|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.130.29.193
In Reply to: RE: MM cartridge closest to sound and tracking of a Denon DL301MKII posted by Garven on September 28, 2015 at 09:32:51
Most of us who switched to low-output moving coils don't have any experience with current moving magnets. After all, we switched to moving coils because they sounded so much better than moving magnets.
Those who still use moving magnets probably don't have any experience with low-out moving coils. Therefore, they won't be of any help to you.
You're best bet is to just start buying moving magnets until you come across one that sounds like the DL-301II, if that's even possible. Otherwise, buy another DL-301II.
Good luck,
John Elison
PS. Let us know how much money your spend on moving magnets before you decide to buy another DL-301II. ;-)
Follow Ups:
"Most of us who switched to low-output moving coils don't have any experience with current moving magnets. After all, we switched to moving coils because they sounded so much better than moving magnets."But then you would be wrong. I run mostly LOMC, but I have a nice Grado Sonata for swapping in every so often.
The Denon carts are known for some really fantastic dynamics. The 301 isn't as plummy or warm as the DL103, but is more detailed. Hmmm ...
I'd give Ortofon a try. Give a try to the 2M Series.
I have heard good things regarding the AUdio Technica series - The AT150 specifically was supposed to be pretty good with dynamics.
Another possibility would be experimenting with replacement needles with the OM series (I have no idea how compatible the various higher end tips would work with an OM-5e, but if they do - you can put in nearly any tip you'd want. The OM series is under appreciated in my opinion. It's inexpensive (for the 3E and 5E) but they are pretty good.
=Signature=================
As audiophiles, we take what's obsolete, make it beautiful, and keep it forever.
Hey! I have a blog now: http://mancave-stereo.blogspot.com or "like" us at https://www.facebook.com/mancave.ster
Edits: 10/05/15
Hi John.
I agree with your reasoning ..even though my conclusions.are different. Intrinsically
i think mm are more honest but lack audiophile strengths. So good mm manufactures
tend to try and get more detail . Mc tends to be superficially better but tend to lack the homey honesty which mm ( including, believe it or not , clearaudio) gets easily. So the task for a good mc designer is to get more honesty . The lyra and ortofon people have improved the honesty of their mc offerings in last 8 years...even though they don't carry the easy grace of most mm. WHEN I Compared cartridges with singers i have heard many times live.. placido, Willie nelson, bb king .. i found the lyra titan and music maker cartridges to be closest to how I remember them. ( by the way . I dont think either of these cartridges represent mc or mm too well ) . I do think listening to sound can be misleading without a live reference.
Hearing those voices through a PA system doesn't count.In a recording studio the voices are picked up by a very good studio mic and the signal from that mic is recorded without going through a power amp or speakers.
The reference you should be looking for would be to hear placido, Willie nelson, bb king's voice live without a mic or amplifier or speakers involved.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 10/05/15 10/05/15
With all respect, Tre', that's an old debate with no winners. The vast majority of us will never hear the great singers or musicians live and direct with no amplification. Even when I go to a local jazz club, and I am sitting within 15 feet of the musicians, there is nevertheless some sort of house PA system with speakers on stage left and right. Usually I am hearing part direct live music from the musicians AND the colorations of the PA system, in unison. Anyway, I don't think most of us are in your rather unique situation as a recording engineer. So, each of us has his or her own preconceived notion of "live", which is at least in part "electronic". Thus, for me, what distinguishes a "real" sound from one that is less real is dynamics and the lack of transient distortions I associate with live auditioning.
" Intrinsically i think mm are more honest but lack audiophile strengths."
Don't take this as an attack....since I understand where you are coming from...and actually found that my lowly Stanton 681/D625E actually gives incredibly "satisfying noises" from my jazz LPs with a warm "bloom" that still "sounds" very natural. I have properly matched the loading so it is optimum with the 681 and I have a ruler flat FR up to 19kHz before the response rolls off.
However, your statement can be taken as an oxymoron when we are talking about Fidelity! By definition, "HiFi"/High Fidelity implies that the reproduction is accurate (as far as the technology allows). Therefore, surely, you can't have a transducer that is both honest but lacking in accuracy - Is it possible for a transducer that is accurate to be considered "dishonest"? ;)
From an engineering point of view, the MM cartridge has a few things working against it. One key problem is in the requirement to match the electrical resonance both in frequency and Q to give flattest response. For many designs, the electrical resonance is well within the upper presence band and this can and does colour the sound. To do this "perfectly" would require a custom phono stage input that matches both the cartridge AND the mechanical properties of the stylus assembly. In practice, you can get "near enough" "most of the time" with the adjustable phono stage inputs on some products combined with suitable cables, but the MC as a principle eliminates this aspect due to the very much lower inductance and (typically) mechanical resonance that is much higher than many MMs. However, what you gain here is lost in the requirement for higher gain and the challenge in matching SUT characteristics with the paired MM phono stage or headamp noise performance.
