On my phone. Signet for me. Better separation of instruments and easier to follow the melodies weaving through the piece.
Hear my Cartridges....đ¶
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 đ
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.....đ€Ș
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.....đ€
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 đ
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.....đ€Ș
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.....đ€
- ...
- 628 posts total
| Post removed |
Over the years, Iâve read many Reviewers and Audiophiles describing the âspeedâ and âattackâ of MC Cartridges as a distinction to MMs. I have to admit that I donât hear this......not that Iâm denying others can đ€ Perhaps you can hear something in this comparison between the JMAS-MIT 1 LOMC and the classic vintage SHURE V15/III MM...? But this Shure V15/III is fitted with a Jico SAS Stylus which really improves what is a pretty decent cartridge. Viva Ginger Baker.....đ„ JMAS-MIT 1 LOMC Cartridge Mounted in Vintage SAEC WE-8000/ST ToneArm on solid Bronze ArmPod surrounding Vintage Victor TT-101 DD Turntable SHURE V15/III MM Cartridge with SAS Stylus Mounted in DV-507/II ToneArm on solid Bronze ArmPod surrounding Vintage Victor TT-101 DD Turntable |
I think that âspeedâ means different things to different listeners.  For me, speed is what I have previously tried to describe as âsense of alivenessâ.  It is where the emotional component of music is found (heard).  Then there is the issue of how tonal balance influences perceived âspeedâ.  A cartridge that does not properly decode the high frequency information in the grooves might sound thick and tubby and the absence of a good leading edge will distort the rhythm component of music.  The MIT/Shure comparison is a good example of this. No contest.  To my ears the MIT is a far superior cartridge. Even though the balance is clearly tilted too far to the high frequencies it is, overall, much better at letting the drums sound like drums and not cardboard boxes and papery cymbals like the Shure does by comparison.  The excessive brightness would probably be a deal breaker for me âthough.  The sound of the Shure is very much as I remember my Shureâs sounding in my system: grayish in color without enough brilliance and definition in the highs and an overall âsoftâ sound.  The MITâs soundstage sounds huge and expansive while the Shureâs seems smaller.  Even the space occupied by the live audience in the overall sound stage seems a lot smaller by comparison.  While the MITâs excessive brightness distracts one can still hear the differences in timbre between the different drums and cymbals while the Shure homogenizes the various sounds.  I hear a bit of thickness in the lower mids that is similar to what I hear in my system when the xover point on my REL subs is set a few hertz too high; I lose a little midrange clarity.  Thanks, halcro. BTW, I do have some thoughts on the Signet/FR MC, some of which relate to the above.  |
Isnât it amazing...... My âauralâmemory is so bad that only when I flip back and forwards between both videos is what you say, so obvious.....đ Itâs really night and day..... My only concern is with your âbrightnessâ comment on the MIT1...... In my room, the cymbals have just the right degree of âshimmerâ and âtransparencyâ without undue emphasis. Perhaps because the bass (which is REALLY deep) does not have the correct âheftâ in the video....it âslantsâ the âbalanceâ....? I would still love to hear your thoughts on the Signet/FR comparison Frogman. Thanks...... |
- 628 posts total