Benz Micro LP S
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
Hi Dogberry,
Congratulations on the Benz Micro LP-S! I love Benz cartridges! I still wonder if I would prefer the LP-S over everything else?
Are you able to tell us please any comparative impressions between the LP-S and the Grado Statement?
Thank you.
Congratulations on the Benz Micro LP-S! I love Benz cartridges! I still wonder if I would prefer the LP-S over everything else?
Are you able to tell us please any comparative impressions between the LP-S and the Grado Statement?
Thank you.
I spent the afternoon going back and forth between the LP-S and the London Decca Reference, playing tracks on both. I always thought the Reference was my 'forever' cartridge, and others were just stand ins for it. But I have to say, the LP-S outperforms it, making it sound a little bit muffled in comparison. Well, as shocked as I am by that, it does make my life a bit simpler. I have now mounted the LP-S on the Series V, and the Cadenza Mono on the Series IV and that's going to be it, unless I change my mind again!
I'll have to ask Lee Drage at Acoustand if I can cancel my order.
Ron, the Statement 3 is confusing to me. Others say it is wonderful, and deserves its place in the Lineage series. I have run it both as MM (output is 1mV) and as an MC with various loadings (where I liked 100? best). But it doesn't excite me. None of the speed that a Decca has, and which a relatively humble MP-500 simulates very well. Not as lively as the Sussurro even. I haven't mentioned it, but I also have a London Jubilee, which impressed me enough that I quickly stepped up to the Reference. Even the Jubilee makes the other MI cartridges seem a bit dull. The Decca design really has something special, and after John Wright bought the rights from Decca he made them lose their well-known faults of unreliability and humming. I really never expected the LP-S to put them to shame, but there we are.
Chris
I'll have to ask Lee Drage at Acoustand if I can cancel my order.
Ron, the Statement 3 is confusing to me. Others say it is wonderful, and deserves its place in the Lineage series. I have run it both as MM (output is 1mV) and as an MC with various loadings (where I liked 100? best). But it doesn't excite me. None of the speed that a Decca has, and which a relatively humble MP-500 simulates very well. Not as lively as the Sussurro even. I haven't mentioned it, but I also have a London Jubilee, which impressed me enough that I quickly stepped up to the Reference. Even the Jubilee makes the other MI cartridges seem a bit dull. The Decca design really has something special, and after John Wright bought the rights from Decca he made them lose their well-known faults of unreliability and humming. I really never expected the LP-S to put them to shame, but there we are.
Chris
Thank you, Chris! I have always thought the LP-S was fantastic!
I think the correct Grado comparison for the LP-S is Grado Epoch 3.
Benz LP-S is a great cartridge but it needs a matching SUT IMHO. If you ever find it recessed in the mids or dynamically compressed check your phono setup. It’s probably telling the problem on your phono setup.
IMHO Benz Micro is one of the brands together with Kondo, Techdas and Vdh that don’t overload the suspension and let cantilever to move more freely. This gives the cartridge an open, dynamic and easy flowing sound.
The dynamic sound associated with moving iron cartridges is mostly due to lack of suspension. When the stylus moves from one side to other in the groove there isn’t enough damping stop it. Because stylus and cantilever have a mass and they can not move or stop instantly. Even though it’s a small mass but still big enough regarding the groove size. As a result it reads artificially exaggerated dynamics. Actually this phenomenon is also true with MM and MC cartridges but they have a suspension to keep this at reasonable levels. That’s why loading suspension is very important. It shouldn’t be too loose to act like a MI and shouldn’t be too stiff to diminish dynamics.
IMHO Benz Micro is one of the brands together with Kondo, Techdas and Vdh that don’t overload the suspension and let cantilever to move more freely. This gives the cartridge an open, dynamic and easy flowing sound.