I read your other post where you have multiple samples of the same model and experienced different results - I have found the same. This is why I buy multiples of each stylus for my MMs to match the body.
I don't think the transducer principle has much to do with the accuracy of the reproduced sound. I think it has more to do with the ability to match to your ancillary components.
Given that many jazz LPs from the 60s had a bandwidth that only went up to 15kHz and it wasn't until the 70s that wider bandwidth recordings could be cut more easily when CD-4 was introduced and higher power cutting head amplifiers became possible, combined with half-speed mastering, I don't buy into the frequency response as being the reason why MCs sound better.
I think the real reason for MC being preferred has to be that the phase anomalies occur well outside the audio passband and the chance of colouration is less.
I have MMs (the Stanton LZS being the perfect example) that sound indistinguishable to my MCs from a technical accuracy point of view and have superb examples from each type of transducer.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Agree with much of your assessment except phase performance.
Ortofon clearly established that phase reversal occurred at mechanical resonance, not electrical. Until someone performs MEASUREMENTS with results to the contrary, I'll accept this as being true.
Regards,
neo
BIRD LIVES
Thanks for the link - the article was very interesting and I didn't know that Ortofon had done this research. It sounds rather like they were strengthening their position on MC preference though!
What I found most interesting in the article was the subjective description of the sound stage scale and depth perceptions relative to the amount of damping. The results mirror what I have observed with my various cartridges - the Stanton 681/Pickering XV15 cartridges are probably the most extreme examples in my collection being very high inductance and the mechanical resonance is well within the audio passband yet they have a very flat frequency response. When correctly loaded , what I hear with these cartridges is a very "enlarged" presentation which is not inappropriate with certain recordings. The sound is detailed, but what I notice is that the sound stage is quite flat and complex sounds get a little homogenised. I think this is consistent with what the article. With close mic'd small-group jazz records for example, or (classical) chamber groups/solo instruments, these cartridges still sound quite pleasing and I understand why they have remained so popular despite the modest price.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
If you study electrical theory, you will find that phase reversal results from electrical resonance, too. In fact, you should read Ortofon's paper entitled "A Method For Optimizing Sound Quality In Moving Coil Cartridges" presented at the 71st Convention of the Audio Engineering Society in March 1982 at Montreux. But, you also need to study electrical resonance and filter design relative to phase shift.
Good luck,
John Elison
Good luck to you also, John.
No denying electrical resonance and filters will affect phase, but have you ever measured phase vs. amplitude response in cartridges? If your results differ from Ortofon, I'd be interested in seeing them.
They state unequivocally, a phase shift approaching 180° occurs at mechanical resonance. The graphs/plots illustrate this.
Regards,
neo
BIRD LIVES
> They state unequivocally, a phase shift approaching 180° occurs at mechanical resonance.
I am not arguing against the occurrence of a mechanical resonance from cantilever elasticity and effective tip mass, but there is also an electrical resonance in all circuits containing an inductor and a capacitor. Consequently, all cartridges have an electrical resonance in addition to their mechanical cantilever resonance.
The cartridge electrical resonance is a result of the inductance of the cartridge's coils reacting with the capacitance of electrical wiring combined with added capacitive loading. In other words, all cartridges exhibit an electrical resonance when connected to a phono stage and this always results in phase reversal. The values of inductance associated with high-output moving magnet cartridges places their electrical resonance in the upper audio octave between 10-kHz and 20-kHz whereas the same electrical resonance for all low-output moving coils is always above 1-MHz, well outside the audio frequency range.
Therefore, not only do cartridge designers have to contend with the mechanical resonance of the cantilever, but they also have to contend with an electrical resonance being smack dab in the middle of the upper audible octave for MM cartridges only. They do not have to worry about the electrical resonance for low-output moving coils because it occurs above 1-MHz.
