Tell me about the Shure M3D Stereo cart..

KentTeffeteller said:
Best place to install a M3D, a higher mass tonearm. A great arm for a M3D would be something akin to a Rek-O-Kut Micropoise tonearm with a big Ashland Motored Rek-O-Kut Rondine idler broadcast table or similar. Dual 1019 is happier with a Shure M75 based option on it or similar. Dual 1010 would be a M44-7 candidate.
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks for that info, my M3D is on a Garrard 210 changer right now. Maybe I will just keep it there.

My 1019 has a M75E on it and it does sing nicely. I also have a sled set up with a V15-II using a genuine Shure VN15E and it is a great combination on the 1019.
 
It sounds great but I would not recommend it on modern records
It was the top of the line for a little while and they sold the thing well into the 70s, styli too, so I have no idea why the bodies are going for so much
I got mine for free and sold it for $75 on craigslist
I saw it mentioned in some other posts about the styli that come in pill capsules being real Shure needles, that does NOT mean that they are genuine Shure, a bunch of aftermarkets are packaged that way
The lighter tracking N21D is almost impossible to find today so you are looking at a minimum of 3 grams VTF even with a Jico and you need a good heavy arm to actually hear what this thing can do
I wouldn't use it as a daily player
I had a nice one I got off an old turntable, tried it for a while and then sold it to a guy into Lencos and archiving old discs
He was happy
It has a big beautiful sound but not very practical in my opinion
 
Last edited:
malden said:
The M3D was my first cartridge back in 1976. I still use it occasionally and it is perfectly safe for modern records. Here's a JICO clone of the N21D stylus that tracks between 1.5 and 2.5 grams.

https://www.jico-stylus.com/product_info.php?products_id=1601
Click to expand...
Yeah, one of a dozen aftermarkets obviously
There's plenty of those around, I think I saw someone post that genuine Shures were readily available, the pill capsule conversation, that is what I was referring to
I bought both Jicos after writing them forever, they are both the same despite what they say and the different part numbers, the cantilever is not correct for a genuine N21D either, on either of their part numbers
I finally settled on a verified new old stock N21D and it's performance was so so fitted to an RB1000
The M3D would not track well at 1.5 grams, at least not for me
Too much mass
Maybe the arm wasn't a good match? Regardless, cartridges are a thing where progress has actually been made so I saw no sense in trying to make a museum piece work on my valuable stuff
It's a great cartridge for a Garrard changer, and I will admit the Beatles on ancient well traveled first pressings have never sounded so good
"I Saw Her Standing There" on 45 almost blew my mind
But it's just too much for me. I can get that same big explosive sound with something like a DL-103 and know for certain that the tip is first rate

From Jico after emailing them for a month:
The Specification of our N3 [e007407] are

Tip: conical 0.6 mil

Bonded diamond tip

Tracking Force: 3.0-6.0g

Output Voltage: 4.5mV

Channel Balance: 1.5dB

Compliance: 3 x 10^-6 cm/dyne (lateral)

3 x 10^-6 cm/dyne (vertical)

Frequency Range: 20-20,000 Hz



The Specification of our N-21[e007376] are

Tip: conical 0.6 mil

Bonded diamond tip

Tracking Force: 1.5-2.5g

Output Voltage: 4.5mV

Channel Balance: 1.5dB

Compliance: 7 x 10^-6 cm/dyne (lateral)

7 x 10^-6 cm/dyne (vertical)

Frequency Range: 20-20,000 Hz



Sincerely,

Seth Kolon / JICO
 
Thanks Seth ! (aka @noisemodule)

The Specification of our N3 [e007407] are

Tip: conical 0.6 mil
Bonded diamond tip
Tracking Force: 3.0-6.0g
Output Voltage: 4.5mV
Channel Balance: 1.5dB
Compliance: 3 x 10^-6 cm/dyne (lateral)
3 x 10^-6 cm/dyne (vertical)
Frequency Range: 20-20,000 Hz

The Specification of our N-21[e007376] are

Tip: conical 0.6 mil
Bonded diamond tip
Tracking Force: 1.5-2.5g
Output Voltage: 4.5mV
Channel Balance: 1.5dB
Compliance: 7 x 10^-6 cm/dyne (lateral)
7 x 10^-6 cm/dyne (vertical)
Frequency Range: 20-20,000 Hz

Sincerely,

Seth Kolon / JICO
 
Last edited:
The nice thing about those JICO styli for the M3D, M7D, etc. is that they are .6 mil tips. Your run-of-the-mill EVG, Pfanstiehl, etc. have .7 mil tips which is fine for worn records, but I prefer the upper end of a diminutive .6 mil...:)
 
Last edited:
Shakedown said:
.......As for the Shure M3D, it blows a lot of stock cartridges out of the water if you can find one for a good price. Have never tried playing one on 78 shellac before to be honest, I'm looking for a great cartridge for thick shellac and this may be a good candidate over modern cartridges.
Click to expand...

