Counted Out Way to Soon!

MylesBAstor said:

'Nuff said. End of story. We've all been under the influence of mind altering drugs.

Click to expand...

Well if thats the case why is there a move in the restoration of vintage TTs

Myles i wasnt disputing your claim but I have read with great interest how everyone is looking for a Garrard or a Technics etc and they go for big $$$ on Audiogon.

Seems a big price to pay if as you say everything is stripped and replaced

OK

So let me play devils advocate. According to you present day technology is better so why not pony up $25K and buy a SOTA current day TT

I attribute the fascination with these older turntables as akin to antiquarian fashion. If you look at audio asylum from 1999 to a few years in, not that many fans were interested in the Garrard 301, Lencos, heavy broadcast turntables etc., they were considered devotee projects and didn't cost much, they were kind of "cheapskate antiquarian" stuff, not considered competitive with the state of the art. However, as more people became interested in them, as usual, prices started going up and somewhere in there came the assertions that they were actually "better" than any of the newer stuff.
However, there is NOTHING WRONG with that, it is wonderful that people are able with love and attention to bring these older tables up to better specs with updated bearings, plinths etc. and enjoy a unique sound experience with them. It's no different from enjoying a meticulously restored older car and driving it around and enjoying the unique experience with the nostalgic echoes of the past.
Whether they actually compete or exceed with newer design is an opinion that is best left to the opinionated, but I will tend to stick with the more modern ideations for routine listening.

MylesBAstor said:

Not necessarily. There are some darn good sounding table in the 2-3 K region; in addition, what I like is that many table manufacturers (like what Linn did) are selling a basic model and allowing for upgrading so your initial investment never goes to waste. Then there's some pretty outstanding tables if one's budget extends to say 10 K.

FYI, I don't own a 25 K table and probably never will

Click to expand...

Hi Myles,

I know that you have been communicating with Jonathan Weiss of Oswald's Mill Audio. You should get together with him in the city at his location. When we have been auditioning his speakers at the Mill we have been using his turntables and their performance is quite impressive.

http://www.oswaldsmillaudio.com/Products/turntables.html

OMA Tourmaline SP10 in slate plinth:



Control unit:



OMA ANATASE Lenco in slate plinth:



Rich

MylesBAstor said:

I guess Steve I don't know where to begin.

First we're talking about the sound of a "modern" vs "vintage" table.

Yes there was something to the basic design of a few of these products; but the execution is much different today. Platters are replaced, plinths are replaced, motors are replaced, bearings are replaced. Go measure the noise of an old bearing and compare it to a modern table. There's no comparison. Let's not even talk about the subject of vibration isolation and energy disappation paths in the tables or speed stabilty. If you don't think speed stabilty has something to do with it, then one needs to listen to a direct drive or an idler wheel drive table with precision speed controls and high mass platters.

About the only thing that remains the same for some tables is the concept of the idler drive or in the case of Technics SP10, direct drive. But Mike has already mentioned the differences between his Dobbins modded and Rockport table. As far as cartridges, there's simply no comparison. Not to mention todays arms are totally new designs that don't treat arm resonance in the same manner. Newer materials make the arm's less resonant eg. instead of having one huge peak, the resonance is reduced to far smaller, spread out resonances. Bearings are totally different. Linear arms are totally different. Wiring is different. The impact of the arm's support system is better. Adjustments allow for much better cartridge geometry. In fact, Bob Graham's cartridge alignment jig is a work of genius. It takes all of five minutes (and I've mounted many cartridges in the arm when I had it) to mount a new cartridge in his tonearms.


And everything that has been said about cartridges is a pile of crap. It totally flies in the face of reality. If Raul believes these old cartridges sound good, then there's something really wrong somewhere.

It's really a waste of time arguing this point because if there's more than handful of people in Raul's camp, I'd be surprised. In fact, if there were more than two excluding Raul's family, I'd be surprised. Maybe people like the colorations of these old vintage analog components. But they aren't right and don't sound like real music; if only music sounded that way.

Click to expand...

Dear Myles: Ignorance always provoke wrong answers or wrong assumptions like yours. Please let me be specific about:



+++++ " Platters are replaced, plinths are replaced, motors are replaced, bearings are replaced. " +++++,
so what? replace is a synonimous of " better "? who says that those " replace " gives a quality performance improvement against the vintage ones. A TT is nor a rocket to the moon but a very simple audio item. How can you prove that those " replace " made improvements that help to beat the quality performance of vintage TTs?



+++++ " Go measure the noise of an old bearing and compare it to a modern table. There's no comparison. " +++++,

do you already measured? yes? then what do you found? which TTs were under measure? . You did not?, then you can't talk/argue about.


+++++ " Let's not even talk about the subject of vibration isolation and energy disappation paths in the tables or speed stabilty. " +++++,

do you already heard in your system the BD TT Micro Seiki SZ-1TVS+SZ-1M with is vibration isolotaion plattform or a Denonn DP-100?

yes?: what do you think against the TT you own?. No?: then how can you argue nothing about?


Speed accuracy and speed stability, choose any of these vintage TTs: Pioneer Exclusive P3a, Yamaha GT2000X, Denon DP 100 or Kenwood L-07D and test/measure its spedd accuracy/stability and you can find that all of them even or beats any today top commercial ( everyday ) TT.


+++++ " As far as cartridges, there's simply no comparison. " +++++

your ignorance has no limit. Please let us know: in the last six months which ones of these MM/MI vintage cartridges ( with the precise set up needs that the MM/MI cartridges ask for. ) do you heard in your system in a test against today cartridges like Ortofon A-90, Koetsu Coralstone, Air Tight Supreme, Allaerts Formula One: Technics EPC-P100CMK4, AKG P100LE, Audio Technica AT20SS or Sonus Dimension Five?

None? then how you dare to post: +++++ " everything that has been said about cartridges is a pile of crap. " +++++

Showing your Ignorance means that: ignorance.


IMHO your IGNORANCE in all and each one subjects is just: pathetic!


Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.


Btw: +++++ " because if there's more than handful of people in Raul's camp, I'd be surprised. In fact, if there were more than two excluding Raul's family, I'd be surprised. " +++++

there is a thread in other forum with around 2,600 posts/replies and thousands and thousands of " views " ( only in one thread! ) and counting where many people analize in deep what you ignore on vintage cartridges: MM/MI. All of them " loves " those " colorations " " that does not sounds like " real music " but what is in the recording!.

Btw, again, do you know that the Graham tonearm comes/copy from a vintage Audiocraft tonearm design ? or that the JMW tonearm was inspired on SAEC/Audiocraft vintages tonearm designs? or that the Moërch one comes from the vintage japanese Highphonic one?



+++++ " Not to mention todays arms are totally new designs that don't treat arm resonance in the same manner. Newer materials make the arm's less resonant eg. instead of having one huge peak, the resonance is reduced to far smaller, spread out resonances. Bearings are totally different. " +++++

newer materials? which ones?, vintage tonearms used: aluminum, steel, boron, titanium, wood, ceramic, magnesium, different blends, etc. So what are you talking about?. As I said your ignorance has no limits on those subjects.

resonances?, do you know about the unique Technics " Variable Dynamic Damping " where today tonearm designs only can " dream " with? or the Lustre GST-801 dynamically balanced tonearm design where the VTF and antiskate set up comes through its unique full magnetic mechanism? do you know that Audio Technica tonearm design has different antiskate for different stylus shape? which today tonearm even take in count this subject?

bearings?, yes I agree that are totally different, some of the old bearing designs are better. do you know the Micro Seiki Gyroscope tonearm unique bearing design? or the gymball ruby Technics bearing with a less than 5 mcgrs on vertical/horizontal bearing friction that almost any similar bearing on today tonearm designs can't approach at that low bearing friction value?

and I can go on and on. Btw, I don't read or take other persons experiences/information on the subject audio products named here: I own or owned/experieced any single of those products.

Myles, IMHO you spread your ignorance on all and each those subjects in the same way I'm an ignorant in Arameo language. The main difference between your ignorance and mine is that I ca'nt show it even if I want it.

IMHO I think that we have to have more care on what each one of us post/posted in an open forum where so many people read it and where so many of them are " newbie " on so many audio subjects.

I think we have a very important responsability that in plain and simple words is: help to the people with right and precise information that does not makes any kind of mix-up.

I almost never post on a subject where I don't have first hand experiences, I prefer learn from others.


Raul.

MylesBAstor said:

Mike can correct me but the last SP10 went for around 9K on Ebay? And then throw everything else in and I think the Dobbins retails for around 25K.

Click to expand...

Myles,

sorry for my delay in posting responses here. it's been a busy week with the Equi=tech project and i have been listening every minute i can. so little time for posting.

yes; the Technics SP-10 Mk3's are now almost 'un-obtainium' and when one surfaces it does go for close to $10k in top condition. 2 years ago i thought i paid a ton for mine at approx $6k from Denmark.

however Technics SP-10 Mk2's can still be purchased for from about $800 to $1500 and they are really quite close in performance to the Mk3. Garrard 301's, Thorens TD-124's and other vintage tt's have cretainly become somewhat more valuable but they are still pretty reasonable investments at under $2k for even the best examples.

so if you did start with an SP-10 Mk3, purchased the very best possible plinth from Dobbins, or Albert, or OMA, you might be in the tt itself as much as $14-$15k at most. more likely an SP-10 Mk2 with a Dobbins plinth you would be done around $5k+ to around $7k for the tt. a Garrard 301 might be another $1000 or more since it might need a new bearing and requires more tweaking; and then with the Garrard 301, for optimal performance, you'd need a power supply. Which can run from $1500 to over $4k for the best Loricraft (which is what i have). and the cherry on top for a Garrard 301 is the copper top Dobbins platter (i don't recall the exact price).

personally; the best deal is a Dobbins SP-10 Mk2 all done for $6k. and that will smoke any comparable $10k retail new tt i have heard. the Garrard 301 is many people's favorite sounding tt; idler drive brings a magic to the music but with a bit of added noise (less noise with the Dobbins platter). Shindo also does an all-in Garrard but it's not cheap.

so you have the SP-10 Mk2 around $5k-$7k, the 301 fully optimal around $10k, and the Mk3 at around $15k.

then you need an arm, cartridge, and phono stage. which, of course, any other tt would need.

i've not heard any new tt's i like as well as any of these vintage tt's with custom plinths for less than $20k (and i've only heard a few tt's at any price that i like as well (or a slight bit better) as the Mk3).

MylesBAstor said:

I guess Steve I don't know where to begin.

First we're talking about the sound of a "modern" vs "vintage" table.

Yes there was something to the basic design of a few of these products; but the execution is much different today. Platters are replaced, plinths are replaced, motors are replaced, bearings are replaced. Go measure the noise of an old bearing and compare it to a modern table. There's no comparison. Let's not even talk about the subject of vibration isolation and energy disappation paths in the tables or speed stabilty. If you don't think speed stabilty has something to do with it, then one needs to listen to a direct drive or an idler wheel drive table with precision speed controls and high mass platters.

About the only thing that remains the same for some tables is the concept of the idler drive or in the case of Technics SP10, direct drive. But Mike has already mentioned the differences between his Dobbins modded and Rockport table. As far as cartridges, there's simply no comparison. Not to mention todays arms are totally new designs that don't treat arm resonance in the same manner. Newer materials make the arm's less resonant eg. instead of having one huge peak, the resonance is reduced to far smaller, spread out resonances. Bearings are totally different. Linear arms are totally different. Wiring is different. The impact of the arm's support system is better. Adjustments allow for much better cartridge geometry. In fact, Bob Graham's cartridge alignment jig is a work of genius. It takes all of five minutes (and I've mounted many cartridges in the arm when I had it) to mount a new cartridge in his tonearms.


And everything that has been said about cartridges is a pile of crap. It totally flies in the face of reality. If Raul believes these old cartridges sound good, then there's something really wrong somewhere.

It's really a waste of time arguing this point because if there's more than handful of people in Raul's camp, I'd be surprised. In fact, if there were more than two excluding Raul's family, I'd be surprised. Maybe people like the colorations of these old vintage analog components. But they aren't right and don't sound like real music; if only music sounded that way.

Click to expand...

i'd agree with you that the vintage tt's which are modded cannot be grouped with un-modded vintage tt's when you are making general claims of tt performance. the modded vintage tt's are really a breed apart. the whole idea is to use the motor assemblies which are in some ways superior to modern tt's (particualrly at particular price points) and upgrade the rest of them which are not competitive with the best modern tt's.

