|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
150.148.14.3
In Reply to: RE: Another parameter,... posted by John Elison on December 29, 2016 at 10:37:23
I certainly did not mean to imply that LOMC cartridges cannot be made to be high in compliance. Perhaps my choice of words might lead you to think so, for which I apologize. But the fact is that most LOMC cartridges are low to very low in compliance. You and I agree on the ART7 and on the Ortofon MC2000, as exceptions to the rule, with relatively high compliance. I own one of each, and I like them both very much. I have no doubt that the Denon DLS1 also has its virtues. My point was that on average, MM cartridges are higher to much higher in compliance than the typical LOMC. Perhaps you don't agree. At any rate, I attribute the superior capability of the better MM and MI cartridges to reproduce accurately the sounds of a piano (attack, timbre, and decay) to their higher compliance. In so doing, perhaps I am committing the typical audiophile sin of confusing correlation with cause and effect. I admit that's possible.
Follow Ups:
Is your AT-ART7 also high-compliance? Mine has a resonance frequency in-between 6 and 7-Hz in my 10.5-gram SME V. It is specified to have compliance of 10-cu at 100-Hz, which would be medium compliance, but both of the ones I bought were high-compliance cartridges.
On the other hand, the new AT-ART9 and the new AT-OC9/III are both specified as high-compliance cartridges with 18-cu at 100-Hz. The general rule-of-thumb is to double that for compliance at 10-Hz.
Maybe I should buy a MM cartridge. What would you recommend? I was thinking that an Audio Technica AT150MLX might be a good one. It is specified as medium-compliance with a rated output of 4.0-mV. What do you think? Is there a better one you would recommend?
Thanks,
John Elison
My inclination would be to find a Grace F9E or Ruby in good physical condition, if for a reasonable price, and then have it re-tipped by Sound Smith with their top of the line OCL stylus/ruby cantilever. SS sort of specializes in the Grace Ruby re-tip, as well as in B&O cartridge restoration. (Which makes B&O top of the line models, MMC1, MMC2, MM20CL, also appealing.)
About 5 years ago, I got a Grace Ruby off eBay with no cantilever at all; it was totally missing, but the body was "like new". I sent that off to SS. At that point in time, I also owned a functional Grace Ruby with its original stylus, which I liked very much. I had hopes that the re-tip would sound as good, but in fact the re-tip is significantly better. It took about 20-30 hours to get there, but at that point it really bloomed. I keep thinking I should send my old Ruby to SS for the same treatment, while we are still lucky enough to have Peter Ledermann around. There's a bunch of other vintage MM and MI cartridges to love, but I realize that finding them in good condition is a crap shoot that not everyone wants to engage in.
All of my MM cartridges are vintage, so I don't know much about the current crop, except that Nagaoka, AT, Ortofon, and a few others get good reviews. I used to like my Grado TLZ quite a bit, but not all Grado's have the same "house sound" in my experience. I don't know which of their modern products would sound like a TLZ.
The 150MLX is not worth the current asking price. The specifications have shifted from the original and the current model doesn't have the same extended response as the original release from a few years ago -I have the latest version plus a few of the original styli so I have compared them.
Wait for the new VM540ML. The 740ML uses the same stylus assembly but in the gold coloured aluminium block of the current 150MLX. Not worth the extra IMO.
Alternatively go for the VM760SLC which has the same stylus as your ART7 if you want to compare. All the new MMs have a tapered aluminium cantilever - no exotic materials used anymore it would seem.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
You are talking about the replacement for the AT150MLX, right? The 150MLX is now discontinued.
I have one that I bought about 6 years ago that has the gold plated boron cantilever and microridge stylus. The current model has an aluminum pipe and a shibata stylus.
"The current model has an aluminum pipe and a shibata stylus."
That's the 150Sa which is a different model to the 150MLX.
I have original 150MLX styli and a new 150MLX which was made sometime after the 150ANV was released. The ATN150MLX stylus is the official replacement for the ANV.
Have a look at the instruction manual on the vinylengine for the ANV and look at the frequency response curve (and the spec) and compare to your original manual. The original 150MLX is quoted to extend to 30kHz. The new one (which I have) matches the curve for the ANV (with the sharp rise to peak at 18kHz) and the spec is only to 23kHz (matching the ANV). The VTF range for the ANV sets the nominal at 1.5g (1.3 to 1.8g). My 150MLX still quotes the original range from 0.75 to 1.75g but requires 1.5g to track up to 70um whereas the originals track 80um at 1.2g. I therefore conclude that my 150MLX was made post 150ANV with a stylus that could be used in the ANV to match the new specifications.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Hi John
These are the new AT MM range that Manfred was telling me about in another thread.
They appear to have standardised on one generator which now has a 460mH coil inductance and 800ohm DC resistance.
They also have a 78rpm model and a (internally strapped) mono cartridge.
You can move up and down the series simply by changing the stylus.
Here is the English page:
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Thanks, Anthony!
I wouldn't mind trying the Audio Technica VM760SLC . It appears to have an aluminum cantilever but I can't read Japanese. I wonder where I can buy one?
