• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

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

I like the Denon better but not by huge margins. If you could find a DL-102 given your desire for this being in a mono system (that would be the ideal choice for safe mono playback of mono, Stereo, and post 1968 mono discs safely, and it's high MM like output and compliance is ideal for the ROK). Main disadvantages are harder to find, more expensive. That said, of all Shure cartridges currently made, the M35x for me actually has tested better as far as flatter response than the M97xE and sounds much like a good DL-103 does with a replaceable stylus. And it's also an awesome mono cartridge too, and is inexpensive on stylus replacement. I think it is a good practical all around cartridge for many needs. Not the best audiophile extremist, but it sounds very good for a broadcast friendly option. Either of these 3 options would serve you very well. All merit consideration.
 
KentTeffeteller said:
I like the Denon better but not by huge margins. If you could find a DL-102 given your desire for this being in a mono system (that would be the ideal choice for safe mono playback of mono, Stereo, and post 1968 mono discs safely, and it's high MM like output and compliance is ideal for the ROK). Main disadvantages are harder to find, more expensive. That said, of all Shure cartridges currently made, the M35x for me actually has tested better as far as flatter response than the M97xE and sounds much like a good DL-103 does with a replaceable stylus. And it's also an awesome mono cartridge too, and is inexpensive on stylus replacement. I think it is a good practical all around cartridge for many needs. Not the best audiophile extremist, but it sounds very good for a broadcast friendly option. Either of these 3 options would serve you very well. All merit consideration.
Click to expand...

Is it correct that the M35x will accept the N78S 78rpm stylus? If so that makes the M35x even more flexible. Does the N78s stylus weigh the same as the N35x stylus? And so would the tracking force remain constant and not need to be readjusted if the styli were changed.
 
monkboughtlunch said:
Is it correct that the M35x will accept the N78S 78rpm stylus? If so that makes the M35x even more flexible. Does the N78s stylus weigh the same as the N35x stylus? And so would the tracking force remain constant and not need to be readjusted if the styli were changed.
Click to expand...

Yes, the N78S will fit the M35X without modification and without the need to change the tracking force.
 
And that is true, no adjustment necessary. And that is a major advantage operationally. I plan on installing the same on my Lenco L 70 once finished with the restoration.
 
Hi,

The AT95VL will track at 2.5g quite happily. For sure being line contact
it needs careful alignment, much more so than a simple spherical.

However given what was asked for in the original post, I still think its
the right choice. It suits heavy arms, and unless the bearings are
in terrible condition, tracking at 2.5g should be utterly fine.

I'm not saying the M35X is not a good choice in terms of arm matching,
far from it. But to repeat an earlier statement, I've not heard a DJ cartridge
that I like in a hifi, they are all very bass heavy and treble tizziness. In
other words, generally downtilted, with a kick / peak at the top end.

rgds, sreten.
 
Last edited:
Hi,

A bit of history : My first turntable was a Lenco with a really clunky arm.

The usual closed U section curved one piece arm seen on many
changers (though it wasn't a changer, it was a fully manual turntable)
with with one unusual (never seen again) feature, the vertical pivot
was about halfway along the arm, attached to a L shaped arm
running inside the arm back to a pretty standard vertical bearing.

I pursuaded an 8cu AT11E (a direct ancestor of the current
AT95E and thus the AT95VL) into working well in it, in a fashion.

Those of you with some nous will have worked out the problem
I had. The above arm must be perfectly level to work. Any angle
caused huge side forces on the stylus. The level had to be so
right I eventually could use it to set antiskating of the arm.
Absolutely awful dynamic balance in other words.

The arm had to go of course eventually, and it did.

However one benefit of this tale is that arms with no antiskate
that are not dynamically balanced can be arranged to have it
to a degree by not making the arm coplanar with the platter,
rather than angling the whole deck, each arm is different.
Typically from the front a clockwise tilt works.

For the above case the arm was so bad the variation between
absolute level and best antiskate level was very meaningless,
so angling the whole deck very slightly was the way to do it.

If you want to try this I'd suggest headshells with adjustable
azimuth like AT's and an enquiring analytical experimental
mind, as it has to be worked out for each individual case.

rgds,sreten.
 
Last edited:
sreten said:
Hi,

A bit of history : My first turntable was a Lenco with a really clunky arm.

The usual closed U section curved one piece arm seen on many
changers (though it wasn't a changer, it was a fully manual turntable)
with with one unusual (never seen again) feature, the vertical pivot
was about halfway along the arm, attached to a L shaped arm
running inside the arm back to a pretty standard vertical bearing.

I pursuaded an 8cu AT11E (a direct ancestor of the current
AT95E and thus the AT95VL) into working well in it, in a fashion.

Those of you with some nous will have worked out the problem
I had. The above arm must be perfectly level to work. Any angle
caused huge side forces on the stylus. The level had to be so
right I eventually could use it to set antiskating of the arm.
Absolutely awful dynamic balance in other words.

The arm had to go of course eventually, and it did.

However one benefit of this tale is that arms with no antiskate
that are not dynamically balanced can be arranged to have it
to a degree by not making the arm coplanar with the platter,
rather than angling the whole deck, each arm is different.
Typically from the front a clockwise tilt works.

For the above case the arm was so bad the variation between
absolute level and best antiskate level was very meaningless,
so angling the whole deck very slightly was the way to do it.

If you want to try this I'd suggest headshells with adjustable
azimuth like AT's and an enquiring analytical experimental
mind, as it has to be worked out for each individual case.

rgds,sreten.
Click to expand...

That headshell will not fit our poster's Rek-O-Kut S-320 tonearm. It does not accept Ortofon/SME/JIS headshells. It accepts the classic Rek-O-Kut Headshell and only that headshell. No other kind will fit it. He wants this arm specifically. He is using this arm primarily for MONO records. On a MONO system. He spent a long time searching for the arm he now owns in pristine condition. He's wedded to this arm. It has NO VTA/SRA or Azimuth adjustments.

To use the headshell you envision, he would have to purchase another tonearm and install it. I am once more stating facts about our original poster's tonearm.. This arm's headshell is not a standard one. It takes a specific type. This is an original Rek-O-Kut tonearm from the original Rek-O-Kut company, the last of which were made in 1992 by Broadcast Electronics, the last owner of the Rek-O-Kut Company. The new Rek-O-Kut arms, sreten, your solution would work on them, and ideally on their top arm, which is actually built by Jelco in Japan. The new ROK is a part of Esoteric Sound. And is completely different.
 
Last edited:
KentTeffeteller said:
That headshell will not fit our poster's Rek-O-Kut S-320 tonearm. It does not accept Ortofon/SME/JIS headshells. It accepts the classic Rek-O-Kut Headshell and only that headshell. No other kind will fit it. He wants this arm specifically. He is using this arm primarily for MONO records. On a MONO system. He spent a long time searching for the arm he now owns in pristine condition. He's wedded to this arm. It has NO VTA/SRA or Azimuth adjustments.

To use the headshell you envision, he would have to purchase another tonearm and install it. I am once more stating facts about our original poster's tonearm.. This arm's headshell is not a standard one. It takes a specific type. This is an original Rek-O-Kut tonearm from the original Rek-O-Kut company, the last of which were made in 1992 by Broadcast Electronics, the last owner of the Rek-O-Kut Company. The new Rek-O-Kut arms, sreten, your solution would work on them, and ideally on their top arm, which is actually built by Jelco in Japan. The new ROK is a part of Esoteric Sound. And is completely different.
Click to expand...

Hi,

I have no idea what you are talking about, some of the above is not stated in
this thread. VTA/SRA is always adjustable on arm installation, if not on the fly.

Regarding said method of setting antiskating I only mentioned it as
possibly useful to some readers of this thread regarding older arms.
The level of dynamic imbalance can make it easy or very hard.

Your quite right if an arm can't take AT's headshells trying to do
it is going to get complicated, and probably not worth the effort.

rgds, sreten.
 
Last edited:
You've made some good points here. Do remember this arm's basic design does date to the middle 1950's, our poster's version is a refined version of this arm dating from the early 1960's. So, adjustability is less than what followed technologically as engineering and technical advances came into play.
 
Last edited:
monkboughtlunch said:
Any recommendations for an ideal cartridge for a Rek-O-Kut S-320 tonearm? (ideal meaning: compliance match, low inner groove distortion, low sibilance and excellent sound quality)
Click to expand...

I would say that the Shure M35X would meet all of your criteria. The added advantage of this cartridge is that a stylus for 78 rpm records can be easily installed without changing tracking force.

I own a Rek-O-Kut S-320 tonearm and after re-building it, I tried several cartridges in it, mostly Shure. I finally settled on the M35X simply because of the quality of the sound and the convenience of changing styli.
 
Hi,

FWIW with the AT95VL tracking at 2.5 g then this
stylus will do 78's at the same tracking force :
http://www.lpgear.com/product/LPGATN9578.html
I have no real opinion about cartridges playing 78's,
the records are so variable and no real experience.

If haven't pointed it out before the AT95VL tip
will last several times longer with much better
performance over its life than any spherical.
(Which is what the OP wants, AFAICT.)

I'm not interested in a Shure versus AT bashing

My position is the AT95VL is much better than
the M35X but it does need more careful set up.
VTA/SRA hardly matters for a spherical, whilst
it matters a lot for a Line Contact, the arm height
is adjustable with washers, so not an issue to me.

