Any MM/High Output MC Cartridge Rec's for Clearaudio Concept

[dlaloum]

The CA cartridges are mostly mid compliance, .......and the Dynavectors are higher compliance...

Please enlighten. Looking at the cartridge database, the compliance figures for the Dynavectors are all less than 20x10E-6, with most of them in the 10 to 15x10E-6 range, which I am lead to believe is considered low to medium compliance. Both of the DV carts the OP is considering have lower compliance than any of the Clearaudio MM's, which all have a compliance of 15x10E-6.

If I am mistaken, it won't be the first time.

The Japanese manufacturers measure compliance at 100Hz where the rest of the world measures it at 10Hz.
This makes that specification unusable for arm resonance calculations. The resonance at 10Hz will be between 1.5 and 2 times the 100Hz value (most likely).
Similar problems with other Japanese manufacturers... eg: Denon.

[jmowbray]

And the nagging question of the value of running a $1200 cartridge into the Rogue's phonostage resurfaces!

Does anyone else have any thoughts on that?

What would you all consider the appropriate amount to spend on a cartridge that will be placed on a $1400 turntable and run through the Rogue's built in phonostage, which is great for what it is, but has obvious limitations?

BTW, Thank you all for your responses. I find it very helpful for making a tough decision.

I agree with AudioSoul as well. I found that even a Musical Fidelity X-LPS v8 was a noticable improvement over the Cronus phono section - if only for MM cartridges. Not that their built-in phonostage was any slouch either. If it were me, I'd take my total budget for a cartridge and spend half of it on a MM phono section and the other half on an AT 150MLX (or an AT7V if I couldn't afford the 150).....

Jack

[dlaloum]

Although the AT150 and AT7V bodies are quite similar, they are designed for quite differing arms - the AT150 is high compliance whereas the AT7V is mid compliance - they will not perform at their best on the same arm! (AT150 needs low mass, AT7V best with mid mass).

The other gotcha with ANY MM is the cartridge loading - whatever phono stage you go for you need to check that the resulting total capacitance is within the optimal range for the cartridge... (or vice versa, but the two need to match for good results!)

Most (All?) Audio Technica cartridges do best with around 150pf total capacitance, which requires the phono stage to have no more than 50pf MAX! - Most budget phono stages have between 200pf and 250pf... with 220pf seeming to be the most common value.
This makes them perfect for cartridge like the Ortofon's that like 400pf (220pf onboard + tonearm and cables of around 150pf to 200pf will place it very close to 400...)

This is most likely one of the reasons why AT cartridges have a reputation for "brightness"

bye for now

David

[Ldg]

The CA cartridges are mostly mid compliance, .......and the Dynavectors are higher compliance...

Please enlighten. Looking at the cartridge database, the compliance figures for the Dynavectors are all less than 20x10E-6, with most of them in the 10 to 15x10E-6 range, which I am lead to believe is considered low to medium compliance. Both of the DV carts the OP is considering have lower compliance than any of the Clearaudio MM's, which all have a compliance of 15x10E-6.

The Japanese manufacturers measure compliance at 100Hz where the rest of the world measures it at 10Hz.
This makes that specification unusable for arm resonance calculations. The resonance at 10Hz will be between 1.5 and 2 times the 100Hz value (most likely).
Similar problems with other Japanese manufacturers... eg: Denon.

You're a bit optimistic on the range there, DL. For example, common enough examples like the AT440MLa works out at about 2.5 based on published measurements. And I'm sure this came up in discussion with you just the other day. And seems the AT150 must work out about the same, since you class it as high compliance...?

Here's what Yoda has to say about it


It's pretty evident that the bracket is at least 1.3 - 2.5. It's pretty useless on its own as a basis for matching advice based on just resonant f, IMO. Other than to get in the right zone, and even then with some of the AT cartridges even the right zone might be suspect ! There is a far better way, taking spec VTF range and trackability spec into account too.

I'd urge caution on some of this advice. HTH !

[jmowbray]

Although the AT150 and AT7V bodies are quite similar, they are designed for quite differing arms - the AT150 is high compliance whereas the AT7V is mid compliance - they will not perform at their best on the same arm! (AT150 needs low mass, AT7V best with mid mass).

The other gotcha with ANY MM is the cartridge loading - whatever phono stage you go for you need to check that the resulting total capacitance is within the optimal range for the cartridge... (or vice versa, but the two need to match for good results!)

