Glanz moving magnet cartridges

Dear Raul, There are also 'stand alone' Glanz carts so you
should not give up. But if both , the G5 and G 7 are 'integrated' I need to concentrate only on the 31 E or L?
BTW Vetterone asked Dgob about the styli as well about the
kind (mms or mf's) of his G5 /G 7 which imply that he is not familiar with those.Besides to be able to 'integrate' whatever cart in whatever headshell both are (pre)assumed to be 'stand alone' before the (re)union. Ie. it may be the case that the carts 'in' G5/G7 exsist as separate or 'stand alone' entity.

Dear Dgob, I hope you can answer all those questions. Considering the time that you spend on the 'subject' I am very optimistic. It is , I would think, much easier 'stuff' than Kant's Critic of the pure reason.

Regards,

Dear nandric: My MF-300 is still " on the road " along several cartridges and right now I can't say the up date price because I don't decide yet if I go for the very top Axel up date ( expensive. ) or something " different ".

Of course that like any other cartridge if cantilever/stylus are different on two similar cartridge motors the performance is a little different on both cartridges. I have a second sample that permit me to experiment about and of course I can make the up date to my MF-200 too but I need this one in stock fashion as a reference so maybe latter after comparisons that I will report on the MM/MI thread.

Btw, as with other cartridge manufacturer/models where exist an integrated headshell cartridge design always exist its stand alone counterpart, you can see that on the Technics P100CMK4 or with Yamaha and many more and Glanz is no exeption. The one that own my brother is the top of the line stand alone one.

I decided to go with the Astatic ones through its up dates: we will see.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Hi Nandric,

"Well this thread become 'something totaly different':
it is now about who knows better. Nobody invited Vetterone to demonstrate his knowledge so he obviuously invited him self."

I think (from my perspective) I have invited Vetterone to contribute. Indeed, that has been an underlying purpose of this thread and I only hope some more people with actual experience of the Glanz [particularly of the relevant and superior G series] will be encouraged to break cover and come forward. I continue to learn about these gems and benifit from that knowledge.

As always...

Hi Vetterone,

I must start by apologising for the slight delay in responding but that was caused by personal demands that kept me occupied yesterday.

Anyway, in responding I should note that there exists too little information on the Glanz and most particularly on the "G" series. This includes the absence of the User Manual, Specifications sheet and test data that often accompany cartridges. That fact played a large part in my starting this thread. Hence, the little I know is still in need of kind contributions such as yours.

As far as I am aware, all the G and MFG series of Glanz and the Astatic MF series are - as you note - moving flux (MF). Of course that does not apply to the MG series of Glanz. Indeed, the literature from France positions 'those Glanz that it covers' as at the cutting edge of design by displaying a [then] new mf technology: "Les cellules GLANZ sont fabriquees au Japon par la societe MITACHI Corporation. Ces cellules sont dites a flux variable (Moving flux) nouveau procede dont le pricipe est le suivant..."

I should note that this technical commonality should not be seen to make the cartridges the same. As you note, THEY ARE CLEARLY NOT. It would be the equivalent of classing a Rolls Royce as the same as a Morris Minor because both share a combustion engine!! Equally, there appears to be no original literature treating of the G3 and G5 models. And so I can only discuss the differences that I have observed.

All of the G series [G1, G3, G5 and, ultimately, the G7] share the same fixing method and their styli are interchangeable and bear their common number: meaning they are the M1, M3, M5 and M7 styli, respectively. The G7 and top of each of their cartridge range [G7, MFG-71L, MFG-51L, MFG-31L and MG-70L] all use line contact stylus. All others use elliptical styli. This is an obvious difference concerning their performances.

Furthermore, even a cursory glance at the top Glanz G7, G5 and the Astatic MF-100 shows obvious differences. There is, for example, a conspicuous difference in materials used for the cantilever and its housing. But it is with regards to performance that you are correct to note the most important distinctions.

The Astatic is a very good cartridge but I do not feel that it is in the same domain as these Glanz. Coil windings, materials used, coupling mechanisms and output are distinct across them. And the G7 is, as you note, rated at a whopping 4.2mv. For testing purposes this means that you have to elevate the gain/volume control in order to place the other two on an equal footing when it comes to sheer scale and definition. The Glanz are simply better at retrieving detail than the Astatic and the G7 is better than the G5 on this aspect: once correctly set up and run-in!

Regarding the differences within the Glanz “G” series, the power and detail superiority of the G7 over the G5 is therefore not only down to their distinct output powers nor is it down to their distinct styli. This is easily tested by the noted volume alterations and by interchanging the styli and testing on both cartridges.

Incidentally, the G7 comes as close to repeating the accuracy that I detect with my Technics P100c MK4 as any cartridge I have heard. The most notable difference between the two is the Glanz's transient speed and dynamic impact. If you need a platform from which to best explore this distinction, there is no finer place than Solti's Mahler 8 (Decca). Due to the physical laws affecting the volume of sound on such a large and sonically complex work, this box set is one of the most difficult to replicate within a listening room. The G7 comes as close as anything I have ever heard. There are nevertheless delicacies with the Technics (on a Morch DP6) that I have also not heard replicated anywhere else. Conclusion? Both great cartridges but different.

I hope my slight knowledge proves useful and that further contributions are forthcoming.

As always…

Hi All,

It might be helpful if I address a couple of myths that are circulating on this thread. The first bewildering piece of misinformation is that integrated cartridges lose something to their so called "stand-alone" brethren. Rubbish!
Both Glanz and Nagoaka, foir example, would seem to disagree with that statement. Notably, with both the G series of the former and MP series of the latter, there is clear and explicit statement by its actual makers that their integrated headshell versions are sonically superior. But amateur hifi enthusiasts beg to differ – even where they have never heard or tested these!?
The other baffling piece of puerile drivel involves that same reference to “stand-alone” cartridges. I take it that this is referring to cartridges using the normal ½ inch universal headshell mount. It need hardly be seen as rocket science to appreciate that those headshells deprive such cartridges of being anything like ‘stand alone’. Some of these enthusiasts also suggest that the importance of finding the right/best headshell for any cartridge is paramount. However, the same people have again denied the manufacturers of these golden age gems the credit of having tested and selected a mounting which optimises their cartridges!? My own personal testing and experience finds accord with the manufacturers and bafflement with the blind critics.

A consequent myth that follows on the soiled coat tails of the headshell one is that all integrated cartridges suffer similar problems and – assumedly – performance characteristics: whether they are Nagaka, Glanz or Ortofon, for example. I wont even bother unpicking the problems with that form of prejudiced nonsense. The thoughtful readers will draw their own conclusions.

As always…