Shure SC35C... Highly recommended

[Bran Kulez]

After reading this thread I took a walk over to Guitar Center to see if they had the SC35C. They only had the replacement stylus so for $15.00 I thought why not try it in one of my Shure cartridges with the same body type.

It fits the M97xE perfectly. It also fits the M104E and V15 type RS but with just a little bit of play. I'm guessing this is because M104E and V15 type RS are probably 20 years or so older than the M97xE and the current SC35C. Because of the grip design of the SS35C, it wouldn't fit the M95Ed body.

Adding a couple of pennies to the headshell of my Pioneer PL-41D, I was able to get the required tracking force. It actually sounded very good in all of the cartridges. Very good bass and mids with no annoying highs. Comparing this setup to my M44G which tracks at about 1gm, the SS35C in the "light weight" bodies sounded more refined.

My two cents.

[flavio81]

After reading this thread I took a walk over to Guitar Center to see if they had the SC35C. They only had the replacement stylus so for $15.00 I thought why not try it in one of my Shure cartridges with the same body type.

It fits the M97xE perfectly. It also fits the M104E and V15 type RS but with just a little bit of play. I'm guessing this is because M104E and V15 type RS are probably 20 years or so older than the M97xE and the current SC35C. Because of the grip design of the SS35C, it wouldn't fit the M95Ed body.

Adding a couple of pennies to the headshell of my Pioneer PL-41D, I was able to get the required tracking force. It actually sounded very good in all of the cartridges. Very good bass and mids with no annoying highs. Comparing this setup to my M44G which tracks at about 1gm, the SS35C in the "light weight" bodies sounded more refined.

My two cents.

Great!!!

Another two cents: It seems that this SS35C stylus will put your arm bearings under test. It consistently got sibilance at the inner grooves with the Lenco arm, where as the exactly same stylus would play the same record OK in another arm. Replacing the SS35C on the Lenco arm with a higher compliance cartridge (same conical stylus profile), the problem was gone.

My bearings (on the L75 arm) are experimental knife edges. I see they need refinement!!

So perhaps David's (dlaloum) is right in assert that very low compliance cartridges transfer more vibrations to the arm and this can create problems.

PS: I wouldn't run the M44G at 1gm... How about 1.5gm instead...

[dlaloum]

Maybe the extreme high precision engineered arms we are seeing now, are an outcome of the needs of lower compliance cartridges?
Not that higher compliance cartridges don't get any benefit from it, but a low mass unipivot with fluid damping suits them fine - a much simpler engineering design, more easily (and cheaply?) manufactured....

[dualhead]

Sold something and ordered a SC35C from KAB. I'll post results when I get it rolling. One question: I will be running it off a Fisher 400 phono stage and wondered if I can expect it to sound its best given the Fisher stage's specs? I think I read that this cart needs special loading?

[flavio81]

Sold something and ordered a SC35C from KAB. I'll post results when I get it rolling. One question: I will be running it off a Fisher 400 phono stage and wondered if I can expect it to sound its best given the Fisher stage's specs? I think I read that this cart needs special loading?

No special loading, just the standard 47K, 250pF.

Of course, it is always great to have tone controls...

[dualhead]

Good to hear, impressions ASAP.

[thinker]

I have a modern SC35C installed on my SL-1200MK2 with the extra 3.3 grams weight that come with it, on the standard Technics headshell.

I also use the counterweight sub-weight for lower inertia but it maxed out at 4.7 grams

I am running it at 4.6 grams without antiskating

On the Shure UK site they list the compliance at 5Cu

There something I can't get with other cart

Thanks

[dlaloum]

No special loading, just the standard 47K, 250pF.

Of course, it is always great to have tone controls...

Standard ?! Standard !!! Popycock !

My Creek OBH18 has onboard 220pf, my Onkyo Receiver also has 220pf, most phono stages have between 200pf and 250pf onboard....

Most tonearms and interconnects have 200pf+ in them as well....

I would argue that "standard" (ie the most common configuration) is between 400pf and 500pf....

Which is one of the reasons I purchased a new Phono stage so I could set a loading that matches what the cartridges actually need!

I think what most people consider the typical "vinyl sound" is the sound of cartridges run with 200pf of excess capacitance...

bye for now

David
(ignore my rant.... mere frustration...)

[Laudanum]

Dlaloum ... Your point is well taken. But it's NOT "popycock" on Flavio81's part. He just stated the loading specs that Shure recommends for the cart. He didnt go into detail about higher loading of phono stages or high cap cables and Im confident that he is well aware of those factors. And to boot, the database at this site has the old shure spec recommending 400-500pf for the SC35C. Im guessing that Shure changed the spec because tendency is for accentuated treble these days.
Im not saying that there is anything wrong with playing with the loading. And, Im not picking bones here, just staying on track related to the SC35C. Again, your point is well taken, but Flavio81 is on point related to this cart.

[flavio81]

No special loading, just the standard 47K, 250pF.

Of course, it is always great to have tone controls...

Standard ?! Standard !!! Popycock !

Standard for practically all "modern" (1980s onward) Shures and most "modern" MMs to be honest. The ones that do not make use of a strong high frequency rolloff. YOU KNOW what i'm talking about, it's your favorite research topic! (wink)

[dlaloum]

Flavio, in case my hyperbole was misunderstood... my comment was not aimed at you, but rather at the marketplace....

Laundanum - I was not being overly serious.... just being dramatic.

Bye for now

David

[Ldg]

Interesting thread, Flavio81.

I'm also a fan of 'vintage' style lowC 18um quality sphericals, in the right configuration. Great to read your results for the SC35C.

I don't understand why the result for the Lenco arm. Actually the arm shouldn't move tracking signals, and mechanics are broadly similar for highC/lowm and lowC/highm arms, when all is configured well. So I doubt the 'bearing' theory. But there may be 'non-ideals' at work. Have you tried Lofgren B alignment with 0.7mil sphericals, BTW ?

[flavio81]

Actually the arm shouldn't move tracking signals, and mechanics are broadly similar for highC/lowm and lowC/highm arms, when all is configured well. So I doubt the 'bearing' theory. But there may be 'non-ideals' at work. Have you tried Lofgren B alignment with 0.7mil sphericals, BTW ?

If you looked at my crude "u-block" bearings you would immediately see this is bearing rattle hell!

As for baerwald/stevenson/ld/etc, i don't care at all because i'm 100% confident it's not alignment what is causing the problem. I can easily change the stylus-to-pivot distance in 4mm (beacuse of my very-loose bearings) and the problem is still there.

Anyway, right now i'm using a modified AT11(i have replaced the cantilever and stylus on it with a lower mass one, while keeping the (moderately low) compliance rubber. This one is noticeably higher compliance (than the SC35C), and doesn't exhibit any obvious inner groove distortion or sibilance. Has a 0.6mil stylus tip (in my case). But while it's a fine performer, it doesn't show the amazing punch and life of the SC35C.

I'll give another try the SC35C once i put another arm in the Lenco. I have other arms so it's just a matter of time. As i said before, this problem wasn't there when i used another arm, a Linn Basik+. But said arm is too light mass for it.

[flavio81]

I have a modern SC35C installed on my SL-1200MK2 (...)
There something I can't get with other cart

Hi Thinker!! Can you elaborate more on what makes the SC35 special?