[dlaloum]

It is an interesting observation on audiophile society....

Audiophiles were always looking for better imaging & soundstaging - when some hand made MC's out of Japan started showing stunning soundstaging it started a trend towards "big staging"...

Along the way more prosaic details like a flat frequency response started getting pushed back in the priority list, MC's ended up dominating audiophilia and here we are....

Which is not to say there aren't MC's that get it all right (or close to!) - just that they are more difficult / expensive to make, and that they don't necessarily sell a lot due to perceived flaws (such as narrow soundstage).

Interestingly the Dynavector Karat is a prime example - in theoretical terms it is close to perfect, reviews consistently talk about its narrow soundstage (narrow compared to what?).
Dynavector later fixed the marketing issue by bringing to market more audiophile oriented models (quite a few of which are more expensive).

Without having heard them myself - I do wonder whether the other models are aimed more at "romantic" sound and soundstaging, where the Karat was aimed at purist reproduction of the recording.... which leads one to ask - which one is the correct approach? - and I guess that depends on what you want out of it!

bye for now

David

[neobop]

Have you checked what the Frequency-Amplitude response of those cartridges is?

I ask because many MC's have a rising top end - which lends itself to an extreme soundstage...

The rise is often beyond the brightness frequencies (lower high end) so they don't necessarily sound too bright.

On MM's this top end is often tamed by the higher inductance of the cartridge.... on MC's it can only be tamed by using a much more sophisticated cantilever construction (eg: special materials, very short cantilever) - to move the resonance that causes the rise out of harms way.... which requires the cantilever resonance to be up above 30Khz and preferably above 50khz.

Very very few MC's actually achieve this.

bye for now
David

David,
Interesting correlation between amplitude response (rising high end) and extreme soundstage, rather than superior imaging of MCs due to better phase performance especially in the lower treble region.   I guess one man's superior imaging is another's exaggerated soundstage.

Although we're talking in generalities,  I don't buy the explanation, not entirely anyway.  I'm not trying to make a case for MCs, but you mush admit that lower treble region is often much more phase coherent in MCs than MMs.  MC also tend to have flatter response in that region with less treble droop, so which would likely be more technically correct?   Also, I don't think inductance has that much to do with lower treble.  Very high inductance could reinforce the mid/low treble by lowering the high freq resonance and rolling off the extreme high end. 

Still, the correlation between rising high end and imaging is interesting and perhaps it is a factor.  Combined with inferior (usually) MM phase performance, the MC would be exaggerated and the MM would be deficient.   
neo 

[dlaloum]

Hi Neo

what I am saying is
1) low inductance designs tend to expose cantilever resonance (as it is not balanced by LCR loading..)
2) basic aluminium cantilevers have resonances causing a boost at anywhere from 11Hz to 16Hz (examples Ed Saunders V15V stylus - 11Hz, Shure & Jico standard elipticals circa 16Hz), high quality aluminiums will place the resonance at 18Hz to 21Hz (examples Pickering Z7500s, Ortofon OM20/30/40) - exotic cantilevers can place the resonance higher (Jico SAS - circa 28kHz, Dynavector Karat 50Khz to 70kHz depending on model)
3) Audio perception is a beast! - amplitude boosts in the very directional higher frequencies can be perceived as broadened soundstage
4) Brightness is not a reflection of a linear boost across the high end - but a reflection of a boost between around 5kHz and 10kHz - boosts above 10kHz don't tend to be perceived as "brightness"
5) a cantilever with a resonance in the lower highs eg: 11kHz - is very likely to sound "Bright" even if the high end above 16kHz drops off dramatically - counter intuitive I know... - So a basic relatively heavy aluminium cantilever in an MC can be a bad thing (assuming you don't like "brightness")
6) A cantilever with a resonance around 16kHz will boost frequencies from around 8kHz (within the brightness range) up to around 32KHz - resulting in both brightness and strong soundstage perception.... the cues for both are boosted.
7) A cantilever with a resonance around 19kHz (eg Pickering 7500) will boost frequencies starting from around 9.5kHz.... so negligible impact on the brightness zone - but substantial impact in the soundstage cues - this is common for many high quality MC's

The very best MM/MI designs are mid inductance - not as low as true low inductance designs - so it does not expose cantilever resonance quite as harshly, but does not depress the high end as much as high inductance designs do. Fit a traditional 6mm or 7mm high quality cantilever to one of these - adjust with the right loading, and you can achieve theoretically very very good results without resorting to technological or engineering extremes....

eg: CA Maestro, V15VMR, Technics EPC100/205, many others

But these are just my ruminations.... and maybe I ate just one hash brownie too many....

bye for now

David

[neobop]

Hi David,
That was a mouthful.
I think you might be right about boosted very high frequency response (10 to 20K) enhancing imaging, but I wonder about the relevance of supporting hash brownies arguments.   

