Hear my Cartridges....🎶

You need a good DD table-LOL

👍

Re the Grassphoper: note that I stipulated that the MCs that I felt had the most convincing dynamic aliveness were not necessarily my favorites.

I think that you are exactly right when you surmise that with tube amplification one might “like” one cartridge over another compared to ss amplification. I love tubes. For me, for the mostly acoustic music (Classical and Jazz) that I listen to tubes generally do a better job of capturing tonal realism and dynamic nuance. GENERALLY SPEAKING, I feel the same way about tube amplification’s way with dynamic aliveness compared to ss as I do about MC’s compared to MM’s. Generally speaking, when I listen to good tube amplification I hear less deviation overall from the sound of live acoustic music than I do with ss.

I am curious about Schubert’s comment about dd tables. I don’t necessarily disagree, but wondered what about the topics discussed inspired the comment.

Btw, I think we may be shortchanging the importance of the arm used in these comparisons.  I realize that there is no other way, but worth remembering.  

OK...time for some piano 🎹🎼
Most audiophiles seem to agree that realistic piano reproduction is the most difficult thing to achieve via domestic hifi systems.
The complexity of the piano in being a stringed and percussion instrument at the same time means the 'touch' on the keyboard, the attack of the fingers, the tone of the soundboard and the sustain and decay of the notes via the pedals are just as important as the softness 'piano' and loudness 'forte' the player injects into the performance.
To achieve a realistic facsimile of the 'power' of the Concert Grand....I have found two 'aids' which are beneficial:-

• Two good subwoofers
• A very good DD turntable

The subwoofers allow the 'foundation' of the piano's bass reproduction to resonate throughout the performance whilst at the same time, relieving the main amplifiers output to be concentrated at the sheer dynamic range of transients and harmonics inherent in this instrument.

Perfect timing (ie speed control/consistency) is essential in once again projecting the speed and instantaneous dynamic swings of loudness and softness produced by this wondrous instrument.
Many folks laugh at the notion of 'stylus drag' in a turntable (particularly those belt-drive tables of massive weight and solidity) but those who have a Sutherland Laser Timeline can attest to the fact that it surely exists.
A great DD table is the 'easy' way to eliminate 'stylus drag' which is most audible on piano reproduction (see Timeline Test).

Here are two of my favourite cartridges.....
One a LOMC and the other a MM.
An unexpected discovery in my listening experiences has been the JMAS MIT 1 LOMC Cartridge which was a slightly modified Coral mc81 from the late '80s with the first true VdH diamond fitted on beryllium cantilever available in the States.
The Garrott P77 is a legendary MM made by John and Brian Garrott in Australia, based on the A&R P77 from England.
I bought three of these cartridges directly from the Garrott Bros in the '80s (before their tragic suicide pact with their wives) but when I transplanted a Jico SAS,NeoSAS(S) and NeoSAS(R)....I hear the real brilliance of this classic MM cartridge.

JMAS MIT 1 LOMC Cartridge
Mounted on SAEC WE8000/ST Tonearm on bronze Armpod surrounding vintage Victor TT-101 DD Turntable.

GARROTT P77/SAS MM Cartridge
Mounted on DV-507/II Tonearm on bronze Armpod surrounding vintage Victor TT-101 DD Turntable

From my phone. Prefer the JMAS.
Why? At 1:15-1:30, there is a simple melody that is easily followed on the MIT1. On the P77, it falls apart.
The MC has more detail and longer sustains.
However, the MM has a somewhat cleaner, more neutral sound. There is some steeliness to the sound.

Some thoughts re your excellent most recent post, halcro:

Great descriptions of the difficulties with piano reproduction. I completely agree. With one exception, the often stated idea that it is “the most difficult to reproduce”. I don’t like it because it is way too simplistic. It’s a bit like the often stated: “the oboe is the most difficult instrument to play”. All instruments are, overall, equally difficult to play in their own unique ways; just as all instruments place unique demands on the record/playback process. Speaking of the oboe; incredibly difficult to capture/playback a believable oboe sound with its very rich and complex harmonic content. Moreover, while all pianists do produce a somewhat individual tone on a piano, there is much more variability in the tones that individual oboists produce relative to what is possible on the piano which has a tone which is “built in” to a great (not total) extent. This makes the oboe particularly difficult to record and reproduce realistically. The cartridges:

There’s a lot going on with this comparison. Two things that are significant (to me) for my comments to have context: First, the cartridges are on two different arms. Second, I don’t feel that the piano is very well recorded on that recording. The piano is miked way too close up; especially the right hand. It makes the upper half of the keyboard have a clangy quality; nasal and metallic. Not nearly enough wood in the sound of the instrument. Makes it sound like an upright piano (not a good one), not a concert grand. I believe it’s the way it was recorded because this quality is heard with both cartridges to different degrees. Of course, the limitations of the recording equipment and YouTube plays into this, but the comparison is telling.

The MIT highlights the upper frequencies and the clangyness of the piano’s right hand is completely exposed. The two halves of the keyboard almost sound like two different instruments.

The Garrott does not have as much clarity in that range, so the clanginess is reduced to give the illusion of better balance and “neutrality” The problem then is that the left hand sounds too thick because the upper harmonics produced by those lower notes don’t have enough clarity due to the reduced harmonic content.  Overall, the Garrott’s piano sound is too thick without enough definition and “leading edge” (I hate cliches). The MIT’s clarity in the highs let’s it give the lower register definition, but higher frequency sounds are not well integrated.

Then there is once again the issue of dynamic aliveness. The MIT is superior in this regard to the Garrott. I realize that tonal balance impacts our perception of dynamics. Nonetheless, putting aside the issue of tone, what I hear is that the MIT lets me hear more of what the player is doing musically. The little pushes and accents, the subtle rhythmic give and take are more clearly heard with the MIT. Listen to the two tremolos that he plays beginning @ 0:57. With the MIT one hears that not only does he play a tremolo, but he makes a subtle crescendo (gets louder) during each one; especially during the second one, There are countless little dynamic details of that nature in the performance that I feel are better expressed by the MIT. It also reveals the bad. It better shows how the player’s Gospel music rhythmic feel is pretty square.

Bottom line for me is this. I think it points, more than anything, to the simple fact that even the best equipment has a long way to go to be truly “neutral”; to make a sound that sounds close to real. What I hear is that TONALLY both cartridges deviate from what I think the real thing sounds like to about the same degree; but in different ways. The Garrot is overly covered in the highs and thick in the midrange. The MIT sounds as if it highlights the upper ranges with a relentless clarity and ends sounding too lean. However, to my ears the MIT lets significantly more musical nuance through. If I had to choose, the MIT wins.

My two cents and thanks for the latest round.