Glanz moving magnet cartridges

@nandric 

Dear chakster, Thanks for all your efforts to inform your co-members
about MM carts in general and Glanz in particular. But I want to
first explain difference with Astatic kind. Both Glanz and Astatic
ordered their samples with specific requirements. Astatic ordered
output of 4.2 mV and Shibata styli 

My friend, you're a bit wrong:
 Astatic MF-2500 (claimed by the Mexican to be the best of Astatic) has 3mV Ouput and Line Contact Stylus on aluminum cantilever, just look the the manual.

while Glanz output is 3.5 mV and either line contact or elliptical styli.  

You're right about Glanz output, but you're wrong about styli, because Glanz 61 has Special PH stylus, look at the manual.  Both Glanz and Astatic have some cheap models with Nude and Bonded Elliptical and even with Conical styli too. You're right that Shibata profile available only with Astatic. But Glanz has PH stylus on top model. 

The difference between PH Stylus and LineContact stylus is here. 

Specification for ALL Glanz (except 61) is on page-1 and page-2 

This is PH Stylus on Boron (61) and this is LineContact Stylus on Aluminum (31L). 

When we look at your pictures of Glanz 61, 31 and 71 we can clearly see the aluminum tube behind the cantilever.

Yes, Glanz 61 has aluminum collar (joint pipe) around the Boron Rod cantilever, just like the most expensive Nagaoka MP-500 btw. I have better cartridges than Glanz 61, but they are from different manufacturers and much more expensive. 

Even with a joint pipe hebing the Boron Rod cantilever the Glanz 61 is clearly the best model made by Mitachi. This is all i'm trying to say (and explaining why).  

To put this otherwise there is no such thing as ''pure boron'' or other ''exotic cantilever'' because the aluminum tube behind them is part of the moving parts. 

Well, not on all vintage MM, my Grace LEVEL II and F14 does not have a joint pipe behing the Boron cantilevers. They are all have pure Boron, Ruby, Sapphire, Beryllium, Ceramic cantilevers (depends on the model). 

To my knowledge retip of one MM cart is done by cutting the existent cantilever and gluing the new cantilever IN or OVER the restant of the old cantilever. That is why I never retiped any MM cart.

I don't retip MM cartridges, i don't buy refurbished MM cartridges, only originals and always looking for NOS genuine styli for them. 




 

Dear chakster, I mentioned my reservation about MM carts
regarding their ''internal construction'' . I have no idea how
damping (aka ''rubber ring'') is fastened on the cantilever.
You know my experience with Technics 205,mk3 . Its
suspension problem was impossible to fix. This is one
of the reasons why I never try any ''refurbishing'' of MM kinds.
You also mentioned to never ''retip'' MM carts but you deed
not explained why. Because we both try to inform our co-
members as good as we can this information is pretty important.
As you also know Raul posted a bunch of his MM carts for
''refurbishing'' to different ''retip services'' in advance. That is
without checking their function first. But if nobody is able to fix
suspensions problems by MM kinds this should be mentioned
to our members. Those repairs are not cheap so if they make
no sense our members should be warned. If some of the MM
kinds have the whole ''exotic'' cantilever inside than this
cantilever must be damped somehow. I know how this is done
by styli with tension wire but not how this is done by other kinds.
My scepsis is based on my experience with 205,mk 3 which
may not apply for other kinds. If you know how those (whole)
cantilevers are damped and if those are also reparable then 
you should explain  how. One only need to look at the ''tube''
behind any MM stylus and then ask the question: ''how can
this be done''?

Chakster, This thread was initiated several years ago by dgob, after he purchased a Glanz G5.  Apparently that's a cartridge with an integrated headshell.  Apparently also there is at least one other integrated headshell Glanz with a single-digit alphanumberic designation, the G7.  How do those units fit into the scheme?  Are they in the same ballpark, SQ-wise, as some of the others being discussed here, 5 years later? (Not suggesting the G5 challenges your favorite MFG61; I know nothing about any of them.)