The reason original Dynavector cartridges were made with very short, fat ruby and diamond cantilevers was to move their cantilever bending resonances as far above the audible frequency range as possible. Most ordinary cartridges have their cantilever mechanical resonance right around 20-kHz or slightly above, but Dynavector made cartridges with mechanical cantilever resonances at 50-kHz and beyond. In fact, the 17D has its cantilever bending resonance at 80-kHz and the old 13D with its 1.3-mm short diamond cantilever had its cantilever bending resonance at 100-kHz. These cartridges had both their mechanical and electrical resonances so far removed from the audible frequency range that they didn't have to contend with any phase shift within audible frequencies.
Anthony,
Considering the date of this paper, I think Ortofon was supporting the MC as a superior transducer. After all they invented it and were selling higher priced MCs. Throughout the '80s the Japanese seemed to benefit the most with less expensive models becoming popular.
The contention that superior phase response is entirely responsible for superior imaging, seems to ignore the rising high end of the MC200. This might be a factor, but the description was convincing. As damping was added to an unlistenable, undamped MC, imaging suffered along with phase response. To bad they didn't name the 5 MM.
Your choice of the 681 as the other extreme of inductance, is a good one. What's the inductance > 900mH ? If a cart like this can do as well as it does, what's the potential for MM with less than half that amount?
Regards,
BIRD LIVES
John,
I'm not denying what you're saying about electrical resonance, but it's misleading to talk about phase response exclusively in electrical terms without mechanical resonance. For a MC with a 6mm boron cantilever phase shift occurs around 27KHz any way you slice it.
I know you're right about carts with extremely low tip mass or no cantilever having very high resonant frequency, but you prefer more conventional designs. The DL-S1 has an aluminum cantilever and the ART7 has a slim boron cantilever, around 6mm ? I'm not making a case for MMs and I like the DL-S1, but I don't think it's because of phase performance.
Regards,
BIRD LIVES
I find it interesting you include Placido Domingo along with Willie Nelson and BB King, although "the absolute sound" is certainly one of the most accepted references among audio enthusiasts. Unfortunately, I attend very few live concerts, but my experience with amplified concerts such as Willie Nelson and BB King is that my own stereo system always sounds more transparent and more realistic than the amplifiers and speakers used in live concerts. The only concerts I've attended that impressed me as sounding better than my own home stereo system were symphony orchestras in good concert halls.
I think the best reference with which to compare phono cartridges would be the master tape or the original master recording. After all, this is what the vinyl record is intended to reproduce. Of course, very few of us have access to that reference; I certainly don't. Therefore, like most audio enthusiasts, I select the phono cartridge that sounds best to me in my home stereo system from the limited number of cartridges available to me for audition.
I read your other post where you said you had listened to 50 MM and 50 MC cartridges in your own home system. That's impressive! I certainly don't have that level of experience and nearly all of my MM experience was in the 1960s and early 1970s. I switched to LOMC cartridges in the late 1970s, although prior to the switch I had listened to MM exclusively. When I heard my first Ortofon low-output moving coil through a MCA-76 head amp, it impressed me like no MM had ever done. That's when I switched to MC and never looked back. Of course, all the reference level phono cartridges of that time period were low-output moving coils.
Thanks again for your response.
Best regards,
John Elison
Hi John
in the beginning i tried to understand analog. But i quickly discovered
that it was much more practical to buy a bunch of tables and arms and cartridges and step ups and my phono stages. And mix and match till I got what I wanted Yeah crazy..150k++..but i stopped some time ago. I realize analog is so fickle..for example , I have heard 4 Olympus cartridges and owned one.. all 4 sounded quite different. This is just the reality of analog. It is extremely fickle and rules are made to be broken. So my experience is that everything I experience is up for grabs.
Meanwhile. ..Shakespeare plato etc were allowed to talk about other peoples motives and behavior. Not sure why you are not allowed to. And I think anybody who has heard say 5 mc and 5 mm knows the difference between the 2 camps. You don't really need to hear 50 or100 to give authority to your opinion.
Bottom line is that ..ime..mc needs a costly and involved supporting cast before it can equal
a good mm.
is an exercise in futility.
Is the 301 a better tracker than the other carts mentioned? I never owned a 301, but had a 103d, 160, 304, and a DL-S1 for a few weeks. No complaints about tracking, but I don't listen to cannon shots. Seems to me the AT/ML examples will out-track the 304 (+ 301?) and the 2M Black tracks to 80um - perhaps not the very best, but adequate?
Flood2 makes a good point about resonance, vibrations, LF interactions, etc. Without even knowing what set-up yields these odd results, and not knowing what phono stage, how can this question be answered?
