Hear my Cartridges....🎶


Many Forums have a 'Show your Turntables' Thread or 'Show your Cartridges' Thread but that's just 'eye-candy'.... These days, it's possible to see and HEAR your turntables/arms and cartridges via YouTube videos.
Peter Breuninger does it on his AV Showrooms Site and Michael Fremer does it with high-res digital files made from his analogue front ends.
Now Fremer claims that the 'sound' on his high-res digital files captures the complex, ephemeral nuances and differences that he hears directly from the analogue equipment in his room.
That may well be....when he plays it through the rest of his high-end setup 😎
But when I play his files through my humble iMac speakers or even worse.....my iPad speakers.....they sound no more convincing than the YouTube videos produced by Breuninger.
Of course YouTube videos struggle to capture 'soundstage' (side to side and front to back) and obviously can't reproduce the effects of the lowest octaves out of subwoofers.....but.....they can sometimes give a reasonably accurate IMPRESSION of the overall sound of a system.

With that in mind.....see if any of you can distinguish the differences between some of my vintage (and modern) cartridges.
VICTOR X1
This cartridge is the pinnacle of the Victor MM designs and has a Shibata stylus on a beryllium cantilever. Almost impossible to find these days with its original Victor stylus assembly but if you are lucky enough to do so.....be prepared to pay over US$1000.....🤪
VICTOR 4MD-X1
This cartridge is down the ladder from the X1 but still has a Shibata stylus (don't know if the cantilever is beryllium?)
This cartridge was designed for 4-Channel reproduction and so has a wide frequency response 10Hz-60KHz.
Easier to find than the X1 but a lot cheaper (I got this one for US$130).
AUDIO TECHNICA AT ML180 OCC
Top of the line MM cartridge from Audio Technica with Microline Stylus on Gold-Plated Boron Tube cantilever.
Expensive if you can find one....think US$1000.

I will be interested if people can hear any differences in these three vintage MM cartridges....
Then I might post some vintage MMs against vintage and MODERN LOMC cartridges.....🤗
128x128halcro

Showing 5 responses by lewm

Raul, I think the group (of which I cannot count myself a member, since I have offered no SQ opinions so far) has acknowledged the effect of tonearm and headshell (and tacitly, the turntable); the Palladian was run on both the SAEC/Victor and then on the Copperhead/Raven, and the group preferred the latter.  As for me, my computer speakers are lousy, so I dare not think I can judge at all.  Nothing sounds really good at my end.
I’ve heard the $25,000 Doehmann turntable with the minus K platform built in, and I think it is one of the best if not the best belt drive turntable I have ever heard. For the money, it’s got to be THE best.

If we got into that discussion of arm pods again it would divert this thread from its beautiful path, and I don’t want to be responsible for doing that. I have no theoretical beef with your current set up.

Occasionally, but not regularly, I listen to your posted recordings, and then I wait to see whether I can agree with the various critiques thereof by following the thread. That’s as far as I have gone. Frogman et al do a great job.
I love reading this thread, because you guys are so nice to each other, and the tone is so genteel.  Keep it up. While you were talking about single malt scotch, I was reminded of my dear friend who is also an Aussie.  Three of us, my friend Ian from Melbourne and another friend who is also a retired scientist from my area here in Washington, DC, did a road trip through the American south last fall and had a great time.  During that trip, we sampled (ex-Australia) "Sullivans Cove", the one that was voted world's best on one or two occasions.  Have you tasted that one, Henry? I thought it was very good but not hands down better than, say, 25-year old Macallam's.

I might note here that the Copernican Theory as expounded by Henry was never about whether the tonearm was more or less important than the turntable; it was about outboard arm pods vs mounting the arm rigidly to the turntable.  In the end, I thought we all agreed that a massive pod sitting on the same shelf with the turntable (a la Henry's set up) works about as well as a rigid link.  Over the course of time and bluster, Henry and I moved off our original intransigent and opposing positions and found some middle ground.
As I understand it, there is a "science"-based reason for using carbon composition resistors as grid-stoppers.  This is because CC resistors maintain their resistivity up to very high frequencies, higher than other types of resistors that may otherwise sound better and are also non-inductive.  At very high frequencies, most other resistor types reach a resonance point and become capacitative.  The purpose of the grid-stop resistance is to dampen oscillations of the tube that depend upon its Miller capacitance and its transconductance.  (High transconductance tubes are more prone to oscillate and more likely to require a grid-stopper to keep them quiet.) If the resistor itself becomes reactive at very high frequencies, then in theory the dampening effect is lost.  That said, some good designers ignore the issue and just use resistor types that they like.
With some trepidation, because I so respect Dover and Halcro, I ask is it not the case that so-called "ruby" and "sapphire" cantilevers are one and the same material?  That doesn't necessarily mean that a given sample of one must sound the same as a given sample of the other, because length and shape of the cantilever and stylus shape and method of bonding could dramatically affect the outcome of any comparison.