2. analog
  3. 140043-486

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
halcro's avatar
halcro OP
2,664 posts
 
Encouraged by the positive results yielded with the heavy FR-S3 headshell on the SAEC WE8000/ST tonearm, I wondered if EVERY cartridge would benefit from this headshell 🤔

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.

MIT 1 ON CARBON FIBER HEADSHELL

MIT 1 ON FR-S3 HEADSHELL
Perhaps slightly unfair comparison due to the increased volume level on the S3 together with the better recording technique....but it seems to sound better on the S3 headshell?

MIT ON CARBON FIBER HEADSHELL

MIT ON FR-S3 HEADSHELL
Fairer comparison here where I'm struggling to hear much difference between the two...?
Perhaps Dover could be enticed to see if he can hear any.....?

All help and comments greatly appreciated 😃
dover
2,241 posts
 
Halcro -
I am not sure if you are having me on.
There is significantly more surface noise with the carbon fiber headshell.
It is possible the VTA is not the same on both shells.
Listening to both this is what I hear ( on ear buds ) -
On violins with the carbon fiber you can hear more of the acoustic recording space of the whole orchestra, whereas with the FRS3 the leading violin is crisper and cleaner, more vibrant but with less acoustical information. In some parts the cf on violins becomes quite screachy, compared to the FRS3 less so.
From the midrange down to mid bass the FRS3 appears to have better articulation, and again fuller and more vibrant. The carbon fiber sounds a bit congealed through the upper bass to midrange.  On some passages the cf presents a clearer leading edge in the mid bass, but the more vibrant FRS3 conveys better tempo and clearer presentation of space in the lower end to my ears, and ultimately more transparency in this region.
For me the FRS3 is more musically listenable because the better presentation of tempo in the lower ranges underpins the musical flow and enjoyment.

How does this compare with your in room experience.

As an aside, when you use a heavy headshell, you will be altering the counterweight to compensate for the increased mass at the headshell end. The end result is that you are adding mass loading to the knife edge bearings, so the changes to sound will be a combo of cartridge/headshell resonances, inceased effective mass and most importantly increased load on the jewelled knife edge bearings. I know that some Japanese audio fetishists would add mass over the bearing on unipivots/knife edge bearings to improve bottom end without altering the effective mass - like dumbells each side of the bearings.
halcro's avatar
halcro OP
2,664 posts
 
Halcro -
I am not sure if you are having me on.
I am a bit Dover...😛
There is significantly more surface noise with the carbon fiber headshell.
It is possible the VTA is not the same on both shells.
Could be VTA but more likely Azimuth, as the cartridge appeared visibly askew in the Yamamoto. I turned the headshell to level the cartridge but the noise was still there. Don't know why the same is not the case with the FR-S3....? I think the VdH stylus is rather fussy 🥴
In some parts the cf on violins becomes quite screachy, compared to the FRS3 less so.
Quite noticeably in fact... 
For me the FRS3 is more musically listenable because the better presentation of tempo in the lower ranges underpins the musical flow and enjoyment.
Perfect summary for my in-room experience Dover....
Your comments on the "dumbell" effect of the heavy headshell and the need for the counterweight to move back to compensate are interesting.
Could explain why the FR-S3 headshell brings the knife-edge SAEC tonearm to 'life'...?

Thanks for the valuable feedback 👍
dover
2,241 posts
 
@halcro 
Thanks.
My suspicion would be that the extra mass anchors the sound a little more whereas the metal headshell imparts a little more of the vibrancy.
I did notice the worst mistracking appeared on the left channel.
Van den hul styli do tend to be very fine and more twitchy on VTA etc, even his early work. I have recently installed a Van den hul Colibri on a Kuzma 4 Point 11 and can hear vast repeatable changes to soundstage with as little as 0.1mm change in height at the back of the arm. 

Cheers.
halcro's avatar
halcro OP
2,664 posts
 
One of the reasons I began this Thread was to demonstrate ’sonically’ that differences in the ways cartridges present music (ie. sound)...are not always related to their typology (MM, MC, MI) or cost. Nor is it related to their genealogy (new vs old) (current vs vintage).
When I began collecting vintage cartridges about 12 years ago (both MM and LOMC).....I was astonished at how much better most of them sounded, compared to the current ones I had heard 😳. At that time, they were also cheap in comparison to the ’new’.....These days they have become rather more expensive as audiophiles have cottoned on....🥴
For those who have been following this Thread......many YouTube ’Shoot-outs’ and comparisons have resulted in a consensus that the current $10,000 AS Palladian LOMC proved itself one of the best performers in my collection of 40-50 cartridges.That was until I obtained my Holy Grail Cartridge....the 40 year old Vintage Sony XL-88D (Diamond Cantilever).
Concurrently with this event.....I discovered that by using the heavy Fidelity Research S3 Headshell on my SAEC WE-8000/ST Tonearm, it transformed this arm to possibly my ’best’ 🙃
Five years ago, I discovered an (unknown to me) vintage 1981 LOMC Cartridge JMAS MIT-1 which I thought was one of the best I had heard. An A’Gon Member from the Netherlands made me aware that a stash of NOS MIT-1s was being liquidated for $250 each and I bought the last one 😝.
Based on the Coral MC-81which had a Shibata Stylus on Beryllium Cantilever....John Marovski (an audio dealer in NY) got Coral to use a VdH Stylus on Beryllium Cantilever for his MIT-1.
Can a 40 year old LOMC Cartridge which cost $250 in NOS condition 5 years ago, compete with a current $10,000 Uber LOMC Cartridge?
I think it can.....Dover might tell me if I’m wrong.......🤥

AS PALLADIAN LOMC CARTRIDGE

JMAS MIT-1 LOMC CARTRIDGE
More to discover