I think Shure did produce a 78 rpm stylus for the M3D but I have never seen one in person. I do have a NOS Pfanstiehl 757-D3 from the 1970's. It has a 3 mil tip and tracks between 1.5 and 2.5 grams. I am not aware of any current production M3D styli for 78's...:dunno:
 
bobins08 said:
Ok, thanks for that info, my M3D is on a Garrard 210 changer right now. Maybe I will just keep it there.

My 1019 has a M75E on it and it does sing nicely. I also have a sled set up with a V15-II using a genuine Shure VN15E and it is a great combination on the 1019.
Click to expand...

P.S. The HiFi dealer I patronized called the M75ED the "V 15 Type II for the sensible man" as they were so similar in performance and tracking, and based on the same engine. He used one on his personal Dual 1019. He could have had the V 15 Type II anytime he wanted one, for free from Shure. He chose to keep his M75ED. Your Garrard 210 is fine for a M3D, just needs to be tracked one gram heavier than minimum, many changers of the day had them fitted.
 
Have not had a M3D but picked a NOS M7D last year. Recently put it on my Pioneer PL-L1000A set at 3g and very pleased with the sound. First conical that I've given much attention to. Will need to get a N21D stylus to see if there's any difference.
 
Hello all, I have a question for you. I hunting a M3D and look it up in the literature.

Around 1965, the price drops dramaticcally, from 47$ to 15$. Why ?

I have some hypothesis but nothing confirm :

-Because the V15 arrives has the flagship cartridge and conical stylus was yesterday news;
-Because Shure find a way to make it more efficiently
-Shure drops the handmade verification
-Shure drop down the quality...

Reports comparing the older one to the new one are scarce and evasive.
Their is cosmetic changes, but technically, they are the same.
Can someone help me?
 
My guess is by 1965 the M3D sales either went flat or even downward, but not enough to warrant discontinuing the cart. There was certainly still a market for it, so diminished demand combined with advances in manufacturing and the adding of newer, more advanced cartridges pushed the price down.

As I understand it, all of Shure's carts sprang from the M3D so there was probably no small amount of common parts or shared materials or manufacturing processes across the line, which could contribute to being able to lower the price, but still make a worthwhile profit for the company. I also would imagine by 1965 making the cart would also have evolved to be a semi-automated process making it easier to assemble than in 1958.
 
It is possible and plausible, which reinforce the possibility that the M3D did not degrade in performance.

I also ask if someone have experience sonic difference between the two.
 
M3D & mono question that hopefully some of you may be able to opine on. May I know your thoughts on using an M3D in a dedicated mono system, using exclusively mono Atlantic jazz/R&B (some King/RCA Microgroove/Chess/smattering of psychedelic rock) LPs from the early 50s through 1967.

Brief background. I just posted much of this on a different website, but seems it would be more appropriate here on AK. I have one room downstairs with all the cool curios I've picked up over the years: 3-tone turquoise/red/black couches; Heywood-Wakefield cocktail tables; naugahyde bar; bakelite telephones & ringer boxes; and a wall full of old, retina-searing artwork. Everything is 1920s-1960s with most being mid-century modern. The hifi system in this room is my dedicated mono system, with a 1957 Fisher 500 receiver, a single stray KLH Six speaker, and a red/white/gray Garrard Type A. (I should mention that I have never stacked records on this TT: just listen to 'em one at a time.) The only non-mono part of the setup is the Shure M3D cart (N3D stylus) that was with the Garrard when I bought it, and I believe it is original to the TT. I have a y-connector running from the TT to the mono receiver.

My idea was to have a mono system that plays, say, Mickey Baker's Wildest Guitar LP exactly as it would have sounded in 1959. I think I have succeeded here, and I usually prefer the mono listening experience to that of my much more expensive stereo setup in the living room. Great booming bass along with what I describe as punchy mids. My very basic understanding of the physics behind y-connecting a stereo cartridge into a mono system is that a small bit of information gets cancelled out in the process. My records are all VG+ and better, and while the few pops & crackles are magically erased on this mono system, I can't help but wonder if the rolled-off top end is the nature of the M3D, or if it is a result of summing the the stereo channels into mono.

So here is the million-dollar question: Would the expense and the hassle (at this stage of my life, I try to avoid "hassle" at all costs) of tracking down, buying, re-tipping, and fitting a period Fairchild or GE mono cart improve the listening experience by any humanly quantitative amount?
 
ivan100000 said:
My idea was to have a mono system that plays, say, Mickey Baker's Wildest Guitar LP exactly as it would have sounded in 1959.
Click to expand...