I had an M20FL Super and it's one I regret selling. At the time I only had one phono stage where I could use a higher than 47K resistance value with MM gain. The M20 needs high capacitance at 47K to fill in the upper mids/treble. Otherwise it sounds distant, like you're listening from across the street. The original version of the cart came with caps mounted behind the body. Instead of using 400 to 600pF (total), I wound up with about 55K/300pF. It was still slightly laid back which I liked on many records, big bass and the highs were clear and articulate, quite enjoyable.
Some people seem to get very different results with particular carts. Even though there is some basis of commonality, phono stage differences account for much of it and when you factor in other variables.....
Most of the Signet line had no AT counterpart. If a generator was identical like a Signet 9/10 and an AT 22 - 25, the stylus/cantilever was very different. Carts like the TK5Ea, 7LCa were unique except for other TK5_ and TK7_. I'm talking about second generation Signets with the 100/120 stylus fitment. Earlier ones had round plugs like the AT20.
Clearaudio isn't stupid in selecting the AT95 as the basis for their entire MM line including Maestro. With 400mH it's a neutral sounding generator and with some modification - well you can judge for yourself.
Most of the line has an AT95 type stylus - straight alum cantilever and bonded tip @ 15cu. Unfortunately, all the replacement styli (just trim the plastic) are bonded, but with a Soundsmith level 1 or an aftermarket 95shibata or HE might make a good substitute for a 301.
Even better would be my potted 95 w/aluminum top. If an arm < 12g mass is used, a 3472 series stylus is better. It tracks max 1.6g and sounds a little more articulate. One of those could be sent to Soundsmith for an upgrade w/higher cu.
neo
BIRD LIVES
And this from someone who has such embarrassingly little experience with both types.....
Like you would know anything about my experience with phono cartridges!
How embarrassing that must be for you!
Question from me on February 4, 2006:
"You say you've owned/tried a number of mm's in your system. Which ones?"
Your answer:
"I've owned all the Shure V-15 cartridge models along with Stanton 681EE and possibly 681EEE, Pickering something-or-other, Empire 2000Z, Audio Technica AT-20SLa, and Ortofon ULM-55E as far as I can remember. I probably owned one or two others along the way. Unfortunately, I've never owned a Grado, though."
MM Cartridges I've owned:Shure V-15 Type II
Shure V-15 Type III
Shure V-15 Type IV
Shure V-15 Type V MR
Shure V-15VxMR (purchased in 2004 to find out if I still liked LOMC better)
Stanton 681EE
Stanton 681EEE
Empire 2000Z
Pickering (something or another)
Audio Technica AT-20 SLa
Ortofon ULM-55eMC Cartridges I've owned: <
Dynavector Ruby 2.5mm square cross-section cantilever (really nice cartridge)
Dynavector Ruby 2.3mm round cross-section cantilever (not quite as nice as the 2.5)
Dynavector DRT XV-1 (exhibited significant interchannel phase shift and excessive harmonic distortion)
Ortofon MC-20 with MCA-76 head amp
Ortofon MC-20 Super
Ortofon MC-100
Ortofon MC-200
Ortofon MC-2000 (the original high-compliance model; my favorite of all cartridges)
Sumiko BPS (pretty much sucked)
Audio Technica OC9 (very nice cartridge for the price)
Audio Technica OC9ML/II
Audio Technica AT33EV
Denon DL-301II (very nice cartridge for the price; also high-compliance moving coil)
Denon DL-103R
Denon DL-103SA
Denon DL-S1 (excellent cartridge, my current favorite -- second best to the Ortofon MC-2000)
I owned a number of the top-of-the-line MM cartridges in the early 1970s before discovering the superiority of low-output moving coils in 1976 with an Ortofon MC-20 and MCA-76 head amp.Best regards,
John Elison
Edits: 09/29/15
MM cartridge brands you have not owned :-
Garrott
Nagaoka
Clearaudio
Sonus
Technics
Signet
Fidelity Research
Acutex
Glanz
And what do you call top-of-the-line MM cartridges from the early 1970s?
Because none of the MMs you have listed would qualify for that description on my list...
MC brands you have not owned:-
Koetsu
Van den Hul
Lyra
Clearaudio
Zyx
Fidelity Research
Sony
MIT
Not sure how much of a difference there's been between the AT and Signet carts. And some say there's an awful lot in common with the CA and AT carts.
"Hope is a good thing. Maybe, the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."