You're very knowledgeable about cantilever resonance, but what's that have to do with the price of chickens?  I don't think amplitude response is the driving force behind imaging or soundstage.  Your correlations about soundstage perception and amplitude response is interesting, but I still don't buy it.

Remember the Ortofon paper?  It showed a direct correlation, imaging with phase linearity regardless of MM amplitude response.  What do you think the situation would be if the MC had a resonance of 60K instead of 27K ? 
With damping the MC showed phase implications down to 8K.  If high freq resonance is now 60K, phase nonlinearities could be entirely out of band.
Imaging and soundstage might be reproduced perfectly.  Admittedly, this is conjecture to a certain extent, but it's conjecture based on the only known (to me) measurement of phase vs amplitude response. 

Those brownies must be fun.     Think I'll find me some maui wowie, we call it luau.

neo

 

[neobop]

Hi Neo

what I am saying is
1) low inductance designs tend to expose cantilever resonance (as it is not balanced by LCR loading..)
2) basic aluminium cantilevers have resonances causing a boost at anywhere from 11Hz to 16Hz (examples Ed Saunders V15V stylus - 11Hz, Shure & Jico standard elipticals circa 16Hz), high quality aluminiums will place the resonance at 18Hz to 21Hz (examples Pickering Z7500s, Ortofon OM20/30/40) - exotic cantilevers can place the resonance higher (Jico SAS - circa 28kHz, Dynavector Karat 50Khz to 70kHz depending on model)
3) Audio perception is a beast! - amplitude boosts in the very directional higher frequencies can be perceived as broadened soundstage
4) Brightness is not a reflection of a linear boost across the high end - but a reflection of a boost between around 5kHz and 10kHz - boosts above 10kHz don't tend to be perceived as "brightness"
5) a cantilever with a resonance in the lower highs eg: 11kHz - is very likely to sound "Bright" even if the high end above 16kHz drops off dramatically - counter intuitive I know... - So a basic relatively heavy aluminium cantilever in an MC can be a bad thing (assuming you don't like "brightness")
6) A cantilever with a resonance around 16kHz will boost frequencies from around 8kHz (within the brightness range) up to around 32KHz - resulting in both brightness and strong soundstage perception.... the cues for both are boosted.
7) A cantilever with a resonance around 19kHz (eg Pickering 7500) will boost frequencies starting from around 9.5kHz.... so negligible impact on the brightness zone - but substantial impact in the soundstage cues - this is common for many high quality MC's

The very best MM/MI designs are mid inductance - not as low as true low inductance designs - so it does not expose cantilever resonance quite as harshly, but does not depress the high end as much as high inductance designs do. Fit a traditional 6mm or 7mm high quality cantilever to one of these - adjust with the right loading, and you can achieve theoretically very very good results without resorting to technological or engineering extremes....

eg: CA Maestro, V15VMR, Technics EPC100/205, many others

But these are just my ruminations.... and maybe I ate just one hash brownie too many....

bye for now

David

Thanks David,
I'm quoting David's post because this information is invaluable, especially for those considering cantilever substitutions.  The stylus type has an influence on the frequency extension and detail, but cantilever resonance is a crucial factor in voicing or re-voicing a cart.

This was brought home to me just the other day.  I jury-rigged the Sonus arm (I thought I repaired it, but the best laid plans of mice and men..)  and mounted an AT-440/140LC.  After things settled down I changed the load to 32K just like as with the original stylus.  The 140LC stylus is similar to the 440 except the tip is a nude LC instead of an ML.   At one point I had a 152ML on there.  That's a beryllium ML and it positively transformed the cart.  It doesn't sound bad now, much like the original, but with the 152 it was absolutely first rate.  Optimal load changed to around 42K or slightly higher.  The 440 may not be considered a world class cart, but with the right stylus and load it really is.

To be honest, I don't know first hand of any cantilever changes other than to exotic types, that make such a dramatic change.  With the Virtuoso I got a nice improvement using a AT7V stylus.  That's a .2 x .7 nude tip on a tapered cantilever.  Griff said, going to a 440MLa stylus was substantial so I guess the tip made a big difference over and above the cantilever.  The Maestro stylus is boron/ML so there's little doubt where to go with this.

