davidsrsb
pfm Member
Moving a small piece of metal in the air gap of a magnetic circuit driven by a powerful magnet is much easier than moving the same magnet
Sound quality advantages of MM cartridges
- Thread starter MVV
- Start date
gez
pfm Member
As do some MC manufacturers it should be noted. Lyra for example have some rather generous exchange prices, and they don't need to be like for like either.
Avon
pfm Member
But we're not moving the large and powerful magnet generating the field. We're moving a tiny one. Let's not pursue this circular argument please!
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
To me the point (pun alert!) is that some carts have a lower tip mass and higher compliance than others. This means less tip (and LP) wear and the ability to track modulations other carts can't cope with. It can also mean lower intermodulation distortion, and less vibrational energy injected into the arm or LP to cause colourations. Hence the key is to look for such indicators. The snag is that many makers shy away from giving them, and reviewers may simply comment on a 'wine tasting' basis about the sound they think they heard.
Tony L
Administrator
Context needs to be understood too. The knowledge and skillset hasn’t gone away, modern cartridges are very good and compliance specs etc are given. The thing that has gone away is any requirement to track ultrasonic carrier information for quadrophonic vinyl, so the engineering compromises of ultra low mass and ultra high compliance to fit that specific requirement have been relaxed. I suspect we have ended up at the optimum for standard vinyl replay.
The only reason I have ended up deep-diving vintage MM carts is their inductance and capacitance requirements fit valve phono stages far better. I certainly don’t view the old Shures as inherently superior to say a modern Ortofon, Nagaoka, AT or Rega, they just match my preamp better. My personal preference is for medium mass and medium compliance and a tracking weight of 1.4-1.8g or so. That is the area of least compromise to my mind.
Avon
pfm Member
That’s interesting Jim, but it implies that “optical” (noncontact) cartridges are in a higher class than mechanical ones. I happen to believe it’s the interaction among groove, stylus, cartridge, arm and turntable that gives gramophones their special magic. We also have the cutting lathe doing a similar thing. I don’t personally believe that “photocopying” the groove would offer any advantage. Others will disagree and that’s fine by me.
blossomchris
I feel better than James Brown
still in love with the MP-500, scored a replacement stylus a good while ago, sorted for life here the perfect remedy for me as no need to delve any further. I am content.
Robert
Tapehead
I do think some of the skill and knowledge has been lost though, or more accurately, abandoned.
Take Technics & B&O as two examples where the level of engineering is simply not seen today.
Technics were using hollow beryllium cantilevers and engineering their design for super low moving mass, far lower than the best we see today from say AT or Ortofon. Even the best of the those designs look quite primitive compared to say a Technics EPC205/4 or B&O MMC1.
I guess companies can no longer afford the R&D to develop such engineering given the market today is so much smaller than say 1980.
One would hope Technics with the backing of the mighty Panasonic behind them would product something as they did with the 1200G series.
A modern 205 with ultra low moving mass, micro line tip, laminated poles and their knowledge at producing high output carts impervious to loading (as the original largely was) would definitely have a market.
Tony L
Administrator
I suspect you are right, but I suspect a lot is down to economies of scale and reduced production these days. As I understand it there are only two or three stylus manufacturers left (Nagaoka, and I’m unsure of the others). That limits things a lot, and it isn’t a knowledge thing, though none of those companies selling £6k MCs would ever admit their tip and cantilever technology could be better!
I just think we live in a far smaller audiophile world now. One that has become increasingly focused in selling very expensive but very conservative designs to an increasingly ageing customer base. I’ve lost almost all interest in the new, though the vintage cartridge market is the most frustrating area of audio IMO. Impossible to know what you’ve bought until it is under the microscope…
As ever I wish there was more choice and less groupthink. I’d love to see some of the innovative cartridges of the past, such as those you describe, reissued authentically, but I suspect the market is so minimal it just wouldn’t be economical to tool-up. I still think Shure could make a killing if they remade the V15/III and various M44 options.