Well if you can point to an equivalent AT to the Signet TK3E and 3Ea, TK5E and 5Ea, TK7E and 7Ea, TK7SU and TK7LCa I'd appreciate it?
And I don't mean pointing to the same generator.....I mean listening.
And just because AT makes the basic generator for many CA cartridges doesn't mean AT have an exact equivalent?
But it's strange that you don't point to any of John's entire Shure V15 catalogue as 'redundancy'...nor the two Stanton 681s or Dynavector Rubys or Ortofons or Audio Technicas or Denons......?
If it would make you feel better that I point to John's list and mention his redundancy, I'll do that. I'm on my lunch break and hhave some spare time.
The reality is that many of the Signet and AT carts were virtually identical. And I don't see how putting a wood body on an existing cart changes the fact that it's still, at it's core, what it is. If I take a Pontiac Fiero or a Chrysler LeBaron and use a kit that makes them look like a Lamborghini or a Mercedes, that doesn't mean they actually perform like those vehicles. Yes, I understand how a wood body would dampen the cart it was placed on. And I understand that the Garrott Bros. placed new styli on existing cantilevers. And I understand that there are very few cantilever manufacturers in the world.
My point is that your list is, perhaps, not as varied as it may seem. Neither's Ellisons.
"Hope is a good thing. Maybe, the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."
The basic point remains the same. John has virtually no experience with top tier mm's/mi's, whether current or past models. He doesn't have any idea what an old Grado TLZ sounded like, let alone a new Master or above. He has no experience with old top Technics mm's (kind of amusing in view of his love affair with the 1200 tt), nor the top Stantons, nor the AT ML170 (which was one of 2 *mm* carts some of the best mastering engineers in the U.S. said provided playback closest to the mic feed, NOT a mc) among many other mm's already mentioned. Considering that, it seems obvious that his pronouncements - his opinions stated as if only a deaf dolt could disagree - are based damn near entirely on measurements. If measurements are the criteria by which you judge hifi products, then you may agree with John and find it unnecessary to, ahh, LISTEN.As an aside......
I'm not sure if what you said about wood bodies was a reference to Grados or not. If so, the body material change Grado made was not the only change they made. I can tell you as someone who owned/used a TLZ for years and went to a Master, its no contest. The Master is in another league. Dunno, maybe you were referring to something like putting a different body on a Denon 103 with no other changes.
Edits: 09/30/15
I think JE has tried enough MM's to conclude reasonably that MC's sound better to him. I also understand what you mean by the way he delivers his opinions.
Yep, I meant wood bodies in general used on carts by Denon and AT. And Benz now that I think of it. They dampen the cart.
In my own experience, I have found examples of different designs that I like quite a bit. I like to think of myself as repulsed by dogmatism regarding our hobby. I don't necessarily care how a result is attained, at least at first. What counts is the result. Perhaps in time I may become curious about how that result was gotten. Carts are a funny component, and rightfully viewed with scepticism. I don't share JE's love for the DL-S1, although I do like my DL-103D quite a bit.
For the last 18 months, I've preferred my Cadenza Bronze above all comers. With my BAT VK-10SE or my Lehmann Audio Decade, the Bronze delivers a level of palpability that none, save a retipped Fidelity Research FR-1 MKIII delivers from my stable, and I own quiet a few myself.
"Hope is a good thing. Maybe, the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."
nt
Rick, you mean to say that the Master series is far superior to the TLZ? Just want to be sure. Back in the day (30 years ago or more), the TLZ was a fave of mine. I found it sounded best with a 100K load resistor, rather than 47K.
yes, IMO the Master is considerably better than the TLZ in virtually every parameter. Tracks better (haven't seen the Grado "dance" since I switched, and I had an appropriate arm tube for the TLZ), more texture/color, better bass delineation. Dunno that I'd say hf's are more extended, but cymbals do sound less hashy - ditto for high strings. I think generally speaking hf extension is neither a priority for me nor a strength of my system (spkrs. & preamp mainly), so.......Haven't heard the latest top model Grado Statement, but from everything I've read it definitely surpasses the Master. It better, considering the huge price difference.
Funny thing is, I've been so pleased with my Ortofon M20fl Super and AT ML170 carts that though my Master needs a retip I've had it sitting in its box ready to be sent to Grado for around a year and a half. I still haven't even tried the NOS Astatic MF-200 I bought almost 2 years ago.
