Phono cartridges

2»

Comments

  • SCompRacer
    SCompRacer Posts: 8,350
    jdjohn wrote: »
    Do you really want to count that 1997 change? :# Leave that out, and we're back to 35 yrs. :p Anyway, I would call those improvements in stylus design, not moving magnet cartridge design. But IMO, stylus design/construction is more important, and makes a bigger difference, than the cartridge in most cases. That's why OEM replacement styli cost over half (usually two-thirds) the amount of a total cart/stylus combo replacement.

    MHardy mentioned several models that have been in production for a looong time, basically unchanged.

    I was on the M97xE bashing bandwagon awhile, but I found that with better supporting electronics, it sounded better. I think for folks just starting (or getting back into) vinyl with entry-level equipment, the M97xE is pretty boring. The Audio Technicas and Ortofons are more impactful and make a bigger difference in sound using basic gear IME. Now, whether said impact is for the better - mhardy called it 'lively' - is up to the listener.

    Yes, I do count that change. You dismiss external changes that make improvements and still hold on to your absolute? And I will argue that with Mark too so quit using him to support your point.

    Have you followed what AT has done with some of their MC cartridges? You acknowledge better electronics improve the sound of your precious MM cartridges. Maybe you should have applied that concept to MC cartridges. Like good quality tonearms, SUT’s used with high quality MM phono stages. I’m not talking about insane dollars spent either.

    Ever hear of Acutex? I have some of their highly acclaimed MM cartridges. Do some research if you’ve never heard of them. There is a pic around here of one on my DIY Lenco before it was externally finished. Compared to my AT33PTG/II, the highly acclaimed Acutex MM is just a clumsy tool. Same air bearing tone arm and electronics, minus SUT of course, was used. Bass, mids and frequency extension are much better with the MC. I’m talking deep bass too, like pipe organ and even dubstep.

    So enjoy your absolute, I don’t subscribe, share or believe it.
    Salk SoundScape 8's * Audio Research Reference 3 * Bottlehead Eros Phono * Park's Audio Budgie SUT * Krell KSA-250 * Harmonic Technology Pro 9+ * Signature Series Sonore Music Server w/Deux PS * Roon * Gustard R26 DAC / Singxer SU-6 DDC * Heavy Plinth Lenco L75 Idler Drive * AA MG-1 Linear Air Bearing Arm * AT33PTG/II & Denon 103R * Richard Gray 600S * NHT B-12d subs * GIK Acoustic Treatments * Sennheiser HD650 *
  • jdjohn
    jdjohn Posts: 2,987
    SCompRacer wrote: »
    jdjohn wrote: »
    Do you really want to count that 1997 change? :# Leave that out, and we're back to 35 yrs. :p Anyway, I would call those improvements in stylus design, not moving magnet cartridge design. But IMO, stylus design/construction is more important, and makes a bigger difference, than the cartridge in most cases. That's why OEM replacement styli cost over half (usually two-thirds) the amount of a total cart/stylus combo replacement.

    MHardy mentioned several models that have been in production for a looong time, basically unchanged.

    I was on the M97xE bashing bandwagon awhile, but I found that with better supporting electronics, it sounded better. I think for folks just starting (or getting back into) vinyl with entry-level equipment, the M97xE is pretty boring. The Audio Technicas and Ortofons are more impactful and make a bigger difference in sound using basic gear IME. Now, whether said impact is for the better - mhardy called it 'lively' - is up to the listener.

    Yes, I do count that change. You dismiss external changes that make improvements and still hold on to your absolute? And I will argue that with Mark too so quit using him to support your point.

    Have you followed what AT has done with some of their MC cartridges? You acknowledge better electronics improve the sound of your precious MM cartridges. Maybe you should have applied that concept to MC cartridges. Like good quality tonearms, SUT’s used with high quality MM phono stages. I’m not talking about insane dollars spent either.

    Ever hear of Acutex? I have some of their highly acclaimed MM cartridges. Do some research if you’ve never heard of them. There is a pic around here of one on my DIY Lenco before it was externally finished. Compared to my AT33PTG/II, the highly acclaimed Acutex MM is just a clumsy tool. Same air bearing tone arm and electronics, minus SUT of course, was used. Bass, mids and frequency extension are much better with the MC. I’m talking deep bass too, like pipe organ and even dubstep.

    So enjoy your absolute, I don’t subscribe, share or believe it.
    Apparently it was not clear that my comments were limited to MM design, but that's what I was doing because your example was very specific to Shure's V15 line. Absolutely, the 'external change' of stylus design has contributed to significant advancements in sound. But the design of the MM generator 'internal' to the cartridge did not change...at least not by the descriptions you provided. And that was my whole point - MM generator technology has not changed appreciably, although stylus design/construction has. But even having said that, your example of the V15 shows how beryllium cantilevers and micro-ridge diamond shapes were being used in 1983 by Shure, so have we really progressed very much in 35 years? AT's current flagship MM designs are back to using aluminum cantilevers.

    MCs are a different ballgame. It appears by your 'precious MM cartridge' remark, your assumption is that I don't own any MC carts, nor an SUT. BAD assumption.
    "This may not matter to you, but it does to me for various reasons, many of them illogical or irrational, but the vinyl hobby is not really logical or rational..." - member on Vinyl Engine
    "Sometimes I do what I want to do. The rest of the time, I do what I have to." - Cicero, in Gladiator
    Regarding collectibles: "It's not who gets it. It's who gets stuck with it." - Jimmy Fallon