2. analog
  3. 140043-486

Hear my Cartridges....🎶

Many Forums have a 'Show your Turntables' Thread or 'Show your Cartridges' Thread but that's just 'eye-candy'.... These days, it's possible to see and HEAR your turntables/arms and cartridges via YouTube videos.
Peter Breuninger does it on his AV Showrooms Site and Michael Fremer does it with high-res digital files made from his analogue front ends.
Now Fremer claims that the 'sound' on his high-res digital files captures the complex, ephemeral nuances and differences that he hears directly from the analogue equipment in his room.
That may well be....when he plays it through the rest of his high-end setup 😎
But when I play his files through my humble iMac speakers or even worse.....my iPad speakers.....they sound no more convincing than the YouTube videos produced by Breuninger.
Of course YouTube videos struggle to capture 'soundstage' (side to side and front to back) and obviously can't reproduce the effects of the lowest octaves out of subwoofers.....but.....they can sometimes give a reasonably accurate IMPRESSION of the overall sound of a system.

With that in mind.....see if any of you can distinguish the differences between some of my vintage (and modern) cartridges.
VICTOR X1
This cartridge is the pinnacle of the Victor MM designs and has a Shibata stylus on a beryllium cantilever. Almost impossible to find these days with its original Victor stylus assembly but if you are lucky enough to do so.....be prepared to pay over US$1000.....🤪
VICTOR 4MD-X1
This cartridge is down the ladder from the X1 but still has a Shibata stylus (don't know if the cantilever is beryllium?)
This cartridge was designed for 4-Channel reproduction and so has a wide frequency response 10Hz-60KHz.
Easier to find than the X1 but a lot cheaper (I got this one for US$130).
AUDIO TECHNICA AT ML180 OCC
Top of the line MM cartridge from Audio Technica with Microline Stylus on Gold-Plated Boron Tube cantilever.
Expensive if you can find one....think US$1000.

I will be interested if people can hear any differences in these three vintage MM cartridges....
Then I might post some vintage MMs against vintage and MODERN LOMC cartridges.....🤗
128x128halcro
harold-not-the-barrel
895 posts
 
Henry, you are right. I meant "hollow" tube. Both my sample from mid eighties and your "later" stock have hollow tube boron cantilevers. Seems to me that they are exactly the same cartridges, and therefore namely the MFG-610LX may very well be the finest sounding cartridge GLANZ ever produced. For me there´s no mystery anymore. Truly great find.
As for the Grace, the more expensive models usually are better in sound quality... like the Grace F-14 series :__ )



dover
2,247 posts
 
@harold-not-the-barrel
The discussion on Glanz has inspired me to pop my Glanz MFG61 back in the system. I have completed some subtle upgrades to my system in the past year. A couple of months ago I managed to wipe out my Koetsu Black Goldline which I was using on an FR64S/B60 for non critical listening.
Well, the Glanz MFG61 has left the koetsu well and truly dead - more refined, more linear to use Frogmans language), quicker and more transparent. It gets much closer to my reference Dynavector Nova 13D in spectral balance and accuracy.

The MFG61 has different specs to the 610LX - different compliance, better channel separation, and finer stylus profile. From Halcro’s earlier posting, not withstanding whats lost in translation ( to video/digital ), my impression is that the 61 sounds much more refined and less course than the 610LX.

PS
Halcro - thanks for the Decca post for Frogman and I - I have been a bit busy to respond - the music was great.

harold-not-the-barrel
895 posts
 
Dover, does your MFG 61 have a rod boron cantilever unlike MFG 610LX ´s hollow tube boron ? And what´s the compliance, is it much higher ? You mean its frequency response is flatter ?
The finer stylus shape of MFG 61 does make a difference indeed. And all these factors together make a difference for sure. But what is the end result, in different TT/TA combos really matters. In your system the MFG 61 wins, so good for you.
Your reference is Dynavector Nova 13D, have you tried the new Nova 17D3 ?

dover
2,247 posts
 
My Glanz MFG61 has the same cantilever as in Chaksters picture in the Glanz thread. Cant tell whether it is hollow or not. Compliance of MFG61 is 25x10(-6) @10hz,.  610LX is 10x10(-6)@100hz. You cant accurately compare these, but the likely compliance of the 610LX @10hz is probably around 15-20 - slightly lower than the 61. Channel separation on the MFG61 is 25db@1khz, MFG610LX is 23db@1khz.

No such cartridge as the Nova 17D3. The Karat Nova 13D was only produced in a small run ~40 years ago - mine has been rebuilt/upgraded by Dynavector Japan several times - its a one off. It's resolution exceeds both my Ikeda Kiwame & Garrott Bros Decca Gold with Microscanner.
If I was to replace the Karat Nova 13D it would have to be the XV1T.
harold-not-the-barrel
895 posts
 
Seems to me that Chak´s sample has a rod cantilever. I was surprised when I firstly saw that huge glue drop on the cantilever, I had never seen anything like that before. Does your sample also have a big glue drop ? Why it´s so big I´m not quite sure of its purpose ? It just adds stylus effective tip mass. I can´t see any traces of glue in my MFG 610LX.
If the 61 has a solid rod cantilever then 610LX´s stylus/cantilever ass´y is lighter and therefore a more sophisticated design. Its compliance is 45 (static)/10 (dynamic 100 Hz) according to the manual. As we know, all these small differences could make a big difference, especially in these higher quality performance levels.
How do they compare to each other in sound quality is another thing, in different systems.
Some Dynavector fans prefer the new Nova 17D3, others the XV1-t. Very interesting.

More to discover