Glanz moving magnet cartridges

BTW,

For those interested, you can check the price differentials for the additional headshell and fixture type cartridge and the integrated type. I mention this in case anyone should feel that a description such as 'plug-and-play' would some how infer cheapness or some form of inferiority. To wit, I'd also refer to the manufacturer's own statements already referenced in this thread.

As always...

Apologies,

That should of course have read: "the price differentials for the additional headshell and fixture type cartridge and the integrated type cartridges that I have mentioned."

Dear Raul, I agree that stand alone carts are more convenient or practical but , first, the FR-7 have had such a huge magnets (Alnico?) which were impossible to fit in a stand alone model. But then we still have Ortofon SPU and EMT integrated. The last mentioned sells more integrated carts then stand alone models (JDS 5 and 6).
There is obviously still demand for such carts and there is
no way to argue against the demand. From the producer stand point of course.

Dear Henry, your contributions are always welcomme while
such a forum as our assumes ignorance. Even the science
assumes 'ignorance' as the start point for the knowledge.
Besides you can write for our regular MM thread. Ie no
excuses. There are no privileges for the Aussies.

Regards,

Raul,
I have no dog in this fight, but I would point out two things in response to your long post:
(1) In part, It is certainly possible that integrated designs went away back in the 80s mostly because phono itself was on the wane and the latest and greatest tonearms of those days tended NOT to have removable headshells, which would render such integrated cartridge designs unusable by their target audience of high-end aficionados.
(2) It's rather amusing that intrinsic to your argument is the notion that 30-year-old cartridges and the like are "old fashioned" since this is a contradiction of your original mantra (which states in part that attention to quality of design and construction was at a higher level in "those days" compared to the present). I would posit that the observation that rebuilding vintage cartridges typically results in an improvement in performance could as well be due to deterioration of suspensions with time (applicable even to NOS samples) and/or to abuse of the original construct by previous owners of used samples, as to true benefits of the rebuild. For a given cartridge, we can never know the truth in that regard. There is also the fact that after a rebuild one "expects" an improvement; this causes a subconscious bias in favor of hearing an improvement. None of us are immune to that bias. This is why serious science demands double-blind, controlled studies as a qualification for publishing.

It's true that having a choice of headshell, wires, screws, torque on the screws, etc, does allow much more freedom to "voice" a cartridge. Perhaps in your hands, this is a big advantage. For most of the rest of us, we are taking a complete shot in the dark. We could be missing what a given cartridge may have to offer by making bad choices. At least with an integrated design cartridge, one can assume that those variables are not in the equation, and one can hope that the engineers who designed the product made good choices so as to maximize the performance of their product.

I'm just saying'

Dear Lewm: Integrated headshell cartridge designs were a trend a fashion on those old times. As I said the way of thinking on that subject was how 40 years ago manufacturers thinked.

What Nandric pointed out has no sense: how any one could think that magnets can't go in an stand alone design??, IMHO Nandric can't assume that he assumed but with out foundation and about the SPU/EMT that's only to fans ( mainly in Asia. ) of that kind of sound.

Anyway, I made my points and till here I can't see/read any argument that was/is strong enough to convince the common sense and experiences about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.