It’s also a surprisingly slow-moving market. You can still buy a 103, SPU etc, and they are older than me! Nagaoka are still making what they made in the 1970s albeit with an added zero in the product name and price, Ortofon‘s 2M-series are very similar to the VMS classics, though arguably less good, and AT’s line can be traced back to the old Signets. I bet the styluses still fit! Grado too, though I remember you saying tip-quality had taken a dive from the F1+ days (though in fairness that was a quadrophonic-compatible cart as I recall).
I need to research the Technics cart, heard so much about it being a classic. The various B&Os are so valuable now as they are necessary to keep the beautiful turntables functional. IIRC Soundsmith make styli for some of them. Not a brand I’ve had any direct experience with, though I do like the timeless mid-century modern aesthetics of the best of it.
I just think we live in a far smaller audiophile world now. One that has become increasingly focused in selling very expensive but very conservative designs to an increasingly ageing customer base. I’ve lost almost all interest in the new, though the vintage cartridge market is the most frustrating area of audio IMO. Impossible to know what you’ve bought until it is under the microscope…
As ever I wish there was more choice and less groupthink. I’d love to see some of the innovative cartridges of the past, such as those you describe, reissued authentically, but I suspect the market is so minimal it just wouldn’t be economical to tool-up. I still think Shure could make a killing if they remade the V15/III and various M44 options.
It’s also a surprisingly slow-moving market. You can still buy a 103, SPU etc, and they are older than me! Nagaoka are still making what they made in the 1970s albeit with an added zero in the product name and price, Ortofon‘s 2M-series are very similar to the VMS classics, though arguably less good, and AT’s line can be traced back to the old Signets. I bet the styluses still fit! Grado too, though I remember you saying tip-quality had taken a dive from the F1+ days (though in fairness that was a quadrophonic-compatible cart as I recall).
I need to research the Technics cart, heard so much about it being a classic. The various B&Os are so valuable now as they are necessary to keep the beautiful turntables functional. IIRC Soundsmith make styli for some of them. Not a brand I’ve had any direct experience with, though I do like the timeless mid-century modern aesthetics of the best of it.
Helen Bach
if it ain't Baroque ...
Tony wrote '...and AT’s line can be traced back to the old Signets. I bet the styluses still fit!' Yes, they do, theTK3 I have can be used with the AT100 series.
Robert
Tapehead
The Technics EPC was crazy good and the last review I have of it from 1982 had it priced at £59.
What's that 2M Black level cost today?
The tech was sufficiently advanced over rivals that it measured ruler flat to about 25K and the ultrasonic resonance typical of most MMs way up in the gods. Tracked like a train and didn't care about loading.
I have close relative of it the 202 which came fitted to the SL7 turntable. I bought a Jico SAS stylus for it....and it looks utterly primitive compared to the 202 original stylus.
I'm pretty sceptical on new new hifi and as I said in the Bristol thread, it does sadden me to trawl around a show in 2024 and see so much rehashed stuff of old, and truth be told is the quality of sound really better than 30 years ago? - no.
There is the odd exception. I picked up a Technics SUG700/II which is billed as an all digital amp right up to the output stage. That's a bit special and astonishingly quiet especially the MC phono, which has a noise floor comparable to some line stages!
It really does sound like just nothing. Throw any speaker at it, not fussed. Zero detectable character or flaw. Just gets on with the job.
Now we just need to persuade them to bring us some carts!
Tony L
Administrator
That’s one of the few things I’ve read reviews of and it does seem very impressive technically and also well liked by subjective reviewers I have some respect for (e.g. I think Ken Micallef liked it, and he’s got a TD-124 (with a bent platter) and likes jazz, so can’t be all bad). I’d not want to fix one in 25 years though!
Robert
Tapehead
True! - like all these things running on software, DSP and filled with tiny smd parts, when they break they are junk.
The Sugden A21 OTOH looks like it was built in the 70s
Yank
Bulbous Also Tapered
I'd like to see them bring back the strain gauge cartridge, with a modern stylus/cantilever and a sturdy body.