Bear in mind, I have one tt and one arm, and I hate changing/adjusting carts. To me its a real PITA. If I'm enjoying the sound of whatever cart I have on, I tend to just leave it on until it needs a new stylus. Hopefully this rap will spur me to finally send the Master in and check out the Acutex.
Edits: 09/30/15
I really liked my TLZ back in the day (when I thought it was normal to own only one tt, one tonearm, and one cartridge at a time), but I did not care for any of the lesser models Grado marketed in that same time frame (e.g., the MCZ sounded dull and rolled off to my ears). But I still own that very same TLZ, and now it does not compete with the best of the MM/MI cartridges that occupy me. I thought it might be due to aging of the suspension, but maybe it's simply that the Stanton 980LZS, Acutex, Grace, etc, are just better than the TLZ. FWIW, I have two Ortofon M20FL Super samples and have auditioned one of them; in my system it is not even close to the Stanton/Acutex/Grace. I've been meaning to sell both samples. Different strokes...
I might try a Grado Master or Statement some time. Thanks.
Dunno if it has anything to do with being a musician, but it seems that I'm more easily satisfied than many inmates, certainly including you, Lew.
Hopefully I'll enjoy the Acutex I have more than the Ortofon - though I don't believe the MF200 is a model up to the level of your Acutex. I do know that both my Master and AT ML170 are better than the Ort. Nevertheless, for me the M20fl is definitely satisfying.
But as you said, different strokes. I suspect you'd relegate my entire system to your garage, or give it away to a needy friend :-)
As a musician myself I would agree - I'm more interested in the music itself than whether I can hear fingers on strings or "someone coughing in the background with startling realism".
Some of my favourite records are absolutely appalling recordings (such as a bootleg recording made from a tape recorded off the radio of Stan Getz). I can't tell you how many times that CD got played as I tried to work out his solos! Having the music to listen to is worth more to me than a good recording.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Please forgive me if I offended you in any way. I was just pointing out, with respect to the MM vs MC brouhaha that is going on around us, that tastes differ, and that's fine with me. Lots of others with fancy gear like the M20FL Super better than I. And I don't look down on them or you for liking it; in fact your positive testimony makes me wonder whether I used the wrong tonearm or otherwise set it up incorrectly. This exchange started with your statement that the Grado Master is superior to the TLZ, which was a one time preference of mine, after all. (One of the reasons I felt free to mention that the M20FL Super did not perform up to top level in my system, always "in my system".)
Although I am not a professional musician, I do occasionally perform locally as a singer, and I attend live music presentations (usually jazz) at least twice a month. If anything, this exposure makes me more demanding as an audiophile, or rather to say it frames my opinions.
I was just being sincere. I really do think I'm less demanding - for lack of a better word - than quite a few AA inmates, including you. I wouldn't even describe myself as an audiophile compared to lottsa hifi enthusiasts. Whereas many AA inmates and audiophiles *enjoy* the quest for better playback sound, I actually dread expending the time/effort to audition stuff. Guess its a combination of laziness and not being bugged about my playback most of the time when I listen to music. Actually I really enjoy the sound I'm getting despite hearing its flaws and being able to afford better.
I've been thinking about upgrading at least my pre for a long time but haven't gotten off my ass to audition anything. My amp's electrolytic caps are waaaay past replacement time, yet I've done zilch except make a call to Steve McCormack which I haven't followed up on. The tech I like and use - Ben Jacoby in Brooklyn - has convinced me I should check out SET before I do anything, yet I still haven't heard a single SET setup.
So no, Lew, absolutely no offense taken.
I have read in many instances about guys who play in big bands and/or orchestras, that they are not fussy at all when it comes to home audio. I get that. In the end, I'm happy listening to the "Real Jazz" station on Sirius FM, in my car on the way to and from work, but I admit that at home I am a freak. My wife is so tolerant of my audio "stuff" that I sometimes wonder whether she is of this earth.
to add to any list of top drawer MM cartridges for the cognoscenti.
I wouldn't waste my money on any of the brands in your MC list and it's my opinion that a Denon DL-S1 is far superior to any of the cartridges in your MM list, so what's your point?
To each his own!
Wait a minute John , no Grado! you should be ashamed of yourself..... :)
Everyone is entitled to his opinion and that's what Forums like this are for.
But when you make a general ill-informed statement implicitly denigrating others who do not hold with your opinion.....you open yourself to examination of the myopic and limited experiences which have helped you form that opinion.
That's my point!
This subject has come up many times and John just repeats the same shit.