Any further comments, David?
neo

[dlaloum]

When I get the combination of 1) Time, and 2) my gear back where I can get at it (!) - I have been wanting to do comparisons and measurements where first a single body is used with various styli, and then a single stylus is used while varying body types....

The trouble is finding a "family" of styli and cartridge bodies where the single variable can be changed without something else changing!

I started by focusing on the V15V for which I now have an OEM stylus (loaned by Empirelvr), and SAS stylus, (no ordinary aluminium), I also have various other "ordinary" Shure bodies including the V15RS (identical to the V15VxMR) -

For the V15RS I have the oem beryllium HE stylus, and the SAS - but no ordinary aluminium

In the AT family I have the 440MLa, and the 152LP along with various bodies (440MLa, TK6, 150e, RX1500, etc...) and at least one aftermarket conical stylus for the family.... which I don't believe to be a valid comparison point.... I really should get a shibata or HE on a standard aftermarket stylus (Jico, or perhaps LPGear vividline...)

So far my measurements and comparisons have indicated that the cantilever is the #1 biggest cause of variance - and keep in mind that suspension and compliance go with the stylus as well - (unless you have the skills to do very delicate transfer work - after the sacrifice of a perfectly good ATN15ss stylus I have put that particular approach aside).

Much as I would like to identify the impact of pole laminations - at this point I do not know what to look for, or what to try to measure.... Nothing so far jumps out...

Perhaps I should bite the bullet and spend the $30 on the IEEE paper from JVC about pulse-train measurements of cartridge phase performance.... (this was the first major published work on the topic, before the Ortofon Ortophase papers)


On a related topic... I was re-reading the Stereophile review of the Ortofon MC3000....
In this review it mentions that after "Golden Ear" sessions run by Ortofon determined that the "Golde Ear" fraternity preferred a slight rise of around 2db at 20kHz, they started incorporating this into their cartridge designs.
The earlier MC2000 (not the MC2000mkII) was purported to be perfectly flat (in F/R) - and a wonderfully neutral transducer.

It seems to me that the MC2000, MC200, and MC100 all came out around the same time, (early 80's) before the Ortophase papers, and were aimed at the engineering goal of perfect neutrality - flat frequency response.

After the Ortophase tests (which were based on the MC200 in various modified forms) - things seem to change - I have a strong suspicion that the "Golden Ears" tests which led to the chosen 2db top end rise, and the Ortophase tests (and associated articles) are one and the same.

One thing that was never clarified in those tests was whether Ortofon found a means to seperate phase/frequency effects from amplitude/frequency - my hunch is that they didn't (it would require linear phase filters, and prior to the true digital era this was non-viable). And that therefore the tests conflated phase and amplitude - in the end they concluded that audiophiles preferred a slight top end rise - and started tilting their new models in that direction.

It is interesting that they chose "golden ears" and not experienced recording engineers.... the chosen preferences might have been quite different? (ie: would those with regular access to Master tapes, perhaps choose the more neutral alternative?)

I do keep an eye out on the usual auction site for a stylusless CA body to add to my collection... and to try out with various stylus options based on the ongoing rave reviews - but so far the bidding has always beaten my willingness to spend....

bye for now

David

[neobop]

On a related topic... I was re-reading the Stereophile review of the Ortofon MC3000....
In this review it mentions that after "Golden Ear" sessions run by Ortofon determined that the "Golde Ear" fraternity preferred a slight rise of around 2db at 20kHz, they started incorporating this into their cartridge designs.
The earlier MC2000 (not the MC2000mkII) was purported to be perfectly flat (in F/R) - and a wonderfully neutral transducer.

It seems to me that the MC2000, MC200, and MC100 all came out around the same time, (early 80's) before the Ortophase papers, and were aimed at the engineering goal of perfect neutrality - flat frequency response.

After the Ortophase tests (which were based on the MC200 in various modified forms) - things seem to change - I have a strong suspicion that the "Golden Ears" tests which led to the chosen 2db top end rise, and the Ortophase tests (and associated articles) are one and the same.

One thing that was never clarified in those tests was whether Ortofon found a means to seperate phase/frequency effects from amplitude/frequency - my hunch is that they didn't (it would require linear phase filters, and prior to the true digital era this was non-viable). And that therefore the tests conflated phase and amplitude - in the end they concluded that audiophiles preferred a slight top end rise - and started tilting their new models in that direction.

