Beautiful cartridges (aka Goldring G900IGC)

About 18 months go I bought a couple of NOS Goldring G900IGC styli, with the intention of finding a spare 900 Series body. As luck would have it I managed to find a boxed 910IGC complete with sealed accessories and papers, with a claimed use of around 40 hours. Looks brand new to me using a small scope so I'm well pleased.
Styli are interchangeable within the range.

Always liked the G900 cartridges and Goldring were the first to use the Van den Hul stylus way back around 1980 when it first appeared.
There were three models, 900IGC, 910iGC and 920IGC. The first two are essentially the same thing but with different compliance while the 920 used the slightly less complex and expensive VDH Type 2 stylus.
I had all three in the 80s and remember the G920 being a real eye opener - it was substantially cleaner with less end-of-side distortion than anything I'd heard, including many expensive MCs. I happily used the range in both a Syrinx PU2 and Mission 774 arms.
Goldring eventually replaced them with the 1000 Series which were in fact simply a repackage in Pocan bodies. Times were changing and it became the fashion to tighten cartridge bolts to absurd degrees.

The original 1000 Series, which retained the VDH stylus profiles were good but never quite managed to equal the 900s IMO. The latest versions, using Gyger tips are even less good IMO though still fine the money.

So to the 900s.
Very light and quite high in compliance by today's standards - the 910/920 sit around 26cu which ideally needs a low mass arm. The 900 has very high compliance at 42cu but these are for lateral compliance, with vertical is clearly much lower, and arguably the more important to get right. Fortunately they are well damped, and I've found a 900 in a Rega arm is pretty well behaved, certainly if your phono stage properly conforms to RIAA.....

They weigh 4gm which is very light and only the old Ortofon OMs will be lighter. The smaller of the Michell TecnoWeight options balances perfectly on the RB1000 when right up to the pivot, which is just what we want.

Major benefits over previous models were a reduction in generator inductance (making them less load sensitive) much reduced tip mass and pushing the tip mass resonance out to 28-30kHz depending on model. Most MMs even today have it around 20k, hence the often seen treble peek followed by a fast droop.

Tracking on both 900/910 is about as good as it gets. The 910 equals the best of the rest while the 900 is out on it's own and the only cartridge I've experienced that will play any test record 'supertest' track and shrug it off.
It matters. End of side orchestral climax and loud vocals will strain the very best cartridges.

Each 900/910 was supplied with a response trace and calibration certificate.
The trace here shows +/- 1db limits 20Hz-20kHz - not bad for a cartridge!

So are they beautiful?
Well, I think these are some of prettiest cartridges produced, particularly the black, gold and racing green combo of the 900IGC. The cartridge looks and feels tiny in the flesh.
Judge for yourself form the pics below.

I realise this will mean nothing to many and bore a good few others, but there is precious little out there about this series of cartridges - so Google, please index for posterity

I won't describe the sound, other than to say I like it very much and that these are two of the best MMs ever produced IMO. Probably only the top Technics models are better if in top condition - many aren't these days.

Have a listen to some samples.

Grant Green:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/kpu1sb0rvqk0joy/Green G.wav

Gillespie:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/5yoavppia6t54o1/Gillespie G.wav

Crusaders:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/d11m35fuaaufcy9/Crusaders G.wav

Marley:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/a6jxt32993jis10/Marley G.wav



and now pics......

 

Any pictures next to the AT for size comparison? Looks like it hangs quite low?

Why does it have that plastic thing on the front, beside style?

 

This should answer all three points:

 

The Goldring G900igc is a real gem! Had one on my very much missed Thorens 320Limited that sounded absolutely gorgeous, very musical and organic, not unlike a Grace F-8 actually.

Do enjoy it and thanks for sharing!

Regards,

Vincula

 

I was living in Germany in 1980 and I had just purchased a Thorens TD160 S and a Rega RB200 S-shape arm.
After read a glowing review about the 900IGC and trying its smaller brother the 900E I ordered one.
For me it still ranks as one of the top MM cartridges and is only bettered by the Technics EPC205 mk111.

Here is an article I keeped about it, sorry for the missing corner I will try and find it.


http://www.mediafire.com/?685ytu3s1skgms0

http://www.mediafire.com/?tr8hcyt716s7tv0


Regards

Sharif

 

I've got a Dynavector Ruby with a frequency response plot that is at least as flat as that - It's still one of the blandest cartridges I have heard. Some may choose to interpret this as neutrality, but how can it be neutral if every recording sounds like the musicians are just going through the motions?

 

Because a flat FR is only part of the story, as you well know Mark

A flat response must surely be desired though if you want true fidelity to what is on the disc. Any deviation has to be inaccuracy, even if you like the result.

 

Thanks for the links Sharif.
I remember those first time around and good to read again after all these years.

 

It sounds a little bass light to me, but good and clean and dynamic. Much the usual sound for your vinyl system!

Can you tell much between this and the AT?

 

I'd agree with that description.
The 910 sounds a tad weightier than the 900.

What marks these our for me is that they sound lively, big and open. Most MMs sound a bit restrained and flat to me. These kill most MMs for top end clarity thanks to the VDH profile tips.

AT is better, but not much.

I want a Frog by year end though

 

Yeah, you need another pet to keep you company! Could you convert the fish tank for it?

 

You want me to put this into the fish tank?

 

Well one would have thought so, it seems logical. However, my ears tell me differently and ultimately that is what has to listen to everything - as you say, a flat FR is only part of the story.

 

But what is on the disc? And which disc? Number 1 running off the stamper? Or number 4293?

A cartridge with a flat FR is likely to sound dull with the average commercial record, as the latter has gone through a process that only loses treble and detail.


As for fidelity: ever read 'Perfecting Sound Forever'?

 

Comes back to mastering and production skill surely?

The average commercial record should be compensated correctly to sound right when played with a flat cartridge.

I mean, we've only had vinyl for 60 years and the losses you describe are well understood.
Perhaps I should say were understood.

A cartridge should remain faithful to whatever is on the disc be it the first stamped or the last.

 

"The average commercial record "

Please tell me where I can buy these.

 

From most record shops.

A minority of discs have a probelm in terms of balance. There are of course other things that can be wrong.

The fact remains that a cartridge should play back what is on the disc.
If the mastering engineer is crap or the pressing plant get things wrong, well are you saying that the cartridge designer should in some way try to compensate?
You cannot design a cartridge to correct for errors at the mastering and/or pressing stage when those errors have not been quantified.

Get some tone controls!

 

If only it was that simple. I've used amplifiers with tone controls (including Quad) and never found them of any use at all. In addition, if the amplifier has the facility to bypass the tone controls, this always sounds better (in my experience).

 

It is that simple.

I'm sure there are examples of amplifiers with poor tone controls, or certainly where 'flat' actually isn't flat and therefore a difference is heard.

My last experience of testing this was to compare a Quad 34 - the whole pre including the tone section - to a straight CD rip. The result was far from what internet wisdom would suggest to those participating. A blind test of course.

There is absolutely no reason why a competently designed tone control circuit should be audible when set flat.
The advantages are potentially considerable, the drawbacks either non existent or negligible.

The subject has been done to death many times, but EQ (and that's all tone controls are) features at many points along the chain. For people to suddenly declare that once the signal reaches their home that EQ is then useless has always seemed a bit strange to me.

For EQ to be useless then any/all of the following must surely apply:

- The system and room are perfect.
- The listener is prepared to tolerate poor tonal balance, on at least some recordings.
- The listener has absolute faith in those mastering/producing music to get things right all of the time.
- Personal preference plays no part in reproducing music at home.

Extending the argument that we shouldn't meddle with what's on the disc to the logical conclusion we'd need to see recommended SPLs on every recording. SPL is a variable just like tonal balance, and of course tonal balance (as perceived) varies with listening level. So you should only be listening at a pre determined (by someone else) listening level for every album!

Would you put up with a TV or monitor lacking any form of control?
Or accept that the pictures generated from your digital camera never require any form of correction?

If there is milage in the discussion I'll split this into a thread.

 

Well that's your opinion Rob - I don't agree with it though (none of it in fact); but then I find the Quad amplification you mention (and use) to be quite opaque sounding - I realise that (you believe) measurement contradicts this, and therefore it cannot be true (I'm hardly alone in this view mind you).

Adjusting the tone controls does nothing for compensating for rooms except in the most basic quantitative sense - small adjustments to speaker positioning is more profound and more worthwhile.

I didn't say that we shouldn't have tone controls on principal - what I said is that, in my experience, they do nothing of real value and introduce new compromises of their own; therefore, they are not worth having.

As is often the case with such analogies, I don't think they are very relevant in this case and only serves to hugely oversimplify the issues (very colourful though).

It's hardly a discussion is it; you have stated your position and I have stated mine. You have stated that you don't agree with me and I have stated I don't agree with you. No amount of 'discussion' is likely to alter either of our viewpoints. However, I am minded of the pro-objectavist stance of the forum and how it limits discussion; the whole discussion is wrapped up in two posts - you think one thing and I think another - the same is true of many/most potential threads; e.g. Q, 'What amp should I consider', A, 'it doesn't matter, they are all the same', Q, 'what CD player should I consider', A,'it doesn't matter, they are all the same' etc.