Raul is correct about certain vintage tt's being on par with good modern tt's; but he is wrong when he makes that general statement. a few of the EMT's and Micro Seiki's are right in there with today's tt's. but others are mostly not. the EMT's and Micro Seiki's were considered very over-built for their era so these tt's don't pale in comparison to modern tt's like other vintage tt's in those areas.

in terms of tonearms there is not even any debate; there are no vintage tonearms close to the best modern arms. if you want to hear everything a cartridge can do then get a modern arm.

which is not to say that vintage arms cannot sound good; or that certain vintage cartridges used with certain vintage arms synergize better for some listeners.

the best modern LOMC's reveal more information than any vintage cartridges. however; there are some 'sleepers' among vintage cartridges which are very very good, although they typically are not the all around performers the best modern MC's are. i'm still in the personal discovery phase with vintage cartridges so my mind is more open in this area. i have a couple of highly recommended vintage cartridges i plan on trying soon and will report where i think they fit in compared to my best MC's.

i'll add that most vintage, or even most modestly priced, cartridges cannot hold a candle to modern LOMC's. but remember; for 30 years there were literally millions of cartridges made, many many types, and they were mostly played on crude tt's. so who knew how they might sound on today's much better arms and tt's. there are likely a few gems in the heap.

Dear Mike: ++++++ agree with you that the vintage tt's which are modded cannot be grouped with un-modded vintage tt's .... +++++++++ ???????

I'm sorry I ask but where do you read that posted by Myles????????


++++ " but he is wrong when he makes that general statement... " ++++++

again, where made I a " general statement " on the TT subject.?????

btw, I refer to BD and DD vintage TTs and from all the ones I mentioned only the Technics are now in modified versions. All the other ones does not need it or no one cares about: Denon DP100, Pioneeer Exclusive 3a or Kenwood LO7D to name a few.


+++++ " in terms of tonearms there is not even any debate; there are no vintage tonearms close to the best modern arms. if you want to hear everything a cartridge can do then get a modern arm. " ++++


do you already tested the EPA 100 MK2 Or Satin AR-1s or Grace G-940 or Denon DA 1000 against say the Reed or Da Vinci or Schroeder or Phantom or Triplanar?, Yes: what do you find out? NO, then IMHO you have to do it before made that kind of statement.


+++++ " the best modern LOMC's reveal more information than any vintage cartridges .... " +++++

I think that the best modern LOMC ( I heard almost every one. ) reveal more information that some vintage cartridges but not ANY vintage cartridges.

IMHO you need to hear any of these premium vintage cartridges against your premium LOMC before you can make that kind of statement: AKG P100LE, Technics EPC P100MK4, Sonus Dimension 5 or Audio technica AT 20SS or Empire 4000D3 with the precise cartridge set up that these vintage cartridges ask for: I mean with the same care for its specific needs that you take it with the LOMC cartridges you own.

+++++ " so who knew how they might sound on today's much better arms and tt's. there are likely a few gems in the heap. " +++++

this is exactly what you could find when you hear the ones I name it.

Due to your non-foundation statements with out had experiences about seems to me two things: first look the way how to post I'm wrong even with no facts on hand and second to " win " a non-existent thread/post contest.

My attitude is different: share my experiences with out meaning " I'm right and you are wrong ". A forum thread has not to be a " contest " like discussion but a way to share each one experiences.

I have to say that I'm more interested in what will be your vintage cartrridge experiences than read: " Raul is wrong " that means nothing and useless.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear Mike Lavigne: +++++++ " the best modern LOMC's reveal more information than any vintage cartridges...... " ++++++

this is interesting and controversial statement, how is that? how can/could be?. Maybe could help to analize a little how things happen in a cartridge recording reproduction:

in those premium cartridges as ( either MC or MM/MI ) as in any cartridge the stylus movements in the grooves are the ones that makes to have " recording information " ( not if is MC or MM/MI ), IMHO as better a cartridge track those grooves as better information we have. The premium vintage cartridge stylus shape ( different including the Shibata one and VdH's. ) were designed to take at least no less information that any today stylus shape because those cartridges has to take information in 4-channel recordings ( of those times ) that require a very wide frequency range ( at least to 50khz. ) that even today no recording ask for it and IMHO no today cartridge is " prepare " for it, those old especial recordings were really demanding ones.

That's why in some of those vintage MM/MI premium cartridges you can read specs that goes from 5hz to beyond 100 khz where any today cartridge only can " dream ", many of those vintage cartridge to performs on target for those needs ask according to manufacturer that were loaded at 100kohms and with very low total capacitance load.

It is not only that those premium vintage MM/MI cartridges were designed with that very wide frequency response to take all the recording information but were designed with higher compliance than MC cartridges to improve its tracking, IMHO there is no doubt that those premium vintage MM/MI cartridges take out more recording information and with less tracking errors that today MC lower compliance cartridges that are not so good trackers like the MM/MI ones, the MM/MIs were designed to STAY in the groove all over the LP recorded surface in a way that no single LOMC can that are almost jumping and skipping the grooves ( at microscopic level ) due to its higher cartridge compliance .
IMHO a MM/MI premium vintage cartridge not only give us more true/real recording information but with a lot less distortions than the LOMC ones.

So that statement that the today cartridges reveal more information could be not " precise " or with clear foundation.

In the other side there are other reasons why those vintage MM/MIs IMHO reveal more recording information that any today premium LOMC cartridges:

a LOMC cartridge signal is extremely sensitive and susceptible to take or suffer different kind of noise/distortions/pollulation distortions and degradation due to its extremely low output level where the MM/MIs has IMHO a more " healthy " output level that help to lower all those different kind of degradations that the LOMC's. I'm talking here of the cartridge signal trip from the cartridge stylus through the phono stage input.

Additional and for a Phono Stage be prepare to works with LOMC cartridge signals needs to have additional gain, around 40 db over the MM/MIs gain needs. Normally this 40db additional gain means one-two additional stages and sometimes more stages where the cartridge signal must pass through and where that cartridge signal continue loosing not only information but loosing its integrity with added noise/distortions/degradations.

We can think that those 40db are an easy task and Mike it is not, this kind of additional gain is a " tour de force " full of noise/distortions and degradations even if you have a perfect design. You have to take in count that for double a signal power/output level you need 3dbs and here we need at least 40dbs to achieve the same MM/MI output level !!!!.

The MM/MI analog source alternative does not needs and does not suffer that sever gain additional stages degradation that help to destroy the cartridge signal information and adding distortions, not only that but many of that " reveal information " that you are hearing through those premium LOMC cartridges is just added distotion that the vintage premium MM/MI just does not have!, I repeat: just does not have.

It is not only that those additional gain stages permit that a LOMC cartridge signal be at similar/even MM/MI cartridge signal output it is that while in the MM/MI cartridge just begin/start the degradation process in the Phono/Line Stage that degradation process continue on the LOMC cartridge signal ( distortions over distorions. ) due that in either cartridge design the output level needs additonal 25db-30db before the signal goes to the amplifier inputs.

So in the case of the LOMC cartridges the continue/follow signal degradations means that all the initial process degradations will continue growing up to be higher and higher and more distortions added due to these additonal gain needs before the amplifier inputs.!!!!!

Mike, I'm not against the LOMC cartridge my main system investment is already in LOMC cartridges, I still heard LOMC cartridges.

Comparisons through recording playback needs not only the right set up with either cartridge design but in the MM/MI alternative we need time to accustom and understand the MM/MI real and true quality performance that IMHO put us nearest to the recording that any LOMC cartridge.

The MM/MI exercise is not plug and play because our ears/brain are already equalized to LOMC cartridges and when we switch to MM/MI maybe we want that the MM/MI sounds in that way and that's not the case. The MM/MI experience is really different and not only nearest to the recording but nearest to live music and we have to accustom for this " new " experience: we need time and understanding even to accept that what we are accustom to heard/hear through LOMC cartridges is not only different but in many ways wrong and far away from the recording against the MM/MI alternative that IMHO give us more true recording information with a lot less different kind distortions.

Mike I have to say that I'm " here " after more than three years of deep reserach in the whole cartridge subject. In all this research time I test several times almost all " today " LOMC and MM/MI ( mainly vintage. ) cartridges you can name it. I tested along/mated in any tonearm you can name it and tested at least in five-six different pretty decent TTs .

I made test after test after test ( hundred of them maybe thousands. ): first " hunting " MM/MIs on sale ( I'm still on that hunting. Normally I find two-three new alternatives to buy each month. yesterday I bouught two different MM/MI vintage cartridges through ebay. ), second trying to understand the MM/MI alternative , third to convince me that what I'm hearing through the MM/MI alternative really was not only different but better of what the LOMC alternative offer me and fourth learning how to improve the MM/MI alternative how to attain/achieve the best of.

