P-Mounts: Do you like them?

[Vinylmasters]

Where did you get a P-Mount arm wand for this table?
I've got its big brother, the QL-Y66f and I have the 1/2" mount straight wand.
I'd like to add a P-Mount version if I can find one.

Al. Wise

They were originally sold with two arms - one straight and the other the typical "S" style. I have ywo of these tables - one has the "S' on it and the other a straight arm, but one was bought as a refurb (paid $128 for it back in the late 80's!) and the other I bought off Ebay. Neither had both arms, but one had the S-style and the other the straight. I've been trying to find spares for years with no luck at all

 

[Vinylmasters]

No, but it's a "non-spec" P-mount since it uses the same styli as the 1/2" version. It likes to track at around 2g. and only weighs 4.2g.

John

Are you sure? By looking at the pictures it looks like the stylus is different (and note they don't offer the 78 rpm stylus for it either).

 

[Vinylmasters]

Vinylmasters is, as you know, a professional, no stranger to kluges that....

I am? You mean I shoulda been charging more money all these years???

:scratch2:

lol!

 

[boreas]

No, but it's a "non-spec" P-mount since it uses the same styli as the 1/2" version. It likes to track at around 2g. and only weighs 4.2g.

John

Are you sure? By looking at the pictures it looks like the stylus is different (and note they don't offer the 78 rpm stylus for it either).

Well, I was........

The specs listed on eBay for the MG-29P are what I always took to be the correct ones. If they're to be believed, then the MG-29P is non-compliant, both in mass and in VTF requirements. The stylus shown on the MG-29P appears to be the plain old "Red Ed" conical and the specs, consistent from one vendor to the next, would support that conclusion.

Now, we have the Tonar 611BE. It appears to use the precise same body as the MG-29P but the stylus is clearly different, being a: elliptical and b: yellow. The specs are different too with respect to cartridge mass and stylus VTF requirements.

It's entirely possible that we have two significantly different variations on the same theme here: a non-compliant MG-29P and a compliant 611BE. My principle reservation, though, is the mass. If the specs are accurate for each of these cartridges, where did Tonar stash that extra two grams?

It's also worth noting that the 611BE is unavailable and, IMO, probably gone forever. In my experience, it's only when Turntableneedles has no guarantee of ever seeing any more of a given item that they do the "put me on the waiting list" thing.

So, in other words, I have no idea whether either or both of these are manufactured to the T4P spec.

John

 

[KentTeffeteller]

Ortofon X1-MCP is what I am talking about. It likes near 2 gram tracking forces. Horribly non T4p compliant.

 

[lini]

John: Iirc, all those MG29/C501/whatever siblings have a circular hole in the nose of the mounting frame, as if the body was an IM-MI design with the external magnet missing. So that might be a convenient place for Nagaoka to fit a little extra weight on the 611BE - or maybe it even is an MI variant.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[boreas]

John: Iirc, all those MG29/C501/whatever siblings have a circular hole in the nose of the mounting frame, as if the body was an IM-MI design with the external magnet missing. So that might be a convenient place for Nagaoka to fit a little extra weight on the 611BE - or maybe it even is an MI variant.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

Aha! That's quite possible. It would need to be made from a very heavy material though. Vielen dank, mein freund!

John

 

[lini]

John: Oh, well, I fear it doesn't really work out - 'cause, guesstimating from a pic, I'd deem that hole probably just around 4 mm in diameter and 3 mm deep. So the volume would be not quite 0,04 cm³ - which would only be good for roundabout 0.75 g, even if filled with uranium.

However, if the hole actually was 5 x 4 mm and we'd fill it with osmium, that would already be good for almost 1.8 g. Quite a costly solution, though - and still not quite there...

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[Vinylmasters]

Well, I was........

The specs listed on eBay for the MG-29P are what I always took to be the correct ones. If they're to be believed, then the MG-29P is non-compliant, both in mass and in VTF requirements. The stylus shown on the MG-29P appears to be the plain old "Red Ed" conical and the specs, consistent from one vendor to the next, would support that conclusion.

Now, we have the Tonar 611BE. It appears to use the precise same body as the MG-29P but the stylus is clearly different, being a: elliptical and b: yellow. The specs are different too with respect to cartridge mass and stylus VTF requirements.

It's entirely possible that we have two significantly different variations on the same theme here: a non-compliant MG-29P and a compliant 611BE. My principle reservation, though, is the mass. If the specs are accurate for each of these cartridges, where did Tonar stash that extra two grams?

It's also worth noting that the 611BE is unavailable and, IMO, probably gone forever. In my experience, it's only when Turntableneedles has no guarantee of ever seeing any more of a given item that they do the "put me on the waiting list" thing.

So, in other words, I have no idea whether either or both of these are manufactured to the T4P spec.

John

John - I'm simply looking at the pics of them on the Ed Saunders site:

http://www.edsaunders.com/reded.htm

It appears on visual that the metal plate on the P-mount extends further into the stylus portion than the 1/2" mount. They are also different costs. It seems to me that they are not the same stylus as the 1/2" mount just on these two things alone?

 

[SA-708]

Here's an old thread with photos of a Tonar 611BE and a Pfansteihl MG-29P (purchased via eBay but not from Ed). It also has my weight measurements of the two cartridges: 6.3g for the Tonar and 5.8g for the Pfansteihl. I need to update that thread now that I have an Empire 205LT body, and I think I need to check my personal messages about sending someone one of my spare Empire S205 stylii. The Empire is the only one of the three that is induced magnet moving iron, with a magnet mounted on the front of the cartridge over the stylus; the other two have an inert metal bar in that location (not the same size as the round hole), probably for weight. There's a photo of that.

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=395819

 

[SA-708]

John - I'm simply looking at the pics of them on the Ed Saunders site:

http://www.edsaunders.com/reded.htm

It appears on visual that the metal plate on the P-mount extends further into the stylus portion than the 1/2" mount. They are also different costs. It seems to me that they are not the same stylus as the 1/2" mount just on these two things alone?

My Pfansteihl MG-29P p-mount cartridge uses a 740-D7 stylus, same as the 1/2 inch mount MG-29. They are just showing the p-mount at a different angle than the 1/2 inch mounts on that page.

 

[boreas]

John - I'm simply looking at the pics of them on the Ed Saunders site:

http://www.edsaunders.com/reded.htm

It appears on visual that the metal plate on the P-mount extends further into the stylus portion than the 1/2" mount. They are also different costs. It seems to me that they are not the same stylus as the 1/2" mount just on these two things alone?

Looks like SA-708 has answered all our questions. The styli are interchangeable and the weight that everyone posts for the MG-29P is wrong. The actual .5g weight difference is easily explained by a difference in the mounts.

Thanks to SA-708!

John

 

[guest102]

I have two Radio Shack RXP3 P-mount cartridges, both in different 1/2-inch adapters. The OEM Radio Shack adapter which was packaged with the RXP3 mounts the cartridge farther down from the bottom of the headshell than the Audio-Technica adapter I recently got from LP Gear. The Audio-Technica adapter holds the cartridge at a more horizontal angle than the Radio Shack angle which translates into different VTAs, a potential issue if the tonearm is not height adjustable. I have three Shure branded styli for these cartridges: one for 78rpm, one a .3 x .7 mil elliptical, and one a .2 x .7 mil elliptical. Substituting one of the ellipticals for the other requires realignment as there is a slight difference in their positions when the cartridge/adapter/headshell assembly is inserted into the Technics 52mm alignment gauge - however, this issue pops up often when substituting other styli into even normal half-inch mounted cartridges.

Granted, this is limited experience, but it leads me to think this plug, play, and forget utopian cartridge setup may not be as bullet proof as it's literature and reputation suggests, at least not with today's offerings.

 

[SA-708]

I did a similar thing years ago, comparing the very first p-mount cartridges I owned (back when I only had 4 or 5) mounted in an adapter on a headshell, against the Technics overhang gauge. They varied in length by about 1mm, and about the same in height too. I was never able to find the T4P specification for tip-to-base cartridge length.

 

[boreas]

I did a similar thing years ago, comparing the very first p-mount cartridges I owned (back when I only had 4 or 5) mounted in an adapter on a headshell, against the Technics overhang gauge. They varied in length by about 1mm, and about the same in height too. I was never able to find the T4P specification for tip-to-base cartridge length.

And then we get into cantilever length between original styli and aftermarket styli and from one aftermarket brand to another.

John

 

[boreas]

Oh, and for the mounting face to stylus tip distance? Measuee a Technics P-mount with a factory stylus. If anyone can be expected to get it right, it would be them since they developed the standard.

John

 

[SA-708]

I've got a Technics p-mount headshell now, an SH-90S. I can put a Technics p-mount cartridge in it (I've got an 310MC) and put that into the Technics overhang gauge....

 

[sled108]

This just came Today...And, even without Break-In...It sounds Sweet...It's a Blue Box P-Mount 681EEE With a D73S Stylus...

 

[SA-708]

Oh, and for the mounting face to stylus tip distance? Measuee a Technics P-mount with a factory stylus. If anyone can be expected to get it right, it would be them since they developed the standard.

John

As usual, it turned out to not be that simple. My Technics 310MC moving coil cartridge measures 2cm from mounting face to tip. So did the majority of the other p-mount cartridges I have at home (some are in my office at work). As an extra confirmation, the 310MC, when mounted in my Technics SH-90S headshell set at 52mm length, measures as the correct length on my Technics overhang gauge.

I measured several Ortofons, Audiotechnicas, and ADCs and they all measured 2cm (20mm). Same for the single examples I had on hand from Sumiko, Grado, and the "Red Ed". The only outliers measured so far was one out of many Shures, a recent-production M92E (20.5mm), several of the Stantons & Pickerings (varied from 20mm to 21mm for the 680/L7x7/TL family, like the one in the photo above), and the Technics MM p-mounts, all from the P22 family. They all measured around 21mm long, including a P153S that I am certain still has the original factory stylus, and a P24 with a JICO SAS stylus. This may help explain why I was never that impressed by the SAS, since it wouldn't be well aligned. On the other hand, I've been a fan of the Pickering TL series.

So, it looks like Technics didn't follow their own standard.

 

[specialone53]

As usual, it turned out to not be that simple. My Technics 310MC moving coil cartridge measures 2cm from mounting face to tip. So did the majority of the other p-mount cartridges I have at home (some are in my office at work). As an extra confirmation, the 310MC, when mounted in my Technics SH-90S headshell set at 52mm length, measures as the correct length on my Technics overhang gauge.

I measured several Ortofons, Audiotechnicas, and ADCs and they all measured 2cm (20mm). Same for the single examples I had on hand from Sumiko, Grado, and the "Red Ed". The only outliers measured so far was one out of many Shures, a recent-production M92E (20.5mm), several of the Stantons & Pickerings (varied from 20mm to 21mm for the 680/L7x7/TL family, like the one in the photo above), and the Technics MM p-mounts, all from the P22 family. They all measured around 21mm long, including a P153S that I am certain still has the original factory stylus, and a P24 with a JICO SAS stylus. This may help explain why I was never that impressed by the SAS, since it wouldn't be well aligned. On the other hand, I've been a fan of the Pickering TL series.

So, it looks like Technics didn't follow their own standard.

You're talking about the measured distance from a P mount's mounting surface, horizontally forward to the stylus tip?
I assume where it flushes up against the headshell connector?
And your readings are a millimeter or so different for various cartridges?

A millimeter?
Maybe two?

And this is crucial in what way exactly - for the P mount designs?
Which as far as I know, are not in the same league as a $14,000 Japanese hand-built overpriced exotic wood or something cartridge.
You know, the kind of cartridge that the owner inspects daily with a jewelers loupe to gaze upon it's glorious craftsmanship and micro-honed jewel tip.

The P mounts were and are basically a convenience design (as was stated) and not something to pick about.

:scratch2: