Experimenting with cartridges could get very expensive hence I am drawing on others experience. I am just wondering what more I could get out of my system without throwing a fortune at it.
I wouldn't want to spend a chunk of money simply to step sideways.
I would audition a London Decca cartridge first as it falls into the category--"love it ! /hate it ! " , every reverberation of a guitar string plucked is heard --minute detail is picked up -some say it equals (or betters ) many MC,s BUT it is not without its faults, if you can live with them then you will be very happy --if not ?
Recommended arm effective mass =8-10g.
BUT --LF resonance rise,12.5g arm(vert,lat ) -both very severe.
Then you have the Australian Garrott Brothers version.
The Grace F9 (E) gets a "Recommended " but again has its faults .
I have info on various MC,s particularly those used by Linn and some others.
I built an adjustable gain preamp using a basic ( chip-swap-able. ) JLH design for both MM & MC --no big deal but I separated the power supply as you would in expensive monoblock power amps.
I should have added the preamps are separate full monoblock as are the power supplies.
Recommended arm effective mass =8-10g.
BUT --LF resonance rise,12.5g arm(vert,lat ) -both very severe.
Then you have the Australian Garrott Brothers version.
The Grace F9 (E) gets a "Recommended " but again has its faults .
I have info on various MC,s particularly those used by Linn and some others.
I built an adjustable gain preamp using a basic ( chip-swap-able. ) JLH design for both MM & MC --no big deal but I separated the power supply as you would in expensive monoblock power amps.
I should have added the preamps are separate full monoblock as are the power supplies.
Last edited:
As a long-time sales and servicer of consumer audio and video, I've had the pleasure of auditioning plenty of equipment through the decades.
The general public obviously doesn't have the same resources available to them.
I can visualize a gathering, perhaps a dinner party/listening situation, and that MC stylus goes south...
"Oh crap, the needle's gone!..... well folks, time to send it out for replacement, hurry up and finish your wine and go back home - come back in a week or two when I get a new needle, to finish the party"
That doesn't happen if the owner could replace the stylus with a spare on hand, does it?
What I found was some ideal cartridge/turntable combinations through the years, one being my own (at the time-1974) Dual 1229, with the Shure V15 Type 2 Improved cartridge.
My ears at the time confirmed what various audio magazines and reviewers stated.... that it was one helluva combination.
Alas, those days have passed, and since Shure and others have bowed out of the stylus replacement business, only after-market stuff is available.
Now mind you, I'm not against anyone's choice of cartridges or styli, but I have my own preferences.
And hearing multitudes of cartridges, including MC stuff, I concluded that it's not all that cracked up and hyped to be worth my investment for MC listening.
Besides, LP's are inherently limited in quality anyway, particularly many of today's offerings.
Controlling resonance in the tonearm will give you a far bigger step up in performance than replacing the cartridge. You don't say what arm is on your LP12 and you already have a very good cartridge.
I have been experimenting with tonearms for a while now mainly linear trackers but I decided to experiment with my Technics EPA100 and just replacing the counter weight with one I made that the stub is brass and everything fits together snugly and the CW is locked so it can't resonate made a HUGE improvement in sound as did adding viscous damping.
With an LP12 I would look at the following areas.
Subchassis the original one rings like a bell and the arm board is attached with inadequately small screws. Make a new arm board from acrylic and laminate it, you can glue it with 5min epoxy. Then bolt this to the subchassis and damp the subchassis with that butyl car sound deadener.
Use the same deadener to damp the top plate and base.
OP:
I had Shure V-15 Type III at the same time as the Stanton 881 S and I agree with whoever mentioned "rubbery" basses on the Shure. I always preferred ST, but today, with the disappearance of these two brands, on a low mass arm, I would try a high output MC. That said, I have never been able to listen to them, but I would lean towards an Ortofón model. I currently have the Red model, and I am amazed at its great sound quality for so little money, being the smallest model in the entire MM line, I suppose that an MC should deliver something more, and with the high output ones you do not need a special preamplifier or high mass arms.
Too bad Nedle Doctor closed ....... it was a good place to explore which capsules are available and at what costs. I assume you have already done this query in Vinyl Engine
Vinyl Engine | The Home of the Turntable
I had Shure V-15 Type III at the same time as the Stanton 881 S and I agree with whoever mentioned "rubbery" basses on the Shure. I always preferred ST, but today, with the disappearance of these two brands, on a low mass arm, I would try a high output MC. That said, I have never been able to listen to them, but I would lean towards an Ortofón model. I currently have the Red model, and I am amazed at its great sound quality for so little money, being the smallest model in the entire MM line, I suppose that an MC should deliver something more, and with the high output ones you do not need a special preamplifier or high mass arms.
Too bad Nedle Doctor closed ....... it was a good place to explore which capsules are available and at what costs. I assume you have already done this query in Vinyl Engine
Vinyl Engine | The Home of the Turntable
They did they best they could, but if you look at what B&K were doing in the 1970s you realise that the magazine measurements were often either wrong or woefully inadequate. And then the readership changed to be less technical. When the first round of technical reviewers like John Crabbe retired the rot had already set in and people were writing essays about their cat rather than actually reviewing things.
Ironically the 21st century has given us all the tools to do a much better job of measuring using just a laptop.
Wise of you. I failed to follow that advice
. I don't buy new these days though as I have no fear of getting things retipped. Purely personally I think the best cartridges were made in the 1975-1985 period so I have a small collection from that period. I went as far as also getting an ultralow mass SME3009 S3 to give the MMs a better chance, but ended up selling that due to shortage of time. I can't recommend anything, but my MM favourites are:
Audio Technica AT-22
Technics EPC-205CIIL
Denon DL-109
AT150MLx
But I should note that all bar one of these was chosen out of curiousity rather than anything else and I always keep one TT with an MM and one with an MC to be contrary.
If buying new I would say Audio Technica is a good starting point IF your phono stage has a low enough capacitance.
Probably outside of the OP's price range/comfort zone. I'd look around for an OM30 "super". A friend here had one, and it's quite a decent sounding cartridge, and would work well on the light Project arm.
jeff
I have most top-of-the line MM cartridges, and would place them in the following order:
1. Pickering XSV7500.
2. Stanton 881S
3. Shure V15VXMR
4. AT160ML
5. ADC XTIII
6. Ortofon OM40.
All these cartridges have line contact styli that require careful vertical tracking adjustment. I am very partial to Stanton/Pickering, both low output MM. There is some rightfulness about their sound. Stanton line have differential magnetic system providing best channel separation in class. Other cartridges are very nice too, I could live with every one of them, they may have their appeal for different tastes.
I also play 78 rpm, and for that my favorite is Fluxvalve, followed by Pickering V15. Excellent magnetics allow almost complete cancelling of the vertical component.
Btw, I once tried Jico SAS with my Shure V15 Type III, and it was no match to the original Shure stylus.
1. Pickering XSV7500.
2. Stanton 881S
3. Shure V15VXMR
4. AT160ML
5. ADC XTIII
6. Ortofon OM40.
All these cartridges have line contact styli that require careful vertical tracking adjustment. I am very partial to Stanton/Pickering, both low output MM. There is some rightfulness about their sound. Stanton line have differential magnetic system providing best channel separation in class. Other cartridges are very nice too, I could live with every one of them, they may have their appeal for different tastes.
I also play 78 rpm, and for that my favorite is Fluxvalve, followed by Pickering V15. Excellent magnetics allow almost complete cancelling of the vertical component.
Btw, I once tried Jico SAS with my Shure V15 Type III, and it was no match to the original Shure stylus.
Last edited:
If you are recommending the OM30 I hope the new model is an improvement as trouble was encountered as the theoretical ideal effective arm mass is down around --5g otherwise its quoted as "reasonable sounding " ----but the high compliance ?--has the "super " sorted that ?
The 2M black is one of the current crop but are they a step up from the Shure? Anyone moved from one to the other?
The arm is a Project carbon (9 if I recall).
I think a few Linn fans would disagree on attempting to dampen the structure. I agree the standard arm board screws are small. Mine has been improved there.
I was lucky enough to own two Stanton 881 S, and I still use one for some LP's that can't be fairly considered "mint". Stanton accompanied each capsule with a primer made with the individual specs of each product and signed by the operator who gave it the final OK.
It was a great cartridge. Very flat response, very faithful to the original recording. Ideal for classical music or instrumental music, not electronic.
I would like to get some original needle, but that is impossible nowadays.
Do you know if Jico makes picks for the 881 S? And if so, any comments on how the set behaves with the non-original needle?
ST used picks with "Nude Stereohedron" carving, perhaps it was a carving difficult to copy or impractical by Jico