Hear my Cartridges....🎶

Right you are, and sorry about that.  Not quite sure why I wrote that other than the fact that I was always bothered by the comparisons in which the arms were not the same.  I understand that you chose the arms in which each cartridge performed best, but still not an even playing field to my way of thinking.  To be frank, most times I purposely chose to not pay too much attention to the arms or table used so as not to let any bias creep into my assessment and to simply concern myself with the sound.  I guess that in trying to avoid a bias I fell victim to one of a different kind 🤪

“Dated”:

These are some of my comments re FR in previous comparisons and should help explain what I meant by “dated”:

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

*** 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. ***

*** the FR sounds hard and borderline harsh in the highs while imposing a pervasive dark(ish) character to the mids. It seems to impart a tonal quality to the sound that reminds me a bit of a quality that I, correctly or not, associate with horn speakers. Strings sound steely and way too aggressive ***

Imo, excellent modern MC cartridges, the Palladian in particular and as heard in your comparisons are generally more refined sounding and offer better performance at the frequency extremes, the highs in particular.  They do a better job of conveying the natural timbres and texture of instruments without harshness.  

Thanks Frogman, for amplifying (😜) your use of the word "dated" relating in particular, to MC cartridges.....
It is here, where I believe we diverge significantly in our preferences and I believe you highlighted in an earlier Post, that your all-tube amplification system may be a factor...?
Looking through the MCs that you've had/have in your system....I can't see many/any that could really be called 'modern' designs so I'm curious as to which 'modern' MCs you refer to when you state...

Imo, excellent modern MC cartridges, are generally more refined sounding and offer better performance at the frequency extremes, the highs in particular.  They do a better job of conveying the natural timbres and texture of instruments without harshness.

My experience is quite the reverse....🤔 
I find the 'modern' Lyras (Helikon, Titan i, Atlas) to be either coloured (Helikon) or unlistenable, with etched and screeching highs, recessed mids and little depth or realism in my SS system.
I also, like you, had the VDH Grasshopper (aka Symphonic Line) which, whilst I preferred to the Titan i....shared many of its mid to high traits.
The Koetsu Urishi I found decidedly boring whilst the Clearaudio Concerto and Insider Gold were coloured 'warm' in direct contrast to the Lyras.
The Dynavector XV-1s was amongst the best (least flawed) of the 'modern' MCs in my system, but definitely added some tonal colouration to the presentation as well as having a monotonous 'signature' to everything played through it.
The ZYX UNIverse was perhaps the most 'neutral' and least offensive of all the 'modern' MCs I've heard in my system and I lived with it for 8 years (going through two with a third as backup).
It was only when I heard the 'old' LOMCs (and vintage MMs) from the 'Golden Age' of analogue...that I realised just what was missing from the ZYX 🧐
The Palladian, I agree.....is easily the best modern LOMC I've heard, but as I described, was designed by Dietrich Brakemeier with the 'sound' of the vintage FR-7f and 7fz in mind.

Like Chakster....I don't see any progress or innovation in cartridge design (MM or MC) over the last 30 years to warrant better performance at the frequency extremes. In fact, most printed FR charts which regularly came with the vintage cartridges...are similar of better than those which can be found for 'modern' ones and we've actually lost some technology (beryllium cantilevers) that we had in the past.

So what can account for our quite opposite 'general' views and preferences on cartridge design and sound...?
Obviously your tube-based system vs my SS one is a significant factor....but in the end, it has to be 'preferences' and individual 'hearing' differences that set us apart.
For instance...you often refer to the sound of 'horn' speakers in a somewhat derogative fashion whereas I like horns and the very best speakers I have heard are the AvantGarde Trios with triple-stacked Basshorns 🤯

It's commendable then, that faced with the difference in preferences between us...we are still able to have a meaningful dialogue on cartridge comparisons...🤝 

Halcro, I will offer some further thoughts day after tomorrow when I will have some time.