IMHO all this in deep hard research and findings were not only to serve my own " satisfaction " but through a thread in Agon I share all my work to help the people already interested or that could be interested in this " new " analog source alternative to be " here " not after three-four years of heavy research and tests but in just a few days. That Agon thread was and is day after day enriched for several MM/MI new advocates sharing their valued experiences where we still continue learning to enhance our daily quality MM/MI performance enjoyment.

Anyway even if you take that time you can still prefer the LOMC alternative and this is fine. I can say that for many LOMC advocates and for me today this " new " MM/MI analog source alternative is the way to go and due to IMHO its great rewards worth to try it for any one that read this post and is willing to do it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Mike: and you as Halcro electronics owners or other people that own Phonolinepreamp like us in some ways are " privileged " because the majority of the audiophiles don't use Phonolipreamps ( integrated units ) but separate phono stages and line stages and not only that but many of them along separate SUT 's ( step up transformers ) thank's to the AHEE support like AD SP's reviewer that just does not understand almost nothing about the cartridge signal whole subject .

Along to what I point out in my last post we have to add more stages where the LOMC cartridge signal must pass in all thopse audio systems that are using separate electronics. Which additional stages/filters that continue the cartridge signal degradation?:

well, instead that the cartridge signal goes " directly " and trhough the tonearm/phono cable to the input in the Phonolinepreamp like yours the signal goes first to the SUT: first additional " filter "?, the input SUT connector, second filter? the solder at the input SUT connector where a wire take the signal to process in the SUT, these wires are the third " filter. At the SUT output we have the same three additional " filters. So only in the external SUT the cartridge signal pass for six different stages/filters.
From the SUT the signal goes to a male connector " filter " and then to a solder male connector " filter " and then to the cable that take the signal cartridge to the phono stage inputs. In that process we can count three additional " filters " before the signal was processed by the stand alone phono stage unit ( till this signal position we have 9 additional stages/filters. ).

Now the signal goes through the solder and male cable connector ( two filters ) to the female phono stage input connector ( one more filter ) then to the solder and the wire that put the cartridge signal in the phono circuit board ( two filters. ). After the process the signal goes to a wire and solder and output connectors in the phono stage: three additional filters. ( Maybe we can think that in high price separates like Boulder we don't have wires from input/output phono stage and line stage connectors/circuit boards and that the connectors at least are soldered directly to the boards but guees what?: if you open a Boulder unit you can see those " terrible " wires at the input/output connectors! and the Boulder are the same M.Fremer class A+ in SP that set you back: 60K!!!!! I wonder how and when in the life can we trust in the AHEE with this kind of " ironnies " that goes against we customers and IMHO against music analog reproduction. )

17 stages/filters additional where the cartridge signal pass and that does not happen in an integrated Phonolinepreamp!!!!!

and the signal is only at the line stage unit and still has a long " road " to the amplifier inputs.

Mike, IMHO that cartridge signal that pass through so many filters are really degraded one and the real subject here is that not only ignorant reviewers like AD are supporting that kind of " signal torture road " but that we music lovers/audiophiles does not take much care about because we are really happy with those separate electronics and SUTs, even are proud of those kind of units: one person posted somewhere that the big separate Aesthetix electronics is a world class product, how can be?????? ( full of additional stages/filters degrading the cartridge signal. ) and now that same person still has tube separates ( a different one. ) full of transformers including SUT! .

Mike, unfortunately for all of us this is part of the real imperfect analog world that we love, that we support and that we enjoy every single day till ( my hope. ) a better commercial music reproduction source appears in the future!!!!

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear friends: In this link you can read what " Turntable " member posted on vintage MM/MI analog source alternative with the very fine Ortofon today LOMC A-90 cartridge:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?1260-Best-Phono-Cartridges-Ever-Made

++++++ " Originally Posted by turntable
Greggadd, that sure is the cartridge, as that is mine actual cartridge !! original price in 1983 was 65,000 yen.

Gotta agree with Raul, one of ther worlds best cartridges ever. As a reference, it is equally as good as my Ortofon A90. " +++++

yes, you read well: the Technics was build in 1983, that's 27 years ago!!!!

Certainly that these 27 years is a " heavy " handicap for this vintage MM cartridge against today LOMC cartridges because through 27 years at least the cartridge suspension " suffer " because of time. Now, just imagine this same vintage Technics if was/is build and " fresh " today!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IMHO: no contest at all.

This is only an example of many ones that tell/confirm us that " new " not always means " better ". That cartridge had 27 years old but there are great examples that comes from 40+ years ago.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.