Shure SC35C... Highly recommended

[dlaloum]

The SC35C has the exact same inductance specification as the V15VxMR

The M70BX has the same inductance as the M97xE

Both get excellent results with the SAS - but as can also be seen on that Shure spec sheet -the differing bodies require differing loading... and with the SAS thrown in, achieving a neutral tone might require some work with the loading.

[Doubleplay]

Hmm i may be nitpicking, but the M70BX has 600 mH, and the M97xE has 650 mH. So not the same generator.

[dlaloum]

There are variances of over 10% within a particular body type...

I've measured two V15VMR's with inductance of 312mH and 349mH respectively...
I also have two Me75p's with one measuring 550mH and the other 700mH (!) - seems to me that they swapped body types during the production life of this model.

Shure seem to have had only about 5 different body types in total (since the 70's) - although they had a lot more than 5 cartridges!

Body types (using best known "cartridge" - keep in mind at least +/10%)
V15VxMR 1000ohm 420mH
V15VMR 850ohm 330mH (narrow shank)
V15III/IV 1350ohm 500mH (narrow shank)
M97 1550ohm 650mH (M97HE was 700mH)
M70 600ohm 700mH (some variants - 650ohm 720mH)
???? 1350ohm 520mH (1000e, some variants of Me75p, V15HRP, and others)

bye for now

David

[Doubleplay]

A SC35C with a SAS would probably bring you close to a V15VxMR for cheap. The only issue i see, is that it looks like Jico use their standard cantilever on the SAS for the SC35C http://stylus.export-japan.com/product_ ... ts_id=1495

[Cobra2]

Just checked a new SC35C; 405/415mH & 970-990 ohm
And, with some "adjustment"(plastic-cutting), the M92-M111 stylus-series will fit.

Arne K

[dlaloum]

A SC35C with a SAS would probably bring you close to a V15VxMR for cheap. The only issue i see, is that it looks like Jico use their standard cantilever on the SAS for the SC35C http://stylus.export-japan.com/product_ ... ts_id=1495

Makes no sense... - SAS is a description of the combined cantilever/needle construct... best described on the Japanese SAS page: http://shop.jico.co.jp/sas/

They do make styli with the Microridge Namiki stylus on the standard cantilever such as their VN5MR (stylus for V15VMR) - non SAS version...

I think they just messed up with the photos...

[Cobra2]

Just checked a new SC35C; 405/415mH & 970-990 ohm
And, with some "adjustment"(plastic-cutting), the M92-M111 stylus-series will fit.
Arne K

And can confirm that it sounds groovy great with a $ 50 fleabay stylus for "V15-IV-HE" on my Luxman..!

Arne K

[audiopile]

I am listening to a JICO SAS in a M35C body right now - like all the SAS's I've seen so far -very thin stylus bar ( I can barely see it thru my 60 plus year old eyes)and very small diamond. I suspect that their web site's photo's are not entirely accurate. This is my fourth Shure/SAS - they have all been winners so far.

[Ldg]

Foolish me, but isn't the SC35C rather good in original form according to this thread? Or is that embarassing matter to be overlooked ?

Why this apparent compulsion to modify? It's cropped up before with other carts too....... If one does this, it becomes something other than the original, to be considered against a different set of peers, and not the original, IMO. Different, better, worse. Authenticity lies with the original in such things, and has value of its own. Just my 2p worth, keep it real !

