Hear my Cartridges....🎶

Hi @halcro 
Yes, differences are audible. At first I used Mac Air no headphones, but changing to iphone earbuds was more illuminating and in some instances changed preferences. I dont like headphones on my head, hence the earbuds, but I have started listening to your posts with Music Hall debe headphones I got for free - apparently they retailed for $200. 

Re the aforementioned 3012R thread, I own the Hillary Hahn album "Retrospective" that was used for some of the comparisons and in my system the resolution is way beyond what I could hear via the posted videos - the most graphic example being just before the Max Richter track commences I hear the movement of the seated audience as they shuffle around in their seats, this is completely missing on the videos posted. So there are limitations as I would have expected in posting videos, but the comparisons are still informative.

Regards MM's and LOMC's I'll keep it short. I prefer speed and resolution of LOMC's however there is a big caveat. I'd rather have a good MM/MI than a cheap MC with aberrations. Also I think that good MC phono stages with openness, transparency are few and far between, and in this instance a good MM/MI into the MM input can yield more musical results. Having said that I do quite like MI's - Garrot Decca is an alltime favourite. I really liked the London Reference you posted. The Glanz MFG61 is very good - its  Moving Flux - and can hold its own with good MC's in my system. I also have a friend who for years used $300  Grado's in a megabuck system, his theory was throw it out once or twice a year and you are good to go -  listening to music was always enjoyable. I also have heard the full range of Soundsmith including the strain guage cartridge a few years ago when Peter Lederman visited NZ - to me his moving iron cartridges are very muscial at all price points. I own a Victor X1 with original cantilever & stylus and I find it impressive but tiresome to listen to - I think the expression is too saturated if you are into photography. For years I've had Shure V15vmr & vmxr - they work well in both my ET2 and Dynavector arms. 

I agree with you on MM's with the Dynavector arm. My Shure V15vxmr & vmr worked exceptionally well on this arm.  Fwiw I revisted this arm before Xmas and it is currently in its final rebuild stages - I have altered the angle of the sub arm and pivot to stylus so I can run Baerwald as standard and the cartridge is dead straight in the headshell, in line with the vertical bearings.  It took some effort to work it out but basically if you remove the rear bolt holding the subarm you can change the angle of the sub arm. By triangulating the pivot to stylus/offset angle I was able to set it up so that if you use the standard Dynavector overhang gauge you have perfect Baerwald every time. This requires the ability to adjust the mounting position on your TT. My test results were superb hence the rebuild including rewiring to finish it off. I drilled and tapped a third hole for anchoring the rear of the sub arm for stability (replacing the orignal rear screw). Not for the fainthearted but great improvement over Stevenson.

Re the FR7fz/Palladian - on the first track it was ups and down. To my ears the Palladian has a much more open soundstage particularly in the vocal area, more articulated bottom end. What bothered me on this track was I found the upper mid lower treble "pressured" on the Palladian and get the impression I would not listen to music much with this combo.

On the second track its like the musicians are giving different performance - her voice is plaintive with the Palladian, on the FR her voice is fuller more robust. Going back and forth with the instruments again you get a different view on how they are playing - to me there is a huge difference. Which is right I do not know because I wasn't there, but I prefer the FR for its musicality overall and sense of ease. (subject of course to the limitation of my headphone set up).
If I was second guessing HP of TAS I would summarise the FR as wonderfully engaging and the Palladian as fatally flawed in the upper mid - or is it that Direct Drive showing its archilles ????.  To be continued........

Palladian on the FR/Raven would reveal all. 

Will be interesting to get Frogmans diagnosis.

Great to see the comments of fellow ET2 user dover.  Very short on time until tomorrow Sunday when I will offer some impressions.  Good Saturday, all.  

As usual, I listened on Stax Lambda Pro Sigs with Stax tube energizer.

**** To my ears the Palladian has a much more open soundstage particularly in the vocal area, more articulated bottom end. **** - dover

I completely agree with this description.  I would add more realistic instrumental timbres.  This in spite of the fact that the FR has that hard to describe quality that some vintage gear has which draws one in in spite of the flaws.  My reaction is usually pretty immediate: which of the two sounds is the most removed from the sound of live instruments?  Fidelity Research.  Which is closest?  Palladian.  Of course tonal accuracy (natural color) is not necessarily the end all for every listener.  For me it’s pretty close to the top of priorities; second only to rhythmic drive. 

For me the most important difference between the two cartridges is heard from the very start of the first track.  The first percussion instrument one hears is the “cajon brush”, a bunch (literally) of bristles bound together that give a distinctive high pitched sound.  With the FR it sounds almost electronic; too tight, hard and metallic sounding.  The Palladian lets one hear the softer and more natural texture of the sound of individual bristles.  Then, listen to the finger rolls on the bongo drums at 0:13, 0:20 and throughout the track.  With the Palladian not only do the rolls sound more rhythmically incisive, but one can more clearly hear the texture of the sound of fingers hitting the drum skin.  One hears less of the body of the drums with the FR.  The Palladian does a better job of separating the sound of the various percussion instruments for a better sense of their musical interaction.  When the violins enter at 4:20, with the FR it takes a couple of seconds to be sure it is violins playing and not a synth patch.  With the Palladian one knows right away it is violins.  

