Best cartridges for Rek-O-Kut S-320 tonearm?

[monkboughtlunch]

MBL, is that your S-320? It's in beautiful shape.

A Shure M3D/M7D is a good option for that arm.

Thanks! I'm assembling a ROK B-12GH for a vintage tube system. Because most of the used ROKs on eBay or Craigslist are abused and in poor shape (rust and oxidation) from years of broadcast use, abuse and storage neglect in damp areas, I've been slowly assembling NOS OEM parts over the last year and a half to create a clean example of a B-12 that's period correct (i.e. 1960s).

Due to the scarcity, it's taken a year and a half to find a clean B-12, clean S-320 and clean OEM walnut base (I had to refinish the base). Here are a few pictures of my current progress. I completely disassembled the B-12 and regreased, lubricated and installed a new idler wheel. Also serviced the Papst motor. After fine adjustments, I was able to get the speed to run dead on as verified by Turntabulator phone App. The OEM ROK rubber mat from the 1960s had turned hard and no longer damps platter ringing so I am using a Technics mat (RGS0010A) which works superbly and is an exact fit (and kills the platter ringing).

I'm getting close to completion. I just need to find a clean ROK headshell, install a cartridge and reterminate the spade lugs as RCAs.

 

[monkboughtlunch]

Here's a close up of the spade lugs on the S-320. Can I simply reterminate with something like an Amphenol RCA connector? (Mouser part: 523-ACPR-SRD). Is the Amphenol a quality part? Or is there another RCA connector that is recommended for durability and sonics?

Picture below of an Amphenol 523-ACPR-SRD

 

[sreten]

Hi, Any decent phono plugs will do the job, rgds, sreten.

 

[KentTeffeteller]

You can and many newer owners do just that. I find that a superior approach myself for HiFi use at home. And it's really a better approach. I am going to do this with my own Micro-Trak 303 when I rewire it. Why not do this? It's in the long run more reliable.

 

[malden]

FWIW the Shure M35X doesn't offer anything useful that budget hifi
cartridges at half the price cannot provide, and in hifi terms they are
much better, without DJ exaggerated bass and the peaking treble.

An option would be this :
http://www.lpgear.com/product/CF3600LE.html
Which is a improved version of this :
http://www.lpgear.com/product/REGACARBON.html

All of the AT95 options here would work well :
http://www.lpgear.com/Merchant2/mer...t_Code=&Search=&Sort_By=price_asc&Per_Page=-1

rgds, sreten.

So you are saying that any cartridge in that line-up is a better product than the Shure M35X?

 

[sreten]

Hi, Better value or simply better, rgds, sreten.

 

[malden]

How extensive was your testing?

 

[malden]

Hi, Better value or simply better, rgds, sreten.

How did you come to this conclusion?

 

[sreten]

Hi,

I'm not god. I have an opinion. You convince me that the
$25 http://www.lpgear.com/product/ATC3600L.html is
actually bettered by the $60 Shure M35X. You can't.
And even it was a bit its nowhere near as twice as good.

All trivial because my main suggestion is the $100
AT95VL which is vastly superior to the M35X.
Its a 0.2x3.0 LC tip over a 0.7 spherical.
The tip will also last several times longer making
it not just much better, but long term cheaper.

rgds, sreten.

 

[malden]

Hi,

I'm not god. I have an opinion. You convince me that the
$25 http://www.lpgear.com/product/ATC3600L.html is
actually bettered by the $60 Shure M35X. You can't.
And even it was a bit its nowhere near as twice as good.
rgds, sreten.

Interesting response.

I never stated that the M35X was better than anything you suggest, so the burden of proof is not on me. I simply asked how you came to the conclusion that the cartridges you linked were better than the M35X. Is that too much to ask?

FWIW the Shure M35X doesn't offer anything useful that budget hifi
cartridges at half the price cannot provide, and in hifi terms they are
much better, without DJ exaggerated bass and the peaking treble.
An option would be this :
http://www.lpgear.com/product/CF3600LE.html
Which is a improved version of this :
http://www.lpgear.com/product/REGACARBON.html
rgds, sreten.

 

[sreten]

Hi,

You tediously cannot have it both ways. I think they are better
IMO. (And I explained why so in the original post)
You don't know that they are not. Who has the best opinion ?

There is no burden of proof. It is what I think. If all you can
think is there is no proof, go argue with someone who thinks
a Denon 103 is better than a M35X and ask for some proof.

rgds, sreten.

 

[malden]

Hi,

You tediously cannot have it both ways. I think they are better
IMO. (And I explained why so in the original post)
You don't know that they are not. Who has the best opinion ?

There is no burden of proof. It is what I think. If all you can
think is there is no proof, go argue with someone who thinks
a Denon 103 is better than a M35X and ask for some proof.

rgds, sreten.

You are correct, I do not know which is better and I never made such a claim.