It is interesting that they chose "golden ears" and not experienced recording engineers.... the chosen preferences might have been quite different? (ie: would those with regular access to Master tapes, perhaps choose the more neutral alternative?)

I do keep an eye out on the usual auction site for a stylusless CA body to add to my collection... and to try out with various stylus options based on the ongoing rave reviews - but so far the bidding has always beaten my willingness to spend....

bye for now

David

It's always fascinating to read you opinions or findings on these subjects.  Interesting take on Ortofon.  They seemed to make it quite clear that all carts have a naturally rising high end (mechanical).  Although it might be limited by cantilever/tip performance, or in the case of a HO, inductance, it was the spread of phase nonlinearity to lower octaves that screwed up imaging.  Their measurements are convincing and they also assert that it's damping specifically that causes phase problems and HO carts are more heavily damped.  Their icing on the cake so to speak was the assertion that the MC200 when damped to flat amplitude response on the high end, didn't image nearly as well due to increased phase discrepancies spreading to lower octaves.   

Guess you can't have your cake and eat it too.  Maybe if high end resonance is extended out enough, phase errors stay out of band and damping wouldn't be such a problem.  I think you'd probably end up with a cart with a very short or nonexistent cantilever, although the Genesis 1000 has response > 100K, but I don't know where HF resonance is. 
neo

[neobop]

It's all about learning. I'm more interested in your evaluation process. I'd like to know about the cartridges you've evaluated and how you came to the conclusion that they were not worthy. I'm also interested in your current reference. I'm relatively new to the mm world and I have a lot to learn. I know you're interested in the carts inductance, but inductance alone doesn't explain a cart's performance. I'd prefer not to waste my time and money trying to figure out what you already know. I know it's unlikely, but if there was anything I could do to help, I'd surely be open to it.

Sincerely,
Don

I've been thinking about this and your previous question, have I given up the search?  That one implies a holy grail cart or some undiscovered "best".
The holy grail doesn't exist or it's numerous carts that many individuals get best results with.  If you read over the MM thread you'll have a list of those carts, but it's not entirely definitive.  The problem is twofold.  First, Raul's conclusions might be right for him, but they are by no means universal.  His methodology is so wacked out that it's a wonder he has any credibility.  Second, because it's his thread, possibilities could be excluded and erroneous conclusions reached.  Because it's basically a selection of many TOTL carts you're bound to get most of the "best".

Examples:  The Stanton 981 is highly regarded, but what about the 881?  The 881 is higher inductance and might be more forgiving but is a very listenable cart.  To some degree it depends on what your looking for. 
I had a B & O cart years ago.  It was good, but I never owned a MMC-1 or 2.  I think there are similarities with a Grace F-9 Ruby with which I'm more familiar?
I'm not in a position now to buy them and find out.  That goes for numerous others.  The only results that matter are yours.

The AT made carts I've owned and think are best are AT-15/20SS, TK-10ML II, Virtuoso.  I think you can get similar results with some vintage AT carts with a stylus substitution.  Example, AT-12S and Sa. But many of them are very nice with the right stylus. 

We can discuss methodology if you wish.
neo

[Grbluen]

Sounds good. I actually stumbled into the AT-13 series cartridge. I simply tired of chasing Raul's cartridge of the month, and was unwilling to pay the "Raul Premium". I somehow, mistakenly or not, came up with the notion that some of the older AT carts would perform better than their newer models. I found your thread and thought you might be on to the scent. I'd be willing to invest a bit to help complete your work. My current favorite is the LS500, and I know this cartridge has more to offer than my system will be capable of revealing. If it's possible that you haven't already evaluated this one, I'd be willing to lend this one for evaluation.

Don_grb

[neobop]

Sounds good. I actually stumbled into the AT-13 series cartridge. I simply tired of chasing Raul's cartridge of the month, and was unwilling to pay the "Raul Premium". I somehow, mistakenly or not, came up with the notion that some of the older AT carts would perform better than their newer models. I found your thread and thought you might be on to the scent. I'd be willing to invest a bit to help complete your work. My current favorite is the LS500, and I know this cartridge has more to offer than my system will be capable of revealing. If it's possible that you haven't already evaluated this one, I'd be willing to lend this one for evaluation.

Don_grb

LS500?  Fascinating!  Don't sell yourself short.  I think you might have something big to contribute. 

I think you're right about some of the older AT models, but it depends on priorities.  In general, IMO some degree of listenability was sacrificed for higher output.  Carts like the AT-12, 13E(a) and those early ones with 1200 ohm impedance and 4.2mV out, seem easier to take in their orig form and like Timeltel said in his review of the 13Ea/155LC, much to offer.  His description made me want to try a 15/20SS stylus on an old 12E I picked up, although I haven't tried that yet.

The current TOTL, the 150MLX -  This has good potential but might require careful loading.  I suspect the high impedance could be problematic.  Some users measure a rise from 5K up as if capacitance loading was much too high.  The cart has admirably low inductance so I figure impedance must be the problem.  Set- up and loaded properly it seems to be very detailed and dynamic.  BTW, the budget AT-100E has the identical generator in a plastic body, and costs around $80. The stock stylus is similar to a reg CA or 95E except it's a 100 series and the ATN150MLX or a 155LC etc, will fit. 

Do you have the spec sheet or any specific info on the LS500?  Plug type?  Not a whole lot is known about the LS series.  I've never heard one.  All I know is the LS300 has 4.2mV (same as Precept 440), response to 26K with a .4 x .7 tip and max VTF is 2g.  Maybe you've found the Precept counterpart.

If it's your current favorite you might want to think about it before you loan it out.  Please tell us about the LS500.
neo

   

[Grbluen]

No worries, I've got three bodies. I'm not so adept at figuring out the property loading, and the compliance is a little off for at least one of my arms. I have a slightly lighter arm that I'm going to try it on. I don't have much in the way of specifications, but I'll see what I can dig up! That's part of the reason for asking for your help. If I can figure out if it's worth it, I'd be willing to attempt some sort of upgrade for the stylus/cantilever.
Best wishes,
Don

[neobop]

Okay, we can figure it out together, or separately depending how you look at it.
I looked up the LpGear replacement stylus and it's an ATN13Ex substitution.  So that means it's a round plug and came with an aluminum cantilever?

With 4.2mV it's probably either the same motor as the AT-12,13 etc. or the Precept.  You could determine that with a digital volt meter (presumably).  If you have one, put it on the 2000 ohm resistance scale and measure the resistance between the + and - pins on either channel.  If it reads 700 ohms or more, it's probably the same as the 13E.  If it reads less than 500 ohms it could be the same as Precept.  You can't go wrong either way.  If it's a 13E type, you could fit it with an exotic stylus and get results similar to Timeltel with his 13Ea/155LC.  It might not be the ultimate, but it sounds eminently listenable to me.  On the other hand, all the old time top AT generators have impedance of around 500 ohms - AT-12S, Sa, 14S, Sa, 15/20 series, and low inductance.  What's surprising about Precept is higher output like the 12,13, and low inductance/resistance.  BTW, the only round plug exotic stylus available is the 20SS - beryllium nude square shank shibata.  Timeltel transplanted the 155LC into a round plug.  For most med mass arms the 152LC might be a better choice. 

With the original stylus VTF should probably be between 1.5 and 1.8g.  I imagine it sounds pretty good at 47K.  All ATs should load at < 200pF.  That's arm wire + cables + preamp.
Thanks for the generous offer.  I'll send you a PM.
neo

[Grbluen]

Neo,
Two of the samples measured out at about 1200 ohms.
Sorry,
Don

[neobop]

Don Grb,
Still a nice motor with good potential I think, if not the ultimate.  You might want to measure the channel to channel resistance between the samples and use the one that matches closest.  If that is a round plug (sometimes AT reused model numbers) you could look for one of the other models mentioned above and use the 20SS stylus on either or both.  You might have to trim some plastic on the sides - the wings, for it to fit.  Maybe you can find an old 12S body and do some comparisons.  An exotic (beryllium in this case) stylus is the key to top performance on any AT.

I don't know what other carts you have but you said that the LS500 is your current favorite.  If you can pick up an ATN20SS (tip) or do a transplant like Timeltel, you can tell us the results.  You might want to look for one of those 500 ohm bodies.  I don't know if you have any inclination to embrace the dark side and join the ISTT (Intergalactic Stylus Transplant Team), but it's loads of fun and can get quite expensive if you break an exotic stylus.  Our slogan is: Have your cart be all that it can be.  Explore unknown generators and go where no stylus has gone before.  Join the ISTT !!   

neo

[dlaloum]

The question of what makes a great (MM/MI) generator still remains to be answered...

we know that sophisticated innards (laminations or Hot Pressed Ferrite) apparently reduce high frequency losses...