For sure a line contact will wear records much less..

Just looking at it if M35X can track at 1.5g (claimed
1.5 to 3.0g), I'll eat my hat, 2.0g looks very dodgy.
Nothing back cueable AFAIK can do that.

rgds, sreten.
 
Last edited:
Does the Jico aftermarket stylus for SC35C track at the same 4.5 grams as the Shure SS35C?

How well would a Shure M3D mate with micropoise tonearm? What would be better from a sound quality perspective on the S-320? M3D or SC35C?
 
To the OP,

I have an AT95E and hardly ever play it. To me it is bright and stark with the stock stylus. I will be selling it on the next TT that I move out of my collection. I have a M35X and like it a lot. I have much more expensive options, including moving coils, SAS, Grado MCZ, and Vivid Line ... but I find myself playing the M35X quite a bit.

I bought the M35x for $40, but it is now up to $60 on Amazon. The AT95e sells for $47 on amazon. The AT95 is not half the price.

If you don't want to hear a conical don't buy the M35X. It is a budget conical. I also invested $40 on the Paradox Pulse aluminum body for it and it takes it to another level. Once you remove the plastic shroud and replace it with the aluminum body it can accept many stylus options. I even have a Vivid Line stylus for it and it takes it up another notch again. Still, I play the stock conical a lot, especially on older recordings. I like the M35x much better than the M97xE. I matches one of my medium mass arms wonderfully.

Cartridges are a matter of opinion. You may have to try a few to get what you like.

I agree with the others that say the M35X is a great match for your tonearm mass and for a broadcast table. It can be upgraded as I stated.

good luck, Bob
 
sreten said:
Hi,

FWIW with the AT95VL tracking at 2.5 g then this
stylus will do 78's at the same tracking force :
http://www.lpgear.com/product/LPGATN9578.html
I have no real opinion about cartridges playing 78's,
the records are so variable and no real experience.

If haven't pointed it out before the AT95VL tip
will last several times longer with much better
performance over its life than any spherical.
(Which is what the OP wants, AFAICT.)

I'm not interested in a Shure versus AT bashing

My position is the AT95VL is much better than
the M35X but it does need more careful set up.
VTA/SRA hardly matters for a spherical, whilst
it matters a lot for a Line Contact, the arm height
is adjustable with washers, so not an issue to me.

For sure a line contact will wear records much less..

Just looking at it if M35X can track at 1.5g (claimed
1.5 to 3.0g), I'll eat my hat, 2.0g looks very dodgy.
Nothing back cueable AFAIK can do that.

rgds, sreten.
Click to expand...

My M35X tracks great at 2 grams. No problems at all with anything at 2 grams. I can track lower but I see no need too.

This just in: Tracking too light can be harmful to your records.

I also use an LPGear N97eVL on the M35 body and it tracks fine at 1.5 to 2 grams. Does it sound better using the VL over the stock conical? Yes, of course. Would I use the VL stylus with the OP's arm? Probably not.

Enjoy the hat.
 
As does my own Shure M25c on my own broadcast turntable (A Technics SP-25 with an Audio-Technica ATP 16-T tonearm). I track it at 2 grams. For the record the M25c/M35x are very flat response cartridges, and very accurate tracking for a cartridge which can be back cued on air. I actually prefer my own M25c to the AT 95e, I use it every day. I prefer my M25c even to the Shure M97xE and not by a small amount.
 
monkboughtlunch said:
Does the Jico aftermarket stylus for SC35C track at the same 4.5 grams as the Shure SS35C?

How well would a Shure M3D mate with micropoise tonearm? What would be better from a sound quality perspective on the S-320? M3D or SC35C?
Click to expand...

The Jico SS35C stylus tracks the same as the original Shure.

The Shure M3D will work well, the N3D (stylus) tracks between 3 and 6 grams...

http://www.jico-stylus.com/product_info.php?cPath=18&products_id=1008

or, if you prefer to track between 1.5 and 2.5 grams...

http://www.jico-stylus.com/product_info.php?cPath=18&products_id=1601
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

monkboughtlunch
Can a Rek O Kut S-320 vintage tonearm utilize an AT microline stylus?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
4K
monkboughtlunch
monkboughtlunch
Johncan
Rek-O-Kut tonearm ID help
Replies
2
Views
330
Johncan
Johncan
Steveomatic
Rek-O-Kut N-33H
Replies
2
Views
601
adnick
adnick
jonboy55
Any Information On This - Rek O Kut LP743
Replies
2
Views
783
MRL_Audio
MRL_Audio
b brian
Lept before I learned Rek O Kut 160
Replies
7
Views
2K
Mot Washgab
Mot Washgab
Back
Top Bottom