Two wonderful cartridges and each prioritizes different aspects of recorded sound. I can definitely understand why some listeners might prefer the Palladianâs spatial boldness and bass power to the Deccaâs more organized and âneaterâ approach to imaging and sound staging. Assuming, of course, that those are sonic priorities for that listener; even when at the expense of other sonic considerations. Donât get me wrong, there probably is nothing that the Palladian doesnât do extremely well. However, the Deccaâs tonal truthfulness is simply killer; and, that is the No.1 sonic priority for me. Once I hear that superior rendition of timbres, for me, it doesnât matter how impressive the sound stage may be with another cartridge. Add to that the fact that tonality is inextricably linked to the perception of my No.2 sonic priority, rhythmic truthfulness, and for me the Decca is the clear winner.
Noromance makes some excellent observations and I agree once again with his comments. His comment re the childrenâs voices was one of the first things that I noticed. However, I donât necessarily agree with his implication (?) that the fact that the LDR is âflatterâ sounding with âless bodyâ is a negative. As we all know, sometimes less is more; especially when we are striving for accuracy to a reference. This goes to my âspatial boldnessâ comment and I am not at all convinced that this boldness is not a distortion or some phase related issue. I would describe what I hear this way:
First, the Palladian tracks play slightly louder than the Decca tracks and I had to match volume levels for each. The Palladian seems to present larger individual images, but not a larger amount of information. In fact, I hear it as akin to expanding a visual image to a larger size; the detail becomes diffuse and there is less apparent detail compared to the smaller more concise image. The LDRâs images seem more concentrated and I can hear more inner detail in the sound of instruments and voices (as Noromance points out). More of the inner texture of their sounds is preserved; tonal truthfulness. The Palladian at first gives the impression of greater refinement, but that is because it rounds the leading edges compared to the LDR. One hears more realistic grit in the sound of electric guitar and bass with the LDR. I find that the finest inner details of instrumental textures are glossed over compared to the LDR. Personally, I think that the Palladianâs overall character (only compared to the LDR) is too smooth. The uppermost harmonics in the sound of instrumental timbres are diminished, Probably better now that it is in the Copperhead arm, but still a little of what Dover referred to as a âgrey washâ....COMPARED TO THE LDR. The Palladian has greater bass power, but the sound of bass instruments is too rounded compared to the LDR. On the Karr recording (wonderful!) there is more of the realistic sound of rosin grabbing metal strings with the LDR which gives the sound more definition. All this goes to No.2 sonic priority, rhythm:
To my ears the bass quality of the Palladian is too âbloomyâ. There is too much overhang of bass notes. At first the greater bass power and sheer bigness of it is impressive, but I think it actually mucks up the rhythmic interplay between instruments. On âThe Wallâ, check out the repeated bass note that begins at 4:03. Tight and well defined with the LDR. The absence of overhang allows the drums to sound more in synch with the bass for the feeling of greater rhythmic impetus in the music. With the LDR the rhythmic grooves simply sound a little groovier. On the Karr recording, his beautiful phrasing is somehow more expressive than with the Palladian. At 3:13 he begins a phrase with a suddenly aggressive bowed note. There is a certain amount of startle factor to that musical detail. With the Palladianâs there is less startle factor than with the LDR which sounds faster and more impactful due to the absence of the extra bloom and thickness of the Palladianâs bass.
All this is relatively subtle and both are great cartridges. However, as always, they canât both sound equally close to the true sound of music while sounding so different. For me, the Decca gets closer.
Great comparison. Wonderful recordings. I love the Karr recording. Believer it or not, had never heard music from âThe Wallâ and had not followed the band since âDark Side â days. I liked it very much. One to pick up.
Thanks, as always.
Noromance makes some excellent observations and I agree once again with his comments. His comment re the childrenâs voices was one of the first things that I noticed. However, I donât necessarily agree with his implication (?) that the fact that the LDR is âflatterâ sounding with âless bodyâ is a negative. As we all know, sometimes less is more; especially when we are striving for accuracy to a reference. This goes to my âspatial boldnessâ comment and I am not at all convinced that this boldness is not a distortion or some phase related issue. I would describe what I hear this way:
First, the Palladian tracks play slightly louder than the Decca tracks and I had to match volume levels for each. The Palladian seems to present larger individual images, but not a larger amount of information. In fact, I hear it as akin to expanding a visual image to a larger size; the detail becomes diffuse and there is less apparent detail compared to the smaller more concise image. The LDRâs images seem more concentrated and I can hear more inner detail in the sound of instruments and voices (as Noromance points out). More of the inner texture of their sounds is preserved; tonal truthfulness. The Palladian at first gives the impression of greater refinement, but that is because it rounds the leading edges compared to the LDR. One hears more realistic grit in the sound of electric guitar and bass with the LDR. I find that the finest inner details of instrumental textures are glossed over compared to the LDR. Personally, I think that the Palladianâs overall character (only compared to the LDR) is too smooth. The uppermost harmonics in the sound of instrumental timbres are diminished, Probably better now that it is in the Copperhead arm, but still a little of what Dover referred to as a âgrey washâ....COMPARED TO THE LDR. The Palladian has greater bass power, but the sound of bass instruments is too rounded compared to the LDR. On the Karr recording (wonderful!) there is more of the realistic sound of rosin grabbing metal strings with the LDR which gives the sound more definition. All this goes to No.2 sonic priority, rhythm:
To my ears the bass quality of the Palladian is too âbloomyâ. There is too much overhang of bass notes. At first the greater bass power and sheer bigness of it is impressive, but I think it actually mucks up the rhythmic interplay between instruments. On âThe Wallâ, check out the repeated bass note that begins at 4:03. Tight and well defined with the LDR. The absence of overhang allows the drums to sound more in synch with the bass for the feeling of greater rhythmic impetus in the music. With the LDR the rhythmic grooves simply sound a little groovier. On the Karr recording, his beautiful phrasing is somehow more expressive than with the Palladian. At 3:13 he begins a phrase with a suddenly aggressive bowed note. There is a certain amount of startle factor to that musical detail. With the Palladianâs there is less startle factor than with the LDR which sounds faster and more impactful due to the absence of the extra bloom and thickness of the Palladianâs bass.
All this is relatively subtle and both are great cartridges. However, as always, they canât both sound equally close to the true sound of music while sounding so different. For me, the Decca gets closer.
Great comparison. Wonderful recordings. I love the Karr recording. Believer it or not, had never heard music from âThe Wallâ and had not followed the band since âDark Side â days. I liked it very much. One to pick up.
Thanks, as always.