Hear my Cartridges....đŸŽ¶


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.....đŸ€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.....đŸ€—
128x128halcro
Nice descriptions by no romance and I agree completely; with the possible exception of the “makes you wanna dance” part. I say possible because, while I don’t hear any outright advantage with the Grace in the “dance” department, it is true that sometimes if one reduces one type of detail it can serve to highlight another aspect of the sound. The Grace reduces some high frequency detail. This results in the sound of the plucks of the strings of the guitar and the harpsichord sounding slightly round compared to the more realistic incisive quality one hears with the Palladian.

This recording is wonderful with many different and unique instrumental timbres. With the Grace they all sound slightly homogenized compared to the Palladian which allows one to hear more individuality in the color of the various instrumental sounds. I think the very cute pooch agrees; he(?) left the room while the Grace played â˜ș

As halcro pointed out the differences are slight and make one wonder whether the price difference is justified. The Grace sounds excellent but I think the Glanz does a somewhat better job of challenging the Palladian.
Noromance is becoming more confident in his analyses and I think he's spot-on....
Frogman and "the very cute pooch" (Princi-a male Principessa) are also correct as usual...at least in Frogman's case....Princi is generally a sideline critic đŸ€Ł....
I agree with Frogman that the Glanz gives the Palladian more of a contest....
Whether that changes as the Grace 'runs-in'....I'll let you know đŸ€—
I've had my three Garrott P77 cartridges for nearly 40 years.
I first put a JICO SAS (Boron) stylus in one of them about 6 years ago and then tried the NEO-SAS (Sapphire) and NEO-SAS (Ruby) a few years ago.

AS PALLADIAN LOMC Cartridge

GARROTT P77/SAS(Ruby)

Princi (the poodle) has already made his choice.......đŸ©
Confession time. In the spirit of full disclosure for the acknowledgment of possible bias I should point out that I wasn’t really looking forward to this comparison; except in order to hear (sort of 😏) “Fran-Dance” on halcro’s great system. Classic record.

I wasn’t looking forward to the comparison because I wasn’t that impressed with the Garrott both times that we heard it previously. I found it to be too covered sounding with too much high frequency information missing. I don’t know if this is the same Garrott, but it sounds much better to me than the two previous times. Better high frequency detail and air; but not quite there yet, imo. Sounds very good. Still....

Sorry Princi (very cute!), but once again to my ears the Palladian lets me hear much more natural instrumental color and better separation of instruments. Miles’ Harmon mute sounds appropriately metallic and buzzy. With the Garrott it sounds a little “soft” by comparison. The bass also sounds slightly “drummy” and insdistinct. Trane’s tenor sound doesn’t have enough edge; it had a lot of edge, particularly during that period in time. Relatively subtle differences, but they are there.

The way the two cartridges soundstage is actually the most strikingly different quality. The Garrott seems more recessed while the Palladian seems to be more upfront with a larger soundstage. This is really curious: I may be wrong, but I believe this a mono pressing? Mono recordings can give a good sense of depth as well as stereo recordings. Really good ones can even have sonic cues that suggest left-right information. With the Garrott all the instruments are bunched in the middle and the presentation sounds smaller overall. With the Palladian I can clearly hear the piano to be left of center and the horns right of center within a clearly larger soundstage. If this is in fact a stereo recording then I suppose the Garrott can be said to fare even worse in this department.

I know that some disagree about this and I have avoided making these generalizations because I realize that it is not the experience of others. Based on my experience using both MM and MC cartridges in various systems over the years, with the to be expected exceptions, MM cartridges, along with their many great attributes, seem to miss the most subtle details in the natural color and texture of instrumental timbres. For me, there is often what I would characterize as a “gray(ish)” character to instrumental colors. This is the main reason that I generally can’t stand Shure cartridges. That was one of the reasons I liked the Victor (X1?) so much; the instrumental color was there. “Color” gets a bad rap from audiophiles; but the sound of instruments is full of color. MC’s seem to generally preserve more of the natural color, but unfortunately tip the overall balance upwards for a sound that can seem too lean compared to MMs’ generally fuller balance. But one can have a tonal balance that is closer to real and still not have the right instrumental color and texture. For me the Palladian strikes the best balance so far.

Btw, I would love to hear a shootout between the Palladian and the Decca Reference. THAT ought to be interesting. Another cartridge that I would love to hear is the Azden YM P50VL. My experience with various MM’s is pretty limited compared to halcro’s amazing collection, but of all the MM’s that I have owned, the Azden, while far from perfect in other departments, is the one that did not impart any of that gray (bleached) tonal quality. Don’t know why this is so, but it has been my experience; even compared to the one that I suspect most would consider the overall best in my modest collection, the ATML-170 OCC.

Thanks, halcro!