Over the years I've evolved from being annoyed about John's unfortunate trait of stating his relatively uninformed opinions on the mm vs. mc thing as if they were facts to enjoying the humorous aspects of it. John would have been perfect as a character on Seinfeld :-)
Where do you get this stuff?
"If people don't want to come, nothing will stop them" - Sol Hurok
I like my Stanton WOS CS100 very much (newly re-tipped by Extert Stylus). My Magnepan Unitrac arm really enables it to deliver its best.
But I also have a Benz LP (the original one) ... I'm not sure that it actually produces a better sound! :-)) (And, yes, it has had several retips over the years! ;-)) )
Regards,
Andy
> Where do you get this stuff?
It just comes to me. How about you?
I try not to make up stuff out of thin air.
"If people don't want to come, nothing will stop them" - Sol Hurok
You must obviously have a different opinion. That's okay! You are allowed your own opinion. It's really not a problem. However, I am also allowed my opinion and I don't believe there is a single person on this forum who has compared the sound of MM cartridges until they found one that sounds like a Denon DL-301II. Of course, I could be wrong. Anything's possible. ;-)
Only LOMC currently in my "stable" is the selfsame Denon DL 301 II. I also have a Soundsmith Zephyr, Grace F9E, and Shure/Jico V15VxMR -- all MM/MI types -- on separate JMW armtubes, and 3 more on SME III armtubes. if I want to hear any "real" LOMCs I can always visit my audiobuddies. But I haven't heard one I like well enough to buy. And it ain't the money :-)
Hi Dave,
I'm so happy you are enjoying your high-output cartridges. I know what you mean about the DL-301II. I moved on from that one many years ago.
Of course, you have to have a topnotch phono stage for low-output cartridges. I also discovered that many years ago. Otherwise, you can't appreciate the superior sound quality of low-output moving coils.
Best regards,
John Elison
Yeah, John, my Aesthetix Rhea phonostage is such a loser. A mere 10 tubes, 3 inputs adjustable from the remote, only $4K or so, don't know why I've hung on to it for so many years, Or the Aesthetix Calypso it plays into :-)
Well, you also have to have a topnotch cartridge. Your DL-301II is not exactly state-of-the-art. Try a Denon DL-S1 or an Audio Technica ART7. These are two of the very best low-output moving coils available. I have a friend with a VPI HRX turntable with 12-inch 3D tonearm and an ART7 cartridge. He uses an E.A.R. 864 phono preamp and his system is one of the best sounding vinyl rigs I've ever heard. He also owns a DL-S1 cartridge as do I, and that one sounds awfully good, too.
Since money is no object for you, why don't you buy both of those cartridges and see if they don't change your mind about low-output moving coils.
Best regards,
John Elison
But thanks anyway.
This is an interesting exchange. I wish I could offer a resolution to the argument, but can't. My phono stage is a cj TEA2max (i.e. meets John's criteria for electronics), and I have a Cadenza Black, which I hope all will agree is a very good LOMC cartridge; and Shure V15mr, 2M Black, and AT150ANV, which I hope all will agree are all very good MM cartridges. I love 'em all. And every one of them has strengths and weaknesses.
And out of yur MM/MIs, which one would you say sounds closest to your Denon?
I wish I had a good answer. All of them appeal to me and I take turn playing favorites. The MI Soundsmith Zephyr is currently top dog but it won't be long before I have a hankering to hear the others, all of which sound more alike than different to me. They sound like music, unlike the typical LOMC that sounds to me like ... sound. All that detail ... yuck.
Need I say to the LOMC fanciers, YMMV/IMHO, etc., etc.
Oh, I agree with your new reply.
It's just not what you wrote in your original reply.
I don't see data to support the notion that MM users don't have any experience with LOMC. It's certainly not true of me.
Cheers!
"If people don't want to come, nothing will stop them" - Sol Hurok
Maybe you're the only one! ;-)
Don't get your feathers ruffled.
Feathers in fine shape, thank you.
Wanna bet I'm not the only one?
"If people don't want to come, nothing will stop them" - Sol Hurok
> Wanna bet I'm not the only one?
No! I'll take your word for it. ;-)
Who authorized you to be the spokesperson for moving coil owners? Speak for yourself.
FWIW, my experience over decades parallels John's. I.e., I have found LOMCs, as a group, to sound better than HOMCs, MMs, MIs, and (one only) Strain Gauge. To be sure, "good" and "bad" exemplars presented themselves in all groups, and my comment should be taken as my generalization only.
