Glanz moving magnet cartridges

Dear Lew, No need to apologize because the identity relation is inscrutable. Even Wittgenstein made a strong point by stating: 'for two things to say that they are identical make no sense and to say that everything is identical with it selfs says nothing'. Well we can do with 'equal' in the sense that you own the Triplanar and I also or that you own a poodle an I own the same dog. This of course does no mean that we are coowners of the same dog but rather that we own the same kind of a dog. In this sense the Glanz 51 'E' looks to me the same as my MF 200.
'The same' qua corpus because there is no way to see on whatever picture what kind of stylus is involved. Then,speaking about the styli. No one of us knows for sure
which kind of shape is 'the best'. What is 'best' for our records does no imply our 'ears'. However even Raul is obviously willing to make Axel rich with his 'mega order'
in terms of money for the exotic cantilevers and styli.
One can hardly qualify such kinds of decisions as 'rational' but well of course as wishful thinking.
I can also hardly believe that Dgob owns Raul's amplifier.
This must be something from the past in which we all liked
each other...I am very glad with the fact that no (identical) lady is involved in the dispute. Otherwise we would have one member less.

Regards,

Dear Dgob: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1252605722&openflup&56&4#56

I bought on Argentina and now the cartridge is with my brother. Was the MF-71L ( non-integrated headshell but stand alone model. I don't know but maybe what you like are the additional integrated headshell design distortions, I never heard that integrated design and certainly I don't care about integrated headshell designs: I don't like it for very good reasons that already discussed in this and other threads. ) and was identical to the MF-100 ( tha's why I remember was the 71L. ) that performs similar but a little better than the Glanz sample ( my MF-100 was a NOS and not second hand as the Glanz. ).

Anyway, the MF-200 IMHO outperforms both Astatic/Glanz. I think you need to hear the MF-200 and I'm sure that's as other MF-200 you will be surprised.
My MF-300 is on the road to Axel for an up date and to find out the Astatic up quality performance limits, the MF-200 on stock fashion is great one.

Btw, no I'm not ignorant on the Glanz.I think for my part is all said it about, I'm done on this Glanz subject.

Please go ahead and as till today you can follow sharing your experiences. As Lewm could be that other people want to follow with your thread/interest about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dgob, are your G5 & G7 MMs? What cantilevers does each use? Do the bodies look like the Astatic MF series? Have you tried interchanging styli?

The Astatic 100/200/300 as well as the Glanz MFG series are all Moving Flux. Hence the MF model designation.

Allow me share a few things I do know about these carts. All of the MF series from both Astatic and Glanz were made in Japan by the Mitachi Corporation. I can also say for sure that the Astatic/Glanz MF generators are not all the same. Well on the outside they are but the MF200/300 put out 4.2mv. The MF100 and all of the MFG Glanz 31/51/61/71, series put out 3.5mv. Interestingly, the G7 is rated at 4.2mv on the Vinylengine database. I wonder if that is true?

The MFG51E Glanz is not a MF200 or even a MF300. The sound is quite different on each. They should because they have different output and have different styli. The cantilever on the MFG51E I have also has a much different aluminum cantilever than any other MF units. It uses a very large taper. Looks heavy to me. My MFG51E is on the bottom of the totem pole sonically of all the MF/MI carts I have heard. The MFG31E/L is much closer to the MF200. It uses the same color stylus holder as well as the same cantilever. All three have different styli. MF200 is a nude Shibata. The MFG31E has a nude elliptical and the MFG31L has a nude line contact. The MFG31E/L both sound close to the MF200. The MF300 is good but I would use it for target practice after hearing the MF200 or MFG31E/L.

Hi Raul,

If you want to look at the available Glanz literature (some of which you have cited), you will see that there is direct performance differences and that (according to the company's literature and the available performance data) the G7 is superior to their non-integrated MF-line: including the MF-71L or E. However, as you found, the latter are far more easy to obtain. Incidentally, this is the first time to my knowledge that you have shared the information that you have ever heard [let alone owned and then sold on to a member of your own family] any Glanz.

Despite what might appear otherwise, I do respect your opinion on many matters. However, ignorance cannot be a ground to accept your views here. It seems that personal experience cannot overcome your prejudices and that is your right.

Nevertheless, I cannot fathom why you would wish to go against just about every positive and educational comment you have ever made about learning and being open to actual experience when determining cartridges!? Indeed, the MM/MI thread is littered with your references to that effect and presents itself as an attempt to do precisely that with a form of cartridge that had suffered unjust 'prejudice' [here meaning, 'judgements made before or without adequate information/experience']. Maybe the difference here is that you tend to stand as arbiter of those favoured cartridges!? Other than that I could only fathom your response as being directed at me rather than the cartridges.

I hope that is not the case as it would be a pity to let anything so churlish get in the way of good musical experiences.

As always...

Hi Vetterone,

I would just like to say a huge thanks for bringing additional knowledge to bear on this thread. It is a little late here now but I will attempt to respond properly when I log back on in the morning.

Kind regards

As always...