Tony L
Administrator
The Sugden A21 OTOH looks like it was built in the 70s
I’ve nothing but respect for Sugden. Superb amps and if I ever wanted to buy a new amp they’d be right up the top of my list. Good people too, I had a factory tour years ago when a friend picked up an original wood-case A21 from a service about 20 odd years ago. Proper old-school in a very good way.
Robert
Tapehead
It's a lovely little amp. The 23wpc is ample for the 89dbw Eatons which are also an easy 8 ohm load. Even has a decent MM/MC phono board. Lovely with the Gyro up front.
It had been off to the factory for a service just a few months before I bought it. Had its invoice listing the work which was a few caps, new selector switch, recalibration and a replacement top cover, since the original apparently had a few marks from a stubborn case screw. I think it came to £150.
Love that it's all through hole discrete and no chips.
davidsrsb
pfm Member
There are ways using cascode circuits of getting lower capacitance in a valve preamplifier.
Too many preamps are just cut and paste ECC83 circuits.
www.diyaudio.com
Too many preamps are just cut and paste ECC83 circuits.
Valve cascodes for Phono input.
Hi, What are your thoughts on valve cascodes for phono input duty?. The hybrid Fet/valve phonos have remained popular, both commercialy and from a DIY standpoint, but the all valve cascode seem to have been abandoned since the 80s. Good sound? or not?
Avon
pfm Member
Could someone please clarify something for me? We seem now to be talking about low stylus tip mass and low cantilever mass as being “better”. These will affect the compliance of the cartridge, and thus the resonance frequency of the tonearm and cartridge. So, a very high compliance cartridge would require a very light arm. Most arms now are medium mass though, so such cartridges would be unsuitable. Low mass arms seemed to be all the craze many years ago, but this seems no longer to be true?
So, what happens now? You use a low tip / cantilever mass, but with a stiffer suspension? Doesn’t the stiffer suspension “cancel out” any advantage?
I never understood this, so any clarification would be welcomed!
So, what happens now? You use a low tip / cantilever mass, but with a stiffer suspension? Doesn’t the stiffer suspension “cancel out” any advantage?
I never understood this, so any clarification would be welcomed!
davidsrsb
pfm Member
It is a case of finding the happy medium. We don't need ultrasonic tracking for encoded quadraphonics, but flat to 20 KHz would be nice, without fussy LC peaking.
If you look at a rip of an LP with Audacity to "repair" clicks and pops, it is obvious that the cartridge is ringing like a bell. The waveform of these defects is remarkably consistent.
If you look at a rip of an LP with Audacity to "repair" clicks and pops, it is obvious that the cartridge is ringing like a bell. The waveform of these defects is remarkably consistent.
Cartvintner62
Vintage Cartridge Vinyard
That’s not how MI cartridges work. MI carts use a soft iron hollow armature at the end of the cantilever. Much lighter than virtually any magnet, even rare earth magnets. This armature holds no permanent magnetic flux. All MI carts work by using a remotely located magnet(s) that imparts its magnetism into the armature, thereby creating a temporary magnet out of the armature. This magnetized armature vibrates within coil pole pieces, generating a voltage within the coils, EXACTLY like any MM cart. That’s why MI carts are always listed as a subset of MM carts.
MI carts have the advantage of having less moving mass than MM carts, competing well with MC carts for total and/or effective moving mass.
I sold my MC carts, 5 years ago. Koetsu Rosewood, Denon DL103, DL110, Dynavector 20X2L. Just got tired of the fuss.
But for me, the MCs had a diminishing return on investment. I found that using the 1968 ADC 10E MKIV with a retipped R-25 stylus (boron MR; extremely low mass, very short canti) matched every performance index I looked for from the MCs. Ruler flat FR, 30+ dB channel separation, fast and dynamic sound quality. Tracks at 1.0 gram, and tracks everything I’ve tried, even the Shure test record for the V15V.