Shure SC35C... Highly recommended

[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.

[dualhead]

Hey gang, about a week ago I added some mass to my syntec s220 arm and plopped the stock sc35 back on.
I have to admit that I am hooked. This is the sound I have been looking for. Solid bass, stable and defined soundstage, and no simblance. In addition the background is silent. Despite this combos failure to track through the torture tests of my various test lp's, I hear zero mistracking on my disc at five grams vtf. I am totally hooked, I'm pulling out records I have not heard in ages!

[Bran Kulez]

ld wrote:...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....

I now see what you mean... and thanks to flavio81 for starting this thread, I've been wondering why these heavy trackers are still available.

[pchap]

I have an SC35C with an M70EJ stylus which tracks securely at 1.75g on the HFS75 test disc and I'd have to say the sound is quite staggering, very open and 3D, rather than using Hi-Fi speak for its sound, I'd have to say that it sounds life like and is a huge improvement on the original spherical stylus, which required 4.0g on HFS75 lateral modulation tracks.

The original reason for trying it was that as the first post says the spec. has more in common with the V15v than an M97 or even the M70. I might be reading to much into the spec. but it would make sense for Shure to make use of the V15v design for the DJ market as an upgrade to the M44-7 and that left me wondering how good it would be with a more Hi-Fi friendly elliptical stylus, plus Shures have always been good at reduced record wear.

If you have an SC35C cartridge I would urge you to get hold of an M70EJ stylus, or if you want a good cartridge for a low cost have a look on ebay for one a DJ is selling and spend the money on a nos M70EJ stylus. Just how much a Jico or Ed Saunders stylus would improve on this hopefully I'll let you know.

[Ldg]

I see the thread got a nudge..........

I recently came across an EMT950 transcription TT, equipped with a bona fide SC35C original cartridge and stylus as part of the BBC sell off in London. So the SC35C was actually used in original form on a fairly iconic TT as part of broadcast standard audio.

So the original stylus is capable of good things, if its in good condition along with the suspension of course, and on the right arm. And 4g continues to be fine for me, for good reasons, as I've posted on over various threads.

[sergio_s]

I have two of these cartridges used on my 1200's for mixing.

When it comes to listening I always used the AT95e, and never let the SC35C to touch the grooves of my "not mix" records.

I'm frightened concerning those 4grams, but I have to say that among my dj needles the SC35c gave me good results regarding back-cueing record wear. Surely better than Ortofon's and spherical Stanton models.

However, do you think that I should give a chance to the SC35C also for listening purpose?
Or it would be better to fit in an elliptical stylus like M70EJ?

I find hard to define the SC35C as Hi-Fi model, because of its popularity as Broadcasting/DJ tool.

But it is only a prejudice.

[mrrye_89]

Another Shure SC35C fan reporting in. I'm using a new (Mexico) produced cart on a Jelco SA-370H/Sumiko MMT(with oil damping), in a Sumiko-style 14 gm headshell, mounted on a very torquey Rek-O-Kut B-12 Idler drive turntable. Dat Bass!!!

tracking at 5 grams (i think!) and with the cart loaded at 68K instead of 47K.

[Virak]

Do you guys think the SC35C would be a good match for a fluid damped SME 3012 Series II?
It would be nice to have a good "beater" cartridge for my TD-124MkII (when I've gotten around to restoring it).