• 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

Clearaudio cartridges

It's in the first post, though I admit to cleaning up the English - the original said "also as designing".

Bear in mind all this was in response to a post which accused Clearaudio of using the AT95E as the base for their cartridges, which, as it turns out, was possibly libellous, though I doubt Clearaudio even know there is a question as to who makes their cartridges.
 
grottyash said:
I hope you're not inferring that marketing people tell lies :) The answer is no, by the way. Clearaudio is a family run company and I doubt they have a big marketing department - judging from the blog, it is a member of that family that does the marketing.

The reply is unequivocal. As I said, I think there's no point in continuing. It is sad to see that people prefer the myth, but there it is, people always prefer a decent conspiracy. If people do have questions, I suggest they refer them to Clearaudio, rather than making baseless assertions.
Click to expand...

You sleeping better now?
 
grottyash said:
Stupid thing to say.
Click to expand...

You mean what Clearaudio said?

Especially when you examine a Clearaudio MM cartridge and look past the fancy wood body at the metal housing, and the cantilever with the magnets in the familiar V-shaped configuration.

As mentioned before, the magnetic "motor" comes from A-T. Absolutely. You guys can believe what you want.

This does NOT preclude Clearaudio from reworking what comes from A-T and mounting it into their own body. Nor does the "factory tour" preclude their outsourcing
from A-T or anybody else (in fact it ADMITS they outsource turntable parts).
 
Last edited:
grottyash said:
Good. So you'll contact Clearaudio and accuse them of lying?

Thought not.
Click to expand...

The statements you've claimed they said do not exclude them from using AT parts or even outsourcing some cartridges altogether. I could say, "I make and design widgets." Would it not then be a true statement if I made one widget in my own factory and designed another widget which was built in a factory which I did not own? What if I made all of my own widgets in my own factory, all of which I designed but used parts which I did not design or make? Would that make the above statement untrue? Or maybe I make and design some of my own widgets and outsource others. Would it not still be true that I "make and design" my own widgets?

"I manufacture and design all of my own widgets in facilities which I own without the assistance of any third parties or reliance on any parts not manufactured and designed in my own facilities." Now that would be unequivocal.
 
Last edited:
Why is it so hard to understand? I've made no statements, merely reported what the manufacturer said. If you don't believe it, you prove it. The onus is on the doubters.

You should read the posts, by the way. I asked specifically about outsourcing to AT.

Now, you go ahead, do the right thing, contact Clearaudio, prove their telling porkies, buy one of their cartridges, prove it is the same as an AT. You won't, will you?

Fraid it's a case of put up or shut up, my friend.
 
Last edited:
PickyEars81 said:
The statements you've claimed they said do not exclude them from using AT parts or even outsourcing some cartridges altogether. I could say, "I make and design widgets." Would it not then be a true statement if I made one widget in my own factory and designed another widget which was built in a factory which I did not own? What if I made all of my own widgets in my own factory, all of which I designed but used parts which I did not design or make? Would that make the above statement untrue? Or maybe I make and design some of my own widgets and outsource others. Would it not still be true that I "make and design" my own widgets?

"I manufacture and design all of my own widgets in facilities which I own without the assistance of any third parties or reliance on any parts not manufactured and designed in my own facilities." Now that would be unequivocal.
Click to expand...

Exactly!!!
 
True, but it would be nice if the naysayers could come up with anything in the way of evidence whatsoever. The onus of proof is on those who claim the manufacturer is lying.
 
grottyash said:
True, but it would be nice if the naysayers could come up with anything in the way of evidence whatsoever. The onus of proof is on those who claim the manufacturer is lying.
Click to expand...

That they use what is apparently a configuration that is pretty unique to AT, and that the AT stylus assembly fits is evidence if not proof. Its at least as much proof as CA saying "No, we make our cartridges" when in fact, they could still say that even if they used the AT magnet/motor.

What we have here is...a discussion. That's it. No reason to get excited.
 
