2. analog
  3. 1253631901

Benz Micro LP S vs Air Tight PC-1 w/ files

Greetings All,

Having spent the past two weeks comparing the Benz Micro LP S to the Air Tight PC-1, I’ve posted some files to share the results. These are high resolution 96 KHz / 24 bit AIFF files made with each cartridge. I hope you enjoy listening to them and please do post your impressions.

They can be found at:

public.me.com/vinylxfer

or, if your browser doesn’t redirect, here’s the full URL:

http://idisk.mac.com/vinylxfer-Public?view=web

Music / track selection info:

Example #1: Gurdjieff - De Hartmann, “The Bokharian Dervish Hadji Asvatz-Troov” from “The Music of Gurdjieff / De Hartmann.” While many musicians have recorded De Hartmann’s music, this 1950 recording is of the composer performing his own work. Originally restored as reference material for Keith Jarrett’s “Sacred Hymns” album, ECM released a four-disk set of these recordings in 1987. These disks are not in great shape, but they allow us to travel back 59 years to listen to De Hartmann’s beautiful playing.

Example #2: Van Morrison, “Astral Weeks,” title track. 1968 classic is still remarkable. This track was captured from a recent 180-gram reissue.

Example #3: The Durutti Column, “Otis,” from Vini Reilly. Trippy guitar and synth loops that reference everyone from John Fahey to Terry Riley. This track was captured from the original 1989 Factory Records release.

Example #4: Walter Norris & George Mraz, “Drifting,” title track. Norris’ piano and Mraz’s bass playing range from bop to free. Emblematic of the brilliant 1970s loft jazz movement in NYC, this track was captured from the original 1974 Enja records release.

BTW, I don’t mean to suggest that these are the ultimate test tracks. They’re just a sample of what I was listening to last week ☺

Technical Info:

The cartridges were mounted on a VPI JMW 12.7 tone arm / HRX turntable. Mechanical and electrical parameters for each cartridge were adjusted via measurements and then fine-tuned with listening tests. A Pass Labs Xono phono preamp fed an Apogee Electronics Symphony workstation with an Apogee Rosetta 200 analog-to-digital converter front end. The audio was captured at 96 KHz /24 bits. Bias Peak Pro 6.0.3 software was used to create the files. No digital processing was applied to the files.

On surface noise: Each record was cleaned using a VPI HW27 cleaning machine with Audio Intelligent Vinyl Solution Formula #6 cleaning fluid. As the two cartridges appeared to respond differently to surface noise no further cleanup was done on these files, except for the Gurdjieff - De Hartmann. Extensive pops and clicks were removed from the Gurdjieff - De Hartmann captures by manually painting out the errors on the audio waveforms.
dean358
dean358 OP
12 posts
 
IOW's the main variable is whether you trust the cdr and cdp to give an accurate representation of the carts.

Actually, I believe the main variable in these tests to be the relationship of the cartridges to this particular tone arm and how well they were aligned. (I’m not a turntable set up meister, at least by the standards of the folks who post here.) There was, however, no CDR or CDP used. The 96KHz/24bit files were created using a two-channel version of this hardware:

http://www.apogeedigital.com/products/symphony-system.php

This particular Symphony system is dedicated to capturing output from the TT and has a minimum signal path ahead of it. And, as this was not a commercial application I left tons of headroom at the a-to-d when creating the files.
artemus_5's avatar
artemus_5
1,924 posts
 
Dean

If I were to listen to your samples on my stereo I would have to use both a cdr and cdp in order to do so. As i said previously, i have little doubt that this practice is fine in a closed system and probably preferable to changing carts and trying to compare
kipdent
65 posts
 
Coming rather late to this, but I downloaded these files over a year ago and just got around to listening to them carefully this morning. I'm in the market for a new cartridge and thought it would be fun to give the comparison a go.

I find the original feedback fascinating and in line with the axiom that each person hears things differently than another. When you think about it, it makes any comparisons, even ideal ones in the same room with the same equipment, rather meaningless--much like how each person sees color differently than another person. Yet, we all continue to do this since we are social animals and like to learn of other's opinions and insights--even if in the end they have no bearing on our personal reality. It's a hard habit to break, and is, I think, something central to our hobby and unlikely to ever change. I think all of us actively ignore that though there may be a few things about the sound of a particular system (or cartridge) we all can agree on, when it comes to nuances presented in tests like these, there can never be universal agreement.

After that long caveat, here's what I heard:

1) The Air Tight PC-1 suppresses surface noise on the test track much better than the Benz LP s (but at a price, in my opinion).

2) I play the piano every day, and compose music. As such, I have a set of biases about how a piano's sound board and strings "ought" to sound (which is why, of course, there are so many brands of pianos!), and in this comparison, the Benz LP S present to my ears a much more accurate, musical sound of a piano. The Air Tight is cool and mechanical to my ears in this regard.

That people prefer the PC-1's presentation and describe it as having "more resolution" is unsurprising then--many ears and brains find this "better" or more pleasing. For me, however, there is no contest between the two in this limited test--if it were two pianos being played by the same artist in the same room instead of two cartridges, I would buy the piano that is being represented by the Benz LP S' sound in a heartbeat.

Deciding if this sort of impression is useful or not is also probably meaningless. :-)

Kip
peterayer
1,382 posts
 
I'm not sure I understand the listening test you just did. Did you compare the sound of the two cartridges by listening to two digital files or did you listen to the actual cartridges using the same table, arm, wire etc? Please clarify. Thanks.
kipdent
65 posts
 
Dear Peterayer,

Yes, to clarify--and based on your post from last year, you may find it abstruse--I did this listening comparison with the digital files the OP posted. I realize this may cause you to dismiss my ramblings entirely; however, I heard the differences I noted rather clearly.
More to discover