advertisement


What’s the deal with vintage MM cartridges ???

I remain super impressed with my V15iii + Jico SAS/B. I have two of them now, one on my Thorens TD125 with 3009 type 2 improved fixed and another on my TD124 with 3009 type 2 removable.

The V15iii/Jico SAS/B combination has massively narrowed the gap between CD and vinyl for me. And I mean that as a compliment!

I also have a Tonar Shibata cut and original Shure VN35HE but it's the Jico SAS/B that hits the sweet spot for me. It just brings out more of everything.

It's likely the endgame for me as I can't get my head around spending the cash required for a Sapphire or Ruby cantilever.
 
I almost purchased a fairly cruddy $25 turntable yesterday at my local electronics junk shop because it had a V15iii, with a snapped cantilever... based on your assessment I'll be heading back to snag it if it hasn't walked out the door already. I really dig older, high compliance, moving magnet cartridges... both my systems use the Stanton "WOS" CS-100, mostly with aftermarket stylii but with original or retipped stylii for the important records. There's a lot of magic in these things and it's a real pity they've gone the way of the dodo, largely.
 
Mike P said:
I remain super impressed with my V15iii + Jico SAS/B. I have two of them now, one on my Thorens TD125 with 3009 type 2 improved fixed and another on my TD124 with 3009 type 2 removable.

The V15iii/Jico SAS/B combination has massively narrowed the gap between CD and vinyl for me. And I mean that as a compliment!

I also have a Tonar Shibata cut and original Shure VN35HE but it's the Jico SAS/B that hits the sweet spot for me. It just brings out more of everything.

It's likely the endgame for me as I can't get my head around spending the cash required for a Sapphire or Ruby cantilever.
Click to expand...
I managed to bag Shure V15 Type IV cartridge and Jelco VN- 45HE SAS with Ruby cantilever from Japan, and for the price and condition I got it for, let's just say I was very happy 😊.
 
53405960096_2f51eb5817_b.jpg


V15 Type III in for a listen. This was an ‘everything’ change as I wanted to give it the best chance, so it is in the very low mass fixed-shell Series 2 Improved, on a different armboard (the Stereo Lab one that matches my plinth rather than the usual Schopper one) and its using the original SME armlead as it hasn’t been RCA converted.

Initial impressions, just a couple of records, are it is really good, very clean, perfectly happy at 1g, but it lacks that visceral ‘in yer face’ slam/punch thing I like so much about the M44/M55. It is a lot lower output, which explains some of it. It is very good though, very tonally neutral and I’d say quite similar to the Nagaoka MP-500, a similar set of strengths with a similar slightly over-polite and academic presentation.

Obviously I’m comparing more than one thing here, but I’m far from convinced the V15 III would be a good match at all in the much higher mass pre-Improved arm. This fixed shell Improved was designed for it, the math is right, and it seems rock solid and totally unflappable in there. It is the classic mid-70s low-mass/high-compliance combo. I’m also not prepared to move it, I’m sick of soldering headshell tags! It can stay in the fixed shell Improved forever now. I’ll just swap the arms over whenever I want to use it.

Certainly an interesting contrast. In comparison the M44/M55 has a bit of a ‘loudness contour’ with more top and bottom. The V15 is a lot more subtle, likely a lot more “accurate”, but I’m missing that attack, punch and slam. That ancient M44/M55E is just such good fun! It kicks!
 
Eoin said:
Ever try a series III arm, Tony?
Click to expand...

No, the closest I got other than the fixed-shell Improved pictured above was an Audio Technica AT1120 I had back in the early ‘80s with an Ortofon M20FL. That was very low mass with a fluid damper, so much the same as the Series III.

There are some clever aspects to the Series III, e.g. the ability to control effective mass by design (headshell inserts, lead weights at the rear etc), plus it was a true S shape so corrected the bearing plane issues of the earlier 3009s, and I think it moved the vertical bearing plane lower and closer to stylus height. I’ve never played with one at all. It seems to be the least desirable SME these days, but I guess that is due to the low-mass high-compliance thing becoming obsolete now quadraphonic vinyl is no longer a thing.

It isn’t an arm I’d pay much to own, same goes for the fixed-shell Improved pictured upthread (mine came on a MkI Technics SL120 I found at the local auction for £35, I actually paid more buying it a box and manual!). Nice to have though as it gives me that whole 1970s V15 III front-end as a reference point. It is amazing how well it tracks at just 1g. A valid approach for sure assuming the right low-mass arm. It is interesting as an anachronism, a once dominant design-school not followed.

PS I speculated upthread that if Shure made V15/IIIs again they’d sell them by the container-load. In hindsight I’m not sure that is the case as I’d not factored in how high compliance they are and that they aren’t really that suited to modern arms. That said I’ve seen them installed in 3012s before now, and that would have been a very bad match on paper. IIRC the 3012 has an effective mass of about 15g! The fixed-shell 3009 Improved I’m using is 6.5g!
 
Have you ever played with Stanton/Pickering cartridges Tony? Obviously the same issue with Shure in that they're not making them any more but I'm kind of curious how they stack up.
 
paulfromcamden said:
Have you ever played with Stanton/Pickering cartridges Tony? Obviously the same issue with Shure in that they're not making them any more but I'm kind of curious how they stack up.
Click to expand...

Never directly compared, but I did have a Pickering XV15/650E when I first got the TD-124 up and running in a second system. That’s long before I got the deck working seriously well, plus a different system entirely, but I remember liking the XV15. At the time there was someone banging them out cheap NOS, hence my buying it. About £40 IIRC. A nice cheap way to get the deck up and running, though as I say it was a long time before I got the 124 really doing what it should.

Eoin said:
A III is an interesting arm, effective mass can be as low as 3grams.. :eek:
Click to expand...

The more you look closely at it the more clever it seems, some real engineering solutions to problems; they retained the convenience of a detachable “headshell” but moved the joint right up close to the bearing to lose mass, and kept the counterweight tucked in real close to the bearing too, so at its lightest it could be very low mass indeed with its thin titanium arm tube and reinforced plastic headshell. The bespoke Ortofon arm-tube with one of their ‘Concorde’ cartridges integrated took this thinking as far as possible. That would be an interesting thing to try, it has to be the lowest mass arm/cart combo ever made (maybe excepting some of the truly bonkers Transcriptors arms).
 
Might have one tucked up here. 😗

It’s in the cupboard on an RD 80. Well tempered simplex setup in its place (also low mass..)
 
Any views on the Shure M75. The guy in Italy who has retipped 3 styli for my P77 and tuned the suspension with , IMO outstanding results, has tried exactly the same tune-up on a Shure M75. He says that to him it sounds very similar. Worth a try?
 
Chris said:
Any views on the Shure M75. The guy in Italy who has retipped 3 styli for my P77 and tuned the suspension with , IMO outstanding results, has tried exactly the same tune-up on a Shure M75. He says that to him it sounds very similar. Worth a try?
Click to expand...

The M75, the generator a version of the V15/II, filled a lot of very different markets depending on stylus assembly in the same way the various M44/M55 models did. As such a lot depends on matching stylus assembly to arm mass etc, e.g. there is a huge difference between an M75ED and an M75EJ, the former designed for very low mass arms and tracking at about 1.25g, the latter happy enough in a high-mass Lenco 75 arm tracking at 3g! As such I’d choose the stylus assembly carefully to suit your arm as that is where the compliance is defined.
 
There are many Jico options for the M75 including fancy SAS variants with exotic cantilevers etc. Way more for the 75 than the 55.

PS I’m planning to investigate the Jico options for the M55 and V15/III. My current thinking is to pursue both as changing the arms over on the 124 really is a five minute job now each is aligned and setup on its own arm board. As such I’ll try their M55E stylus (they only do one at present, a nude mounted elliptical) and I want to try the Basie Jazz Club V15/III stylus. I’ve missed the limited edition micro-ridge, but the elliptical is available. I’ll likely order one of each early next year. I’m especially interested in the M55E as I really like the thing and if the Jico preserves what I like it makes it sustainable long-term. I think the V15/III is a bit polite for me, though it is very good in some areas, and I need to give it a good chance. It’s much lower output is easier to accommodate too given the high-gain/high-efficiency nature of my system.
 
Possibly silly question: I have a Tonar M44 conical stylus that rides very low in the M44 body I fitted it to. It's a lot happier sitting in the Realistic re-branded Shure body I've switched to. Does that indicate an issue with the original Shure generator?
 
paulfromcamden said:
Possibly silly question: I have a Tonar M44 conical stylus that rides very low in the M44 body I fitted it to. It's a lot happier sitting in the Realistic re-branded Shure body I've switched to. Does that indicate an issue with the original Shure generator?
Click to expand...

Are you sure a) the Tonar stylus is definitely an M44, and b) the Realistic is definitely an M44?

The reason I ask is the M44, first V15 and M55, which all share the same generator assembly, have a very flat generator angle that is almost parallel to the record surface. This is why the cantilever of all these has two very distinct bends, first downwards, and then flattening out, to get it far enough below the cartridge body. The V15/II and closely related M75 range “corrected” this by altering the angle at which the stylus slides into the cartridge body, and therefore the angle of the generator in the body. That got rid of the first bend and became the industry standard ever since.

IIRC you can physically fit all manner of Shure styluses to different Shure bodies, e.g. I’m pretty sure an M44/55 stylus will fit in an M75 body, and vice versa, but in both cases the geometry ends up very wrong in exactly the way you describe.
 
Tony L said:
Are you sure a) the Tonar stylus is definitely an M44, and b) the Realistic is definitely an M44?

The reason I ask is the M44, first V15 and M55, which all share the same generator, have a very flat angle that is almost parallel to the record surface. This is why the cantilever of all these has two very distinct bends in it to get it far enough below the cartridge body. The V15/II and closely related M75 range “corrected” this by altering the angle at which the stylus slides into the cartridge body, and therefore the angle of the generator in the body. This became the industry standard ever since.

IIRC you can physically fit all manner of Shure styluses to different Shure bodies, e.g. I’m pretty sure an M44/55 stylus will fit in an M75 body, and vice versa, but in both cases the geometry ends up very wrong in exactly the way you describe.
Click to expand...
Thanks Tony - that's interesting. The Tonar stylus was sold as an M44. When I get a mo I'll compare with a couple of ancient Shure stylii I have.

The cartridge is a Shure R25EDT ...which a quick Google reveals is actually some kind of M75! So that would certainly explain the difference.
 
Not very well focused cameraphone pic (and excuse the crud on the tip - not sure how that got there!) but there seems to be a clear difference in geometry between the two Shures on the right and the Tonar on the left.

Mystery solved I think.

mxl0C3q.jpg
 
Tony, I think you might be surprised how well the V15iii runs with a 3009 series 2. As you know, I have a V15iii on the TD124 with a series 2 non improved and it plays just fine. I can hear very little difference between that and the 3009 type 2 fixed on my TD125.

I checked the low frequency resonance of both last night with my copy of the Hi Fi News test LP and they both got the wobbles at about 8Hz.

Both are running Jico SAS/B styli.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top