I sent a polite inquiry to Clearaudio asking about their cartridges, noting that Audio Technica styli have been used (with success) in replacement of the Clearaudio parts. I asked, politely, if it's possible that ANY AT parts are used in Clearaudio carts and/or if any Clearaudio carts use AT designs. I'll report back any response that I get.

I'm not a naysayer, just interested in what they have to say. I didn't bother calling them liars or accusing them of using other manufacturers material, as that would be quite rude. I did ask politely and assume that I'll get a response.

I have no horse in this race, just an onlooker. I will admit that I'm curious to know if there are, in fact, any AT parts used in Clearaudio products.
 
dodog said:
I will admit that I'm curious to know if there are, in fact, any AT parts used in Clearaudio products.
Click to expand...

Me too, and that's all I have in it, besides the fact that I did at one point have a Virtuoso Wood.

If they start with an AT-95 motor assembly, tweak it, and add the rest/suspension/housing/cantilever/stylus in a way that isn't made to such a low price point as the AT, what's wrong with that? AT carts are really nice. Starting with an identical magnet assembly does not mean you have the same cartridge on hand in the end.
 
Exactly. Mister Pig started a thread earlier this week about the AT95 and why it's not talked about. For a barnyard animal he seems to have pretty good taste. Might not be such a bad piece of kit to build around.
 
Given the low signal levels of a cartridge I would believe just about any change in design will have an impact on the sound. If a CA cart turned out to be an AT95 with a wood body I doubt it would sound the same as a regular AT95. Also just as different cart makers offer different models based on better and better tolerances it's not hard to imagine CA basically doing the same thing - cherry picking the better AT parts. Common practice in audio certainly.
 
JohnVF said:
Me too, and that's all I have in it, besides the fact that I did at one point have a Virtuoso Wood.

If they start with an AT-95 motor assembly, tweak it, and add the rest/suspension/housing/cantilever/stylus in a way that isn't made to such a low price point as the AT, what's wrong with that? AT carts are really nice. Starting with an identical magnet assembly does not mean you have the same cartridge on hand in the end.
Click to expand...

No, a CA MM is not an AT-95 w/wood hat. The generator specs are similar but the AT-95 doesn't have the PC OCC wire and impedance is much higher. The 95 is a great budget cart, neutral sounding with reasonable detail and resolution. Is it a coincidence that stylus assembly and cu is identical to CA MMs?

I'm quite sure that AT is the OEM. All the CA MMs use a 3400 series metal body (AT-95, Linn K9)), and use ATs dual magnet design. Why would CA want to pay a licensing fee to AT and manufacture it themselves? They make MCs costing as much as $15K. Wouldn't it make more sense for them to have AT make the cart and add the wood themselves? I'm sure AT is more efficient at that, and CA's cost would be much less.

There is no AT counterpart for the CA MMs, and I believe CA designed the generator to their criteria and AT agreed not to duplicate it. I don't know what the big deal is, businesses do that sort of thing all the time.
neo
 
neobop said:
No, a CA MM is not an AT-95 w/wood hat. The generator specs are similar but the AT-95 doesn't have the PC OCC wire and impedance is much higher. The 95 is a great budget cart, neutral sounding with reasonable detail and resolution. Is it a coincidence that stylus assembly and cu is identical to CA MMs?

I'm quite sure that AT is the OEM. All the CA MMs use a 3400 series metal body (AT-95, Linn K9)), and use ATs dual magnet design. Why would CA want to pay a licensing fee to AT and manufacture it themselves? They make MCs costing as much as $15K. Wouldn't it make more sense for them to have AT make the cart and add the wood themselves? I'm sure AT is more efficient at that, and CA's cost would be much less.

There is no AT counterpart for the CA MMs, and I believe CA designed the generator to their criteria and AT agreed not to duplicate it. I don't know what the big deal is, businesses do that sort of thing all the time.
neo
Click to expand...

Thanks for the additional info. This is right along the lines of what I wanted to hear or know about the CA MM cartridges. I didn't say I knew the CA was an AT-95, just that if it were a modified one, it wouldn't bother me, as companies do that sort of thing all the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom