Hear my Cartridges....🎶

Tough one; and interesting and insightful comments by Dover and Noromance.

In the absence of the common denominators of same cartridge and tone arm, I have to go by my experience as a long time strictly-belt-drive TT owner and my expectations of what the stereotypical differences between the two technologies might be; most notably, the presumed superior pitch stability of DD.

First, I agree with Dover and Noromance and would say that TT’s 1&3 and, by default, TT’s 2&4 are the same turntable. However, I’m afraid that I don’t agree with some of the characterizations of their respective sounds and the attributed technological provenance. In fact, I hear TT’s 1&2 in completely the opposite way that Noromance does. Possibly a semantics issue; or, perhaps playback gear. Besides, I wouldn’t dream of disappointing can’t Halcro by NOT “breaking the consensus wide open” 😊

I hear the sound of TT’s 2&4 as bigger, bolder and with more (not less) high frequency energy. However, the sound is also a bit less colorful with just a hint of the dreaded (for me) bleached quality, especially in the Stravinsky; and, too tight and borderline shrill (piccolo) in the higher registers. The sound of TT’s 1&3 is, to my ears, a bit rounder and plush, with more of the natural tonal colors that I hear in live sound. However, it is also less bold and less expansive; more contained and set back a bit further and, on the Stravinsky, it could be described as slightly covered. I do agree with the comments about bass articulation.

Taking into account the unknown but expected unique contribution of the arms and cartridges used, what is left for me and the deciding factor is the perceived pitch stability of each and my, possibly fatally biased, expectations of what that may mean. This, taking into account that the pitch stability of this belt drive will be excellent regardless.

There is little in the Stravinsky to provide an obvious clue re pitch stability except the perceived boldness of TT2; possibly attributable to superior pitch stability. However, on the “Look of Love” I hear just a hint of waver in the decay of piano notes with TT3. Those decays sound more solid to me with TT4.

Which one sounds more like the real thing? I suppose that, as always, it depends on one’s priorities. Tonally, TT’s 1&3 do it for me. Pitch stability wise, 2&4. So, with that and the other observations in mind, I will go out on a limb and say that TT’s 1&3 are the belt drive and TT’s 2&4 are the direct drive.  As always,  very subtle differences and very fine sound all the way around.  

Oh, the pressure! 😱

Btw, Halcro, very sneaky of you to have both TT’s spinning at all times 😉

Btw, Halcro, very sneaky of you to have both TT’s spinning at all times 😉

Hahaha.......
Not only that Maestro.....I also alternated where my stylus cleaning apparatus was located to confuse the 'eagle-eyed' even more 🧨 😝

So to recap:-
Dover and Noromance pick 

• TT1 - DD
• TT2 - BD
• TT3 - DD
• TT4 - BD

Frogman picks

• TT1 - BD
• TT2 - DD
• TT3 - BD
• TT4 - DD

I think this shows....regardless of the results....that this is not as easy as most pundits have been declaring for decades!!?
Those declaring their astute 'hearing' abilities the most....are conspicuously absent in all these 'listening tests' 🤥

Before the 'Big Reveal'......does anyone wish to reconsider his choices?
Still time for Edgewear or anyone else to chime in....

Wouldn't it be great if @grooves (Michael Fremer) had a try....? 🙏

Thanks for this experiment Halcro, great fun. It is still difficult for me to listen through the distortion of the laptop speakers and tonal nuances mostly get lost in translation, but I'll give it a go anyway.

I concentrated on listening to the rhythmic presentation, based on my impression that DD is usually prone to latch on to the attack, while BD more emphasizes the flow of the music. At least that is what I hear comparing my own DD table (Pioneer PL-70L II) and BD tables (Micro BL-91G and RX-1500S). I also tried to bring back from memory the experience with my previous BD table (TW Acoustic Raven GT SE with Black Knight battery power supply), which tended to sound slightly dark and subjectively slow paced. This could be a TW family character shared by Halcro's Raven AC.

All that said, I feel TT1 & 4 have the more tightly organized rhythmic presentation I associate with DD, while TT2 & 3 have a more relaxed and flowing presentation, so these would be the BD tables.

Would mr. Fremer take the challenge? The suspense is growing.....😆

Thanks for accepting the challenge Edgewear......
We now seem to have all bases covered 🤗
Almost......

• TT1 - DD with Glanz 610LX
• TT2 - BD with London Decca Reference
• TT3 - BD with AS Palladian
• TT4 - DD with Sony XL-88D

Congratulations Edgewear 👏🎉

All that said, I feel TT1 & 4 have the more tightly organized rhythmic presentation I associate with DD, while TT2 & 3 have a more relaxed and flowing presentation, so these would be the BD tables.

This is how I hear it 'Live'....
Your experiences with the Raven and Pioneer turntables possibly gave you the edge 😃

It would be interesting to hear what you all take away from this experiment? 🧐
Thanks for your 'bravery'.
No-one on YouTube had the guts to try it... 

Excellent, Edgewear!

In answer to Halcro’s question, my primary takeaway goes to our agreement about TT4 being DD. You describe the sound as “tightly organized rhythmic presentation” while I described it as “solid pitch stability” compared to TT3’s slight pitch waver. One can’t have great rhythm without rock solid pitch stability. It confirms my feeling that DD, in general, offers superior pitch stability; something that has been a struggle for me in setting up my belt drive turntables over the years. Perhaps time to jump ship.

One of the mysteries of this hobby is how the advantages AND disadvantages of the different technologies impact our perception of the music; sometimes in ways that are contrary to what would expect from a logical standpoint. Belt drive, as you point out, are known for highlighting “the flow” of the music. Yet, the flow of the music, from a musician’s perspective, is entirely dependent on great pitch stability. A conundrum.

As I wrote, due to the nature of the music there weren’t obvious clues re pitch stability in the Stravinsky examples. Yet, I associated what was for me the “bolder with more hf energy sound” of the belt drive TT2 with my expectations for DD. Knowing now the cartridges involved, it all makes sense. This is what I wrote in the previous MC/MM “test” re the Glanz cartridge (on TT1 in this test and cartridge B in the previous test):

**** Cartridge B requires (allows) that the listener “lean into” the music instead of it being pushed in the direction of the listener.

“A” seems to present a more generous soundstage and with larger individual images. “B” ‘s soundstage seems more compact with smaller individual images. ****

The Glanz, even on a DD (TT1) which I expected to provide a sound which was “bolder”, retained its more polite and “set back” sound. Pretty consistent observations, I would say. So this brings up again the often asked question: barring gross pitch stability issues in a TT’s performance what is most important, turntable or cartridge? Of course, when one is dealing with gear of this caliber, the deficiencies in any one sonic parameter are very small and the music does not suffer too terribly in any case. Thoughts?

Thanks, interesting and fun as always, Halcro.