@chakster : I hope that with this post I never will have again " behind me at any thread I posted or post.
""" Posting again in his old MM thread when his current choise is Digital and LOMC.
Still an authority for anyone here? Not for me anylonger.
His opinion was valid in the beginning of this thread many years ago, the situatio is quite oppisite at the moment, sad story. """
I remember your posts in the past and from other members, especially when I stopped to post in Agon. Here some highligths of some vintage ones coming from different gentlemans including you an my self:
....................................................................................................................
chackster
I got this result (rouphly by eye) with 1.25g tracking force on my Technics 102c mk4. And i was WRONG (judging by eye). Now i can measure it again correctly.
Before i put the needle on the record and apply any tracking force, distance between stylus tip and bottom of the cartridge body is exactly 2 mm.
But when 1.25g tracking force applied my cartridge transforming to a true Low Rider with only 1 mm left between cartridge and record surface!
Still great sound quality though. """
raul
what’s the difference for example with Grace loaded at standard 47k ohms or at 100k ohms? """
it depends on the phono satge and the capacitance we mated it.
MM cartridges " reacts " according how we loaded ( impedance/capacitance. ). There are diferent experiences, some persons like to load at 60k-70k and I read that some cartridge models performs better at 20-30K. So there are not a precise rules down there. You have to test it in your own system, in my system I prefer ( almost all the time. ) 100K but maybe in yours could be diferent. """
harold not the barrel
I think 3 years ago I added to my Pioneer cartridges this MK2 that I bougth for around 300.00 and I sold it ( sis months latter. ) for the same money.
Yes, is a good cartridge but nothing to die for. """ ( this is one that you chakster love but not that gentleman.)
chackster
My special thanks to @rauliruegas and @lewm for pointing me on 100k ohms resistors for MM phono stage. After a few evenings of playng records i can say it was a very big improvement. In case with top of the line Grace F-9F and F-9U pickups it’s like you’re listening totally different cartridges when choose 47k ohms vs. 100k ohms, the difference is huge in resolution!
And that is what one 100k ohms resistor can do with the sound, wow, i’m so impressed.
The experiment was made with two identical phono stages, one was transformed into 100k ohms, another remain at 47k ohms. """
chacster
The Astatic mf 200 equal to Glanz mf 31L is a good one,
This is only my suggestion. Since these brands are clones of each other, ........................... The Astatic mf 200 equal to Glanz mf 31L is a good one, ...... """"
Where do you read or who told you that Astatic cartridges are clones of the Glanz? In my understood Astatic ( that’s a very old corporation. ) only took the Glanz patent ( moving flux. ) and that’s all about.
The " clone " you name it: MF 200/ mfg 31L is a good example that those cartridges are not clones.
The output level on both cartridges is different 4.2mv vs 3.5mv. Inductance 90 vs 110. VTF: 1.75grs vs 1.25 grs. Cartridge weight: 6grs vs 5.5grs. Frequency response: 10hz to 20khz vs 20hz to 20khz with a 2 db deviation in both cases and I can go on with those differences.
As you can see far away to be clones.
The Astatic MF 2500 was an earlier cartridge than the MF 100/200, even its inductance value is different in between and IMHO the 2500 is the best performer in the Astatic catalog and way better than the MFG 71L. I can’t talk on the 61 till I heard it.
As I said Astatic is an old and experienced corporation and did not to copy/clone Glanz in the way you posted.
Coil windings, materials used, coupling mechanisms and output are distinct across them. """
( five years latter because you still can’t understand that you posted the same . ! ! ? ? ? and again a discussion for... )
raul
Dear florence4/lewm: There are at least two cartridge Grace series that never been marketed out side Japan/Asia: the Level II and the 14 series ( both with more than 7 diferent models, even the 14 serie has a Disco model for DJs. ).
The 14 top model appeared in 1985 with a boron cantilever and MR stylus and this is the one that could outperform the 9Ruby ( Level II has too a Ruby model. ). """
chacster, I posted that on Grace several years ago and way before you name any of those models.