You... have... that record????

:bowdown:


I think I have succeeded here, and I usually prefer the mono listening experience to that of my much more expensive stereo setup in the living room. Great booming bass along with what I describe as punchy mids. My very basic understanding of the physics behind y-connecting a stereo cartridge into a mono system is that a small bit of information gets cancelled out in the process. My records are all VG+ and better, and while the few pops & crackles are magically erased on this mono system, I can't help but wonder if the rolled-off top end is the nature of the M3D, or if it is a result of summing the the stereo channels into mono.

So here is the million-dollar question: Would the expense and the hassle (at this stage of my life, I try to avoid "hassle" at all costs) of tracking down, buying, re-tipping, and fitting a period Fairchild or GE mono cart improve the listening experience by any humanly quantitative amount?
Click to expand...

I used to have a GE VRII with OEM stylus on a mono-wired ROK arm/table, and it sounded pretty much like what you've described above - thick, punchy mids and bass, very smooth/rolled-off top-end. A Denon DL-102 has a bit more top-end air, but not a whole lot more. I have yet to hear an M3D, but my guess is you won't realize a significant upgrade, if any. That was apparently the "sound" of '50s hifi.

Having gone down that path, I am not convinced that a true-mono cartridge makes a huge difference vs. a mono-summed stereo cartridge, particularly if the records are not noisy to begin with.

Consider using a Denon DL-103, which is more or less period-correct for your system. You'll get a more evenly-balanced sound when properly loaded and used on a suitably heavy arm. The conical tip is a good match for vintage mono. Of course, that would require adding an SUT as well.
 
Last edited:
ivan100000 said:
M3D & mono question that hopefully some of you may be able to opine on. May I know your thoughts on using an M3D in a dedicated mono system, using exclusively mono Atlantic jazz/R&B (some King/RCA Microgroove/Chess/smattering of psychedelic rock) LPs from the early 50s through 1967.

Brief background. I just posted much of this on a different website, but seems it would be more appropriate here on AK. I have one room downstairs with all the cool curios I've picked up over the years: 3-tone turquoise/red/black couches; Heywood-Wakefield cocktail tables; naugahyde bar; bakelite telephones & ringer boxes; and a wall full of old, retina-searing artwork. Everything is 1920s-1960s with most being mid-century modern. The hifi system in this room is my dedicated mono system, with a 1957 Fisher 500 receiver, a single stray KLH Six speaker, and a red/white/gray Garrard Type A. (I should mention that I have never stacked records on this TT: just listen to 'em one at a time.) The only non-mono part of the setup is the Shure M3D cart (N3D stylus) that was with the Garrard when I bought it, and I believe it is original to the TT. I have a y-connector running from the TT to the mono receiver.

My idea was to have a mono system that plays, say, Mickey Baker's Wildest Guitar LP exactly as it would have sounded in 1959. I think I have succeeded here, and I usually prefer the mono listening experience to that of my much more expensive stereo setup in the living room. Great booming bass along with what I describe as punchy mids. My very basic understanding of the physics behind y-connecting a stereo cartridge into a mono system is that a small bit of information gets cancelled out in the process. My records are all VG+ and better, and while the few pops & crackles are magically erased on this mono system, I can't help but wonder if the rolled-off top end is the nature of the M3D, or if it is a result of summing the the stereo channels into mono.

So here is the million-dollar question: Would the expense and the hassle (at this stage of my life, I try to avoid "hassle" at all costs) of tracking down, buying, re-tipping, and fitting a period Fairchild or GE mono cart improve the listening experience by any humanly quantitative amount?
Click to expand...

A period correct top flight mono record system to play your records will be :

Cartridge : General Electric VRII
Tonearm : Gray Research 108 (B or C)
Turntable : Rek-O-Kut Rondine Deluxe B12H
Preamp : General Electric UPX-003B

I would mention that this is not intended to be an High Fidelity system, but a damn fun one to listen too. Mostly good commentary on the GE acclaim its tone, energy and its lively sound, not its definition, resolution or balanced spectrum.If you want a good balance between theses aspects, look for the Ortofon SPU.

Here is a sample of the GE system with the GE A900 record equalizer : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bwR1-Rr9HI

You must reserve the Shure M3D for stereo duty. Denon DL-103 strapped in mono could be fun, but you will need a good pair of transformers to pair it with.

Forget the Fairchild. They were top of the line in that time but are now scarce and mostly badly damaged, it is now more a collector item.
 
ivan100000 said:
...
So here is the million-dollar question: Would the expense and the hassle (at this stage of my life, I try to avoid "hassle" at all costs) of tracking down, buying, re-tipping, and fitting a period Fairchild or GE mono cart improve the listening experience by any humanly quantitative amount?
Click to expand...