I do not claim to understand the physics behind this reduction in HF losses.... I would love to get a decent comprehensible explanation...

The construction techniques are:

1) Lamination of the poles - apparently the more sheets are laminated and the thinner they are the better the effect - Nagaoka have detailed some of this in their catalogues.... their TOTL MP50/500 has more and thinner laminations than the 30/300, and the 10/11/100/110 have the fewest laminations of the thickest material.

So not all laminated pole cartridges are equal! (presumably different AT models will have similar variations? - how do we find out?)

2) Hot Pressed Ferrite - Technics advertised this construction method for its TOTL EPC100's and EPC250's - in the lower end EPC202/23/etc... they used laminated cores.

So is HPF better than laminations? or is HPF better than top end laminations but not lower end laminations?
What would the difference be?

3) Slit / Split Poles, introduced by Ortofon with the SuperOM series and used ever since in their upper cartridges, it is claimed to have a similar effect within their VMS type systems as laminations and HPF are claimed to have in the MM setups...

Might be worth chasing down matched pairs of cartridges with and without laminations to see what the influence of the laminations are - are there such beasts?

bye for now

David

[neobop]

David,
As an end user there's much of this construction we don't know, or don't know much about, but is this necessary knowledge to distinguish a Maestro from an AT-95 or a TK10ML from a TK1?  We might be influenced by our preconceived notions (A can't be as good as B), but in the end the truth of the difference in presentation reveals itself.  Maybe I'm being overly optimistic in saying that.  Each individual has system related parameters and personal priorities that are preferred.  But there is also common agreement about the better performers, if not the best.

I'm not saying this to make a case for ignorance of these construction techniques, just trying to get some perspective.  There are parameters of AT construction I know little about, and in trying to correlate specs to performance there seems to be gaps of knowledge.  I assumed that lack of PCC wire accounted for AT-95 higher impedance over CA, but could laminations be a factor?  I suspect all the coils are wound in a similar fashion regardless of wire and magnets are standardized within a series, in this case 3400.  I also have no doubt that AT makes the entire CA cart, except maybe the wood) and V2 was ordered with stronger magnets. 

I don't know that much about Nagaoka.  The specs tend to put me off, but is the MP-50/500 lower impedance because of laminations?  Impedance vs DC resistance seems to be a factor with AT.  I wonder if this is a factor in general with all HO carts?
neo

[dlaloum]

I don't think laminations affect impedance (or inductance)... I think that is coil driven...

But I have been thinking about output levels magnet sizes and the magnetic "circuit" involved in a cartridge....

Seems to me that the laminations and such are intended to provide a higher level of "headroom" - with large or powerful magnets, the magnetic circuit can perhaps get saturated, in which case you start seeing a loss of HF.. (or rather the HF signal comes in at a lower amplitude.

Most TOTL MM designs have historically been lower output... (and their very closely related mid range cousins - with interchangeable styli between the two - had higher output...) - and perhaps this was done intentionally to keep the magnetic circuit from saturating and entering its non-linear zone - thereby ensuring HF extension, and reduced harmonic distortion, etc...

Smaller magnets do have lower mass - but that reduction of mass near the pivot point is not major - perhaps the really important thing is the saturation level of the core, and keeping well below it?

Just another set of musings

bye for now

David

[neobop]

Seems to me this started with 4-ch carts with intentionally small coils (inductance) for extended response.  I would guess that the same magnets would result in 2.7mV for the AT12S and 4.2mV for the 13Ea.

It seems that as the years rolled by more priority was given to high output.  This also seems true of other companies like Ortofon.
neo

[neobop]

David,
I forgot to mention - magnet strength effects impedance.  Check out Maestro V2.
http://www.clearaudio.de/_de/tan_Maestro%20V2.php

neo

[dlaloum]

Hi Folks,

do we know for a fact that the V2 is different electrically to the AT95?

With the V1 people measured the DC resistance and found the V1 to be substantially lower resistance than the AT95, has one of you folks actually measured the DC resistance of the V2 to compare to the V1 and AT95.... the DC resistance was the giveaway that the V1 was different to the AT95.... the impedance at 1kHz was the same... as were the other body specs...

I know that Neo for one experimented with potting and modding the AT95 - and found that it could not match the V1.

bye for now

David