ( example: cartridge microphony level, overhang vs SRA, tracking distortion levels, accuracy against distortions, neutrality against colored performance, etc, etc. ) and where it comes and to know where each one of us are " seated " in that Audio Learning Curve and how improve.

Almost no one really shows interest about ( like the first time with Dertonarm thread. ) even no single one of you asked which recording/LPs tracks can show you about cartridge tracking distortion level or microphony cartridge level or other quality performance subjects. As I posted many of you are not prepared yet or simple as this: does not care about, what you want is: " It is wrong but I like it " against " IT IS RIGHT AND I LIKE IT ".

Those Signets ( 3,5,7 ) are IMHO and as I posted an average performers with many troubles about distortions/colorations/resonances and the like againstother top cartridges performers. I can discern many things that you can't and not because I'm better than you but only because I'm trained to do it and you not or at least your test process can't tell you yet.

Do you think that I discerned and posted about the RIAA errors on the Dartzeel or the SS strain gauge with out prior knowledge ( way before ) of its real RIAA deviations only because I have ears?, certainly not: NO ONE COULD DO IT WITH OUT A PREVIOUS SPECIFIC PROCESS TRAINING and this is what I have.

I already left behind the tonearm FR experience where I was a fanatic of it till I learned, the SAEC 506 and 8000 episode, the Micro Seiki heavy BD TTs, the SUTs ( any kind . ), obviously tubes, TT clamps, electrical power ( conditioners ", the terrible Orsonics headshells, the big and comfortable couch on system seat position, the fancy cable and cable connectors, the non-removable headshell tonearm designs, the full range speakers, the LOMC cartridges ( any. ), the stand alone phono stages, the passive line stages, etc, etc. I left behind any audio alternative that increment distortions at an unacceptable level. Distortions are the Music enemy and we have to learn how detect it and how make dust/LOWER on it.

Right now I'm preparing to change the three premium caps ( teflon between them. ) on my crossover's ( each side ) speakers for simple/plain cheap electrolitic caps in a special configuration that's a very promising alternative.

I try always to be open to any orthodox or unorthodox audio alternative looking for lower distortions and improvements. I almost never say NO, first I tested and decide about. It is only attitude and this kind of attitude always gives me big rewards that no amount of money can buy.

I have two samples of a " wrong " attitude, one comes from an Agoner friend that owns Avalon Ascents speakers and that in my subwoofer thread I asked him to try subs with those speakers because I thinked he will receive a good quality performance system improvement. Well this guy gives me any explanation you could think telling me why subs can't works in his system: from technical explanation to subjective explanations, all those explanations were pure theory that he can't prove that he can't duplicate " live " and for that explanations he lose the best opportunity to have a real great system improvement.
Other one is Lewm ( only an example and nothing personal Lewm. ) against DD TT naked fashion and its improvements over plinthed alternatives: I give him exactly what to do only to test on the set up he already had with almost no investment and because he thinked ( in theory is right. ) that a stand alone tonearm is " wrong " solution and that the plinthed alternative is better than a naked one he refuse to try it with no single prove with no single sign that could tell him that he can duplicate his theories, even he had a second opportunity with his MK3 and he did nothing about only because on what he belive but that can't duplicate at least to find out if those theories are true. This kind of attitude IMHO goes against audio learning.

A subjective explanation or thechnical explanation has almost no value if you can't duplicate " live " those " explanations ".

There is one experience that I want to share with you. The tested experience came from an Agoner joke in one of mi threads: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1219677256.

Things were that I posted the importance of what clothe we are wearing when listening the audio system: sintetic fibres or natural fibers, where with the natural fibers ( wool or cotton. ) exist an improvement in what we perceive through the audio system ( here we have to remember that we hear through our whole body and senses, including our eyes that's why I think that the people that listen to their audio systems with close-eyes are hearing something that's does not comes in the recording ( in the very first moment that we close the eyes the " imagination " take the " control ". ) in the same manner that the ones that listening with lights off: when was the last time you attend to a live concert where the hall was on black dark during the playback?, makes no sense . ). Well that Agoner posted: " Hey why not naked? ", everyone laughed but time latter I remember him and I said: " yes, why not? what can I lose? " and I run this fully naked listening test.
You have to do it it is a glorious audio/listening test/experience that you can't even imagine or dream with till you experience first hand. I have to say is not easy because we are not accustom to be and seat fully naked to listen our home audio system, at first we suffer of some kind of " stress " because the naked condition but after we surpass that moment the rewards comes.

Till now only Banquo63 understand ( I'm not saying he agree. ) my position or at least was the only person that express oneself in the subject.

Anyway, I take you as an example and I confirm you that there is nothing personal other than try to help you: even that you did not asked for.

Can I be wrong?, certainly yes but I need proofs ( external proofs. ) why I'm wrong.

Whit out a specific process tests any kind iof improvements in our audio systems is at random: we need a specific path we need specific targets to have at least a comparison medium, if not how can we sure that a change in our system is a real improvement and no a side or back step?: only because our ears? only because we like those different and higher distortions?. IMHO we need some objectivity weight in our audio " ideas " along subjectivity weight.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
More to discover