Short answer: no.

Long answer: Over the past several years, I have had the good fortune to have a chance to physically read old Audio magazines from just before the dawn of the stereo era, and also discovered websites like http://www.vintagevacuumaudio.com/magazines-1952-1962/ and http://americanradiohistory.com/index.htm#Audio which are also excellent resources for getting primary sources about the mono era.

And the one thing that I discovered that shatters a very ingrained belief is us younger audiophiles is that the older top quality mono carts of the day (like late examples of the GE or Fairchild you and Beatcomber mention) had vertical compliance. I know it made my eyes widen. I learned that even before the 45/45 stereo groove was on the horizon, engineers back in the late 1950's realized having vertical compliance was beneficial to single channel lateral disc playback. (Among the ideas being vertical compliance helped with lowering distortion, minimizing record wear caused by dirt stuck in the groove, as well as contributing to minimizing damage from accidentally dropping your arm on a record.)

So if you're thinking that a cartridge having vertical compliance is somehow not giving you the full "true" mono only experience, you'll be glad to know that it was only the cheapest of the cheap crystal and ceramic cartridges that were the ones that had no vertical compliance. The good ones had it, and so were already halfway there to what we know as a modern stereo cartridge. So you're safe there.

And as Beatcomber already confirmed, the sound you are getting isn't a consequence of you "Y-cabling" and summing the channels.

As a result, you are 99% there already. The remaining 1% you are missing (at least in my opinion) is the 1 mil stylus that was standard for mono discs in the pre-stereo era. To me, that will make more of a difference in the sound (almost always for the better with true mono discs) than a "legit" mono cartridge. So, if anything, I'd try to see if a 1 mil stylus for the M3D exists or can be customized if you want every last single drop of "authenticity." (Irony: even if you did locate a "true" mono cart, chances are good the stylus you would be able to buy would be a .7 mil one, which makes it essentially identical to the M3D with it's .7 or .6 mil stylus as you are using it now.)

So I'd sit back, and enjoy. You're there already!
 
One thing I must said is that the old mono records were made for 1 or 3 mil stylus, not 0.7 or 0.5 mil, which were made later to match the grooves made by the stereo cut head. Mono record for 1 mil diamond were made during 1950-1968.

An old record will be more noisy on a 0.7 mil than on a 1 mil stylus, symply because the stylus will go too much down, retrieving dust but no information. I found most mono records unlistenable with 0.7 mil stylus.

And compliance of the cartridge made a great effect on the reproductions too. Older, less compliant cartridge ; DL-103/102, SPU, M3D, GE VR11, EMT TSD15, etc. give a more a live sounding and organic reproduction than more compliant one. Thats why at the end of the 70's the less compliant cartridge made a comeback in Asia and Europe. The stylus made for Shure M3D were only the 0.7 mil N3D and N21D.
 
empirelvr said:
And the one thing that I discovered that shatters a very ingrained belief is us younger audiophiles is that the older top quality mono carts of the day (like late examples of the GE or Fairchild you and Beatcomber mention) had vertical compliance. I know it made my eyes widen. I learned that even before the 45/45 stereo groove was on the horizon, engineers back in the late 1950's realized having vertical compliance was beneficial to single channel lateral disc playback. (Among the ideas being vertical compliance helped with lowering distortion, minimizing record wear caused by dirt stuck in the groove, as well as contributing to minimizing damage from accidentally dropping your arm on a record.)

So if you're thinking that a cartridge having vertical compliance is somehow not giving you the full "true" mono only experience, you'll be glad to know that it was only the cheapest of the cheap crystal and ceramic cartridges that were the ones that had no vertical compliance. The good ones had it, and so were already halfway there to what we know as a modern stereo cartridge. So you're safe there.
Click to expand...

But isn't the compliance of the cantilever only telling part of the story? A DL-102 can safely play stereo discs because it has both vertical and horizontal compliance, but its coil only reads the horizontal signal. Isn't this the most important thing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

soma89
My impressions on the Shure M3D..
Replies
3
Views
789
Isotonic
Isotonic
illinoisteve
What are you playing with your Shure M3D cart today?
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
6K
illinoisteve
illinoisteve
adnick
Shure M3D
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
ivan100000
ivan100000
monkboughtlunch
Shure M3D: Jico N3D vs Jico N21D -- any sonic differences between these styli?
Replies
1
Views
361
monkboughtlunch
monkboughtlunch
R
Need a 78rpm stylus for a Shure M3D - anybody bought from these companies?
Replies
8
Views
995
grooveman
grooveman
Back
Top Bottom