I have not tried to trace my observation to inductance (or other parameter), but I have no reason to doubt John's suggested correlation either.
Jeremy
I always speak for myself. I answered Garven 's question to the best of my ability. I seriously doubt there is anyone in this forum who has compared one MM cartridge after another until they've found one that they believe sounds similar to the Denon DL-301II. I certainly could be wrong, though. ;-)
Best regards,
John Elison
So in your post you were using the royal "we"?
Actually my Shure V15V with JICO SAS VN5MR-HG is tonally very similar (loaded at 47k, 150pF) to my DL301/II (loaded with 400ohms)*. My experiments showed that the response curve was insensitive to changes in load capacitance <250pF.
Tracking ability is superior to the DL301 and tracing superior with the MicroLine stylus.
*At the end of the day, there are so many variables involved, that comments about equivalency are limited to a given users system.
As a point of discussion, would you think that the transducer principle is the key determinant on perceived tonal balance or less significant compared to the mechanical interactions of arm mass, stylus alignment etc?
I certainly hear differences between my cartridges (both MM and MC), but I have Stanton/Pickering low impedance bodies that perform equivalently to MCs in terms of frequency response and transparency combined with superior tracking ability.
My personal view is that the perceived tonal benefits are largely related to the mechanical interactions of the suspension and damping with the arm and plinth vibration modes with additional effects of LF modulation being to add colouration. I'm personally not convinced that the transducer principle of itself is such a significant parameter. If one chooses to use a SUT to match the MC cartridge output impedance, then there is yet another reason why tonal perceptions are unlikely to be defined by the transducer principle.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
I think the transducer principle is a key ingredient to better sound only from the standpoint of reducing inductance. However, the only way to reduce inductance enough while maintaining viable voltage output is to use a large powerful magnet with a low inductance coil. The moving coil principle seems to be the most expedient way to achieve this end.
The cartridges I find most pleasing have always been ultra low-output moving coils with the lowest possible inductance. I've owned only two, the original Ortofon MC-2000 and my present Denon DL-S1. I have heard high-resolution digital recordings from the new Audio Technica ART7 and it sounds like an exceptional cartridge, too. These types of cartridges have ultra low inductance. For example, the Audio Technica ART7 has coil inductance of only 8-microhenrys. A normal low-output moving coil like the AT-OC9/III has coil inductance of 25-microhenrys, which is three times greater.
I certainly agree with you that arm mass, compliance and stylus alignment are also important considerations. However, most modern cartridges seem to work reasonably well with most modern tonearms.
Best regards,
John Elison
No need to get dismissive John. I've read enough in the turntable forums online over the years to know there are those who consider MMs to be superior to MCs. Obviously you don't agree, and that's certainly your right, but your message comes across almost as if you feel anyone running a MM cartridge is an imbecile!
To John's other point, is the DL301 MkII no longer available? (I'm just wondering why you are asking for a cartridge that "sounds like" the DL301 MkII, rather than aiming to buy another sample of the same cartridge. Possibly you want to experience a subtle variation on that theme.)
No it's still available from online dealers. I'm mostly curious to get some thoughts on MMs that have a similar sound or "voicing." I don't think it's necessarily an MC thing. The only MC I've owned is an AT-OC9MLII, which sounded very much like the AT150MLX MM I had about 7 years ago. both my ATs were brighter than I liked, with a metallic sort of quality to the highs that I found fatiguing (even after I tweaked the loading resistance and capacitance in the case of the 150MLX). All three Ortofons I've owned (OM20, 2M Bronze, 2M Black) seemed a bit brash in one way or another and none of them tracked sibilants as well as the Denon To be fair, when I owned the OM20, I wasn't meticulous about alignment and only used that dinky cardboard protractor that comes with Pro-Ject turntables and doesn't seem to match any alignment known to mankind!
Garvin....if the Ortofon Black didn't track well, you set it up wrong...or have it in a poor arm. I know the Black and although it has some faults, poor tracking isn't one of them.
I've no experience with those particular Ortofon models, but the ones I have heard in my own system (MC7500 and MC2000) tend to be quite neutral, not at all "brash". The Nagaoka mentioned by daleda does indeed get a lot of favorable mention. Don't know whether it sounds like your Denon, but by all accounts it sounds "good". In guessing what low cost MM might sound like your Denon, I also think of certain Grado models or even a low cost SoundSmith MI type, which might in fact be superior. My own bias is that both LOMCs and MMs are preferable to an HOMC, as a class, but that's just me.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: