Original US model Shure SC35C

Glad your enjoying it marco,this is easily the best £62 i have ever spent ;)

Highly recommended,if you can get one,i'd snap it up as quick as you can.It took me over a year to get one though,and had to place a wanted ad in the end,as ebay ect was not very succesfull.

My system is now nearing where i want it to be,the technics can wait for major upgrades(bearing,platter) till well into next year while i decide which route to take.I probaly try some isonoes and that will be it.

Croft pre,is going nowhere :eyebrows: so just need to address my speaker issue.The tapco's im using for the money are very good imo,and complement the shure's capabilities quite well,but they still have there limits,which i feel have now been reached (in the d.i.y. section i have posted about changing caps in the monitors but this was before i got the shure).

Could any reccomend some passive speakers that would work with a croft pre/power and play to the shure's strenght's? Im thinking at least 8" drivers,maybe sealed and either vintage or modern.

Active wise i've been looking at Acoustic Energy AE22's which tick alot of box's for me,but not sure how much better they would be over what i have.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may0...energyae22.htm

Sorry for the thread drift :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DSJR

...I know Shure started making styli (at least) in Mexico, but if the bodies sound so different, there must be proper reasons WHY - such as different coil windings etc. This MAY have been intentional you know, in an attempt to flatten the dull balance, they may have taken the weight and power away to a degree in balance...

---

That certainly makes sense. Hopefully, they would have done it for those reasons and not just to save some quid on magnet wire.

Thing is, it's the current SC35Cs that sound rather dull in balance, not the earlier models, so Dave's (undoubtedly logical) assertion is unfortunately the wrong way round ;)

Marco.

Where's this craze (craze ?) for MM, and vintage MMs at that, coming from? I just ordered a vintage Stanton 681 to see what the fuss is about.

Hi Peter,

Because they spank the pants off of many cartridges made these days, and often some pretty expensive ones (if you're not into a clinical 'hi-fi' type of sound). The Stanton should be rather nice, and similar in balance, sonically, to my Pickering XV-15 625E. Let us know how you get on with it :)

Marco.

Amazing how popular the bass up-treble down balance is becoming in certain quarters here. Anyone would think the speakers used have too much HF screaming around :ner: :lol:

I can't afford nor justify it, but I've just bought a NOS VN15E for my v15 mk2 body. This was renowned for it's "severe" treble dip (there was an article on modifying the Quad 33 phono card to correct this), although I wonder if it's not the same as the M75-ED?

The thing about many modern cartridges is that they've attempted to tame the obvious excesses out of the old mm models of yesteryear. Some of the high-output MC's point the way in this and I remember the Dynavector 10X IV and V as well as the Denon DL110/160 as being just what Marco would love (I reckon) as a bridge between old and new, keeping the ballsy bass but with some treble as well.

I had a quick sesh with the V15 III (new original stylus) and my favourite old Ortofon M20FL Super, both a great match to the Dual 701. The Ortofon is marvellous up top, with clarity but no stridency at all. The bass in the Dual is clean with little to none of the bloat which afflicted the higher compliance VMS20 and 30 models (the VMS30 sort of replaced the M20FL Super I think). The V15 III is a funny one though (uses the "LM" mount into the Duad shell), the upper mid can sometimes be relentless with some pressings (but not all) and although the bass is tighter and not as meaty as the Ortofon, the way one can separate out kick drums from plucked bass so easily is highly addictive and sort-of Decca like - the Decca has more drama though...

The Stanton 681EEE I have is refined and doesn't appear dull, but the bass in this deck is soft when compared to the two above. I do remember that in late '74, when I started my audio career proper, the V15 III was bypassed by many of the staff in favour of the 681EEE, ADC XLM (used best in the Transcriptors Fluid arm at well under a gramme) or the Ortofon M15E (Super). The SC35 wasn't around then and the M44 and 55 series, of which there were many models (of M44's), were regarded as budget models like the Goldring G800 and newly launched 820's. All this before the MC invasion (the SL15 Ortofons were well loved but judged too quirky for the mainstream I remember)

Quote:

---

Amazing how popular the bass up-treble down balance is becoming in certain quarters here. Anyone would think the speakers used have too much HF screaming around...

---

Lol - no such thing here, squire!

One could also say that people who use 'filling removing' sonic abominations, such as OC-9s and Lyras, do so to wake-up sleepy-sounding 'pipe & slippers' systems, sponsored by the insomnia society! :eyebrows:

Anyway, in use, the original US model Shure SC35C doesn't possess the balance you refer to above, which you should know, having read my review ;)

The joy of good vintage cartridges is that they don't have the insistent and artificially 'spot-lit' top-end of most modern designs, but in no way sound shut-in or rounded off, in the right system, but simply more natural and 'unforced', and consequently more musically satisfying with it :cool:

They just don't make 'em like they used to!

Marco.

You guys need to hear a modern MM like my Goldring 2500 and donate those things to the Victoria and Albert;)
Seriously though, well done with your aquisitions, no upgrade as satisfying as a well matched cartridge.

Lol, Colin! If your 2500 sounds anything like a 1042, then count me out!! :spew:

Otherwise, I'm all ears, dude! :)

Marco.

Nah thats another museum piece. I dont like them either.