NOS Grace F9E question

The thing that's great about Audiogon forums or any forum, is that we don't all have to agree. Some aren't as politically polished regarding their comments, some are full of it, some just floating around like me trying to absorb knowledge.  By know means am I an expert when it comes to audio. I think I have nice stuff, anyway it sounds great and I know more than my little brother.  

Whether or not we all agree, is not why I visit Audiogon forums. I can tell you for a fact that @chakster  has some fantastic carts, as I've heard them and thanks to him, own a couple that I would call winners, a couple carts that are very good and a couple that I consider ultimate. 

It's all about perception. No losers or jokes in my collection. Only winners. 

Dear @lewm: First than all and when speak of Grace ( in this case the F9 that runs Discrete-4 too. ) we are speaking of vintage cartridges and it does not matters if it’s Grace, AT, Acutex, Technics or what ever key word is vintage.

Even if the vintage cartridge is NOS the problem belongs always ( it does not matters if you or me can be aware of it, that we can’t detect it. ) at the cartridge suspension because all those years pass-on. Cantilevers and stylus tips suffer a lot less over the time because were not deteriorate as the cartridge suspension.

In the years I started the MM thread I never wanted to change anything in the stock vintage cartridges even I was against the swift between some models in a manufacturer series ( Frankstein cartridges. ) and was precisely with the Acutec 315LPM that I learned about. The cartridge was " refreshed " by VDH, same cantilever/stylus and the imp´rovement was a huge one. When I did it the same with the Technics EPC 100CMK4 the cartridge return and its performance was improved.

Other than fine tunning cartridge suspension the change in catilever/stylus always will be makes a higher quality performance levels.

In other thread some ( I think in the MM one. I can’t remember for sure. ) of us discussed the best material for cantilevers and that was solid Boron, its characteristics are way superior to aluminum, titanium, berilyum and the like. Why solid over the pipe type? well the hollow in a cantilever produces/increment resonances against the solid material. Even when the LOMC manufacturers still can found out boron pipe always choosed solid boron .
In some of my cartridges I did it and solid boron is way less resonant.
Same pass with berilyum that even when still existed manufacturers gone for boron. Technics did it with one of its tonearm when choosed boron over berilyum but in its top cartridge was the same.
We can take any vintage MM cartridge and retip it with boron cantilever and no matter what always will performs with way higer quality levels, always.

Where belongs/resides the truw /real value with the vintage MM cartridges: to its cartridge " motors " and design quality excecution. Not to the cantilever or the Stereohedron stylus shape. If you take your 981LZ and send to retip with boron and MR or Ogura like stylus shape you will have an outstanding performer, same for any vintage MM cartridge.

I don’t know you but I’m always looking how to improve the quality performance levels of what I own and latter the option to add/change something new in my room audio system

As always in audio all depends on ignorance/knoledge level and each one priorities and mine is to stay truer to the recording no matter what. This is my main target.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Raul, I don't disagree with anything you wrote above, save for the fact that I know nothing about boron cantilevers except that many fine cartridges use them.  On boron, you say the solid is better than the tubular type.  I think Chakster took the opposite position. Quien sabe?

But most of all, I would have replied to Chakster (if I thought it was worth the effort) exactly as you did.  It's pure self delusion to think that one is hearing a 30 to 40 year old cartridge, even if it is NOS right out of the box, exactly as it may have sounded shortly after manufacture.  I am sure in fact that the differences due purely to aging in situ are different for different cartridges.  But I only judge the here and now.  I own NOS B&O MMC1, Stanton CS100, Acutex M320, Stanton 881S mk2, Stanton 981LZS (I retired my other 980LZS which was used when I bought it), Empire 4000DIII, and a few others the names of which escape me.  If I ever get to hear them, I won't think I entered a time machine.  My Acutex LPM320STRIII was NOS when I first put it into service; now it is an old friend. Thankfully I have an extra NOS stylus for it.

Dear lewm, if I remember you was in that cantilever build materiasl . Anyway, solid boron is the way to go.

In those old times the berilyum was the " fashion " or the boron pipe because almost all before that cartridge designs came with aluminum cantilevers and the very top/exoctic designs with ruby/diamond materials.

In those times Dynavector choosed for diamond/ruby instead berilyum but latter on switched to solid boron not pipe one and is not the only example.Satin was another that gone for solid boron and not berilyum or boron pipe.

lewm why do you think that even that the Technics EPA100MK2 tonearm were builded as main material boron they choosed to use additional damping in that tonearm? the tonearm wand is a pipe and way resonant that's why almost all tonearm manufacturers choose to damp its designs. 

But in those old times were learning times for the industry and that's why we can seen so many different stylus " new " shapes but several cantilever build materials as the ones we named but titanium, ceramic, carbon fiber and the like. Everything was a learning way to can offer to the customers something " new " due that fierce competition and if for the manufacturers was a learning time for the audiophiles that has  higher ignorance levels was a learning time too.

If we take almost any MM vintage top manufacturer almost everyone had its " very special stylus shape " that as a fact where only a variations in between tryiying to " impress " the customers.  A true/real invent on stylus shape in those times was the Shibata one followed by variations till today but in those times you can listen the manufacturers speaking of: parabolic, extended elliptical, analog 6, superelliptical and the like.

Repeat, the real/true value on those vintage cartridges resides in its motors.

R.

Acutex used titanium cantilever in its top models.  I don't know of any other manufacturer that did that, but could be. Also, Acutex 300 series are Induced Magnet types, not Moving Magnet.  Their 400 series are MM, I believe.  As I am sure you know, Koetsu uses boron.  Do you know whether Koetsu cantilevers are hollow or solid?