The dynamic sound associated with moving iron cartridges is mostly due to lack of suspension. When the stylus moves from one side to other in the groove there isn’t enough damping stop it. Because stylus and cantilever have a mass and they can not move or stop instantly. Even though it’s a small mass but still big enough regarding the groove size. As a result it reads artificially exaggerated dynamics. Actually this phenomenon is also true with MM and MC cartridges but they have a suspension to keep this at reasonable levels. That’s why loading suspension is very important. It shouldn’t be too loose to act like a MI and shouldn’t be too stiff to diminish dynamics.
Hence any cart manufacturer will freely tell what they use for cantilever, coil, body etc., but never what is the suspension haha
My very first LOMC was a Benz Micro Ruby 3 (I had a Wood H2 before that). It still sounds good, but is due for a re-tip. I replaced it with the Kontrapunkt C (why I cannot say, but I must have felt there was something missing. At the time I thought the K-C was a little scratchy but highly detailed and it stayed until I discovered Deccas. I recently had it re-tipped by Steve Leung, and it is still a smasher, rather showy and attractive, but not the most honest. I could live happily with it, unlike its descendant, the Cadenza Bronze which bores me solid.)
So now I think the LP-S is as good as I have experienced. And I liked the Ruby 3. My second SME Model 10 TT is for a mono cartridge. Benz Micro don't make mono versions of their cartridges as far as I know....
Yes, I've asked Steve Leung if he would re-tip the Ruby 3 and convert it to mono. I have specified that I would not want him to strap the channels in the cartridge, but to rotate the cantilever/coil assembly 45º and connect the laterally-sensitive coil to both outputs. I'll see what he says. He did decline trying to convert the London Jubilee to mono in the past. I'm doing this to discover whether the BM sound adds something to mono, when the Cadenza Mono might be as boring as the Cadenza Bronze. Just science.
Now, @mtemur, this is fighting talk!:
Most of us moving iron fans regard the smaller moving mass as the actual advantage of an MI cartridge, and I know Peter Ledermann would agree. Can you show me that MI cartridges "lack suspension"? And how shall that statement apply to the Decca design, where all normal bets are definitely off? I'm happy to engage with your statements, but let us be clear about the engineering involved.
@Ron Resnick You are likely right in that the Epoch 3 gets the same kind of reviews as the London Reference did a few years earlier. I rather suspect the Statement3 is taken from the better samples of the Timbre Series and, as such, earns a promotion to the Lineage Series, more for marketing reasons than technical. Talking of which, are there any reviews of the Aeon3? The lesser brother of the Epoch3, but sold as better than the Statement3. I hope your Epoch3 does exactly what you bought it to do, but for me at a lesser level, I begin to understand why Grado are not so big a player as they once were.
Chris
So now I think the LP-S is as good as I have experienced. And I liked the Ruby 3. My second SME Model 10 TT is for a mono cartridge. Benz Micro don't make mono versions of their cartridges as far as I know....
Yes, I've asked Steve Leung if he would re-tip the Ruby 3 and convert it to mono. I have specified that I would not want him to strap the channels in the cartridge, but to rotate the cantilever/coil assembly 45º and connect the laterally-sensitive coil to both outputs. I'll see what he says. He did decline trying to convert the London Jubilee to mono in the past. I'm doing this to discover whether the BM sound adds something to mono, when the Cadenza Mono might be as boring as the Cadenza Bronze. Just science.
Now, @mtemur, this is fighting talk!:
Most of us moving iron fans regard the smaller moving mass as the actual advantage of an MI cartridge, and I know Peter Ledermann would agree. Can you show me that MI cartridges "lack suspension"? And how shall that statement apply to the Decca design, where all normal bets are definitely off? I'm happy to engage with your statements, but let us be clear about the engineering involved.
@Ron Resnick You are likely right in that the Epoch 3 gets the same kind of reviews as the London Reference did a few years earlier. I rather suspect the Statement3 is taken from the better samples of the Timbre Series and, as such, earns a promotion to the Lineage Series, more for marketing reasons than technical. Talking of which, are there any reviews of the Aeon3? The lesser brother of the Epoch3, but sold as better than the Statement3. I hope your Epoch3 does exactly what you bought it to do, but for me at a lesser level, I begin to understand why Grado are not so big a player as they once were.
Chris
MI does not only benefit from producing dynamics with the lack of proper suspension but also the lack of a horizontal cantilever. Instead they employ a silk string to keep vertical cantilever in place. I’m not saying using or liking a MI cartridge is wrong. I’m only saying cartridges are reading dynamic swings stronger than they were actually etched in the grooves. MI does this more exaggerated than MC. That’s all.
Right then. You seem to address the Decca design with the "lack of a horizontal cantilever" remark (anyone unfamiliar with the design should look it up). And, while still avoiding starting any fights, I have to address this. Decca made stereo cartridges. Their cartridge design is certainly as orthogonal as one can get with horizontal and vertical coils and magnets, yet they wired them to respond to the 45º channels of a stereo disk. Not hard to do. Now can you show me that the "lack of a horizontal cantilever" impaired their ability to play stereo properly, especially when you say the silk tie-back string was to "keep the vertical cantilever in place"? No one has ever suggested that Decca-design cartridges were incapable of playing stereo (and I assume you are giving Grado, Soundsmith and Nagaoka a free pass here as they don't use the cantilever-less design of a Decca, even though they seem to be included in your comments about MI cartridges). May I assume this critique is also applicable to Ikeda cartridges?
Now to pin you down, if you are correct that Deccas "lack a horizontal cantilever" and have a "silk string to keep vertical cantilever in place" it sounds like they cannot respond to either horizontal or vertical groove deviations properly. How then, do they play music at all? We all have heard that they do so, and a few lucky ones know it from experience.
Who said it cause certainly I didn't.
I didn't say DECCA can not play stereo, I didn't say DECCA don't sound good and I didn't say DECCAs are incapable of playing records. All I've addressed was how all cartridges' mass (mass of stylus and cantilever) inevitably effect reading dynamic passages and the role of suspension to prevent it. All cartridges are effected from this situation cause all stylus have mass and DECCAs are effected more because of their design. That's it. I don't consider myself as lucky but I heard DECCAs in various setups.
The same phenomenon applies to cutter heads too. Even though the diamond stylus in a cutter head is fixed with a stiffer cantilever and controlled with powerful electromagnetic (little speakers) rods still it cuts more dynamic than the signal is sent to the cutter head. Because physically the same thing happens when moving from one side to the other, electromagnets can not instantly start or stop the diamond stylus. This whole situation (both cutter head and cartridge) is not a bad thing cause it restores some of the dynamics lost while recording as long as it isn't too excessive.
Last edited:
What did you not say that I responded to? Otherwise I consider all my questions answered.
These ones below
and this one below
I didn't say or imply that DECCAs can not respond to lateral and vertical modulations by saying "lack a horizontal cantilever" or "silk string to keep vertical cantilever in place". I was simply describing DECCA's design differences apart from Ortofon MC (almost all MC cartridges) in a mechanical standpoint.
SoundSmith doesn't share the same design with DECCA. They're more like moving magnet. Stylus at one end of the cantilever and the cantilever is suspended from the other end like a conventional cartridge. IMHO DECCAs have a unique MI design and others are similar to conventional design. But as I said before all cartridges are effected from this phenomenon, some more, some less depending on the damping of suspension. BTW it's my mistake I should say DECCA MI instead of MI at the first post. Sorry.
Last edited:
Ok, they're exact quotations from my post.
It's true, I said "lack of a horizontal cantilever". Is it wrong? does it have a horizontal cantilever?
It's true, I said "silk string to keep vertical cantilever in place". Is it wrong? Doesn't silk string keep vertical cantilever in place? Why you implemented those quotations differently? I kindly ask you to read my posts again. I'm not attacking DECCA or you. Saying DECCA is different doesn't mean it is bad. I'm just trying to explain some physical details about cartridge playback.
What? May I not quote you in reply?
I don't want a fight with you. I just won't stand by silently while you say things about Decca cartridges that suggest you haven't listened to many of them. In order to avoid the notice of the moderators here, I shall stop here. Carry on as you like, but anyone reading this exchange will understand the gist of it.
Similar threads