You seem to know, you stated as much. The question is, how do you know ?

 

[sreten]

Hi,

Stating an opinion as advice is not stating facts. I gave my reasons.

rgds, sreten.

 

[malden]

In so many words, you simply do not know.

Thank you for finally clarifying that.

 

[sreten]

Hi,

Lets hope pedants don't invade every thread, or we would be here all year.
Quite true I don't know the M35X is not a stellar cartrisge that blows all
competition into the weeds, but you'd think I'd have heard about it by
now if that was remotely true. I simply don't think it is. It is most likely
pretty much exactly what I think it is and stand by my I assertions.

rgds, sreten.

 

[malden]

Hi,

Lets hope pedants don't invade every thread, or we would be here all year.
Quite true I don't know the M35X is not a stellar cartrisge that blows all
competition into the weeds, but you'd think I'd have heard about it by
now if that was remotely true. I simply don't think it is. It is most likely
pretty much exactly what I think it is and stand by my I assertions.

rgds, sreten.

It's very simple, if you make a statement and someone calls you on it, then kindly have the courtesy to either back it up, or simply admit that you really don't know.
This way we won't have to be here all year...

 

[fiddlefye]

Of the carts in this range I've used it would be either the M44 or the DL-103 with the nod (for me) going to the 103 because I listen to so much classical repertoire and I think it much nicer for that.

 

[KentTeffeteller]

Hi,

I'm not god. I have an opinion. You convince me that the
$25 http://www.lpgear.com/product/ATC3600L.html is
actually bettered by the $60 Shure M35X. You can't.
And even it was a bit its nowhere near as twice as good.

All trivial because my main suggestion is the $100
AT95VL which is vastly superior to the M35X.
Its a 0.2x3.0 LC tip over a 0.7 spherical.
The tip will also last several times longer making
it not just much better, but long term cheaper.

rgds, sreten.

That AT 95 VL is a great cartridge option, but it tracks lighter than that ROK arm can track at reliably. I respect and also like it very well. The ROK S-320 really does not track it's best lighter than say 2 grams VTF. It is also medium to high mass. It was built for professional on air use more so than to be high end audiophile friendly. It is most accepted over the years as a broadcast type tonearm. Line Contact tips also tend to be finicky about VTA and SRA, this is not the easiest arm to tweak to get that aspect best. I am posting this from a broadcast engineering driven professional viewpoint. And his specific S-320 was also marketed in that era by CCA, who made and sold broadcast equipment, and they at that time owned ROK. sreten, remember this arm design dates from the early days of Stereo LP discs meaning 1958-1959 era roots. Few arms then could track lighter than 3 grams very well, the Shure Dynetics and the old Weathers FM system the main exceptions with their integrated cartridges. Just some history here. When the S 320 was in use a Stanton 500 AL, Shure M 44-7, or Stanton 680 EL was commonly what these tonearms were used with in that era (This example our OP has dates from 1970-1972 to be exact). Given the cartridges used on this arm when new, the Shure M35x is a more modern design which is ideal for this tonearm's needs in mass/compliance.

 

[fiddlefye]

That AT 95 VL is a great cartridge option, but it tracks lighter than that ROK arm can track at reliably. I respect and also like it very well. The ROK S-320 really does not track it's best lighter than say 2 grams VTF. It is also medium to high mass. It was built for professional on air use more so than to be high end audiophile friendly. It is most accepted over the years as a broadcast type tonearm. Line Contact tips also tend to be finicky about VTA and SRA, this is not the easiest arm to tweak to get that aspect best. I am posting this from a broadcast engineering driven professional viewpoint. And his specific S-320 was also marketed in that era by CCA, who made and sold broadcast equipment, and they at that time owned ROK. sreten, remember this arm design dates from the early days of Stereo LP discs meaning 1958-1959 era roots. Few arms then could track lighter than 3 grams very well, the Shure Dynetics and the old Weathers FM system the main exceptions with their integrated cartridges. Just some history here. When the S 320 was in use a Stanton 500 AL, Shure M 44-7, or Stanton 680 EL was commonly what these tonearms were used with in that era (This example our OP has dates from 1970-1972 to be exact). Given the cartridges used on this arm when new, the Shure M35x is a more modern design which is ideal for this tonearm's needs in mass/compliance.

I'd trust your judgement on this, you have the experience to know.

 

[monkboughtlunch]

When the S 320 was in use a Stanton 500 AL, Shure M 44-7, or Stanton 680 EL was commonly what these tonearms were used with in that era (This example our OP has dates from 1970-1972 to be exact). Given the cartridges used on this arm when new, the Shure M35x is a more modern design which is ideal for this tonearm's needs in mass/compliance.

Hi Kent - many thanks. How would you describe the sound quality of the M35x vs a Denon DL-103? Would you recommend running an M35x at 3g tracking force on this arm?