My main issue with the FR is the stereotypical criticism of early MC’s: the highs are unnaturally etched and hard.   

On the Simone track one hears similar differences between the two cartridges again from the start of the track.  The piano’s timbre is more naturally convincing with the Palladian.  With the FR the vocals have a slightly pinched quality.  Listen in particular to the change in the quality of the voice at 0:15 and especially at 0:32 when she sings “and then some”; particularly on the word “then”.  Simone’s voice naturally takes on a slightly nasal quality on “then”.  With the Palladian it sounds more like a natural change in character.  With the FR, its slightly hard and pinched highs combined with Simone’s naturally nasal quality on that lyric cause the word “then” to have an unnatural edge.  

The FR sounds very good and has that elusive ability to draw one into the music, but for me the Palladian simply sounds more natural.  Both cartridges exhibit signs of strain on certain musical passages.  My main criticism of the Palladian is that it seems to fare worse than the FR in that department.  It is sometimes hard to tell what is mic overload and what is strain or outright mistracking, but I hear both issues on both tracks and with both cartridges; more so with the Palladian.

****  I prefer speed and resolution of LOMC's however there is a big caveat. I'd rather have a good MM/MI than a cheap MC with aberrations. Also I think that good MC phono stages with openness, transparency are few and far between, and in this instance a good MM/MI into the MM input can yield more musical results. ****

I couldn’t agree more and it has been exactly my experience.  

Thanks for the comparison, halcro. 

@frogman
Interesting - we agree on track 1. However on the Nina Simone I can hear the better resolution on the Palladian, but I’m getting more grunt from her lower registers coming from the abdomen - example .51 to 1.06 where she draws the note out and you hear more of the abdomen/lower chest with the FR. More expressive. At the end of the note on the Palladian she is tailng off, whereas with the FR she pushes out the last of the note from deeper down. Of course we dont know which is more correct since we were not there. I changed to air buds and the same result, although the upper mid lower treble "pressure"that I alluded to on track 1 is lessened on the air buds from the music hall debe’s. The debe’s may have problems in that area.

Listen in particular to the change in the quality of the voice at 0:15 and especially at 0:32 when she sings “and then some”; particularly on the word “then”. Simone’s voice naturally takes on a slightly nasal quality on “then”.

Yes I can hear the nasal quality you mention, on both cartridges, slightly more noticeable on the FR, it sounds almost like she has a slight cold, but I am still hearing more lower register from her voice with the FR as per my previous example. I still think there is more vocal nuance with the FR on this track, which is the opposite from the first track. ( subject to the vagaries of my computer/headphones). One of the imponderables is the impact of microphone distortions from the early mikes. Could be VTA differences between records that might explain differences between track 1 & 2 on the 2 cartridges.

I’m going to run it through my system either tonight or tomorrow and do another take.

@halcro - to avoid having to see your therapist - they are both pretty good.

Thanks for the great comments, dover.  You are of course correct when you say that not having been at the recording session one cannot know with certainty which tonal balance is correct.  I don’t disagree that there is “more grunt” in Simone’s voice with the FR.  As you correctly suggest “more” doesn’t necessarily mean better (more accurate).  Not meaning to argue the point, but for further clarification:

Extrapolating from the overall sonic character and not just the sound of the voice one of the clues that, in this case, “more” vocal grunt may not be correct can be found in, for instance, the sound of the piano and bass.  To me the sound of the piano sounds more linear (correct) with the Palladian.  With the FR it sounds slightly thicker as does the bass (although not as extended).  You correctly pointed out that the bass is better articulated with the Palladian.  This impression is I think a result of the better linearity.  Less articulation is I think the result of that pervasive, but slight thickness that the FR adds.  This is what is heard ad “more grunt” in the voice.  A specific example can be heard at 0:47.  A simple two note descending line from the bass.  To me those two notes sound closer to the sound of a real fingers plucking a real bass with the Palladian; better articulated and better texture and pitch definition.  With the FR I don’t hear as much realism in the sound.  

A clue to the answer of whether the nasality in Simone’s voice is natural or not can be found, as on the first track, in the sound of the drummer’s brushes.  Once again, with the FR the sound is too tight and hard, almost metallic.  With the Palladian one can more clearly hear the softer textured sound of individual bristles.  

I hate to use of the term “colored” as often (ab)used by we audiophiles since the sound of real instruments has a great deal of natural color.  However, the description that keeps coming up for me re the sound of the FR is “colored” in the way that some vintage gear is: a little bit of added thickness and darkness to romanticize the midrange, slightly rounded and generous bass range that is not as fully extended and slightly hard highs.  A general quality that I hear on both tracks.  Reminds me a bit of the sound of the two versions of the Denon 103 that I owned many moons ago, but on a much higher overall quality level.  

As you correctly pointed out both cartridges are clearly very good.  Thanks again for your insights.