Dynavector Karat 17D3: retip for $500 or get something new?

Needlestein, if my MMC1 looks perfect under my microscope and if it doesn’t collapse at its standard 1.0g VTF, may I assume it’s ok? I recently noticed some distortion and I’m trying to track down the source.

A Little of Topic but in keeping with how the Thread has been going in direction.

I am not adverse to having a MC Cartridge Rebuilt and have my own working rebuilt models in use and a few MC's in a Queue to be rebuilt as and when the desire and funds allows for such a Luxurious endeavor.

I am, when the opportunities arise listening to New Cartridges up to £3000+ retail value, and have a few of these experiences undertaken in the past months, as well as having revisited longer owned MC's from a similar price bracket and assessing how they have settled into the system they are used within.

As of yet, I am not  discovering any New Model Cartridges that have been able to encourage me to change direction and cough up the funds to purchase a New Cartridge, and put a rebuilt model on the Sub's Bench.

Cartridge owners, especially when it boils down to making a purchase at a certain price range are quite critical in their assessments and in my experience are very tuned into how to get the Cartridge to reveal the Strength's / Weakness's / Attractors / Detractors that are on offer from a particular model.

When an individual who has spent substantial monies on a Cartridge and after a long period of familiarity and use, are suspecting the model has offered it best, come to the decision to have the Cartridge Inspected by a professional Service, whether it be a return to a Manufacturer, Manufacturer Agent, or Third Party Service. Where is the fault in this approach to seek out a professional assessment and decide on a method to treat and issues discovered and continue with using the the Cartridge in a overhauled condition.

When the Cartridge is returned the recollection of the Cartridge when Brand New with limited use, is but a very distant memory.                                                            The recollection of the deteriorated Cartridge in its final hours of usage with the knowing that wear and tear were contributing to the SQ will be the most memorable.                                                                                                                A Cartridge put back into use following any treatments from a respectable overhaul service and without too much time delay between the last play and the play of the new supplied Cartridge will show an improvement that creates a very good impression as a comparison. 

As the owner of the Cartridge has already shown they have a knowledge on how to set up and extract the best from a Cartridge, these principles will most likely be carried out for the returned Cartridge.

If the Cartridge Owner is very impressed by the new experience being encountered and feels sure they have made a very good choice, it is not possible to see where there is room to confront the method chosen as not being a correct choice for the individual. If this impression has been created by a Third Party Service, it should not matter one iota. This is just one of many reasons why there is a Healthy Thriving Business and Clientele in Queues awaiting a Overhaul / Rebuild Service.  

“Needlestein, if my MMC1 looks perfect under my microscope and if it doesn’t collapse at its standard 1.0g VTF, may I assume it’s ok? I recently noticed some distortion and I’m trying to track down the source”

First, I have to ask what “perfect” means, as I don’t want to assume that you are using a powerful enough microscope to actually see the wear flats. No offense, but just as a troubleshooting exercise, I would have to ask.

Now, assuming the diamond does look perfect the next suspect is the suspension. After a few decades, they just fail. That’s about it. I can sometimes “mend” the suspensions without opening up the cartridge and replacing the parts because I have not figured out what cement to use. Nothing I have tried thus far has worked well. Lately, I really haven’t had time to really investigate possible adhesives. B&O cartridges may in fact use two different adhesives as the rubber grommet has to bind to very smooth hard plastic on one surface and metal on the other surface.

The suspensions of the MMC5 models seem to fail a lot less often than the others. I assume that due to the lower compliance spec, they are made of a more stable, durable elastomer. I will often upgrade these with higher level cantilevers and diamonds to get close to the performance of the higher MMC cartridges. Customer response has been more than favorable. Other people will rebuild them, but I have heard mixed responses about rebuilt units which is why I recommend new Sound Smith when someone wants a rebuilt unit.

My MMC1 was NOS before I started using it. Now has ~50 hours at most, in a DV505 or Triplanar tonearm (have had it mounted in both). You’re correct; I can’t evaluate the stylus but I can see everything else under my lab microscope. It’s not riding “low”. I think I found and fixed the problem which was due to the TP damper paddle riding too close to the bottom of its trough. Also I increased VTF to 1.15g, with some trepidation.

I think I'm kinda late chiming in on this thread, but I only recently really *got* what @needlestein has been doing. After looking at the hundreds of pictures of his work he's posted on Instagram and the 1,100 positive feedback scores he's gotten on ebay I am thinking he's got some pretty solid skills. 

I expect to be sending one or more cartridges to him to be rebuilt.