Most (All?) Audio Technica cartridges do best with around 150pf total capacitance, which requires the phono stage to have no more than 50pf MAX! - Most budget phono stages have between 200pf and 250pf... with 220pf seeming to be the most common value.
This makes them perfect for cartridge like the Ortofon's that like 400pf (220pf onboard + tonearm and cables of around 150pf to 200pf will place it very close to 400...)

This is most likely one of the reasons why AT cartridges have a reputation for "brightness"

bye for now

David

David - I agree on the need for low capacitance cabling for the AT carts and yes, it does help to have adjustable capacitance at the phono stage/preamp to keep the total below 150 pF.

Regarding the AT 150MLX, I would submit that the currently available version of this cartridge is more mid-compliance (though still not quite as low as the AT7V) than high compliance. Both should work well with a medium mass arm.

Jack

[Ldg]

Regarding the AT 150MLX, I would submit that the currently available version of this cartridge is more mid-compliance (though still not quite as low as the AT7V) than high compliance. Both should work well with a medium mass arm.

Have you actually measured these, Jack ? Because unless you have, or know a dependable source who has, there's no reliable way of predicting from AT compliance specs. Not even Yoda can do it

If one does a VE search, a lot of confident assertions are returned. But I fear the worst, that such is all part of a great swamp of misinformation that abounds when one confidently asserts unproven facts in this area, and there is no basis. Even pointing out the errors doesn't stem the flow......

Personally, I don't know, I've never measured it and can't find any published figures from anyone who has. And, if one looks at other AT cartridges for which there is published data, it could go either way by quite a big swing. The only way to tell is to measure it, IMO. Which I hope you have, Jack, and can settle the issue. Presumably DL has too, because IIRC he at least has one !

If I had to speculate, without much confidence I'd back it being high compliance, like the AT120E, if it really can track at the lower end of the spec VTF range. But it could go either way.

If nothing else, this serves to illustrate the uncertainty !

[jmowbray]

Regarding the AT 150MLX, I would submit that the currently available version of this cartridge is more mid-compliance (though still not quite as low as the AT7V) than high compliance. Both should work well with a medium mass arm.

Have you actually measured these, Jack ? Because unless you have, or know a dependable source who has, there's no reliable way of predicting from AT compliance specs. Not even Yoda can do it

If one does a VE search, a lot of confident assertions are returned. But I fear the worst, that such is all part of a great swamp of misinformation that abounds when one confidently asserts unproven facts in this area, and there is no basis. Even pointing out the errors doesn't stem the flow......

Personally, I don't know, I've never measured it and can't find any published figures from anyone who has. And, if one looks at other AT cartridges for which there is published data, it could go either way by quite a big swing. The only way to tell is to measure it, IMO. Which I hope you have, Jack, and can settle the issue. Presumably DL has too, because IIRC he at least has one !

If I had to speculate, without much confidence I'd back it being high compliance, like the AT120E, if it really can track at the lower end of the spec VTF range. But it could go either way.

If nothing else, this serves to illustrate the uncertainty !

My observations are based upon direct experience (I own both carts) having used both mounted on a SME 309 with good results (though I think the AT7V would work better on a higher mass arm) as well as the specifications provided by the manufacturer and what is reported on the VE database. I have another table set up for vintage high compliance cartridges (Signet XK-50) that I wouldn't think of mounting the AT150MLX on.

Of course, YMMV

Jack

[Ldg]

At risk of seeming pedantic, that the AT150 matches a 309 arm could just as well be due to relatively high internal suspension damping as genuine mid-compliance. If it is high compliance@10Hz, given the big spread with spec compliance@100Hz, that would imply relatively high internal damping. Which would fit.

But this doesn't move us forward much. Except to illustrate that there is more to cart/arm matching than simply evaluating resonant f. It isn't adequate to say that because a cart can match a 9.5g arm, it is 'mid compliance@10Hz'. A cart's damping, as well as spring, participates in matching.

Subscribers to 'resonant f matching' are those who need to know compliance@10Hz. Whilst it's quite possible that the AT150 matches the 309 arm because it's genuinely mid compliance@10Hz, it could just as well be high compliance@10Hz with high damping. In which case, resonant f would be far lower than purists would presribe. But still be a fine match. Only measurement would determine which. Whichever way proves true, it nicely illustrates defficiencies in 'resonant f matching' as a sole method, and the ambiguity of compliance@100Hz.

[Bionix]

I am using the Virtuoso Wood MM and they can really kick those Expensive MC up to 2000 bucks. Audition, go listen to one. They are good value.