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
Schubert, great question; and the answer to which highlights one of the main problems with the way orchestral music is often recorded. Most good composers of orchestral music are (and were) very mindful of the fact that the sound of an instrument, or instruments playing together, needs to travel a certain distance on its way to the listener’s ear in order to “develop” acoustically and achieve the desired timbre and texture. Sitting in the middle of an orchestra one hears a good amount of extraneous “noise” in one’s own and other players’ sounds which is not, nor intended to be, desirable. This noise can be excessive air in a wind player’s tone or exaggerated sound of the tongue “attack” of the note. Even in the absence of this noise, the timbre of most instruments is typically more brilliant and aggressive with more prominent, and uneven (unnatural) harmonic content when heard up close. Some players’ tones are much more beautiful heard from a certain distance.

Sitting mid hall, besides more fully developed individual tones, what one hears is the result of what (good) players sometimes refer to as “playing inside each other’s sound”. For instance, when the principal flute and principal oboe have a melody to play in unison, or when the tympani has repeated accented notes with the basses, what the composer usually intends, and what the players aim for, is not for the listener to hear two individual and distinct sounds. The compositional and performance goal is the color of a perfect blend between the two which is essentially a new color in the orchestral color palette. A performance that was recorded too close up does not capture this very important aspect of a composition and performance. Sitting in the middle of an orchestra players are (or, should be) very conscious of all this and play in a way that honors the composer’s goal in this respect. Some players’ tones are much more beautiful heard from a certain distance. Some of this is a bit of a mystery and goes to a musician’s strength of musical “intent”. Some players have the ability to “project” and sound very beautiful heard from a distance even if their sound may seem smaller than another player’s whose sound seems louder or more present when heard up close. Sitting in the middle of an orchestra a good player has to be mindful of all this in order to best serve the music.

Hearing music from inside an orchestra also makes one very aware and sensitive to very fine dynamic gradations in the music. Many of the things that I tried to describe above apply to the area of dynamics. Most listeners tend to focus on tonal issues and distortions in reproduced sound while distortions of dynamic nuance is just as prevalent and important; arguably, even more so since this is what mostly gives music its sense of aliveness. Perhaps a result of personal bias, but I find that distortion of dynamic nuance is the area in audio most in need of attention and improvement.

Re Falletta:

Fine conductor. I had the pleasure of playing under her with Philadelphia Orchestra on two occasions and most recently in a performance of new works by students at Princeton U’s Cone Institute. She is excellent and has the ability to command the respect of the players while not losing sight of the fact that the process is a collaboration to a great extent; something that does not always happen.
Henry, I thought so as your approach is usually scientific. Thanks for confirmation. Actually I feel sorry for the Raven as it now can´t give the best out of LOMCs : /
halcro, very funny; certainly no derision intended 🤨 And, noromance, no apology ever necessary as far as I am concerned. Sometimes the best observations are gut reactions not encumbered by a lot of “facts” and the inevitable bias. I will comment on the MIT/Victor later today.
Post removed 
MIT vs Victor X1-IIE

Again, difficult to tell how much of what is heard is a result of the way the music is recorded for uploading to YouTube, but certain patterns emerge. The piano on this recording is heard from a more realistic perspective than the previous piano recording with some distance between the instrument and the mics which allows some room sound to be heard.  In this comparison, for me, the Victor wins hands down. 

MIT:

While I like the immediacy and speed, I just don’t like what this cartridge does to the sound of the right hand of the piano.  The same thinness and clangy quality that I heard on the previous recording is here again.  Beginning around 1:30, with the accented right hand chords, the sound of the instrument takes on a very unnatural metallic and thin quality.  Again, how much of this is the result of the upload or the less that sophisticated recording method is hard to say, but this is what is heard.

Victor:

Better balanced and more natural piano sound.  Much less, almost none of the metallic and clangy quality in the right hand heard with the MIT.  Unlike the Garrott in the previous comparison, it doesn’t sound as if the high frequencies and harmonics are tamped down, but simply closer to correct.  As a result the midrange doesn’t sound too thick and lacking brilliance as with the Garrott.  

Any advantage that the MIT may seem to have in the dynamic aliveness department is probably a result of its more brilliant character.  I would say that both are about equal in this department; surprising to me given that the Victor is a MM.  A bit of a leap considering that they have been heard with different recordings, but this may be my favorite Victor so far.  Is this X1- IIE the same cartridge that chakster referred to early on as simply the X1-II?  If so, I understand why he prefers it to the X1.