Fleib.
*My overall impression was a very grain free and pure sound, but from what I heard I did not get an impression that these had the speed of say a Decca, Ikeda or top flight MC..*
Interesting comment, or impression as the case may be. I haven’t heard the SS strain gauge. Years ago I briefly heard the Win SG and my impression was of a sound being somewhat different than what we’re used to. Transient response (speed) seemed exemplary in an accurate sort of way rather than having a big overshoot on initial attack and drawing attention to the leading edge, but this was a brief encounter. Lab test reports would go a long way to dispelling all the myths and misconceptions.
Myth - Top flight MCs are faster. Faster than what, average MCs, MMs ? Designs w/o cantilever not withstanding, what exotic MC is as fast as a 205C ? I had a TK10ML2 and it was fast as lightning.
What good does it do for a subjective reviewer to list equipment used in an evaluation, as a basis for comparison? Do you have the same $40K phono stage or cables with built-in filters?
This thread has gone full circle, from top flight HO carts to MCs that are superior. I was unaware of this thread 6 years ago when it began. Raul showed up on VE and proclaimed MM/MI superior. We had a running debate in which I said that neither was necessarily better. Evaluations were completely subjective so it became ridiculous. The word distortion was misused a lot.
Raul performed a great service to the community by reawaking to the potential of HO carts. I doubt if he will show up on this thread once again, for obvious reasons. His contribution is noted.
Regards, """
frogman
Raul performed a great service to the community by reawaking to the potential of HO carts. I doubt if he will show up on this thread once again, for obvious reasons. His contribution is noted.****
I know some will disagree (Raul?), and I may regret this comment a bit later after my first cup of Sumatra wakes me to reality; but, from my often overly-romantic vantage point, Raul has an obligation to show up on this thread again. I do hope he is well and that there are no extenuating reasons for his absence.
Raul, donde estas? """
audpulse
Fleib, Frogman, others, I totally agree the contributions of Raul. Before I discovered this thread(3 years after it’s start), there is nothing anybody can do or say to make me look at MM/MMI cartridge. I was totally sold on MC and The Absolute Sound Magazine helped to drive home my believes. I will say that in this country, I was among the first to listen to an ALLERTS cartridge and it became my benchmark cartridge though I could not afford it then but was always dreaming of owning it one day.
Look at what Raul has done. For the cost of a top flight MC, I have been able to acquire at least ten MM cartridges that will hold it’s ground to an ALLERTS.
Hopefully Raul will show up here again but at the moment, I will not like to see him. I have stop chasing the flavors of the month and now start enjoying some of the cartridges collected and very soon I will start thinning my collections. """
frogman
As with most descriptions of the sonic attributes of gear, for a description to be meaningful and complete it must relate to the music. While I am sure square wave response is an important consideration when discussing the speed of a cartridge, I suspect that it goes beyond that and that there are other considerations when assessing wether a cartridge is "fast". The reason I say that (and I admit that my technical knowledge pales in comparison to other contributors here) is that I have looked at test graphs of gear that show very good square wave response and still the gear does not allow the music to sound correctly "alive" and with that elusive sense of being a coiled spring ready to pounce at any moment. To me "fast" means more than just good transient response during the initial attack of a note or percussive sound, but also the ability of the cartridge (or any gear) to sustain that energy from point-in-time A to point-in-time B (micro-dynamics) in order to give music it’s proper forward impetus and sense of "groove" and excitement; while at the same time unravelling the rhythmic interplay between musicians or rhythmic nuances of a solo performance. I think some do confuse leanness with this ability because some lean cartridges seem to get the leading edge of the note right; but, they can still sound rhythmically flat and uninvolving. As Lewm says "we know it when we hear it".
Interesting that this should be the subject being discussed along with the subject of Raul and his absence. The very few times that I have had disagreement with Raul it has been over this very subject. It has been my impression that Raul has a very good sense of the subject of timbre and tonality in gear, but was a little late coming to the party as concerns ability of gear to correctly portray rhythm. After several debates on the subject he did take up the "correct rhythm" banner. One of the few times that I have disagreed with his assessment of a cartridge had to do with this very subject and the ATML170OCC; a cartridge with beautifully correct tonality but that to my ears sounds rhythmically uninvolving. Even his preferred Sumiko Celebration MC exhibits rhythmic politeness to my ears but with beautiful tonality.
I think that very generally speaking a large part of the appeal of MM’s (for me, anyway) has had to do with their resistance to sound lean and ability to portray a sense of tonal density. Also very broadly speaking, the downside has been their more sedate and rhythmically polite qualities compared to MC’s
Raul, donde estas? """
halcro
Some of my cartridges....like the Fidelity Research FR-6SE and Garrott P77 like the 100K Ohms loading with minimal Capacitance....whilst others like the Signets and ATs, prefer 40K with a bit extra Capacitance...👀
But this of course assumes that all records are cut ’FLAT’.....which is rarely the case...❓
Using Resistance and Capacitance loadings like ’Tone Controls’ from record to record (or even track to track)....can be valid and quite satisfying.... """"
chak
Where is Raul BTW?
I miss his posts. """
You said that I return to speak of LOMC and digital and I want to explain you why is that because it’s in that way ( not that I don’t care anymore about MM because I still care about. As a fact I have some days ejoying my Empire 4000D3 ( not the gold one. ).
Years ago a close Agon friend ( even that I never had the pleasure to meet him personal. ) @dgarretson gave me a wise answer to one of my post:
things were that he six months ago his post ( very short time. ) was the other way around in an audio subject and I posted that why his very short time contradiction and he posted to me:
" Raul I HAVE THE RIGTH TO LEARN "
and he is absolutely rigth with his answer and things are ( even that you don’t like it. ) that I learned too and you attested and attest several times that I’m always willing to learn and that each day by day is time to learning.
I’m not sticky to MM as you or other gentlemans. I discovered this alternative and like it very much but as I said in my OP: is an alternative and that’s all.
In those times I was so exited to many emotions and good feelings in my discovery that said " stupid things answering to J.Carr when I told him that MM has inherent lower distortion levels and he said I was wrong because LOMC ones are way lower levels in that specific regards and he was and is rigth and is one of the reasons I prefer LOMC alternative: as an alternative, I want to leave this fact very clear.
Obviously that you and other gentlemans just don’t learn about yet but we have to take in count that each one of us room/system quality levels performance and each one of us main targets are way different. Some of you can’t learn about because your room/system lower quality level performance and obviously different main targets.
So I can’t stay sticky/inert as you. I always am looking to grow up, always.
Digital? why I like today digital better than before? because today digital technology advances is a better alternative that puts me nearer to the recording as no single analog alternative can approach it.
That means that I don’t like any more LPs?, no way my friend I still love the analog alternative because at the end and first than all I’M A MUSIC LOVER not hardware lover or media lover and in the other side I still own 7K LPs.
You showed in all your posts that or not have enough capacity to learn or you just are not willing to do it for whatever reasons.
Seller?, my dear chacster: do you know why so many persons hacked my different internet accounts?
because for many many years I was a buyer that in some weeks and for the MM madness I bougth 10 or more cartridges in a one week. I own several samples of the same models not as a spare for but because I learned that many ebay/Agon and other markets sellers just does not tell the true in the cartridge operational conditions and many times I received in very bad conditions with a silent channel or collapsed suspension but I never bougth many samples of one cartridge model with the personal attitude for sale latter on: never did it and never do.
Yes, I have to put on sale many cartridges that already accomplished its functions in this thread and for my listen pleasure. Way different from you.
I hope you got it and with this post we don't have more differences for the same audio subjects like till today. Ok for you?, please confirm it.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
""" Posting again in his old MM thread when his current choise is Digital and LOMC.
Still an authority for anyone here? Not for me anylonger.
His opinion was valid in the beginning of this thread many years ago, the situatio is quite oppisite at the moment, sad story. """
I remember your posts in the past and from other members, especially when I stopped to post in Agon. Here some highligths of some vintage ones coming from different gentlemans including you an my self:
....................................................................................................................
chackster
I got this result (rouphly by eye) with 1.25g tracking force on my Technics 102c mk4. And i was WRONG (judging by eye). Now i can measure it again correctly.
Before i put the needle on the record and apply any tracking force, distance between stylus tip and bottom of the cartridge body is exactly 2 mm.
But when 1.25g tracking force applied my cartridge transforming to a true Low Rider with only 1 mm left between cartridge and record surface!
Still great sound quality though. """
raul
what’s the difference for example with Grace loaded at standard 47k ohms or at 100k ohms? """
it depends on the phono satge and the capacitance we mated it.
MM cartridges " reacts " according how we loaded ( impedance/capacitance. ). There are diferent experiences, some persons like to load at 60k-70k and I read that some cartridge models performs better at 20-30K. So there are not a precise rules down there. You have to test it in your own system, in my system I prefer ( almost all the time. ) 100K but maybe in yours could be diferent. """
harold not the barrel
I think 3 years ago I added to my Pioneer cartridges this MK2 that I bougth for around 300.00 and I sold it ( sis months latter. ) for the same money.
Yes, is a good cartridge but nothing to die for. """ ( this is one that you chakster love but not that gentleman.)
chackster
My special thanks to @rauliruegas and @lewm for pointing me on 100k ohms resistors for MM phono stage. After a few evenings of playng records i can say it was a very big improvement. In case with top of the line Grace F-9F and F-9U pickups it’s like you’re listening totally different cartridges when choose 47k ohms vs. 100k ohms, the difference is huge in resolution!
And that is what one 100k ohms resistor can do with the sound, wow, i’m so impressed.
The experiment was made with two identical phono stages, one was transformed into 100k ohms, another remain at 47k ohms. """
chacster
The Astatic mf 200 equal to Glanz mf 31L is a good one,
This is only my suggestion. Since these brands are clones of each other, ........................... The Astatic mf 200 equal to Glanz mf 31L is a good one, ...... """"
Where do you read or who told you that Astatic cartridges are clones of the Glanz? In my understood Astatic ( that’s a very old corporation. ) only took the Glanz patent ( moving flux. ) and that’s all about.
The " clone " you name it: MF 200/ mfg 31L is a good example that those cartridges are not clones.
The output level on both cartridges is different 4.2mv vs 3.5mv. Inductance 90 vs 110. VTF: 1.75grs vs 1.25 grs. Cartridge weight: 6grs vs 5.5grs. Frequency response: 10hz to 20khz vs 20hz to 20khz with a 2 db deviation in both cases and I can go on with those differences.
As you can see far away to be clones.
The Astatic MF 2500 was an earlier cartridge than the MF 100/200, even its inductance value is different in between and IMHO the 2500 is the best performer in the Astatic catalog and way better than the MFG 71L. I can’t talk on the 61 till I heard it.
As I said Astatic is an old and experienced corporation and did not to copy/clone Glanz in the way you posted.
Coil windings, materials used, coupling mechanisms and output are distinct across them. """
( five years latter because you still can’t understand that you posted the same . ! ! ? ? ? and again a discussion for... )
raul
Dear florence4/lewm: There are at least two cartridge Grace series that never been marketed out side Japan/Asia: the Level II and the 14 series ( both with more than 7 diferent models, even the 14 serie has a Disco model for DJs. ).
The 14 top model appeared in 1985 with a boron cantilever and MR stylus and this is the one that could outperform the 9Ruby ( Level II has too a Ruby model. ). """
chacster, I posted that on Grace several years ago and way before you name any of those models.
Fleib.
*My overall impression was a very grain free and pure sound, but from what I heard I did not get an impression that these had the speed of say a Decca, Ikeda or top flight MC..*
Interesting comment, or impression as the case may be. I haven’t heard the SS strain gauge. Years ago I briefly heard the Win SG and my impression was of a sound being somewhat different than what we’re used to. Transient response (speed) seemed exemplary in an accurate sort of way rather than having a big overshoot on initial attack and drawing attention to the leading edge, but this was a brief encounter. Lab test reports would go a long way to dispelling all the myths and misconceptions.
Myth - Top flight MCs are faster. Faster than what, average MCs, MMs ? Designs w/o cantilever not withstanding, what exotic MC is as fast as a 205C ? I had a TK10ML2 and it was fast as lightning.
What good does it do for a subjective reviewer to list equipment used in an evaluation, as a basis for comparison? Do you have the same $40K phono stage or cables with built-in filters?
This thread has gone full circle, from top flight HO carts to MCs that are superior. I was unaware of this thread 6 years ago when it began. Raul showed up on VE and proclaimed MM/MI superior. We had a running debate in which I said that neither was necessarily better. Evaluations were completely subjective so it became ridiculous. The word distortion was misused a lot.
Raul performed a great service to the community by reawaking to the potential of HO carts. I doubt if he will show up on this thread once again, for obvious reasons. His contribution is noted.
Regards, """
frogman
Raul performed a great service to the community by reawaking to the potential of HO carts. I doubt if he will show up on this thread once again, for obvious reasons. His contribution is noted.****
I know some will disagree (Raul?), and I may regret this comment a bit later after my first cup of Sumatra wakes me to reality; but, from my often overly-romantic vantage point, Raul has an obligation to show up on this thread again. I do hope he is well and that there are no extenuating reasons for his absence.
Raul, donde estas? """
audpulse
Fleib, Frogman, others, I totally agree the contributions of Raul. Before I discovered this thread(3 years after it’s start), there is nothing anybody can do or say to make me look at MM/MMI cartridge. I was totally sold on MC and The Absolute Sound Magazine helped to drive home my believes. I will say that in this country, I was among the first to listen to an ALLERTS cartridge and it became my benchmark cartridge though I could not afford it then but was always dreaming of owning it one day.
Look at what Raul has done. For the cost of a top flight MC, I have been able to acquire at least ten MM cartridges that will hold it’s ground to an ALLERTS.
Hopefully Raul will show up here again but at the moment, I will not like to see him. I have stop chasing the flavors of the month and now start enjoying some of the cartridges collected and very soon I will start thinning my collections. """
frogman
As with most descriptions of the sonic attributes of gear, for a description to be meaningful and complete it must relate to the music. While I am sure square wave response is an important consideration when discussing the speed of a cartridge, I suspect that it goes beyond that and that there are other considerations when assessing wether a cartridge is "fast". The reason I say that (and I admit that my technical knowledge pales in comparison to other contributors here) is that I have looked at test graphs of gear that show very good square wave response and still the gear does not allow the music to sound correctly "alive" and with that elusive sense of being a coiled spring ready to pounce at any moment. To me "fast" means more than just good transient response during the initial attack of a note or percussive sound, but also the ability of the cartridge (or any gear) to sustain that energy from point-in-time A to point-in-time B (micro-dynamics) in order to give music it’s proper forward impetus and sense of "groove" and excitement; while at the same time unravelling the rhythmic interplay between musicians or rhythmic nuances of a solo performance. I think some do confuse leanness with this ability because some lean cartridges seem to get the leading edge of the note right; but, they can still sound rhythmically flat and uninvolving. As Lewm says "we know it when we hear it".