Best regards,
John Elison
John: You'll probably still have to wait a little, as that "new" VM5x0/6x0/7x0 family is just being introduced. I'd expect AT to show these at the CES (provided they have a booth there, of course, but I'd assume 'em to...), but I'd guess actual availability might take a couple of weeks more...
I wonder, why you'd want to go for the VM760SLC, though - because personally I wouldn't feel inclined to grab what would seem an only moderately sharp Ogura Vital over the slightly sharper Shibata and way sharper MicroLine (with those two also sporting a way larger major radius), if that's the by far most expensive option. I.e., so far the VM760SLC would rather seem to be the least attractive of the top models in terms of price-performance, unless AT would come up with a yet unknown, but good technical point (like for example a significantly more miniaturised shank).
Oh, and what hasn't been mentioned yet: Seems like AT would want to save a little on the accessories - 'cause the depicted lead wires don't seem to be the usual AT6101 PC-OCC leads anymore... *sigh*
Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini
Yes, I don't get the model positioning vs tip cut either. The larger scanning radius of the SLC would give it the lowest bandwidth of all three LC designs especially on the inner grooves. From reading between the lines in the brochure, they sort of imply that the SLC has the lowest tip mass of the line contact offerings. I wonder if this is why the claimed bandwidth of the 760 extends to 30kHz vs 27kHz. Perhaps the HF tracking ability is better.
For me personally, you would probably have seen me write many times that the Shibata would be my least preferred option (I dislike the complication of the curved scanning line and the effect on IMD if the tip is not in perfect alignment) and the price premium is ridiculous over the ML tip. Given the technical performance and tip life, I would choose the ML over the others all day long. I was interested to note that the AT brochure published the tip dimension of the ML and puts the bearing radius at 56um which is at the lower end of the patent disclosure and noticeably shorter than the JICO SAS which is ostensibly the same design but with a 70 to 80um bearing radius which in theory should have a lower Indentation Factor (to borrow Shure's term!). The SLC tip is the same on the ART7 so I figure that if John's aim is to compare a "Top grade" MM with a similarly "Top grade" MC then the 760 would be a good option.
However, the voicing differences that AT have with their MMs and MCs are what I think spoil the experiment.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
It is interesting that AT have such a disparity in the sonic characteristics of their MM vs. their MC lines isn't it? I have always liked the sound of their MC cartridges, even their least expensive ones. Their MM cartridges have always disappointed me. By contrast, Ortofon has a much more consistent sound signature. At the moment I own a 2M Black, A 2M Mono SE, a Cadenza Black and a recently acquired Winfeld. There is a definite family resemblance and all are quite satisfactory. Unfortunately they get better the higher up the line you go. Your comments about stylus alignment are also right on the money, the simpler ML is also my preference, although if care is taken with setup the Shibata, other than being more difficult to get right, is quite satisfactory. If the stylus is askew too much, though, irrespective of geometry I would rather have a conical. This follows a bias for the KISS Principle.
I think it is quite deliberate that AT have distinct voicings for the MM and MC ranges. All manufacturers know how to achieve flat response with an MM and given the consistent "hump" around 12 KHz irrespective of cartridge inductance, I'm sure that AT have done this very deliberately. The question is why?
Perhaps it is simply to draw a point of difference compared to other manufacturers. For example, Stanton 681 users may be looking for something that sounds "more exciting" with better clarity and so will be drawn to the AT. Certainly for the average user who has a phono stage with a fixed 47k load, the 681 would have a very recessed top end. I load mine at 68k which pulls up the response at 10 to 11kHz to give a ruler flat response. However, in the absence of load adjustment, a "disappointed" 681 user would get an instant "fix" by using an AT instead!
Whereas MC is targeted at the audiophile who is more focussed on neutrality and accuracy thus dictating the cartridge to be engineered to compete with other manufacturers using those metrics.
I don't know...maybe I'm way off!
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
I had to think about this before responding. Your's is a thought provoking post. First of all I don't think you are off base at all. I just hadn't thought about these issues before and certainly not in the same way as you. My phono stage is the very excellent Conrad Johnson TEA2MAX, which is set at 47K ohms. It can be changed, but after messing around with the dip switches for a while, I decided that 47k ohms works well for the majority of the cartridges I have tried. Way back in time I was going back and forth between 681EE and Shure V15-III. Speakers were Bozak Concert Grands and I do recall adding resistance for the 681EE. Preamp back then was an Audio Research SP3. Again you and I seem to be on parallel tracks. Interesting. Yesterday I was listening to Ella and Duke on the Cote D'Azure with my 2M Black and just for the hell of it threw in the AT150ANV mostly prompted by the musings here. Suddenly it sounded like Ella had a cold. I think your observations help explain why.
Thanks,
Bill
Thanks, Anthony:
Who makes these other cartridges you are recommending? I have always liked tapered aluminum cantilevers. Can you provide a URL to any of these cartridges?
Thanks again!
John Elison
Ooops sorry I replied to myself....
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
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: