Hear my Cartridges....🎶

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

Cheapish headphones on PC. One listen quick A-B.
AS has a fuller bass, with more room-filling power and drive. JMAS seems to have a cleaner midband, more transparent and less congested upper bass. Listen to the French horn? around 5 mins in to hear what I mean. The JMAS sounds more exciting, somewhat ragged, and a little less veiled too.

Thanks for the feedback Noromance....

JMAS seems to have a cleaner midband, more transparent and less congested upper bass.

I agree....but how much of that we can attribute to the DD Victor over the Belt-Drive Raven, I don't know?
But the fact that we can even have this comparison with a 40 year-old $250 cartridge over a megabuck current Uber LOMC is pause for reflection....🤔

Let's face it.....there have been no technical advances or revolutions in cartridge design during the last 30 years, despite what the manufacturers and reviewers like to tell you...🤥
In fact, if anything, there has been a 'loss' of material and technical know-how that precludes current-day cartridge designers from even matching the designs of the Golden Age of Analogue.
The loss of Beryllium as a cantilever material for example.....
The loss of tapered-tubes (or even rods) for cantilevers....
The loss of composite cantilevers as in the Sony XL-55 and XL-88..
The loss of the technical (or economic) ability to create a cantilever out one single piece of gemstone as in the vintage Sony XL-88D for another...
Instead of technical and intellectual advancements these days....cartridge designers and manufacturers find the only 'point-of-difference'  they can offer, is more complex and costly cartridge BODIES such as the various stone-bodies of the Koetsus and the fancy-shaped titanium bodies of the Lyras, Ortofons and Acoustical Systems ostensibly all designed to prevent internal cartridge resonances 😂
But no-one has ever proven that these internal resonances even exist, let alone quantify them.
And despite the fact that the great cartridges of the past (which outperform the current fancy-bodied ones) often have plain plastic, boxy bodies......Sony XL-88, Sony XL-88D, London Decca Reference, JMAS MIT-1, Fidelity Research FR-7f and FR-7fz 🤪
No cartridge design warrants the cost of $10,000, $12,000, $15,000, $20,000 today unless it contains one-piece solid diamond stylus/cantilever.
The fancy exotic-looking stone bodies of the Koetsus (Tiger-Eye, Onyx Platinum, Jade Platinum, Azule, Rhodonite, Coralstone, Blue Lace) are cynical marketing strategies aimed at wealthy audiophile dilettantes.
They do nothing for the 'sound' of the cartridges other than 'colour' them 😡

'Normal' Audiophiles🙃....and reviewers, generally don't have the use of two turntables, 6 tonearms and 40-50 cartridges (old and new) to enable direct listening comparisons.
I hope that this Thread provides the platform to actually 'hear' the differences between multiple cartridges on various tonearms so that everyone can decide for themselves whether 'new' is better than 'old'.

And for those who think that YouTube videos are limited to MP3 quality sound.....

YouTube currently streams in 128 kbps ACC in an MP4 container when you select the Normal quality. Premium subscribers can also select the High quality, which streams at 256 kbps AAC (equal quality to GPM's 320 CBR kbps).

Holy crap that's an expensive record!

I never gave those Koetsus much attention, but your links made me take a closer look at their pricing as well as their specs. It appears they’re all the same cartridges with the same silver coils, platinum magnets and boron cantilevers (not even diamond cantilevers at these prices). And yet the price differential between the ’cheapest’ Onyx and dearest Blue Lace is $5000!!!!! Talk about cynical. I almost feel sorry for the folks who buy into this nonsense.