Hello Raul, just wanted to say Hi!
I still have the Empire EDR 9 body that you recommended many years ago, that Carver receiver is dead but I am temporarily using a Rega I/O integrated amplifier just for the SS phono section while I save up for a integrated tube amp and the same brands higher end tube phono preamp. I'm glad to see you're still here. I've appreciated talking with you in the past and I remember you fondly.
MC-MM-MI CARTRIDGES . DO YOU KNOW WHICH HAS BETTER QUALITY PERFORMANCE? REALLY?
Dear friends:The main subject of this thread is start a dialogue to find out the way we almost all think or be sure about the thread question : " true " answer.
Many years ago I started the long Agon MM thread where several audiophiles/Agoners and from other audio net forums participated to confirm or to discover the MM/MI/IM/MF/HOMC world and many of us, me including, was and still are" surprised for what we found out in that " new " cartridge world that as today is dominated by the LOMC cartridges.
Through that long thread I posted several times the superiority of the MM/types of cartridges over the LOMC ones even that I owned top LOMC cartridge samples to compare with and I remember very clearly that I posted that the MM and the like cartridges had lower distortion levels and better frequency range quality performance than the LOMC cartridges.
In those times j.carr ( Lyra designer ) was very active in Agon and in that thread I remember that he was truly emphatic posting that my MM conclusion was not true due that things on distortion cartridge levels in reality is the other way around: LOMC has lower distortion levels.
Well, he is not only a LOMC cartridge designer but an expert audiophile/MUSIC lover with a long long and diverse first hand experiences listening cartridges in top TT, top tonearms and top phono stages and listening not only LOMC cartridges but almost any kind of cartridges in his and other top room/systems.
I never touched again that subject in that thread and years or months latter the MM thread I started again to listening LOMC cartridges where my room/system overall was up-graded/dated to way superior quality performance levels than in the past and I posted somewhere that j.carr was just rigth: LOMC design were and are superior to the other MM type cartridges been vintage or today models.
I'm a MUSIC lover and I'm not " married " with any kind of audio items or audio technologies I'm married just with MUSIC and what can gives me the maximum enjoyment of that ( every kind ) MUSIC, even I'm not married with any of my opinions/ideas/specific way of thinking. Yes, I try hard to stay " always " UNBIASED other than MUSIC.
So, till today I followed listening to almost every kind of cartridges ( including field coil design. ) with almost every kind of tonearms and TTs and in the last 2 years my room/system quality performance levels were and is improved by several " stages " that permits me better MUSIC audio items judgements and different enjoyment levels in my system and other audio systems. Yes, I still usemy test audio items full comparison proccess using almost the same LP tracks every time and as always my true sound reference is Live MUSIC not other sound system reproduction.
I know that the main thread subject is way complicated and complex to achieve an unanimous conclusions due that exist a lot of inherent differences/advantages/unadvantages in cartridges even coming from the same manufacturer.
We all know that when we talk of a cartridge we are in reality talking of its cantilever buil material, stylus shape, tonearm used/TT, compliance, phono stage and the like and my " desire " is that we could concentrate in the cartridges as an " isolated " audio item and that any of our opinions when be posible stay in the premise: " everything the same ".
My take here is to learn from all of you and that all of us try to learn in between each to other and not who is the winner but at the " end " every one of us will be a winner.
So, your posts are all truly appreciated and is a thread where any one can participates even if today is not any more his analog alternative or is a newcomer or heavily experienced gentleman. Be my guest and thank's in advance.
Regards and ENJOY THE MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
- ...
- 335 posts total
Dear @lewm : No, wenever used the MAT 02 even 20 years ago when we started with the Essential 3150 I not even knewnothing about the MAT 02 Our white papers/targets was to design a fully discrete phonolinepreamp ( yes, I know that the MAT02 is a discrete design. ) where we choosed all the cative/passive parts and decided to use bipolars in the input gain with MC cartridges because goes a little better with bipolars than with FETs. Obviously that it's way more easy to work with FET because bipolars must be in matched pairs what is not so easy to achieve it. Around 6 years latter came the 3160 model using bipolars too at the input gain but with different transistors.The MM stage were where weuse FETs because were more adequated for MM than for MC cartridges. Transistorand FET devices improved over time and today we have better parts. Now, obviously that MC design works fine with FETs especially today but even that wefollow taking the time with bipolars and choosing the more neutral devices because even than in theory must be the sameour first hand experiencesis that there are minute differencesin between transistor and Fets. First timeI been aware of the MAT02/03 was when Ibougth second hand myLevinson Reference 20.6 monobloks and we made it some mods and J.Curl used those MAT in that truly great amplifier design.
We, like to choose and listen to all the passive/active parts in the Essential 3180 design.
R.
|
Btw, Astatic/Glanz were made by Mitachi but are not exactly the same, for example the inductance in the Glanz is 10mH and in the Astatic 90mH.Mitachi does it under Astatic specs this Astatic was founded in1930.
Here my retipper source: Cartridge_Retipping@outlook.com
R. |
@lewm : The 2500 was the top of the line and builded before the latest Astatic Series 100 where my MF200 belongs. Btw, the inductance in the 2500 is a little higher at 120mH against the 90 mH in the MF 200. The stylus in the 2500 was as in the MF100 line contact where in my 200 is Shibata shape. Btw, normally when I send any of my vintage cartridges to a retipper I look that Joseph Long try to mantain the cartridge as near original and normally too I ask to change only the stylus and never the cantilever. That 2500 I owned and is truly fine performer. Good luck with .
R. |
Dear @groovey : Good that you still have that Empire cartridge that’s very good performer. I still own almost all Empire models but the EDR that I sold, the best of my Empire is the 4000 DIII that’s excellent. The flyer in the link is interesting on the 4000: Empire 4000 Wide Response 4-Channel Cartridge Manual | Vinyl Engine
Btw, I like your 240Ti, in those times I was behind the top trapezoidal shape ones but I never had the kind of money to do it.
R. |
- 335 posts total