[Cobra2]

Just that most arms have trouble of setting more than 3 grams...(but most can of corse continue on "round-two")

Arne K

[audiopile]

Not in any way putting down the original stylus ( if it was good enough for the BBC - it's GOOD!) - but I'm simply not real interested in 3-4.5 gram tracking and don't own a arm that would be expected to work well at those VTF's. Frankly - I'm probably more interested in exploring the so far ( V-15-IV,V-15-5,Ultra 500,M-110HE, and now SC-35C) SAS styli -which I think are remarkable and worth every penny JICO charges for them. The big advantage of the SC35C's from my point of view is that they were thrown in on used turntables (two of the last three I've purchased - weird coincidence for sure?)and don't seem to generally sell for particularly high prices even when purchased. This makes matting them with a JICO/SAS particularly attractive - since the bodies are -well-cheap.
I do agree with ld that the I can push a stylus in and then pull it out again - therefore it's compatible idea - is at least questionable? And maybe my assumption that JICO is carefully reverse engineering their products is religion and not science ?? For most of the readers/users of this forum - it is probably more useful to know what stock (original) cart/styli matings produce. I think that stating what arms you're using and in the case of MM carts -capacitance and input impedance are useful info.

[dlaloum]

It is not quite as simple as push in and pull out..

I spent some time measuring magnet locations on the cantilever shanks, to confirm that shure maintained the pole positions in the same place across the various apparently compatible bodies - the outcome of which was yes they seem to.

There clearly appear to be a limited number of fundamental cartridge bodies, no more than 5 or 6, with a plethora of stylus types that are then fitted to these in various permutations and combinations.

The body surround/mounting is tailored to limit the type of styli that can be fitted to it (without modification).

Where it becomes interesting for DIY type people - is once you have identified the variables involved (body / stylus) - you have the potential to be able to tailor a cartridge to your own preferences....
ie: you can "design your own" Shure cartridge.

A SC35C fitted with a SAS stylus is certainly not an SC35C.
It is very close to a V15VxSAS or V15RS-SAS.

Is this desirable - well that is a value judgement which is up to the individual.

But in theory, I have a feeling that it might be possible to cover all the V bottomed shure cartridges with 3 bodies.... High inductance (M97 - 700mH), mid inductance (1000e - 520mH), low inductance (SC35/V15Vx - 420mH) - and a collection of differing styli.

bye for now

David

[Ldg]

.... The big advantage of the SC35C's from my point of view is that they were thrown in on used turntables (two of the last three I've purchased - weird coincidence for sure?)and don't seem to generally sell for particularly high prices even when purchased. This makes matting them with a JICO/SAS particularly attractive - since the bodies are -well-cheap.

From my point of view, the real opportunity here lies in the original spec SC35C. A decent performing MM conical, supporting a relatively high VTF and heavy arm. That's the thing of merit and beauty, which is at risk of being overlooked, I figure. That's what you can't obtain with SAS substitutions.

Personally I see merit in 3-5g tracking with a quality MM conical. I use this configuration for some of my collection, and it sounds right. Currently not with a SC35C, I should say. It does not wear, in fact I suspect less shredding and clogging versus fine line styli on certain period masterings and pressings. I would not consider tracking fineline geometry styli at such VTFs, BTW, because of wear concerns. And besides, high-VTF-fineline-styli combos don't exist, perhaps exactly because of this. But decent conicals, I have accepted as not damaging, perhaps even preferred, even at such VTFs. On the strength of this thread, I'd consider and look out for an SC35C to use in original form.

Besides, this configuration is exactly how vinyl programme material from certain periods was intended to be played. It was the norm. And in its way, the SC35C has its place there. And that's what you just can't get when trying to create a V15/SAS, which no doubt has its own merits.

I agree, a single arm is unlikely to suit both a standard SC35C setup and a V15/SAS, so the swap in/out substitution idea is probably a non-starter.

For most of the readers/users of this forum - it is probably more useful to know what stock (original) cart/styli matings produce. I think that stating what arms you're using and in the case of MM carts -capacitance and input impedance are useful info.

Yes, I agree.

[phivates]

Compulsion to modify...
I better get back to the DIY forum. Questioning the Masters is ok over there.
Still, since I'm embarking on a tonearm project, I may need a low compliance MM option, as my tradesman caste rules out the MC. Fixed income. Stash of high compliance Shures/Pickerings/ADCs.
Some of us would just rather do it our way, even though some of you know it's wrong.