you've got $25,000.00

Dear Azjake: Reading through your threads and answers I can see that you already have a top TT/tonearm/cartridges analog rig, this fact tell me that maybe you don't need any change on that front end other that spend 25K just for fun ( with all my respect to you ) that I don't think you want it.
Btw and just for fun try a Nagaoka MP-50 or a B&O MMc 1/2 or an Audio Technica ATML 170/180 MM cartridges, it could even and in many ways surpass the quality overall performance of your MC ones, you will enjoy it and you can have/buy it for around 500.00 dollars.

Of course that if you are really want to spend 25K ( looking to your system ) there are better " audio chain links " where to spend it than at your front end, of course you can always try a different top MC cartridge that can/could give you a different presentation but maybe only different and not better one, the same for a TT ( any ) where maybe you can/could improve the quality sound reproduction is to find a better tonearm match to your ( each ) cartridges and I'm not saying that what you own is not a good one.

IMHO the " weak " link in your analog chain is at the Phonolinepreamp, if I was you it is here where I try to make a change, a change that certainly will be not only a change ( different sound ) but a bbetter quality sound reproduction that what you have today: put your money ( any kind ) where it counts more!!, this is the simple name of the game, at least for what are my audio experiences.

If you have time please read what I already posted on a different thread about:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1207489682&openflup&7&4#7

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1207489682&openflup&10&4#10

Your front end electronics ( Phono and line stages ), IMHO, is your very " weak " link not only because what you read on those links but because the inverse RIAA frequency response deviation of the Lamm is really not up to the task ( this inverse RIIA eq. and its accuracy is the heart/soul/brain/etc,etc of any phonostage, it is the WHY exist and the need of a Phono stage . ), you need to look for a better ( way better ) Phonolinepreamp, you and the music deserve it!

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

First off, Lucky you! Without question the Teres Certus. Very clean lines, wonderful look and if space is a concern or an aesthetic issue, it is nicely compact.

How does it sound? The only way I can describe that is to say correct, just...correct. I found myself nodding my head saying "yes that how this is suppose to sound." to some of my favorite recordings.

Either way, 14.5 grand will get you the two arm version of the Certus 450, get a Schroeder Reference and a used Triplanar VII, which comes up often enough on the 'Gon then you've got enough for a ZYX Universe for your Triplanar. About a year and a half later your Schroeder arrives and you've saved enough for a Dynavector XV-1s, you put your Universe on the Schroeder and the Dynavector on the Triplanar and your set.

Wait is that your plan or my plan...either way its a good plan! Don't forget to audition!

Good Luck

You need to listen to the VPI Aries 3 turntable w/Dynavector DV-507 Mk II tonearm & Dynavector D3 17 Karat cartridge. You will be very pleased and save a ton of money.

Dear Azjake: There is another critical subject on your analog front end electronics: the cartridge signal pass ( unfortunatelly )through a step-up transformers, these devices IMHO are " terrible " ( for say the least ) and make a heavy degradation to the cartridge signal.

If you have time please read the next fragments of something that were posted elsewhere about:

+++++ " The SUT is an old patch for bad SS phonopreamps designs and for the inherent limitations on tube phonopreamps for handle low output MC cartridges. It is a " chip solution to a complex problem ".

Any SUT has many inherent disadvantages like: distortions generated at the core ( it does not matters if is: air core ), heavy phase discharge ( landslide ), high apt to take hum, the wide zone ( band ) can't go down to DC, severe roll-off at high and low frecuencies, the reactive impedance on the SUT is incompatible with the cartridge impedance: this cause that we never could have flat frecuency response when we are using SUT, this mismatch between the impedances promote that the signal that pass through any SUT will be equalized ( yes, exactly like the problems between tube amplifier and loudspeakers because of those impedances ).

I want to let clear that there is no single advantage, in any way, using SUT's, any of them: it does not matters their design or price.

The SUT always be a : wrong PATCH. " +++++

+++++ " Here are some facts about why exist the SUTs for LO cartridges ( at least is my point of view ):

- In the fifthies appear the MC LO cartridges ( As a fact: Ortofon invented in 1948. ). In that time all the phonopreamps were designed for HO cartridges MM/MI/etc. No one was in the design of high gain PP because no body need it.

- Ortofon and latter other MC LO cartridges never ask to the PP designers/builders to manufacture a high gain PP for their MC LO cartridges. What I mean is that never exist a cooperation job between the MC LO builders and the PP manufacturers.

- What was the comercial attitude of almost all MC LO cartridges builders?: to put on sale their MC LO cartridges along with a SUTs ( designed for it self ) for those MC LO cartridges.

- I can remember from Ortofon when they design the MC10, MC 20, Mc 30, Mc 2000, Mc 3000 and MC 5000, cartridges at the same time they offer the respective SUT: T 10, T 20, T 30, T 5000.

- Like Ortofon everybody do the same: Denon, Audiocraft, Fidelity Research, Koetsu, Micro Seiki, Accuphase, Dynavector, Highphonic, Audio Technica, Entre, etc, etc.

- In the mid-time what does the PP designers ( SS or tube ) for the development of a high gain PP?: almost nothing, almost all take the easy " cheap road " ( wrong/worst one ): that the customers buy SUTs along with their PP if they want to handle a LO cartridge. Some of the PP designers/builders incorporate in their " high gain " PP internal SUTs, exactly like today ones.

- So we all are suffering the " easy road/ wrong road " that almost all designers/builders take it more than 55 years ago.

- All those comercial attitude never take into account us: the audio customers and never take into account the QUALITY MUSIC/SOUND REPRODUCTION. They don't care about in those times and many of them don't care about today. " +++++

Azjake, as I already posted: put your money where it counts more, where really makes a quality performance improvement.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

http://www.reevesaudio.com/reevesimagesnds/Altec_342b%20rear.jpg

Please see the photo in the above url. Notice the microphone step-up transformers in this Altec mixer/amp. This equipment made some of the best sounding recordings. You may disagree, but this is not a "patch" to properly interface a transducer with the input of an amp in terms of impedance matching and level optimization. It is one kind of solution.

A recording studio today can still have many transformers, isolation, step-up, step-down. If you feel this must be avoided then you must be only for all solid state electronics and modern recordings that exclude these devices.

Even still, tubes can be made to operate down to microphone and LOMC levels at acceptable S/N ratios. But for me, I prefer the sound, even the distortion, of a few transformers in the chain than all one type of component distortion - transistors or triodes.

It's a preference call, not an absolute, as some seem to describe it. You have a good expensive phono preamp. That's great. The rest of us should look for ourselves what sounds right for the budgets we have. Even cost-no-object phono stages might feature some step-up transformers for a character of sound not brought to you by any other means, to the right customer. Audio Note knows this. And they even take out the resistors in the series part of the RIAA network by changing to inductors, for their best phono stages. People who own them swear they are the best there is.

Kurt