I am wondering how anybody can assess a cartrige sound over a room mic. I have made videos some time ago. Here with a Jan Allaerts with a rent phono stage. At 3:10 when piano begins, no one of my cartridges played this nearly so good. At this time the needle was not in the best condition. The needle was worn-out till more as 15 µmm. A new needle is about 3 µmm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idLCd4pAckg&t=268s
And here you can hear Vinyl against Tape / Digital Filehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idLCd4pAckg&t=268s
Here my Soundsmith, sold todayhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTNopEk7JlU
Miles with Froghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTNopEk7JlU
John Martyn with Dynavectorhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdxdI77MJEg

Halcro, not quite sure what the point of ninetynine’s post is, but his opening sentence is a good lead in to my response to your most recent post. What I mean is that I have tried to make it very clear in my comments here that those comments have been simply about whether differences between the cartridges (usually two) being compared can actually be heard using this methodology (they can be), what the perceived differences are and, most important for me, which of the two cartridges and its sound in the context of your system sounds closest to the general sound of live music; limitations of this methodology and all. Having said all that, my observations here have also confirmed for me much of what I have experienced in the much more realistic context of my own audio systems and those that I have extensive experience with. “Context”:

I don’t claim to have nearly as much experience with nearly as wide a range of equipment as I am sure you have had. However, I feel that over the many years that I have been at this hobby I have owned and lived with, or otherwise experienced, enough different pieces of equipment of different types (tube/ss, belt/dd, mc/mm, electrostatic/dynamic, etc.) to feel justified in my “preferences”. I don’t seek nor particularly enjoy constant or endless equipment churning. For me, when discussing aspects of this hobby it is not a competition. I don’t judge someone else’s preferences in sound, but I have strong opinions about what sounds more realistic or natural TO ME. I do think that we all tend to underestimate just how far all equipment, regardless of the particular technology employed, strays from the “absolute sound”. The word “neutral” is often bandied about as if any of this gear actually even gets close to being neutral in the true sense of the word. “Preferences”:

My “preference” is always for gear, or combination of gear, that TO ME sounds closest to the sound of live music. To me, GENERALLY SPEAKING, tube equipment captures/reproduces more of the nuances in the sound, texture and expression in the sound of live music than does solid state. Each technology deviates generally from true neutrality in different ways, but for me tubes do less harm to the music.  I feel the same way about electrostatic speakers. I have never heard a midrange as tonally natural as that from my Stax ELS F-81’s. They do have significant limitations, but that is another story; most of what matters most to me in the sound of music happens in the midrange. Btw, re horns, I certainly have not heard all that is out there; but ut I have heard, among others, Gallos, Jadis Eurithmy (?) and, of course, Klipsch as well as many pro systems and they have all exhibited a particular midrange quality to varying degrees that I don’t particularly like. Dynamically, they have generally been great. I like and enjoy both MC and MM cartridges, but in the context of my systems a good and well set up MC has usually done less harm to the music. I generally find that MM’s lack in the areas of natural tonal colors and the very fine and subtle details in the texture of the sound of live instruments.  They often (not always) impart a gray or slightly bleached quality to timbres. Not just because of the fact that I use tubes.  I have consistently heard that quality in these comparisons with the notable exception of one or two of the Victor cartridges.  “Dated/modern cartridges”:

I am a bit confused by your comment. First, I will point out that I did not say “current” MC’s. As I pointed out I realize very well that my experience with different gear is not nearly as extensive as yours, but having been in this hobby since the late ‘70s if cartridges like the Benz Ruby 3, Shelter 901, VDH’s, MonsterSG2000 and others cannot be considered “modern” cartridge designs then I guess I am even more behind the times than I thought ☹️. Btw, my ATML170OCC is seldom used. IN MY SYSTEM I hear it as colorless and slightly dynamically constricted compared to a good MC. I hear the same qualities to varying degrees in the AT’s that have been compared here. Needless to say, I don’t agree that there has been no progress in cartridge design.  

I also don’t agree with the often stated notion that because “we all hear differently” this accounts for different “preferences”. First this idea may or may not be true and I don’t understand enough about the biology involved to have an informed opinion. However, here is why I don’t think the notion, true or not, is relevant. Let’s assume that it is true. Well, then this goes to why, ultimately, comparison to the sound of live acoustic music is the only truly valid way to determine which sound is “best” (neutral): whatever personal or idiosyncratic individual biological factors may exist to cause each of us to perceive the sound of audio gear a certain way as compared to someone else would cause each of us to hear the sound of live acoustic music that same way. No getting around this.

Lastly, every one of the cartridges that we have had the rare opportunity to hear here (thank you!) have, with a couple of notable exceptions, sounded very different from each other. They can’t all be “neutral” while sounding so different. We may “prefer” a little more of this or a little less of that, but is that closer to real? For whatever it may be worth, FOR ME, the sound of the Decca Reference has been, by quite a bit, closest to the sound of real

Lets hear it for “meaningful dialogue”. And why not? I won’t get riled up or angry as often happens if anyone disagrees with any of this. However, if someone tries to tell me that Screaming Jay is a great singer then all bets are off 😊. Best.