Interesting that this should be the subject being discussed along with the subject of Raul and his absence. The very few times that I have had disagreement with Raul it has been over this very subject. It has been my impression that Raul has a very good sense of the subject of timbre and tonality in gear, but was a little late coming to the party as concerns ability of gear to correctly portray rhythm. After several debates on the subject he did take up the "correct rhythm" banner. One of the few times that I have disagreed with his assessment of a cartridge had to do with this very subject and the ATML170OCC; a cartridge with beautifully correct tonality but that to my ears sounds rhythmically uninvolving. Even his preferred Sumiko Celebration MC exhibits rhythmic politeness to my ears but with beautiful tonality.
I think that very generally speaking a large part of the appeal of MM’s (for me, anyway) has had to do with their resistance to sound lean and ability to portray a sense of tonal density. Also very broadly speaking, the downside has been their more sedate and rhythmically polite qualities compared to MC’s
Raul, donde estas? """
halcro
Years ago I thought MCs were better than MMs, now I don’t think either one is superior. They’re different.This....👍😘
Some of my cartridges....like the Fidelity Research FR-6SE and Garrott P77 like the 100K Ohms loading with minimal Capacitance....whilst others like the Signets and ATs, prefer 40K with a bit extra Capacitance...👀
But this of course assumes that all records are cut ’FLAT’.....which is rarely the case...❓
Using Resistance and Capacitance loadings like ’Tone Controls’ from record to record (or even track to track)....can be valid and quite satisfying.... """"
chak
Where is Raul BTW?
I miss his posts. """
You said that I return to speak of LOMC and digital and I want to explain you why is that because it’s in that way ( not that I don’t care anymore about MM because I still care about. As a fact I have some days ejoying my Empire 4000D3 ( not the gold one. ).
Years ago a close Agon friend ( even that I never had the pleasure to meet him personal. ) @dgarretson gave me a wise answer to one of my post:
things were that he six months ago his post ( very short time. ) was the other way around in an audio subject and I posted that why his very short time contradiction and he posted to me:
" Raul I HAVE THE RIGTH TO LEARN "
and he is absolutely rigth with his answer and things are ( even that you don’t like it. ) that I learned too and you attested and attest several times that I’m always willing to learn and that each day by day is time to learning.
I’m not sticky to MM as you or other gentlemans. I discovered this alternative and like it very much but as I said in my OP: is an alternative and that’s all.
In those times I was so exited to many emotions and good feelings in my discovery that said " stupid things answering to J.Carr when I told him that MM has inherent lower distortion levels and he said I was wrong because LOMC ones are way lower levels in that specific regards and he was and is rigth and is one of the reasons I prefer LOMC alternative: as an alternative, I want to leave this fact very clear.
Obviously that you and other gentlemans just don’t learn about yet but we have to take in count that each one of us room/system quality levels performance and each one of us main targets are way different. Some of you can’t learn about because your room/system lower quality level performance and obviously different main targets.
So I can’t stay sticky/inert as you. I always am looking to grow up, always.
Digital? why I like today digital better than before? because today digital technology advances is a better alternative that puts me nearer to the recording as no single analog alternative can approach it.
That means that I don’t like any more LPs?, no way my friend I still love the analog alternative because at the end and first than all I’M A MUSIC LOVER not hardware lover or media lover and in the other side I still own 7K LPs.
You showed in all your posts that or not have enough capacity to learn or you just are not willing to do it for whatever reasons.
Seller?, my dear chacster: do you know why so many persons hacked my different internet accounts?
because for many many years I was a buyer that in some weeks and for the MM madness I bougth 10 or more cartridges in a one week. I own several samples of the same models not as a spare for but because I learned that many ebay/Agon and other markets sellers just does not tell the true in the cartridge operational conditions and many times I received in very bad conditions with a silent channel or collapsed suspension but I never bougth many samples of one cartridge model with the personal attitude for sale latter on: never did it and never do.
Yes, I have to put on sale many cartridges that already accomplished its functions in this thread and for my listen pleasure. Way different from you.
I hope you got it and with this post we don't have more differences for the same audio subjects like till today. Ok for you?, please confirm it.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.