What Cart. for a Infinity Black widow

I owned the black widow years ago. A wonderful match is the ortofon SM or MC 30 or some such designation. a low mass cartridge tailor made for an arm like the black window. Wonderful combination.

Have fun.

Steelhead, I believe it was an OM30, a highly-regarded low-mass MM, and good to finally ehar a report on it, as the OM20 from the overlooked Ortofon MM line has received some quite enthusiastic reviews in the last couple of years. To Bro57 and Listener57 (you members of the same club?) and Dopogue: I've just received my new ASL Mini Phono (I want to stay away from the high end and concentrate on music and already this thing is almost too detailed!) and everything is out of balance again, but in a quick A/B the Grado in an old Ariston RD80/Black Widow sounded better (same detail but smoother and better rhythm) than the same Grado in a re-wired RB300 on my best high-end 'table! The low-mass tonearm is that important! (Plus, and I'll keep this low as it is heresy, I'm beginning to think that the Linnies were right, with the caveat that the old Aristons and ARs are even better than the Linns at rhythm. Shhhhh.....It's not all about detail, which in the end simply interferes. Keep it under your hats.) Now I will make myself a tonearm board out of solid Purpleheart for the Ariston to increase that natural quality: I think the Arsiton/Black Widow is a keeper, and damned my high-end 'tables, at least for now. Now to the Purpleheart!

Dopogue: I have both a Stanton and the latest Shure V15. The Shure is slower, less revealing and lacks coherence during complex dynamic passages. It is a good "universal" cartridge in that it is competent and works reasonably well in most any arm that you throw it in, but it doesn't work optimally as compared to a more specialized cartridge in any of the given arms that you might use it in.

Having said that, the Shure is much more stable in terms of sonics from system to system. The Stanton is measurably more finicky in terms of cartridge loading and sonics WILL vary for this reason. Much of this has to do with capacitance, as quite a few TT's have interconnects that are too high in capacitance to obtain optimum results with the 881S. Couple this with the capacitive loading that is built into most phono stages and the Stanton suffers quite noticeably in anything but a system that is designed to let it sing.

On top of all of that, i'm basing my comments on the 881 using the "S" / Stereohedron stylus, not the current model that comes with an Elliptical stylus. That's why i mentioned picking up the NOS Stereohedron stylus from Kevin at KAB while he still has some in stock and keeping the Elliptical as a spare.

Steelhead & John: I agree that the Ortofon OM 20 & 30 would also be a good candidate for this arm. If i can remember correctly, Ortofon designed these cartridges while working with Dual. For those that aren't familiar with Dual TT's, they also used straight arms of low mass design. Some of the later Dual's even came stock with a special version of these Ortofon cartridges. The cartridge body & headshell were built as one integral unit, offering increased rigidity and no need to adjust the overhang. You simply installed the cartridge and began playing as the cartridge / headshell combo was already optimized for that specific arm. I seem to remember something about these cartridges being called "Concorde" or something like that, as they somewhat resembled the fancy French aeroplane of the same name. Sean
>

Must...resist..temptation...to reply...cannot...Sean, while you are a fountain of information concerning MMs, and I really appreciate all your knowledge here and would like to hear more, as I am now convinced that MMs are simply better than MCs at the all-important timing issues (the heart of the music), what you apply to the Stantons - careful set-up and so on - applies equally well to the Shures. You say simply that the Shure V15 is universal and so on, but this simply isn't true: while it does mate well with todays' almost universal medium-mass tonearms (we - must - standardize - wash - out - all - colour), it absolutely shines on medium-mass unipivots! This was my first intimation of the Shure's Greatness, when in my ignorance one day I decided to match it up with a Mayware I had set up out of curiosity on an Audiomeca 'table. As the Grados open up on low-mass tonearms, so the Shures open up on medium-mass unipivots! But I also believe that Shures sound truly great on Regas as well, depending on the 'table.

Unfortunately, it's not just a case of getting a great 'table and then putting a great tonearm on it: everyone should get a Decca for the thrill as well as the education! While my Decca so far works best on a Mayware on an AR-XA I've modified, the same Mayware-Decca combination absolutely will not work on a high-mass idler-wheel I built (and there are no vibration problems, I traditionally use low-output MCs on this rig). Which means that the whole thing - weep for us audio hobbyists! - tonearm, cartridge and 'Table, works together as a system, so that the Decca in a unipivot prefers low-mass 'sprung 'tables, in which it outshines all, but otherwise...pffffttt. I would suggest that your experience of the Shure is partly due to your not taking due diligence in setting it/them up, and partly out of one of the aforementioned variables. Every cartridge has a secret combination, a website like this is an opportunity to find out what those combinations are. Thanks for all the info. By the way, the sirens have been calling me to an Empire P10 (or soemthing like that) selling for $140, would you know anything about it? Any info would be much appreciated.

John: I'm running linear tracking arms over here. Pivoted arms are for those that like archaic technology : )

I know nothing about Empire cartridges other than what i heard back in the late 70's / early 80's out of them. They weren't worth owning from what i can recall. Sean
>